ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

McRapey exercises his male privilege

It's a quixotic choice, to be sure, but I suppose we all have our issues.  Apparently confessing to being a rapist isn't enough for John Scalzi, as the male-privileged SFWA President has now taken it upon himself to publicly mock women for the sort of covers they prefer to see on the books they write and buy.

"The pose-off, while for charity, has its genesis in Jim taking pictures of himself in the poses that science fiction and fantasy book covers often put women in to call attention to the point that these positions are absurd (whereas the positions men are put in on covers are generally substantially less so)."


The irony, as I noted at Alpha Game, is that what Scalzi and Hines are mocking in their gamma male cluelessness about women is not male sexism, but rather, female preferences.  The book whose "sexism" and "objectification" Scalzi is protesting in the photo above happens to be THE TASTE OF NIGHT, by Vicki Pettersson.  It is described thusly:

"Equal parts Light and Shadow, Joanna Archer must fulfill a destiny she never wanted. Once a photographer and heiress to a casino fortune, she is now dedicated to the cause of good . . . but susceptible to the seductions of evil." 

An heiress who is susceptible to seduction and bears no responsibility for her actions... does this sound more like a science fiction novel intended to appeal to men or a romance novel aimed at a female audience?  As it happens, THE TASTE OF NIGHT has 47 reviews, by Jenna, Rita, Angela, Courtney, Phyllis, Jessica, Patience, Rhona, Kelley, Kelly, Shalonda, Chica, Karissa, Michelle, Debra, and Susan, among others.  Since Pettersson is, we are informed, a New York Times bestselling author, it should be obvious that her work, and the cover of her book that John Scalzi is lampooning, (which you can download as wallpaper in various formats from her website should you be so inclined), are very popular with women and appeal to female tastes.

The fact is that it is not men, but women, who are drawn to pictures of women posed in this manner.  Men, as a rule, like to look at young, pretty, naked, feminine, women posing with their breasts and buttocks on display, not thick, thirty-something man-jawed women wearing clothes, brandishing weapons, and striking aggressive and unlikely power-poses.  The urban fantasy/paranormal market that distinguishes itself from high fantasy, epic fantasy, and science fiction by utilizing such imagery is predominantly female.  It is women to whom such covers are designed to appeal, it is women to whom such books are sold, and by mocking those covers, John Scalzi and Jim Hines are exercising their male privilege to mock the women who write urban fantasy books as well as the women who buy them.

Now, there is nothing wrong with mocking the books on the grounds of literary quality or their covers on the grounds of aesthetics.  But to mock them with the mistaken impression that one is striking a blow against male sexism is not only to insult female preferences, it is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of human socio-sexuality so profound that it should be no surprise that it took a pair of male science fiction writers to do it.

Perhaps the most amusing thing is that even after progressive women questioned their actions, prompting a little belated self-reflection, it is abundantly clear that they still don't get it. I doubt I'm the only one to wonder if Jim Hines was initially inspired to launch his campaign after getting caught by his wife taking pictures of himself in her lingerie.

"No, honey, I don't LIKE wearing your underwear, I'm just, um, protesting the objectifying of women in science fiction!  It's, ah, for charity!"

And just to address the usual suspects, I will freely confess that jealousy is the only reason I am posting this.  I doubt that I could ever aspire to the transcendent gamma sex appeal that shines so gloriously from the image above.

Labels: , ,

86 Comments:

Blogger tz January 20, 2013 6:46 AM  

If the charity had any decency they will refuse or return the money.

It is rare that parody is impossible due to the initial all too real absurdity. Twice is probably not a record, but even more rare. Yet perhaps there will be the hat-trick.

Or perhaps the mental health problems are even more pervesive than I thought. Or changes in meds. Was it something new or withdrawl?

Anonymous Porky? January 20, 2013 6:58 AM  

Who?

Anonymous The Great Martini January 20, 2013 7:04 AM  


If you’re laughing because you think a man in a dress is funny and should be mocked? In other words, if you’re laughing because of various aspects of ingrained sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other discriminatory nonsense? Then you’ve missed the point so badly it’s not even funny.


No, I just think it's funny without the mockery. Then again, I think men who try pole dancing (there are some) are hilarious.

Anonymous Krul January 20, 2013 7:08 AM  

This reminds me of the response to the cover of Amanda Marcotte's book.

In both cases in an attempt to please victim groups, a modern anti-male progressive unintentionally mocks one of these victim groups, and ends up offending the progressive ideology to which they've sworn fealty.

It's rather like a house slave who in her enthusiasm to serve Master accidentally spills coffee on his shoes.

Anonymous Krul January 20, 2013 7:14 AM  

But the Scalzi/Hines piece got a lot of press from places like Fark and Boing-Boing, meaning a lot of folks came in and saw two SF/F authors dressing up/posing like women for charity. And some of the reaction began to shift from, “I say, those poses seem remarkably impractical, and how exactly does one do that without dislocating one’s ankle?” to “Hey, guys dressing or posing like girls are both ugly and hilarious!” -Hines

Here's another problem. Pointing out that cover poses are impractical isn't funny. It was a dumb idea from the start.

Anonymous Faust January 20, 2013 7:51 AM  

Krul-

Nah, it could be funny. On the surface it's a funny enough idea. A dude in a dress with hairy legs, a ridiculous pose, and a blonde wig holding a crossbow is funny.

Just they're so incredibly self-righteous and self-possessed that they managed to ruin what should be a sure gag.

On the other hand, the fact that their big effort to show how right-thinking they were brought nothing but a scolding from mommy about how they were insensitive to "ingrained sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other discriminatory nonsense"? That's comedy gold.

Anonymous trk January 20, 2013 8:20 AM  

john and jim are showing off that gamma pride

Blogger SarahsDaughter January 20, 2013 8:27 AM  

He goes on and on about the difficulty of the pose - so I had to try it. Instead of the 15 seconds he whines about I stayed in it for a minute. It's a fantastic way to stretch the inner thigh.

Blogger nickolaslacey January 20, 2013 8:34 AM  

Sexism is engrained throughout our culture and just because women prefer something doesn't make it un-sexist, it just means they have been brainwashed to actually want their oppression.

Anonymous jack January 20, 2013 8:37 AM  

@SarahsDaughter

That stretch is a standard use one in prep for, among other things, a brisk workout in Judo. I use it all the time...minus the outfit and and hairy legs.

Maybe some of these bizarre ideas were spawned from that ad campaign that featured guys, with much hair, decked out as Hooters girls that was mocking the silly idea and legal push?, that wanted Hooters to hire men as servers. While a bit uncomfortable I found the Hooters mockery hilarious.

Anonymous VD January 20, 2013 8:41 AM  

It's a fantastic way to stretch the inner thigh.

Yeah, it was one of our basic track stretches in college. Except for the pointing, it looks exactly like what I still do to stretch out before a soccer game. Except that after keeping my foot pointing forward, I turn it up towards the sky and twist my torso towards it in order to loosen up the hamstring as well.

Now why anyone would be stretching in a dress while armed with a crossbow, still less while wearing a wig, is beyond me. But it seems a little rich to complain about unlikely attire for stretching exercises in a genre that regularly involves menage-a-trois with were-seals and animated corpses.

Anonymous rienzi January 20, 2013 8:41 AM  

If the SFWA holds its next convention in Key West or San Francisco, I won't have to wonder why they picked that particular venue. My eyes are still bleeding.

Anonymous VD January 20, 2013 8:43 AM  

Sexism is engrained throughout our culture and just because women prefer something doesn't make it un-sexist, it just means they have been brainwashed to actually want their oppression.

That is a potentially relevant point. Would you agree that we should not permit women to vote, then, since they are so easily brainwashed to seek their own oppression?

Blogger Nate January 20, 2013 9:00 AM  

"Sexism is engrained throughout our culture and just because women prefer something doesn't make it un-sexist, it just means they have been brainwashed to actually want their oppression."

/facepalm

Blogger Markku January 20, 2013 9:07 AM  

Now why anyone would be stretching in a dress while armed with a crossbow, still less while wearing a wig, is beyond me.

Because the arrow was hidden at her thigh, held by the garter. Taking it out required that pose, and since she was flexible enough, she didn't shift her position while putting it on the crossbow and aiming it.

The wig is because McRapey also wants to be like that woman.

Blogger SarahsDaughter January 20, 2013 9:08 AM  

My little black dress does not mean yes!! I can wear what I want when I want!! How dare he mock a woman's choices.

Blogger JDC January 20, 2013 9:23 AM  

Well - he failed in his goal not to alienate the "transfolk." They would be appalled at his blatant disregard for the tranny desire to be hairless.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 20, 2013 9:30 AM  

Wait...I need time to process the horror.

This isn't, no, I can't even go there.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 20, 2013 9:33 AM  

McR needs some Fredricks of Hollywood.

I guess one could applaud him, no one would ever expect this level of hyjinx from him?

Let's see if his traffic improves after this.

Anonymous Kickass January 20, 2013 9:35 AM  

This is a joke, right? This guy just keeps punching himself in the nuts and screaming "Take That!"

New Feminist Wallpaper, yippee!

Anonymous Krul January 20, 2013 9:35 AM  

Thank you, niko, thank you very much.

Sexism is engrained throughout our culture and just because women prefer something doesn't make it un-sexist, it just means they have been brainwashed to actually want their oppression.

Interesting. Then how do you determine what is "sexist", if even things chosen by women for their own satisfaction with no male influence can be sexist?

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 20, 2013 9:36 AM  

Speaking of animated corpses is movie that is out or was out during the last month called Warm Bodies.

It is a delightful/gross film about a human girl who tries to reform a teen um, zombie boy. A love story.

Anonymous Godfrey January 20, 2013 9:39 AM  

LMAO

He’s mocking himself.

Anonymous Kickass January 20, 2013 9:42 AM  


From "I" on the blog comments

"I am generally trans-positive because I believe people should be who they are, and they deserve love and support in becoming and then being that. I wouldn’t go out of my way to intentionally mock transfolk, because, among many other reasons, why be an asshole like that? We give transfolk enough burdens on a daily basis without me adding to their load.

I discovered this blog a few weeks ago. I read Old Man’s War about a week ago, the first thing of yours I’ve ever read. In short, I barely know you Mr Scalzi.

But thank you. This hit me hard, harder than I could’ve expected, to have somebody say that. Probably because it’s not something I hear very often, being trans and living in Ohio.

So from one stranger living in Ohio to another, thanks for saying that. It’s amazing how something as simple as somebody not being an asshole can choke a person up. I hope I’ve remained coherent enough that this makes sense."


Well that's it, the last paragraph just made me piss myself.

Anonymous Kickass January 20, 2013 9:43 AM  

@ Krul, don't think friend...just enjoy the show.

Anonymous Papapete January 20, 2013 9:48 AM  

Sometimes no matter how you try, the inner idiot just breaks free. Unfortunately for Mr Scalzi, his inner idiot is running his life and posting it on the jumbotron at the Superbowl.

Anonymous Krul January 20, 2013 9:50 AM  

Kickass, Shush! You'll frighten her away!

Don't worry, Niko, it's alright you can stay here and talk to us all day if you want to...

Anonymous Godfrey January 20, 2013 9:54 AM  

Ah yes... how the lunatic rages against reality.

There is male and female. They are attracted to each other like two halves seek to be a whole. They procreate and perpetuate the species. HOW SEXISSSSS!

An effeminate unisex society in which everyone wears grey and craps an egg at 30 would be so much better. A boring unisex society where in everyone was the exact same would make me FEEL so much less inferior and better about myself. We MUST change ALL of reality to MY liking! I DEMAND IT and you MUST agree!

Anonymous rycamor January 20, 2013 10:03 AM  

VD January 20, 2013 8:41 AM

It's a fantastic way to stretch the inner thigh.

Yeah, it was one of our basic track stretches in college. Except for the pointing, it looks exactly like what I still do to stretch out before a soccer game. Except that after keeping my foot pointing forward, I turn it up towards the sky and twist my torso towards it in order to loosen up the hamstring as well.


This is the funny part about all this. Two pasty white men who obviously get very little exercise sweating and grunting to pull themselves into what they consider a "sexist" pose because it reflects an "impossible standard". Sorta like the average middleweight woman scarfing down her donuts and coffee while complaining about the impossible standards pushed upon women by the Victoria's Secret ads.

Anonymous Godfrey January 20, 2013 10:03 AM  

Scalzi requires some deep psychoanalysis. I suspect one would find some very interesting issues to discuss regarding his relationship with his father or lack thereof.

Anonymous Godfrey January 20, 2013 10:08 AM  

I wonder, would he prefer the burqa?

Anonymous Marcus Marcellus January 20, 2013 10:23 AM  

Your obsession with this Scalzi creature diminishes you. I had no idea who or what Scalzi was as I don't read sci-fi/fantasy, neither his nor yours. But it strikes me that someone as accomplished as you comes off badly writing so much about a fellow writer - it make you seem envious of his market success, which I assume you are not. So why not drop it?

Anonymous VD January 20, 2013 10:25 AM  

I suspect one would find some very interesting issues to discuss regarding his relationship with his father or lack thereof.

I believe "lack thereof" is the case. It really appears that he never recovered from the need to get patted on the head by Mommy and told he is a good boy.

Anonymous stevev January 20, 2013 10:27 AM  

I dunno, VD.
An insouciant pursing of the lips, a sweaty gray tank top, and
assorted weaponry hanging off your shoulders and you'd could
be channeling Ripley quite handily. Maybe you'd not hit the
lofty height of Scalzi's Gamma-Dom, but it'd make for a much
more interesting picture. C'mon! Be a sport.

Anonymous Stilicho January 20, 2013 10:29 AM  

This is a joke, right? This guy just keeps punching himself in the nuts and screaming "Take That!"

After watching Tad and dh the last few weeks, I'm starting to think it is some type of rabbity coping mechanism.

Anonymous VD January 20, 2013 10:42 AM  

Your obsession with this Scalzi creature diminishes you.

Obsession? Popping up a post or two every time he engages in his gamma antics hardly amounts to an obsession. And color me dubious. I've previously heard very much the same sort of thing about World O'Crap, about PZ Myers, about Sam Harris, about Amanda Marcotte, and about others whose names I have forgotten now.

But it strikes me that someone as accomplished as you comes off badly writing so much about a fellow writer - it make you seem envious of his market success, which I assume you are not.

How many times do I need to tell you that I don't care what people think before you believe me? Seriously, I don't care what you think it looks like. But you're correct, I'm not envious of his market success. He writes science fiction parodies with fart jokes. I write epic fantasy with untranslated Latin. They are two different markets.

If I wanted to chase his market, I'd be writing parodies of Poul Anderson, Jerry Pournelle, and Keith Laumer.

So why not drop it?

If you don't find this funny, bordering on the outright hilarious, I can only presume you must be here for the economics. And only the economics. Which is fine, but do allow the rest of us our vulgar amusements.

Anonymous Scintan January 20, 2013 11:33 AM  

Interesting. Then how do you determine what is "sexist", if even things chosen by women for their own satisfaction with no male influence can be sexist?


You don't. That's for your betters to figure out. After all, they aren't succeptible to the brainwashing, because.... well, because they're just better!

Anonymous Stickwick January 20, 2013 12:20 PM  

Hey, that's the same pose El Mariachi takes to launch rockets out of his guitar case. Is it mockery? Homage? Racism? Sexist brainwashing? Someone help me fit this into narrative.

Anonymous CrisisEraDynamo January 20, 2013 12:35 PM  

@ nickolaslacey

"Sexism is engrained throughout our culture and just because women prefer something doesn't make it un-sexist, it just means they have been brainwashed to actually want their oppression."

In other words, it's "sexist" because you say it is.

Anonymous Anonymous January 20, 2013 12:47 PM  

His blonde wig is horrifically insensitive to my brunette sensibilities.
When are we, as a society, going to learn that brunettes like to have fun too?
The blonde wig is very Swedish-centric. As an American of Italian descent, that hurts my feelings.Sure, some Italians are blondes, but most of us aren't. Why should only a select few get all the attention?
Men!!! You guys are getting me really pissed-off. Joe

Anonymous Knutson January 20, 2013 12:57 PM  

Would you agree that we should not permit women to vote, then, since they are so easily brainwashed to seek their own oppression?

What you have here is an argument for representative democracy but not an argument against universal suffrage since men are equally as influenced by cultural vaugeries as women.

Anonymous Signe January 20, 2013 1:05 PM  

What you have here is an argument for representative democracy but not an argument against universal suffrage since men are equally as influenced by cultural vaugeries as women.

I'm pretty sure it's spelled "vagaries".

But oh wait, that looks like a sexist word, rather like "niggardly" looks racist. Never mind. I guess I'm just embracing my oppression.

Anonymous Knutson January 20, 2013 1:11 PM  

Signe; both are correct.

But you seemed to have missed the point.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 20, 2013 1:11 PM  

I shed a bitter tear when I heard that the entertainment industry is so poorly regarded

Anonymous VD January 20, 2013 1:32 PM  

What you have here is an argument for representative democracy but not an argument against universal suffrage since men are equally as influenced by cultural vaugeries as women.

You have not shown that in any way, shape or form. Why do you hate Science? We have been reliably informed that women are susceptible to brainwashing that causes them to embrace their oppression. No one has yet claimed this is also true of men, in fact, the nature of the claim implied that men are not similarly susceptible.

And according to both Dictionary.com and the Oxford English Dictionary, there is no such word as "vaugeries". So, no, they are not both correct.

"No results found for vaugeries:
Did you mean vagaries"


No exact results found for vaugeries in the dictionaries.
British & World English
Did you mean vagaries?


You should probably be informed that this is not the place to try to hide your errors and think you'll get away with it.

Anonymous Signe January 20, 2013 1:39 PM  

But you seemed to have missed the point.

Chalk it up to my ouveries.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 20, 2013 1:46 PM  

Why doesn't he just get it over with already, cut of his penis, and put that photo up on his blog.

Anonymous Godfrey January 20, 2013 1:47 PM  

Anyone else notice all the fuss about the inauguration? Is this the Amerikan version of the Nuremburg party rally? Is O-bomb-a Pharaoh, the god-king?

I sometimes get the eerie feeling that I’ve travelled back in time to an ancient era when people worshipped the political leader as a god. The really strange thing is that these creepy state-worshipers consider this progress.

Anonymous Faust January 20, 2013 1:56 PM  

I love watching Vox pound on people, but the problem is they always run away. I hope Knutson sticks it out.

Anonymous Signe January 20, 2013 2:00 PM  

I sometimes get the eerie feeling that I’ve travelled back in time to an ancient era when people worshipped the political leader as a god.

You mean in the days before Christianity? Who'd-a thunk?

Anonymous DIffeomorph January 20, 2013 2:06 PM  

I have never been so far from a boner in my life.

Anonymous kh123 January 20, 2013 2:36 PM  

" I hope Knutson sticks it out."

Just show her a picture of the family farm out in Moorhead.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 20, 2013 3:03 PM  

My first thought was, "WTF?"

WTF?

Anyhow...

“I love it; I absolutely love it. I was born to regulate. I don’t know why, but that’s very true. So as long as I’m regulating, I’m happy.”

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 20, 2013 3:15 PM  

Nein, nein, nein!!

V must continue to occasionally cover PZ, PK and Sca/McR, it is surreal and hilarious!!

Blogger LP 999/Eliza January 20, 2013 3:17 PM  

(I wonder if Sca has mommy issues.)

Anonymous cheddarman January 20, 2013 3:26 PM  

i had a friend who liked to dress up in womens' clothing.

He got help for it, though.

sincerely,

Cheddarman

Blogger vandelay January 20, 2013 3:58 PM  

That post by Hines is hilarious.

"You may laugh at this photo of me dressed as a woman in a ridiculous pose, but only for reason A. If you laugh at it for reasons B, C or D, then you are a misogynist and must submit to re-education. Now, let's all enjoy the photos, but remember, we're watching you..."

Anonymous Idle Spectator, Pulitzer Prize Winner January 20, 2013 4:56 PM  

Sultry legs of Scalzi smoothly splayed,
Doth not realize that he had been played.
Crossbow forward as a penis he lacked,
Better he fire that, then in the sack.

Anonymous Salt January 20, 2013 6:08 PM  

Why doesn't he just get it over with already, cut of his penis, ...

He has one?

Anonymous Rex Little January 20, 2013 6:27 PM  

Apparently confessing to being a rapist isn't enough for John Scalzi

Not sure what's the point of this line. First of all, if you read the link, it's clear that when Scalzi writes "I am a rapist", he's no more claiming to be a rapist than Herman Melville was claiming to be a sailor on the Pequod when he wrote "Call me Ishmael."

Second, how does that post relate to Scalzi's status as a clueless Gamma? He's making a point you disagree with about a political issue, that's all.

Anonymous VD January 20, 2013 7:12 PM  

First of all, if you read the link, it's clear that when Scalzi writes "I am a rapist", he's no more claiming to be a rapist than Herman Melville was claiming to be a sailor on the Pequod when he wrote "Call me Ishmael."

No, that's not possible. Scalzi got so perfectly into the mind of a rapist that it is clear he could not possibly have invented that. It's just too real!

Second, how does that post relate to Scalzi's status as a clueless Gamma?

Which post, the rapey one or the one on covers? If it's the latter, well, if you have to ask.... The former has nothing to do with it.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 20, 2013 7:27 PM  


You have not shown that in any way, shape or form. Why do you hate Science? We have been reliably informed that women are susceptible to brainwashing that causes them to embrace their oppression.


This seems not to be nuanced enough.

Feminists claim that non-Feminist women are susceptible to brainwashing and that they therefore speak for and represent the un-brainwashable real woman inside all those susceptible to brainwashing.

Or something.

Anonymous awsnyde January 20, 2013 7:30 PM  

I write epic fantasy with untranslated Latin.

You wrote an epic fantasy world where they speak/write in Latin??? I understand not bothering to compete with Tolkien, but even Martin built the rudiments of an original language.

Anonymous Noah B. January 20, 2013 7:33 PM  

Melville actually was a sailor.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 20, 2013 8:09 PM  

There must be some word in some language that describes the feeling of being utterly amazed at the depths of someone's stupidity while at the same time not being the least bit surprised by it.

Anonymous Rex Little January 20, 2013 8:15 PM  

No, that's not possible. Scalzi got so perfectly into the mind of a rapist that it is clear he could not possibly have invented that. It's just too real!

I will refrain from speculating how you can be so sure that he did that. . . :)

Which post, the rapey one or the one on covers? If it's the latter, well, if you have to ask.... The former has nothing to do with it.

The one on rape. Since it has nothing to do with Gamma cluelessness, I was wondering why you referenced it in a post devoted to Gamma cluelessness. Just seemed out of place to me.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 20, 2013 9:03 PM  

"There must be some word in some language that describes the feeling of being utterly amazed at the depths of someone's stupidity while at the same time not being the least bit surprised by it."

I think the word you're looking for is "Tad".


Anonymous scoobius dubious January 20, 2013 9:06 PM  

REX LITTLE: First of all, if you read the link, it's clear that when Scalzi writes...

LACEDAEMONIANS: If.

Anonymous DelaSmith1970 January 20, 2013 9:15 PM  

"I will freely confess that jealousy is the only reason I am posting this."

Yes, that came across loud and clear in your post.

Perhaps you are unaware that the author of TASTE OF NIGHT commented enthusiastically on Hines' blog where these photos appeared. As did any number of women, including several other women who write fantasy.

Perhaps you are also unaware that the lament of women authors for at least 30 years has been that most cover "looks" for genres, including this one, typically have more to do with pleasing male publishers, male sales forces, male distributors, male marketing VPs, and (as was the case, for example, with the "nursing mothers" look of historical romance for over a decade) male truckers (who influenced which books got shelved in jobber outlets) than with pleasing women authors or women readers. It was, for example, a male artist who created and popularized the urban fantasy packaging look which has become so prevalent: a scantily clad woman in a sexualized pose, handling a phallic weapon.

This is not to say that women abhor the popular urban fantasy look depicted on TASTE OF NIGHT. It's better than many looks which have characterized fiction aimed at women over the years, since the art typically depicts a strong female protagonist, as this one does—and THAT is attraction of these books for women (a strong female protagonist), not the scantily-clad cleavages and flashes of thigh on the cover.

It may be that your comments here are due to a not-uncommon ignorance of how the publishing industry works, and/or that you don't understand the nature of satire (certainly your comment describing John Scalzi as a rapist indicates this, since it evidently refers to his satirical post about various GOP positions RE rape).

Or it may just be that your jealousy of Mr. Scalzi has clouded your judgment in all matters pertaining to him or peripherally involving him--as in this instance, where he assisted in what was Jim Hines' engaging fundraiser ($15K+ to date) for research into a disease that kills children.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 20, 2013 9:18 PM  

"I sometimes get the eerie feeling that I’ve travelled back in time to an ancient era when people worshipped [Obama] as a god. The really strange thing is that these creepy state-worshipers consider this progress."

No, they don't think it's progress, they think it's final victory.

You're watching a sack dance.

They think you are permanently defeated, for good, and they are dancing on what they believe to be your grave. That's why their fangs are now openly bared; back in 2008 they could have chalked it up to Bush-hatred and Palin-hatred, or the market collapse or Iraq or whatever, and who knows, they could have been right about being wary. But this time around, they openly unequivocally won, without a conditional excuse, and so now the masks are off and the fangs are out. They own everything, EVERYTHING, and you're their bitch, and they know it, and they are going to let you know it.

And they may be right, we will see, it's too soon to know. But if I was in Vegas right now, I know who I'd bet on, and it wouldn't be Johnny-boy F#cking Boehner.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 20, 2013 9:19 PM  


Jim Hines' engaging fundraiser ($15K+ to date) for research into a disease that kills children.


Damn. Something else that kills children. Pass a law against it, and quickly get the president to take an executive action against it.

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 20, 2013 9:26 PM  

"Damn. Something else that kills children. Pass a law against it, and quickly get the president to take an executive action against it."

If it really was pivotal and no one was addressing it you wouldn't need a publicity stunt to raise money for it.

Of course, our sockpuppet friend up there doesn't realize that raising money for cures is a racket.

Anonymous kh123 January 20, 2013 10:07 PM  

" It's better than many looks which have characterized fiction aimed at women over the years, since the art typically depicts a strong female protagonist, as this one does—and THAT is attraction of these books for women (a strong female protagonist), not the scantily-clad cleavages and flashes of thigh on the cover."

So, it's not the image which they object to, it's simply the image that they object to.

Really, I hate the music industry, that's why I buy albums.

Anonymous kh123 January 20, 2013 10:18 PM  

I know several women who are artists who on the one hand will lambaste something like the portrayal of Scarlett Johansson's character in the Avengers poster... and then turn right around and illustrate on their own time sexy ladies, in sexy poses, doing sexy things. Sometimes with weapons or pressure suits, but the emphasis is more towards the fact that it's all done in an enticing repose.

Chalk it up to that far-reaching conspiratorial octopus of Patriarchy, reaching out from midnight graveyards in the heart of Zion to strike out at the civilized world once again.

Anonymous physphilmusic January 20, 2013 10:30 PM  

This is not to say that women abhor the popular urban fantasy look depicted on TASTE OF NIGHT. It's better than many looks which have characterized fiction aimed at women over the years, since the art typically depicts a strong female protagonist, as this one does—and THAT is attraction of these books for women (a strong female protagonist), not the scantily-clad cleavages and flashes of thigh on the cover.

Don't get the logic of this at all. So women don't like the "scantily-clad cleavages and flashes of thigh" on the cover, but at the same time the cover manages to depict the image of a strong woman, which women like? What else is left on the cover art which can contribute to the "strong woman" image if you don't like the woman's pose? Is it the background color? This paragraph seems to be an archetypical example of self-contradiction.

Anonymous physphilmusic January 20, 2013 10:33 PM  

And I've never managed to understand the entire "McRapey" thing. On one hand the people who are saying that Vox doesn't understand satire are mistaken, since he often writes satire himself. Vox Day may be evil, but he's certainly not stupid.

But still, it wasn't clear what VD was trying to accomplish by insisting that Scalzi must have personal experience as a rapist - it seemed like he was trying to create a "satire of a satire", or something like that. Just went over my head.

Anonymous eduardo January 20, 2013 11:28 PM  

You've pinked the bull, Vox. At his blog, Scalzi's response is appended to an insanely fascinating post about his emergency dental work. He just spends the whole time calling you gay--and treating it as an insult. Funny, I *thought* homosexuality was cause for celebration amongst his set...

Anonymous JT January 20, 2013 11:37 PM  

:::"I have never been so far from a boner in my life."

Stick your thumb up your ass and yell "snake!"

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet January 21, 2013 12:09 AM  

The first time I saw that photo,was when I googled
“Media Whore”

DannyR

Anonymous just another steve January 21, 2013 1:53 AM  

@eduardo

Scalzi spends his time calling VD homophobic, not gay. There's a subtle difference...

Anonymous VD January 21, 2013 8:39 AM  

But still, it wasn't clear what VD was trying to accomplish by insisting that Scalzi must have personal experience as a rapist - it seemed like he was trying to create a "satire of a satire", or something like that. Just went over my head.

Call it metasatire, if you like.

Perhaps you are also unaware that the lament of women authors for at least 30 years has been that most cover "looks" for genres, including this one, typically have more to do with pleasing male publishers, male sales forces, male distributors, male marketing VPs, and (as was the case, for example, with the "nursing mothers" look of historical romance for over a decade) male truckers (who influenced which books got shelved in jobber outlets) than with pleasing women authors or women readers.

Yeah, your argument is about 25 years out of date. Most covers are designed to appeal to female tastes. You date yourself.

It's better than many looks which have characterized fiction aimed at women over the years, since the art typically depicts a strong female protagonist, as this one does—and THAT is attraction of these books for women (a strong female protagonist), not the scantily-clad cleavages and flashes of thigh on the cover.

This is, of course, why no women's magazines feature scantily-clad cleavages and flashes of thigh on the cover.

It may be that your comments here are due to a not-uncommon ignorance of how the publishing industry works, and/or that you don't understand the nature of satire (certainly your comment describing John Scalzi as a rapist indicates this, since it evidently refers to his satirical post about various GOP positions RE rape).

It may be. Or, it may be that you are simply stupid. I mention the possibility merely for the sake of completeness.

Or it may just be that your jealousy of Mr. Scalzi has clouded your judgment in all matters pertaining to him or peripherally involving him--as in this instance, where he assisted in what was Jim Hines' engaging fundraiser ($15K+ to date) for research into a disease that kills children.

Oh, wait, it was for CHARITY? Look, you really have to be profoundly ignorant to think that an emotional appeal "for de chilruns" is going to cut any ice here. As for the jealousy refrain, I note that you have not answered the question: "what part of Award-Winning Cruelty Artist" do you not understand?


Anonymous VD January 21, 2013 8:42 AM  

The one on rape. Since it has nothing to do with Gamma cluelessness, I was wondering why you referenced it in a post devoted to Gamma cluelessness. Just seemed out of place to me.

Because they both deal with McRapey completely failing to understand the consequences of his actions. And, of course, they're both very funny.

A few of you strike me as people watching The Holy Grail, scratching their heads, and saying "What's so funny? They're just banging coconuts together. What is funny about coconuts?"

Anonymous Loki of Asgard January 21, 2013 10:38 AM  

Yeah, your argument is about 25 years out of date. Most covers are designed to appeal to female tastes. You date yourself.

Well, after all, nobody else will.

Anonymous Big Bill January 21, 2013 11:18 AM  

Scalzi isn't married, is he?

And his wife lets him dress in drag and prance around?

Does she at least keep the children from seeing the pictures and getting "confused" about Daddy?

How sad for them.

Blogger Bogey January 21, 2013 4:32 PM  

When I first saw Scalzi in drag I laughed my ass off and thought "how appropriate". Maybe Scalzi and Hines should do a Yoga pose off next time, "Ooh this is difficult and painful". No shit you doughy little man.

http://www.yogapaws.com/Portals/13108/images/img_0887-1.jpg

Anonymous Anonymous January 25, 2013 12:58 PM  

I wonder if Scalzi thinks child molestors and serial killers should "just be themselves" also. Or does this just apply to certain pre-approved depravities.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts