A Brief Analysis of the Locus Recommended Reading List, 2011-2015

Written by Natalie Luhrs

I'm a lifelong geek with a passion for books and social justice.
m

Filed Under:

Tagged With:

February 5, 2016

A Brief Analysis of the Locus Recommended Reading List, 2011-2015

A Brief Analysis of the Locus Recommended Reading List, 2011-2015

Introduction

Locus published their annual Recommended Reading List earlier this week.  I was looking at it and became curious about its composition. Then I became curious about possible trends in the Reading List and looked at the lists for the last five years, 2011 to 2015. I took the data from the Locus website and copied it into Excel so I could manipulate it.

I want to preface this by saying that I believe that the Locus staff works very hard on this list and intends for it to be as comprehensive as they can make it. I know how hard it can be to stay on top of the flood of fiction and other affiliated works that are produced each year.

But I also believe that Locus has a responsibility to think about their biases so that lists of these type don’t inadvertently perpetuate structural inequalities–as our field’s magazine of record, this Reading List is published around the same time that Hugo nominations open and while qualified members of SFWA are filling out their Nebula nomination ballots. The Locus Recommended Reading List is a logical place for many people to start looking for works to populate their ballots.

Methodology

A note about my methodology. Human identities are fuzzy around the edges. They have to be–none of us is any one thing, we contain multitudes. Quantitative data analysis doesn’t handle fuzzy edges very well. People will often classify themselves as belonging to multiple categories when given the opportunity to do so. I may have chosen incorrect categories for some individuals: I am more than happy to make changes as necessary.

As Locus is a U.S. publication, I defaulted to using U.S. standards of race–this means I put people I believe to be Ashkenazi Jewish in the white category; as far as I know there were no Jews of color on these lists. I understand that many Jewish people do not perceive themselves as white, but I also believed that it would cause confusion if I included them in the POC category. I also felt that it would be problematic to separate people by ethnic or religious identity.

Gender identity is also fluid. I did use a non-binary category for people who identify in that way, however I categorized trans binary people as either male or female. I know that this is not a perfect solution, however the number of people who I know to be non-binary or trans in this dataset is extremely small and it would not make a statistical difference to separate binary people into cis and trans categories.

If you would like a change made to your data, please contact me at eilatan at gmail.com.

The Data

Between 2011 and 2015, 1,401 separate works were included on the Locus Recommended Reading list. This includes fiction ranging from short stories to novels, collections, anthologies, non-fiction, and art books.

When there were multiple authors, I counted all the authors and editors, not just the first listed author or editor.  You will see gender categories which reflect multi-author/editor works when the gender composition was mixed. There were some single-gender collaborative works, mostly two men working together, but occasionally two women as well.

I am going to present this data as a combination of bar graphs and data tables.

Locus Recommended Reading List, 2011-2015

Locus Recommended Reading List, 2011-2015

So the first visual is a simple bar graph showing how many works appear on the list each year, from a low of 267 to a high of 307.  The breakdown by category is as follows:

Locus Recommended Reading List, Overall Data by Year and Category I

Locus Recommended Reading List, Overall Data by Year and Category

I would say this is a fairly even distribution–some years are heavier in one category than in other years, but overall, I can deduce that Locus has a target total for works in each category.

So now we get to where it really starts to get interesting: the breakdown by gender and race. First, I’ll show an overall graph for each, and then I’ll break that down into tables which separate fiction works from non-fiction, anthologies, and art books.

Gender

Locus Recommended Reading List, Gender Breakout by Year

Locus Recommended Reading List, Gender Breakout by Year

The majority of the authors or editors of the works included on the Locus list are male–over 50% each year. Female authors or editors come in second in the 35-40% range. Mixed gender collaborations are next, followed by non-binary authors and editors.

Locus Recommended Reading List 2011-2015, Gender Breakout by Year, Percentages

Locus Recommended Reading List 2011-2015, Gender Breakout by Year, Percentages

On to the category breakouts!

Locus Recommended Reading List by Category, Gender, and Year - Fiction

Locus Recommended Reading List by Category, Gender, and Year – Fiction

As you can see, male authors tend to dominate most of the fiction categories, with two notable exceptions: First Novel and Young Adult Novel. The only category which has non-binary representation is Short Stories, and most works of fiction are single-author works.

This division becomes more pronounced when you look at the other categories, which are curated anthologies, art books, and non-fiction.

Locus Recommended Reading List by Category, Gender, and Year - Anthology, Art Books, and Non-Fiction

Locus Recommended Reading List by Category, Gender, and Year – Anthology, Art Books, and Non-Fiction

The overwhelming majority of editors and authors included are male. Particularly striking is the male dominance of the Non-Fiction and Art Book categories, but I find the dominance of male editors in the anthology categories also worrisome.

Race

Locus Recommended Reading List, Race Breakout by Year

Locus Recommended Reading List, Race Breakout by Year

While the proportion of POC to white authors/editors is increasing on a year over year basis–which is a positive thing!–the representation this year still only comes to less than 17% of the total. And that’s counting all categories but white together.

Locus Recommended Reading List 2011-2015, Race Breakout by Year, Percentages

Locus Recommended Reading List 2011-2015, Race Breakout by Year, Percentages

Category breakouts, fiction first:

Locus Recommended Reading List by Category, Race, and Year - Fiction

Locus Recommended Reading List by Category, Race, and Year – Fiction

That’s pretty concerning, in my opinion. And now non-fiction, anthologies, and art books.

Locus Recommended Reading List by Category, Race, and Year - Anthology, Art Books, and Non-Fiction

Locus Recommended Reading List by Category, Race, and Year – Anthology, Art Books, and Non-Fiction

The overwhelming majority of the works in the anthology, art, and non-fiction categories was written, edited, or curated by white people.

Repeat Appearances

Another axis I wanted to investigate was repeat appearances on the list. There were names that I kept seeing year after year–there are some people who have multiple works on the list each year.

There are 676 individual and collaborative authors and editors on this list of 1,401 works. Of that 676, 255 had multiple works. Those authors are responsible for 980 of the 1,401 works recommended over five years, or 69.95%.

Locus Recommended Reading List, Repeated Appearance vs Total Works

Locus Recommended Reading List, Repeated Appearance vs Total Works

The way I interpret this data is that once you appear on the Locus Recommended Reading List, your chances of appearing in subsequent years goes up. This is not wholly surprising–you would expect to see repetition, but this seems like a lot of repetition.

When broken down by race and gender, this becomes even more concerning.

First up is gender. I included multi-author works with the gender of the first listed author or editor.

Locus Recommended Reading List, Repeated Appearance vs Total Works - Female

Locus Recommended Reading List, Repeated Appearance vs Total Works – Female

 

Locus Recommended Reading List, Repeated Appearance vs Total Works - Non-Binary

Locus Recommended Reading List, Repeated Appearance vs Total Works – Non-Binary

 

Locus Recommended Reading List, Repeated Appearance vs Total Works - Male

Locus Recommended Reading List, Repeated Appearance vs Total Works – Male

And now let’s look at race. As with gender, I combined multi-author works based on the first listed author’s race.

Locus Recommended Reading List, Repeated Appearance vs Total Works - POC

Locus Recommended Reading List, Repeated Appearance vs Total Works – POC

 

Locus Recommended Reading List, Repeated Appearance vs Total Works - White

Locus Recommended Reading List, Repeated Appearance vs Total Works – White

And then I decided to pivot these two sets of data together to see what I could see from the intersection of gender and race.

Locus Recommended Reading List, One Appearance - Race and Gender

Locus Recommended Reading List, One Appearance – Race and Gender

 

Locus Recommended Reading List, Multiple Appearances - Race and Gender

Locus Recommended Reading List, Multiple Appearances – Race and Gender

Conclusion

So what did I learn from all this?

I learned that my initial read of the information was correct: the Locus Recommended Reading List is predominantly white and male. That the same handful of POC writers appear year over year and that many more male writers are much more likely to have repeat appearances.  I also learned that POC and women and non-binary people are more likely to appear in the shorter fiction categories, perhaps because there is less financial risk to publishers in those markets.

I learned that we need more POC and women and non-binary editors curating anthologies–it is shameful that there is not a single Reprint/Best Of anthology with a POC editor in five years of data. I know there are POC writing non-fiction and making art, why aren’t they represented? Are their works not sent to the Locus staff for consideration?

This is by no means an exhaustive analysis of the data. I would love to see other people’s perspectives on this. I would love to see an analysis of age distribution or country of origin or works in translation or any number of other things. However, I have spent well over fifteen hours on this and I’m out of gas.

Here’s the dataset. Have fun. Let me know what you find.

I would love for this to open up a wider conversation.

2016-02-06: Please read this comment before leaving a comment complaining about my work and how you believe I should have done it.

Buy me a coffee at ko-fi.com

You may also like…

Changing Things Up

Changing Things Up

Regaining a small bit of confidence in my own competence through a website redesign.

Three Years and Counting

Three Years and Counting

Falling asleep is incredibly difficult for me these days. Once I get to sleep, I'm fine, but getting there--oof. There...

Saltiness and Other Topics

Saltiness and Other Topics

Things about which I am salty, an unordered list: WordPress. They did something with one of the recent updates that...

33 Comments

  1. Ell

    Hi – Thanks for doing all this work!

    One problem – I d/l’ed the spreadsheet and the Total Appearances field in the Authors spreadsheet references a dropbox file that isn’t accessible from my version of Excel. Is it possible to put a local reference in? Thanks!

    • Natalie Luhrs

      Ack, yes! I was thinking about that last night as I was falling asleep and then (of course) forgot to check it this morning. Will update in next 10 minutes or so.

      …and it should be fixed now. 🙂

  2. Nicola Griffith

    Nice work, Natalie!

    I’m hoping someone else will take a look at this through the protagonist lens: how many of these stories/novels are about women, people of colour, and so on.

  3. E.L. Green

    The other issue is whether this simply reflects the demographics of writers in the SF field. While we’re half a century away from the era where 95%+ of the writers were white males with an engineering or science background writing manly man fiction about men doing man things (and the women largely pretended to be men to be published), it’s still a field where, when I walk down the aisles at the local Barnes & Noble, the stereotypically male names on the spines still well outnumber the stereotypically female or gender neutral names. That’s even with fantasy in the mix, which appears to have attracted a large number of female writers over the past few decades (albeit far too many of them are writing bad vampire romances, sigh).

    I think we would need to do a random sample of the industry as a whole to see whether the Locus numbers reflect what’s being published, or whether there is a systematic bias. I’m especially curious about those fantasy numbers, because I see a *lot* of fantasy titles by women on the local bookshelves, and it seems rather odd that 2/3rds of the Locus recommended fantasy novels would be by men…

    • Natalie Luhrs

      This is an excellent point, E.L., but I don’t think looking at what is on the shelves at B&N is particularly representative of the field, either. That elides small/micro presses and online short fiction markets. Not to mention that B&N certainly doesn’t stock everything from the major publishers.

      I’m also not here for random bashing of romance. For the record.

  4. James Davis Nicoll

    Do me next! Do me next!

    “I’m hoping someone else will take a look at this through the protagonist lens: how many of these stories/novels are about women, people of colour, and so on.”

    I tried to do this just for men versus women* in, um, 2009? 2010? And was surprised that it was less than straightforward to get sets of comparable data from all the publishers.

    * Reviewers who insist on seeing everything in binary terms despite knowing better is a different study, although I feel comfortable saying that all reviewers either see things in binary terms or they do not.

  5. Heather Rose Jones

    Another potential source of bias is in the pool of works that Locus looks at in the first place. I see at least three potential gates: the initial acceptance that a work falls within the scope of what Locus will look at; the choice of which of those works their reviewers choose to examine further; and the choice of which works they recommend on the list. Not all SFF works for which Locus receives publication information even make it into the bare “works received” listings.

    • Natalie Luhrs

      Oh, definitely–there are multiple gates for a work to pass through to get to the point where it can even be considered for these lists, and I suspect many works from the smaller or micro presses–as well as many self-published works–do not clear them. For a variety of reasons.

  6. blufive

    One thing smacks me in the face, just based on your analysis.

    Look at the fiction category/gender/year breakdown, particularly for novels/novelettes. As your note points out, it’s very male overall, but compare 2015 and the other four years: 2015 is close to 50/50 across the board, the other years… aren’t. Not even close. This even extends to YA, where previous years were rather female.

    (I’ll also note that First Novel and especially Short Stories weren’t as comically unbalanced in previous years).

    I’m slightly puzzled why that sudden year-on-year shift isn’t more obvious in the graph – maybe the less-unbalanced-but-more-numeric shorts and the oppositely-unbalanced YA categories camoflage it.

    If I squint hard, I can just-about-kinda-maybe see a similar but less-obvious contrast in the POC/White numbers for the Fantasy/First/SF novels, but my knowledge of global-anglophone demographics isn’t even close to working out what “unbiased” would look like in that table.

    • Natalie Luhrs

      Hey @blufive, you ended up in the spam folder for some reason–sorry about that! You have been released!

  7. E.L. Green

    Thus, Natalie, why I’d like to see real numbers about who is actually writing SF, not just off the cuff impressions from looking at the spines at the local B&N. The B&N glance test is especially unrepresentative if we’re talking about short form SF, because short form SF never shows up there.

    That’s the only thing that’ll tell us whether Locus is making a representative selection of the field or not. Until then we’re just speculating.

    • Natalie Luhrs

      You’re moving the goalposts, E.L.

  8. Zeborah

    Awesome analysis, Natalie, thank you for all your work on this!

    I think E.L. raises an interesting research question and I look forward to seeing their results after they’ve gathered and analysed the data on it.

  9. E.L. Green

    If I am “moving the goal posts” perhaps I misunderstood the game. I thought the question was whether Locus was biasing their “recommended reading” list towards authors of a certain gender or ethnicity. The only statistically valid way of ascertaining that is to compare the distribution of Locus recommended reading authors with the distribution in the population of authors as a whole. At least, that’s what they taught me in Research Methods 501 in grad school. If I am misunderstanding what the game was, my apologies.

    • Natalie Luhrs

      It’s not a game. This was real work. You don’t seem to know what “shifting the goal posts” means. Here is a handy definition–it was the first hit on Google, imagine that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

      Also, golly. You went to grad school. How lucky you were to have that opportunity. I certainly should know better than to try to do work that you clearly can do better. I look forward to your research into this field. Please send me a link to your work when you’ve completed it–if, that is, you think I will be able to understand it.

      Have a great day.

  10. James Davis Nicoll

    I am on a phone waiting for call for a show but I think comparison with the Locus data from the Strange Horizons count may be interesting. Will tackle…. Monday maybe.

    • Natalie Luhrs

      I thought about doing that–huh, Strange Horizons doesn’t do a complete survey of everything published in a year when they do their counts, do they?

      Interesting.

  11. Autumn

    Love data-driven analyses — the complaining has already begun, of course, but I feel like more like, wow. So easy to dismiss anecdotal evidence, but numbers?

    Hope you’ve started a trend. Thanks for putting in so much work.

  12. Stu West

    A couple of quick additional charts (disclaimer: I am married to part of the dataset!)

    Here’s one showing the total number of works recommended per year broken down by race and gender. I’ve narrowed the author groups down to the four most common for simplicity’s sake.

    Then I wondered what would happen to the numbers if you only count each author once per year. Answer: not a whole lot. The chart looks more or less the same.

    Lastly, what happens if you remove repeats altogether? I.e. count an author only once, in the year they first show up in the list. This is a slightly artificial way of trying to show how many new names are appearing each year per category, since the dataset only goes back to 2011, but I thought it was interesting. Look how it changes the shape of especially the line for white men.

    • Natalie Luhrs

      Oh wowowowowow, this is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping people would do with this data! That last chart is FASCINATING in all the best ways–I would love to see what a larger dataset would do to that particular chart. Double the number of years–would the trend stay the same? Is there a steady rate of new people being added to the list? What’s the attrition rate? How many people only ever show up once and never appear again?

  13. Jim Johnson

    As long as Locus continues to ignore the bulk of works coming out of independent publishing, their spread of representation is going to be skewed toward what the traditional publishers and small presses are buying and publishing and not so much on what readers are finding on Amazon and iTunes and Smashwords, etc.

  14. Cora Buhlert

    It would be interesting to break down the data according to nationality, which I suspect will be heavily skewed towards the US and other anglophone countries.

    I might take a stab at this later.

  15. Ian Gillespie

    @Nicola Griffith:

    I think this is a fantastic question.

    The population of those “interested in writing sci-fi/fantasy” is significantly shaped by those who read sci-fi/fantasy in their youth – and, thus, by the historical under representation of many groups in the field, under representation both among creators and characters. But there’s no such barrier to writing *about* people from any particular group, especially in a field where we routinely feature stories about elves, aliens and androids.

    Both publishers and critics can only do so much to seek out diverse authors in a particular genre at any given time, but they can insist on more diverse characters, and thus shape the future the genre long-term.

  16. I_Sell_Books

    @E.L. Green: This will vary widely if you include Indies.

  17. I_Sell_Books

    @Cora Buhlert: Ugh, so true! There are so many books from other countries that I’ve read about that I would *love* to stock – but I just can’t get them, or the cost is too prohibitive to my readers.

  18. Ian Gillespie

    @Natalie Luhrs:

    I too thought the repeat appearance data was reason for optimism, not concern. It seemed to me, off the bat, that higher numbers of women and POC among those who’ve only made the list once might well be an indication that more new female and POC authors are finding their way onto the list for the first time. The longitudinal chart above seems to further confirm that suspicion, and it’s buttressed by a couple of other facts as well, but it is contradicted by some of the same numbers.

    First, the total share of appearances by POC has clearly increased in recent years, supporting the conclusion that more women and POC are making it on the list.

    Second, among those authors who’ve appeared on the list more than once, the number of total appearances stays relatively constant at just under 4 per author across most categories – white, POC, male, female. In other words, once an author is established and has appeared on the list at least once, they are equally likely to reappear, regardless of race or gender. This, in turn, suggests that the “bias” in the list as a whole may very likely be a reflection of the bias in the pool of established authors, more than any bias in the selection process itself.

    On the other hand, if we use authors who appeared only once as a proxy for new authors, but compare the totals rather than year-by-year, we see that the chart above dramatically over estimates the progress that’s been made. The ratio of men to women amongst authors appearing on the list for the first time is 58/42, compared to 61/39 among the established authors. The ratio of white people to POC amongst authors appearing on the list for the first time is 88/12, compared to 91/9 among the established authors. An improvement, but hardly anything as spectacular as te graph above makes it seem.

    I agree that it would also be interesting to see these numbers alongside the demographic stats on what’s being published in sci-fi/fantasy, generally. It’s quite remarkable, for instance, that the list is predominately white when Locus is a magazine from a country that’s predominantly white and, even more importantly, is written in a language that is even more predominantly spoken as a mother tongue by white people. Even if the magazine were representative of the English speaking world, generally, it would still most certainly be “predominantly white.”

    Now, of course, one can certainly expect a publication like Locus to lead the way on diversity by making extra efforts to identify female and POC authors who’s work deserves to highlighted – to over represent groups that are under represented by the industry – but that task will still always be limited to a significant degree by what gets published in the first place.

    On the whole, I think the more relevant question is whether Locus is helping to make the field more representative, and – if so – by how much?

    Doing this thoroughly would require more data for comparison, obviously, and such data is in short supply, but based on what I’ve seen, I have a couple of suspicions. Appearances by gender on the Locus list seem pretty darn good compared to some of the data I’ve seen on submissions (below). I suspect that holds with publication as well, if not to the same degree. Appearances by POC seems pitiful, but I haven’t seen data, myself, to use by way of comparison. On the upside, we’ve seen an improvement in the list in recent years. On the downside, it really just appears to have been the last three years (pretty late to the party).

    Of course, I would be the first to point out there’s a feedback loop operating here: Historical under representation in the field – and lack of awards, recognition, etc. given to under represented groups – has no doubt led, in large part, to the under representation in submissions today. It’s no excuse to say “well, see, that’s who likes sci-fi.” But as Spike Lee recently pointed out vis-a-vis the Oscars, while awards and such should be leaders, not laggards, the biggest problem is the given industry. That fact shouldn’t be used to let the critical community off the hook, but nor should focus on under representation in awards and recommendations be allowed to obscure the fact that these lists are fundamentally driven by an industry that doesn’t publish and promote representative content. Judging the Locus list against the population at large, without taking into account what gets published, risks doing that, but, as you suggest, we have to start somewhere.

    http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/connolly_07_14/

    http://www.torbooks.co.uk/blog/2013/07/10/sexism-in-genre-publishing-a-publishers-perspective

  19. Ian Gillespie

    @Cora Buhlert:

    It’s an English language magazine, compiling a list of works published in English, so while I think an analysis by nationality would be interesting, I think predominant anglo representative clearly wouldn’t be a “skew” in this case, so much as the nature of beast.

  20. Natalie Luhrs

    Okay. There are a few comments in moderation that I’m not going to take out of moderation–and any future comments on this subject will also not be allowed out of moderation unless they come with an offer to pay me for my time and expertise. Or to do the work themselves.

    I have had, from multiple communication channels, people indicate that this dataset is “fatally flawed” and cannot be used for anything because I did not also survey everything published in science fiction and fantasy over the last five years. This is a rabbit hole and this is why: Where do I draw the boundaries around genre? What counts as published? Does it need to be a global survey–do I need to look at works not published in English? This question goes on and on and it is not intended to actually advance the conversation. It is intended to dismiss the work that has been done and keep me busy trying to prove that I am worth listening to and that my work has worth.

    Because, see, I know what will happen once I start down this road of additional research and work: as I complete each demand, a new one will be made. “Okay, but publication rates are useless without knowing submission rates, so go get those!” And so on and so forth into infinity. And I’m not going to do that unless you pay me to do it. And even then, I will draw boundary conditions.

    The goal of this is to help all the white men out there who are feeling super defensive right now at their unearned privilege can stop feeling defensive and enjoy being more likely to show up on the Locus Recommended Reading List and then have a greater chance of appearing in subsequent years.

    And I am not here for that. You’re uncomfortable? Good. You should be.

    Buy me a coffee at ko-fi.com

  21. James Davis Nicoll

    “in a language that is even more predominantly spoken as a mother tongue by white people.”

    Memories of the Raj Powers, Activate!

    Nation Pop English speakers (million)
    US 298
    India 125
    Pakistan 93
    Nigeria 83
    UK 64
    Philippines 57
    Germany 52
    Bangladesh 29
    Canada 28
    Egypt 28

  22. Richard Gadsden

    It would be interesting for someone (else, ie not Natalie and not me) to research the population that this is drawn from.

    That is, what is the relevant population?

    Is it everyone that is literate in English?

    Is it just Americans?

    Is it people interested in English-language sf? (fans, in the loosest sense)

    Is it published writers?

    For sex/gender, this isn’t much relevant. Your baseline population is going to be 50-50 almost regardless of what group you choose other than published authors – and that just shows that it’s publication bias rather than selection bias on the part of Locus, hardly a great defense of the industry.

    But for race, it’s a huge deal. The US has a much bigger proportion of POC in its population than the other English-speaking white-majority countries, so if Aussies and Brits have about the same chance of hitting the list as Americans, then you’re going to overestimate the bias against POC. On the other hand, there’s a hundred million English-speaking POC in India, and they never get represented. Are they in the pool, or not?

    Interesting to compare to the Man Booker Prize (English-speaking, non-American, literary-fiction, gets POCs from POC-majority countries onto shortlist on pretty regular basis).

  23. James Davis Nicoll

    “The US has a much bigger proportion of POC in its population than the other English-speaking white-majority countries,”

    Interesting, it has a lower proportion of POC than English speaking white-minority nations. I feel like I am on the edge of an insight here.

    As near as I can tell, the fraction of non-Europeans in the various “white-majority” anglo nations looks like this:

    US: 28%
    New Zealand: 25%
    Canada: 21%
    UK: 13%
    Australia: 10%

    I am not seeing the US in a class by itself there. The UK and Australia do seem to be quite remarkable. Also, no idea about the other nations but Canada is quite keen on outsourcing the production of new Canadians to other nations and our demographics are changing very quickly.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Blog Round-Up Time! | Camestros Felapton - […] been making pivot tables! An analysis of the Locus Reading List by various categories (e.g. gender) http://www.pretty-terrible.com/2016/02/05/a-brief-analysis-of-the-locus-recommended-reading-list-201… Also she…
  2. Pixel Scroll 2/5/16 The Rough Guide To Neveryon-Neveryon Land | File 770 - […] (4) BY THE NUMBERS. Natalie Luhrs of Pretty Terrible looks for statistical evidence of bias in “A Brief Analysis…
  3. AMAZING NEWS: 2/7/16 - Amazing Stories - […] Luhrs Analyzes the Locus Recommended Reading List […]
  4. link round up 5 – galhalla podcast - […] other things! Natalie Luhrs did a really important analysis of all the Locus Recommend Reading lists, and it was honestly…
  5. Disrupting Publishing Linkspam: 2/9/2016 | Clatter & Clank - […] “A Brief Analysis of the Locus Recommended Reading List, 2011-2015” by Natalie Luhrs […]
  6. Links from around the web: 2-9-2016 | By Singing Light - […] Luhrs looked at the patterns of gender & race in the Locus Recommended Reading list–her post has lots of…
  7. Analysis of Locus Reading List | Lela E. Buis - […] The Locus Reading List has already appeared here. It’s clearly one of those lists that is influential on the…
  8. What does this have to do with the Hugo Awards? | Lela E. Buis - […] have they been forced out of traditional publishing, but they lose that possibility of promotion. Natalie Luhrs in a…

Archives

Words of Wisdom

"It's chaos, be kind."
Michelle McNamara