I think you nailed it in your final point that his literary knowledge is framed entirely by movies. How about we challenge the notion that movies almost entirely derive their source material from literature, rather than find their own original sources, conceived (and not just executed) within the language of film, which is utterly different from that of the printed word.
The maker does seem to be a movie person more than a book person and so it makes sense that he would base his conclusions on the impact of works of literature on the impact of their movie adaptations. Which, as you point out, are two different mediums. Using a movie to evaluate the book it is adapted from is like using a photograph to evaluate a sculpture. Btw if you get the chance to see American Fiction adapted Everett’s Erasure (not sure when or if it is or will be showing in the UK) I hope you will. Interesting choices were made and the meta nature of the ending brings a new level to the satire.
That’s such a good point and one of my bugbears with movies. If you avoid seeing movies based on books there aren’t many left to choose from! The exceptions are often wonderful though - Wings of Desire, Lives of Others, Barbie
@ianp9086 as someone who loves both films and books equally, there's actually so many original films to choose from, old and new. Your point is a tired and almost condescending one.
I recently posted a couple of things encouraging people to question the "canon" and saying that just because something was considered a "great work" that it really was... and talking about how, historically, those things were a narrow representation of writers, namely white men. I got responses that were practically panicky, telling me that just because a writer was a white man doesn't mean they weren't great. Which I hadn't said. And telling me that I was missing out on so many great books because I refused to read white men. Which I didn't (and don't). I have an MFA in poetics. I've read plenty of writing by men. Many of my favorite books are by men. But man, I could never read another book by a man and still have a diverse, rich, rewarding reading career. (But of course, I'm not going to do that.)
Thank you for the great comment. I had a similar experience when I suggested that reading works by people other than dead white males was a reading goal of mine -- everything from people telling me how much "great literature" I would be missing to those who thought calling these "great authors" dead white males was demeaning and offensive.
Capitalism is at play here in another way, too: the publishing world is full of jobs (from agents to editors, from cover designers to proofreaders, and even to most authors themselves) that require at least college-level education in the humanities and yet do not typically pay well. If we look at employment patterns more broadly, those kinds of jobs are often filled by women-something that happens for a variety of reasons, including structural discrimination against women which still happens in the workforce. (By structural discrimination, I’m referring to, for example, the fact that women are more likely than men to assume familial caregiving responsibilities that interrupt career advancement.) Edited to make it clear that this is all in response to his claim early on that women dominate the publishing world. I am NOT suggesting that decision-making female editors are more likely to choose to publish female authors.
YES! I meant to make a point similar to this related to the steady shift in US education away from the humanities towards STEM which means that fewer men are getting degrees in the humanities in favor of degrees in business, tech, or engineering which means that fewer men have the education needed for careers in publishing. I can attest to the fact that even several decades ago men that I would meet in social situations were often openly dismissive of my history degree and it would have been worse if it were a Lit degree or philosophy. Most of them were engenders or in finance with degrees to match. Men have come to see the humanities as less masculine so it’s no surprise that the number of men in publishing has been declining.
Engenders, engineers?? Is this a Freudian slip, but not something worn under a dress? I must admit that this guy (Echo) could be me in my weaker moments, but I'm mostly with you on this subject, Brian. For all the reasons you state and explore, the culture and the market are turning the book world as it is. The numbers at university, the liberation of women in the workplace (I'm not being ironic), and the sexual revolution are bigger things than I can wrap my head around. Is there a sea change at hand before the tsunami of reaction? I have no idea. My son, who used to date but does not now (for all the reasons the culture is now talking about) will have his work cut out. He is a reader, too, reads across all genres and genders, and even (yikes) likes Taylor's music. He'll have to deal with all this (like Stein waving his hand at his incomplete collection). I don't think this guy (Echo) is incorrect in saying that the male viewpoint is different, and I will admit (as an old guy) that I read more male authors than female, but I love women and some of my favorite authors do not, and never did, possess male "parts". I've never read Virginia Wolfe, but I'm not afraid of her, and although I've failed four or six times getting through Wuthering Heights (virtually ALL the characters are horrible), I do recognize the genius. We need both sexes to have a true dance and for the species to continue. The struggle for dominance between x's and y's, and 1's and zeros will continue, just as it always has. We notice it more now because the front has changed a lot recently, it's quite fluid, and sometimes we have no idea which way to face the troops, or who is wearing what uniform. Men don't seem to adapt to change as quickly as women, either, nor to much like it, but isn't THAT a sexist thing to say?@@BookishTexan
AI is cultural cancer. I have made a vow on my dead mulatto great grandmother's grave (wherever it is) that I will endeavor to NEVER AGAIN listen to a TH-cam video with a voice-over robot narrator. When I listen to your (and Brian's) videos, I can see and hear you're NOT a robot. Virtually every set up other than on-screen camera, live, has the stink of the Evil One. Get behind me, Satan.@@HannahsBooks
@@kevinrussell1144Thanks, Kevin. I admit that I rarely talk off the cuff-and in fact I often practice what I want to say-but I also promise that what I say is absolutely not AI!
I've mainly read male writers, but my favourite author is Patricia Highsmith. Also Ruth Rendell/Barbara Vine. Psychological novels are my particular thing. I'm not sure if my tastes are minority among male readers, but the spark was lit by reading The Collector by John Fowles. Interesting that both women seem to have been more highly regarded by Europeans than in the Anglosphere, evident in the number of film adaptations of their books by European directors. I recently heard a TH-camr who does political/historical content announce that he never reads novels as it's a feminine passtime.
I’m guilty when it comes to Highsmitb and Rendell. I’ve never read either. I do intend to correct that. I’ve never read Fowles either. What I love about BookTube is that I am constantly always being reminded and suggested books and authors. That historian sounds really insecure. Makes me wish he could have expressed that opinion to someone like Hemingway.
Wow, what a crazy video! The scary thing is that this kind of thinking can easily worm its way into a young person's head. Taking a wider view, it should be pretty easy to see that it's false, but it's a rabbit hole I've seen quite a few people fall down. I thought his point on depravity was rediculous. In most of the "depraved" books I've read, it's those written by women that hit the hardest.
Exactly. This kind of video is formulated to appeal to and seem reasonable to men, particularly young men, and the point seems to make them see women as the enemy.
Exactly as @HannahsBooks said. Speaking as a publishing alumna still active in freelance editing, I concur that editorial has long been a (college-educated) pink collar field because of the pay structure. (I was disappointed to lose out on a cool editing job out of school that was paying 13k, oy. Last century, but still.) Within publishing houses, traditionally marketing and production departments attracted more men, with marketing, at least, usually paying somewhat more. (There seems no "good" reason for that.) I do think that the same traditional socialization factors that result in women being the lion's share of readers also still contribute to the larger percentages of women in editorial roles, though probably to a declining extent.
I intended to talk about the shifting focus of education towards STEM as the areas with the best careers and the most important work (I disagree) have led more men away from the humanities and in the process created more opportunities for women in publishing. In my publishing career (😂😂) I’ve only worked with one male editor. The only man involved with my current work is in tech and marketing. So my experience is very similar to yours in that regard. Men are not more natural writers any more than they are natural engineers. It seems extra petty for men to complain about being underrepresented in a field they have somewhat abandoned.
63% (or thereabouts) That doesn’t sound bad to me. Your second point was right on (also all the rest btw). Great point on capturing the zeitgeist historically or dystopian. Yeah, I cringed when Nabokov. All in all power points well addressed. Good job, Brian. I don’t think the voices he speaks of are “missing”. 😂
Thank you for this prompt response. Echo Chamberlain s entitled to his opinion,as long as this one is never acted upon. He seems to want to return to late 19th to early 20th century when woman had to published under a male name.
Brian, you have done a brilliant job of taking this ridiculous argument apart through your systematic analysis of each of the major points of the video. His point about men being discriminated against in the publishing industry and in the major literary prizes is laughable, especially when you look at the issue historically, as you have done. I think Scott @GunpowderFictionandPlot did a terrific analysis of this issue a few months back focusing specifically on the Pulitzer. Your discussion of his points about male authors being better at capturing the zeitgeist and at writing dystopian literature was first rate. Bravo, Brian! Great video. Thank you for this response.
Thank you so much for the kind words. I get really irritated by men whining about change that ends/reduces their traditional positions of power. Scott is brilliant.
@@BookishTexan I’m with you! Scott is indeed brilliant. I love his videos. I have just discovered your videos as I’ve been exploring BookTube and toying with the idea of jumping into the fray. You are pretty brilliant yourself, and you always put out really thoughtful, smart videos. Thank you!
You make the key point yourself. More women than men read books and therefore will have more books written for them and selected by those that are felt to be best placed to judge what will be of interest to them. This is SOP corporate thinking and will tend to give an homogenous result. It was ever so.
@@BookishTexanTotally agree. I think people turn many things that they don't understand into conspiracies.. Or things that they just don't want to be true
Thank you for making this excellent response video! You punched up to show his arguments didn't have a leg to stand on. The wokeness-rather-than-capitalism blindspot is frustrating, as though some current conspiracy is happening against male authors.
Thanks a lot for this one!! But I must apologize. When I read your title my first thought was “Oh brother…” Obviously, you did not answer the question the way I feared you would & of course, I should have known better! Now I’ll just say that whenever I hear a man claim that men do something better than women do, my knee-jerk reaction is “misogynist/Jordan Peterson acolyte.” 😊
I have the exact same reaction to that line and the “whiney misogynist” schtick that Peterson is a proponent of nauseates me. Thanks for the kind comment.
I appreciate you tackling this "need for male writers" topic. I would not have the patience to deal with his self-indulgent argument. I hear his argument as nothing more than being scared of seeing more women and people of color that usual. The usual number of people of color and women being one or two. "Oh my god, I think I saw four or five writers that (physical) didn't remind me of myself." Take care!
I agree absolutely with the idea that the real motivation for this video and the attitude behind it is fear. Thank you for the kind words and great comment.
Excellent video and thanks for 'punching up'! The scary thing about the Eco Chamberlain video is that he throws 'facts' about that are very easily disproven, but will surely catch the attention of misogynistic and/or unintelligent individuals. Clearly, this guy has NO case at all!
Thank you, Brian, for always doing a well informed and balanced response video. The stats are unclear and suspicious to me. The voice, maybe not the words, sounds AI generated. The more I watch the more I get mad. Lmaoooo! Cultural Touchstones.
Was his script written by a bad AI program, lol (?) 😂🧐 Even his narration sounds like some "bot." Thanks Brian for dissecting the many flaws. His whole video was basically cringeworthy. 🙄 (imo)
As a woman who reads mostly nonfiction, which is heavily dominated by male authors, I'll gladly read and review books by men. However, I like male authors who are self-aware and show respect for women in their work than men who aren't and don't.
All I feel is sympathy for this person and all they are missing out on in life and literature. And sympathy for any young person who watches and lets that video guide their reading and life choices. Its easy to be angry, but I can only imagine that opinions like this come from dark places that I personally would never want to visit. I know you said you didn't think this was AI, but I'm still very suspicious...Even if the voice isn't AI, the script sounds a bit like it was written by AI. Your responses, though. Spot on and brilliant, as always!
I disagree with the first point entirely. I don’t think that men or women necessarily bring anything distinct about their voice simply because they are men or women. Rather, authors are distinct individuals with their own experiences and observations. Great authors, in my opinion, excel at empathizing with others. Thus, they are great at creating complex, believable characters of all types. All the generalizations about the inherent differences in the male and female voice is just a load of crap. I have no idea whether publishing currently favors men or women. I agree with you that that is probably driven, in large part, by the conceptions (or misconceptions) of the publishing houses. If it worked the other way, in favor of men, as it did for most of history, I doubt you would be as complacent about it. I definitely know of examples of men who wrote romance novels under a woman’s pen name, and women who wrote mysteries or horror using a male name (or simply initials). Lastly, I’m not sure what the “zeitgeist” is exactly, but the author who has sold the most, and created the most readers in the last several decades is JK Rowling. But I presume she doesn’t count. Beyond that, I can’t say much about contemporary writers. I don’t read much that’s new, and even Harry Potter isn’t new anymore. But I’m currently reading works by Willa Cather, Anthony Trollope, Janny Wurts, and Dante Gabriel Rosetti - so a 50/50 split.
I always enjoy your comments Duffy. I think that people bring unique experiences to their writing and since men and women experience society differently those difference can be reflected in their writing. I was completely complacent during the time, only recently ended, when men dominated and controlled publishing, much to my regret. Certainly there is a long history of female writers masking their sex with make pen names.
Great response video! If he actually reads, he seems to have an issue with today's male authors writing what he sees as less gritty, he-man novels, and he is blaming that on women authors. I'm sure his devoted incel subscribers agree.
I particularly enjoyed your commentary regarding the men’s rights movement abandonment of capitalism as soon as things don’t seem to be working out in their favor. The tone and absolutism of his opinion in the video as “facts” was especially irksome.I recently listened to an interview with Taylor Swift and she said something that really resonated with me and I am sure with many women:”The most rage provoking element of being a female is the gaslighting that happens when you know for centuries we’ve been just expected to absorb male behavior silently.Silent absorption of what any guy decides to do.I have absolutely no right to respond or I am crazy.I have no right to respond or I’m angry.I have no right to respond or I am out of line.”
I have come to believe that Taylor Swift is a true genius. I'm always amazed at how little the men who support capitalism seem to understand capitalism and how quickly they will abandon it when it no longer serves them. Thanks Joni.
11 หลายเดือนก่อน
There is no mention of Gay Male literature, and transgressive books like Dennis Cooper's ' Frisk ' would I think be avoided at all cost by publishers. There is a problem for me here as I am a gay man and old enough to remember Jean Genet, James Purdy, and I could go on. All of them given bad reviews by the UK press and some books banned. Small publishers are rare now, and there is very little outlet for a richer diversity. In the UK a much ' tamer ' literature for gay men is produced.
I did not mention books by gay male authors in this video because I was focusing on the male female topic of the video I was responding to. I don't agree that there are fewer small publishers. If you are interested there is a book prize devoted to small presses called The Republic of Consciousness Prize. There is a UK and a North American version.
I respectfully disagree with you. I found the video very interesting and informative. Also if I had to bet the house on the overall better writer I would definitely go with men. I mean just like at Disney fall from grace
I’ve noticed that I read very few books written by men and find that a shame because I want diverse viewpoints. Echo doesn’t even raise this point but instead lists a bunch of harmful c@@@. Why not delve deeper into why men aren’t reading as much as other genders. Thank you for your commentary.
Agreed. A video encouraging men to read, sharing research about why they don’t, etc words of have made for much better video than that whining drivel. Thanks for your comment.
Well done response although I will admit when I walked into a retail bookstore the other day and saw the display tables and promotion shelves, I asked myself, "Don't men write books anymore?"
When it comes to capitalist interests, the other thing to consider is that one of the biggest selling genres in fiction is Romance; a women-majority (in both readers and writers) fueled literary juggernaut at $1.44 BILLION in revenue in 2022. While this is probably considered by such people as EchoChamber to be an entirely un-serious genre that men would never *deign* to participate in (funny how he doesn't mention genre self-exclusion as a factor where participation in the industry in concerned), the accountants at the publishers don't give a sh*t. It certainly answers the mystery of WHY women authors make up such a big chunk of the best-sellers. Trashy, frivolous girl-writing keeps the lights on! God, that must piss off people like him.
I imagine that it does piss him off. I hadn't considered the warping effect that the romance genre has on his statistics. I wish that I had, because it probably means that the area of publishing that he is most concerned with is probably pretty even in terms of the sex of its authors and editors. Thanks for the great comment.
You're welcome. You did a great job dissecting his arguments (though I've seen tougher tissue paper, tbh). The romance genre really is treated with a lot of distain, particularly by men, who then resent the ability of woman, as consumers, to support what they chose to with their $$$. When you take a look at the 2023 numbers from Colleen Hoover (2 books that broke 1.2 M), Rebecca Yarrows (2 books that broke 1M. Their quality was an insult to fantasy writers everywhere, but sales are sales) and Sarah J Maas (broke 900K with a book that is 9 years old), yeah, women are killing it. You can quite rightfully complain about the quality, but you can't complain about their power when it comes to bottom lines. Thing is, men can participate in this lucrative market, in fact, their gender would give them novelty to market with, but they won't because ... ewww, girls! I guess some men never outgrow playground cooties.@@BookishTexan
@@ContessaDark I am a recovering romance book hater myself. I have read a few since joining booktube and I am thinking about dedicating a month to nothing but/or primarily romance sometime this year. Do you have any recommendations?
I went through a romance phase in high school, but moved on to epic fantasy (there was no YA when I was a young reader) and never really went back, but I have found some gems as I go. I'd absolutely avoid anything Booktok recommends, unless you want to have rip-roaring rant videos (great for views). Booktok really is the cancer that has given modern Romance such a bad name. I really enjoyed "Radience" by Grace Draven. It's an indie pub that bucks a lot of the worst cliches, contrivances and melodrama associated with Romantasy. I would also recommend Tessa Dare as a historical romance author, she's quite funny and her plots tend to include murder mysteries. The Naughty Librarian is an excellent channel for more comprehensive romance recs. I think Romance through a man's POV could bring something really unique to your channel. (To that point, there's a book series called the "Bromance Bookclub" that has the main male characters trying to crack the code with the women in their lives by sneak-reading their romance books. I haven't read it, but as a concept, it could be fun.) I've subbed, so I look forward to your future bookish adventures! @@BookishTexan
Echo Chamberlain equates male authors (whatever genre) with BETTER. And better is simply what he prefers. His ideas are outdated and show a lack of knowledge of modern writing. I do appreciate the basic idea that we need male authors. We need both a male and a female take on life. I think perhaps a factor you allude to is boys doing more STEM subjects (and too many computer games 🙄) and not enough Humanities! That means a smaller likely pool of male authors. Boys don’t read as much as girls. Does this change with age? I’d like to see more statistics. Generally, males read more non fiction than fiction. Is there a mismatch here? But, basically, the guy on the video is spouting prejudice. He has generalised his own feelings into being true of all society. If he is citing Pahlaniuk and Nabokov as what we need more of, he isn’t the kind of guy I’d want to meet on a dark night! 😳
You gave this person way too much attention. It is plain obvious that he is not a well read person and probably has not read many books outside of his stereotype demands. I think what he seems to say is that he just wants the same kind of books that we already have in the same style that he knows how to read and interpret.
@@BookishTexan My hope is that people will still want to read books written by actual humans (or any art created by humans), because...there's a human on the other end, but maybe that's naive thinking.
@@squamish4244 I think some will want to but I worry that a publishing business model built on AI will be more profitable and leave less options for humans who write.
I notice he doesn’t mention non binary authors/ LGBTQI authors/ authors who remain unknown or unidentifiable. I wonder if he was given pieces of writing without knowing the author, if he would rate authors differently?
Great question. I don't think I could tell a man's writing from a woman's most of the time. I doubt he even considers non-binary or trans authors worth talking about. Which would make him and even bigger fool.
Brilliant video Brian but the original video doesn’t sound human to me, and just recycles the same Creative Commons images all the way through. Hal with an Aussie accent! As you show, the arguments are rubbish but these crying man “women are taking our jobs” moans sound similar to the insidious ones used to argue against immigration. I think you’re right about there being many more women readers - I am the only male in our local reading group and that’s a common trend.
Yeah, the more I watch it the more AI generated it seems. Which is odd because the channel also contains live streams. I agree that the crying man misandry argument is adjacent to the anti-immigrant argument in that both appear to be about jobs etc when they are really about the fear of lost cultural, social, and political authority.
I hate to spoil your admirable attempt to be punching upward rather than downward, but you accomplished that only in terms of subscribers. Intellectually this was definitely a case of Homo sapiens (italics) pile-driving Neanderthal man back down into the ash of history.
Me: listening to that guy: o.0 Yeah, sure, men have it rough in publishing. We certainly don’t see charts tipped by the likes of James Patterson, Stephen King, Branson Sanderson…what? Ah, I’m being informed that we do see male authors dominating field after field of fiction.
Brian: Surely you’re correct about Echo overstating the dire threat to the writing industry and making some highly questionable claims (men are always better at writing dystopian stories and only they “get” the zeitgeist). But to imply he has pointed out nothing of significance and that there is no culture war is not true. Allow me a brief personal account. I am one of 4 boys; my spouse (female, I guess I need to add) has two sisters and a brother. Two of my brothers never married. From the other six (plus second marriage partners) nine offspring were produced. Only ONE of these nine has reproduced (2 boys), and NONE are now married. All are educated, employed and productive citizens of the US or Canada. None are religious, and these include 6 males. I also suspect my family’s “tree” is no rare thing. This, my friend, is a cultural and societal disaster. Can you, or your mostly female chorus, explain this solely as due to capitalism and the patriarchy? Isn’t it possible that the acceptance of scapegoating all white males (that don’t bend the knee), toxic feminism, gender confusion, and the force feeding of chicken-little, catastrophic environmental theories promising immanent doom, have largely gutted most religious belief and cultural norms, and created this new age of unhappiness and despair?
That went off the rails fast. Let me show you how capitalism is to blame (at least in the US): Over the last 44 years the gap between the ultra rich and everyone else has grown due to tax cuts for the rich and and gov subsidies. This has meant the rich have increased the share of the nations wealth they own which leaves less for everyone else.They have used this wealth to buy the Republican Party so that they oppose things like a minimum wage increase, universal healthcare, free college, government supported child care, etc. all of which they call communism so you’ll go along with the government serving the rich and hurting the poor. The result is a shrinking middle class (best demonstrated by the younger generations inability to pay their student loans or afford to buy a house). The rising price of houses is further driven by corporate entities buying new build houses and driving up the prices. All of this means that it is harder for lower and middle class people to afford to have kids because they can’t afford them. How’s that?
Thanks for taking the trouble to reply. How’s that, you ask? Good, Brian. You're describing what has happened in the US, but your perceived causes are (IMHO) faulty. A broad (growing) middle class is created by rewarding innovation and productivity, choosing saving over consumption, sound money, private property, and a government that doesn’t tax (or regulate) any more than necessary to keep the peace and promote fair exchange. Those have (intrinsically) neither DEM nor GOP pedigrees. What has happened in my lifetime (the last 50+ years) is the abandonment of sound money, which has enabled our government to grow like a cancer, which, in turn, led to all the ills you mention. We (our government) over this period have created a welfare state that rewards the rich as long as they prop up Progressive policies, favors the public (state enterprises) over the private sector, and transfers its overspending (and fattens itself) by deficit finance. How else can you explain $34 TRILLION in debt and another +$100 trillion in unfunded mandates? Yeah, that fiat credit has migrated into the stock market and housing sectors, but where did you expect it to go? Oh, that’s right, a good part of it went to China to buy cheap labor and trashier goods and poisoned drugs, but don’t bring that up to Mitch or the Biden family, or Clinton and the Bushes, or Nancy. The elite (the super-rich) of all persuasions (more virtue-signaling Democrats than GOPers) have become rich from monetary inflation, while those holding fewer assets and less cash (the lower end of the working class and the poor) helplessly watch while the value of each of their scanty dollars evaporates. The rich are not hurt by inflation because they are connected (closest) to the engines that create this false, counterfeit money. They have first dibs at the slop trough. Add enough zeros to an inflated paycheck, and you can buy anything. AND they are happy to go along with the Socialist do-gooders just as long as both have access to the public purse. The corporate elite, the hedge fund managers, and global bankers do NOT practice market capitalism, but government-sanctioned crony corporatism that has incestuous feedback loops with the government that supposedly “oversees” the bankers. Orwell would label both sides of the exchange “pigs”. Will you admit, Brian, that every year our system is more controlled by statist regulations and crackpot socialists who claim we all (except non-simp white males) are victims needing reparations, and is seeing more growth in government than anywhere else, and the private sector is shrinking along with the middle class? Are we becoming more like Adam Smith’s invisible hand of a market based upon private choices dictating demand, supply, and efficient use of resources, or Tocqueville’s ideal of individualism, decentralized government, equality, and religious observance, or the Chinese Party model which you seem to prefer? @@BookishTexan
@@kevinrussell1144 Goodness that’s a whole lot of wrong for one comment. Let’s start with the easy one: Inflation doesn’t make the rich richer. Devalued money affects every dollar the same regardless of whose possession it is in. What I was referring to was not the number of dollars, but the percentage of the nations wealth. The middle class grew fasted longest with incredibly high taxes on the rich, the growth of what you would call “the welfare state”, public investment in education, expansion of civil and voting rights, the beginning of environmental regulations, and government backing of unions. All that changed with Reagan in 81. He cut regulations, slashed taxes for the rich and corporations, removed penalties on corporations that moved jobs over seas, slowed any social spending, and ran up huge debts. This pattern was repeated by both Bushes and Trump and in someways by Clinton. The result is what we have today. 24 of the last 44 years we have had Republican Presidents. There are fewer regulations on businesses and lower taxes on the rich now than there were in 1980. If Republican policies work why is the nation always more prosperous under Democrats? Those are facts. And to quote one of the pundits from your side, “facts don’t care about your feelings.”
I like you, Brian, and I like the way you run your site. I suspect you’re a good guy, and we could probably be respectful acquaintances with much in common. Our politics, however, will never mesh. You think I’m a Reagan Republican and love Little George; neither is true. I suspect that both sides of the aisle for a good while have sold out, and that most go along with the Deep State. Our government is corrupt and has been bought. However, let’s just let the last half of your peroration go (too many things to hash over), and “circle back” to inflation. Yes, when you devalue the currency, each dollar acts the same whether in Jose Rio’s tee-shirt pocket or in the sterling silver money clip of Tony Fauci. But the way inflation affects the poor is not the same as for the affluent. When you have a defined dollar (we did for 170+ years), we had stable prices (a penny would always buy you a bread roll and fifteen cents cup of coffee and a sandwich), and no one possessed ¾ of a $TRILLION. If you question this, look at money supply stats for the period 1950 to 2000, and see when our deficit went parabolic. It’s enlightening. Inflation and corruption are responsible for the widening wealth gap, not capitalism or the patriarchy. Fiat money means there is NO bottom limit to how little a unit can buy (worthless is its limit), while the elite control the means for creating money. The little guy can't do that, and doesn't own inflated stocks and bonds, either. The Fed-Banker-Government Stooge cartel creates the credit, pays the bureaucratic stooges and politicians for the help, passes the money along to fund managers to “invest”, and the debt is put on the public tab, or sold to foreigners or our own fund parasites. The sky is the limit. Ten billion, ten trillion, just add more zeros?! Inflation STEALS from the poor, and it IS a hidden, insidious, and VERY evil tax. Then the parasites vote in more stooges. You believe all goods (education, health care, guaranteed wage, free cell phones, may be even a new Cadillac?) should be provided by the state, and the rich should be taxed until it hurts to pay for it all. This means rendering ALL unto Caesar and destroying charity and virtue and promoting universal dependency (for the non-elite). Who will do the work when you put the little red hen into the cooking pot? @@BookishTexan
@@kevinrussell1144 Aaaand you devovled into a typical no true scotsman argument. "This isn't REAL capitalism!" How'd "true" capitalism from the 1920s work out for america? You guys had Donnie T running the ship for four years and nothing changed. Yeah yeah the deep state is unbeatable yadda yadda yadda gold standard. How predictable can you people be? You're old, I get it. Change is hard. It'll be okay. Trust me.
super video u did a good job tearing apart every one of this guy's arguments male writers and their writing are NOT in trouble having said that there's a lot of evidence that men in general may be for one thing longevity for white males here is declining (totally astounding) and many younger men have almost had their minds hijacked by things like online porn and video games there are a couple of good books about that now u are probably aware of but the problems men are having are generally not the fault of women or feminism⚛😀
Very true about men being in trouble in general. The decline in life expectancy in the US doesn’t seem to be waking many people up to the very real problems we have with healthcare and environmental issues. You are certainly right that feminism and women are not the source of the problem.
"37% is not that far off from 50."
That's what I told my math teachers! They disagreed for some reason.
Haha! I barely passed my math classes which probably explains my statement about percentages.
🤣
I think you nailed it in your final point that his literary knowledge is framed entirely by movies. How about we challenge the notion that movies almost entirely derive their source material from literature, rather than find their own original sources, conceived (and not just executed) within the language of film, which is utterly different from that of the printed word.
The maker does seem to be a movie person more than a book person and so it makes sense that he would base his conclusions on the impact of works of literature on the impact of their movie adaptations. Which, as you point out, are two different mediums. Using a movie to evaluate the book it is adapted from is like using a photograph to evaluate a sculpture. Btw if you get the chance to see American Fiction adapted Everett’s Erasure (not sure when or if it is or will be showing in the UK) I hope you will. Interesting choices were made and the meta nature of the ending brings a new level to the satire.
That’s such a good point and one of my bugbears with movies. If you avoid seeing movies based on books there aren’t many left to choose from! The exceptions are often wonderful though - Wings of Desire, Lives of Others, Barbie
@ianp9086 as someone who loves both films and books equally, there's actually so many original films to choose from, old and new. Your point is a tired and almost condescending one.
I recently posted a couple of things encouraging people to question the "canon" and saying that just because something was considered a "great work" that it really was... and talking about how, historically, those things were a narrow representation of writers, namely white men.
I got responses that were practically panicky, telling me that just because a writer was a white man doesn't mean they weren't great. Which I hadn't said. And telling me that I was missing out on so many great books because I refused to read white men. Which I didn't (and don't).
I have an MFA in poetics. I've read plenty of writing by men. Many of my favorite books are by men. But man, I could never read another book by a man and still have a diverse, rich, rewarding reading career. (But of course, I'm not going to do that.)
Thank you for the great comment. I had a similar experience when I suggested that reading works by people other than dead white males was a reading goal of mine -- everything from people telling me how much "great literature" I would be missing to those who thought calling these "great authors" dead white males was demeaning and offensive.
Capitalism is at play here in another way, too: the publishing world is full of jobs (from agents to editors, from cover designers to proofreaders, and even to most authors themselves) that require at least college-level education in the humanities and yet do not typically pay well. If we look at employment patterns more broadly, those kinds of jobs are often filled by women-something that happens for a variety of reasons, including structural discrimination against women which still happens in the workforce. (By structural discrimination, I’m referring to, for example, the fact that women are more likely than men to assume familial caregiving responsibilities that interrupt career advancement.)
Edited to make it clear that this is all in response to his claim early on that women dominate the publishing world. I am NOT suggesting that decision-making female editors are more likely to choose to publish female authors.
YES! I meant to make a point similar to this related to the steady shift in US education away from the humanities towards STEM which means that fewer men are getting degrees in the humanities in favor of degrees in business, tech, or engineering which means that fewer men have the education needed for careers in publishing. I can attest to the fact that even several decades ago men that I would meet in social situations were often openly dismissive of my history degree and it would have been worse if it were a Lit degree or philosophy. Most of them were engenders or in finance with degrees to match. Men have come to see the humanities as less masculine so it’s no surprise that the number of men in publishing has been declining.
@@BookishTexan And women are leaving the humanities now in droves too-leaving it apparently to AI.
Engenders, engineers?? Is this a Freudian slip, but not something worn under a dress?
I must admit that this guy (Echo) could be me in my weaker moments, but I'm mostly with you on this subject, Brian. For all the reasons you state and explore, the culture and the market are turning the book world as it is. The numbers at university, the liberation of women in the workplace (I'm not being ironic), and the sexual revolution are bigger things than I can wrap my head around. Is there a sea change at hand before the tsunami of reaction? I have no idea.
My son, who used to date but does not now (for all the reasons the culture is now talking about) will have his work cut out. He is a reader, too, reads across all genres and genders, and even (yikes) likes Taylor's music. He'll have to deal with all this (like Stein waving his hand at his incomplete collection).
I don't think this guy (Echo) is incorrect in saying that the male viewpoint is different, and I will admit (as an old guy) that I read more male authors than female, but I love women and some of my favorite authors do not, and never did, possess male "parts". I've never read Virginia Wolfe, but I'm not afraid of her, and although I've failed four or six times getting through Wuthering Heights (virtually ALL the characters are horrible), I do recognize the genius.
We need both sexes to have a true dance and for the species to continue. The struggle for dominance between x's and y's, and 1's and zeros will continue, just as it always has. We notice it more now because the front has changed a lot recently, it's quite fluid, and sometimes we have no idea which way to face the troops, or who is wearing what uniform. Men don't seem to adapt to change as quickly as women, either, nor to much like it, but isn't THAT a sexist thing to say?@@BookishTexan
AI is cultural cancer. I have made a vow on my dead mulatto great grandmother's grave (wherever it is) that I will endeavor to NEVER AGAIN listen to a TH-cam video with a voice-over robot narrator. When I listen to your (and Brian's) videos, I can see and hear you're NOT a robot. Virtually every set up other than on-screen camera, live, has the stink of the Evil One.
Get behind me, Satan.@@HannahsBooks
@@kevinrussell1144Thanks, Kevin. I admit that I rarely talk off the cuff-and in fact I often practice what I want to say-but I also promise that what I say is absolutely not AI!
I've mainly read male writers, but my favourite author is Patricia Highsmith. Also Ruth Rendell/Barbara Vine. Psychological novels are my particular thing. I'm not sure if my tastes are minority among male readers, but the spark was lit by reading The Collector by John Fowles. Interesting that both women seem to have been more highly regarded by Europeans than in the Anglosphere, evident in the number of film adaptations of their books by European directors.
I recently heard a TH-camr who does political/historical content announce that he never reads novels as it's a feminine passtime.
I’m guilty when it comes to Highsmitb and Rendell. I’ve never read either. I do intend to correct that. I’ve never read Fowles either. What I love about BookTube is that I am constantly always being reminded and suggested books and authors.
That historian sounds really insecure. Makes me wish he could have expressed that opinion to someone like Hemingway.
"When's the last time this guy read a book?" 🔥🔥🔥
Great Question!
Why does he sound like Hal from 2001 a Space Odyssey? His argument is absurd; your punch up is thoughtful.
That's where I have heard that voice! Thanks Angelea
Wow, what a crazy video! The scary thing is that this kind of thinking can easily worm its way into a young person's head. Taking a wider view, it should be pretty easy to see that it's false, but it's a rabbit hole I've seen quite a few people fall down. I thought his point on depravity was rediculous. In most of the "depraved" books I've read, it's those written by women that hit the hardest.
Exactly. This kind of video is formulated to appeal to and seem reasonable to men, particularly young men, and the point seems to make them see women as the enemy.
Makes a video about the women authors... Doesn't actually read women authors. Well argued.
Thank you Scott
Exactly as @HannahsBooks said. Speaking as a publishing alumna still active in freelance editing, I concur that editorial has long been a (college-educated) pink collar field because of the pay structure. (I was disappointed to lose out on a cool editing job out of school that was paying 13k, oy. Last century, but still.) Within publishing houses, traditionally marketing and production departments attracted more men, with marketing, at least, usually paying somewhat more. (There seems no "good" reason for that.) I do think that the same traditional socialization factors that result in women being the lion's share of readers also still contribute to the larger percentages of women in editorial roles, though probably to a declining extent.
I intended to talk about the shifting focus of education towards STEM as the areas with the best careers and the most important work (I disagree) have led more men away from the humanities and in the process created more opportunities for women in publishing. In my publishing career (😂😂) I’ve only worked with one male editor. The only man involved with my current work is in tech and marketing. So my experience is very similar to yours in that regard. Men are not more natural writers any more than they are natural engineers. It seems extra petty for men to complain about being underrepresented in a field they have somewhat abandoned.
@@BookishTexan Whingers gonna whinge.
63% (or thereabouts) That doesn’t sound bad to me. Your second point was right on (also all the rest btw). Great point on capturing the zeitgeist historically or dystopian. Yeah, I cringed when Nabokov. All in all power points well addressed. Good job, Brian.
I don’t think the voices he speaks of are “missing”. 😂
Thank you David. I didn't think 63% was bad either. Those are definitely not missing voices.
Thank you for this prompt response. Echo Chamberlain s entitled to his opinion,as long as this one is never acted upon. He seems to want to return to late 19th to early 20th century when woman had to published under a male name.
He does seem to believe things were better in the past when men had more control.
I have no words - this guy is a fossil
Haha!
I love that you have called this out. I don’t understand where people like this come from 😑
Thank you Charlie. I generally think they are people afraid of change that increases the opportunities of others.
Same!!
Great talk! I might also introduce that guy to Caroline Kepnes and Joyce Carol Oates.
Yeah. I’ve been compiling a list of non-white guy authors in my head since I made the video. Thanks for adding to that.
Brian, you have done a brilliant job of taking this ridiculous argument apart through your systematic analysis of each of the major points of the video. His point about men being discriminated against in the publishing industry and in the major literary prizes is laughable, especially when you look at the issue historically, as you have done. I think Scott @GunpowderFictionandPlot did a terrific analysis of this issue a few months back focusing specifically on the Pulitzer. Your discussion of his points about male authors being better at capturing the zeitgeist and at writing dystopian literature was first rate. Bravo, Brian! Great video. Thank you for this response.
Thank you so much for the kind words. I get really irritated by men whining about change that ends/reduces their traditional positions of power. Scott is brilliant.
@@BookishTexan I’m with you! Scott is indeed brilliant. I love his videos. I have just discovered your videos as I’ve been exploring BookTube and toying with the idea of jumping into the fray. You are pretty brilliant yourself, and you always put out really thoughtful, smart videos. Thank you!
You make the key point yourself. More women than men read books and therefore will have more books written for them and selected by those that are felt to be best placed to judge what will be of interest to them. This is SOP corporate thinking and will tend to give an homogenous result. It was ever so.
Yes exactly. I find that most of the things people think of as some sort of conspiracy are really just capitalism.
@@BookishTexanTotally agree. I think people turn many things that they don't understand into conspiracies.. Or things that they just don't want to be true
Thank you for making this excellent response video! You punched up to show his arguments didn't have a leg to stand on. The wokeness-rather-than-capitalism blindspot is frustrating, as though some current conspiracy is happening against male authors.
Thanks a lot for this one!! But I must apologize. When I read your title my first thought was “Oh brother…” Obviously, you did not answer the question the way I feared you would & of course, I should have known better! Now I’ll just say that whenever I hear a man claim that men do something better than women do, my knee-jerk reaction is “misogynist/Jordan Peterson acolyte.” 😊
I have the exact same reaction to that line and the “whiney misogynist” schtick that Peterson is a proponent of nauseates me. Thanks for the kind comment.
I appreciate you tackling this "need for male writers" topic. I would not have the patience to deal with his self-indulgent argument. I hear his argument as nothing more than being scared of seeing more women and people of color that usual. The usual number of people of color and women being one or two. "Oh my god, I think I saw four or five writers that (physical) didn't remind me of myself." Take care!
I agree absolutely with the idea that the real motivation for this video and the attitude behind it is fear. Thank you for the kind words and great comment.
Excellent video and thanks for 'punching up'!
The scary thing about the Eco Chamberlain video is that he throws 'facts' about that are very easily disproven, but will surely catch the attention of misogynistic and/or unintelligent individuals. Clearly, this guy has NO case at all!
That is the scary thing. I am afraid that his videos in general are designed to appeal to and indoctrinate the confused and the young. Thank you.
Thank you, Brian, for always doing a well informed and balanced response video. The stats are unclear and suspicious to me. The voice, maybe not the words, sounds AI generated. The more I watch the more I get mad. Lmaoooo! Cultural Touchstones.
Those stats are suspiciously specific and vague at the same time. I hadnt thought about the words being AI generated. Thanks MJ
WOW! this is shocking! what a snowflake. good on you man. im seriously floored right now hahahah
Thank you Matt.
What a bunch of bs in that video. My eyes rolled so hard they fell out. 😂😂
It was really cringy and sad.
Was his script written by a bad AI program, lol (?) 😂🧐 Even his narration sounds like some "bot."
Thanks Brian for dissecting the many flaws. His whole video was basically cringeworthy. 🙄 (imo)
Thank you. I hadn’t thought about the s riot being AI generated. That would be scary. I had thought about the bot quality of the narration.
I think it is, but well addressed
"Astonishing prose" he's so right, i am flabbergasted by his prose
Indeed!
Thank you for this level-headed, reasoned response.
Thank you.
As a woman who reads mostly nonfiction, which is heavily dominated by male authors, I'll gladly read and review books by men. However, I like male authors who are self-aware and show respect for women in their work than men who aren't and don't.
I'd like to hope that we have moved past male nonfiction writers who disrespect women, but unfortunately I'm sure that we have not.
All I feel is sympathy for this person and all they are missing out on in life and literature. And sympathy for any young person who watches and lets that video guide their reading and life choices. Its easy to be angry, but I can only imagine that opinions like this come from dark places that I personally would never want to visit. I know you said you didn't think this was AI, but I'm still very suspicious...Even if the voice isn't AI, the script sounds a bit like it was written by AI. Your responses, though. Spot on and brilliant, as always!
It never occurred to me that the script might be AI. I'm getting too old for the internet. Thanks Sarah.
@@BookishTexan LOL! You definitely are not! It doesn't really matter in the end. A human posted it. (unless I'm getting too old for the internet)
I disagree with the first point entirely. I don’t think that men or women necessarily bring anything distinct about their voice simply because they are men or women. Rather, authors are distinct individuals with their own experiences and observations. Great authors, in my opinion, excel at empathizing with others. Thus, they are great at creating complex, believable characters of all types. All the generalizations about the inherent differences in the male and female voice is just a load of crap.
I have no idea whether publishing currently favors men or women. I agree with you that that is probably driven, in large part, by the conceptions (or misconceptions) of the publishing houses. If it worked the other way, in favor of men, as it did for most of history, I doubt you would be as complacent about it. I definitely know of examples of men who wrote romance novels under a woman’s pen name, and women who wrote mysteries or horror using a male name (or simply initials).
Lastly, I’m not sure what the “zeitgeist” is exactly, but the author who has sold the most, and created the most readers in the last several decades is JK Rowling. But I presume she doesn’t count. Beyond that, I can’t say much about contemporary writers. I don’t read much that’s new, and even Harry Potter isn’t new anymore. But I’m currently reading works by Willa Cather, Anthony Trollope, Janny Wurts, and Dante Gabriel Rosetti - so a 50/50 split.
I always enjoy your comments Duffy. I think that people bring unique experiences to their writing and since men and women experience society differently those difference can be reflected in their writing.
I was completely complacent during the time, only recently ended, when men dominated and controlled publishing, much to my regret.
Certainly there is a long history of female writers masking their sex with make pen names.
Zelda is a great name for a dog! Love your channel ❤
Thank you for the kind words. Zelda is a diva so you might be able to guess where I got the idea for the name.
Ahh this is exactly how I like to experience the more toxic side of TH-cam, tiny snippets inside an excellent takedown. Thank you!
Thank you for the kind words.
Great response video! If he actually reads, he seems to have an issue with today's male authors writing what he sees as less gritty, he-man novels, and he is blaming that on women authors. I'm sure his devoted incel subscribers agree.
I got a definite "incel creep" vibe from his video as well.
I particularly enjoyed your commentary regarding the men’s rights movement abandonment of capitalism as soon as things don’t seem to be working out in their favor. The tone and absolutism of his opinion in the video as “facts” was especially irksome.I recently listened to an interview with Taylor Swift and she said something that really resonated with me and I am sure with many women:”The most rage provoking element of being a female is the gaslighting that happens when you know for centuries we’ve been just expected to absorb male behavior silently.Silent absorption of what any guy decides to do.I have absolutely no right to respond or I am crazy.I have no right to respond or I’m angry.I have no right to respond or I am out of line.”
I have come to believe that Taylor Swift is a true genius. I'm always amazed at how little the men who support capitalism seem to understand capitalism and how quickly they will abandon it when it no longer serves them. Thanks Joni.
There is no mention of Gay Male literature, and transgressive books like Dennis Cooper's ' Frisk ' would I think be avoided at all cost by publishers. There is a problem for me here as I am a gay man and old enough to remember Jean Genet, James Purdy, and I could go on. All of them given bad reviews by the UK press and some books banned. Small publishers are rare now, and there is very little outlet for a richer diversity. In the UK a much ' tamer ' literature for gay men is produced.
I did not mention books by gay male authors in this video because I was focusing on the male female topic of the video I was responding to. I don't agree that there are fewer small publishers. If you are interested there is a book prize devoted to small presses called The Republic of Consciousness Prize. There is a UK and a North American version.
I respectfully disagree with you. I found the video very interesting and informative. Also if I had to bet the house on the overall better writer I would definitely go with men. I mean just like at Disney fall from grace
Why? Why do you think men, specifically white men, are better writers?
🎉
I’ve noticed that I read very few books written by men and find that a shame because I want diverse viewpoints. Echo doesn’t even raise this point but instead lists a bunch of harmful c@@@. Why not delve deeper into why men aren’t reading as much as other genders. Thank you for your commentary.
Agreed. A video encouraging men to read, sharing research about why they don’t, etc words of have made for much better video than that whining drivel. Thanks for your comment.
The way you're half-smiling at Point No. Two 😆
and full-on laughing at Point No. Six! LOLOL
Well done response although I will admit when I walked into a retail bookstore the other day and saw the display tables and promotion shelves, I asked myself, "Don't men write books anymore?"
Thank you. I went to Barnes and Noble last week and was surprised there were as many fiction books by men on the tables as there were.
When it comes to capitalist interests, the other thing to consider is that one of the biggest selling genres in fiction is Romance; a women-majority (in both readers and writers) fueled literary juggernaut at $1.44 BILLION in revenue in 2022. While this is probably considered by such people as EchoChamber to be an entirely un-serious genre that men would never *deign* to participate in (funny how he doesn't mention genre self-exclusion as a factor where participation in the industry in concerned), the accountants at the publishers don't give a sh*t. It certainly answers the mystery of WHY women authors make up such a big chunk of the best-sellers. Trashy, frivolous girl-writing keeps the lights on!
God, that must piss off people like him.
I imagine that it does piss him off. I hadn't considered the warping effect that the romance genre has on his statistics. I wish that I had, because it probably means that the area of publishing that he is most concerned with is probably pretty even in terms of the sex of its authors and editors. Thanks for the great comment.
You're welcome. You did a great job dissecting his arguments (though I've seen tougher tissue paper, tbh). The romance genre really is treated with a lot of distain, particularly by men, who then resent the ability of woman, as consumers, to support what they chose to with their $$$. When you take a look at the 2023 numbers from Colleen Hoover (2 books that broke 1.2 M), Rebecca Yarrows (2 books that broke 1M. Their quality was an insult to fantasy writers everywhere, but sales are sales) and Sarah J Maas (broke 900K with a book that is 9 years old), yeah, women are killing it. You can quite rightfully complain about the quality, but you can't complain about their power when it comes to bottom lines. Thing is, men can participate in this lucrative market, in fact, their gender would give them novelty to market with, but they won't because ... ewww, girls! I guess some men never outgrow playground cooties.@@BookishTexan
@@ContessaDark I am a recovering romance book hater myself. I have read a few since joining booktube and I am thinking about dedicating a month to nothing but/or primarily romance sometime this year. Do you have any recommendations?
I went through a romance phase in high school, but moved on to epic fantasy (there was no YA when I was a young reader) and never really went back, but I have found some gems as I go.
I'd absolutely avoid anything Booktok recommends, unless you want to have rip-roaring rant videos (great for views). Booktok really is the cancer that has given modern Romance such a bad name.
I really enjoyed "Radience" by Grace Draven. It's an indie pub that bucks a lot of the worst cliches, contrivances and melodrama associated with Romantasy. I would also recommend Tessa Dare as a historical romance author, she's quite funny and her plots tend to include murder mysteries. The Naughty Librarian is an excellent channel for more comprehensive romance recs. I think Romance through a man's POV could bring something really unique to your channel. (To that point, there's a book series called the "Bromance Bookclub" that has the main male characters trying to crack the code with the women in their lives by sneak-reading their romance books. I haven't read it, but as a concept, it could be fun.) I've subbed, so I look forward to your future bookish adventures! @@BookishTexan
We're also missing out on a lot of other great authors if we're limiting our genders to just men and women!
Excellent point. I have read so many good books by trans and non binary authors over the last few years.
Echo Chamberlain equates male authors (whatever genre) with BETTER. And better is simply what he prefers. His ideas are outdated and show a lack of knowledge of modern writing.
I do appreciate the basic idea that we need male authors. We need both a male and a female take on life.
I think perhaps a factor you allude to is boys doing more STEM subjects (and too many computer games 🙄) and not enough Humanities! That means a smaller likely pool of male authors. Boys don’t read as much as girls. Does this change with age? I’d like to see more statistics. Generally, males read more non fiction than fiction. Is there a mismatch here?
But, basically, the guy on the video is spouting prejudice. He has generalised his own feelings into being true of all society. If he is citing Pahlaniuk and Nabokov as what we need more of, he isn’t the kind of guy I’d want to meet on a dark night! 😳
I think we agree right down the line. I do think more men return to reading as they get older, but I don’t have any stats to prove it.
You gave this person way too much attention. It is plain obvious that he is not a well read person and probably has not read many books outside of his stereotype demands. I think what he seems to say is that he just wants the same kind of books that we already have in the same style that he knows how to read and interpret.
You ma be right, but if a bad argument isn’t rebutted to some it will become fact. I don’t think the maker actually reads at all.
@@BookishTexan good point. I never know what is better ignoring or dismantling the argument.
We won't once GPT-5 comes around...
Scary, but probably accurate.
@@BookishTexan My hope is that people will still want to read books written by actual humans (or any art created by humans), because...there's a human on the other end, but maybe that's naive thinking.
@@squamish4244 I think some will want to but I worry that a publishing business model built on AI will be more profitable and leave less options for humans who write.
I notice he doesn’t mention non binary authors/ LGBTQI authors/ authors who remain unknown or unidentifiable.
I wonder if he was given pieces of writing without knowing the author, if he would rate authors differently?
Great question. I don't think I could tell a man's writing from a woman's most of the time. I doubt he even considers non-binary or trans authors worth talking about. Which would make him and even bigger fool.
Brilliant video Brian but the original video doesn’t sound human to me, and just recycles the same Creative Commons images all the way through. Hal with an Aussie accent!
As you show, the arguments are rubbish but these crying man “women are taking our jobs” moans sound similar to the insidious ones used to argue against immigration. I think you’re right about there being many more women readers - I am the only male in our local reading group and that’s a common trend.
Yeah, the more I watch it the more AI generated it seems. Which is odd because the channel also contains live streams. I agree that the crying man misandry argument is adjacent to the anti-immigrant argument in that both appear to be about jobs etc when they are really about the fear of lost cultural, social, and political authority.
The only genre I can think of where men are better than women is hard-boiled fiction, but that may be because women are less interested in the genre.
Perhaps. I’m trying to think of a hard boiled female fiction writer, but that’s not a genre I know a lot about.
Carroll John Daly pioneered the genre before Dashiell Hammett came on the scene.
@@KayAmpersand Thank you for that info.
Women can't capture the zeitgeist?!?!?!!?⚡🎉🙌🏼☄
*cough*incel examples*cough*
Haha! My thought exactly
I hate to spoil your admirable attempt to be punching upward rather than downward, but you accomplished that only in terms of subscribers. Intellectually this was definitely a case of Homo sapiens (italics) pile-driving Neanderthal man back down into the ash of history.
Ha! Thank you.
Me: listening to that guy: o.0
Yeah, sure, men have it rough in publishing. We certainly don’t see charts tipped by the likes of James Patterson, Stephen King, Branson Sanderson…what? Ah, I’m being informed that we do see male authors dominating field after field of fiction.
Thank you for making that point!! I forgot to point out the perennial best sellers that are men!
"Disappointment-bait" aka 🤮🤮🤮takes... rooting for you punching up, Brian! lol
This guy or maybe this guys AI generator were certainly good for a few rueful laughs.
Brian: Surely you’re correct about Echo overstating the dire threat to the writing industry and making some highly questionable claims (men are always better at writing dystopian stories and only they “get” the zeitgeist). But to imply he has pointed out nothing of significance and that there is no culture war is not true.
Allow me a brief personal account. I am one of 4 boys; my spouse (female, I guess I need to add) has two sisters and a brother. Two of my brothers never married. From the other six (plus second marriage partners) nine offspring were produced. Only ONE of these nine has reproduced (2 boys), and NONE are now married. All are educated, employed and productive citizens of the US or Canada. None are religious, and these include 6 males. I also suspect my family’s “tree” is no rare thing.
This, my friend, is a cultural and societal disaster. Can you, or your mostly female chorus, explain this solely as due to capitalism and the patriarchy?
Isn’t it possible that the acceptance of scapegoating all white males (that don’t bend the knee), toxic feminism, gender confusion, and the force feeding of chicken-little, catastrophic environmental theories promising immanent doom, have largely gutted most religious belief and cultural norms, and created this new age of unhappiness and despair?
That went off the rails fast.
Let me show you how capitalism is to blame (at least in the US):
Over the last 44 years the gap between the ultra rich and everyone else has grown due to tax cuts for the rich and and gov subsidies. This has meant the rich have increased the share of the nations wealth they own which leaves less for everyone else.They have used this wealth to buy the Republican Party so that they oppose things like a minimum wage increase, universal healthcare, free college, government supported child care, etc. all of which they call communism so you’ll go along with the government serving the rich and hurting the poor. The result is a shrinking middle class (best demonstrated by the younger generations inability to pay their student loans or afford to buy a house). The rising price of houses is further driven by corporate entities buying new build houses and driving up the prices. All of this means that it is harder for lower and middle class people to afford to have kids because they can’t afford them. How’s that?
Thanks for taking the trouble to reply. How’s that, you ask? Good, Brian. You're describing what has happened in the US, but your perceived causes are (IMHO) faulty.
A broad (growing) middle class is created by rewarding innovation and productivity, choosing saving over consumption, sound money, private property, and a government that doesn’t tax (or regulate) any more than necessary to keep the peace and promote fair exchange. Those have (intrinsically) neither DEM nor GOP pedigrees. What has happened in my lifetime (the last 50+ years) is the abandonment of sound money, which has enabled our government to grow like a cancer, which, in turn, led to all the ills you mention. We (our government) over this period have created a welfare state that rewards the rich as long as they prop up Progressive policies, favors the public (state enterprises) over the private sector, and transfers its overspending (and fattens itself) by deficit finance. How else can you explain $34 TRILLION in debt and another +$100 trillion in unfunded mandates? Yeah, that fiat credit has migrated into the stock market and housing sectors, but where did you expect it to go? Oh, that’s right, a good part of it went to China to buy cheap labor and trashier goods and poisoned drugs, but don’t bring that up to Mitch or the Biden family, or Clinton and the Bushes, or Nancy.
The elite (the super-rich) of all persuasions (more virtue-signaling Democrats than GOPers) have become rich from monetary inflation, while those holding fewer assets and less cash (the lower end of the working class and the poor) helplessly watch while the value of each of their scanty dollars evaporates. The rich are not hurt by inflation because they are connected (closest) to the engines that create this false, counterfeit money. They have first dibs at the slop trough. Add enough zeros to an inflated paycheck, and you can buy anything. AND they are happy to go along with the Socialist do-gooders just as long as both have access to the public purse.
The corporate elite, the hedge fund managers, and global bankers do NOT practice market capitalism, but government-sanctioned crony corporatism that has incestuous feedback loops with the government that supposedly “oversees” the bankers. Orwell would label both sides of the exchange “pigs”.
Will you admit, Brian, that every year our system is more controlled by statist regulations and crackpot socialists who claim we all (except non-simp white males) are victims needing reparations, and is seeing more growth in government than anywhere else, and the private sector is shrinking along with the middle class? Are we becoming more like Adam Smith’s invisible hand of a market based upon private choices dictating demand, supply, and efficient use of resources, or Tocqueville’s ideal of individualism, decentralized government, equality, and religious observance, or the Chinese Party model which you seem to prefer?
@@BookishTexan
@@kevinrussell1144
Goodness that’s a whole lot of wrong for one comment.
Let’s start with the easy one: Inflation doesn’t make the rich richer. Devalued money affects every dollar the same regardless of whose possession it is in. What I was referring to was not the number of dollars, but the percentage of the nations wealth.
The middle class grew fasted longest with incredibly high taxes on the rich, the growth of what you would call “the welfare state”, public investment in education, expansion of civil and voting rights, the beginning of environmental regulations, and government backing of unions. All that changed with Reagan in 81. He cut regulations, slashed taxes for the rich and corporations, removed penalties on corporations that moved jobs over seas, slowed any social spending, and ran up huge debts. This pattern was repeated by both Bushes and Trump and in someways by Clinton. The result is what we have today.
24 of the last 44 years we have had Republican Presidents. There are fewer regulations on businesses and lower taxes on the rich now than there were in 1980. If Republican policies work why is the nation always more prosperous under Democrats?
Those are facts. And to quote one of the pundits from your side, “facts don’t care about your feelings.”
I like you, Brian, and I like the way you run your site. I suspect you’re a good guy, and we could probably be respectful acquaintances with much in common. Our politics, however, will never mesh. You think I’m a Reagan Republican and love Little George; neither is true. I suspect that both sides of the aisle for a good while have sold out, and that most go along with the Deep State. Our government is corrupt and has been bought. However, let’s just let the last half of your peroration go (too many things to hash over), and “circle back” to inflation.
Yes, when you devalue the currency, each dollar acts the same whether in Jose Rio’s tee-shirt pocket or in the sterling silver money clip of Tony Fauci. But the way inflation affects the poor is not the same as for the affluent.
When you have a defined dollar (we did for 170+ years), we had stable prices (a penny would always buy you a bread roll and fifteen cents cup of coffee and a sandwich), and no one possessed ¾ of a $TRILLION. If you question this, look at money supply stats for the period 1950 to 2000, and see when our deficit went parabolic. It’s enlightening.
Inflation and corruption are responsible for the widening wealth gap, not capitalism or the patriarchy. Fiat money means there is NO bottom limit to how little a unit can buy (worthless is its limit), while the elite control the means for creating money. The little guy can't do that, and doesn't own inflated stocks and bonds, either.
The Fed-Banker-Government Stooge cartel creates the credit, pays the bureaucratic stooges and politicians for the help, passes the money along to fund managers to “invest”, and the debt is put on the public tab, or sold to foreigners or our own fund parasites. The sky is the limit. Ten billion, ten trillion, just add more zeros?!
Inflation STEALS from the poor, and it IS a hidden, insidious, and VERY evil tax.
Then the parasites vote in more stooges.
You believe all goods (education, health care, guaranteed wage, free cell phones, may be even a new Cadillac?) should be provided by the state, and the rich should be taxed until it hurts to pay for it all. This means rendering ALL unto Caesar and destroying charity and virtue and promoting universal dependency (for the non-elite).
Who will do the work when you put the little red hen into the cooking pot?
@@BookishTexan
@@kevinrussell1144 Aaaand you devovled into a typical no true scotsman argument. "This isn't REAL capitalism!" How'd "true" capitalism from the 1920s work out for america? You guys had Donnie T running the ship for four years and nothing changed. Yeah yeah the deep state is unbeatable yadda yadda yadda gold standard.
How predictable can you people be?
You're old, I get it. Change is hard. It'll be okay. Trust me.
This guy obviously has never read Iris Murdoch.
Not sure he’s ever read anything by any woman author.
super video u did a good job tearing apart every one of this guy's arguments male writers and their writing are NOT in trouble having said that there's a lot of evidence that men in general may be for one thing longevity for white males here is declining (totally astounding) and many younger men have almost had their minds hijacked by things like online porn and video games there are a couple of good books about that now u are probably aware of but the problems men are having are generally not the fault of women or feminism⚛😀
Very true about men being in trouble in general. The decline in life expectancy in the US doesn’t seem to be waking many people up to the very real problems we have with healthcare and environmental issues. You are certainly right that feminism and women are not the source of the problem.