Do men read books by women and vice-versa?

Surey 'we' the readers are partially to blame, though, for not considering reading a book with a 'girly' cover if we only like 'boyish' books or vice versa (ie for literally judging a book by its cover)? It's a bit like the argument about who is to blame for the trash peddled by papers like the DM - is it the readers' appetite for rubbish that controls the paper content, or is it the paper's content that creates/controls the readers' appetite? A bit of both, I'd say.

I also can't stand chick lit.

I do judge books by their covers (going with the theory that publishers have put in a lot of time and effort to ensure that it is right ) - the most clear one being The End Of Mr Y - A book with coloured edges I am always going to buy

Eliza - there were soldiers on the cover? I thought it was a woman running through trees in a red coat?

I read anything by anyone.

DH mainly reads fantasy, but again, isn't swayed by gender so much as storyline. His fave would be Robin Hobb

I'm a bloke and, although I don't consciously look out for male or female authors, about three quarters of the fiction books on my shelves are by men. I've read Bridget Jones but, apart from that, I stay well away from the "shopping, coffee and crises" genre. Nevertheless I do enjoy writers such as Margaret Forster, Lionel Shriver, Doris Lessing and Marina Lewycka and I've never consciously shied away from a book just because of the sex of the author.

Non-fiction is much closer to 50:50.

I don't really pay attention to the gender of the author.
Isn't it the case that historically women took on a make pseudonym so a publisher would take them on?

can't stand chick lit. (will admit to the odd marion keyes on holiday tho!) and can't stand the girly girly covers but I can't get that snobby or bothered about them if it gets people reading

The think is, I guess, that publishers need to maximise sales across their entire list, on a finite resaerch and marketing budget, which means satisficing in the case of individual books.

Whereas naturally authors seek to maximise not satisfice their book sales.

lol shirt-sighted.

That would be advertising Pride & Prejudice with a pic of wet-shirt Colin Firth on cover.

But in marketing terms it is often rational to maximise appeal to a core audience -- rather than take a gamble on extending appeal to a more peripheral audience, at the possible cost of diluting impact with core audience. Not saying it is right in every case of course, but you can see the in-principle commercial rationality.

Since it is difficult in individual cases to make a judgement about the possible benefits of taking a punt on grabbing the wider audience, it might well be rational for publishers to adopt an across-the-board conservative marketing policy for these sorts of books -- one which maximises profit overall even if it might fail to maximise sales in the case of an individual book. I.e. the costs of gathering enough info on each individual book and tailoring its marketing more precisely might outweigh the possible benefits.

It would be very surprising if publishers hadn't given this thought/research.

(Of course, these are all commercial decisions and in artistic terms it is pants.)

I read lots of things by both men and women. Gender of author has no bearing on whether I'd pick the book up. I do like some chick lit though - Slummy Mummy, The Thorn Birds and Valley of the Dolls spring to mind.

I doubt DP has read a book by a woman, other than Harry Potter, for a good while though. He tends to like authors like Ian McEwan, Iain Banks, Jake Arnott, Robert Harris etc.

It is rather short-sighted only appealing to 50% of the possible market.

I suppose if the publishers gear their low-rent books to one gender or t'other, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy really, doesn't it. Men are far less likely to pick up a book in lurid pink with curlicued titles, and so the book is pre-stereotyped to be "women only".
Daft IMO.

Do you think that, for this thread's question, there is any systematic difference between great books that have stood the test of time and all of the published novels most of which will have died a death within a few years?

I mean, among the classics, women and men are represented with moderate equality -- I mean much greater equality than for most other art forms. They are treated with equal respect and have audiences from both genders.

But among the stack-'em-high-and-turn-a-buck crowd of ephemeral books there is a much stricter gender divide, presumably generated by consumerist myths and truths about gender preferences.

I don't know any man who is reluctant to read a novel by a great woman novelist -- or any woman reluctant to read a novel by a great man.

Most books that are any good, that have a chance of standing the test of time, seem to be marketed across gender. The shelf-fillers seem tied to gender just like crap children's toys are.

And I cannot STAND "chick lit". I would hate to waste time reading that when I can read something more interesting/worthwhile.

I tend to read books by men and don't particularly like books written by women (this doesn't apply to all women authors, just the rubbish ones who spend paragraphs describing clothing). But then, I also tend to read older books (hardly ever read anything written before 1970) so the cover thing probably doesn't affect me. My favourite books are things like "100 years of solitude" or "Anna Karenina", "catcher in the rye" and John Steinbeck (he was the first "adult author" I really got in to, before that it was all Anne of Green Gables, Heidi and the Sweet Valley Twins/high/college)

Hmm, interesting question. I read lots of stuff by both men and women, but probably marginally more by men. Funnily enough, if I'm going to read a bit of trash, I'm more likely to enjoy male trash than female trash (I can't BEAR chicklit). But when it comes to more literary stuff, I think men and women write equally good books.

I do think they're different, though. Some people seem to believe that women writers don't 'do' big themes, and only write about relationships. I disagree with this; I think that women do address big themes but tend to write about them in a fairly intimate way, often through the vehicle of personal relationships. (I'm thinking of things like Pat Barker writing about war through the prism of a small group of characters, or Austen full stop.) Also, perhaps women are more likely to believe that relationships and family ARE a big theme in their own right (some men don't like ostensibly personal books because they're not 'about' anything). But obviously that's a huge generalisation, and there are many exceptions. There are some quite 'female' male authors (eg Sebastian Faulks and Vikram Seth, I would say), but perhaps fewer 'male' female authors (ie those where you'd be hard put to guess that the writer was female). I'm thinking Doris Lessing off the top of my head. But anyway, in answer to your original question, I don't discriminate, but I do notice the differences.

I personally prefer books by women but I am widely derided for this (eg by my book group and by other reasers I know).

I have read some good books by men (mostly thru the book group!) eg Ian McEwan. I also lurve the Great Gatsby - but then Fitzgerald was a bit of a girl really.

But my fave authors are Brontes, Austen, Atwood yy, also modern ones like Anne Tyler (swoon), Maggie ofarell, Kate Atkinson, Sue Miller, and many others.

I really really dislike Kingsley AMis, Dickens, Bill Bryson, sorry have read some of these as well. I do like David Lodge tho so maybe I am talkign total crap as he is very male imo.

I read books by both men and women, but probably more by women. Like llarebbug I hate all that stuff. I think there might be something in your cover design theory because I find myself drawn more to books by women in bookshops

DH is convinced that books are divided into 'women's' books and 'men's' books - he thinks that on the whole women write women's books and vice versa - but there are a few exceptions. For example JK Rowling and Sebastian Faulks.

thumbwitch - agree about Karin Slaughter

I bought mums@home for that reason UQD and just couldn't get into it at all.

I don't mind some chicklit (i.e. Marion Keyes) but can't abide Sophie Kinsella's moronic pathologically lying shopaholic complete liability of a "heroine" (I read one - urgh)

I read the first 3 Karin Slaughters before my stomach and imagination fully revolted - never again, she is one sick-minded lady! I much prefer Kathy Reichs.

i love ian mcewan.when looking for a new book to read i dont check to see sex of authour!