Jonathan Ball's Blog, page 59

My Personal 2012 CWILA Count

Canadian Women in the Literary Arts (CWILA) completed their 2012 report, and in an article about their findings Laura Moss notes that I apparently number among the “Top 20 Reviewers in 2012.” (Please note that CWILA is using “top” to rank quantity, not quality). This seems as good an incitement as any for me to post some thoughts on the CWILA studies and how they factor into the culture of reviewing in Canada, and to expand upon this study with a report of my own: my personal CWILA count numbers for 2012.

Preliminary Matters

A few things are worth getting out of the way. First off, I should acknowledge my own proximity to this report. I am a disinterested party in the technical sense, because I haven’t joined CWILA. (The reason for this is not high-minded, but simple: I keep forgetting to join.) However, I have a few pro-CWILA biases. I agree with CWILA’s finding of a gender bias in Canada’s review culture and with a number of the group’s other assumptions and findings, although (as I will note shortly) I find certain assumptions and practices suspect.

Moreover, although I have fallen out of contact with Laura Moss, she was one of my professors during my undergraduate studies at the University of Manitoba and wrote me letters of reference for my application to graduate studies, and nominated me for an essay prize. In addition, my books editor at This, Natalie Zina Walschots, is one of the board members of CWILA, as is my friend Erin Wunker.

Yet, despite being generally inclined towards CWILA, I have particular concerns with how the organization appears to be counting my reviews. Since I am apparently one of the “Top 20″ reviewers in Canada, in the quantity terms that matter to CWILA, these concerns are significant and may skew CWILA’s numbers.

Two General Concerns

I have two general concerns with the CWILA count and its assumptions. One is the assumption of reviewer influence. Moss prefaces the “Top 20 Reviewers” list by noting that “We didn’t set out to measure the top 20 reviewers. However, we noticed that several names recur. A few reviewers have a good deal of influence.” I am not clear what Moss means by “influence” nor how CWILA is measuring influence. Unless “influence” can be quantified, I don’t quite see how its discussion is relevant to CWILA’s statistical approach — unless the word “influence” is a poorly chosen term and Moss in fact means something like “readership.”

My second, general concern, is with CWILA’s attribution of bias to  editors and to publications — a fundamental aspect of its study’s methodology in terms of both how data is collected and interpreted. I want to emphasize that I agree with CWILA’s conclusion that a gender bias in favour of male writers exists in Canada’s reviewing culture. I agree that CWILA’s statistical reports, even though they appear to ignore online reviewing, can be considered “proof” of such bias, even though the study is not longitudinal. I agree this is a problem and requires rectification.

However, I don’t understand the rationale for attributing bias to editors and publications, for the simple reason that, generally speaking, books appear to be chosen for review more often than they are assigned for review. Of the 13 books that CWILA credits me with reviewing, I was assigned two: a woman-authored P.K. Page biography and a male-authored history of independent film. The others I have chosen. So, any gender bias attributable to me (more on this later) should not, I feel, reflect either positively or negatively on my books editors or on the publications for which I write. The fact of the matter is (and I suspect I am not alone in this) that I would quit reviewing books if they were regularly assigned rather than self-selected. (Perhaps I am an anomaly in this case, and most reviewers are being assigned books? I pretty much do what I want as a reviewer.)

I see this as a fundamental issue with CWILA’s approach to counting, since part of the point of CWILA’s count is to suggest that responsibility exists. CWILA places this responsibility on editors and publications, but it seems to me that it is better placed on reviewers, those engaged in the actual cultural work of reviewing. CWILA sees 2012 as a year of improvement, but I worry that any such improvements are temporary at best unless they are the result of personal responsibility taken on the part of book reviewers. Moreover, there is the question of whether a for-profit venture like the Winnipeg Free Press has any responsibility to review anything ever, let alone poetry books by Canadian women. This minefield is easily side-stepped (or, at least, the risks minimized) if we focus on the personal, ethical responsibilities of working reviewers.

In any case, neither of these general concerns are the real issue for me.

The Real Issue: Fundamental Problems Specific to My Case and Its Impact on CWILA’s Numbers

My real concern is with how CWILA counts my reviews. By my count, I published 46 print reviews: CWILA counts 13. What accounts for this discrepancy? The simple answer is that I write a monthly review column for the Winnipeg Free Press, which reviews four books of poetry per column. Only the “lead” book is listed in the headline that my editor writes. Therefore, I assume that CWILA has counted each column as one review, when it should  count as four reviews — and has only counted the lead review, so that a review of one male and three females would be counted as a male review (and vice versa).

If I am correct, this would throw off CWILA’s numbers in probably every area, although I cannot say whether this might be a significant deviation or not. In any case, it certainly matters how CWILA counts my reviews in terms of what conclusions CWILA draws concerning the Winnipeg Free Press and in terms of how many poetry books get reviewed in this country.

My concern with review-counting in my case is that, while I don’t believe that it matters in terms of the validity of CWILA and/or Moss’s general claims, I think it matters in terms of the specific claims that CWILA seems to be making and insofar as its methodologies are concerned. Below, we will see the difference between how I assume CWILA is counting me and my reviews, and how I would argue they should be counted.

Do I have a gender bias in my reviewing?

This, for me, is the pressing question, for reasons of personal responsibility cited above. Even though, quite frankly, I don’t believe that I have any meaningful influence through my reviewing (a better measure of my influence would be what course texts I assign in my classes), this seems the most disturbing and troubling implication of these CWILA reports. Does the data support the assumption that individual reviewers have intentional or unconscious gender biases in their reviewing?

CWILA attaches me to the Winnipeg Free Press and to This magazine, and the implication is that I share their biases, or am a victim of their biases — when it would be more proper to suggest that they reflect my biases, and those of my reviewing peers. So, the important question is: do I have a gender bias in my reviewing?

The answer to the above question appears to be: it depends on how you count.

How I believe CWILA is counting me

Moss or someone else can perhaps correct me on my assumptions here. I assume CWILA is: (1) not reading reviews, but scanning headlines for information on who is being reviewed (I should note that, except in my case or in the case of similar, multi-book reviews, I would consider this a valid practice); (2) CWILA is, in my case, attributing “who the review is about” based on the lead title listed referred to in the headline; (3) in the case of books with multiple authors, CWILA counts them together (i.e., the three male authors of Franzlations are counted as one male author); and (4) CWILA counts the author and not the editor or translator.

Winnipeg Free Press

Total reviews: 12

Canadians reviewed: 11

Non-Canadians reviewed: 1

Male authors reviewed: 5

Female authors reviewed: 6

This

Total reviews: 1

Canadians reviewed: 1

Non-Canadians reviewed: 0

Male authors reviewed: 1

Female authors reviewed: 0

Totals:

Total reviews: 13

Canadians reviewed: 12

Non-Canadians reviewed: 1

Male authors reviewed: 6

Female authors reviewed: 6

Things look great for Canadian authors from this perspective, and I am nicely sitting at 50/50 in terms of a Male/Female ratio.

How I believe CWILA should count me

My assumption here is that what is important and of interest to CWILA is: (1) how many authors are having their books reviewed; (2) who these authors “are” in terms of their nationality and gender. I assume CWILA does not care primarily about: (1) who is mentioned in the headline (which might be interesting and relevant, but not in terms of what CWILA is currently interested in counting and reporting), nor (2) how many review articles I publish (at least, not more interested in how many articles I publish than in the number of books reviewed).

Essentially, I’m looking at how CWILA appears to count me and feeling that it’s flawed. The priority here should be on how many books actually get reviewed, and on the gender of their authors — and I reviewed 46 books in 2012, in print publications (another one, that CWILA isn’t counting, appeared online). Yet CWILA seems, in my instance, to be placing the emphasis on how many review articles I published (they credit me with 13), which seems misguided. I assume that this is the result of an oversight specific to my case, because it appears inconsistent with CWILA’s intentions. Anyway, here is how the count goes from my perspective:

Winnipeg Free Press

Total reviews: 45

Canadians reviewed: 41

Non-Canadians reviewed: 4

Male authors reviewed: 23

Female authors reviewed: 22

This

Total reviews: 1

Canadians reviewed: 1

Non-Canadians reviewed: 0

Male authors reviewed: 1

Female authors reviewed: 0

Totals:

Total reviews: 46

Canadians reviewed: 42

Non-Canadians reviewed: 4

Male authors reviewed: 24

Female authors reviewed: 22

Things look good for Canadian authors, but things also lean slightly towards male authors. Two reviews of difference means 52% vs. 48% — which may or may not seem significant from CWILA’s perspective. For me, it seems significant because of the CWILA count itself — since this sort of “leaning male” seems systemic, I can’t dismiss a mild disparity as mild. If we add in the online review I wrote, of Lazy Bastardism for Carmine Starnino, the scales tilt one author further towards Canadian Males.

How CWILA Matters

The precise way that CWILA matters is in how the organization can get reviewers like myself thinking more consciously about this issue and paying attention to their own numbers (and by inspiring more female reviewers, which it appears to have done). Even if I were sitting cleanly at a 50/50 split, I might try to intentionally bias my reviewing towards female authors for the purposes of counter-balancing other reviewers.

Generally speaking, I review what interests me. I historically haven’t thought that much about “the numbers” because I read a lot of writing (especially poetry) by female authors — in fact, my assumption has always been that I read more female authors than male authors, especially when it came to poetry. I was wrong, apparently, at least in 2012.

Which — and this is a salient point – is easy to address. There is a huge pile of books for review right behind me, that I haven’t read yet, and if even one-tenth of them are any good, then I can just prioritize what I review first to balance things out. It’s not like I have to struggle to find good books by women. At worst, I just have to count on my fingers what I’m piling up on the night table.

What the CWILA count encourages more than anything, it seems to me, is attention. The act or art of paying attention. Which is why I am self-reporting my “real” numbers — yes, CWILA needs to take my multi-book reviews into better account, but more importantly I need to hold myself to greater account, rather than trusting blind instinct in terms of selecting my reviewing choices.

Clockfire in History: Vlad III Dracula (1431 – 1476)

A “clockfire” is a play that, due to its mental, physical, or conceptual demands, is impossible or impractical to ever produce. My book Clockfire collects a representative sampling of such plays, but throughout history there have been many other clockfires, and many clockfire practitioners. Perhaps the most infamous of the latter is the Wallachian Prince Vlad III Dracula.

Although he staged and crafted many such plays, Dracula is best-known amongst aficionados as the author of the play Clockfire, from which the genre takes its name. In its modern incarnation, the play is staged in a theatre (amongst other alterations). Dracula’s original version places the action in a dining hall.

During his rule, Dracula declared a feasting day for the poor of Wallachia, stating that no one should go hungry in his land. The day came, and a giant hall in Târgovişte filled with the finest meats, sweetest fruits, and tastiest breads and cheeses, not to mention the strongest drink. Dracula himself sat and feasted with these downtrodden. He denied them nothing. Blissful, they praised the Prince, most wonderful of rulers, most merciful of men.

As the night drew, Dracula posed a toast. “My people, I care for all in this land, rich or poor. Though you feast today, it saddens me that tomorrow the sun will waken you back into your brutal lives. So before I leave you, I ask: What else do you desire? Do you want to be without cares, lacking nothing in this world?”

The people, lulled, cheered in assent. They pleaded with the great Prince to make good on such offers, asking their new god to deliver them from the evils of their stark lives.

And thus, so that no one would be poor in his realm, and because they had begged, Dracula ordered the building shut, the doors barred and nailed. So that all inside might enjoy this joyous feast as the immense hall burned.

Jon Paul Fiorentino Ruins Everything . . .

. . . including this site! Revamping things, but want to preserve the evidence here. JPF vs. Humour — Round 1 to JPF.

June Poetry Reviews

My monthly poetry review column is online at the Winnipeg Free Press, this month featuring:

* Massacre Street by Paul Zits
* Hooking by Mary Dalton
* Forge by Kevin McPherson Eckhoff
* Above Palm Canyon and A Spectator by Per Brask

Thanks, Joe Hill

Joe Hill has written some incredible stuff (see my review of N0S4A2 here) and now he’s written an answer to my question about how he stays focused:

I used to try and juggle two or sometimes even three writing jobs at once. I’d have a novel I’d work on in the morning, a comic I’d be scripting in the evening, and maybe an introduction or a review I’d be scribbling in-between. It never really worked and it often left me both overstressed and too worn out to focus on the rest of my life.

Also, doubling up on projects made me less productive, not more. Everything took twice, or even three times as long to finish, because I was tackling each project with half my focus. None of this reflects in any way on the finished results – I don’t publish things until I’m ready and I like them and think other people will like them. It only means I made things harder for myself than they had to be.

This is precisely how I’ve felt of late, although people keep asking me how I stay so focused and productive (my friend Saleema just asked me last night — my answer was that it’s all an illusion).

Hill’s solution is simple and elegant: work on only thing at a time (no creative multitasking!) — and happens to be the solution I was pondering. So now I feel like my instincts are confirmed, and that’s new “Jonathan Ball policy” officially.

Thanks, Joe Hill!

Misreadings, a new column on Lemon Hound

It begins! A new column, on Lemon Hound, called Misreadings, which imagines alternative (or détourned) versions of literary and film works, and subjects these nonexistent imaginings to analysis.

Let’s imagine that Shirley Jackson’s horror classic The Haunting of Hill House is a metafiction, that it tips its hand in its first paragraph, and that the haunting of Hill House is effectively a metaphor for how this monstrous book ensnares its readers.

New Haiku Horoscopes site!!!

I’m very excited about the new “Haiku Horoscopes” site! The page-link on the left will redirect you, or you can bookmark www.haikuhoroscopes.com. The site updates every Thursday with a new set of horoscopes distinct from the column (also published each Thursday) in Winnipeg’s Uptown (which is also different from the column published each season in Grain). Also, you can follow @haikuhoroscopes on Twitter. In the words of Dr. Steve Brule, “Check it out!”

May Poetry Reviews

My monthly poetry review column is online at the Winnipeg Free Press, this month featuring:

* The Saddest Place on Earth by Kathryn Mockler
* The Hottest Summer in Recorded History by Elizabeth Bachinsky
* Cutting Room by Sarah Pinder
* Writing Surfaces by John Riddell (eds. Derek Beaulieu and Lori Emerson)

Michael Robbins on Obama’s drones

“I imagine that somewhere in Sandy Hook Elementary School there was one of those banners with the 26 letters of the alphabet marching above a blackboard. You could arrange each dead body into the shape of one letter. They could spell anything.”

— Michael Robbins, in an outstanding essay on US drone warfare

Ex Machina in its second printing!

BookThug just confirmed that Ex Machina went into its second printing earlier this year! Kids, next time somebody tells you that nobody wants to read a long-poem science-fiction-novel with no plot or characters that quotes McLuhan alongside Lacan in the form of a choose-your-own-adventure book of hyperlinks that never ends, tell them to suck an egg.