There's Room for Everyone

Recently, someone said to me that it was easy for me to get published, because I write horror, and there are a bunch of horror magazines. When I stated that there aren't many pro paying horror magazines, they shrugged and told me it's easier for me to get published, because I'm not a white male, that white males can't get published right now, because you have to belong to a minority group to get published.

I've been hearing this a lot lately, but this is the first time someone came directly at me and made a statement that blithely intended to diminish or cheapen what I've achieved. I can assure you, I get published because I do the work, I hone my craft, I learn, I write, and I submit. Neither my gender nor my race show up on my submission letters. I don't send in my submission with the following note:

Dear Editor,

I am a part-Native female author, and I want you to accept my story simply because of that.

No, actually I don't mention either thing. My submission letters are brief, as is expected in the majority of the short story world. They list my story title, word count, and genre, plus a couple publication credits. Oh, and my contact information. That's it. My name is actually gender neutral. In certain parts of the U.S., you're more likely to find a Shannon who's male. It all just depends.

Ahem...

More important is the fact that this is a pure fallacy. If you pull up a bunch of short story markets, they will likely ALL list that they're looking for diverse voices. Where people appear to be getting confused is in thinking this means that's all they'll take. Tables of contents say differently. What it actually means is that they're encouraging diverse voices to submit, and they'll consider them along with everyone else. This isn't a white male blocker. This is an attempt to not JUST have white males in publications.

I took a look through the publications I've been in, so I could break down the stated genders in the bios. I won't name them by publication, because this isn't an attack on publishers, and these are not in order of publication date. This is me bloody well being exhausted from having my achievements questioned by people who aren't doing the work, and are more than happy to blame it on whatever they can grasp at.

I only went through print publications that were still in print. I did not count the all female anthology I was in, because that came out in response to a major anthology featuring Stephen King in which there was ONE female author, and she was one of the editors. I also obviously removed any from consideration that were a single author. That left me with 21 publications to comb through.

Publication 1: M - 3, F - 2

Publication 2: M - 13, F - 4

Publication 3: M - 4, F - 8

Publication 4: M - 7, F - 4

Publication 5: M - 7, F - 7

Publication 6: M - 9, F - 2

Publication 7: M - 6, F - 4

Publication 8: M - 4, F - 1

Publication 9: M - 5, F - 2

Publication 10: M - 6, F - 1

Publication 11: M - 16, F - 2

Publication 12: M - 7, F - 8

Publication 13: M - 20, F - 9

Publication 14: M - 13, F - 6

Publication 15: M - 5, F - 8

Publication 15: M - 7, F - 10

Publication 16: M - 9, F - 6

Publication 17: M - 3, F - 3

Publication 18: M - 6, F - 6

Publication 19: M - 4, F - 6

Publication 20: M - 11, F - 11

Publication 21: M - 8, F - 4

TOTAL: M - 173, F - 114

Publications in which I was the only female: 2
Publications in which I was one of two females: 4
Publications in which there were more males than females: 13
Publications in which there were more females than males: 5
Publications in which it was an even split: 4
Publications in which there was only one male: 0
Least amount of males in any publications: 3 (there were two, one with 3 females and one with 2 females)
Largest difference between male and female authors in any publication: 14 (Publication 11 - 16 males, 2 females)
Largest difference between male and female authors in any publication where the majority was female: 4 (publication 3 - 4 males, 8 females)

Someone explain to me how much easier I have it, because I guess I'm just missing it. I especially need it explained to me how much harder it is to get published as a white male.

Happily, this shows me that the rate of females being published is improving. It also shows me that it's still skewed in favor of males. As far as race, sexual orientation, etc., it would take me forever to comb through and figure out how many of each author fit under which category, but I think we can all agree that cis white authors of any gender are still being published at a higher rate, despite calls for diversity. I count myself in that group. I'm entirely white passing, and I am mostly white. I don't feel it's my place to claim being a minority. I have mentioned it in relation to a novel I'm shopping, because the main character is mixed in the same way I am, and her experiences are similar to mine.

Why write this post? Because I've heard this so much lately. I've seen such indignation that calls are put out for diverse voices. That is not an attack or an attempt to force men or white people out of publications. It's simply a means to get the word out that publishers want to consider ALL writers.

It stings that someone in my circle would say something like this. When it's strangers or even acquaintances I can let it roll off my back (most days). When it's people claiming women can't write horror, I try to ignore it and keep writing and submitting to prove them wrong. But something like this sticks with me. It makes me angry.

It also makes me even more determined to move forward and to keep getting published.

I wish every single one of you good luck in getting published in the new year.

May you find your Muse.

*Volunteering Hands, clker.com, legacynola

Diversity vs. Exclusion

There's been a lot of talk about diversity lately, and when doing market research I see the call everywhere. The vast majority of markets (speaking specifically of short fiction markets, but not excluding novel-length, as many are one and the same) have it written somewhere on their web page, most somewhere on the submission guidelines page. Diversity, in these cases, is broadly defined as gender, race, age, nationality, level of ability, income level, and LGBTQ+.

Of course, this is a good thing (I think at least most of us can agree on that?). Though I wondered aloud to my critique group what one is supposed to say in their email to let the editors/agents know they're a diverse author. Ask and ye shall receive. One of the members of my critique group asked an agent at the Pikes Peak Writers Conference whether you're supposed to list the ways in which you'd be considered diverse, which feels a bit awkward ("Dear editor, I am a female Cherokee/Patawomeck author [. . .]"). The agent said that you should just mention in your cover letter or query that you are a diverse author. I still feel weird about that, and have no intention of adding that into my contacts to publications. If my story gets accepted, I hope it's just because my story is liked, not because it got bumped up on the list because I happen to be female and possess some Cherokee and Patawomeck blood (as well as Irish, German, Dutch, Scottish, and English--I'm a mutt).

I also don't think any less of those who do include that information. All it means is that we feel differently about it, and I have no right to judge that. For many, their gender and race might be obvious by their name, which makes it unnecessary to put in the bio. My name is fairly genderless. If you do a search on "Shannon Lawrence" you're going to have both males and females pop up in the search window. Does that work for or against me? I have no idea. Which bias does it appeal to? Because a bias for each exists in various places right now, or so it appears. From what I've read, males tend to have an edge in speculative fiction (while females have a significant edge in romance), though I haven't seen actual numbers on submissions versus acceptance.

Screen shot from first results when searching Shannon Lawrence. Look, there's me in the 4th row!

On the other hand, my name's as Irish as it could be. My maiden name was German. So while it can't be inferred from my name that I'm female, it can probably be inferred that I'm Caucasian (or, at the very least, stand a good chance of being so, as it should be noted there's some diversity in the Google search I linked to above)(Fun fact: It appears the name Shannon is popular in porn, judging by some of the search results). Here again, one has to wonder if that works for or against me (the race thing, not the porn thing). Will a publication leaning toward diversity skip me because my name screams Caucasian? Or will it work to my benefit? I have no idea. Are these publications looking that deeply at the issue, or are they judging the stories on their merit alone? I know it's been shown in the regular job sector that names make a difference on resumes, but is that true in the writing world, as well?

I kind of got sidetracked from my original topic. Shifting gears.

In response to the bias in publishing, some organizations have been created throughout the years. I actually belong to an all-female national writing group called the National League of American Pen Women (NLAPW). This organization was created in Washington, D.C. in response to women not being allowed in press clubs and not being privy to rights granted men in the arts. It should be noted that this organization was formed in 1897.

Here it is, 2015, and organizations like these still exist. There are also publications that only take work from women. Taking that further, there are groups/publications that restrict all manner of things, down to only accepting work/membership from LGBTQ+ individuals and specific nationalities. For instance, while doing market research today, I came across one publication that would only take submissions from Canada (there are several with this restriction), one that would only take submissions from the Pacific northwest, one that would only take publications from Australia/New Zealand, and a couple others with similar restrictions. While these all had to do with location/nationality, I've seen restrictions that didn't.

My question to you is: Is this still necessary?

I had the opportunity to meet the national president of the NLAPW recently, and she said membership was falling at the national level. She has been encouraging dialogue on why. It was a surprise to me that membership was falling, so I had no answers for her. After I left, I kept thinking about it. It's an interesting thing to ponder. Some of the possibilities I came up with were:

1. The restriction to being female only
2. The cost of joining
3. The requirement to have a certain amount of accepted publishing credits to be a full member (and further to this, not having access to all the benefits of being a member unless you're a fully qualified member)

Is membership failing because most writing organizations welcome both men and women? Is there a need for an all-female writing organization when there aren't groups in place that say men only, when those previous restrictions no longer exist? In fact, could it possibly be damaging in that groups that are restrictive to members, whether that be race, gender, whatever, expose members to only half (or less) of the networking they'd be able to do in a group that accepts all? For instance, the other writing group I belong to is Pikes Peak Writers, which is open to anyone who wants to join for free. Without any exclusions, the membership is much larger than more restrictive local writing groups.

One of the benefits of these female-only groups is that they often have their own publications and awards. This gives women belonging to the groups a better chance of being published and receiving awards, which looks good in bios, on cover letters, and in query letters. Does it get them any closer to winning the bigger, more well known awards? Does it increase the chances of publication elsewhere? I can't comment, because I'm not sure how well known the NLAPW magazine is outside of Pen Women. In fact, I'm not even certain you can get the magazine unless you're a member. Hm.

On publications, if they restrict who can be in the magazines, do they, in turn, restrict their readership? Will someone pick up a magazine that is made up of one specific group? I think the Women Destroy issues that came out last year did pretty well, right? But was that because of the amount of free marketing they received? They were widely discussed and crowd funded, so they may have been different. They were also a one-off situation, rather than being a regular thing. Again, I have no idea. Was the exposure those female authors got more or less than they would have in a mixed gender magazine?

Basically, I'm rambling. These are things I've been thinking about and questioning lately. I don't have any real answers, because I have no real data. I don't know if Pen Women are failing because of one of those three things listed above, a combination of them, or something completely different. And I have no data on other exclusive groups and publications, how they sell, or whether they're more beneficial or harmful. I'd be curious to know, though. I frequently feel conflicted about belonging to an all-female writing group, but I like the ladies in the group, so I stay.

What are your thoughts on exclusive writing groups? Are they beneficial? Are you part of one? Do you feel they might be damaging in certain ways? Are magazines really leaning toward diversity, or is it something they say because that's what people want to see? Is there still a place for exclusive groups, or has the time passed? Or has it only passed for certain groups, while other groups are more in need of it than ever? What do you see as the benefits and drawbacks to exclusive groups?

May you find your Muse.