awc@bu-cs.UUCP (Alex Cannon) (12/29/85)
>Recently I bought an sf novel from the Quality Paperback >Book Club, Samuel R. Delany's "Stars in My Pocket Like Grains >of Sand." The book club's blurb had read something like: >"drama of life, death and sexuality in the distant future." >The problem I have with this is that the ad didn't disclose >that the "sexuality" was predominantly gay sexuality. >Despite some features of interest, I stopped reading the >book about half way through, when it became evident that just >about all the romance and sex was to be gay. . . . >to identify with the major characters. This leads to my questions >(at the risk of getting flamed as homophobic, etc.): > >1) Should ads for novels at least suggest whether the sex/romance > is predominantly straight or gay? (I don't think this would be > necessary if the main themes are not romantic, such as novels > about social/political oppression.) > This is only my opinion (that applies to everything I say here); it makes no difference to me whether the sex in a novel is straight or gay, unless I'm looking for pornography. In that case, I'd like to know the sexual slant (that's usually not hard to figure out from the cover). I too, read "Stars in My Pocket...", and I was indifferent at the sex scenes, but they did not significantly affect my reaction to the book. I put it down halfway through because it was a ponderous, unreadable mess. I don't believe that the sex/romance was the major theme. >2) Should it make any difference? In other words, should it have > mattered to me? > There's no "should". If you dislike gay (or straight) sex, I can't think of a compelling reason NOT to mention the type of sex on the cover of a novel. After all, the box any appliance comes in tells you what color the thing is... :-) Publishers, though, are not likely to identify novels in this manner because they hope to sell them to *everybody*. (If anyone has a good reason for disguising the sexual slant in a novel, please correct me.) >3) Was it my fault for not remembering or knowing that Delany's > sf writing has a gay slant? > Since it doesn't seem likely that it would be labeled as having a gay slant, I guess it's your responsibility to either discover or remember that Delany writes about gay characters. BTW, I met Samuel Delany at a S. F. Writer's of America party a few years back (he tells everybody to call him Chip). We talked for a while, which was a real thrill for me, because he's one of my favorites. He's a very warm, friendly person. >4) Do I have a point in objecting to the way the book club advertised > the book? > Maybe. Send them a letter, asking why the sexual bias wasn't specifically mentioned. I'd guess that either they wanted people to buy it who wouldn't if they knew the kind of sex in the book, or they wanted to show they don't discriminate against gays, or both. Or maybe they just reprinted what Delaney's publisher sent them, without reading the book. If it's important to you, ask them to include sexual slant in ads in the future; maybe they'll do it. >5) Was the book such a work of creative genious that it transcended > such considerations? > Jesus Christ, no! However, there is another book by Delany, "The Einstein Intersection", in which the sex is straight, gay, and hermaphroditic (something for everybody! :-) ) which I think is worth reading even if you dislike sex which isn't of your persuasion. The mood Delany creates in that one is fascinating. >--Henry Friedman Alex Cannon Boston University
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/30/85)
> >Recently I bought an sf novel from the Quality Paperback > >Book Club, Samuel R. Delany's "Stars in My Pocket Like Grains > >of Sand." The book club's blurb had read something like: > >"drama of life, death and sexuality in the distant future." > >The problem I have with this is that the ad didn't disclose > >that the "sexuality" was predominantly gay sexuality. > >1) Should ads for novels at least suggest whether the sex/romance > > is predominantly straight or gay? The Science Fiction Book Club routinely puts warnings on books with material that that might bother some of its readers. They don't describe it explicitly beyond 'violence' or 'sexual themes' but it is enough to warn away readers sensitive to this kind of stuff (and attract the rest of us...) How do you tactfully warn readers of 'gay' or 'straight' sex? Remember, the ads are read by everyone and so the ads have to be a LOT more conservative than the books they advertise (Warning: this book may be offensive to midget negro eskimos with a Dr. School fetish?) I suggest, rather, that you read the various reviews out there -- Tom Easton in Analog, A.J. Budrys in Fantasy & SF, the group from Locus, and track your reactions to books they review to the way they review it. If there is questionable material in a book, someone will mention it (I think A.J. talked about the sex in SIMPLGOS). Even more important, you'll start finding people who either like the things like like all the time, or hate the stuff you like all the time. Either way, when you learn how to read the critics, you can go a long way towards figuring out what books to read and avoid. Sometimes, for example, I find I prefer running into a critic that hates the stuff I like. 9 times out of 10 I find that when Gene Siskel pans a movie, I'm going to love it. This doesn't mean he's wrong, it just means his tastes are different enough from mine to be a good indicator for me. That is the primary job of a critic, I feel. > I put it > down halfway through because it was a ponderous, unreadable mess. > I don't believe that the sex/romance was the major theme. I don't think it had a theme. I made it about 2/3 of the way through, personally, before I put it down because I simply didn't care what happened... > >2) Should it make any difference? In other words, should it have > > mattered to me? Everyone finds things that bothers them. Whether it 'should' or not is beside the point. I found some of the themes in 'Courtship Rite' by Kingsbury to be intolerable, personally. Everyone has sensitive spots. > There's no "should". If you dislike gay (or straight) sex, I can't think > of a compelling reason NOT to mention the type of sex on the cover of a novel. I disagree. How is the publisher going to know what is going to bother/offend every one of their readers? That is more the purpose of the critics, I think. We definitely want to avoid what the record industry is getting into... > After all, the box any appliance comes in tells you what color the > thing is... :-) Publishers, though, are not likely to identify novels in this > manner because they hope to sell them to *everybody*. (If anyone has a good > reason for disguising the sexual slant in a novel, please correct me.) Well, if the color is blue, I might agree..... One good reason why a publisher might not want to sell to 'everybody' is because a good percentage of the 'everybody' (also known as the great unwashed) would probably try to burn some of the books... Just ask Vonnegut > >3) Was it my fault for not remembering or knowing that Delany's > > sf writing has a gay slant? What if it was your first exposure to an author? Again, learning to trust a good critic helps you locate new authors and avoid others. > >4) Do I have a point in objecting to the way the book club advertised > > the book? > Maybe. Send them a letter, asking why the sexual bias wasn't specifically > mentioned. I'd guess that either they wanted people to buy it who wouldn't > if they knew the kind of sex in the book, or they wanted to show they don't > discriminate against gays, or both. Writing and asking about their policy might not be a bad idea. There may be a discrimination aspect to it, but I doubt it. More likely, they are only reacting to previous complaints about ANY sexual slant. > >5) Was the book such a work of creative genious that it transcended > > such considerations? no. I think it was a great attempt at a seminal work that didn't quite succeed. -- :From catacombs of Castle Tarot: Chuq Von Rospach sun!chuq@decwrl.DEC.COM {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid}!sun!chuq It's not looking, it's heat seeking.
dalton@gladys.UUCP (David Dalton) (12/31/85)
> Recently I bought an sf novel from the Quality Paperback > Book Club, Samuel R. Delany's "Stars in My Pocket Like Grains > of Sand." The book club's blurb had read something like: > "drama of life, death and sexuality in the distant future." > The problem I have with this is that the ad didn't disclose > that the "sexuality" was predominantly gay sexuality. > Despite some features of interest, I stopped reading the > book about half way through, when it became evident that just > about all the romance and sex was to be gay. I too bought this book from Quality Paperback Book Club after I read the blurb. I knew something about Delaney, but there's another clue. If the blurb were referring to straight sex, it would say "life, death and sex." Straight sex is sex, I guess, and gay sex is sexuality. Now that I've been flippant, I also have a more serious point: Why do you read? Especially, why do you read speculative fiction? As someone else mentioned, the point of sex in fiction is not sexual stimulation of the reader, except in pornography. If a character in fiction is a whole character, then the character probably has a sexuality. If our reading is diverse, and if our writers are diverse, then surely we will find diverse sexualties. It seems odd to me that a reader of science fiction would accept aliens of every stripe and color and yet balk at a gay human. "Warning: Some characters are gay" is every bit as silly as "Warning: Some characters are green." I was acutely bored by "Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand" and put it down after about 100 pages. Other science fiction/fantasy writers have done better with gay characters, particularly Elizabeth Lynn. Gay characters are amazingly prevalent in science fiction/fantasy. I recommend for those interested a book by Eric Garber and Lyn Paleo, "Uranian Worlds: A Reader's Guide to Alternative Sexuality in Science Fiction and Fantasy," G.K. Hall & Co., Boston.
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (12/31/85)
Disclosing sexual bias in a book? Advertising its sexuality? Hey, what is this? It sounds like some looney project from Andrea Dworkin or some other political crazy. Apply any of these recommendations to books "slanted" to heterosexuality (god forbid!); the result would be clearly perceived as off the wall, AND obnoxious by more than a few readers. Why do publishers have any economic interest in "advertising" the book's sexuality? They'd probably lose money if they adopted such a policy. After all, you DID buy the book, even if you didn't read all of it. With your objections, knowing its "sexual slant" in advance would have meant you wouldn't have made the purchase in the first place. I find the allusion to a kind of "truth in advertising" idea applied 1) to sexual matters; and 2) to what is though of as a minority orientation, really offensive. And it smacks of puritanism. Finally, it betrays a lack of knowledge of publishing: publishers are legally free to put anything they like on book covers; not even the author has ANY control over what goes on them. The disclaimers being suggested are not only utterly irrelevant to publishing practices, they imply a warped kind of public service at odds with what publishing houses see as effective and appropriate cover advertising. Given the superficiality of many readers' aims, positive deception is valuable in LURING readers into buying and reading books. Think of how many of the classics of world literature have to be "marketed" to get people to consider looking at them at all. Nowadays, the way to do it is to turn the book into a teleplay for Masterpiece Theater with lots of production value and famous actors. So, since when has honesty been a policy in publishing? Why should it be? Who wants it to be (certainly not propsective readers!)? Book covers (& their art, from Frank Frazetta to David Hockney) are SUPPOSED to be hype, deceptive, literarily irrelevant, complete facades. LOLITA would've languished with truth in advertising, Give me lies, hype, & illusions, Ron Rizzo
on@hpda.UUCP (Owen Rowley) (01/02/86)
>In article <1656@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >Disclosing sexual bias in a book? Advertising its sexuality? Hey, what >is this? It sounds like some looney project from Andrea Dworkin or some >other political crazy. Apply any of these recommendations to books >"slanted" to heterosexuality (god forbid!); the result would be clearly >perceived as off the wall, AND obnoxious by more than a few readers. I am glad that someone finally has pegged this argument for what it really is. Homophobia is so common in our existence that it can often pass as honest inquirey. >I find the allusion to a kind of "truth in advertising" idea applied 1) >to sexual matters; and 2) to what is though of as a minority orientation, >really offensive. And it smacks of puritanism. Some people buy books for the purpose of expanding their store of knowledge and their realm of experience. science Fiction in particular is supposed to stretch our imaginative abilities. Would we consider it a prejudice if this gentlemen had said these characters are all chinese or all black, I don't want to read about them!? You bet we would. >Finally, it betrays a lack of knowledge of publishing: publishers are >legally free to put anything they like on book covers; not even the >author has ANY control over what goes on them. The disclaimers being >suggested are not only utterly irrelevant to publishing practices, they >imply a warped kind of public service at odds with what publishing houses >see as effective and appropriate cover advertising. well I guess I agree with everything else in this base note so will leave with a joke.. Do You know why publishers smell so bad ?? So blind people can hate them too! LUX.. on Owen Rowley hpda!on
db@cstvax.UUCP (Dave Berry) (01/06/86)
In article <1656@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >Disclosing sexual bias in a book? Advertising its sexuality? Hey, what >is this? [...] Apply any of these recommendations to books >"slanted" to heterosexuality (god forbid!); the result would be clearly >perceived as off the wall, AND obnoxious by more than a few readers. Too right. >Why do publishers have any economic interest in "advertising" the book's >sexuality? They'd probably lose money if they adopted such a policy. >Finally, it betrays a lack of knowledge of publishing: publishers are >legally free to put anything they like on book covers; not even the >author has ANY control over what goes on them. The disclaimers being >suggested are not only utterly irrelevant to publishing practices, they >imply a warped kind of public service at odds with what publishing houses >see as effective and appropriate cover advertising. What the fuck has the current legal position in the USA got to do with what *should* be the case? The guy doesn't have a lack of knowledge about publishing, he obviously knows people CAN do this. He's asking if a) he was deceived (I don't think so) b) publishers *should* be allowed to deceive (I don't think this, either) >Given the superficiality of many readers' aims, positive deception is >valuable in LURING readers into buying and reading books. Think of >how many of the classics of world literature have to be "marketed" >to get people to consider looking at them at all. Marketing is one thing, deception is another. I don't think the case under discussion involves deception, but I'd be really pissed off if I spent money on something that promised to be one thing and didn't deliver. >Nowadays, the way >to do it is to turn the book into a teleplay for Masterpiece Theater >with lots of production value and famous actors. If they can get it past the censors. Very few gay plays make it onto British television. Even Channel 4 only gets as far as showing some existing gay films. >So, since when has honesty been a policy in publishing? Why should >it be? Who wants it to be (certainly not prospective readers!)? The original poster, and I (both prospective readers). -- Dave Berry. CS postgrad, Univ. of Edinburgh ...mcvax!ukc!cstvax!db