|
The cover controversy is ongoing and will always be. I can tell you I had a devil of a time finding models for the covers of my UF that weren't scantily clad models. There's apparently a HUGE demand for half naked photos because when you start sorting pictures, believe me, you find far more men without shirts and women who are barely in shirts than you do women and men in jeans. I am half-amused, half-annoyed when I'm looking for a dangerous guy with a sword, and every photographer out there apparently envisions heroes without shirts and sometimes without pants.
And everyone knows that we women jump out of bed in our bra and panties, grab a gun --STOP TO PUT ON HEELS -- and rush outside to protect our domain. Sometimes we throw on a trench coat.
I generally laugh at the covers and move on. Are some of them insulting to both men and women? Of course. Does the audience demand such covers? I have no idea. I really don't.
BUT. I've followed a few of the articles and discussions. I've also read Resnick's articles in the past and some of his fiction. I was pretty surprised at his attitude. It's one thing to understand the marketing behind it, it's kind of another to ignore that there are potential issues and to also recognize that some people are going to be insulted by the "art" and attitudes.
I think we can all understand "art" and marketing and we all buy what we choose to buy. But that doesn't mean that some of it isn't belittling. It also doesn't mean that some of it shouldn't be used and not out of a sense of political correctness-but because art can be effective, beautiful AND respectful all at the same time. Catering to one perceived common denominator is sheer laziness.
There's nothing wrong with trying a little harder to do a nice cover with a more realistic image. There's also nothing wrong with stepping back and thinking a little harder about your entire audience before slapping a "typical" cover on a magazine or book.
|