Author sends out her novel's opening pages under a male name. Guess what happens...

[TSO]

Many scientific journals have moved to double-blind systems where the authors are now anonymous along with the reviewers. Those journals have most often seen immediate changes in authorship statistics. For example, papers with female first authors prior to a double-blind system were rejected at a higher rate than papers with a male first author. After double-blind rates were in line with submission statistics.

It sucks that even at the highest levels of intellectualism that kind of shit still happens.

 

[jeremyemilio]

Three of the top five are written by women(and are complete shit) Harry Potter, Twilight, and 50 shades.

You have to look at their qualities though, there's more women than men, more women read novels than men, and the stories are all simple enough for a retard to follow.

If I were a publisher I'd be printing every crap series like maze runner, hunger games(might be in the top 5 as well) and shit like that to make money. I doubt there's any truth to the article given the direction literature is going. Even these sexist publishers want to make money.

People really don't have any idea how hard it is to make money off of a book. The idea that if you just throw enough shit at the wall something will stick is entirely erroneous.

There are around 200,000 books published per month in the US.

TWO.HUNDRED.THOUSAND.

199,999+ of those books lose money just on paper alone.

You want a taste of the difficulty of getting an audience for a book? Make a two minute YouTube video. Anything you want. And see how many hits you get.

Now think of this: That's a FREE video and a 2 minute time investment.

A new book will run you $15-$40 and take 3-10 hours for you to read.

That's doesn't mean only the best books rise to the top. There are some great books out there that no one has ever heard of, and some awful books with a massive readership. But predicting the result is a difficult, and very risky business.

 

[$uicideboy$]

Fucking nerds

expand your mind
fucking meathead

 

[jeremyemilio]

harry potter is complete shit? ok lmao never read a book again

Meh.

I'm not sure I'd call it complete shit... but it's weird that people act like Harry Potter is some Earnest Hemingway, Mark Twain, Charlotte Bronte, et cetera, caliber literature.

 

[Commissar]

The one big thing this claim doesn't cover is the work preferences of those she sent them to.

It's possible that had she sent 100 under either name, she would have received the same result - not because of gender, but because of preference.

I don't buy, for a second, that a person is going to rate a book higher or lower based solely on gender.

 

[TSO]

People really don't have any idea how hard it is to make money off of a book. The idea that if you just throw enough shit at the wall something will stick is entirely erroneous.

There are around 200,000 books published per month in the US.

TWO.HUNDRED.THOUSAND.

199,999+ of those books lose money just on paper alone.

You want a taste of the difficulty of getting an audience for a book? Make a two minute YouTube video. Anything you want. And see how many hits you get.

Now think of this: That's a FREE video and a 2 minute time investment and.

A new book will run you $15-$40 and take 3-10 hours for you to read.

That's doesn't mean only the best books rise to the top. There are some great books out there that no one has ever heard of, and some awful books with a massive readership. But predicting the result is a difficult, and very risky business.

I have 4 youtube channels. It's not that hard.(no I won't reveal them here, sherdog is the last place I want to be doxxed)

As for making a popular book series. If you look at the current trend of popular books they all follow the same pattern, they're written for children and teen girls, they have vapid and repetitive story lines, and they don't use big words. You can go even further and say they all have exactly zero adult male heroes, so they pander to the majority of people of people reading fantasy novels.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I don't buy, for a second, that a person is going to rate a book higher or lower based solely on gender.

Why not, such things happen in other areas.

 

[jeremyemilio]

I have 4 youtube channels. It's not that hard.(no I won't reveal them here, sherdog is the last place I want to be doxxed)

As for making a popular book series. If you look at the current trend of popular books they all follow the same pattern, they're written for children and teen girls, they have vapid and repetitive story lines, and they don't use big words. You can go even further and say they all have exactly zero adult male heroes, so they pander to the majority of people of people reading fantasy novels.

Yes. But that's not the point. The point is that for everyone of those "vapid and repetitive" books that takes off, literally 10's of thousands of them cost their writers (and often publishers) time and money with no hope of ever securing a return.

You don't win that game by just publishing every piece of "vapid and repetitive" trash that comes across your desk. That's how you go bankrupt.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It sucks that even at the highest levels of intellectualism that kind of shit still happens.

It's not like a deliberate malicious thing. It's just an unconscious bias that people have.

 

[Medusas Weave]

The whole thing is compete bullocks. She either made it up or it's bizarre happenstance. If there's one area where men do not have an advantage over women, it's in the field of fiction.

Let's see, J.K. Rowling, Danielle Steel, Anne Rice, Stephanie Meyer, Patricia Cornwell, Mary Higgens Clark, Suzanne Collins, Debbie Macomber, Nora Roberts, etc.

The list goes on and on and on.

It's nothing new, either. You can go back a hundred years and discover that a large percentage of the best-selling authors in the English-speaking world were women. I once saw a list showing that 30 to 40 percent of the best-selling authors of the late 19th century were women. That was before they could even vote.

Ever hear of Agatha Christie? She sold as many books as any man in the world other than perhaps William Shakespeare - and she did so primarily from the 1920s to the 1950s.

Why does JK Rowling use JK and not her name???

But what is weird to me is how you send the exact same thing to the same people twice?
If this is not what happened and it was 50 as a woman and 50 as a man, to completely different publishers, this is not a good experiment.

Does it say anywhere?

 

[Commissar]

I have 4 youtube channels. It's not that hard.(no I won't reveal them here, sherdog is the last place I want to be doxxed)

As for making a popular book series. If you look at the current trend of popular books they all follow the same pattern, they're written for children and teen girls, they have vapid and repetitive story lines, and they don't use big words. You can go even further and say they all have exactly zero adult male heroes, so they pander to the majority of people of people reading fantasy novels.

Why would you have 4 YouTube channels?

 

[Medusas Weave]

People really don't have any idea how hard it is to make money off of a book. The idea that if you just throw enough shit at the wall something will stick is entirely erroneous.

There are around 200,000 books published per month in the US.

TWO.HUNDRED.THOUSAND.

199,999+ of those books lose money just on paper alone.

You want a taste of the difficulty of getting an audience for a book? Make a two minute YouTube video. Anything you want. And see how many hits you get.

Now think of this: That's a FREE video and a 2 minute time investment.

A new book will run you $15-$40 and take 3-10 hours for you to read.

That's doesn't mean only the best books rise to the top. There are some great books out there that no one has ever heard of, and some awful books with a massive readership. But predicting the result is a difficult, and very risky business.

But the authors still get paid and the publishers still hope for a big hit that makes it profitable to be in publishing.

 

[Commissar]

Why does JK Rowling use JK and not her name???

But what is weird to me is how you send the exact same thing to the same people twice?
If this is not what happened and it was 50 as a woman and 50 as a man, to completely different publishers, this is not a good experiment.

Does it say anywhere?

It would be likely that she uses JK Rowling the same reason as anyone else. It does stand out more.

One of my favorite authors is R. Scott Bakker.

How about George R. R. Martin? J.R.R. Tolkien?

 

[TSO]

Yes. But that's not the point. The point is that for everyone of those "vapid and repetitive" books that takes off, literally 10's of thousands of them cost their writers (and often publishers) time and money with no hope of ever securing a return.

You don't win that game by just publishing every piece of "vapid and repetitive" trash that comes across your desk. That's how you go bankrupt.

Have you noticed that every book series that is advertised like its the next best thing becomes the most popular book for a while? Even though the writing is garbage. You analogy put into better perspective is comparing it to boy bands in the late '90's-'00's. A new one came out every other week and they all made money once they were heavily promoted to the right audience even though they were all crap. There were undoubtedly thousands of boy bands that never made it very far, does that mean the ones that did are quality music? Fuck no, the ones that made it were just marketed better than the ones that didn't and they all left actual musicians in their dust.

 

[TSO]

Why would you have 4 YouTube channels?

Videos on one channel are suited to an audience that doesn't overlap with another channel. Like the people that watch lets play videos don't necessarily want to see a judo competition or a big game hunt.

 

[Commissar]

Videos on one channel are suited to an audience that doesn't overlap with another channel. Like the people that watch lets play videos don't necessarily want to see a judo competition or a big game hunt.

Fair enough.

 

[jeremyemilio]

But the authors still get paid and the publishers still hope for a big hit that makes it profitable to be in publishing.

Yes. But they read manuscripts, do market research, promote the hell out of whatever the buy rights to, etc,

They don't say "Let's. Teenage girl hero, check. Vampires, check. Set in the future, check. Terminal illness, check. Done deal!" And then sit back and watch the cash roll in.

 

[dontsnitch]

I never read Harry Potter or saw any of the movies, is this something I should do? Always thought it was for kids.

 

[Butterbean]

Interesting.. but please explain why the two most successful series in recent memory were written by women... one of which is complete shit.. 50 shades of grey.. the other is wonderful in it's own way..Harry Potter...


Im not saying there's not a problem, but Im skepticle about how big of a problem it is at the same time... Perhaps, the book comes off from a male perspective and the expectation is that a male should have written it..

Actually, I read somewhere (long time ago) J.K. Rowling purposely chose that pen name because her publisher feared a male bias would limit her marketability. Her real name is Joanne Rowling with no middle name. She also wrote a book under the pen name Robert Galbraith.

Edit: Oops, a couple of you peeps beat me to it.

 

[jeremyemilio]

Have you noticed that every book series that is advertised like its the next best thing becomes the most popular book for a while? Even though the writing is garbage. You analogy put into better perspective is comparing it to boy bands in the late '90's-'00's. A new one came out every other week and they all made money once they were heavily promoted to the right audience even though they were all crap. There were undoubtedly thousands of boy bands that never made it very far, does that mean the ones that did are quality music? Fuck no, the ones that made it were just marketed better than the ones that didn't and they all left actual musicians in their dust.

Ugh.

I never SAID the ones that made it were good. I specifically said that the ones that made it could be God awful, and often are.

What I'm saying is, you can't just make a killing publishing whatever crappy book you feel like. The vast majority of the time you will lose money publishing a book, crappy or not.

Which is to say it's overly simple to think you can just publish the next piece of crap and turn it into the next big thing.

That might happen. But it's a 100,000 to one shot. Those are insanely bad odds. You wanna make money as a publisher, you better know the industry inside and out, have marketing power, and hold a ton of seed money.

(And those boy bands didn't "all make money." Thousands upon thousands of them never got out of the basement.)