and to be even more blunt, I'm often inclined not to buy anthologies that don't have at least one female author's name on the cover, even if the contents are 50/50 or slanted toward more female contributors. I don't care what a market's excuse is, the end result pisses me off regardless.
Right. If you can't even remember to include a token women on the cover? Then you've managed to piss me off before I've even taken the book off the shelf to look at the back cover.
It's up to you to decide if there are enough of me out there that humoring me instead actively angering me will offset the loss of all those [insert name of male author] fans, of course.
ps. saying "whoops, we screwed up"? Would go over a lot better than angry defensiveness.
But why should a woman be a token? Surely the authors involved would rather be on the cover because of their own merits rather than 'shit, we need to put a bird on the cover to get women readers'?
I guess it depends on whether or not the authors involved believe that the merits of an entire group of writers are being systematically overlooked (by publishers, in this case; editors and readers in others) because of unconscious biases and/or a long-standing cultural perception that SF is by men, for men. For example.
But this isn't actually about the authors' reaction to the cover: since this is purely a marketing consideration, the only reaction that matters is the readers'.
Right. If you can't even remember to include a token women on the cover? Then you've managed to piss me off before I've even taken the book off the shelf to look at the back cover.
First, I didn't "forget" to put a woman on the cover. I didn't think about it one way or the other. I looked at the list of names, and decided which five would most likely aid in getting people to pick up the book and look at it. In this particular lineup, it worked out how it worked out. Had the lineup been different, it probably would have worked out differently. Are there women who I would put on the cover? In a second. Would some of the women from this book made the cover, if the TOC had worked out a little differently? Sure. But it didn't.
As for pissing you off... well, you can't please all the people all the time.
It's up to you to decide if there are enough of me out there that humoring me instead actively angering me will offset the loss of all those [insert name of male author] fans, of course.
I believe I've already made that decision, haven't I?
ps. saying "whoops, we screwed up"? Would go over a lot better than angry defensiveness.
If I thought I'd screwed up, you'd know, because I would have said so and fixed it.
What I've seen here is a handful of angry voices screaming over injustices of the world. Ok, fine. However, I have a business to run. It's not my job to change the marketplace. I've thrown away more money than I can count by ignoring the marketplace, and it doesn't pay off. And a handful of people on a website or an LJ does not constitute a good reason to ignore solid and proven business practices. If you don't like the fact that anthologies sell best when they have big names in them, and they sell better when the big names are on the front, then do something about it. But those fingers need to be pointed at the members of the marketplace, not at me.
Well, you managed to avoid the words "shrill" and "hysterical" in your last paragraph, but I'd suggest avoiding the dismissiveness next time, as well. Then I might be more convinced of your sincerity.
I didn't demand the publisher change it. I stated some of my book-buying criteria. Hardly "a petulant child stamping (my) foot," though I realize acknowledging the legitimacy of my selection process would have lessened whatever impact you were going for.
And I don't need to start my own press, because, you see, there are actually publishers out there who acknowledge me as a reader with disposable income, and thus worth marketing to. Shocking, I know.
Though I do know quite a few people who would be bothered by that.
But regardless of whether or not you are bothered by a lack of inclusion of your particular minority group, apparently there are quite a lot of people out there who ARE bothered by this particular exclusion. And we can argue all day about whether or not they should be upset about it--the point is, they ARE upset. And I can pretty much guarantee that they will continue to be upset about it the future, and that they will actually in increase in their representative fraction.
The job of the publisher selling a book is not to say: you female SF readers shouldn't be upset! The job of a publisher is to decide whether or not the existence of a large number of angry female SF readers actually impacts their sales.
Oh so YOU'RE not bothered by it, then? PHEW! I was about to be kind of annoyed. but now that this man has come along to tell me what doesn't bother him, I can go back to caring about shoes and hair.
women represent 50% of the population. homosexuals, maybe 10$ if we're lucky. this doesn't just represent overlooking the one homo that turned up in a lottery; it represents overlooking 50% of the population. and it represents the ways we've been overlooked numerous times.
yes, queers get kicked in the ass too. but if you looked at the odds represented here, a gay man might end up on the cover; a lesbian wouldn't.
Well, it was 2am my time, and I was totally stamping my foot. Because I started noticing people not including women on covers decades ago, started participating in discussions pointing it out and suggesting ways to fix it years ago, and yet here's another editor/publisher combo claiming not to care that so many people think it's a problem. Foot stamping! Do you see what they've turned me into? I didn't used to be this angry all the time!
Anyway. The real point is: these days, not including women on the cover doesn't just fail to attract a certain segment of SF readers--it actively alienates them. Maybe even causing them to throw borderline-hysterical, childish mini-tantrums in bookstores, yes indeed.
It's still a marketing decision, absolutely--are we only talking about female SF readers? How many of them are there, honestly? How many of them haven't yet learned to count? How many of them have learned to count, but will still be too enticed by "Peter S. Beagle" to just walk past the shelf without picking up the book?
But constantly infuriating a segment of the population isn't quite the same thing as simply not attracting them.
How are you using "token" here? Because I hardly think it's token in a dismissive sense to put a name on the cover that represents fifty percent of the content.
Well, I was thinking of "token" in the sense of: "it's still ridiculous to think that one name to represent 50% of the population is somehow adequate. But they didn't even manage that..."
And while there probably are better (and ultimately more-productive) ways to explain to publishers/editors how "gender blindness" inevitably leads to "gender inequality," other people are doing that work down-thread. Your point still stands: it makes you angry. It makes me angry, too. And that is a marketing consideration--which Mr. Williams has said he will ignore. Which doesn't precisely do anything to assuage my annoyance.
Frankly, I think the anger such "blindness" engenders is de-emphasized too often. Particularly in a case like this, because my mood and my feelings about the publisher do influence my book-buying, and these are legitimate factors in said book-buying. We're not talking textbooks, we're talking leisure reading. How I feel about it is kind of the point.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 07:32 am (UTC)and to be even more blunt, I'm often inclined not to buy anthologies that don't have at least one female author's name on the cover, even if the contents are 50/50 or slanted toward more female contributors. I don't care what a market's excuse is, the end result pisses me off regardless.
Right. If you can't even remember to include a token women on the cover? Then you've managed to piss me off before I've even taken the book off the shelf to look at the back cover.
It's up to you to decide if there are enough of me out there that humoring me instead actively angering me will offset the loss of all those [insert name of male author] fans, of course.
ps. saying "whoops, we screwed up"? Would go over a lot better than angry defensiveness.
Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 07:46 am (UTC)Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 03:50 pm (UTC)But this isn't actually about the authors' reaction to the cover: since this is purely a marketing consideration, the only reaction that matters is the readers'.
Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 09:58 am (UTC)First, I didn't "forget" to put a woman on the cover. I didn't think about it one way or the other. I looked at the list of names, and decided which five would most likely aid in getting people to pick up the book and look at it. In this particular lineup, it worked out how it worked out. Had the lineup been different, it probably would have worked out differently. Are there women who I would put on the cover? In a second. Would some of the women from this book made the cover, if the TOC had worked out a little differently? Sure. But it didn't.
As for pissing you off... well, you can't please all the people all the time.
It's up to you to decide if there are enough of me out there that humoring me instead actively angering me will offset the loss of all those [insert name of male author] fans, of course.
I believe I've already made that decision, haven't I?
ps. saying "whoops, we screwed up"? Would go over a lot better than angry defensiveness.
If I thought I'd screwed up, you'd know, because I would have said so and fixed it.
What I've seen here is a handful of angry voices screaming over injustices of the world. Ok, fine. However, I have a business to run. It's not my job to change the marketplace. I've thrown away more money than I can count by ignoring the marketplace, and it doesn't pay off. And a handful of people on a website or an LJ does not constitute a good reason to ignore solid and proven business practices. If you don't like the fact that anthologies sell best when they have big names in them, and they sell better when the big names are on the front, then do something about it. But those fingers need to be pointed at the members of the marketplace, not at me.
Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 02:49 pm (UTC)Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 01:06 pm (UTC)Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 02:59 pm (UTC)And I don't need to start my own press, because, you see, there are actually publishers out there who acknowledge me as a reader with disposable income, and thus worth marketing to. Shocking, I know.
Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 03:29 pm (UTC)I'm less interested in the gender, ethnicity or orientation of author when I'm reading. Of character, sure, of situation and themes, yes.
Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 03:33 pm (UTC)Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 03:59 pm (UTC)But regardless of whether or not you are bothered by a lack of inclusion of your particular minority group, apparently there are quite a lot of people out there who ARE bothered by this particular exclusion. And we can argue all day about whether or not they should be upset about it--the point is, they ARE upset. And I can pretty much guarantee that they will continue to be upset about it the future, and that they will actually in increase in their representative fraction.
The job of the publisher selling a book is not to say: you female SF readers shouldn't be upset! The job of a publisher is to decide whether or not the existence of a large number of angry female SF readers actually impacts their sales.
Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 05:02 pm (UTC)Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 05:30 pm (UTC)Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 05:45 pm (UTC)Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 05:47 pm (UTC)Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-09-01 04:24 am (UTC)women represent 50% of the population. homosexuals, maybe 10$ if we're lucky. this doesn't just represent overlooking the one homo that turned up in a lottery; it represents overlooking 50% of the population. and it represents the ways we've been overlooked numerous times.
yes, queers get kicked in the ass too. but if you looked at the odds represented here, a gay man might end up on the cover; a lesbian wouldn't.
Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 03:31 pm (UTC)Anyway. The real point is: these days, not including women on the cover doesn't just fail to attract a certain segment of SF readers--it actively alienates them. Maybe even causing them to throw borderline-hysterical, childish mini-tantrums in bookstores, yes indeed.
It's still a marketing decision, absolutely--are we only talking about female SF readers? How many of them are there, honestly? How many of them haven't yet learned to count? How many of them have learned to count, but will still be too enticed by "Peter S. Beagle" to just walk past the shelf without picking up the book?
But constantly infuriating a segment of the population isn't quite the same thing as simply not attracting them.
Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-31 03:33 am (UTC)This is excellently stated, and should be printed on small cards and handed out as needed.
Better print a lot of them, unfortunately.
Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 02:45 pm (UTC)Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 03:37 pm (UTC)Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 03:55 pm (UTC)Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 04:08 pm (UTC)Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 04:43 pm (UTC)Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 04:59 pm (UTC)And while there probably are better (and ultimately more-productive) ways to explain to publishers/editors how "gender blindness" inevitably leads to "gender inequality," other people are doing that work down-thread. Your point still stands: it makes you angry. It makes me angry, too. And that is a marketing consideration--which Mr. Williams has said he will ignore. Which doesn't precisely do anything to assuage my annoyance.
So here we are, back at the beginning.
Re: The real answer
Date: 2007-08-30 06:38 pm (UTC)It's like the "genderblindness" that always resulted
From:Re: It's like the "genderblindness" that always resulted
From: