I’ve alerted the publisher to the concerns voiced in this thread. They’re reviewing the cover and they’ve asked me to take it down, because I didn’t realize that there were potential artistic rights issues.
If you haven’t seen the image, it was a retro-Hollywood pulp cover of a gorilla carrying a scantily clad woman. The gorilla had some extraneous toe issues.
Sorry that we couldn’t use any of the titles from this ass-slappingly hilarious thread. That said, I promised that my favorite title would get a free book, and I make good on my promises. So the winner of the contest is derrick, who came up with “So Long And Thanks For All The Pricks”.
I won’t bore you with all the details of how the title was settled upon, but I just want to say: This cover rocks my socks off. I was bouncing around, praying that they’d decide to go with a retro feel, since I know that fans of this blog really enjoy the retro advertising and art that I use to illustrate so many posts. That it’s got a corny, old Hollywood feel just makes me even happier. So, opinions? Outrage? Praise? Offers to blow it up and frame it?
The book was finished about a month and a half ahead of schedule, so that may mean moving up the publishing date. I will keep everyone posted as I know more.
Remember me when you’re famous.
/I woulda gone for “Scream Bitch, Scream!”
Wonderfully corny.
It almost looks like an old children’s book in a way.
I love it! It’s definitely eye-catching. You should definitely get that poster-sized and hang it in your house.
congratulations! i’ll be sure to buy a copy.
I shall no doubt read this book. and no doubt have my blood angried up.
damn kids. get off my lawn.
OMG, that is too awesome. I LOVE it.
Brilliant! (As a fellow author, I know it’s rare to not only have a cover you like, but one that you have any input on at all! So brava to you!)
Congratulations! And extra extra congratulations from someone whose last couple of books were finished about a year after schedule! The cover is perfect — and would look great as a poster.
But how the hell did you secure the rights to that photo of Dan Riehl carrying Laura Ingraham in his arms?
HA! Michael, you are sizzling tonight- I thought it looked more like Kim Cattrell from “Sex and the City” with Jim Belushi’s ape from “Trading Places”.
Congrats, Amanda!
And you’ll be sending autographed copies to all of your regulars, right?
Great news, and congrats. You may have finished it ahead of schedule, but to my mind, it’s long overdue.
The Feminist Guide To Primitive Enironments
environments
Sorry
Or at least sell us an autographed copy.
Squeee!
*does happy dance*
Chef wants an autographed copy to go in his feminist blogger collection.
Hey, do I count as a regular?
Only send one to contributors. Be professional. Never give it away.
Hmmm, as far as I can see she wears a tight knit top that draws attention to her breasts and reclines right in front of him and positions herself to make her breasts as obvious as possible.
She should be wearing a beret. Blue dress would be good too.
It’s brilliant, Amanda. I can’t wait to order my copy.
Hearty congratulations to you!
YESS!!!!!
I love it.
congratulations
…Amanda, as smart as you are, and i actually love the title, but the cover image is so vintage racist i’d have thought you would have written *about* a book that looked like that rather written *in* it.
i don’t intend to stop reading the blog, or to not read the book (because i expect the content is as good as the blog, and really, there’s worse– a picture of Michelle Malkin, for instance) but… really? a big black anthropomorphic gorilla and a little white woman? this is exactly what you’re talking about! i really, really respect you as a writer but… do you think there’s any room for criticism of the cover? i mean, images of helpless white women abound and deserve to be poked fun at, but why does it have to come with a big black gorilla that walks like a man?
congratulations on the book.
congrats…
OK, one other person finishing a book before my dissertation is done. I should really just quit.
Needs more skin.
(What’s that whistling sou-
And Jonah Jacob Jingleheimer Goldberg’s book still isn’t finished.
…
It’s not often that I’m at a total loss for words. Congratulations.
Amanda, I think it’s fantastic, and I can’t wait to add a copy to my personal library.
Congrats on the book Amanda.
And i wasn’t disappointed in how long it took the eagerly offended to by outrage by their perceived racism of the cover.
And i wasn’t disappointed in how long it took the eagerly offended to by outrage by their perceived racism of the cover.
We had a running bet on how long it would be before people saw the sexism and not the irony.
OK, one other person finishing a book before my dissertation is done. I should really just quit.
My research levels for this were in the low region. Or, to be more to the point, blogging did the research for me. I just supplied the (hopeful) funny.
Sweet. That’s definitely getting added to the list.
If it were my cover, I wouldn’t have the cavewoman being carried by a gorilla. I’d have her keeping the gorilla at bay with a torch. Either that, or posing by herself with a spear or club in her hand, looking fierce.
But it’s not my cover. Congratulations on the book! I’m sure it will be witty and funny as hell.
Maybe the backcover has the gorilla on the ground, the woman with her foot on its neck?
Brilliant cover–but she forgot her pearls!
I don’t know which distracts me more, the blonde’s nether regions barely displayed or her arm sunk into the gorilla’s neck. I’d rather read the arm as wrapped around, but it looks more like preparing to rip out his throat.
Gorillas seem friendly to me - as do bears and rats - so my feelings are mixed. But the point being made is clear, and being made cleverly. You have to laugh.
That is a fabulous cover: love the retro aspect and the message that it is feminism that is truly politically incorrect (hence, the public hysteria over the simple fact that we are indeed…human).
I must admit that I would have wanted her to be a bit more active in actually fighting back against the beast. She is most passive and only seems to muster a stern glare.
When I was in college (back in the Dark Ages), a lot of professors would assign their own books for courses. Are we going to see your book as a book club selection?
Three simple words “Best Cover Ever”
If we buy through an Amazon link on Pandagon, do you get EXTRA money?
serena kitt, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
And i wasn’t disappointed in how long it took the eagerly offended to by outrage by their perceived racism of the cover.
Oh, so the racism is merely perceived? How dismissive and so typically male, pablo. I assure you that the retro artist who drew that filth fully intended the upright anthropomorphized ape to conjur up the horror of a black man ravishing a lily white woman.
We had a running bet on how long it would be before people saw the sexism and not the irony.
I think you mean ‘racism’ instead of ‘irony.’ And, yes, the racism does make it harder to see the sexism. You certainly don’t get the impression, looking at that picture, that white men’s bureaucratic institutionalized misogyny has anything whatsoever to do with the political hostility feminists confront.
The problem isn’t brutes in jungles. The problem is gentlemen, businessmen, and politicians right here in civilization. Perhaps you call that irony, but I call it obscuring the reality of misogyny in favor of offering “liberal” white patriarchs comforting images of black-hued savages, as if misogyny is the result of unenlightenment and not the result of 6000 years worth of the concerted influence of religion, philosophy, several revolutions, and a rennaisance.
Congratulations on your book and all, but yeah, racist art is still racist art, even when used in the service of ostensibly feminist aims, and even when it might also be reasonably considered irony.
serena kitt, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
And i wasn’t disappointed in how long it took the eagerly offended to by outrage by their perceived racism of the cover.
Oh, so the racism is merely perceived? How dismissive and so typically male, pablo. I assure you that the retro artist who drew that filth fully intended the upright anthropomorphized ape to conjur up the horror of a black man ravishing a lily white woman.
We had a running bet on how long it would be before people saw the sexism and not the irony.
I think you mean ‘racism’ instead of ‘irony.’ And, yes, the racism does make it harder to see the sexism. You certainly don’t get the impression, looking at that picture, that white men’s bureaucratic institutionalized misogyny has anything whatsoever to do with the political hostility feminists confront.
The problem isn’t brutes in jungles. The problem is gentlemen, businessmen, and politicians right here in civilization. Perhaps you call that irony, but I call it obscuring the reality of misogyny in favor of offering “liberal” white patriarchs comforting images of black-hued savages, as if misogyny is the result of unenlightenment and not the result of 6000 years worth of the concerted influence of religion, philosophy, several revolutions, and a rennaisance.
Congratulations on your book and all, but yeah, racist art is still racist art, even when used in the service of ostensibly feminist aims, and even when it might also be reasonably considered irony.
Congrats, Amanda! I’ll definitely be picking up a copy when it’s released. Will you be doing a book tour? Will you be on The Daily Show or the Colbert Report?! ?!!? !!!!
Yeah, I don’t really like the cover. I would avoid it at the bookstore. But then, maybe I’m not the target audience. Or maybe they know I’ll just buy it anyway because I read this blog.
But congrats on choosing a title and getting the cover settled. That’s great.
Congratulations, Amanda. I’ll be buying a copy. You are such a fantastic writer: this is going to be one of those landmark books.
(I don’t like the cover, but hey. Don’t judge a book by its cover, as they say…)
I thought the correct terminology these days was “rain forest”.
thalarctos: Jungles and Rain Forests are two different things. You’re basically saying that the politically correct term for a “beach” is a “dune.”
Different.
Oh.. um… ugh. Sorry. I’m with Serena on this. That was the very first thing that came to mind when I saw the cover. I know the retro is right up your alley, Amanda, but I really wish you could rethink this one.
serena kitt, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
And i wasn’t disappointed in how long it took the eagerly offended to by outrage by their perceived racism of the cover.
Oh, so the racism is merely perceived? How dismissive and so typically male, pablo. I assure you that the retro artist who drew that filth fully intended the upright anthropomorphized ape to conjur up the horror of a black man ravishing a lily white woman.
We had a running bet on how long it would be before people saw the sexism and not the irony.
I think you mean ‘racism’ instead of ‘irony.’ And, yes, the racism does make it harder to see the sexism. You certainly don’t get the impression, looking at that picture, that white men’s bureaucratic institutionalized misogyny has anything whatsoever to do with the political hostility feminists confront.
The problem isn’t brutes in jungles. The problem is gentlemen, businessmen, and politicians right here in civilization. Perhaps you call that irony, but I call it obscuring the reality of misogyny in favor of offering “liberal” white patriarchs comforting images of black-hued savages, as if misogyny is the result of unenlightenment and not the result of 6000 years worth of the concerted influence of religion, philosophy, several revolutions, and a rennaisance.
Congratulations on your book and all, but yeah, racist art is still racist art, even when used in the service of ostensibly feminist aims, and even when it might also be reasonably considered irony.
In fact, Thalarctos, there are rain forests that are not even tropical. On the Canadian Pacific Coast, there is a boreal rain forest.
Hm … I’m really torn about the racial stuff. On the one hand, I can understand where people like liz and serena are coming from, on the other hand, the point of the jacket is that it’s a postmodern appropriation of the retro look … the whole point being that the conservatives actually pine for that bullshit (not just the sexism but the racism too) and the jacket isn’t trying to glorify the ape/black man making off with the white woman — it’s mocking that trope.
Particularly since the last major book put out by a feminist blogger also had a controversy surrounding it’s usefulness for WoC, it would be really a shame if the cover created a controversy and alienated potential readers… is it too late to change, Amanda?
The overall retro feel is pulled off nicely, but I really dislike the color scheme. Blech.
Also, the little blurb under the main title looks like it’s written on a stuck-on piece of masking tape. It’s distracting. “The feminist survival…environments” should probably have been placed on the lighter background; no need for the irregular backing box.
Otherwise, good on yer.
-MH
If we buy through an Amazon link on Pandagon, do you get EXTRA money?
Yes indeedy.
Congrats lady!
Amanda, the cover of that book is racist. The hell.
Heart
Good to know what the joy-killing narrative is going to be. My money was on “pornographic”. Shows my guessing skills.
No wonder black feminists keep telling us we don’t get it…I was really looking forward to the book but I’m having second thoughts now.
A big word to Justice Walks.
Yeah, I’m sorry. I don’t mean to be joy-killing, honestly. And given recent events, especially, I’m raw as all hell and I can’t stand feminists mistreating feminists. But dang it, whether you believe it or not, I am *on your side*, I *am*, and I can’t stand to see something disseminated out there that is going to get skewered 20 times til Sunday by people who are *not* on your side or mind.
I’m betting your book is *great*. You’re a great writer, a good thinker, sharp, you have the experiences under your belt, all I have to say is
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
And don’t you want to hear it from us first so you can fashion your response, rather than all of us come in and say, oh, that’s so great and not say anything, even if we’re thinking it, and then you get blindsided?
Anyway, congratulations on your book, for sure, GO YOU. I want it to be successful and you to be successful, I want you to go, and be heard, and that’s the trouble, oh fuck,
waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!
Sorry to be a killjoy. I should have thought longer before I commented abruptly like that.
But damn.
Heart
Good to know what the joy-killing narrative is going to be. My money was on “pornographic”. Shows my guessing skills.
Wow. Are you not even willing to consider that maybe, just maybe, this is in fact a pretty racist image?
I don’t think that going into battlemode is going to help anything. It’s just going to get people all pissed off and defensive and then there will be bitterness and blogroll purging.
This is one of those postmodern exercises in irony, right? The thread, not the cover, that is. Someone does something in jaw-droppingly poor taste–it’s not exactly blackface, but it’s more than halfway there–and when called on it, the offender first claims it was meant to be “irony”, because racist tropes are okay if they’re ironic. Accusations of being “joy-killing” follow, and in at least one case someone actually responds to that, hedging her bets, apologizing profusely and saying that of course she didn’t mean it was racist, and she bets that it’s a real fine book to boot.
This is especially surreal given that Amanda is so keen (skilled, even) at pointing out this exact sort of behavior in other people. I’m really hoping that this is some kind of brilliant effort to make a clever point.
saying that of course she didn’t mean it was racist, and she bets that it’s a real fine book to boot.
If you’re talking to me, that wasn’t me. I said straight up the cover IS racist. I’m the joy killer therefore. Don’t twist crap around and make shit up.
I stand by every word I said. I did not intend to attack Amanda, because damnit, I am so done attacking feminists. I mean to say that cover is going to be a big fat problem, no matter what.
Heart
Right. It’s racist, but you’re not attacking Amanda. You’re sorry for mentioning that it’s racist, and you want to cover for members of your affinity group, but it’s still racist, which is mainly a problem because other people might care. Got it.
i have a fun idea! let’s all piss on our favorite blogger’s first book because the cover is icky! and then let’s kick puppies! and burn down ice cream factories! and make her feel like shit because she does what she always does by finding a kitsch-y picture to attach to something she wrote.
godDAMN. could she BE more brilliant? extrapolating to her real life book a marketing tool that she uses on her blog?! especially using an image with racist/sexist tones that even racist/sexist people can see and usually avoid thus reaching out to a broader audience because it’s not a scary, boring image of a coat hanger.
f’ing fantastic.
One can criticize without attacking. I fully believe that Amanda did not intentionally try to put out something racist. It appears, however, that she did. If it were a Republican Senator who put out a book with this cover, what would Amanda write about it? Which derogatory attacking name would she use in the title of her go-for-the-jugular commentary on this bookcover if it came from Norm Coleman of MN for instance? Maybe the lesson that will come from this will be that everybody should relax a little in deciding the complete character of an individual based on doing something that can rightly be criticized. Maybe this will wake up the blog to the fact that people screw stuff up sometimes and it doesn’t necessarily mean they are 100% an asshat. Does this slip up define Amanda? Is she a racist in everything she does? Does she yearn for a return to this as a poster earlier said conservatives do?
from here on out, let’s all promise to never ever ever ever ever use images to promote concepts and ideas. everything must be on a solid color background with a contrasting color font. but not black/white, of course. probably not pink/green because pink has annoying connotations as well. maybe purple/brown? though we did have an issue with betty friedan and the lavendar menance.
Go away, grendelkahn, you’re an asshole.
I am NOT sorry for mentioning that the cover is INDEED racist. I virtually never comment here, but this was important enough that I *did* comment here. Not to attack Amanda, but to offer honest, feminist feedback about the cover of this book.
Why give all the assholes who hate us something to point to to discredit the otherwise good work we do? If it means we have to have plain cover books, so be it! Why have a cover that hurts more than it helps?
Heart
rachel - Just say it and stop beating around it. No-one has the right to be offended by this cover because you aren’t. See, that’ll stop you from having to write 10 more pithy little criticizing posts taking shots at people who have different life experiences than you and who may therefor draw different conclusions. We’ll all get ourselves in line and march behind your ideas. ‘kay?
When Jessica’s book came out, I thought we all learned that authors do not get to pick what goes on the cover of their books. Apparently we did not. Let me reiterate, then:
Authors do not get to pick what goes on the cover of their books.
Nowhere did I see Amanda say she designed or picked the cover. Publishers suck about stuff like that. I’m just happy she’s getting a book out.
That being siad, whoever did design the cover needs some help with photoshop. The girl and gorilla are sliced off at some very odd places.
…by finding a kitsch-y picture to attach to something she wrote.
rachel, the picture’s overriding characteristic is not “kitsch.” It is racism. If you want people to overlook the racism in favor of the kitsch, that is racist, as in, supportive of the hierarchy built on race. It trivializes the concerns of those who are not white in favor of attracting white people who are racist and/or sexist. Your priorities are not feminist, rachel, whether they make for good marketing practices or not.
grendelkhan, I think I understand where you’re coming from, but Heart was speaking to Amanda as a feminist, not as a white person. It is feminism, not white supremacy, that is compromised when racism is used as its reinforcement. Heart is on our side.
I think I have to agree with justice walks. The first thing I thought of when I saw that cover was, “Man, didn’t I just have to go through the re-hash of the racist marketing campaign for King Kong *last* summer?”
Why couldn’t it be a white Tarzan carrying the girl away instead of a gorilla? Then you could still have the “jungle” pun without bringing up the whole “black men are after our white womenz!” trope. Or you could make it look like an actual vinatge survival guide or a boy scout/girl scout handbook.
I enjoy the retro images that you use in the blog, but I can’t remember ever seeing one like this. I really hope you will reconsider.
-Megan
So, those of you who are offended by the “racist” cover, do you think that black people are apes?
Or do apes just remind you of black people?
Well, I knew people would complain about something, since they have to. I’ll admit, I didn’t see “racist” coming. But I knew it would be something. I seriously thought it would be a rehash of the Jessica thing, with “too sexy” being it.
And that’s my last comment on it. I knew it would be something, since liberals take the phrase “we have seen the enemy and it is us” as a maxim to live up to. I just need to hone my guessing skills.
I’m glad people think I can draw as well as write, but actually, I can’t. But I’m impressed you think I made the artistic choices for the cover.
There then follow strawman attacks; e.g., if black jokes were made, it’s “oh, maybe I should never anyone’s race again”; if an obviously racist image is the problem, then it’s “maybe we should never use any pictures at all”. These ideas purposefully miss the point that it’s the racism that’s the problem. For bonus points, critics are derided as puppy-kickers who hate ice cream.
Bah. Enough third-person nonsense.
In a related but not precisely applicable context, see ebogjonson’s “should I use blackface?” decision tree; laying aside the “are you white?” question, note that the question “is your proposed blackface image something that you might find (in terms of context or basic argument) on a white supremacist website?” appears; I believe that this cover certainly hits that criterion.
I hope that you don’t mean to imply that Amanda is to be made immune to criticism because you’re a fan of hers. Was that what you intended? Are you pissed off because I called you on judging members of your affinity group by a different standard than you use for those outside of the group? Also, you’ve misspelled my name. But she did get defensive about it; I suppose she can’t very well just disown the book cover since it’s her book, but she kind of owns it now, at least in the context of this thread. Yes; rereading Heart’s post, I agree with where she’s coming from. I initially read it as apologizing to Amanda for pointing out the racism; I now see that she meant only to express concern that this will be used to discredit Amanda. I did realize that the affinity group in question was feminists, rather than white people.There then follow strawman attacks; e.g., if black jokes were made, it’s “oh, maybe I should never anyone’s race again”; if an obviously racist image is the problem, then it’s “maybe we should never use any pictures at all”. These ideas purposefully miss the point that it’s the racism that’s the problem. For bonus points, critics are derided as puppy-kickers who hate ice cream.
Bah. Enough third-person nonsense.
In a related but not precisely applicable context, see ebogjonson’s “should I use blackface?” decision tree; laying aside the “are you white?” question, note that the question “is your proposed blackface image something that you might find (in terms of context or basic argument) on a white supremacist website?” appears; I believe that this cover certainly hits that criterion.
I hope that you don’t mean to imply that Amanda is to be made immune to criticism because you’re a fan of hers. Was that what you intended? Are you pissed off because I called you on judging members of your affinity group by a different standard than you use for those outside of the group? Also, you’ve misspelled my name. But she did get defensive about it; I suppose she can’t very well just disown the book cover since it’s her book, but she kind of owns it now, at least in the context of this thread. Yes; rereading Heart’s post, I agree with where she’s coming from. I initially read it as apologizing to Amanda for pointing out the racism; I now see that she meant only to express concern that this will be used to discredit Amanda. I did realize that the affinity group in question was feminists, rather than white people.Amanda, you of all people should know that liberals don’t just complain for the sake of complaining. We do not criticize bits and pieces of pop culture to get in our daily snark. We say what we say because we believe in it.
We all struggle against privilege everyday, be it the male privilege that we encounter or the white privilege that we struggle to push down within ourselves. We can’t expect to be taken seriously if we say one type of privilege is to be abhorred and another is no big deal.
-Megan
“from here on out, let’s all promise to never ever ever ever ever use images to promote concepts and ideas. everything must be on a solid color background with a contrasting color font.”
I object strongly to the use of contrasting colors. They are highly offensive because of the implication that non-contrasting colors are not as valid and worthy. We must learn to get past our colorist and contrastist culture and embrace monotonism, or else this planet is doomed!
If the image is eliminated but a solid background and contrasting text colors are still used, I will boycott this book and suggest the same to everyone I know (all three of them…)!!!
Darn. My last comment is currently in moderation. That’ll teach me to respond to that many posts at once.
I agree with Megan; it’s not like it would have been hard to make the cover without the racism. I think it’s been assumed that Amanda was behind it because it’s the sort of vintage image she uses regularly, and because she’s been defending the cover. (I see that in the post she explicitly states that it wasn’t her pick.)
Alternately, one might say that liberals are less inclined to provide cover when “one of us” does wrong. The problem isn’t so much that, as Megan puts it, you’re assuming that white privilege is “no big deal”; the problem is that it’s being assumed that white privilege is no big deal when you’re doing it; that is, it’s not racist for white women we like to use racist iconography in a way that doesn’t undermine its basis, but it is racist when white women we don’t like do it.This goes along with Justice Walks’s “Heart is on our side” bit; I’m strongly against the idea that we should refrain from arguing with (even disagreeing with?) people who are supposed to be “on our side” when we do disagree, even strongly.
Well, I knew people would complain about something, since they have to.
You just refuse to even entertain the notion that our complaints are justified, don’t you? Yes, we are obligated to point out racism, yes, we “have to.” It means we’re anti-racist. It means we don’t believe you ought to wrangle your white privilege and use racism to sell your book. I’d have the same problem with a man using a sexist (also known as ’sexy’) image, like the one Filipovic put on her book cover (and, yes, being a member of the sex class, she’s entitled), to hawk his own wares, even if he called himself a feminist.
Why does our anti-racism bother you? Do you think that if we do not name racism for what it is - in the name of feminism, of course - that it would be better? Well, that would just make your feminism racist. Or is it that we should be passive enablers of racism on behalf of your joy (thus the kill-joy reference)?
To what noble end is racism a means?
“liberals don’t just complain for the sake of complaining.”
hahahahahahahahaha!
Perhaps you call that irony, but I call it obscuring the reality of misogyny in favor of offering “liberal” white patriarchs comforting images of black-hued savages
But that’s what’s so great about this cover art! It totally obscures the reality of misogyny in favor of offering “liberal” white patriarchs comforting images of black-hued savages. As a “liberal” white patriarch myself, I can assure you that I was very comforted by this image. I’m hoping the book will obscure the reality of misogyny, too.
Good to know what the joy-killing narrative is going to be. My money was on “pornographic”. Shows my guessing skills. . . . I’ll admit, I didn’t see “racist” coming.
Actually, Amanda, it’s always a safe bet to put your money on “pornographic.” So if you just added a burqa to this cover art somewhere, I’m pretty sure everyone would be happy. As for not seeing “racist” coming, well, you just don’t get it — most likely because it didn’t occur to you to see the gorilla as a representation of black folk.
And would this image be any different if it were on the cover of a book by Norm Coleman? Why, yes it would — for roughly the same reason that the word “queer” means one thing when James Dobson says it and another thing when Judith Butler says it. It’s kinda queer how that works.
Amanda–
I know you said you wouldn’t comment anymore on the topic, but as a general point, do authors, such as yourself, have veto over cover artwork, or is it assigned by some mid level functionary or editor at a publisher?
And still … all the women are White, all the men are Black.
Oh, and apparently all the feminists are white, too.
But that’s what’s so great about this cover art! It totally obscures the reality of misogyny in favor of offering “liberal” white patriarchs comforting images of black-hued savages. As a “liberal” white patriarch myself, I can assure you that I was very comforted by this image. I’m hoping the book will obscure the reality of misogyny, too.
Isn’t it cute? It thinks that the intentions of white folks have a goddamned thing to do with the political implications of their actions. As if one individual white woman failing to see (or, perhaps, hoping the time had come when it might no longer be considered in poor taste) “the gorilla as a representation of black folk” means it’s not racist anymore.
And it’s also clever because it can use itself as an example of an individual white patriarch who was only sarcastically comforted by the racist cover, rather than actually so. Which means diddly squat because Berube isn’t representative of white patriarchs, “liberal,” liberal, or otherwise, and Berube certainly isn’t doing anything to dismantle the heirarchy erected in men’s honor by pretending as if he, in his condescending refusal to acknowledge the history, and present reality, of black people being portrayed as animals or as animalistic, is representative of the powers that be.
One can find contemporary p0rn0graphy featuring white women being rammed by “knucke-draggers,” which is both a reference to black people and to great apes. This is current. People, especially white ones, and regardless of whether Berube does, still to this day draw links between blacks and beasts. Pretending as if this is so farfetched as to be preposterous is not enlightened. It is racist, as in supportive of the current social heirarchy that says, but only implicitly now, as opposed to the overt violence of days past, that blacks are inferior.
I honestly don’t see racism in the cover, but I am but a lowly Canadian, and thus have been shielded from a lot of the history of racism in America. (For example, I once used the phrase “calling a spade a spade” on a posting board, where someone freaked out and starting screeching at me all, “HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT YOU RACIST ASSHOLE? DON’T YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS? DON’T YOU?” and I was all, “Whut?” , completely confused and ignorant of any use of the term “spade” besides that of a deck of cards or as gardening tools.)
I mean, to mine innocent eyes, the group most potentially offended by this image are Gorillas, (i.e. the Genus Gorilla), when everyone knows from watching George of the Jungle, gorillas are actually wise and erudite speakers and excellent friends, and would never push a female around against her will.
I object strongly to the use of contrasting colors. They are highly offensive because of the implication that non-contrasting colors are not as valid and worthy. We must learn to get past our colorist and contrastist culture and embrace monotonism, or else this planet is doomed!
What are you going to do - ethnicly cleanse every mixed-colour book cover that doesn’t fit in?
Apartheid! FASCIST!
DH: Mostly not much input on it. But trying to avoid capring after it’s been proven inevitable is, suffice it to say, a losing game. I watched the fussing over Jessica with interest and realized if it’s not one thing, it will be another, so the best choice is to just do what you will and let people think what they need to think.
It did make writing it easier, though. I realized that stressing out over inclusive vs. not condescending vs. humor was pointless when there was no such thing as the perfect mix that will avoid criticism that I’m secretly a racist/sexist/Markos-lover, and that realization freed me up to write in my own voice and aiming for humor.
Isn’t it cute? It thinks that the intentions of white folks have a goddamned thing to do with the political implications of their actions.
It also puts the lotion in the basket . . . hey, wait a second! I’m feelin’ kinda dehumanized here!
OK, let me be “serious” for you, O Pleasant But Kinda Dehumanizing One. The subtitle of the book speaks of “politically inhospitable environments.” (And not, say, African-Mexislamohomofascists carrying off our wimmenfolk.) It’s pretty clear, from the context (for those of you who believe in “interpreting” “things” in “context”), that the “gorillas” in question here are the guys who create those politically inhospitable environments. (And not, say, people of African descent.) So it seems pretty clear, at least to me, that the cover is taking the image-history of which you speak and putting it to a completely different, and completely nonracist, use. (You could also argue that the cover is signifying on — you know, in that sense of “signifying” — white patriarchy’s history of pretending to defend white wimmenfolk. That would work, too.)
But if you’re going to argue that the image is always and everywhere racist no matter what the context, and cannot possibly be rearticulated to any other agenda by any anti-racist person for any purpose, hey, knock yourself out.
Maybe find a pic of an abominable snowman? Like the one from Rudolph?
Though, I will say the similarities with King Kong are obvious, and no one would ever say that isn’t a racist film.
Or, what Michael said.
grendelkhan, sorry I spelled your name wrong, I didn’t mean to, and thanks Justicewalks and grendelkhan for revisiting my comment and understanding my intentions. I appreciate it.
Heart
So… said guys are behaving so uncivilized that theyŕe ape-like, and this is why we’re representing presumably white guys with apes. If it takes that much thought to unpack a nonracist meaning out of an obviously racist image, it’s likely that folks will not mostly do it. It’s just as easy, if not easier, to follow the train of thought saying that those white guys are acting so uncivilized that they may as well be black.Repurposing racist iconography is complicated. See the “should I use blackface?” chart that I linked to above for more.
Did someone actually argue that? I must have missed it.We don’t live in utopia, Berube. We live in a world structured around racism and sexism. Wishing away the context in which the racism and sexism are relevant doesn’t do any good. Regardless of Amanda’s intentions, that book is going to sit in bookstores run within a racist economy by racist capitalists for the consumption of racist consumers. There isn’t any way around that. Amanda stands to benefit from this racism. And while she has attempted to “rearticulate” the image, it doesn’t negate the racism inherent in the image and it doesn’t change the intent of the artist or make the “gorilla” any less anthropomorphized or upright.
Would anyone be arguing that we should just overlook the racism if she’d used one of those WWII images of the anthropomorphized “Japanese” rodents with buck teeth? Would we be pretending as if the rodent was never intended to bear any resemblance to Japanese people or that it shouldn’t matter now even if it was?
One can find contemporary p0rn0graphy featuring white women being rammed by “knucke-draggers,” which is both a reference to black people and to great apes. This is current. People, especially white ones, and regardless of whether Berube does, still to this day draw links between blacks and beasts. Pretending as if this is so farfetched as to be preposterous is not enlightened. It is racist, as in supportive of the current social heirarchy that says, but only implicitly now, as opposed to the overt violence of days past, that blacks are inferior.
Exactly. And Berube, your idea doesn’t work, because feminists aren’t in position, vis a vis the white male power structure that relentlessly trashes Amanda (and all of us who are feminists), to remoptely do what you’re suggesting was the intention here — (as though white people’s intentions matter anyway, as justicewalks pointed out so well, but whatever) — which amounts to some sort of “reclaiming” of this racist, sexist imagery, which is not *only* about black men as thugs, rapists, beasts and animals, but which is also about white women as childlike victims together with white men’s racist and murderous obsessions over black men’s interest in raping or otherwise violating them, which obsessions have produced countless numbers of fucking lynchings.
So yeah, right, we’re supposed to just forget all of that (even though it’s still happening today in various ways) and say, lookee der, don’t you see, the gorilla is supposed to be anti-feminists! All the while the anti-feminists, racists, sexists, clap their hands with glee.
Heart
Something about the cover just rubs me entirely the wrong way. I work in the publishing industry, so I know authors don’t exactly get to choose their covers, but they do get a choice of 3-5 covers, from which to make a selection. So in the end, I’m pretty sure that any blame can at least partially be laid at the author’s feet.
maybe i’m too young, or maybe it’s because i’m white (and therefore inherently a bigot who should off myself, as i’ve been told is the only thing i can do to fight racism), but, gorilla=black dude=whut? i mean, i’ve heard of the concept, but all i see when i look at that cover is (facetiously putting it) ‘lolz stupid ’50s tropes about helpless women’.
If it takes that much thought to unpack a nonracist meaning out of an obviously racist image, it’s likely that folks will not mostly do it. It’s just as easy, if not easier, to follow the train of thought saying that those white guys are acting so uncivilized that they may as well be black.
Maybe. But it’s also possible that the “easiest” thing is to follow the train of thought that says “um, retro image.” The harder thing to do, intellectually speakin’, is to link it to the history of depicting black men as apes, either to condemn the image as racist or to suggest that the image isn’t racist in context.
Did someone actually argue that? I must have missed it.
I think you did miss it, yes. But it’s an entirely legitimate argument; some things, after all — like swastikas, as certain British punks learned 30 years ago — are very hard to rearticulate to new contexts.
Grendelkhan - It’s not an obviously racist image, as you can tell by the fact that a whole bunch of people who are more attuned to racism than the average person managed to look at it and not immediately cotton to the possibility of a racist subtext. I only saw the possibility of a racist subtext after it was pointed out (and I agree there’s a valid interpretation of the image as racist, though as Berube points out, the context makes it kinda hard to take the racist interpretation seriously).
i think the original image has quite obviously got racist tones to it, and i’m surprised people are dismissing that possibility out of hand. on the other hand, i also think that it’s a pretty good cover for a book that aims to take down all manner of outdated assumptions about sex and race. on the other other hand, i wouldn’t be surprised if most of this particular book is going to be about sex and not about race — that is, that while i’m sure the text will make obvious what the author thinks of the original image’s sexism, no mention will be made of its racism. i’m basing this guess on (a) amanda’s refusal here to acknowledge that the retro politics of the picture were not just about sex but also about race (and i completely love amanda and her writing but come on, she expected objections of “pornographic” and didn’t even think of “racist”?) and (b) amanda’s relative weakness wrt blogging about race. again, not a personal flaw per se, just something i’m guessing she didn’t choose to spend most of her energy on in this book. SO, all that said, i still think it’s kinda crappy to use an image that has worked, and still works, as a dog-whistle to racists, without planning to address that in the context. basically you’re counting on us not to even think about the image’s latent racism because we know YOU are an anti-racist person and we know that’s not what you mean — but it shouldn’t work that way, if we’re being honest. sorry for asking you to do a round of denunciations and all, but still.
The image looks a lot like one from a pamphlet a white supremacist so kindly slipped in my locker when I was in law school about seven years ago. Then he went on a shooting spree.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/05/illinois.shootings.02/
For some people, these images aren’t retro.
Perhaps we should identify an exemplar of racist book-coverdom to serve as a yardstick before passing judgement on Amanda’s case? If this, say, scores a 10 on the racist-book-cover scale, Amanda’s book is probably somewhere more like a 3, right?
I have to wonder about the mentality of someone who sees a picture of a gorilla and automatically thinks of black people…and then calls SOMEONE ELSE racist.
That’s just so special I am at a loss for any further words.
It *is* an obviously racist image. In fact, the gorilla as black man idea is an entire *category* of racist images. It lives in right next door to Li’l Black Sambo and across the street from Uncle Ben.
If you don’t understand the history of the image, than your first impressions of it are not exactly helpful, philosophizer. And it has nothing to do with whether or not you are white. I am white, and in college (so I assume you are not *that* much younger than me), but I have taken the time to educate myself about this particularly dark part of our cultural imagination.
The fact is that this type of image, much like an image of blackface, has a terribly offensive history. This makes it difficult for such an image to be used in a manner that empties it of all of its previous content. It is not impossible, but in this case, I think that the attempt fails.
-Megan
I think it’s funny that Amanda says she doesn’t get to pick the cover when she gets some heat - distancing herself from someone else’s doing, but before the heat started she said “This cover rocks my socks off.”
She was for it before she was against it.
Also: You have to be pretty stupid to believe that some of us are simply seeing a gorilla and thinking “black people” out of the blue. This image has a history, a history that white supremacists created in order to represent and marginalize African Americans. Read the above post by me. Or, failing that, read a book.
-Megan
Also: gorillas aren’t really jungle critters. They tend to live in more mountainous regions.
Now, a woman looking triumphant as she rides a jaguar would be both nonracist (I think) and zoologically accurate.
““politically inhospitable environments.””
I believe that the book cover states “surviving” such. Isn’t rather the point of the book that Amanda didn’t “survive” in such?
Yes, maybe it’s because I’m European, but whenever I see a gorilla, I really don’t make any connection to black people either.
Or maybe I’m just an unenlightened woman from the old world or something…
If this, say, scores a 10 on the racist-book-cover scale, Amanda’s book is probably somewhere more like a 3, right?
Right, because if it’s only a little bit of racism, or unintended racism, it doesn’t count, and we should be grateful to have only a little bit of unintended racism with our feminism
have to wonder about the mentality of someone who sees a picture of a gorilla and automatically thinks of black people…and then calls SOMEONE ELSE racist.
You sound exactly like the MRAs and Nice Guys who claim that a feminist insistence on “perceiving” sexism, especially when it’s only just a little bit and it wasn’t even intended, amounts to man-hatred. It’s unconvincing whether sexism or racism is the issue.
Megan, I didn’t mean to imply that I didn’t understand the historical context of the image (and ftr, I’m older than you). I meant that understanding that it happens is very different from a first impression, based on what one’s been exposed to (in this case, me never having been exposed to gorilla=black dude outside of scholarly analysis). Point being, and I suppose I wasn’t clear, that most people who aren’t scholarly types like us Pandagonians and similar may not even be aware of this history or if they are, realize to associate it with the image unless they think about it for a while.
“I’d have the same problem with a man using a sexist (also known as ’sexy’) image, like the one Filipovic put on her book cover (and, yes, being a member of the sex class, she’s entitled)”
That wasn’t Jill Filipovic of Feministe, that was Jessica from Feministing.
The repeated stripping of Mr. Bérubé’s properly accented é’s in comments here is offensive and bigoted.
Those who do this are ignoring his ethnic and cultural background and forcing his name to fit their narrow view of how names should be spelled.
It’s an outrage and should not be tolerated!…
Though, I will say the similarities with King Kong are obvious, and no one would ever say that isn’t a racist film.
The product of a Kiwi, in the last incarnation. The politics of race in NZ are quite, quite different from those of America (for a start, it isn’t slavery that formed the basis of continuing tension, but land wars fought to a compromise).
When I saw the image, I thought “sex” not “race”.
Point being, and I suppose I wasn’t clear, that most people who aren’t scholarly types like us Pandagonians and similar may not even be aware of this history.
Please, just stop trying to pretend as if this is so far removed from the present day that anyone who isn’t a tenured historian would have trouble making the connections. I just gave the example of the “knuckle-draggers” in p0rn0graphy. There are the dixie-whistling, shucking and jiving crows in that sing-along movie Disney just re-released. There are the evil black orcs (some with animal heads, claws, fangs, all led by a white wizzard) in opposition to the white men, hobbits, elves, and dwarves, who bear no resemblance to animals, and who are the side of good in the Lord of the Rings series.
This stuff is not bygone history. It is still happening. And it’s happening again on the cover of a book that will no doubt fail to clarify or refute any (not-so-)old-fashioned racial connotations in its content. If any American was able to look at that image and not see the racism, it is the result of white privilege, period. That you don’t have to think about the ways in which black people are still likened to animals in this country (and elsewhere, but I’ll limit this to Americans) is an enviable state of oblivion, and one in which no black American will find herself, no matter how young or unexposed to academic race study.
Thanks, quotelyricshere, for the correction.
While defending our hostess isn’t something I do very frequently, I simply can’t see the cover picture as racist. Once pointed out, I looked again, and the only way I could come up with anything racist is if one equates black men with gorillas — and that can only be in the mind of the observer. That would be to infer something the author never implied.
If you look at a gorilla and see a black guy, then maybe the problem is with you and not the gorilla.
Did somebody just call me an MRA? Them’s fightin’ words.
I’ll see your point as soon as one of you makes a case against the insidious white supremacist blackface theatrics of the Guerilla Girls.
Congratulations, Amanda! You were obviously happy about your book being completed and publication scheduled, and it’s your supporters, not your opponents, who have turned your day sour. Apparently you forgot to take some Felix Felicitous this morning.
Guys, seriously.
This is not the sort of behavior we would want to see if a book about racism had a troubling depiction of women on the cover.
No — it’s not a black man on the cover. It’s a gorilla. But there is a very strong tradition of equating black people to primates and when you combine that with fears that they’ll rape white women and you have a cover of a gorilla carrying off a white woman, there is going to be added meaning to that content. Particularly when a lot of exploitative media (pr0n) still uses jungle/beast imagery for people of color. Me? I don’t think that the book art is racist, and I’m not right, and I’m not wrong.
And no — not everyone is going to see that imagery as obviously racist, including the author of the book. So going after her guns blazing about what a horrible racist she is — particularly when she was just hoping for a little bit of glass-clinking over the fact that she’s just finished her first book isn’t how you raise consciousness. It’s how you make people feel like shit, then they get defensive and when they’re defensive they’re not going to be open to critique.
We had to deal with this recently in the gaming community over the Resident Evil 5 trailer.
look, i’m just saying i never would have seen it just based on pop culture, just like i don’t ‘instinctively’ see the orc thing. based on what i hear in this thread (and i cringe to be on the same side as Dana), i’m not the only one who didn’t look at it and instantly see ‘black dude’.
i’m not saying it’s not there. i’m just saying that i don’t know if ‘the masses’ are going to see it until they’re educated to see it. every once in a while, ignorance works in our favor.
Hey– I’m a long-time reader, very infrequent commenter, but I just wanted to say “Congratulations” on the book in general, as it nears completion into an actual final product.
I just skimmed through the kerfluffle in these comments, and can’t help but think it resembles the discourse between the People’s Front of Judea and the Judean People’s Front, which is unfortunate for a variety of reasons, but chief among them is that it distracts from the main point here: Your book is getting published, and there should be a lot more congratulatory “yay!”ing going on.
I am the father of a soon-to-be 3 year old girl, with another daughter on the way —due in Sept., and while I was aware of feminist issues in a general way before, suddenly realizing that the world my little girl is going to grow up in will be more dangerous, hostile, and hateful to her by dint of her gender is the surest way to “radicalizing” me, but quick, on being active and aware about women’s rights– reproductive and otherwise. I just want to tell you (and Pam) that I hope my little girls grow up to be strong, proud, aware and women like you.
So again, congrats and yay for you on this book–you should be happy and proud; I am happy for you and proud of you; I will be among the 1st to help its Amazon sales rating when it comes out.
I think it’s too pat to say that the gorilla (or this kind of faux-gorilla) universally represents blackness in American pop culture. On the other side of the coin, it’s certainly off the mark to say that reading racism into such an image is merely an “eye of the beholder” thing.
Racist conceptions of black masculinity are definitely a part of the cultural baggage of any image of an anthropomorphic gorilla abducting a white woman. They’re not the whole story of such an image, and there’s room to disagree about how prominent they are in this particular use of the trope, but the folks who have raised the issue aren’t just making up reasons to gripe.
I assume you’re talking about the 1933 Kong here, and yes, it’s to some degree a racist film. It’s a Hollywood movie from the Jim Crow era that depicts “African” natives and white explorers, and I don’t know if I can imagine such a movie that wasn’t racist.
But having said that, I don’t consider Kong to be an egregiously racist film. Its depiction of blacks leans on racist tropes far less heavily than most films I’ve seen of its era. (Or even later — the 1976 Kong remake is far more racist.)
And as for Kong himself, clearly he can, and has been, read as a racial caricature, but I think the characterization is actually pretty complex and multi-layered.
As for the book cover, its possible racial connotations struck me immediately, but I thought that on balance the other cultural references it was drawing on were dominant in the mix. If it didn’t occur Amanda or any of the folks at her publishing house that the image might be construed as racist, that’s more than a little surprising — and hugely unfortunate.
I don’t think it’s a racist image as used here, all things considered, but that’s only my own perspective, and I wouldn’t dismiss those who see it another way. There’s definitely a serious case to be made for the opposite point of view.
By the way, I’m not actually arguing with anyone. If you feel it’s racist, go with that. But I’ve just completely burned out on the cycle where someone has a success and that’s followed by a flamewar about racism/porn/sexism. I got it from being praised in Playboy, Jessica got it twice for her book, I expect I’ll get it when the books comes out, I got it for going to Yearly Kos, the list goes on. What I’ve learned is that nothing you can do or say will change the fact that certain successes will lead to cries of racism/sexism, and you can’t slow down or stop the flamewars by either fighting back or acquiesing. Nothing I could do will change this, and as such, I feel I have to move forward as if this didn’t happen. My presence is unnecessary to the discussion, since it will proceed exactly the same no matter what I do. Experience has taught me very well.
I actually think there is a place and time to discuss the ironic recycling of images of the past in this context as Michael’s doing, but since this has that plodding inevitability to it, I can’t really work up the enthusiasm for it.
I will say that my book doesn’t address racism very much. It’s mostly a bunch of jokes, and I feel as a white woman, I’m probably not the best person to make those jokes about race, since mine isn’t the one where the humor perspective is best represented, if that makes sense. I expect I will get shit about that, but I would have gotten shit if I’d tried to be more inclusive and that came off as not really funny, since those aren’t my jokes to make. But I do know that either route leads to shit, so what can you do but go with what reads the best?
Dr. T, to be fair, Amanda didn’t say “I didn’t pick the cover!” as a defense to the claims of racism, she was specifically answering someone’s direct question about how much input she had in picking the cover.
The cover rocks my socks off because of the design elements and the ironic nod to some very old and silly portrayals of women’s lack of power. To suggest I’m getting off on racism (again, which I’m not saying is or isn’t there—I refrain from feeding this argument) is a stretch, and shows an utter lack of good faith on the part of anyone who says that.
Maybe this will light up a few brain cells, instead of some of the crap you have been taught.
Inference: the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former
Implication: 1 a : the act of implicating : the state of being implicated b : close connection; especially : an incriminating involvement
Logic: 1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration
From Webster.
nothing you can do or say will change the fact that certain successes will lead to cries of racism/sexism, and you can’t slow down or stop the flamewars by either fighting back or acquiesing.
EXACTLY. Accusing people of racism and sexism is a singularly pointless exercise, is it not? How is one to ever assume responsibility for the guilt heaped on us by others? And why do we expect those we vilify to do the same?
Well, I would have to agree that the cover art doesn’t quite sit right with me either and there are probably lots of other retro-style images that would be more appropriate to the topic, still provide the reader with a good sense of irony, and not offend your blog-readers. Knowing what I do about your writing if you kept this cover art it wouldn’t prevent me from buying the book. I’m wondering where people draw the line though: if you’re offended or disturbed by the cover art, how many of you would *not* buy the book because of it? It seems silly to risk low sales among the demographic you’re specifically trying to market to, just to take a stand on the cover art.
But did the damsel have to be blonde? Come on. Brunettes get no love.
All that aside, it’s seriously lame of you, Amanda, to write, “This cover rocks my socks off…. So, opinions? Outrage? Praise? Offers to blow it up and frame it?” and then go all talk-to-the-hand when your readers actually do give you negative feedback. Bad form, o’ sassy Texan.
These accusations of racism are so terribly lame. It saddens me.
The illustration is a tip of the hat to the movie King Kong, is it not?
When they designed the video game Donkey Kong wherein the giant ape villain captured the blond princess and locked her up atop his wacky castle, was that racist or was it just a video game?
There’s plenty of genuine racism out there in the world to get upset about. You need to choose your battles. This one is so wrong, so unnecessary, and I dare say that it is now verging upon cruelty on the part of those of you who are attacking Amanda.
Grow up.
BlogWarBot, anyone? Just, hands off, though. He’s got a boyfriend.
To suggest I’m getting off on racism (again, which I’m not saying is or isn’t there—I refrain from feeding this argument) is a stretch, and shows an utter lack of good faith on the part of anyone who says that.
Jesus, Amanda, no one said you, yourself, are a racist getting off on the racism of the cover art for your book. You’re showing an “utter lack of good faith” with this mischaracterization. What we are saying is that the cover art is racist, that you will benefit from the sale of a book with a racist cover on it, racism you don’t intend to refute in the content, and that perhaps you don’t see the racism because you aren’t personally affected (white privilege). You managed, after all, somehow to see the sexism in the picture, meaning that you see the “gorilla” as male, even human, while denying the implication of his blackness.
You don’t have to “feed” anything, Amanda. The racism is there, whether you say so or not. You can either acknowledge it or you can continue to make excuses for it. Acknowledging it won’t make the cover anti-racist, but continuing to make excuses for it will speak unfavorably as to your own character, and as Heart intimates, that of feminism in general.
What I’ve learned is that nothing you can do or say will change the fact that certain successes will lead to cries of racism/sexism…
This is way out of line. Everyone here who has criticized the cover has also congratulated you on the publishing of your book, so it certainly isn’t some irrational reaction toward your success. No one is “crying” racism, here, any more than women “cry” rape. These are serious and well-justified concerns, which you have chosen to trivialize, minimize, and dismiss, in the name of feminism.
Accusing people of racism and sexism is a singularly pointless exercise, is it not?
Oh, I didn’t say that. And accusing me of that is certainly in bad faith. I’m just pointing out that there’s a plodding inevitability to it when someone has a success, and that there’s no good answer or way to counteract it, so really, why bother?
Some people raised some interesting historical issues and context issues, so I will venture to say this, while not committing to any more or less than this: When I got this, I did think, “Why King Kong and not Tarzan?”, and I realized that if it was a man, it gave the incorrect impression that the book is about the direct oppression of individual women by individual men, and certainly I don’t think that’s what sexism is so much as a systematic thing. But with an animal, I thought, you get closer to the general “environment” theme.
Which isn’t to say that anyone else’s interpretation is wrong. I unilaterally refuse to have an opinion on anyone else’s interpretation. Just that was my thought on why an animal was better than a man of any race.
Justicewalks, I am not assenting or denying your feelings. I’m aware that there is a way to say this is racist. I am also aware that there is a way to say it is not. Both are true and both are false. I am, for the record, utterly opinionless on this. But it’s a stretch to say that I use retro iconography because I’m desiring a return to it; I think we all know I like it because it’s got an ironic fissure to it. My motivations on it are clear—I like the way ironic use of imagery captures the attention and has an odd ambiguity to it.
My real fears were that I was going to get back a cover that had that “woman’s book” feel to it—like pink or non-funny or otherwise looking like a tampon box.
I really aimed for some dark humor in the book, though, so I’m saving my energy for some of the offense that will cause.
This is way out of line. Everyone here who has criticized the cover has also congratulated you on the publishing of your book, so it certainly isn’t some irrational reaction toward your success.
I am opinionless on why these flamewars always, always happen. I suspect that the motivations are as diverse as the people who get involved. I am not committing to a motivation. I am not saying why anyone does anything. Just that I knew it would happen, because it always, always does. And it will happen when the book comes out. Why is not mine to say. Since I won’t commit to ascribing motivations, I think your accusation is a tad out of line. It might be something as benign as the magnet effect.
But it’s a stretch to say that I use retro iconography because I’m desiring a return to it…
No one at all has made any mention of your intentions, Amanda, because they aren’t relevant. No one has made any speculation whatsoever about why the racist image was chosen. We have merely pointed out that it is in fact racist. That you keep dancing around this issue in order to talk about your reclamatory intentions is the height of privilege.
Now I see that you deny having “ascrib[ed] motivations” to your detractors:
I am not committing to a motivation. I am not saying why anyone does anything.
You were just erroneously ascribing it to your success, when it is not your success that has brought accusations of racism. It