By Elaine Viets

It’s tough to define an award-winning thriller, but the new International Thriller Writers has succeeded:

It’s anything written by a man.

That’s not what it says on the ITW Website. That tells us, "Thrillers provide a rich literary feast – the legal thriller, the spy thriller, the action-adventure thriller, the medical thriller, the police thriller, the romantic thriller, the historical thriller, the political thriller, the religious thriller, the high-tech thriller, the supernatural thriller. The list goes on and on, with new variations being invented constantly. This openness to creation and expansion is one of the field’s characteristics."

Unfortunately, the plums at this literary feast are served to men only. For the first ITW Thriller Awards, every single novel nominee is a man.

Best Novel – five men.

Best First Novel – five men.

Best Paperback Original – five men.

And the winners of these Thriller Awards?

No surprise there: They’re all going to be men.

So is the recipient of the first ITW Life-Time Achievement Award.

Don’t get me wrong. Some of the men nominated wrote first-rate, critically acclaimed novels. Other male nominees made you wonder where the judges stored their craniums.

That’s typical of almost any award nominee list.

What isn’t typical is that the ITW nominees were exclusively male. Even the Mystery Writers of America, an organization justly criticized for male bias in its Edgar Awards, is moving past that. Ironically, this year it nominated a thriller by Tess Gerritsen for an Edgar.

The ITW makes MWA look like a NOW meeting.

Consider a few of the women who submitted novels for the ITW Awards and weren’t nominated:

Elizabeth Becka, Sallie Bissell, Alice Blanchard, Linda Fairstein, Alison Gaylin, Elizabeth George, Sue Grafton, Denise Hamilton, Kay Hooper, Val McDermid, Perri O’Shaughnessy, Sara Paretsky, Theresa Schwegel, Lisa Scottoline, Julie Smith, and the mother-daughter team of P.J. Tracy.

These women are the literary equals of any male ITW nominee. Alison Gaylin and Theresa Schwegel were both nominated for Edgar Awards this year, and Theresa won. The other rejected women have enough honors to fill this page.

I’m not friends with any of the above women. Most wouldn’t know me if I sat down beside them. I don’t write thrillers. But I like to read them. And I know women write some fine ones. So why weren’t any female authors nominated for their novels?

One ITW judge was "dismayed" over the absence of women authors on the nominee list, but wonders "if the problem wasn’t sexism so much as the definition – or lack of it – of a thriller."

The MWA has a short, sweet definition of a mystery for its Edgar judges: "A work of fiction in which a crime is the central element."

On its Website, ITW co-presidents David Morrell and Gayle Lynds spent more than 500 words struggling with: "What is a thriller?"

"What gives thrillers common ground is the intensity of the emotions they create, particularly those of apprehension and exhilaration, of excitement and breathlessness," they wrote. "By definition, if a thriller does not thrill, it is not doing its job."

But we all get our thrills in different ways. Apparently, women writers did not thrill enough ITW judges.

Co-president David Morrell’s list of 70 "Must-Read Thrillers" on the ITW Website includes Edgar Rice Burroughs’ "Tarzan of the Apes" and Oscar Wilde’s "The Picture of Dorian Gray."

If Oscar Wilde wrote a thriller, so did every woman on the ITW reject list.

The dismayed judge said, "Maybe the judges, when faced with trying to figure out just what a thriller was, were too quick to rely on the dick-lit cliches that have always dominated the genre – car chases, boy-banter, phallic guns and exploding stuff. Maybe instead of narrowing their focus, they should have been broadening it to reflect the rich diversity of what is called a thriller today."

There’s another problem with the ITW contest. Board members such as Tess Gerritsen cannot submit their own books, and that’s commendable. But ITW does permit reviewers to serve as judges. Many media companies ban their reviewers from judging, because the press should not create the news.

Many organizations, including MWA, do not permit reviewers to be judges. Reviewers have already judged the novels in the media. Besides, why submit a book to a committee when the judge has publicly panned it?

Consider something else co-president Morrell said about his "Must-Read Thrillers" list:

"You’ll note that there are far more male than female authors on the list. This imbalance is due to a publishing prejudice that for many years was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Editors felt that women couldn’t convincingly dramatize sensational plots . . . In turn, women avoided writing in the field because they couldn’t overcome the bigotry."

Uh, Mr. Co-President, bigotry is alive and well. And this time, you can’t blame the publishers.

Why didn’t the ITW see any problem with The Thriller Awards?

I could ask the organization for an explanation. But the nominee list speaks for itself.

This isn’t the International Thriller Awards. It’s the International Men’s Thriller Awards.

Skip the rubber-chicken banquet, boys, and make it a real guy event.

Cigars, beer and burgers in the bar – served by the ITW Ladies’ Auxiliary.

Comments

[Cinema Dave]

...sounds like my kind of gig...how can i wrangle an invitation? Burgers and Beer, my kind of function!

Does the ITW Ladies’ Auxiliary wear bunny outfits?

Is there big screen television sets? I would like to watch the Miami Heat's championship run again!!!

[Kerry, the Martial Tart]

Thanks, Elaine, for a great post. "Dick-lit" is a wonderful term :) I checked out the ITW website and read over Morrell's introduction to his "must read" list. My favorite bit, frankly, was his assertion that, from 1988 to 1995, no woman made a contribution to the genre in any meaningful way. So what is Sara Paretsky, chopped liver?

It also got me to thinking -- if the ITW itself is willing to include a category of romantic thrillers, then why-oh-why doesn't Morrell include classic writers of gothic romances in his list? Granted, I was a lot younger then, but Victoria Holt and Madeleine Brent got my heart thumping a whole lot harder than Dan Brown did more recently.

It's sad to realize that even intelligent folks don't get that prejudice is still very much alive and well. Fortunately, I have a box of mysteries by and about women headed my way from the Mystery Lover's Bookshop; that will make me feel much better :)

[nancy martin]

Elaine, this is a proud moment here at TLC. I'm so glad you've graciously agreed to become a Book Tart. You've got the stones, girlfriend.

[ramona]

Great post, Elaine.

Apparently, the ITW isn't alone in the manlove. The new issue of TIME features an article titled "5 Mystery Writers Worth Investigating." All five writers highlighted are men. So is the author of the article (surprise).

Oh, and as for that "no woman made a contribution to the genre..." comment, I nominate Ruth Rendell/Barbara Vine.

[Lori G. Armstrong]

Elaine - you've had the guts to say what the rest of us (women mostly) were thinking. Its become common place for authors to say "I'm taking a break from mystery and writing a thriller." Its almost like writing straight mystery isn't cool enough any more. Sad.

[Stephen D. Rogers]

I suppose it's cold comfort that no woman nominated for a Thrillie has failed to win.

Thanks for the great post.

[Cassie]

Has nothing changed from the days of George Eliot?? Do readers still subconsciously discount a book with a woman's name on the cover? There were women on the ITW judging panel! It seems no one is immune.

I was comforting myself with the thought that the most popular books on earth - the Harry Potters - are written by a woman. Then I realized that she uses her initials and becomes a genderless (and presumably male) author. Would Harry Potter be so wildly popular if the world knew at the outset that J. stood for Joanne?

[Maryann]

Let me add my applause for a great post! For my money, if we're naming 'old-time'authors, Helen MacInnis (and I hope I spelled that right)wrote books that were amazing. She got me hooked with "Assignment In Brittany" and kept me going through the rest of her WWII and Cold War books. Out of date now I suppose, but she's one of the reasons I read Tom Clancy (early works are the best) and Tess Gerritsen and Sarah Paretsky...good plots and unexpected twists. JA Konrath (aka Joe) said once the reason he used his initials instead of his name was to get men AND women to pick up the book without giving a thought to the writer's gender. I thought P.J.Parrish was male until I met the sisters who write under that name. Maybe there's something to be said for those genderless letters. :o) All I know is that MacInnis, Paretsky, and Gerritsen piqued my interest with every book. Maybe SistersInCrime should talk to Mr.Morrell :o)

[sarah S]

Wow, Elaine, spot on! I didn't read, but listened to Tess Geritsen's VANISH this spring and if that isn't an award-worthy thriller then I don't know why I was so focused I nearly side-swiped that truck.

You've said everything that needs to be said. Let me just add that if publishers, thriller experts, whoever makes these decisions thinks that the coveted businessman taking the red eye will read only MALE NAMES, they're wrong. I see plenty of men reading everything from Evanovich to Cornwell to Mary Higgins Clark. So there!

[AlisonGaylin]

Wonderful post, Elaine. And I have to say, seeing my name alongside such greats was an excellent consolation prize.

[Donna]

"I could ask the organization for an explanation. But the nominee list speaks for itself."

But so do the judging panels if I am reading it correctly - Best Novel - 2 out of the 4 judges were female, Best First - 2 out of the 5, best PBO - 1 out of the 3 - so there were plenty of female judges who were perfectly free to have chosen one or more female nominees if they so wished (I'm sure that while the men were picking books to add to the list the women weren't being forced to make them a wee sandwich and a cup of tea, but had equal opportunity to ensure that books written by women were considered). All it means is that those judges for those particular categories preferred those particular books. No bias, no unfairness, just the opinions of a small handful of judges.

Sure, when I looked at the list, I thought "No women? That's a pity." I'm a woman myself, a wide reader of crime fiction and not a member of the ITW. I didn't particularly agree with all of the nominations in any of the categories but not because I thought they were misogynistic - just because there were books that *I* would define as thrillers, that I preferred. Some would have been by men, some by women.

I think it would be a real shame if award judges (who, let's face it - whether it's the Edgars, The Agathas, or The Thrillers provide a service to the mystery community by taking the time to read a whole pile of books that they might not otherwise want to read)then have to worry about their list of favourite books just because none of the authors are female/a squirrel/ an alien from the Planet Zog. I would much prefer that those judges said "These are the 5 books that I really really loved", rather than think they had to dump a favourite from the list because they didn't have a female author in there. Now THAT would be unfair.

When it comes down to it, awards that are based on a judging panel come down to the preferences of that handful of judges. Has there ever been a whole shortlist of nominations for ANY category in ANY award that I have ever agreed with? Not that I can think of. There is no "best book of the year". You ask 10 people what the best crime fiction book of 2005 was and you might get 10 different answers - and you might agree with none of them.

What awards DO do is bring crime fiction (in all its wonderful forms - whether thriller, cosy, historical, humourous, or the all-encompassing Edgar) into wider notice, and also gives those authors who are nominated a bit of a boost in what is a tough business, and maybe garners them some new readers. I, for one, have picked up books because they were on a list of nominees. After reading it I might think "Well, that was a pile of festering crap", but, again, that's just personal preference.

And yes, David Morrell's list of 'must read thrillers' DOES exclude some female authors, but it also excludes some men that I would have included too, and it includes some I wouldn't have included at all - whether because they don't fit MY definition of thriller, or just because I don't like those books.

Blimey, sorry to have sent such a long comment, I'd better shut up now before I start on the topic that I find more difficult to accept about the ITW and the Thriller awards - the whole "What is a Thriller" thing

Donna

[nancy martin]

Donna, I agree that this is not a men vs. women issue. (It's about perceptions in so many ways.) Question is, how do we fix it? By speaking up, certainly.

I've always thought the "no competition" rule in Sisters in Crime has a downside.--Although we're supposed to be supporting the writing of women, we're not supposed to single out any one above the others. Admirable, but not necessarily helpful in this age of The Tipping Point.

[Kathy Sweeney aka Smart Tart]

NO women?!

Where are these nominators from - under a rock? In addition to the nominees served straight up - Scottoline - Tracy - Grafton - ever heard of Michele Martinez? Laura Lippman? If "To The Power Three" wasn't a thriller, then what is? And I don't even read thrillers, as a rule.

Perhaps the definition of thriller needs to be amended. How about: Only dicks need apply. Dick-lit about covers it -- and here's a great thriller plot for you boys - this year, instead of acceptance speeches, we make that 'dick lit' tag apply - literally - and light 'em up. Now that'll keep them on the edge of their seats.

[Kerry, the Martial Tart]

I would just add that the fact that women are on the judging panels doesn't mean eliminate the possibility of bias (any more than having women on hiring committees does, for example). I'm happy to believe that, at this stage of the game, overt discrimination is a thing of the past. But subtler forms are, as far as I can tell, alive and well, and I can't think of a reason to believe that women are less socialized to those subtle forms than are men. If I saw a list of 5 nominated books and saw not a female author among them, I'd be a little suspicious, but willing to suspend my disbelief. But 15 books and 5 screenplays? That's certainly enough for me to start wondering about the possiblity of unconscious bias creeping in.

[Jason Pinter]

Are there any Jews nominated?

African Americans?

Why isn't anybody up in arms about this?

[Josh]

Jason, the next thing you know, these uppity women will be wanting the right to vote. Where will it end?

[Jason Pinter]

Hey Josh? I see that point flying right over your head...

[Andi]

Jason, shut up. That's one of the most tactless arguments women have faced for decades - bring up that no women are represented and immediately someone points out "but there are no X either" which serves to diminish the argument and make it look like we're being petty. That stinks and it's not funny. I've heard it my whole life, from people just out to provoke, not contribute to a discussion. Like the ones who want to know "well but why aren't you tyring to save the X" when you support a movement to save the endangered Y, as if one cancels out the other.
I'm usually not this rude, but you are NOT funny and you are NOT helping.
Anyone read Sarah Weinman's column? There's a Time magazine story too about "new blood"; it cites five male mystery writers. AT least one such "new writer" has been around for fifteen YEARS. That's pathetic.
But Nancy, I still think SinC was smart not to do awards. I happen to think there are far too damn many already and that readers are not especially served by having more awards, juried or voted on.
As for the specifics of this organization and award,I'll leave it to others, far more qualified, to comment as they have here. I don't feel qualified - I don't read too many thrillers and one of ITW's founders is my convention's Guest of Honor.
Andi, remembering back over 10 years ago when she heard a group of women commenting about how "everything is fine now" and how Sisters in Crime really wasn't necessary anymore.

[Jason Pinter]

Andi, I'm not belittling the concern about bias at all, trust me as one of the very few men in publishing I'm well aware of it. But I do think it's presumptuous to say that an organization is biased based on results from its very first year in existence.

Some of my favorite crime writers are women, and I sincerely hope in the future those deserving are recognized. Hopefully its a coincidence (though certainly an unfortunate one).

All I'm saying is that bias is in the eye of the beholder. You say this is biased towards women, you have the imperical data (no women nominated) to back it up. I say this is biased towards African Americans or Jews, I have the same empirical data to back it up.

We need to view these nominations over the long haul before making any judgments about the overall bias of the group.

And in case anybody is interested, in the 78 Oscar ceremonies, exactly 17 out of 780 nominations for "Best Actor" and "Best Actress" have gone to African Americans. That is unmistakable bias.

[Kathy Sweeney aka Smart Tart]

For those of you in the business, have people been talking about this? I'm just an avid reader, so I don't know what goes on in the industry - surely the Lipstick bloggers aren't the only ones outraged about this?

[Carstairs38]

I simply most protest two of the female names mentioned.

Sue Grafton. I've read F. Great mystery, but hardly a thriller.

Denise Hamilton. I just read JASMIN TRADE last month, and for most of the book I was bored out of my mind. If that's a taste of her books, believe me, she shouldn't even considered for a thriller award.

Now keep in mind this is coming from someone who reads almost all female writers. I understand the frustration behind the post. But please, if we're going to discuss women who were snubbed, let's talk about actual thriller authors here.

Mark

[Kathy Sweeney aka Smart Tart]

Mark - I hear you, and without naming names, I agree on a couple too, but I have to say that when it comes to Sue Grafton, R (the last one I read) is more of a thriller than a straight mystery. Her books have really evolved over time - they're much darker than they were at the beginning.

[Andi]

i said absolutely nothing about bias or empricial data, Jason. You wanted to divert from the issue, I think and I objected. don't tell me what I said or thought.

"Empirical"? there were no women named. That means what? That means that there were no women named. I know at least 1 person on every panel; I did not, do not accuse them of bias. (though I believe that it would be biased "against" not "for" if a group is left out.) At least one juror is a good friend who I trust to be fair in ALL things.

I'm talking solely about your comment. I don't KNOW the religions or race of any of the nominees. That is NOT THE ISSUE. Gender is clear/obvious and that was and remains the issue. Sure it's the first year - and that is when many people will form judgments. I'm not saing that's good or bad, but it IS. ITW is tring to make an impression as a new organization, therefore what they do - and they're big on press - is noted publicly.

I'm not a member of ITW, won't be joining and don't support the growth of awards in mystery. That's not a dig at ITW - I'm glad they formed. But I am not a writer and I don't tend to read thrillers and I'm weary of new awards.

Pointing out "other" places where there might be discrimination does not address the issue that Elaine raised. Period.

[Kerry, the Martial Tart]

Jason, I beg to differ with you. As you yourself demonstrate, bias is most assuredly not always in the eye of the beholder -- your example of the academy awards is proof. Now, I do agree that the relatively small sample size of a single year's nominees suggests (strongly, in my view), but does not necessarily prove, bias. But I'm not sure that the degree of bias suggested against women is the same as that suggested against African Americans or Jews. I'm not an expert here by any means, but I know that a fair number of women write thrillers, and I'm pretty confident that they are numerically under-represented on the lists in question. How many African American and Jewish authors write them? And are they as numerically under-represented as women are?

As an aside, I will give a tip of my hat to David Morrell. On what turned out to be my last full day with my mother, I was reading aloud to her from one of his books (its name escapes me). At one point, his hero, a former Delta Force commando turned high-end security agent, needed to hot-wire a vehicle to get him and his client away from the baddies. In a fit of truly pedantic prose, Morrell explained at length how Our Hero broke the steering column of the car, and, knowing which wires were the important ones, connected them using the safety pin he always carried under the lapel of his jacket.

I am not making this up. My mother, sister, and I laughed until we could barely see straight, wondering in particular if my Mom, who had more safety pins than God, got to be a commando herself. I don't care for his books, but I thank him from the bottom of my heart for writing something so very, very bad and giving me a wonderful memory.

[Jason Pinter]

Andi, I was simply making the point that, in my opinion, it's wrong to accuse a group of bias--a very serious accusation--based on one year's worth of nominations.

If an organization gives awards, as soon as it starts saying, "Well, we'd better nominate X number of women or X number of men," it immediately loses all integrity, and people get nominated to fulfill a quota rather than because the judges felt they were deserving. There are certain instances (like the Oscars) where there is a clear pattern of bias going on nearly 80 years. But I will not stand idle and listen to good people who love books have their motives questioned and their reputations sullied.

If you think there are too many awards or that awards are unnecessary, that's fine, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion. But I completely disagree with others leveling personal accusations without placing the issue in proper context. Especially when, like Andi, I know many of the ITW board members (many of whom are women) and know firsthand that they vote with their hearts, not with their heads.