Should we despair?

Ask Alice is an online column written by our former Secretary, Dr Alice Boer-Endacott, who has published several young adult fantasy novels and a non-fiction mini, under ‘A B Endacott’.

Ask Alice is designed to unpack all aspects of the Australian young adult literary scene, so if you’ve got a question, go ahead and Ask Alice!

Full disclosure: the June Ask Alice was going to be about something totally different, but my ‘do it at the last minute’ approach which has – shockingly – never failed, has finally come home to roost.

Instead, I thought I’d do something a bit different, and write what is in essence an op ed, which has now turned into a three part series on account of how long winded I am.
This was inspired by a somewhat heinous personal and professional (a double whammy!) last week, in the broader context of feeling as though the world might be slipping into something straight from a dystopian YA text.

Narrowing this down to a publishing and YA context, there are few things that make me want to crawl under a blanket and refuse to emerge:

• A seeming diversity backslide diversity within major publishing houses
• The increased efforts to censor books which don’t adhere to a deeply repressive and regressive worldview
• A decline in literacy skills among young people, as well as a decline in recreational reading

I think of these as the three horsemen of the literary apocalypse. Each on their own is enough to make me reach for an entire chocolate cake and start eating it using nothing but my bare hands. But is my first impulse the one that should drive my actions?

So part one of Alice’s three part examination of the three horsemen of the literary apocalypse: Should we despair over the seeming lack of diversity in publishing houses?

Publishers decide which authors are published, what stories are published, how those stories are told, and which stories are set up to succeed through the allocation of resources for polishing and promotion of the final product.

For many years, there was resistance to platforming books from diverse authors (think neurodivergent, authors of colour, LGBTQIA+ authors) with characters featuring narratives that were informed by the lived experience of those authors. The argument? Such stories weren’t commercially viable (as discussed here).

This is patently untrue, and we have started to see an uptick in books written by and featuring individuals who were not simply straight, white, neurotypical, and rich (this last factor is often left out, but is important, as the people who have the time and capability to write books, as well as the willingness to enter the publishing arena often benefit from the structural privilege brought by relative wealth). Indeed, as this article notes within an American context: “Published works of fiction by nonwhite authors more than doubled from 2019 to 2023.” This increase holds true for an Australian context, too.

However, who is being published has led to further discussion about the process by which such books come to be, and a realisation that even if a publisher’s author list wasn’t completely white, the workforce within that publishing house often was. Even though many straight, white people who work in publishing are deeply passionate about spotlighting authors from marginalised backgrounds, without people from those backgrounds within the production process, stories still risk being (literally) whitewashed because of a lack of lived understanding and diverse experience contributing to discussions on every part of the book’s production process, from editing, to cover design, to marketing.

Diversity within the back-end of publishing is also less taxing on those authors, too. Indigenous authors have spoken about how much easier they find working with an Indigenous editor because they don’t have to continuously undertake the labour of ‘cultural translation.’ While such books are often edited with an understanding that a non-Indigenous readership may need certain aspects to it explained or unpacked, having an editor who inherently understands the cultural context in which the story is taking place removes the burden from that author to explain – and fight for – those parts of the story.

However, things seems to have stalled here. At an executive level, while people like Lisa Lucas, were hired by Penguin Random House after the 2020 outcry about a lack of Black representation in publishing, in the intervening years “Lucas and other prominent Black women in publishing have lost their jobs [Lucas was abruptly, and without satisfying explanation, fired in 2024], or quit the business entirely.” In an Australian context, the 2022 Australian Publishing Industry Workforce Survey on Diversity and Inclusion revealed “fewer than 1% of Australian publishing professionals are First Nations and only 8.5% have an Asian cultural identity” with seemingly no statistically significant number of respondents from African or Middle-Eastern identities (see pages 10-11 of the report).

Moreover, there is concern, especially given the current political climate in the US, that publishing trends which have seen an increase in diversity may well reverse, as has historically happened (for example, an increase in published Black authors following the success of writers such as Toni Morrison in the 1980s which then dropped back down).

This comes in tandem with the decision of several major publishers to launch conservative imprints. One example is Hachette announcing in November 2024 it was launching Basic Liberty. Many take the creation of such imprints as a tacit endorsement from the most senior ranks of major publishers toward radical right-wing views such as the removal of abortion rights, the cancelling of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion program, and an attack on science and medicine, manifesting most prominently in efforts to abolish vaccine regimes.

Honestly, I don’t fully disagree with concerns about what the creation of such imprints signal, especially as, across my research, I found this (very dense but very interesting) article which outlines: “ ‘conservative’, ‘green’, ‘social democrat’ and similar ideological families tend to relate most directly to partisan or factional sectional groupings of politicians, voters or activists aiming to take directive control of these arrangements and authorities” which narrow the focus to activities “predominantly associated with social administration or coordination, and social coercion or repression.”

In other words, anything which labels itself as conservative signals that it inherently advocates particular outcomes and worldviews such as those listed above, rather than speaking to a set of principles which govern how we might try to navigate the world and – importantly – engage with different views and experiences to negotiate the best way forward for everybody.

So, on the basis of the above: a sense of insufficient diversity within the publishing landscape without meaningful efforts for change, amid major publishers essentially platforming what can only be described as a vile worldview, should we despair?

Well, yes and no.

Let’s start with the conservative imprints. I’d rather set my hard-earned money on fire than buy a book written by the likes of J.D Vance. However, as I’ve previously noted, refusing to publish work from people from a certain political worldview, or seeking to curtail the expression or content of that work, is itself a form of book ban – something which I’m wary of in any form.

Not publishing these perspectives doesn’t make them, or their popularity, go away. To me, though, the most troubling thing is that creating a distinct imprint for them means these books segmented away from titles with opposing viewpoints or worldviews, which risks entrenching political divides. While I do appreciate that imprints can be highly specialised up to and including particular political leanings, I do worry that it keeps the each audience only ever exposed to one kind of texts, reinforcing one worldview rather than inviting robust debate, challenge, and consideration of other ways of thinking; things we know lead to a more healthy society.

However, a large publishing house still means these kinds of titles might be less ‘underground,’ which has some benefit. Eric Nelson, the vice president and executive editor of Broadside Books, an imprint of HarperCollins, makes the reasonable point: “blocking ideas out of the mainstream doesn’t reduce what ideas are acceptable to the American public. It probably actually grows them. It encourages more conspiracy theories” (if you’re old enough to remember the Obama years, there was definitely a sense that his Presidency meant racism in America was in decline…no, it was definitely still there, and it arguably fermented into what we are all enjoying today). Something else Nelson points out is that larger publishers have greater rigour in their fact-checking and overall ‘quality control’ of the texts.

I’m hardly going to be saying that publishers are trying to advance public interest through these imprints. After all, let’s also remember that publishing houses are themselves deeply conservative institutions, being commercial entities whose primary focus is profit, mostly founded by old, white, rich men. Although major publishing houses have put groundbreaking and thought-provoking books into the world, the primary driver for these institutions (and their largely white, male senior leadership) is to generate enough money to keep going, and to keep growing.

However, I do think that it’s not all bad that these imprints exist. It at least ensures a base level of quality control which means nonsense won’t be printed, like claims the 2020 election was stolen, that vaccines cause autism, or that an international paedophile ring was operating out of a Washington D.C pizza hut (I mean, for god’s sake…). Moreover, it at least puts differing political views alongside one another, rather than in completely different pools. The total bifurcation of political ideologies terrifies me more than seeing a Hachette imprint publish something by Kellyanne Conway.

So let’s say half despair.

Ok, then. What about the diversity behind the scenes, and in terms of what’s being published?

In an Australian context, a 2022 study determined that only 1% of texts published in Australia were written by First Nations authors, and only 7% were written by people of colour. This figure improved a little in children’s literature, where authors of colour wrote 11% of texts.

Obviously, this survey is a few years old, and it comes with an acknowledgement that this is an improvement from several years earlier. This sense of change with respect to what’s on the page is echoed by a 10 year retrospective of We Need Diverse Books. Change is happening.

In terms of books published within Australia, although there’s room for improvement, especially in the YA space, we have books published by First Nations authors, Asian-Australian authors, and featuring LGBTQIA+ characters and storylines, as well as depictions of mental health and neurodivergence. I realise I operate in a sphere where diverse texts are highlighted, meaning it might seem like there are a larger number of such books being published than is actually the case. Moreover, there’s always the fear that we as an industry might rest on our laurels, pointing to established authors whose titles fit into these categories, rather than looking for and seeking to actively champion up-and-coming authors from diverse backgrounds. Indeed, the most popular books read by teens, and discussed on social media remain those those written by white, straight authors (Ali Hazlewood and Colleen Hoover, to name two).

However, that doesn’t mitigate the increasing diversity on our bookshelves. So while there’s room for improvement, the fact that we have this discussion is encouraging, and the fact that great titles by diverse authors are out there is also encouraging.

So, we finally turn to diversity within publishing houses. Well, I despair a little here. I’d love for there to be another Australian Publishing Industry Workforce Survey on Diversity and Inclusion so we can get a sense of how the needle might have moved (or not). Realistically, because people don’t see how the sausage gets made, it’s actually really hard to draw the kind of attention and scrutiny that compels systemic change in either Australia or America.

So: Should we despair about the state of the publishing industry itself?

No…But I don’t think we should celebrate it, either.

And, honestly, with the week I’ve had, we can view this as an optimistic take.

Stay tuned for next month’s focus on the second horseman: book bans (fun!).