Are any of you guys published?

I got published in college in two magazines. Same piece.

Advice? If you're uninteresting, you'll never get published no matter how well you write.

>Dear user, after careful consideration we regret to infor-

That's what I don't get, if the white race is so damn superior as those types thinks, then they should have no trouble at all bypassing this pc bullshit somehow and getting published.

Or it could just be that the reality of it is there's no real problem with white people getting published, and there's a few isolated incidents of minorities getting published just because they're minorities, even though they don't really become super successful because of it.

If you're not published, it's your fault. There's no exceptions, even if you have a valid excuse, it doesn't matter. Everyone has some sort of disadvantage, it's your responsibility to work around that.

Got published in a letter section of a monthly comic book if that counts. So sort of.

Junot Diaz winning the Pulitzer for that shitshow Oscar Wao is what really brought me around to the idea of some sort of conspiracy or at least outright bias in the current literary world.

Never even heard him, so I'm sure he's doing gangbusters.

You're forgetting the weakness in your own argument though, if complete shit wins the pulitzer, then it shouldn't be hard to write some great stuff and get your own, right?

Or.....maybe the reason why you're not published is because A. you suck, and B. you have a bad attitude, so you'll never get better.

>then it shouldn't be hard to write some great stuff and get your own, right?
This is just mental midgetry. Someone else in this thread already supplied the anecdote that James fucking Joyce had difficulty getting published in his time.

>No fiction Pulitzer awarded the year The Pale King was nominated

You may be right

Sounds like someone making an excuse for their own inadequacy more than anything.

so...?

Everybody has difficulty getting published their first time.

You won't find a single living writer who didn't struggle for years, even decades.

I've had short stories published in e-zines if that counts, and if it doesn't count, I have a short story appearing in print later this year.

White male, btw.

No, I don't even read or write. I read the synopsis of philosophy or lit, spout off some phrases, then bark around saying i'm a writer and girls let me cum inside them without a condom (sometimes)

I'm too dumb to actually write a good book; I'm barely smart enough to read. Usually when someone challenges my political or philosophical thought I crumble, but ultimately this doesn't matter when I literally am doing all of these purely so that a girl will let me squirt in her.

Yes. Philosophical essays, much easier to get published in than fiction.

It also matters, unlike fiction.

dat milk and honey bitch, who is like 16 and published a book of sentences. Like, normal sentences at teenager would say, with line breaks added in and an ugly doodle

So? and she's probably been struggling since grade school to get something published.

And if what she did was so easy, then it should be a piece of cake for you to do something so stupid it gets published, right?

Of course not, id have to learn to reed 1st wouldnt I?

no because she is a women and not white.

It's possible if I lost all integrity, I could pander to certain crowds like she does, but I still think being a white male make that harder. She got popular on social media first, because she was a minority woman, while posting shitty femenist sentences. If it was a hairy fat neckbeard posting the same sentences, I doubt he would've gotten any real support

i got published all over your mom's tits. that counts.

Yeah, all I am hearing from you is a series of excuses to try and convince yourself that it is the world's fault you are not famous and published, not your own.

Honestly all it sounds like is whining, and not convincing whining. In every field in the world these things happen.

The majority of authors today are still both white and male. You just want a way to feel better about your failings.

To be oppressed you actually have to have tried to do something.

I don't really write, just passing by this thread, and I had to mention that Rupi is only famous because she is woman and some type of brown

The majority of new writers are? Got any actual evidence of that? And is it scaled to the actual populations? Cause if, say, 70% of people are white male, 30% other, and 60% of published writers are white male, 40% other, that still means it's harder to get published as a white male, even though they are the majority

yes I am

88% of books reviewed by the New York times in 2011 for instance were written by white authors. Of then 60% of them were male.

>making figures up

Yeah....but.....like....that's like a white newspaper, so obviously only going to review white authors, and like, because they're white, they obviously have no power in the industry, so like....doesn't matter what they do.

>therumpus.net/2012/06/where-things-stand/

Hurr

Although you probably only know me from my rejection topics, I have been published numerous times before, including a book of poetry.

it's not really a complete statistic. How many white males submit books to be published in the first place.

And what you originally said was white men get more published, now you show me statistics about reviews. Maybe that's just a white newspaper, find a black newspaper and get the same stats on their reviews.

Education levels and socioeconomic status effects should also be ruled out

And we should only only be talking about new writers. Obviously if Stephen King writes anything, it can get published, because it will sell, because of him getting published in the past.

I do think there's a bias against white men for publishers, but I don't really think that's the biggest problem today. I think a bigger problem is that new writers are only getting published if they already have publicity from something else. I doubt very many publishers just take manuscripts from random nobodies of the street anymore.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING YOU SUMMERFAGS

FUCK OFF.

WAIT YOU'RE POETRYFAG!? I FUCKING KNEW IT. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU WENT AWAY OR WHATEVER.

Hows it been?

>And what you originally said was white men get more published, now you show me statistics about reviews. Maybe that's just a white newspaper, find a black newspaper and get the same stats on their reviews.
The New York times is the second highest distribution news paper in the united stated only behind the Wallstreet Journal.

The highest distribution "black" newspaper is not in the top 200.

>I do think there's a bias against white men for publishers, but I don't really think that's the biggest problem today. I think a bigger problem is that new writers are only getting published if they already have publicity from something else. I doubt very many publishers just take manuscripts from random nobodies of the street anymore.
Do you have literally any evidence of this besides your 'feelings'

white male detected

>The New York times is the second highest distribution news paper in the united stated only behind the Wallstreet Journal.
Not sure what this has to do with anything

>Do you have literally any evidence of this besides your 'feelings'
Difference between anecdotal evidence and feelings. Mostly anecdotal. So I couldn't use that to prove it to you, but you still need some evidence to disprove it to me

But are you telling me that you think a fat neckbeard white guy would have gotten published if he had written Milk and Honey, exactly as it is? If you say yes, I'll think you're not being honest... don't have any exact hard evidence though, no.

But I have read statistics that, given the same credentials, women are more likely to be hired for STEM jobs. Yet despite this, men dominate these fields, because more men apply. So that's one reason why the original statistic you claimed wouldn't really mean much to me, that white men are more published. But you didn't even supply that evidence, you showed something saying that a single specific newspaper's book reviews were dominated by white men. It didn't rule out all the other possible contributing factors, it didn't provide statistics on the newspapers audience, it didn't take into account that these could be books on specific topics. For example, what if white men dominate economics, and the newspaper reviews a lot of books on economics.

What you need is studies of white male versus colored woman, exact same backgrounds, submitting the exact same books, see who is more likely to get published.

>What you need is studies of white male versus colored woman, exact same backgrounds, submitting the exact same books, see who is more likely to get published.
Literally such studies do not exist. What studies show that published authors are predominately white, predominately male, and predominately located on the east and west coasts of the US.

Seriously, just look at the department of labor statistics info about it.

>But I have read statistics that, given the same credentials, women are more likely to be hired for STEM jobs.
Why should this matter for publishing?

Jesus fucking Christ, stop derailing the thread. Your posts are off topic.

>But are you telling me that you think a fat neckbeard white guy would have gotten published if he had written Milk and Honey, exactly as it is

I don't really see a fat neckbeard guy actually writing something like that, but if they did, sure. not sure what that has to do with anything though.

>What you need is studies of white male versus colored woman, exact same backgrounds, submitting the exact same books, see who is more likely to get published

alright, provide them, since you're the one who's sure that the poor helpless white guys can't get published.

Two poems of mine were put in poetry books. Does that count? IIRC they were part of a competition.

No, poetry writing faggoids never count for anything.

>I have no hard evidence for my position
>I need hard evidence to consider any other position
Fucking hell, most pointless discussion ever.

>Literally such studies do not exist. What studies show that published authors are predominately white, predominately male, and predominately located on the east and west coasts of the US.
again, that wouldn't even matter, it wouldn't be a relevant statistic, because...

>Why should this matter for publishing?
... because, just for comparison, women are more likely to be hired for STEM, and yet less are hired. So giving me fucking statistics about more men being hired would be irrelevant, because there is still a bias against men in STEM, it is still easier to get hired to STEM shit as a woman, despite male dominance of the field. And now apply that same logic to publishing books, you can see white male dominance of book publishing would not be relevant at all to whether there is a bias against white men in publishing. Please understand this

You have the nerve to ask me for hard evidence when you provide no relevant evidence yourself?

>again, that wouldn't even matter, it wouldn't be a relevant statistic, because...
>the fact that published authors are predominately white/male does not matter in a discussion about it being difficult to get published if you are white/male
I can't tell if you're serious.

No, dickhead. Just because published white males regularly get published doesn't disprove the notion that I'm not published because I'm a white male.

No, you're not published because you're shit, it has nothing to do with your race/sex.

No seriously. The majority of acclaimed authors are white and male judging by number of reviews in major publications. The majority of total authors are white and male. Literally you can find people complaining on the internet about this fucking fact.

You're just trying to make excused for your inadequacy.

That was my first post in this thread. I just think you're an insufferable, pathetic person who has done nothing of any worth and complains that this is someone society's fault. Not only do you blame strangers for the fact that you haven't actually written a book yet, you won't even enter into a discussion about a topic you raised because you're so convinced you're right at the outset that all you're really doing is masterbating to your own fantasy that you looked down on by the masses.

It's really weird, user.

>No, you're not published because you're shit

Oh yeah? Well prove it bitchshits! Oh yeah, you CANT!

Well it makes sense if you have any sense about yourself. If more white men actually write things and submit them to publishers, they could still dominate published books, white the publishers are still biased against them. And backgrounds are relevant too. If white males are the majority of economics PHds, I'd expect them to dominate the field of economics books. But it doesn't mean a publisher wouldn't be biased in favor of a economics books from a black woman.

Very simple to understand if you have an understanding of statistics that you should have had when you were... I dunno, around 12?

She was self publishing her Instagram poetry and a publisher picked her up because she got lots of groundswell via social networking. That's a fair as it gets.

>they are obviously biased against white males, it's just that white males are so good they get the majority of deals anyway

No really. You're just making claims about biases without any evidence and saying statistics mean nothing because of your personal feelings of inadequacy.

I didn't raise this topic... I don't even really write, except a diary, I was just passing by this thread and saw people claiming that there is not a bias against white men from publishers, when I suspect there is

You're derailing the thread and making it off-topic. Stop.

>I didn't raise this topic... I don't even really write, except a diary, I was just passing by this thread and saw people claiming that there is not a bias against white men from publishers, when I suspect there is
Provide evidence that there is a bias. Anything that points towards it.

The fact that a non-white male has been published at a young age is not evidence, that thus far has been the only evidence presented.

The evidence for the other side is the facts that:
>the majority of reviewed books by major publications are by white/male authors
>the majority of total authors are white/male

>they could still dominate published books, white the publishers are still biased against them

and what the fuck would that matter if they still dominated publishing?

even if a publisher is biased for one type person, that by no means would mean it would be impossible, or even hard for that type of person to get published.

that quote is not at all similar to anything I said, asshole, how can you still not understand such a basic point? Are you baiting?

Please read this, and think about it very carefully. If 99% of books submitted to publishers are written by white males, and 60% of books actually published by those publishers are by white males, and let's just say everyone has the same background, all other factors besides race are ruled out, then (READ THIS PART THREE TIMES IF YOU HAVE TO) there would still be a bias against white men, DESPITE that they still dominate the field. So you CAN'T give me statistics just about who gets published and tell me that mean's there's no bias against white men.

And you didn't EVEN give me that, you gave me statistics about more white men getting reviewed in a specific newspaper

OP here, how did this turn into a race thing? Can we get on topic?

>Please read this, and think about it very carefully. If 99% of books submitted to publishers are written by white males, and 60% of books actually published by those publishers are by white males, and let's just say everyone has the same background, all other factors besides race are ruled out, then (READ THIS PART THREE TIMES IF YOU HAVE TO) there would still be a bias against white men, DESPITE that they still dominate the field. So you CAN'T give me statistics just about who gets published and tell me that mean's there's no bias against white men.
And where is your evidence that this is the case? You are making up a hypothetical situation and citing it as evidence.

Well, it exists in other fields
washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/?utm_term=.2d0b7317046a
as well as it seems logical to me that the same would happen in publishing, I see no reason that it wouldn't. And it fits with anecdotal evidence.

And the 'evidence' you provided isn't evidence

Also you're just saying this:
>this is a hypothetical situation that would be biased, statistics don't matter because this situation COULD be what is happening
No really, where is your fucking evidence?

that was a fucking hypothetical. The numbers were fictionalized for the example.

>there would still be a bias against white men, DESPITE that they still dominate the fiel

and....so what?

That in no way proves anything, or even seems plausible that's the case, but even if I go along with it.....so fucking what?

So you have a problem with the publishing agency not wanting white guys to be successful, but allowing them to be so?

I also have no idea how this affects you directly.

>as well as it seems logical to me that the same would happen in publishing, I see no reason that it wouldn't.
I can't tell if you're serious.

>And it fits with anecdotal evidence.
What anecdotal evidence? That fact that a 16 year old non-white girl got published? Are you really citing that as evidence of a bias?

Fascinating. Is that a rhodamine? I just received some sulforhodamine 101 myself.

it was to reject YOUR evidence, or whoever the fuck was claiming that more white men are published

Yes, so that hypothetical means literally nothing for the purposes of this argument.

>or whoever the fuck was claiming that more white men are published
but they are

because that was the whole argument from the beginning.... if true, and if I were a white male submitting my work to a publisher, it would make it harder to get published than if I was something else submitting the same work.... that was the whole fucking argument you fucking bastard YOU ARE WASTING MY PRECIOUS TIME

well the statistics provided didn't say that and IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING EVEN IF TRUE BECAUSE WAT IF WHITE MEN JUST SUBMIT MORE, OR HAVE MORE EDUCATION IN FIELDS THAT ARE GOOD FOR BOOKS LIKE ECONOMICS AHHHHHHHHHHHH

There's so many other factors involved in publisher that, if true, race would be pretty low on the list.

Sci fi and fantasy authors have a hard time getting published because of a massively saturated market. So say they're working with a 95% disadvantage because of that, you're going to bitch that, if true, they also have a 2% further disadvantage because they're white.

Everybody has shit they have to deal with, that's even unfair, in every field they attempt to get into. You work your way around it, and stop bitching.

If I'm following your train of thought, i guess the alternative is just throw your arms up, say the system is rigged and you have no chance, and then go suck some old man's penis for money or something. Well....go ahead man, nobody here will stop you.

Then what does it matter if no statistics that exist mean anything to you? This argument has no point because your position has no ground to stand on and won't listen to anything else because the statistics are obviously lying due to a hypothetical situation.

If you actually used this argument for anything you would be mocked. I mean heck, I'm mocking you right now.

>I am right because you have no evidence to the contrary
>your evidence to the contrary is false! False! False!
The beginnings of paranoid schizophrenia, tbph

I actually claimed way back in this thread that while I thought race/gender was a factor, I didn't think it was the biggest factor. But people have been fighting me on those

it's not about your statistics being lies, it's about them not applying being enough to support the things you are saying. And if no relevant study does exist, it doesn't mean you get to start citing other ones..

There might not be a study on exactly what we're talking about, but I did provide one that showed the bias existing in other fields, I think that's pretty good evidence. I can't find one that has studied any field where this bias DOESN'T exist. And I would assume it is a PR thing, if anything. And PR seems more relevant to who you're going to publish as an author than to who you're going to hire as an engineer.

>I actually claimed way back in this thread that while I thought race/gender was a factor, I didn't think it was the biggest factor. But people have been fighting me on those
Then yes, race and gender is a factor. It points towards the industry being biased towards white male authors for the most part.

not false, just that statistics about more white men being reviewed in the new york times does absolutely nothing to support the claim that there isn't a bias against white men being published

Just report all his posts if he's not going to stay on topic.

>It points towards the industry being biased towards white male authors for the most part.
citation needed

well you don't have any proof that they are either....aside from your gay ass opinions.

So...would you believe your own statements, if you were me?

>Employees in the publishing industry are roughly 85% (((white))) females living in New York City
>Autist in this thread still arguing white males are the beneficiaries of bias
o i am laffin

Women hate women, user.

who cares who the publisher employees are, when the published authors are still mostly white men?

>when the published authors are still mostly white men?
Citation needed. White men are also not winning as many awards as they used to though they are undoubtedly still the only ones producing anything of quality.

Who gives a shit? You were never going to win one, user.

>White men are also not winning as many awards as they used
citation needed

I like your style

Ayyy, that's the way to do it!

Who needs literature when you have guaranteed offspring that might be better than you and get published? In that sort, your lineage will survive. With Nepotism.

another great thread

it is harder in the sense that you don't have the authority to write about women's issues, minority issues, etc. which is in vogue. you just gotta double down on the 'brilliant but problematic' prose and make it your thing.

Right so a book that was submitted anonymously that was brilliant wouldn't get published because its author is not an oppressed minority but rather unknown?

Yeah, no.

A good book will eventually find a proper audience.

>he thinks a decreased chance of being published is opression
Holy fuck

Two books on amazon, Kobo, tolino, draft2digital, 24 symbols, smashwords and a slew of others worldwide. About to release a 3rd

A guy I went to high school with has a couple of LP's on itunes and bandcamp and did a couple music videos that did 10000 views on youtube

He still lives with his parents and barely makes enough money playing gigs at local pubs each week.

Does being published online really count? if it's not on paper it's not real imo