It's been interesting to see the reaction to K T Bradford's piece on not reading white, cis, male authors for a year. I don't think I could do that (given most of my PhD guys are all white, cis and male) but I like John Scalzi's approach to it.
It did get me thinking almost immediately of the list. While this is not the most scientific and indepth analysis of the authors on this list, this is roughly how it breaks down:
Not exactly diverse (one of the ambiguous was just because I couldn't find out in 5 minutes if they were married or not). Anyway, that is super depressing. However, perhaps that highlights why so many of the books I've read from the list have been so incredibly sexist. You could read this whole book again looking for people of colour of people who are gay and it would be a lot worse. There would be maybe 1 or 2 that passed that sort of test.
It could be difficult - given that I like history, science fiction and comics - but perhaps when wandering Foyles with nothing in particular in mind - instead of going for the ol' fallback, I try and find something a bit different. We'll see how I do. I'm guessing not brilliantly, I am a bit lazy at researching this sort of thing. Reading is for fun, not to make a chore, though you may have not got that impression from my determination with the list...