Two cents from the person who got decided who got put on the cover and who didn't.

Five names is what we decided would reasonably fit on the cover. Who to pick...? As the publisher, I have one job and only one job. Make this book sell as many copies as possible. If we want to have an Eclipse Two, then the first one has to turn a profit. That's the business.

So I'm going to pick the five names that I think will best sell the book, and frankly, gender isn't important in that decision to me, unless I think the author's gender will help me sell copies of the book. So why did I pick the five names that I picked?

Garth Nix - sells books by the metric ton, and while YA, has been around long enough to have a lot of crossover fans
Bruce Sterling - sells lots and lots of books
Peter Beagle - sells lots and lots of books, and oh yeah, that whole Last Unicorn thing
Jeffrey Ford - multiple-award winning short story writer, his last two collections were both starred reviews, and his last novel won and Edgar and sold a ton of copies
Lucius Shepard - rabid fan following, and I publish his novels and he sells a lot of books for us, which makes be believe he will sell copies of this book

Why are some of the other authors not on the cover? I'll not name names, but some of them are not on the cover because they are not well-known outside of YA. Some of them are not on the cover because they don't sell particularly well, no matter how well they are reviewed. Some of them are not on the cover because we decided to put five names on the cover and not six.

I have read posts here that say "so-and-so is a way bigger author than so-and-so that you put on the cover, so you must be sexist" and you're going to have to trust me on this: you're probably wrong. I have access to sales data, you probably don't. I do this for a living, I own the company, and I don't have a foreign conglomerate backing us, so when I'm wrong it costs me a lot of money. If I thought putting five women on the cover would sell more copies, I'd have done it.

Bottom line, I don't have enough money in the bank to worry about agendas. I'm going to put names on the cover that I think will move the most copies of the book. Readers are pretty predictable. Put names on the cover that they recognize, they will be more likely to pick up the book. Put names on the cover that they don't recognize, and they will be less likely to pick up the book. This is fact, not speculation. If you think I'm completely wrong, toss down your $20,000 and show me the right way to do it.

Jason Williams
Night Shade Books

And yes, by the way, all the names are on the back. Because we're not completely stupid.

Jason

See this comment?

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.

This seems utterly ridiculous to me... like a petulant child stamping her foot. Perhaps you should start your own press?

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.

Deleted Comment Expand

Re: The real answer by mroctober Expand

Re: The real answer by jamiam Expand

Re: The real answer by jamiam Expand

Re: The real answer by ktempest Expand

Re: The real answer by mroctober Expand

Re: The real answer by ktempest Expand

Re: The real answer by mroctober Expand

Re: The real answer by la_luna_llena Expand

Re: The real answer by jamiam Expand

Re: The real answer by Anonymous Expand

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.

Re: The real answer by jamiam Expand

Re: The real answer by seajules Expand

Re: The real answer by jamiam Expand

Re: The real answer by seajules Expand

Re: The real answer by jamiam Expand

Re: The real answer by seajules Expand

It's like the "genderblindness" that always resulted by bellatrys Expand

Re: It's like the "genderblindness" that always resulted by seajules Expand

I have read posts here that say "so-and-so is a way bigger author than so-and-so that you put on the cover, so you must be sexist"

I think most of the respondents here have been pretty understanding of the marketing decision that led to the selection of the five names - the point was made several times before you commented. Even those commenters who are critical of the decision not to list any women on the front cover don't ascribe it to sexism (although some of them have made the argument that you're ascribing sexism to your readers).

And of course, the five you've chosen also were five of the top six scorers in the poll (the sixth was Gwyneth Jones) so it's not like the readers of this thread disagree with your choice of who will sell books per se. But it is pretty depressing that the inclusion of women's names wouldn't help market the book (I suspect there is exactly one female writer in the world whose name you'd have put on that cover if you had a story by her), no matter how strong the stories are likely to be. It's even pretty depressing that when considering marketing an anthology, it doesn't occur to publishers that having a diverse lineup of authors might help. Possibly because it *wouldn't* help.

It does look like a really strong and interesting anthology!

which author, as I can think of a load of really high selling and well received female authours who would be good cover names.

Just not that many on the list to begin with

J

I suspect there is exactly one female writer in the world whose name you'd have put on that cover if you had a story by her

Out of interest -- who? I can imagine Connie Willis and Ursula Le Guin making the cover. I'd be surprised if Kelly Link didn't, if she had a story in the book. For instance.

Re: The real answer by despotliz Expand

Re: The real answer by coalescent Expand

Re: The real answer by bohemiancoast Expand

Re: The real answer by despotliz Expand

Re: The real answer by pigeonhed Expand

Re: The real answer by coalescent Expand

Re: The real answer by pigeonhed Expand

Re: The real answer by jonquil Expand

This has got to be the MOST retarded conversation ever. The publisher has the right to put whoever he likes on the front cover. I mean, seriously, folks, this is ridiculous. Basically, what Jason did is be *gender-blind* and do the best thing for the antho. And now he's getting slammed for that, even though the *content* has plenty of women in it. I just think this is the biggest bunch of garbage as a discussion that I've ever seen. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves for this kind of false righteousness. Go do something creative instead of engaging this kind of retarded faux-feminist discussion.

JeffV

Everyone in the comments, of course, is vigorously advocating against the publisher's right to put whoever he likes on the cover. They could not possibly be pointing out that "gender-blindness" seems to invariably result in women being excluded.

Go do something creative instead of engaging this kind of retarded faux-feminist discussion.

Oooh, a game of bingo! In the comments to this subthread alone, I think I've got G1, O1, B4, and I4.

Re: The real answer by rosefox Expand

Trouble is Jeff that I don't believe what Jason did is automatically the best thing for the anthology. As stated elsewhere, each of those names individually will generate potential readers. Good. The next question, the one that hasn't been answered, is will the effect of an all male list on the cover alienate potential readers and does the gain outweigh the loss sufficiently?

Re: The real answer by 14theditch Expand

Re: The real answer by buymeaclue Expand

Re: The real answer by buymeaclue Expand

Re: The real answer by coalescent Expand

Re: The real answer by buymeaclue Expand

Re: The real answer by cofax7 Expand

Re: The real answer by squirrel_monkey Expand

what Jason did is be *gender-blind* and do the best thing for the antho

Be less blind. Blindness is a disability, not a point of pride.

It's 2007; Joanna Russ wrote "How to Suppress Women's Writing" over thirty years ago, and we're still having this argument?

Re: The real answer by jamiam Expand

Re: The real answer by jamiam Expand

*giggles* he's so cute when he gets hysterical and stamps his tiny foot.

Okay, I swear that is the last snarky and not useful comment I will make on this post.

Newsflash: I don't know what world you live in, but in the real world, you don't get to decide what constitutes a "real" feminist discussion.

Yeh, get back in the kitchen in front of the word processor and fix me a sammich write me a story.

Re: The real answer by cucumberseed Expand

Dearest Jason whom I adore,

Let us put aside talk about 'agendas' and 'sexism' and other such dirtiness. It doesn't suit. I sense that you've entered knee-jerk-defense mode, which does no one any good, including yourself. And because I do adore you, I shall ignore your knee-jerk-defensiveness.

Most folks realize that publishing is a business and that putting the name of big-selling authors on the front of the book will increase sales of said book. We also understand that the sales of individual authors are not dictated by you, thus you're not responsible for that. So if, of all the authors included, the top five biggest-selling ones are all male, that's not your fault. It's publishing at large, or society, or voodoo, or whatever. But not you.

And it's horrible (I'll reiterate: HORRIBLE) for people to try and foist an agenda on you. Nightshade is a small, independent press and you can't bother yourself with the ills of society (sexism, bias, oppression, etc.) because you've got to sell books in order to stay afloat. If men are the ones who will sell this book, it's not because YOU yourself hate women. And really, it's a small minority of people who even care about this sort of thing. Most people take the exclusion of women in such situations in stride because they're not worried about feminism! They just want to read a book, right?

Plus, this is just one book. The cover of one book doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, just for this one book. It should be considered in a vacuum.

Now here's the problem with all of that.

The exclusion/silencing of women, perceived or real, is not an agenda. It's not some PC thought experiment and something for wily feminists to get upset about just because they need to feel upset about something today. You act as if the (very deserved) annoyance with YET ANOTHER anthology with only male names on the front is stupid. Yet you say you're concerned with sales of the book. You don't feel that the number of people who might (1) notice that none of the female authors are listed on the front and (2) be pissed about that and not buy the book are a significant number? perhaps you feel that though many people may notice they will choose to pick up the book anyway because they love the authors inside or look on the back, see that there are females, and decide to go ahead and purchase. or perhaps, and this is what I think may be true (and only you can say) you didn't think about the issue AT ALL and only after noticing this conversation even realized what you did.

It's one thing to unconsciously engage in biased behavior. We all do it. I won't blame you for not giving the exclusion of female authors on the front one iota of thought at first because, well, you're a man, and it's wrong to blame someone for their God-given deficiencies. However, once the exclusion was pointed out, you cannot escape thinking deeply about it just because you want to sell some books. After some *actual* thought you may still decide that you made the right decision. But when you make comments like the one above, you don't sound like someone engaging in actual thought, you sound like someone who knows he hasn't been particularly clueful being defensive about his own drawbacks.

I can't blame you for that, either, since it's a natural reaction.

(con't)

So here's my thoughts, for what they are worth. First, step away from the crazy pills for a bit. These first two comments show that you're not exactly seeing this conversation objectively. (Then again, much may have changed since last night.) Second, I really think you need to consider the larger issues of gender, power, silencing, etc. that have been brought up here. As I said, you may still feel that those five names were the best to put on the cover and that's fine. But you and Nightshade cannot continue to just claim capitalism as a reason for being ignorant of these issues. I don't know for sure that you were/are ignorant of them, but your comment leads me to believe you are. Actively thinking on these issues will open up a whole new layer of awesomeness for you. What that leads to, I cannot say. It'll probably lead to less knee-jerk-defensiveness. It may lead you to not make this kind of mistake again and type such sentences as "I don't have enough money in the bank to worry about agendas." thus dismissing the very real and very negative effects that gender bias has on women as just another thing to complain about.

Wicked smaht.

WORD