The Eclipse One Cover Debate (WisCon 32 panel)

153 The Eclipse One Cover Debate

Feminism & Other Social Change Movements • Sunday, 2:30-3:45 P.M. • Wisconsin

Last year when Night Shade Books released the cover for their anthology, Eclipse One, a debate broke out over the names represented on the front. Namely, in an anthology that had 50/50 male and female authors, only male names appeared on the cover. The ensuing argument centered around two main points—the publishers felt that, of the authors in the anthology, the names they'd put on the cover were likely to attract the attention of more casual buyers. And because they were in the business of making money, they could not afford to put an 'agenda' ahead of anything else. Readers felt that, because no women were given a slot on the cover, the publishers were reinforcing patriarchal assumptions about who sells books, and who doesn't. Some expressed the opinion that the lack of women on the cover was actually likely to deter them from buying the book. In this panel, which will be a debate, let's explore both sides in depth. Does indulging agendas and ideals hinder profit? Or can adhering to an ideal lead to different and/or better ways of creating more profit?

M: K. Tempest Bradford, Micole Sudberg, Eileen Gunn, Robyn Fleming, Jeremy Lassen

Transcripts and Notes

Notes by Janice Dawley:

Tempest gives some history of the controversy (which she says took place the internet equivalent of five years ago – in other words, last August). She and Jeremy decided this would be a good jumping off point for a WisCon discussion about the world of publishing and why certain decisions are made.

Eileen Gunn used to be the Marketing Director at Microsoft, back in the 80s, “When it was small and cute.” Cool!

Lassen says that the decision of which names to print on the cover was based simply on sales metrics and categorization (people known as SF authors, since the book was going to be displayed in the SF section). His description of the name selection process actually sounds pretty vague. Garth Nix is sold in the SF section? Really?

Eileen makes a distinction between marketing to the chain buyers vs. marketing to the actual readers. Jeremy says he was trying to appeal to both. Eileen also points out that the cover is less important than the spine after the initial display period.

Her first reaction to seeing the collection: “This is a book for guys.” She had just rejected another collection as being full of men, and was irritated when she saw Eclipse One and assumed it was full of men as well. But then she realized, “_I’m_ in this book!” She considers the art and the list of names to be a misrepresentation of the contents; it’s kind of a miss in terms of advertising.

Micole talks about her reaction to the book. But first, her work in web response testing. She says this testing isn’t practical for books given the technology and the size of the audience. She clarifies that people aren’t saying Jeremy is a sexist asshole, just that the results in this case perpetuate sexism. The names printed on the cover act as publicity for the authors, in addition to reflecting their current popularity. Reinforcement. Male privilege was also displayed in the online conversation in which some male publishing professionals (Jeremy and Jason) were outraged at the criticism. Conflation of personal opinion with corporate opinion when people post as “nightshade books”. “You want to suck up to your customers” – these guys didn’t. Instead, they said people just didn’t understand marketing, didn’t get what they were trying to do, etc. She says that Tempest saw the conversation divided along publisher/reader lines, but Micole saw it as male/female. Examples of women being ignored and men being listened to when they said the same things.

Robyn looks at the cover: “There IS a woman on there! I thought that was something else” (i.e. a penis). Laughter. She says the cover was completely unappealing to her; her eyes slid right over it.

Tempest asks if there is a way for anthology covers to appeal to buyers without having names on the cover at all. Jeremy says no, and Sharyn November in the audience says loudly, “Yes!” She says she took herself off this panel because she knew she’d be growling the whole time.

Jeremy admits that he got heated in online debate because he was so invested in the project. He says some people maintained that he “shouldn’t have bothered” putting out the collection. He says the cover is by Michael Whelan, cost a lot less than it normally would, and codes just the way he wanted it to. Eileen points out that it doesn’t even look like Michael Whelan art. “OK,” says Jeremy. He admits that the entire production process was rushed and could have been better thought out. “Those are excuses,” says someone, and he agrees.

Eileen says the cover reminds her of “Literary fiction of the '70s.” which means it seems completely out of date.

Jeremy says there is a “zero sum game” in marketing. Once you position yourself for one market, you are closing yourself off from another one. He was trying to trick readers of SF adventure fiction into reading his anthology, even though it is full of literary SF.

Eileen: “If you were Microsoft, I would tell you that you can never trick your customers! That’s a very bad approach to marketing. You should try to APPEAL to your customers.”

Robyn says that she might have wanted to pick up the anthology if either the art or the cover copy were different, but the combination really doesn’t work.

Micole says it really does look like a “boys’ own adventure” book. She says the process of marketing doesn’t really matter to her; it’s the results that matter. Regardless of the “ungendered” nature of the marketing/production process, the fact that the book will actually turn off potential women readers is a gendered failure.

Eileen challenges the “zero sum” theory a bit by saying that when you market a book, you have to keep in mind your various audiences and give “tidbits” to all of them. This book didn’t do that. She also says that this panel has brought up a whole lot of things that were already mentioned online, and now, as then, she thinks that Jeremy’s reaction ought to be “Wow, I made a mistake; I apologize.” The response should absolutely NOT be, “I DIDN’T make a mistake. You just don’t understand.”

Jef Smith in audience asks if Night Shade will market test covers more online after this experience. Jeremy says he would love to “if [he] had [his] shit together”, but he doesn’t. As for what’s up with Eclipse 2, he says he will be using the same metric method as before, and in this case at least 2 (maybe three) of the four names will be women. Also the choice of cover art will consciously not be “boys’ own”.

Sharyn November says she is not going to ask questions, she’s just going to make points.

• This conversation wouldn’t have happened with a major publisher
• She would have advised Jeremy to not respond to the criticisms online because it makes more trouble than it’s worth
• She likes the cover, actually. Would she have bought it? She doesn’t know, she got it for free.
• She produces anthologies and never puts names on the front; they’re always on the back. She said “what about this idea?” online, and there was NO reaction. It really pissed her off because it made the conversation almost entirely negative.

She also asks “how did the book sell?” Jeremy says it sold exactly to expectations, and they have a commitment to at least three volumes.

An audience member asks how far you can excuse marketing decisions in pursuit of sales. What about cover art that portrays black characters as white? Is that OK? Jeremy says he has published a lot of women and marginalized people, but he feels more able to “fight those battles” with novels and single author collections. The audience member says that his plan to use the same rationale for picking the names on the cover for volume 2 is not OK just because it HAPPENS to result in some female names this time. Does he really think this is a good idea? He says, “If it means we can have another discussion like this next year, yes.” Oooh, sarcasm.

Pat Murphy in audience says the point about the “gatekeepers” of publishing is really important and could be its own panel at a future WisCon. She also says she almost never browses in bookstores and questions how many other people do. Almost all her reading choices are made because of online recommendations.

An audience member asks, “how important are the names below the first two?” Can’t you put some potentially less saleable names below? Jeremy says he could if he had a real Hugo-winning bestseller in the collection, but in this case the influence of the names was more dispersed and he was taking a chance that any one of the names would be recognizable to the readers.

Elizabeth Wilce in audience says that as an author in the collection she supports whatever needs to be done to sell the book, even if it means a bunch of men’s names on the cover.