That Boy Girl Thing
So why don't boys read more books, and girls do more math?
Just kidding. I'm not going to attempt to answer that here, because I would inevitably just piss everybody off.
Pub Rants joined the fray, which is where I caught some amusing contribuions to the debate, such as My Writer Bloggy Woggy: The Anti-Penis Bias in Pubbying!
I'm somewhat sympathetic, except for one thing. Some study somewhere, which I should cite, but I'm too lazy, and honestly, I have other things I should be doing now than writing this blog post, have found that female readers will read books by male authors and aimed at male readers, but not the reverse. Which makes me feel just a bit less sorry for the male readers who are complaining.
It is also why, despite this evidence about females dominating both the professional and readership sides of publishing, I have had cause to regret not choosing a gender-neutral or even masculine pen name. Because I write sf, and even hard sf, and I wonder if male readers will read it.
Ted Cross brought up a related point, about "romantasy" book covers. If you don't know the ones he means, take a look at his site.
Which brings me to the real point of this post, namely, do you think certain covers appeal more to female or male readers? And what elements appeal more to one gender or the other?
One might think that a book with a sexy female on the cover is meant to appeal to a man, and a book with a sexy man on the cover is to appeal to a woman. I don't think it's that simple.
I think the covers with the hunks and babes are BOTH geared to appeal to women. Books with sexy women meant to appeal to men usually show the women in a slightly different way. Kneeling at a man's feet in a bikini, for example. (Just sayin'.)
But I also have this theory, and feel free to disagree, that books oriented more toward female readers have a close-up shot of a face or torso (person focused), whereas books oriented more toward male readers have a wider shot, showing an action scene, or gadgets (spaceship, swords, boats, cars, castles, armor, etc.)
When pre-verbal babies are show toys, girls respond better to people/faces and boys to objects trucks or balls. Unless the baby in question has William's Syndrome, in which case, whether a he or she, that baby will fixate on a human face. Which is neither here nor there, but pretty interesting in and of itself.
Any thoughts?
Just kidding. I'm not going to attempt to answer that here, because I would inevitably just piss everybody off.
Pub Rants joined the fray, which is where I caught some amusing contribuions to the debate, such as My Writer Bloggy Woggy: The Anti-Penis Bias in Pubbying!
I'm somewhat sympathetic, except for one thing. Some study somewhere, which I should cite, but I'm too lazy, and honestly, I have other things I should be doing now than writing this blog post, have found that female readers will read books by male authors and aimed at male readers, but not the reverse. Which makes me feel just a bit less sorry for the male readers who are complaining.
It is also why, despite this evidence about females dominating both the professional and readership sides of publishing, I have had cause to regret not choosing a gender-neutral or even masculine pen name. Because I write sf, and even hard sf, and I wonder if male readers will read it.
Ted Cross brought up a related point, about "romantasy" book covers. If you don't know the ones he means, take a look at his site.
Which brings me to the real point of this post, namely, do you think certain covers appeal more to female or male readers? And what elements appeal more to one gender or the other?
One might think that a book with a sexy female on the cover is meant to appeal to a man, and a book with a sexy man on the cover is to appeal to a woman. I don't think it's that simple.
I think the covers with the hunks and babes are BOTH geared to appeal to women. Books with sexy women meant to appeal to men usually show the women in a slightly different way. Kneeling at a man's feet in a bikini, for example. (Just sayin'.)
But I also have this theory, and feel free to disagree, that books oriented more toward female readers have a close-up shot of a face or torso (person focused), whereas books oriented more toward male readers have a wider shot, showing an action scene, or gadgets (spaceship, swords, boats, cars, castles, armor, etc.)
When pre-verbal babies are show toys, girls respond better to people/faces and boys to objects trucks or balls. Unless the baby in question has William's Syndrome, in which case, whether a he or she, that baby will fixate on a human face. Which is neither here nor there, but pretty interesting in and of itself.
Any thoughts?
Comments
When I weight in on this debate last spring on Natalie Whipple's blog, the big thing I pointed to was the covers.
As a guy (especially teen to twenties) I was disinclined towards reading books that looked like romance novels. (1) They might turn out to be romance novels, in which I had and have no interest. (2) Other people might think I was reading a romance novel, which would have hurt my cred with both other guys and with young women.
What constitutes a romancey cover?
1) Close-up of a beautiful face (either gender).
2) A dramatic and attractive human figure with a dreamy background fading behind them.
3) A couple in an embrace.
4) A closeup of a human face full of yearning or heartbreak.
5) Flowers, ribbons, diamonds, soft pastels, velvet.
And so on.
Is it a fair response to the covers? Probably not. But it's an emotional response to the presentation that says, "Oh, that's not something I'm interested in," and I don't really see it changing.
But the gender of the author? If your stories themselves appeal, as a sci fi author you should be okay with your pen name.
I think CN hit it on the nose, my boys would never pick up a book that might exude romance.
Although there ARE two stories in there that have romantic elements.
Okay, three if you count the story of a broken dextrorsum who vows his love for his sinistorum will last longer than the matter-antimatter burst (a fraction of a millionth of a second).
And guys will never admit this except under the cover of a spiffy penname, but we're cool with romantic elements in a story. We just don't typically want to read a story where that's the point and the whole of the story.
And, by the way, don't underestimate the spy thriller part of Monarch. I might be wrong, but I see less potential for, "Oh, that's not what I thought it would be from the cover," than for Cinders. With one qualifier, that I won't go into here, but you can ask me about sometime if you want.
Tara: I love the idea of different covers, and I have thought of doing Cinders with a different cover for the hardback version I do in the future. :)
Many books do have different covers for the US and UK versions, don't they?
Most of the books in the portion of the psychological suspense in which I am convinced Monarch firmly resides have very neutral covers with simple, bold geometric designs and an image that is thematic or scenic.
And, Tara, I think multiple covers is a great idea. Either as an experiment or just to attract more than one audience long-term.
Covers are strange things.
Not that I know or care or was at a convention where I heard about this from Diane Carey or anybody from Pocketbooks, but they eventually discovered that Star Trek TNG novels with pictures of Picard on the cover always sold better, regardless of whether he was a main character or not. In some later printings of early series novels, I believe that added Picard to the cover to boost sales.
Covers mean a great deal more than people generally care to admit. That's why I was shocked enough during my walk through B&N to write a couple of posts about it. Covers have truly changed, on average, in the fantasy section. They are now really aimed at females with these new Romantasies, as I called them. Look at those covers I posted in my blog and it is pretty much indisputable; men (on average) won't buy those books.