(Untitled)

[insanepurin]

A man and a woman can write books about the same subject matter, at the same level of quality, and that woman is simple more likely to get the soft-sell cover with the warm glow and the feeling of smooth jazz blowing off of it.Dear god, it's so true. Imagine if it was a Britney Easton Ellis who wrote American Psycho or a Charlotte Pahlaniuk who

Comments

[dioschorium]

Regarding the "Shutterbabe" article: every time I think I'm too harsh in my novel's portrayal of (heterosexual and cisgender) men, something reassures me—if "reassures" is the right word—that I'm doing it correctly.

As for the other article you linked, the writer definitely had a point about the "silly novels by lady novelists" stigma, but depending on the genre, stupid covers might not necessarily be in store for you. Most of the gender-flipped images in that article were influenced by the young adult and, to a lesser extent, literary genres. Science fiction and horror have more than their share of regrettable covers, but covers in those genres err on the side of cheesiness rather than rigid gender binary enforcement. Looking at the covers of the books on my science fiction and fantasy shelves, I don't see any visual implications that female-written novels are inferior, unless one counts every cover that focuses on a female face or body as an example of such.

[insanepurin]

I found the Maureen Dowd article fun and I agree with a lot of her points. It's the "Shutterbabe" article that made me angry and want to smash things.

But it's true, we've always had cheesy covers, especially in the horror/science fiction genre. But it's stuff like the "Shutterbabe" scenario that gets under my skin. I could laugh if my books were given some cheesy pulp cover, but if they were advertised like chick flick novels simply because of my gender? Yeeeeeeah, no.

[amelia_seyroon]

:/

[kitty_advanced]

Somewhat related to the whole gender and American Psycho thing, but the DVD includes commentary from the director and co-writer (Mary Harron and Guinevere Turner, respectively) where they do go on for a bit on why they, as women, were willing to make a movie of a book that wasn't so friendly towards women (though I really don't think Bret Easton Ellis is some misogynist twat, but you know, all those dead women and stuff). It's pretty neat.

[insanepurin]

What's funny is that Bret Easton Ellis is a misogynistic twat, on top of being a homophobic douchebag. (ex. Saying that there are no such thing as good female directors. Mary Harron says brb, laughing my way to the bank) Just visit his twitter. :P That said, I give kudos to Mary Harron for making a movie worth remembering. My mom owns the DVD I think, so I'll have to listen to the commentary sometime. :)