In The Critical Assessment of Research we discuss the close relationship between the literary works that are considered the classics in a culture, the literary canon, and the theories about what gives an artistic work value and significance (52ff). We discuss how literature from certain groups is more likely to be considered important worthy of attention, while literature from other groups is more likely to be ignored, and less likely to become part of the literary canon. It is therefore significant when whole classes of literary works are given less media attention than other classes of work, or when those selected to review the works tend to be from one group rather than another.
Given this, two related pieces during 2012 suggest that literature written by women, despite all indisputable advances (The Critical Assessment of Research, 54-57), is still given rather short shrift. One of these pieces is a study by VIDA, an organization devoted to a discussion of “the critical reception of women’s creative writing in our current culture.” This organization counted the number of books written by men and written by women reviewed in prestigious mass media venues. Also included is a count of the number of male and female reviewers. Here is the relevant link: http://www.vidaweb.org/the-2011-count. Similarly, an essay published in The New York Times Book Review by Meg Wolitzer entitled “The Second Shelf” discusses the issue in a more personal vein: http://nyti.ms/URu7Yg.
Does any of this matter to those of us concerned with research in the literary arts? Absolutely, because works which are not brought to the attention of scholars or the public in general are not likely to become part of the literary canon (The Critical Assessment of Research, “Artistic Canons,” 52-60). The degree to which men and women are represented in a literary canon affects what gets studied and discussed in academia and elsewhere. And this, in turn, affects our perception of men and women and the way we see the world.
Focus On Research (FOR) 