All About Books discussion

Does it mean promoting books by underrepresented (based on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender etc) types of authors, possibly to the omission of overrepresented types? (I think everyone should have stories in which they can see themselves, but I guess I am asking at what point does compensation become overcompensation (assuming also that is possible).)

Tom wrote: "Does it mean promoting books by underrepresented (based on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender etc) types of authors, possibly to the omission of overrepresented types? (I think every..."

To me, diversity in literature has nothing to do with promotion. It is an attempt by myself to stretch my personal horizons by reading authors from other places or situations. Even with this attempt, my reading is still primarily based on English authors (followed by Americans) so I don't worry about "omission of overrepresented types".

I think that part of what I learn from these attempts is despite the differences in culture & expectations, people are basically the same everywhere -- so a well-written story by a Chinese author (for example) is one in which I can see myself to some extent & yet I also learn something about a different way of life.

Since I am just doing this for myself, there is no "compensation" or "overcompensation", just as there is no "promotion".

You seem to have a different perspective. Maybe you could explain where this question is coming from...

I suppose it means that people won't judge a book by its cover, but by the author's minority status.

I approach this much as Leslie does. I deliberately try to read a variety of books from different races, cultures, genders, traditions, original languages, sexual orientations.

Much is common in the human condition, as Leslie says, but sometimes the differences in perspective can also be illuminating and make me see things in a way I haven't thought of before. Or they can help me to understand the perspectives of other people better. To my mind, that's a good thing.

Luckily since I'm reading for my own purposes, I don't have to worry about things like promotion!

I too feel as Leslie does. I love learning about different people, cultures, times and subjects. I have seen through my own experiences how different cultures can be. Understanding those differences AND underlying similarities is fascinating.

Leslie wrote: "To me, diversity in literature has nothing to do with promotion. It is an attempt by myself to stretch my personal horizons by reading authors from other places or situations.."

For me as well. To read something I wouldn't at a first glance, to be surprized by it!

When I think of diversity in literature, I always think of me trying to read as much literature as possible by so many different people in different cultures. Like everyone is saying, it is always the books I probably wouldn't think of myself which is another reason I enjoy this group.

Tom wrote: "Does it mean promoting books by underrepresented (based on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender etc) types of authors, possibly to the omission of overrepresented types? (I think every..."

how do I "like" this thread :-) what a great topic.
I agree with many readers who have already replied - when I hear "diversity" I think of: broadening my horizon.

that does not always have to mean, reading pleasure. I have read two books this year (The Vegetarian and Blackass) which both had me wondering - if perhaps, cultural differences can make it harder to really grasp what the author is trying to tell.
there are a lot of symbolic references or country-specific associations that I might not understand.

so - sometimes, reading exotic authors has led to me reading the superficial words - but not really, understanding the hidden message and tone underneath.

Caecilia wrote: "Tom wrote: "Does it mean promoting books by underrepresented (based on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender etc) types of authors, possibly to the omission of overrepresented types? (I..."

I agree with you. Had I known more about Indian history and culture, I would have enjoyed/appreciated Midnight's Children much more than I did..

Tom wrote: "Caecilia wrote: "Tom wrote: "Does it mean promoting books by underrepresented (based on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender etc) types of authors, possibly to the omission of overrepr..."

I have not read many Indian books, but can relate with what you are saying. I have felt a bit "lost" almost reading "The Vegetarian" (Korean culture).

What I like to read is how for example foreigners feel for their home countries after having emigrated. Have you read "Interpreter of Maladies" by Jhumpa Lahiri? That book is amazing - particularly, in this respect. Big recommendation.
:-) And I promise, you will not - feel "lost".

Leslie wrote: "Tom wrote: "Does it mean promoting books by underrepresented (based on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender etc) types of authors, possibly to the omission of overrepresented types? (I..."

When I posed the question, I was thinking about published authors with white males overrepresented, and women/minorities being underrespresented. And the related stories of authors changing/hiding their ethnicity/gender to get published.

The related question (as has been discussed here) is diversity in one's reading selections.

(Sorry, just noticed the question at the end of your post...)

Caecilia wrote: "Tom wrote: "Caecilia wrote: "Tom wrote: "Does it mean promoting books by underrepresented (based on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender etc) types of authors, possibly to the omission..."

I have not, but have heard the author's work highly praised so I will probably visit it at some point.

Actually, I will be reading (this month) Angela's Ashes which deals with emigration and culture. I'd read the book some years ago, but now that I'm into audiobooks, I'm very much looking forward to the author Frank McCourt reading it to me.

And as for diversity in reading, I've decided to go with The Toughest Indian in the World by Sherman Alexie for the local book club I belong to. The Autobiography of Malcolm X earlier in the year and it provided some really good discussions. I am hoping this does as well.

:-) Tom,
yes - Jhumpa Lahiri has a wonderful way of writing.

As for "Angela's Ashes", my sister read this book in high-school and as far as I remember, she found it very moving.

Wish you a lot of fun reading time with your book club plans. Trying out new books, dipping into exotic cultures can be one riveting experience.

Tom wrote: When I posed the question, I was thinking about published authors with white males overrepresented, and women/minorities being underrespresented.

I've come across this argument before (not on GoodReads, but reading about books elsewhere on the internet).
I like this post on how to think about reading diverse books. The author makes a good point that "the whole debate is predicated on the unconfronted assumption that people will only be reading books written in the past few years." But I agree with the author there's a pretty good argument for paying some attention to these issues when you read contemporary books.

Beth wrote: "Tom wrote: When I posed the question, I was thinking about published authors with white males overrepresented, and women/minorities being underrespresented.

I've come across this argument before (..."

I don't really agree with his point Beth - there's plenty of diverse perspectives from every time in history. The diversity of perspective is much more complex than just color, gender, or sexuality of course; that's true - it's cultural and even sub-cultural. A writer from 1800's England is world apart from 2016 America. But I don't think it's possible to get a full perspective on any moment in history without trying deliberately to not just read the top-of-the-top Canon works from that period but also the outliers. I think really that's the point of the whole attempt the read "diversely," to get a fuller perspective.

In the medieval era for instance, works like The Book of Margery Kempe are just fascinating - it comes from such a vastly different place than a lot of the literature of the period. The fact that she's a woman has something to do with it I think; her concerns, place, and perspective in that culture are so different.

In a recent LinkedIn Historical Novel group chat, I made a casual comment that it seems in the world of historical fiction, history is almost automatically taken to mean Western History, and that such an assumption ignores a large part of humankind history.

To my above casual comment, one group member, who formerly taught History of Philosophy and World History at an American university, remarked that my observation is correct and that “Western History” is still assumed by some to be “history”. Gladly though, he added, things are changing for the better, a phenomenon borne out by the fact that even the “Epic of Darkness” (a collection of Chinese tales and legends depicting primeval China in epic poetry) is being taught and studied in American classes.

Another group member explained that the assumption is due to publishers and film producers only going with what is “popular” and thus to some extent limiting Western readers’ choices. It is assumed in the publishing industry that “Western” is what readers want, and so that is what readers get.

I am not a historian and my abovementioned observation arose purely from my reading experience, through which I noticed that the bulk of historical fiction written in English is related to Western History or has a Western historical setting. There is obviously a relative paucity of fiction with an Oriental or Chinese historical context or setting. When publishers, literary agents, booksellers or writers refer to “historical fiction”, they seem to have only “Western historical fiction” in mind.

Being bilingual, I can easily satisfy my interest in Chinese history by reading fiction and non-fiction in Chinese. But I can see this would be a problem for Westerners who may share my interest but who only read English. Their only option would be to read translated works, and even these are in short supply in the historical fiction genre.

As readers, would you agree with what the two LinkedIn members said? Would you like to see the historical fiction genre diversify into the Oriental history field?

Well, if I say classical music, what comes to mind? Western classical music a la Bach, Mozart and Beethoven which misses the rich Eastern tradition. So yes, I'd agree with the notion that "Western" is a default setting for someone in a country that has that tradition.

With regard to the stated assumption that "Western" is what people want, it is probably a specific case of "Western" people wanting what is more familiar to them. I think this is why we have book, movie and video game series stretching into the double digits in some cases. I'd also suggest it's what chain restaurants and esp fast food places are built on - you're guaranteed a recognizable experience wherever you go.

As for historical fiction in particular, I think there's a frame of reference which derives from the tradition one is born into. That is, coming from Western tradition of the American persuasion, I'd be likely to know some of the actual history on which the novel is based. (Which raises the question, how "true" does historical fiction need to be?) With Chinese history, I'd have no idea (unless I did my homework) if the story I was reading had any basis in fact whatsoever. So rather than do all that extra work to enjoy a book, people stick to the default.

Tom wrote: "With Chinese history, I'd have no idea (unless I did my homework) if the story I was reading had any basis in fact whatsoever. So rather than do all that extra work to enjoy a book, people stick to the default."

Point taken Tom! Personally, I like to read some non-fiction re: European history along with European historical fiction.

Kindle vs paperback? (jk)

I read a new novel by a female author from Mozambique this week--I was interested in the practice of polygamy there. I felt a little guilty that I didn't like it more, though it satisfied my curiosity.

The First Wife: A Tale of Polygamy

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Alice wrote: "In a recent LinkedIn Historical Novel group chat, I made a casual comment that it seems in the world of historical fiction, history is almost automatically taken to mean Western History, and that s..."

I am not sure that my experience is indicative since I tend to seek out historical fiction set in England (being an Anglophile). However, I do love I.J. Parker's historical fiction mystery series which is set in 11th century Japan... And one reason that I love Dorothy Dunnett's 15th & 16th century historical fiction is that it includes the Ottoman empire as well as Europe from Russia to Scotland.

But overall I agree with your comment.

For me, diversity in literature has more to do with setting, writing style, and genre. I don't care if the author is male or female or a particular race. The writing is either good or it isn't! I'm trying to read more translated books and prize winning literature. I like to learn, through reading, about other countries, history, cultural experiences, traditions, etc. and am interested in reading the Best of the Best across genres, with a few exceptions!

WRT Tom's question about historical familiarity:

Until recently, I mostly read novels in my comfort zone (e.g. WWII, American). It is more difficult for me to read a book when I don't have the historical context. I'm starting to push myself out of my comfort zone and researching as I read. (I picked up this habit from my husband who does it fanatically.) It takes longer to read a book but is worth the effort! A recent example for me was the Chilean novel "Distant Star" by Roberto Bolano. I had almost no historical reference for Chilean history, geography, politicians, or poets. It wasn't an easy read for me but I learned a lot.

Pam wrote: "WRT Tom's question about historical familiarity:

Until recently, I mostly read novels in my comfort zone (e.g. WWII, American). It is more difficult for me to read a book when I don't have the his..."

I felt that way when I read The Feast of the Goat by Mario Vargas Llosa -- it was set in the Dominican Republic in the early 1960s. I didn't know anything about that setting (I am embarrassed to say that prior to reading it, I didn't even know where the Dominican Republic was!) and I ended up doing a fair amount of looking up stuff on Wikipedia. But it was worth that added effort in making me appreciate the book even more.

I believe that gays will be queer.

The latest iteration of this discussion revolves around American Dirt by Jeanine Cummins. I have not read the book and do not have current plans to do so (only because I have more than enough on the TBR pile already).

The question "Who gets to tell the story?" comes to mind, along with the related question, "Who are the (often self-appointed) gatekeepers that determine if a particular person gets to tell a particular story?". I do certainly understand and endorse the merits of a person from a particular group/culture telling a story from their culture, That being the case, what about an author's work (usually research) and gift (imagination, empathy, and talent)?

I see the gatekeeper issue in this context as cancel culture but because of who a person happens to be relative to the art they create rather than what they've done which I think is often separate from what they create. But I do not like the notion of a gatekeeper as a general principle, believing instead in personal experience over someone else's opinion. That said, I do realize that casting a non-white actor as King Lear and casting a non-black actor as Othello is an asymmetric proposition.

No real point here, just setting down thoughts that have recurred to me since stirred up over the debate about American Dirt.

The overrepresentation of minorities in the arts is to be expected. It is the only place in which they have a voice.

Fears of being swamped belong in a swamp.

Tom wrote: "The latest iteration of this discussion revolves around American Dirt by Jeanine Cummins. I have not read the book and do not have current plans to do so (only becau..."

The gatekeepers of culture are self-appointed morons.

Tom wrote: "The latest iteration of this discussion revolves around American Dirt by Jeanine Cummins. I have not read the book and do not have current plans to do so (only becau..."

I think the gatekeeper stuff is wrong--people have been writing about other cultures for hundreds of years. That is just another way of censoring people and making discussions more one way.

To me diversity in books is reading authors from different parts of the world--I'm a dual citizen and I find that it's easy around here to become very American-centric in reading. Not everyone in the world sees things through the lens of American eyes. To me the world is a very diverse place. I don't go out of my way to read authors based on anything other than am I interested in their book (or, sometimes, does it fit a challenge). I grew up during the civil rights era and grew up near Vancouver and also in San Francisco, so many of these issues that are current were already in the newspapers and in books even back then. Seriously, I read my first lesbian scene in science fiction when I was growing up and wasn't even shocked given where I had live, and that's only one of many things I read. I am over 50.

It means nothing to me. Does a person write well? No? Couldn't care less.

"Diversity in literature goes beyond ethnicity. Diversity may include the various facets of sexuality and gender, cultural, and societal groups. Whether characters in the books we read reflect others or ourselves, what is most important is connecting with them in ways that help us understand who we are today. Sometimes learning about our history through the eyes of diverse characters can be unsettling or even painful, but it also can be an awakening to the unknown."

The fact that "diversity in literature" is always reduced not only to ethnicity, but to "various facets of sexuality and gender, cultural, and societal groups" enforces its own kind of monolithic homogeneity.

Individuality is true diversity. True diversity is the transcendence of group identification, whatever group that happens to be. Just because two people possess a similar phenotype or claim the same ethnicity, nationality, or religion, does not mean they are in anyway similar to one another.

The codification of diversity suppresses difference within groups that claim to be different. After all, if diversity was truly valued and celebrated, Masha Gessen would not be praised for writing an essay in The New Yorker in which she denies that Pete Buttigieg is a "real" gay man because his politics are not quite the same as hers. This is beyond contemptible not only because it asserts that there is only one "real" way to be gay, but that somehow politics has anything to do with it in the first place. That Gessen doesn't even question her right to impose such a narrow and ludicrous definition on another human being only serves to further illustrate just how blinded she is by her own ideological conviction. The fact that Gessen herself is gay does not make her world any more diverse; if anything, it only makes a mockery of the concept. For Gessen, there's only one way "to be" gay. How is there any diversity in that? The fact that she can claim minority status herself does not make her any less a shameless hypocrite.

"Diversity in literature" is merely the social realism of the self-hating, self-satisfied urban bourgeoisie: it's about enforcing the groupthink approved by the establishment. Which is why it prizes identity over talent, preaches nihilistic relativism, uses "feelings" and "emotions" to negate lived experience, eschews nuance, damns complexity, and, above all, it despises art and culture.

DaytimeRiot said: "Individuality is true diversity. True diversity is the transcendence of group identification, whatever group that happens to be. Just because two people possess a similar phenotype or claim the same ethnicity, nationality, or religion, does not mean they are in anyway similar to one another."

While I agree with the first & last sentence quoted above, I am unsure that anyone is truly capable of "transcendence of group identification". One's experiences and background play a role in the person one becomes, even if it is only by turning one's back on them. That is why ethnicity, sexuality & gender are often used as criteria for diversity - it helps identify authors whose background will be different from the white male authors who are generally considered as authorities/classics.

I don't mean by that that those white male authors are not great writers. What I mean is that reading a female author or a minority author will give a different perspective.

For me, the bottom line is, as many others in this thread have already said, is it a good book? I won't read a poor book just because the author is female, minority race, or other characteristic that make him/her 'diverse'. However, I do appreciate the fact that 'diverse' authors help expand my view of the world & so it is worth my time sometimes to seek them out. This effort is much less now than it has been in the past; these authors are getting more recognition and their books are more easily found. I view that as a good thing!