I should write more. I'm working on a short story. *idle speculation*

Do you really find it hard to find good women horror writers? When I look around there seems to be a hell of a lot of women writing in the genre (including me!).

It's tricky. They get driven out in lots of ways or oriented toward certain subgenres, like so-called "erotic horror" which is not what Phantom was about. (Full disclosure: I'm in Phantom, but my first story was rejected and I had to try again, so they weren't just picking people randomly.) The louder, sexier Bandersnatch had more women and I think the differing theme may be the reason why.

That said, I am vibrating with glee that there will be another Carrie Laben story in Phantom.

I hope you don't mind me teasing this issue out a little.

How do you think that women are driven out into certain horror subgenres? What methods are used? Do you think that erotic horror is considered the acceptable room in the horror house for women? Kind of where we retire while the lads have brandy and cigars? I'm genuinely curious about this.

Not at all -- these are good questions.

I think it starts as readers: years ago Veronica Schoanes made the great observation that for the awkward pimply nerd boy Lovecraft is the ultimate escape. For their opposite numbers in girlhood: it's V.C. Andrews. The latter is far more sexual than the former.

I think also that women are more often given sexualized material (including romance) to read by the marketplace, and that one learns to write by reading. There's also the fact that a lot of boy horror tends to be nonsexual, so there is a niche to be exploited. In some ways, it is a clever move to write about the erotic vampire and whatnot.

Then there is the more pernicious stuff — women go to horror (and SF) cons wearing undergarments (corsets are not overgarments) and engage in various other sexual performances for the sake of men and in response to the implicit and explicit demands of men, and I think that translates into pigeonholing. Non-sex tools are often removed from women's toolboxes through this sort of sexist discourse within the field. It's not unusual for someone to try to defend women in horror by saying "The ladies are as talented as they are sexy!" and this isn't seen as paternalistic, gauche, or sexist at all. That's how reactionary the field is.

Further, there is no network of cultivation — Broad Universe, Wiscon, etc. have little to say about horror, and horror lacks the Clarions and fandom con network (as opposed to media cons about getting signatures) that may help women succeed or at least bring the issue of women writers to the forefront. Of course, horror as such hardly exists anymore in the book treade, so it is no surprise that there is no such network of cultivation for anyone. You have to essentially find a "scene" — Lovecraftian, classic ghost story, erotic horror, splatter — and try to fit in, or just call what you write supernatural thriller and hope for mainstream success. The mainstream has no particular interest in female writers, except insofar as most readers are female though. And they want romance/sex-themed material as well.

Finally, I think there's been a decline, generally, in "domestic horror" and that Shirley Jackson has been eclipsed by Stephen King as a paragon of the same. I think that has led to a profound warping effect — King is so immensely huge and has been for a generation that it is impossible to engage in any sort of horror without at least tangling with him. That's had some positive and many negative effects, and boysclubism and stories about how women are unfathomable mysteries is one of those.

Thanks for your thoughtful and considered reply. I hope I can be as articulate in response.

Society conditions women to seek male approval, and this is a force that we can either engage with and subvert, or accede to and conform. This is not a simple battle. Even for someone like me, who continually observes her behaviour and scrutinises it with this in mind, it's sometimes exhausting. Overwhelmingly, it is easier to play the game and placate the male ego. In fact, it is downright easy, because that's been our role for a long time. So, it's no surprise that women go this route. In fact, I find it hard to judge any woman for this, because it works.

It's much more difficult to hew your own path. I don't say this with any moral high ground, merely as a statement of fact. It may not bring you any joy other than self-satisfaction, and that's a pretty lonely comfort.

My experience is that women are adroit at writing stories that will appeal to the male market, because that is the de facto market (even though statistics prove that women buy more books and read more than men). What's much, much more difficult is to write stories that address women's concerns. To do so one must usually insert a male figure into the story so the male reader will not feel left out -- of course, the reverse is never necessary. This means that women compromise their stories in some fashion on a regular basis. Often, we're not conscious we're doing it. Sometimes we do so explicitly to sell our work.

Speaking only for myself: it's hard to unpick these impulses in my work. It sometimes feels like writing for a male audience is written in my bones. If I pulled out my skeleton what would be left? It requires the courage to fall to the floor and muck around in the viscera of the story. It means learning a great deal of craft, and then unlearning a great deal of crap. It's my personal battle, and one I fail at a great deal. Still, you gotta have goals, and a good astringent. :)

Of course, making one's work honest but commercial is something that affects men as well as women, but in different ways. See - I feel the need to indicate that I appreciate men wrestle with artistic questions, just like I do.

In relation to horror: I think women and men often want different types of horror. Again, we all know the male model, because that's the one that's privileged in our society and women know how to write it. Some women duck into the erotic horror genre because it is designated a woman's space with a ready-made market, and good for them I say. I can really appreciate how liberating that is in some ways. However, it also brings a whole new set of genre conventions and expectations, much of which seem to endorse, rather than subvert, the status quo. Still, a good writer can do something new and different in that field, and I find the sneering attitude displayed towards the market rather irritating (I'm not saying you're doing this, btw).

A horror novelist once said to me that horror is the ghetto of the speculative fiction market: the one field everyone looks down upon. Initially I wasn't sure I agreed with him, but over time I've seen how little attention the genre gets in conventions, magazines, workshops, and awards.

You're right, to build a career a writer must find a scene, a place to hang one's hat. Women are still considered a rather exotic flower in the genre, and sometimes this attracts male attention in a way that's difficult. Some women go the corset route, some go the opposite way, but we're always on the defensive: we have to explain our decisions one way or the other. Men don't have this problem in the same way. Sure, they'll get the weird looks when they mention they write horror, but the tone of the interrogation won't be the same as it will be for a woman.

For women the horror genre is to forsake all that is stereotypical about the feminine. Perhaps it's another reason why some women feel the need to reiterate their femininity when inhabiting what's considered a male domain -- it's an old tactic that works. Equally, it makes the genre very attractive for women writers who wish to trouble their readers.

Edited at 2008-06-19 11:03 pm (UTC)

In one word. Yes.

But it's more complicated than that.It's not only a question of "good." As others have brought up, there are a number of components making up an editor's choice for specific venues. Taste is possibly the most important. There are dozens of "good" writers of SF/F/H whose work I just do... not ...like--male and female.

As an editor, I'm looking for more than "good." I'm looking for the stories that ring my bells (whether by men or women). On another blog I talked about this here (I don't know how to embed the below url)
http://grayrose76.livejournal.com/35561.html

You'll see in my comment there a bit about how I put together an anthology--any antho. I usually ask about twice as many writers as I expect will actually produce what I want in a timely manner.

Question: you talk about gender balance. Why then do you flag Phantom as "not so much" of a success, but apparently consider Fantasy to be fine? Does that mean you're looking at your anthologies in the context of the genre (and therefore a heavily female skew is part of the necessary counterbalance), or was there another reason?

I don't mean that in an accusatory way; I just looked at the numbers and though, "huh -- Fantasy is way less balanced than Phantom." And I was wondering how you view that number yourself.

I was about to say the same thing. If you're aiming for gender balance in your magazines/anthologies, then you're certainly not achieving it with Fantasy. Does that mean you've decided to NOT market the magazine to males?

Maura, with regard to horror I maintain that there are indeed far fewer female horror writers than male and there always have been. And as you know I'm pretty generous as to what I consider horror.

See below. It should be "gender consideration," perhaps, and it depends on the project, but picking stories solely on quality is not the only criteria when accepting stories, I would think. For Fantasy that balance was specifically chosen, both to represent the demographic reading the magazine, and to reflect the authors being published there. I do regret just having one male contributor, however, as I think that Fantasy Magazine appeals to both sexes. That was a mistake, probably. We've since adjusted things a bit, and it's a bit more balanced at the magazine now.

I'm hoping that the next volume of Phantom or whatever anthology I do that I do have more contributions from women, as I don't think horror is simply a man's field, and that there's something that both sexes can enjoy. It doesn't have to be this way, after all. :p

"below" where?

Every editor looks for balance in what they edit (or should) I guess I don't understand what you're saying. First you say it appeals to the demographics (90% female) then in the next sentence you say it appeals to both sexes. You can't have it both ways...

As female reader I LOVE horror. It's most definitely a field men and women can and do enjoy. That doesn't change the fact that there are more male horror writers than female.

Ah...once I reloaded I saw the "below."

And that man was me! Don't worry fellows, I have testes enough for us all!

I should have specified that some projects, which have a specific goal, that they have a slightly different balance. In essence what I'm trying to say, in my argument, is that any anthologist editor has to be aware of whom they're targeting, and what they're trying to do, with what they have, or what they want to get, in order to achieve their goals.

In regards to Phantom, an anthology that should have broad appeal to both men and women, I consider it a flaw not to have a better gender balance. For Fantasy, which was supposed to be a representation of the magazine, the balance was in tune with the goals of the project . . . but perhaps too much so. I don't know. I probably would, in retrospect, preferred a few more male contributors, to reflect that there are numbers of men who enjoy the magazine. (The cover was picked to appeal to both). But live and learn.

I'm just saying that selecting fiction is not just a factor of quality, but that's many more considerations: marketing, goals, intent, and much much more. It's not as simple as going through slush and picking the best of what you've got, I think.

Perhaps gender balance is the wrong phrase to use, as much as "gender consideration" should be . . . just as if I were editing a military anthology for men, that I would include a lot of men, to reflect that demographic. But for a general unthemed anthology, no, "gender consideration" must come into play, and there should be a considerable balance.

Does that make sense? I'm rambling :p

Using a word other than "balance" clarifies it a lot, as does the explication of your goals in publishing the anthos. And I certainly do appreciate your transparency on the matter -- which is, in its way, just as useful as the choice of who to publish.

I'm far too young to be set in my ways, so I'm always willing to listen and adapt, still. :p I think discussion is good, and if it changes my mind, or another editor's mind, for the good of the field, then it's done some good.

Sean, I respect your opinions and accomplishments as an editor, but I'm going to offer a slightly different perspective. Since I don't have any anthologies under my belt to talk about (one day ...perhaps), I can't comment on editing in this regard (although I certainly understand that a multitude of considerations go into putting together an antho).

But having slushed for a professional magazine for slightly over three years, I am able to comment on the magazine side of things. I do pick the best stories (as I see them, of course). I'll also add that even if I'm not crazy about a story, if I feel it deserves a look by Shawna, I'll pass it along. My job is to find stuff I consider publishable. If something "rings my bells" as Ellen puts it, then I'm going to pass it along every time. But there's stuff that may ring Shawna's bells that fails to ring mine and I understand this. So if I think Shawna might be more receptive to it and that it warrants a look, I'll pass this stuff along too. And honestly, so long as something meets our basic submission requirements, this is the only criteria I use to pass along stories.

I know Shawna has been pleased with the results to this point. And I can say with confidence that there has been no gender bias on my part concerning what I pass along. To date, I have 19 slush survivors that are published or forthcoming. 11 of them are women, 8 men. Now I grant that Shawna makes the final call as to what we publish, so this can skew my personal statistics and make it seem like I'm more fair than I really am. However, in a little over three years I have passed or will be passing along a total of 142 slush stories to Shawna. 59 of these come from men, 70 from women, and 2 unknown. I'd say that's more than fair. And in terms of the stories Shawna has accepted, they represent a wide range of sub-genres, some that may be considered "boy stories," and others "girl stories." And although it's not the focus of this discussion, I'll add that at least four of my slush survivors are international authors, and several of my slush tales have dealt with non-white characters in significant roles. So I'm plucking variety of all sorts, just based on what I like.

So based on these results, I'd say it's possible to just choose what you like you best/what you believe deserves a look by the senior editor when it comes to the speculative magazines. Or maybe I'm a statistical oddity when it comes to editors, because I really don't care if you're a guy or a gal when I read your stuff. I'm just trying to find a good (make that great) yarn.

Again, I know it's different with anthologies, and I'm not dismissing or refuting what you're saying, just offering another perspective. Keep up the good work.

I think this is a good point. The purpose of the anthology and the target market is important. I suspect an erotic horror anthology might have more female writers because of some of the stuff nick mentioned above.
I think "picking the best" often is the easy answer but it seems it's a lot more complex. I'm also thinking in marketing and business terms. My first question tends to be what's your primary target market and what's your secondary one. It may seem a little mercenary when you are talking magazine publishing but it's stuff you have to consider if you're doing business. Specially if you're selling advertising.