I'm a member of a closed group for writers on Facebook. A few days ago, another member boasted that - after no sales on Amazon - he changed the title, author's name, and cover image of his e-book and it started selling.
I've just posted the following comment (I can't separate paragraphs in Facebook comments):
"So, you feel that it's perfectly alright to use a "sexy" image of a headless woman (like a piece of meat) to sell your book. +++ 380 members of Russia's parliament feel that it's perfectly alright for men to beat their wives. They've just decriminalised wife-beating (the vote was 380-3!!!) +++ Thousands of Spanish men feel that it's perfectly alright to kill women with whom they have personal problems. (There's a Spanish saying: "I killed her because she was mine.") So far this year (as of 20th Feb.), 11 of them have carried through. +++ Donald Trump feels that it's perfectly alright - FOR HIM - to make a grab at any woman's genitals. *** Just 4 points on the nasty, sleazy spectrum of misogyny. At least now I'll know to avoid any books by Scott Butcher / Tabitha Scott. But don't worry! You'll get the readers that you deserve."
What do the rest of you think? Is everything permissible to get people to buy your book?
Excuse me, Mr. Hopkins. I have just gone over the whole of this thread with a fine-toothed comb and failed to find it. Could you please give chapter and verse for where Jimmy called you - PR any other participant - any names? Unless you're referring to his using your first name... Or did you feel alluded to by "slimy losers", his term for the slimy losers who sent headless photos of their wives to porn mags? But you never did that. Did you?
In a conversation, each participant has a different idea of what has been said. Each assumes that they, themselves, have expressed themselves clearly. Each knows what was going through their MIND and tends to take for granted that their listeners could hear that, too. The situation is further complicated when the conversation is written. We see no facial expressions to aid understanding.
At least 4 people read misogyny into your words. At no point (until now) did you explain that you found 50 shades misogynistic. You seemed to be saying: "What one reader considers smut, another considers art. So this guy's book cover is a question of taste. And if you don't like it, that's YOUR problem.
2 more points: You feel that Jimmy attacked you personally. My impression is that you threw the first stone:
'And Jimmy, did you realise the title for that poem was taken from the section heading in an 80s porn mag? A bit non-PC, mate :D'
As far as I'm aware, you and Jimmy are not personal friends... or even acquaintances. Your use of 'mate', then, sounds sarcastic and sneering to me. (My particular reading.) The ':D' looks - as Jimmy pointed out - that you were laughing at his ignorance... A laugh that backfired on you.
In my honest opinion, the person who has treated you most critically (although she later softened her tone) was Victoria. Wilhelmina and I have also 'ganged up' on you. And yet you single out Jimmy for censure. As if we women weren't to be taken seriously as opponents. Or were to be treated as children, not responsible for our immature opinions.
I find that misogynistic, as well.
It’s disappointing to have to explain a comment, particularly so on a site meant for writers, but since it appears no-one read it, or if they did failed to understand, I suppose I must.
When I originally answered the OP’s question on whether it was permissible to use any method, in this case a front cover picture featuring a headless, naked female torso apparently, to promote a book, I agreed with his view. Bear in mind that his personal opinion wasn’t actually stated but implied by the tone of the post.
One might think that would give anyone who read my answer some idea of my own position.
I then suggested, albeit obliquely, that content was as relevant as a cover image. It’s certainly more memorable, so potentially more damaging. The thousands of words between endpapers demand hours of attention from the reader rather than a quick glance. As an example of this I used a novel which I got around a third of the way through before giving up on. 50 Shades of Gray had a fairly plain cover as I recall but in my opinion its content glorified an abusive relationship. Yet it was bought by millions of women worldwide who obviously considered such a subject suitable entertainment. Go figure.
That’s it. Contentious? Absolutely not, I’d have thought.
Many responses were, however. That’s why I say no-one really read what I wrote, simply skimmed the surface and chose outrage over logical thought. Regrettably, Jimmy resorted to name-calling, a common enough response but unbecoming. It makes me believe he should be more careful in his choice of rhetorical question.
As for me, in future I’ll refrain from commenting on any post with a potentially emotive content. Frankly it’s not worth the aggro.
A baby with an appetite for questions is a baby after my own heart.