Publishers, Market Forces, and Feminism

[leahbobet]

(Okay, we're pulling out the Alan Moore icon again. Baby, why you make me do that?)

I have had an interesting shot of perspective this afternoon, brought on by coalescent's straw-poll/count of women's names on the front of the upcoming Night Shade Books anthology Eclipse and the response over at jlassen's. The chain of thought goes thusly:

1) "Huh, that is true, there are all boys on that cover."
2) "Oh, that is a Night Shade book, they are good guys and likely not participating in sexism."
3) "Okay, this is upsetting me because good people are being wailed on, and they are clearly becoming upset, and the methods of argument being used here are no-win ones."
4) GVG says "welcome to the club" and thus we get our perspective.

Now, this may just be a flaw in how I've been conducting things with regards to The Revolution. However, I'm putting it out here because I suspect it's a flaw in the discourse, or if not, it's turning into a flaw in the discourse.

I suspect that there is an element in the LJ feminist discourse where we sit around doing the Man Comes Around thing: we take names, decide who to free and who to blame, etc., and everybody won't be treated all the same. I think a chunk of the discussion around making SFF a more egalitarian place on grounds of gender has taken a turn into labelling people as sexist or not-sexist: on our team or the other team, and then it stops there.

Where do I derive this? My copious internal struggle in this case -- dealing with people I know -- versus my lack of said struggle in the case of the F&SF and sexism discussion -- dealing with people I know less well or don't know. I had people in the Good! box and am asked to move them to the Bad! box, which is harder than moving people from the Neutral! box into Good! or Bad! boxes. I think that's what we do. Move people into and out of boxes.

This is a bad thing. Here's why:

Because it trades on personality, and ultimately stunts any real change.

I'm back to the whole placebo activism idea again. I think yelling at people and then feeling better about yourself because you put them in the right box doesn't really accomplish much. Remember, sexism, racism, classism, etc. are systemic issues. If people keep saying it's the market, sure, that could be an excuse for their inaction. I suspect it's not an excuse because of that systematizing of prejudice that's reflected in other aspects of life (why's it one or two guys here if it's systemic elsewhere?) and the really fucked-up ideas we have in publishing of who has power over the whole apparatus.

We all work in the framework of the market. If the market is sexist, business decisions will carry that flavour, because otherwise those companies will go broke. Systemic prejudice doesn't just punish the people with boobs or that one drop of non-white blood. It punishes everyone who lives under it. Everyone has a role. Nobody gets to step out of line.

---

Here's my question then, because this shot of perspective and a small chain of logic have led me to what might be more effective to change the face of SFF. Yes, it's harder. I'm starting to think if it doesn't require some serious fucking thinking and a truckload of work, it might not actually be activism.

How do we change the market?

Comments

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

You mean to say that a significant proportion of SFF consumers refrain from buying books by female authors because they're by female authors?

That is not at all what I mean to say.

Editors and publishers, when accused of sexism (as in the links at the top), are frequently saying that they are forced to play to what the market is looking for in terms of whose names go on covers, what stories get bought, etc. That they need to go with market forces or go broke.

I'm asking if that's so, how that situation is changed. I'm not making that statement, I'm asking a question.

[chibibluebird.livejournal.com]

Well, market forces = consumers. So if consumers don't prefer male authors, then those editors' arguments are false, and it's the editors who are biased. Or am I missing something?

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

I don't think the market is a one-to-one mapping that way (and someone correct me if I'm wrong about all this). There's this complicated interaction wherein what readers want shapes what gets published via sales, but what's published is also shaped by what publishers and editors and marketing thinks readers want (not always accurate) and what readers have to choose from. People buy books that don't always fit precisely what they want if the book has enough of what they want in it, and it's the closest thing available.

So in our case, given the hypothetical absence of female authors in say, SF, readers will buy male authors in SF. That doesn't mean what readers necessarily want is SF written by men, but that it's what's there, and it's SF, so it's close enough to get by.

There are practical applications on this one too. There's a mass-market paperback format just coming out that we sort of hate, where it's taller than the usual paperback and thinner, leading to type falling into the gutter and inevitable cracked spines. However, the books they've chosen to lead in this format? People like Stephen King. Nobody's going to not buy new Stephen King books, so then the people behind the format can say "see, people want our new format". However, the reality is that was the only way to get the book.

So...the market. It's a tangly thing. I hope that made some sense.

[chibibluebird.livejournal.com]

People like Stephen King. Nobody's going to not buy new Stephen King books, so then the people behind the format can say "see, people want our new format".

It makes sense; it's just a little hard to believe publishers are that stupid. :)

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

I don't think it has as much to do with stupid or not-stupid as basically putting out a product on chance alone. Nobody can ever predict which books are going to earn and which'll tank. The game tends to get rigged to justify things, and bets are taken which are deemed safer to keep the company afloat.

[chibibluebird.livejournal.com]

It makes obvious sense to publish bestselling authors over unknown ones, yes, but when it comes to publishing new authors and anthologies (which you don't tend to buy on account of one story), this does seem to be editor bias. They maybe haven't done as much research as they should into what consumers want. (Or actually considered complaints as helpful feedback instead of taking them as some sort of personal attack...)

Unless consumers currently favour male authors, I don't see how there's anything we can do to change things.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if you read the linked thread: the thing at issue isn't a case of new authors and a gender bias. All the authors considered for the cover of that anthology are pretty much established.

And when it comes to books, it's very difficult to get a grip on what consumers want. They might not know they want it until they're given it. It's the problem inherent in marketing a product that isn't interchangeable -- one book isn't as good as another. Again, you can't predict what'll fly off the shelves and what'll sink. Ever.

[chibibluebird.livejournal.com]

I think another part of my comment made it pretty clear I'd read the linked thread...

But anyway, a bias that makes editors assume male authors = more copies sold is just as much a bias as, for example, thinking men write better than woman. I was just pointing out that the first bias could, with some effort, actually be proven to be baseless.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

I was under the impression the decision as to who went on that cover was made by Bookscan numbers.

[chibibluebird.livejournal.com]

The book (though I would not buy it) didn't bother me (though the defensive reaction to feedback did).

I thought, actually, that you were referring to the general problem of gender bias in sf, a problem that could be lessened if it were proven that male authors don't do better than female, and editors believed it. I'm confused; I don't see how you can change nebulous market forces except by changing the behaviour of individuals.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I wanted to reply to this last night but I abruptly ran out of brain. *g* I'll have some back by this evening -- just don't want you to think I've ditched out on the conversation.

[kythiaranos.livejournal.com]

You've made some good points here. And I'll admit that one of my first thoughts was, 'I bet they thought those would be the five highest draws for sales.' Which does seem to be the main idea of the response I saw.

At the same time, wouldn't it have been possible to put *one* of the women in the TOC on the cover? I recognize Ellen Klages and Maureen McHugh as quickly as I do Jeffrey Ford (and I hope I spelled those names correctly, because I am just too tired now to check).

I wouldn't necessarily feel resentment toward an anthology that had only men's names on the cover . . . On the other hand, I probably wouldn't bother picking it up to give it a closer look unless I heard a recommendation from someone I trusted.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

I'm sure it's totally possible. I would have subbed Gwyneth Jones for Jeff Ford had it been me, because she has more books out and somewhat of a following. Of course, I don't have Bookscan numbers to back that up, just limited specialty store bookseller experience. I'm not sure how she plays in the wider market, or in the US market.

But...I have this sinking feeling that all this pigpiling we do on one person as the cause of that will tell that one person good, but the reasons behind that marketing decision won't ever get addressed? People burn their energy on telling the closest responsible party off and never get up the chain of command.

I want feminism that runs like Law & Order. I want to plea-bargain out the closest responsible party and use that plea to go after the market setup that makes what they did a sound marketing decision. I want the system to come down.

[kythiaranos.livejournal.com]

I have to wonder if there's any way to talk about this without men feeling like they have to say, "But I'm not *that* guy!" Because as soon as that happens, discussion effectively stops. Or turns into something that's not a discussion.

What you say about markets--or the perceptions of those who handle the money flowing from the markets--is key. But I'm not sure how to change that, except the old vote-with-the-wallet thing. And though I do that, I don't think I've made an impression on anyone.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Because as soon as that happens, discussion effectively stops. Or turns into something that's not a discussion.

Yeah, totally. There has to be. I suspect it involves being calm and patient, using analogy, and having examples of better ways to behave on hand. And I think a lot of people don't have the patience or desire for it because there's a degree to which it really is playing teacher, but...y'know, I'm the one who wants a result here. They don't care if I have my result. The way I see it, the onus is sort of on me to behave in the way most likely to achieve my result regardless of whether I have the right to different.

But I'm not sure how to change that, except the old vote-with-the-wallet thing.

Yeah, me neither. I get the feeling that the key part of that equation is changing the publisher perception of reader's tastes. That provides the availability of that choice and a chance for a shift in the market. I'm still trying to work out how that might be done in alliance with publishers as readers of their books, versus in some adversarial political pressure kind of way.

[kythiaranos.livejournal.com]

The way I see it, the onus is sort of on me to behave in the way most likely to achieve my result regardless of whether I have the right to different.

Well, yeah, I guess one of the key questions is whether we want most to be right, or to achieve the ends we want. Personally, I'd rather leave a better world for my daughter than have a gold star on my own forehead.

I wonder if part of the problem is that the dialogue only begins when someone notices something that strikes them as biased or unfair. So there's an automatic attack/defense dynamic set up. But then the question is, how do we establish and maintain a dialogue at other times?

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

I want the ends too. Burn me in effigy once a year so long as what I wanted done gets done; I'd count that a win.

But then the question is, how do we establish and maintain a dialogue at other times?

Huh. Good point. That does give it this sort of...troubleshooting air, like there is trouble and then you make it go away and things go back to "normal", when really the problem is in how normal runs. And then it's not long before the people bringing the problem are perceived as being the problem, and down the whole dialogue goes.

I...really don't know. I think one thing that might help is, well, forging professional and amiable relationships in the field, so when something goes wrong it's not like this cloud of strangers coming out of the sky to condemn whatever guy of the week. I think jamiam's suggestion above of actively recognizing things that are helpful and positive -- handing out cookies and kudos -- might help that too, because it means that the issue is still on the table but not in a combative way.

My brain wants to say something involving Broad Universe...well, involving itself more in some corners of publishing: it occurs to me I don't know a lot about what they do in terms of activism besides have a table at cons and try to guilt me into buying self-published books of dubious quality, and that's a problem (both on my end and on their PR end).

*tries to get the brain to storm more*