In an article for The Guardian, Brian Schofield, one of the all-male shortlist nominated for the John Llewellyn Rhys Prize this year, asks whether the literary world gives young female writers a raw deal. His evidence is said shortlist and the men-only Guardian First Book Prize shortlist. He suggests several reasons for the lack of women: first, that publishing houses only nominate men for the most prestigious prizes. But as he points out, publishers will nominate anyone who has the remotest chance of winning, regardless of sex or merit. Next up — the judges. Are they inherently sexist? Not possible – they were mostly women. “…it’s surely a testament to how very seriously the judges took their responsibility that they didn’t hastily re-shuffle the pack when they spotted the chromosome imbalance of their final selections.” He prefers to lay the blame at the door of the entire industry: all those editors who look for “serious-minded bookish” male offerings while pushing women towards misery memoirs and chicklit; the agents who pander to them; the reviewers who look for Mailer-esque greatness only among young men.

Hmmm. Leaving aside the question of whether any young women actually deserved shortlisting this year (having spent much of it in the jungle I’m not qualified to comment), I’m not sure I’m with you, Brian. Since when did women not discriminate against women? I know a couple of female editors who much prefer to commission men, fearing that women appeal only to their sisters while men write for a broader audience. In practice, this means that if a woman wants to write a critical article about prostitution it’s boring; if a man produces a piece on Moscow lap-dancers it’s erudite, urbane and witty. Couldn’t that angst extend to judges? Answers on a postcard, please.