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?
More clarification please, Jonathan. Your juxtaposition leads to ambiguity. You write that "outrage breeds exponentially, however irrational the argument" and then that "the Hunting Act is due for repeal next year."
Are you suggesting that our outrage needs to be culled? Or that we're a pack of hounds, slavering to hunt you down?
2 completely different scenarios!
Wilhelmina was quite right to point out that "Any writer should [...] choose her words carefully."
Jonathon. Please clarify something for me. I'm willing to believe that there is a grown up under all that sarcasm. You say that everyone apart from you is being irrational. Do you really not see my point or is your defensiveness is an unwillingness to recognise an issue which threatens how you see yourself. If I'm wrong, if we are all wrong, then I invite you to explain why. Win me over with the power of reason. I'll listen. If, however, you consider every word I say to be 'irrational' because perhaps you just don't understand the point then it would be unfair on you to continue and the discussion should end here. It should never have gone this far but in your refusal to recognise the issue, Jonathon, you paint yourself as a character that I doubt is really you but inspires anger in others. You're just upset. I am willing to concede that I should have made my initial point more gently because you obviously didn't understand what you were saying. Still don't it seems. How about you? Are you willing to back down a little. I'm sure the community would be happy to turn this around into recommending excellent femenist literature such as 'You can't keep a good woman down' by Alice Walker.
Let's not back the poor chap into a corner.
I can also recommend reading, Jonathon, on the subject of hunting.
Ah, well - I suppose I've only got myself to blame. Should've realised outrage breeds exponentially, however irrational the argument.
By the way, the Hunting Act is due for repeal next year.