"Romance novels? You mean RACIST novels, Mrs. Smith!"

[FirstNameLastName]

For better or for worse the publishers care only for money, each and every action made by any business can be explained by the phrase "they did this because they thought it would make more money."

In theory, yes, in practice, no. Businesses are run by people who are just as much members of society as everyone else, full of the same biases and prejudices.

True, but what bias they may have manifests itself in the form of profiteering. I'm aware that it is still a racial issue, but generally when people throw the word "racist" around they are usually implying a certain amount of conscious malice, even if that tends to be the less common type of racism these days.

Admittedly, as I read over my previous post this point was left a little less clear than it should have been, but the "thought" part was intended to imply that the belief that they won't sell as well could just be a result of personal bias.

 

[Booklover13]

I don't really know what to think about black people getting their own label. But I don't think you can blame them for only releasing them as an e books if the market is to small for printed material..

this is kind of a chicken/egg scenario present in a lot of mainstream media though

today I read an article about the highest grossing actors/actresses in Hollywood and it was all WHITE, I don't think its because there isn't enough black talent but the root of it is there just aren't the roles, because they don't make the roles because they don't take what's perceived to be a "risk" and whats not considered "default" is so normalised anything that deviates from that is considered unessicary/different/niche/periphery and sometimes [I/]political[/I] for gods sake and because you get this "ghettoizing" people then decide "oh well they have their own thing so really there's no issue"

I'm of the believe that a lot of the time people don't know what they want until you give it too them

I strongly suggest that the article that you read had a political slant and was not factually correct. The highest grossing actor of all time is Samuel L Jackson at $7.4 billion

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2011/oct/28/samuel-l-jackson-highest-grossing

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/samuel-l-jackson-highest-grossing-actor-guinness-book-world-records-254155

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/07/showbiz/movies/avengers-samuel-l-jackson-grossing-ew/

http://www.businessinsider.com/samuel-l-jackson-is-the-highest-grossing-actor-ever-2012-4?IR=T

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/jackson_n_1033049.html

It should be noted that "highest grossing" =/= "best payed". "Grossing" refers to how much money the moving itself makes in revenue, and is not necessarily connected to actors's salaries, correlation does not equal causation. He has made quite a few films, and more importantly many have done well. However, the movie making money and the actor making money are two very different things.

For example one of the articles points out Avengers, a movie Jackson only made an estimated $4-$6 million on.Compare this to the amount Robert Downey Jr. was estimated to have made, 50 million. Both get to count the 1.5 billion the move earn toward how much money they have grossed as an actor, but if calculating their pay, Avengers favors Downey.

 

[Thaluikhain]

True, but what bias they may have manifests itself in the form of profiteering. I'm aware that it is still a racial issue, but generally when people throw the word "racist" around they are usually implying a certain amount of conscious malice, even if that tends to be the less common type of racism these days.

I disagree...few people are going to do something they are aware is malicious, they'll usually find some way of justifying it to themselves first.

Admittedly, as I read over my previous post this point was left a little less clear than it should have been, but the "thought" part was intended to imply that the belief that they won't sell as well could just be a result of personal bias.

Ah, fair enough.

 

[Albino Boo]

It should be noted that "highest grossing" =/= "best payed". "Grossing" refers to how much money the moving itself makes in revenue, and is not necessarily connected to actors's salaries, correlation does not equal causation. He has made quite a few films, and more importantly many have done well. However, the movie making money and the actor making money are two very different things.

For example one of the articles points out Avengers, a movie Jackson only made an estimated $4-$6 million on.Compare this to the amount Robert Downey Jr. was estimated to have made, 50 million. Both get to count the 1.5 billion the move earn toward how much money they have grossed as an actor, but if calculating their pay, Avengers favors Downey.

Please read the post in question.

today I read an article about the highest grossing actors/actresses in Hollywood and it was all WHITE.

I strongly suggest that the article that you read had a political slant and was not factually correct. The highest grossing actor of all time is Samuel L Jackson at $7.4 billion

The article was factually incorrect because it is about grossing. No one is talking about how much an actor get paid.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Why does this smack of complaining about there being a 'Black' or 'Asian' section on a porn site. Cause lets not fool ourselves here, that's what these 'romance novels' are.