WebJunction

An article published by Roxana Robinson August 21st (wish I could remember where, I think the Chicago Tribune) is an essay about a simpler, acrimony-free definition of women's fiction. Ms. Robinson acknowledges the existence of women's fiction but feels it cannot be defined to anyone's satisfaction. She goes on to describe best-selling novels and romances as escapist fiction with formulaic conventions of plot, character and resolution as women's ficiton.Men, of course, would not be caught reading these books. Later on in the article she addresses some of the same forulaic writings of thrillers. She maintains they too declare themselves on sight. Quote "The covers are ominous grays and blacks, with bold, hard-edged swastikas. The copy declares that the protagonist is a man and the plot involves death. This, too, is escapist fiction. It's formulaic, obeys convention delivers a moral message and ends just as it ought." After further exploring of this genre she asks the question "Why aren't thrillers called "men's fiction" and also wonders why thrillers are taken more seriously than romances or the so called women's fiction. Why do women read all genres and men steer clear of romance? She caps her article with a plan to define the work by its readers. If women dominate the audience for literary fiction then these authors of women's fiction would be men like Updike, Cheever, Marques, etc and read by women in droves.

This is just one more article that makes me think about the differences of men and women and their reading choices and how I use some pre-conceived notions in my daily RA for both genders. It warns me not to stick any patron into any particular slot when trying to find them a book. I know I categorize some books as "women's fiction" and some as "men's". Perhaps I should just look at the book itself and what my patron verbalizes as "want", "mood", "appeal factors" before immediately casting aside a book because it looks like one gender or another.

If I could reduce my own book prejudices, how next, do I get the patron to do the same?

I thought you might be interested to look at this article on [url http://webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent?id=11255 ]Promoting Reading Among Boys[/url]. It's one of the peer-reveiwed LIS student papers published in [url http://webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent?id=11256 ]Post-Tracks[/url] here on WJ.

"The abundance of female librarians and the absence of men as role models for reading are mentioned repeatedly in research as stumbling blocks to a life long love of reading. Boys benefit from hearing book talks from a man."

So, it's not just the books you recommend, it's how you deliver them? Do you separate your recommended reading lists into boy/girl or male/female? It doesn't seem to be a common practice, although I've seen "chick lit" categories on some websites.

This is a stimulating topic for sure.

Just spotted a resource for boys, [url http://www.geocities.com/talestoldtall/BooksforBoys.html] "Books for Boys" web site [/url]by Michael Sullivan by way of an entry on Infomancy [url http://schoolof.info/infomancy/?p=66]entry on Infomancy[/url]

Message was edited by:
childree

BTW: here's information on Michael Sullivan's book
[url http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/isbn/0838908497]Connecting boys with books : what libraries can do (2003)[/url]

and several other resources that might be of interest?:
[url http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/isbn/1591582121]Boys and literacy : practical strategies for librarians, teachers, and parents (2005)[/url]

[url http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/isbn/0345420837]Great books for boys : more than 600 books for boys 2 to 14 (1998)[/url]

[url http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/isbn/0415237602] Boys and literacy exploring the issues (2002)[/url]

Plus I bumped into a book on series that might be useful:
[url http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/isbn/1574322419] Boys' & girls' book series : real world adventures : identification & values (2002)[/url]