Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Cat, Photoblogger ([info]cat_mcdougall) wrote in [info]unfunnybusiness,
@ 2009-07-21 11:20:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:Bitch Slapped

First RaceFail... Now... Sexism Fail?
Here, because in no way is sexism ever funny.

Anyway, yesterday Author Jim C. Hines linked to a blog post by a woman named Tempest -- I'm unfamiliar with her at all.

In her blog post, she writes a supposed conversation between herself, Warren Lapine -- who owns Realms of Fantasy magazine -- and Doug Cohen -- who is, I think, the art director for RoF. The conversation was about when they would be putting covers that appealed more to a different demographic. (Meaning: Too many boobs, not enough man-butt.)

Now, the conversation doesn't paint Doug Cohen in the best of lights, and most people are willing to take it with a grain of salt.

And then, Doug Cohen responds.

The gist of his post is basically "It's not my fault."

Apparently, asking that RoF, which just changed owners/management and has a chance to go in a new direction, means that everyone is calling him sexist.

It might not blow up the way RaceFail did, but it seems the SciFi/Fantasy genre is wanking again.

Full disclosure: I posted on Jim Hines' second post here and then scuttled over here to post.



(Post a new comment)


[info]sevendeadlyfun
2009-07-21 04:46 pm UTC (link)
And this shit is exactly why I say away from old school sci-fi fandoms. I love me some sci-fi. I started watching Star Trek and Star Wars when I was 5, started playing D&D at 7, reading Asimov by sixth grade...yanno, your general all around baby nerd girl. But when I joined fandom, I stayed away from all that and I will continue to stay away from it because it's nothing but a haven for downlow misogyny and I refuse to feel that way in my very slight free time.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]dana
2009-07-22 02:39 am UTC (link)
Someone told me what Asimov was like at cons...I was like, did you have to tell me this? He had a rep for groping girls.

I think I prefer knowing less about these authors, you know. I find it harder to actually like their work if I know they are dodgy or not nice people generally. (or at least they present that way in public places). I'm also bummed about *rumours* I've heard about Gaiman, but oh well.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]miss_padfoot, 2009-07-22 02:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dana, 2009-07-22 02:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2009-07-22 03:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dana, 2009-07-22 03:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]owlrigh, 2009-07-22 04:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dana, 2009-07-22 04:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jaseroque, 2009-07-22 05:29 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]funwithrage, 2009-07-22 07:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jaseroque, 2009-07-22 07:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]funwithrage, 2009-07-23 05:10 am UTC

[info]kylenne
2009-07-21 04:55 pm UTC (link)
Good lord, his response is textbook male privilege bingo.

Also, am I the only one who thinks that mermaid cover is...tired? I mean, it reminds me of the same old tired art from early '90s roleplaying books, trying to stay away from the big boobs in chainmail bikinis from the 80s but just veering into a whole other cliche. To me it sends the message that the magazine is played out and I certainly wouldn't pick it up at my local bookstore. Seeing those covers over the years really did nothing to make me want to buy RoF, or submit my work to it. It just made me think "okay, this is not for me". It doesn't help that the typical highly sexualized female ideal in this type of art is inevitably white.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]cat_mcdougall
2009-07-21 05:50 pm UTC (link)
It doesn't help that the typical highly sexualized female ideal in this type of art is inevitably white.

... That's something I didn't even think about. *goes off to ponder this*

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]lady_ganesh
2009-07-21 06:40 pm UTC (link)
It doesn't help that the typical highly sexualized female ideal in this type of art is inevitably white.

There was some discussion of the Hugo nominees on Scalzi's blog, and some of the models there were paper- white. I don't mind 'fantasy white', but does there have to be so much of it?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mmanurere
2009-07-21 07:18 pm UTC (link)
Now, to be perfectly honest there are some non-white eroticized female ideals in mainstream SF/F.

The "exotic" "jungle queen" characters! Because that's not racefail at all!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cygnia, 2009-07-21 07:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarracenia, 2009-07-22 04:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]blue_penguin, 2009-07-22 07:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aliaras, 2009-07-23 08:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kylenne, 2009-07-22 01:12 am UTC

tree
2009-07-23 01:48 am UTC (link)
it reminds me of the same old tired art from early '90s

It was tired in the late 70s, going by my collections.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]aliaras
2009-07-21 04:58 pm UTC (link)
Jim Hines, meanwhile, is full of win - he wrote this post a while ago.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]lady_ganesh
2009-07-21 06:40 pm UTC (link)
I think I'm falling in love with him.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-07-22 12:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-07-22 12:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-07-22 12:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-07-22 01:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]squeakytoy, 2009-07-21 08:52 pm UTC

[info]inalasahl
2009-07-21 05:28 pm UTC (link)
K. Tempest Bradford has a follow-up on her lj here.

You know what I keep getting stuck on? They had to erase the nipples. It was that important to them to have naked breasts on the cover that they were willing to make them completely anatomically ridiculous and erase the nipples. I don't even get it. All of this nonsense about how it's tasteful nudity and art, and for goodness's sake they erased the nipples. That's the complete opposite of good art.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]miss_padfoot, 2009-07-22 01:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cat_mcdougall, 2009-07-22 01:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]miss_padfoot, 2009-07-22 01:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cat_mcdougall, 2009-07-22 01:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]erototoxin, 2009-07-23 02:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brown_betty, 2009-07-28 08:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]inalasahl, 2009-07-23 01:58 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]blue_penguin, 2009-07-22 07:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]inalasahl, 2009-07-23 07:50 pm UTC
I *like* the look of beautiful women, but geesh, enough is enough
[info]chikane
2009-07-21 05:48 pm UTC (link)
I had exactly that same discussion with a (gay, male) friend a few days ago. He kept insisting there should be semi-naked breasts [on something else], because it just sells way less without.

He doesn't even like that stuff, but he puts it on covers anyway, because it's what you do if you want fantasy to sell.

It's stupid. Not to mention that from what I read, the magazine had 4 times as many female readers, didn't it? Those few male readers sure are so important to the sales that pandering only to them is important!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: I *like* the look of beautiful women, but geesh, enough is enough - [info]cat_mcdougall, 2009-07-21 05:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2009-07-21 06:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]notjo, 2009-07-21 08:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]funwithrage, 2009-07-21 08:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]khym_chanur, 2009-07-22 01:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fools_game, 2009-07-22 02:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]deadwood, 2009-07-22 02:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2009-07-22 03:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aliaras, 2009-07-22 03:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]funwithrage, 2009-07-22 07:48 pm UTC
Re: I *like* the look of beautiful women, but geesh, enough is enough - [info]kosaginolegion, 2009-07-21 06:07 pm UTC
Re: I *like* the look of beautiful women, but geesh, enough is enough - [info]chikane, 2009-07-21 06:21 pm UTC
Re: I *like* the look of beautiful women, but geesh, enough is enough - [info]khym_chanur, 2009-07-22 01:46 am UTC
Re: I *like* the look of beautiful women, but geesh, enough is enough - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-07-22 04:36 pm UTC
Re: I *like* the look of beautiful women, but geesh, enough is enough - [info]frequentmouse, 2009-07-22 06:12 pm UTC

[info]goblin
2009-07-21 05:50 pm UTC (link)
"One you’ve already seen,. Michael Hague’s illustration doesn’t feature any nakedness. Nor does John Kaiine’s. Alan Clark’s does have a beast chained up in the background whose breasts can be seen, but as far as nakedness goes it’s rather unassuming and it’s certainly not the main thrust of the illustration. As the beast is a prisoner and I’ve read this story, I can certainly believe that it is naked, so I wasn’t about to ask the artist to make a change."

wut.
Is Doug Cohen's defense SERIOUSLY this? That only half the illustrations in this magazine feature naked women?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]trout, 2009-07-21 06:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]goblin, 2009-07-21 06:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2009-07-21 06:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2009-07-21 06:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-07-21 07:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2009-07-21 11:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2009-07-21 07:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2009-07-21 11:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kosaginolegion, 2009-07-21 08:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]libelle, 2009-07-22 12:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kosaginolegion, 2009-07-22 01:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kylenne, 2009-07-21 06:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]libelle, 2009-07-22 12:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]trout, 2009-07-22 04:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-07-21 06:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rodo, 2009-07-21 06:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2009-07-21 07:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-07-21 07:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2009-07-22 03:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2009-07-21 07:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cat_mcdougall, 2009-07-21 07:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2009-07-21 07:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ashenmote, 2009-07-21 08:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2009-07-21 08:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rodo, 2009-07-21 07:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2009-07-21 07:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rodo, 2009-07-21 08:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2009-07-21 08:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rodo, 2009-07-21 08:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2009-07-21 08:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rodo, 2009-07-21 08:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2009-07-21 09:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]goblin, 2009-07-21 09:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-07-22 12:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-07-22 12:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kelmendi, 2009-07-22 02:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-07-22 04:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]funwithrage, 2009-07-22 07:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]deliciouschaos, 2009-07-22 03:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mer1973, 2009-07-21 10:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]come_love_sleep, 2009-07-22 02:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mer1973, 2009-07-22 02:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2009-07-22 07:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-07-22 01:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]goddessleila, 2009-07-22 02:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]blankverses, 2009-07-22 04:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]goddessleila, 2009-07-22 05:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mer1973, 2009-07-22 02:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dark_puck, 2009-07-22 02:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dana, 2009-07-22 02:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hallidae, 2009-07-22 09:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dark_puck, 2009-07-22 09:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kefanii, 2009-07-23 03:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aliaras, 2009-07-22 03:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2009-07-22 03:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]keelieinblack, 2009-07-22 07:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tunxeh, 2009-07-21 08:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2009-07-22 11:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-07-22 12:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sgaana, 2009-07-22 02:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-07-22 04:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]yoritomo_reiko, 2009-07-22 12:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-07-22 06:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]yoritomo_reiko, 2009-07-22 07:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-07-22 07:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]deadwood, 2009-07-22 02:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-07-22 04:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]aliaras, 2009-07-22 05:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-07-22 05:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]funwithrage, 2009-07-22 07:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sgaana, 2009-07-22 02:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2009-07-22 11:54 am UTC
Pardon my OTness but... - [info]deadwood, 2009-07-22 02:29 am UTC
Re: Pardon my OTness but... - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2009-07-22 03:15 am UTC
Re: Pardon my OTness but... - [info]deadwood, 2009-07-22 03:23 am UTC
Re: Pardon my OTness but... - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-07-22 04:43 am UTC
Re: Pardon my OTness but... - [info]deadwood, 2009-07-22 01:57 pm UTC
Re: Pardon my OTness but... - [info]erototoxin, 2009-07-23 02:22 am UTC

[info]melannen
2009-07-21 07:28 pm UTC (link)
Oh, good. I saw Jim Hines and K. Tempest Bradford listed together, and was sad, because Jim Hines is on my list of SF Authors Who Is Good People. But yay! He is still good people! (And writes good books, too, btw.)

(Realms of Fantasy - boobage aside - always has ugly covers. I think they just generally need a complete change in art direction.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cat_mcdougall, 2009-07-21 07:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]melannen, 2009-07-21 07:30 pm UTC
(um, unrelatedly) - [info]negativecosine, 2009-07-21 08:01 pm UTC
Re: (um, unrelatedly) - [info]melannen, 2009-07-21 08:09 pm UTC

[info]innocentsmith
2009-07-21 08:08 pm UTC (link)
I especially love the folks who are like, "But if we don't paint nekkid boobscapes, what will we paint? Clothes are HARD! How dressed do they have to be?! I mean, we could just paint rockets and the rings of Saturn, or something, I guess, but wouldn't that be boring?"

There are so many fantasy/surrealist artists of various different eras who have done stunning artwork that's got 0% tits-and-ass sex-sells boring pablum. (And seriously, nothing against tits and asses, but I can't pass a billboard in the town where I live without seeing "fantasy women" - fantasy being used in a different sense. That cover is just a big freaking yawn.) Many of them use human/humanoid forms, if that's the selling point! Just, like, in an interesting way.

I vote we make a list of awesome classic or contemporary artists whose work on the cover of a magazine would make us, as consumers, stop and consider buying it just for that art. Just, you know, in case new artists are in need of ideas other than "chainmetal bikinis".

I'll start:

Kay Nielsen

Brian Froud

Arthur Rackham

Daniel Merriam

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]innocentsmith, 2009-07-21 08:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kosaginolegion, 2009-07-21 08:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jaseroque, 2009-07-21 08:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]hallidae, 2009-07-21 08:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]goblin, 2009-07-21 09:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]goblin, 2009-07-21 11:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]greenygal, 2009-07-22 12:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]goblin, 2009-07-22 02:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pariforma, 2009-07-22 03:28 pm UTC
Classic Artists! - [info]kookaburra, 2009-07-22 02:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sqbr, 2009-07-22 12:26 pm UTC
And now some artists - [info]sqbr, 2009-07-22 12:38 pm UTC
Re: And now some artists - [info]deadwood, 2009-07-22 01:58 pm UTC
Re: And now some artists - [info]sqbr, 2009-07-23 08:51 am UTC
Re: And now some artists - [info]frequentmouse, 2009-07-22 06:17 pm UTC
Re: And now some artists - [info]sqbr, 2009-07-23 08:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]erototoxin, 2009-07-23 02:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]anonyrat, 2009-07-23 06:08 am UTC

[info]notjo
2009-07-21 08:21 pm UTC (link)
This response by KTempest is a thing of beauty.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2009-07-22 12:03 am UTC

[info]sarracenia
2009-07-21 08:31 pm UTC (link)
People are used to bare-chested males, in TV, the movies, at the beach, etc.

You're right. Why, I can barely walk down the street without seeing posters of a half-naked man! Meanwhile, all the pictures of women are completely clothed and desexualized and he is a BRAVE PIONEER for putting half-naked women in his magazine.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]rimrunner, 2009-07-22 05:58 am UTC

[info]spacelogic
2009-07-21 09:51 pm UTC (link)
*raises hand* At the risk of thread drift, does anyone else here never even look at book cover illustrations until the book's been sitting around in their bookshelf for at least a year? (Granted, I do it because it seems like all the cover illustrations I see suck, but still.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2009-07-22 12:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2009-07-22 01:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]deadwood, 2009-07-22 02:45 am UTC

[info]tunxeh
2009-07-21 10:56 pm UTC (link)
An interesting related post with some entertaining links to gender-reversed fantasy art.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lil_miss_stfu, 2009-07-22 04:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hallidae, 2009-07-22 09:46 pm UTC

[info]sistercoyote
2009-07-22 12:01 am UTC (link)
Internet stalks you.

Only not really.

(Reply to this)


[info]notjo
2009-07-22 02:08 am UTC (link)
From the comments on Doug's post:

No shit women wear clothes, but a lot of them don't. And a lot of creatures of the Other (which, correct me if I am wrong, this painting is representative of) have no working concept of "clothes" nor would they be hindered by such. It's a way to show, not tell, their Otherness. If she wants penii on the cover of a magazine, there are plenty out there. But the penis really doesn't lend itself to form. It's more of a comedic prop. If someone is offended by the human form, I suggest they seek therapy or get a life.

BINGO!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2009-07-22 03:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]notjo, 2009-07-22 04:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]chaos_penguin, 2009-07-22 04:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sevendeadlyfun, 2009-07-22 04:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]zyna_kat, 2009-07-22 01:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]goddessleila, 2009-07-22 05:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]deadwood, 2009-07-22 02:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-07-22 06:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ahiru, 2009-07-22 02:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]greenygal, 2009-07-22 08:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]miss_padfoot, 2009-07-23 01:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bigbigtruck, 2009-07-22 04:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistercoyote, 2009-07-22 06:33 pm UTC

[info]notjo
2009-07-22 04:15 am UTC (link)
Actually, while we're doing Bingo cards, I really find the respond by Warren Lapaine to be a good one.

It's here. It's a bit long, so let me sum it up for you.

1. Had the previous owners of the magazine done this, no one would have complained or noticed. [Under the B: But, why are you picking on me? Don't you know that there are other groups who do this sexism thing much worse than I do?]

2. I'm a really nice guy who doesn't do sexism on any of my other covers. [Under the I: I'm a Nice Guy!]

3. I showed it to other women, specifically someone else who works for me, and my wife, and they didn't complain! [Under the N: No other woman would complain!]

4. Mermaids are totally naked. [Under the G: Gee, I'm just representing reality.]

5. I believe this is a very effective cover. [Which is under the I]

I have no doubt that Warren Lapaine is arguing in good faith. But C'mon. It's 2009. He could just google "sexist cover art", see that all of these arguments are made, over and over again, and either admit to FAIL, or come up with better arguments. I'd like to see him explain that Snape came to him in a dream and told him that he needed sexy mermaids because otherwise Doctor Who would kill Snarry, just because it would be different.

The elves! The elves made him do it! Not "I asked my wife, and she said it's okay."

(Reply to this)


[info]altoidsaddict
2009-07-22 04:31 am UTC (link)
Remember, ladies, your concerns mean nothing unless they are polite.

Contrast Doug Cohen's response to Tempest with his response to Jim, and the contrast between his supporters' responses to these two individuals as well. Jim's objections are much more candid and raw and are met with discussion and acknowledgment of his expertise. Tempest and other women who support her are criticized for not being polite and for using the wrong tone. We can belittle and deflect all we want, because making people uncomfortable is the far greater sin than supporting gender exploitation.

Historiann's blog is full of excellent advice for high-achieving women, but in particular I'm enjoying her Lessons for Girls series, and of that Lesson Number One: Anger is the best.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]rimrunner, 2009-07-22 02:47 pm UTC

[info]starkeymonster
2009-07-22 03:00 pm UTC (link)
Tempest is AWESOME. She's a SFF author (she's had some short fiction published) and also blogs as The Angry Black Woman: http://theangryblackwoman.com/

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]frequentmouse, 2009-07-22 06:05 pm UTC

[info]frequentmouse
2009-07-22 06:01 pm UTC (link)
I'm getting tinglings of prior wank here, dating back to Wiscon (maybe Readercon?) in 2006 or so, that hit F_W. Doug says he'll never forgive Tempest (real mature, there) Tempest said that she hadn't spoken to him since some event in that time perior, and the publisher guy (whose comments in Tempest's blog are somewhat clue deprived and void of any evidence of the social senses: of humor, common, and proportion.

Anyone remember what went down?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]starkeymonster, 2009-07-23 05:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cat_mcdougall, 2009-07-23 06:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frequentmouse, 2009-07-23 06:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rimrunner, 2009-07-23 08:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kalakagatha, 2009-07-25 04:19 am UTC

[info]rimrunner
2009-07-23 02:36 am UTC (link)
Nick Mamatas weighs in, in response to someone else's post.

(There's no wank to speak of in Mamatas's post, but the one he's responding to...hoo-boy.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]_goblin_, 2009-07-23 05:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cereta, 2009-07-23 08:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frequentmouse, 2009-07-23 07:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rimrunner, 2009-07-23 07:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cat_mcdougall, 2009-07-23 01:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frequentmouse, 2009-07-23 08:06 pm UTC

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map