Re: The real answer
anonymous
August 30 2007, 13:21:15 UTC
This has got to be the MOST retarded conversation ever. The publisher has the right to put whoever he likes on the front cover. I mean, seriously, folks, this is ridiculous. Basically, what Jason did is be *gender-blind* and do the best thing for the antho. And now he's getting slammed for that, even though the *content* has plenty of women in it. I just think this is the biggest bunch of garbage as a discussion that I've ever seen. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves for this kind of false righteousness. Go do something creative instead of engaging this kind of retarded faux-feminist discussion.
Re: The real answernestraAugust 30 2007, 13:31:41 UTC
Everyone in the comments, of course, is vigorously advocating against the publisher's right to put whoever he likes on the cover. They could not possibly be pointing out that "gender-blindness" seems to invariably result in women being excluded.
Go do something creative instead of engaging this kind of retarded faux-feminist discussion.
Oooh, a game of bingo! In the comments to this subthread alone, I think I've got G1, O1, B4, and I4.
Re: The real answerpigeonhedAugust 30 2007, 14:09:17 UTC
Trouble is Jeff that I don't believe what Jason did is automatically the best thing for the anthology. As stated elsewhere, each of those names individually will generate potential readers. Good. The next question, the one that hasn't been answered, is will the effect of an all male list on the cover alienate potential readers and does the gain outweigh the loss sufficiently?
Re: The real answerex_14theditAugust 30 2007, 15:08:37 UTC
Monday morning quarterbacking Jeremy and Jason's decisions about publishing is rather presumptuous on my part as they've managed to keep Nightshade thriving through difficult times in publishing. I like both of them as people and I give them a lot of credit for the work they do. That said, the minute I saw this book cover it struck me that it was an all male line-up. It struck me for two reasons. The first was that I have become somewhat sensitized to the issue what with recent discussions online. These have been educational for me in certain ways -- not the send Gordon Van Gelder a slush bomb way but in the fact as to how ingrained sexism is in our society and as an exstention, publishing. The second thing that struck me about the all male roll call on the cover is that I knew what the table of contents was, and I was really psyched to have a piece of fiction in this anthology. I admire pretty much all of the writers in it, and more importantly it looked to me to be a very interesting mix of writers. Jonathan has been doing a
( ... )
Re: The real answerbuymeaclueAugust 30 2007, 15:32:49 UTC
>I was somewhat disappointed because I thought one of the real strengths of the anthology would be the diversity of writers and styles -- I'm not speaking merely from a gender perspective here but I'm not excluding it either
( ... )
Re: The real answercofax7August 30 2007, 15:51:04 UTC
YES. What she said. ::points upwards::
The cover text and art look like Old Skool Rocketships & Ideas, with a dollop of art. The TOC leads to a far more complex and interesting conclusion--and, I submit, a broader potential audience.
As for the gender-blind issue: to quote hth_the_first, Be Less Blind.
Re: The real answersquirrel_monkeyAugust 30 2007, 19:43:10 UTC
Thank you for saying this -- it's very well articulated the frequent frustrations and disappointments many of us feel upon entering a bookstore. It's not even this particular book, it's the cumulative effect.
Re: The real answerjamiamAugust 30 2007, 16:11:12 UTC
I'm forgetting who it was who said it would take six generations to fix the cultural and societal institutions oppressing women as a group... but we're only on generations three and four right now. So.
JeffV
Reply
Go do something creative instead of engaging this kind of retarded faux-feminist discussion.
Oooh, a game of bingo! In the comments to this subthread alone, I think I've got G1, O1, B4, and I4.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
well, probably not
Reply
Reply
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
The cover text and art look like Old Skool Rocketships & Ideas, with a dollop of art. The TOC leads to a far more complex and interesting conclusion--and, I submit, a broader potential audience.
As for the gender-blind issue: to quote hth_the_first, Be Less Blind.
Reply
Reply
Be less blind. Blindness is a disability, not a point of pride.
It's 2007; Joanna Russ wrote "How to Suppress Women's Writing" over thirty years ago, and we're still having this argument?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Okay, I swear that is the last snarky and not useful comment I will make on this post.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment