Here's another question that I put to you and your great publishing wisdom:
Is the number of women that might be put off by an all male cover made up for by the people who will recognize the authors. Because it seems to me that if you substituted one of the names, you still - playing the odds (unless I'm wrong, and I very well could be) - could count on people recognizing the other four.
Especially if, as you say, Garth Nix all by himself is bigger than the other four combined?
The fact is that Nightshade is a small company and does not have co-op monies to toss around to get the anthology god placement in a large chain. They are therefore relegated to using the only tool they have - the cover - to grab the attention of as wide an audience as possible within a brief - usually less than two-second - perusal.
Well, I think that's sort of everyone's point.A lot of people are saying "hey, this *cover* bothered me." They're not arguing against the contents. I've heard no one say that they think this anthology is bad, or that the content within isn't equitable. But they're saying that the cover, the major selling point, is off putting to their sensibilities.
I guess the thing is, we're saying that "not having women will hurt your sales" and they're saying "not having the biggest names will hurt our sales" and we're wondering why one risk seems so minisicule to them in comparison to the other.
It is a trade off, I recognize that. You put a woman up there, you knock off a better known name. You put all the big hitters, you piss people off.
But how many people would that one name have drawn, versus making the entire cover more palatable?
I know that given both the art work and the all male list on the front, my first assumption about the book was, "This thing's gonna be a well dry snooze fest". Upon reading the ToC and seeing female authors, I thought, "Hmm, probably would be a good anthology, but I just can't bring myself to pick it up".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 09:56 pm (UTC)Is the number of women that might be put off by an all male cover made up for by the people who will recognize the authors. Because it seems to me that if you substituted one of the names, you still - playing the odds (unless I'm wrong, and I very well could be) - could count on people recognizing the other four.
Especially if, as you say, Garth Nix all by himself is bigger than the other four combined?
The fact is that Nightshade is a small company and does not have co-op monies to toss around to get the anthology god placement in a large chain. They are therefore relegated to using the only tool they have - the cover - to grab the attention of as wide an audience as possible within a brief - usually less than two-second - perusal.
Well, I think that's sort of everyone's point.A lot of people are saying "hey, this *cover* bothered me." They're not arguing against the contents. I've heard no one say that they think this anthology is bad, or that the content within isn't equitable. But they're saying that the cover, the major selling point, is off putting to their sensibilities.
I guess the thing is, we're saying that "not having women will hurt your sales" and they're saying "not having the biggest names will hurt our sales" and we're wondering why one risk seems so minisicule to them in comparison to the other.
It is a trade off, I recognize that. You put a woman up there, you knock off a better known name. You put all the big hitters, you piss people off.
But how many people would that one name have drawn, versus making the entire cover more palatable?
I know that given both the art work and the all male list on the front, my first assumption about the book was, "This thing's gonna be a well dry snooze fest". Upon reading the ToC and seeing female authors, I thought, "Hmm, probably would be a good anthology, but I just can't bring myself to pick it up".