SFBC: Porn of the Month Club?
Terry Austin
service issues aside (I really haven't been all that unhappy on that score,
actually), their selection has deteriorated. I can certainly understand (and
actually appreciate) the inclusion of substantial amounts of fantasy. That
fits - it's the same market, really. I can even understand (no matter how
useless it is to me) the inclusion of ever increasing amounts of horror and
vampire stuff - there's at least a large crossover in the market. The
increasing amounts of non-book stuff, like figurines, tarot cards, magick
crystals, and such stuff, well, I can see why they'd do it, even if most of
it is cheesy stuff that only children, or the very gullible, would really be
interested in. Business is business after all. Hell, I can even understand
why they'd take to selling videotapes and DADs, if they sold only (or even
mostly) fantasy/sf titles.
But _every_ _single_ _month_ for at least a year, as much as a quarter to a
third of the stuff in the envelope has been completely, totally unrelated
stuff. Book of the month club (bestseller list stuff), military book club,
stuff like that. There can't be all that much crossover, and a lot of it is
just outright ads for those businesses, not ads for stuff that SFBC is
selling. I suppose they're all owned by the same company or something.
But there has also been an increasing amount of variously erotic stuff, some
of it outright porn. And this month, the most outrageous example to day.
They have an ad-in flier with a Lord of the Rings picture on the cover,
announcing both the DVD and VHS versions are finally available. Great.
That's the sort of "related stuff" I can see they'd get into. The first
couple of pages are all fantasy/sf stuff, as you'd expect. Page 5 is
Dungeons and Dragons stuff. OK, I can certainly see that. I'm sure there are
a lot of gamer (and proto-gamer) types in their membership. Page 4, however,
has four erotic videos, two of them listed as having sexually explicit
lesbian scenes, one with a UK:18 rating (with Robert Vaughn as Satan!), and
the fourth listed as softcore lesbian. This is on a page opposite games
whose average player's age is about 14. Who the *fuck* thought that was a
good idea? And on the page behind the D&D stuff, there's anime porn, all
four titles listed as "for adults only". With, on the opposite page, you
guessed it, more D&D miniatures (among other things).
When did SFBC start marketing homosexual porn to children?
(The worst part is, their prices aren't even that good. Amazon's 10% cheaper
on every title.)
--
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
Metacreator character software now available
Htn963
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
Terry Austin
Rich Clark
"Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:pg20guc0fq10nr5b1...@4ax.com...
> When did SFBC start marketing homosexual porn to children?
I was going to wonder, don't you have to affirm that you are 18 years of age
or older to join the SFBC? I seem to recall this from the past. But looking
at the website doesn't reveal any such requirement. Hmm.
RichC
Brian Palmer
Parents can sign their approval, though (erstwhile underage
subscriber).
--
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess [only] as long as he
keeps it to himself.... -- Thomas Jefferson
Mike Schilling
news:kFYL8.15708$Qg.14...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
I was a member at about 14.
Kent Coyle
>
>
Major snippage :
Robert Vaughn is close. He's doing TV spots for personal injury lawyers.
--
MZ
Kate Halleron
> There you go, <snip> in public again.
I've always wondered why anyone would buy porn when it's shoved in our
faces all day long.
Kate
Richard Harter
wrote:
My, you must lead an, ah, exciting life.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
As I was saying to my knee the other day,
What's a joint like you doing in a nice guy like me?
Terry Austin
since it encourages things that parent like to encourage, like reading.
And how many of those parents are going to examine every package
that comes in from them?
Terry Austin
Sean O'Hara
lax that they don't check the order-forms before sending them out,
they deserve to have kids watching "Ass Blasters from the Gynoid
Nebula."
--
Sean O辿ara
"Took up a noble cause called the Clone Wars
Cuz life's not all about girls and cars and
Getting f***ed up in f***ed up bars."
--MC Chris, "Fett's Vette" http://www.mcchris.com
Nyrath the nearly wise
> On 7 Jun 2002 07:08:29 -0700, khal...@netzero.com (Kate Halleron)
> wrote:
>>I've always wondered why anyone would buy porn when it's shoved in our
>>faces all day long.
>
> My, you must lead an, ah, exciting life.
Well, it has been my experience that one innocent mistake
with a web search engine and you can suddenly find
your browser spawning new windows full of porn faster
than you can shut them.
A friend of mine was trying to teach his young daughter
how to use WebCrawler, and they decided to try and
find web pages about her favorite book: "Black Beauty".
The results were ugly.
Of course anybody who tries on purpose to find a "warez"
site deserves what they get...
nebogipfel
"Sean O'Hara" <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
message news:3D00EFD8...@myrealbox.com...
> Terry Austin wrote:
> >
> > Rich Clark wrote:
> > > "Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> > > news:pg20guc0fq10nr5b1...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > >> When did SFBC start marketing homosexual porn to children?
> > >
> > > I was going to wonder, don't you have to affirm that you are 18 years
> > > of age or older to join the SFBC? I seem to recall this from the
> > > past. But looking at the website doesn't reveal any such requirement.
> > > Hmm.
> > >
> > Even if it did, most parents would buy a membership for Junior,
> > since it encourages things that parent like to encourage, like reading.
> >
> > And how many of those parents are going to examine every package
> > that comes in from them?
> >
> Quite frankly, that's the parents' responsibility. If they're so
> lax that they don't check the order-forms before sending them out,
> they deserve to have kids watching "Ass Blasters from the Gynoid
> Nebula."
>
responsibility my eye. By your rationale they deserve it because you know
they don't really work hard enough. So along with bringing home the bacon
they better screen the mail, music, TV, the internet and now their SFBC
book of the month club catalogue. How about the old notion of a
Commonwealth--a common set of good ideas for the health of the community.
Walter R. Strapps
Welcome to parenthood! They should also screen their children's
friends, the food the children take into their bodies, how much sun
exposure their children get, what their children are wearing etc. etc.
If you can't handle the responsibility of children, don't have them,
frankly.
> How about the old notion of a
> Commonwealth--a common set of good ideas for the health of the community.
Because what *you* think is healthy for my kids, I might not think is
healthy for my kids, much less healthy for the community.
How about the old notion of personal responsibility...
Cheers,
Walter R. Strapps
Htn963
>I've always wondered why anyone would buy porn when it's shoved in our
>faces all day long.
Exactly.
And I subscribe to SFBC for the porn when I already have access to the
internet. Right.
Sea Wasp
>
> "Sean O'Hara" <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> message news:3D00EFD8...@myrealbox.com..
> > >
> > > Rich Clark wrote:
> > > > "Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:pg20guc0fq10nr5b1...@4ax.com..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was going to wonder, don't you have to affirm that you are 18 years
> > > > of age or older to join the SFBC? I seem to recall this from the
> > > > past. But looking at the website doesn't reveal any such requirement.
> > > > Hmm.
> > > >
> > > Even if it did, most parents would buy a membership for Junior,
> > > since it encourages things that parent like to encourage, like reading.
> > >
> > > And how many of those parents are going to examine every package
> > > that comes in from them?
> > >
> > Quite frankly, that's the parents' responsibility. If they're so
> > lax that they don't check the order-forms before sending them out,
> > they deserve to have kids watching "Ass Blasters from the Gynoid
> > Nebula."
> >
> What a crappy, thoughtless and insensitive comment--the parent's
> responsibility my eye. By your rationale they deserve it because you know
> they don't really work hard enough. So along with bringing home the bacon
> they better screen the mail, music, TV, the internet and now their SFBC
> book of the month club catalogue.
Speaking as a parent of two children:
Damn straight. We're homeschooling in part because you cannot
EXERCISE the proper level of parental responsibility by shoving your
kid off onto overworked strangers 8 hours per day.
Either I do the screening, or it is MY responsibility to find someone
else to do so. And arrange that they do so.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Joseph Michael Bay
>Richard Harter wrote:
>> On 7 Jun 2002 07:08:29 -0700, khal...@netzero.com (Kate Halleron)
>> wrote:
>>>I've always wondered why anyone would buy porn when it's shoved in our
>>>faces all day long.
>> My, you must lead an, ah, exciting life.
> Well, it has been my experience that one innocent mistake
> with a web search engine and you can suddenly find
> your browser spawning new windows full of porn faster
> than you can shut them.
Control-W is good for that.
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
Putting the "harm" in molecular pharmacology since 1998
t3H quIc/< 6roWn Ph0x0r jUmP3D ovER T3h 14zY do9 !( @|=>
Do you like http://www.stanford.edu/~jmbay gladiator movies?
Sean O'Hara
>
> "Sean O'Hara" <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> message news:3D00EFD8...@myrealbox.com...
> > Terry Austin wrote:
> > >
> > > And how many of those parents are going to examine every package
> > > that comes in from them?
> > >
> > Quite frankly, that's the parents' responsibility. If they're so
> > lax that they don't check the order-forms before sending them out,
> > they deserve to have kids watching "Ass Blasters from the Gynoid
> > Nebula."
> >
> What a crappy, thoughtless and insensitive comment--the parent's
> responsibility my eye. By your rationale they deserve it because you know
> they don't really work hard enough. So along with bringing home the bacon
> they better screen the mail, music, TV, the internet
Well, yes. My parents did that -- they were rather lenient about
what I was allowed to watch and read, but they made sure it was
material they considered appropriate. Most of my friends were
brought up the same way.
> and now their SFBC
> book of the month club catalogue.
I didn't say anything about the catalogue; I referred to items
*ordered* from the catalogue. Unless the child in question is old
enough to work and have a bank account, the parents are the ones
paying the SFBC, and as such should monitor what's being ordered.
Anyone who doesn't is just handing the kids a blank check, and,
as I said above, deserves whatever the children buy.
> How about the old notion of a
> Commonwealth--a common set of good ideas for the health of the community.
Sorry, I don't remember Hobbes or Locke ever advocating the
curtailment of individual rights so that children can be raised
with minimal parental supervision.
Quite frankly, I don't have children, I don't want children, and I
don't want to raise anyone else's children. I do want to be able to
freely obtain whatever I wish to watch, read, or listen to. If some
parents don't like the freeness with which that material is
available, it's incumbent upon them to monitor their children.
Joseph Michael Bay
>"Sean O'Hara" <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
>> > Even if it did, most parents would buy a membership for Junior,
>> > since it encourages things that parent like to encourage, like reading.
>> >
>> > And how many of those parents are going to examine every package
>> > that comes in from them?
>> Quite frankly, that's the parents' responsibility. If they're so
>> lax that they don't check the order-forms before sending them out,
>> they deserve to have kids watching "Ass Blasters from the Gynoid
>> Nebula."
>What a crappy, thoughtless and insensitive comment--the parent's
>responsibility my eye. By your rationale they deserve it because you know
>they don't really work hard enough. So along with bringing home the bacon
>they better screen the mail, music, TV, the internet and now their SFBC
>book of the month club catalogue. How about the old notion of a
>Commonwealth--a common set of good ideas for the health of the community.
In that case you've got a governmental body deciding what
materials can be published, which frankly I think is a lot
worse than the idea of kids sending away for tentacle porn.
Terry Austin
> Terry Austin wrote:
> >
> > Rich Clark wrote:
> > > "Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> > > news:pg20guc0fq10nr5b1...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > >> When did SFBC start marketing homosexual porn to children?
> > >
> > > I was going to wonder, don't you have to affirm that you are 18 years
> > > of age or older to join the SFBC? I seem to recall this from the
> > > past. But looking at the website doesn't reveal any such requirement.
> > > Hmm.
> > >
> > Even if it did, most parents would buy a membership for Junior,
> > since it encourages things that parent like to encourage, like reading.
> >
> > And how many of those parents are going to examine every package
> > that comes in from them?
> >
> Quite frankly, that's the parents' responsibility. If they're so
> lax that they don't check the order-forms before sending them out,
> they deserve to have kids watching "Ass Blasters from the Gynoid
> Nebula."
I don't disagree. However, that does not relieve SFBC from
their responsibility for, from the looks of it, deliberately
marketing pornography to children. And certainly, there's
nothing wrong with making sure the prospective members
know what they'll be getting in the mail if they join.
Terry Austin
Kate Halleron
> On 7 Jun 2002 07:08:29 -0700, khal...@netzero.com (Kate Halleron)
> wrote:
>
> >Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message news:<30f0gukomqkr7t1lr...@4ax.com>...
> >> There you go, <snip> in public again.
> >
> >I've always wondered why anyone would buy porn when it's shoved in our
> >faces all day long.
>
> My, you must lead an, ah, exciting life.
>
No, just a modern media-saturated one.
http://www.ironminds.com/ironminds/issues/991210/dreams.shtml
Kate
Rich Clark
> And how many of those parents are going to examine every package
> that comes in from them?
Any kid who has a major credit card or a checking account that's not
monitored by their parents is unlikely to have any difficulty getting hold
of whatever published material they desire. My son, just now graduating from
high school, and I have often conducted "compare and contrast" exercises to
see what's available to today's students compared to my youth in the 60's.
The results would be scary if I couldn't see how much more responsible,
level-headed, and unrepressed he is than I was at the same age.
To today's 14-year old the idea of *paying* for porn -- actually ordering a
book from the SFBC and paying $15 or $20 for it -- is ludicrous. If they
want it, there are VCD's of hardcore films and .pdf files of XXX magazines
being passed around at school like baseball cards used to be. How is a
teacher supposed to know what's on a CD-R labeled "party mix"?
RichC
John F. Carr
I think the age requirement is beause a person under 18 may not make
a legally binding contract (with exceptions not relevant to SFBC).
A person who makes a contract with a minor can end up out a lot of
money if the minor wants to back out of it.
The age used to be 21, in some states as recently as 30 years ago.
Did book clubs used to say "21" instead of "18"?
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Aaron P. Brezenski
nebogipfel <802701@ AD.com> wrote:
>> >
>> Quite frankly, that's the parents' responsibility. If they're so
>> lax that they don't check the order-forms before sending them out,
>> they deserve to have kids watching "Ass Blasters from the Gynoid
>> Nebula."
>>
>What a crappy, thoughtless and insensitive comment--the parent's
>responsibility my eye. By your rationale they deserve it because you know
>they don't really work hard enough. So along with bringing home the bacon
>they better screen the mail, music, TV, the internet and now their SFBC
>book of the month club catalogue. How about the old notion of a
>Commonwealth--a common set of good ideas for the health of the community.
What a crappy, thoughtless, and oversensitive comment.
I have one kid and another on the way. Given that my wife is having problems
with this pregnancy that are making her pretty much bedridden, I'm getting a
fair taste of what it's like to be a single parent (aside from the loneliness,
I'd suspect), with the adder of taking care of an invalid. It's not fun,
and I have more respect than ever for the people who live this lifestyle year
after year.
*However*, even with this situation, it's damn right my responsibility to
pay attention to what my kids are doing, not "society's" responsibility
to protect me from having my kid see something I don't personally approve of.
I screen the shows she watches on TV, the stuff she listens to, and the
software she plays.
And if I decide to be lax about it (which I'm sure at some point, in a
moment of weakness, I may), I'm not going to hold someone else responsible for
my slack. I am the parent, and barring certain laws designed to protect the
physical well-being of the kid, I do and should bear the sole responsibility
for her upbringing.
If a parent out there is too disinterested in their own kid's life to pay
attention to it, they have no grounds for complaint when the kid is exposed
to stuff they failed to filter.
--
Aaron Brezenski
Not speaking for my employer in any way
Default User
> >> My, you must lead an, ah, exciting life.
>
> > Well, it has been my experience that one innocent mistake
> > with a web search engine and you can suddenly find
> > your browser spawning new windows full of porn faster
> > than you can shut them.
>
> Control-W is good for that.
Even better is a popup killer.
Brian Rodenborn
Ross TenEyck
>"Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
>news:adqj7...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> And how many of those parents are going to examine every package
>> that comes in from them?
>Any kid who has a major credit card or a checking account that's not
>monitored by their parents
[snip]
Is this common these days? Because when and where I was a teenager,
that would have been extremely unusual -- especially the credit card.
(And this was before having a checking account gave you a credit-card-
functional-equivalent-debit-card.) If for some reason you needed to
buy something with a credit card, you borrowed your parents' card.
Of course, in the days before everything in the world could be
ordered over the web, there wasn't as much need for having a credit
card. Ordering pajamas from the J.C. Penney catalog isn't as
compelling to the average kid as buying CDs from Hong Kong.
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
John Adcox
>on every title.)
Is that on everything, or just on the porn titles?
JA
http://jadcox.home.mindspring.com
Mythology, Folklore, Literature, the Arthurian Legends, Arts and Entertainment,
Fantasy, Religion and Philosophy, Music, References for Writers and More!
Lee Ann Rucker
Clark <rdclar...@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote:
> To today's 14-year old the idea of *paying* for porn -- actually ordering a
> book from the SFBC and paying $15 or $20 for it -- is ludicrous. If they
> want it, there are VCD's of hardcore films and .pdf files of XXX magazines
> being passed around at school like baseball cards used to be.
Not XXX, but when I was in 6th grade (1976), during the summer there
was a cache of Playboys under one of the portable buildings at the
local elementary school. I don't recall any older kids in that
neighborhood, so it must've been brought in by elementary school
children - almost certainly swiped from a parent.
So I don't think "today's" 14-yo is that different from yesterday's.
Mark Reichert
> Well, it has been my experience that one innocent mistake
> with a web search engine and you can suddenly find
> your browser spawning new windows full of porn faster
> than you can shut them.
>
> A friend of mine was trying to teach his young daughter
> how to use WebCrawler, and they decided to try and
> find web pages about her favorite book: "Black Beauty".
> The results were ugly.
You probably already know this, but tell them to use Google. Not only
does it do much better at ranking sites in order of relevance, but it
has the SafeSearch feature which will make sure the sites these people
want avoid will not show up in the list.
Mark Reichert
> How about the old notion of personal responsibility...
Never existed, or at least didn't exist in the notion that the
individual was sovereign and was in no way obliged to follow any rules
or customs that the community had vouchsafed. This even included
pioneer areas because all real pioneering included families, who quite
necessarily didn't hold with the notion that any of their neighbors
could simply thumb their noses at everybody. The earlier settlers of
the East Coast were even more restrictive.
Any libertarian that says otherwise is nuts.
P.S. Of course, throughly male dominated areas like gold rush areas,
mining towns, towns where cattle were load on trains after a cattle
drive, etc, were more rough and tumble, anything goes sorts of places.
Terry Austin
>Just curious - what type of porn did the SF Book club offer?
Let's see:
Play-Mate of the Apes (softcore, so far as I can tell)
Witch Academy (with Robert Vaughn - UK:18 rating, according to IMDB)
The Erotic Ghost (reviews say sexually explicit lesbian scenes)
The Erotic Witch Project (reviews say sexually explicit lesbian scenes)
In the anime porn section:
Sextoons
Sins of the Sisters
Cleopatra DC
Maiden of Desire Boxed Set (four tapes)
--
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
Metacreator character software now available
Terry Austin
>>(The worst part is, their prices aren't even that good. Amazon's 10% cheaper
>>on every title.)
>
>Is that on everything, or just on the porn titles?
>
I was referring specifically to the video titles in general, which all seem
to be at list price. In general, that seems to be true of all non-book
stuff. (Books are cheaper than standard hard covers, but are normally book
club print runs, which are not done to the same standards as what you'd
expect from a book store, or so I'm told.)
djinn
news:adrfnj$2...@news.or.intel.com:
<snip>
>
> What a crappy, thoughtless, and oversensitive comment.
>
Apparently from someone without children.
<snip>
>(aside from the loneliness, I'd suspect),
At times the loneliness is the worst part.
>with the adder of
> taking care of an invalid. It's not fun, and I have more respect than
> ever for the people who live this lifestyle year after year.
>
Yeah, I had no idea until....
> *However*, even with this situation, it's damn right my responsibility
> to pay attention to what my kids are doing, not "society's"
> responsibility to protect me from having my kid see something I don't
> personally approve of. I screen the shows she watches on TV, the stuff
> she listens to, and the software she plays.
>
Right on! Its hard enough for a parent(single or not) to try to take care
of their kids without someone else trying to decide what's best for them.
> And if I decide to be lax about it (which I'm sure at some point, in a
> moment of weakness, I may), I'm not going to hold someone else
> responsible for my slack. I am the parent, and barring certain laws
> designed to protect the physical well-being of the kid, I do and
> should bear the sole responsibility for her upbringing.
>
Actually those laws will hold you responsible if you fail to look after
your child's physical well-being. So its still the parents responsibility.
> If a parent out there is too disinterested in their own kid's life to
> pay attention to it, they have no grounds for complaint when the kid
> is exposed to stuff they failed to filter.
>
>
It really seemed that 'do it for the children' had become a cliche and
wasn't being used that much anymore. Pretty much everyone realizes its an
excuse to force what you want on someone else. The book clubs shouldn't be
expected to take the parent's responsibility.
Steve Taylor
> A friend of mine was trying to teach his young daughter
> how to use WebCrawler, and they decided to try and
> find web pages about her favorite book: "Black Beauty".
> The results were ugly.
There's a rapper I like who goes by the stage name of 'Kinky'. My
girlfriend, when she was still very new to the WWW tried a search on the
word 'kinky' to see if she could get any information about her.
Found quite a few pages as it happens...
Steve
Richard Harter
wrote:
I have a web page entitled "Dancing Slave Girls of Gor". It is not at
all salacious, being an anecdote about a tenured chair of John Norman
studies at a fictitious university. If you search on "slave girls" it
turns up early in the list, amidst a plethora of, er, less tame pages.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
As I was saying to my knee the other day,
What's a joint like you doing in a nice guy like me?
Pierre Jelenc
> Well, it has been my experience that one innocent mistake
> with a web search engine and you can suddenly find
> your browser spawning new windows full of porn faster
> than you can shut them.
The rewards of javascript. It's entirely under your control, you know.
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc | H o m e O f f i c e R e c o r d s
| * The Dan Emery Mystery Band * Pawnshop *
T h e G i g o m e t e r | * The Cucumbers * RAW Kinder *
www.thegigometer.com | www.homeofficerecords.com
Mike Schilling
> how...@brazee.net wrote:
>
> >Just curious - what type of porn did the SF Book club offer?
>
> Let's see:
>
> Play-Mate of the Apes (softcore, so far as I can tell)
> Witch Academy (with Robert Vaughn - UK:18 rating, according to IMDB)
> The Erotic Ghost (reviews say sexually explicit lesbian scenes)
> The Erotic Witch Project (reviews say sexually explicit lesbian scenes)
>
> In the anime porn section:
> Sextoons
> Sins of the Sisters
> Cleopatra DC
> Maiden of Desire Boxed Set (four tapes)
At least ir's largely genre-related porn, as opposed to OT porn.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
Best of all is a browser like Opera that lets you refuse popups, or
force them to start up in the background if you like.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"No one is safe. We will print no letters to the editor. We will give no
space to opposing points of view. They are wrong. The Underground Grammarian
is at war and will give the enemy nothing but battle." -TUG, v1n1
Joe Bernstein
<tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
> (Books are cheaper than standard hard covers, but are normally book
> club print runs, which are not done to the same standards as what you'd
> expect from a book store, or so I'm told.)
Um, maybe I should leave this to the local expert, but since he's an
employee, I suppose an independent confirmation could still be helpful.
Book club books are *normally* not as well bound as *normal* regular
hardcovers; exceptions exist.
I don't know the technical details, but one of the visible signs is
that book clubs normally don't have those little ridges of cloth
that you'll see at the top and bottom of the spine where the pages
meet the binding - argh, this is unclear, I mean: hold a book upright,
so you're looking at its top, then look along the pages' top edges
towards the spine, the little hill of cloth on that horizon before
the actual spine of the binding - that's what book club editions
normally don't have. I speculate that this means book club editions
are glued ("perfect bound", in one of the great misnomers of industry)
rather than sewn, but I don't know.
Some regular publishers do the same thing. Doubleday used to own the
SFBC, and as it turns out, Doubleday hardcovers from that period look
*just like* BC editions, and have the same general life expectancy.
Some book clubs do differently. Lots of book clubs do trade paperbacks
now (which is *definitely* glued rather than sewn), although I haven't
seen SFBC trade paper editions yet. I *have* seen book club editions
that are real sewn hardcovers with little ridges of cloth at each end
of the spine; I *think* I've seen SFBC editions thus done.
But in general, with an SFBC hardcover, you're getting a binding that's
somewhere near the life expectancy of a trade paperback, rather than a
real hardcover. Longer, because it's harder to crack the spine than with
a paper binding, and longer, because the boards protect the book itself
better than paper covers; but in that league.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://these-survive.postilion.org/>
Terry Austin
True, though this month is a bit exceptional in that regard. I still think
it's a big over the top to put this stuff opposite D&D stuff, though.
Terry Austin
>It really seemed that 'do it for the children' had become a cliche and
>wasn't being used that much anymore. Pretty much everyone realizes its an
>excuse to force what you want on someone else. The book clubs shouldn't be
>expected to take the parent's responsibility.
>
So you approve of them marketing sexually explicit videos to children?
Eric Lee Green
> djinn <qinji...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>It really seemed that 'do it for the children' had become a cliche and
>>wasn't being used that much anymore. Pretty much everyone realizes its an
>>excuse to force what you want on someone else. The book clubs shouldn't be
>>expected to take the parent's responsibility.
>>
> So you approve of them marketing sexually explicit videos to children?
Uhm, you ARE aware that a good proportion of anime' is sexually explicit,
and that it is NOT being marketed to children?
--
Eric Lee Green er...@badtux.org http://badtux.org
GnuPG public key at http://badtux.org/eric/eric.gpg
Terry Austin
>In article <ij35gu42a9racs07o...@4ax.com>, Terry Austin ruminated:
>> djinn <qinji...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>It really seemed that 'do it for the children' had become a cliche and
>>>wasn't being used that much anymore. Pretty much everyone realizes its an
>>>excuse to force what you want on someone else. The book clubs shouldn't be
>>>expected to take the parent's responsibility.
>>>
>> So you approve of them marketing sexually explicit videos to children?
>
>Uhm, you ARE aware that a good proportion of anime' is sexually explicit,
>and that it is NOT being marketed to children?
I am referring to pornographic videos in a specific insert in a specific
book club's mailing, that are on two separate pages, directly opposite
Dungeons & Dragons items - a game whose primary demographic is about 14
years old.
What are you talking about? Do you even know?
djinn
> djinn <qinji...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
> So you approve of them marketing sexually explicit videos to children?
>
Couldn't care less. How will the kids pay for it w/o their parents? If
parents want them to have it the parents will buy it anyway.
Way too much time spent picking the mote from someone else's eye.
Sean O'Hara
>
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >At least ir's largely genre-related porn, as opposed to OT porn.
> >
> True, though this month is a bit exceptional in that regard. I still think
> it's a big over the top to put this stuff opposite D&D stuff, though.
>
Believe me, it's very well targeted.
--
Sean O辿ara
"Even journalists now believe everything they read."
-Robert Siegel, Editor-in-Chief of the "Onion"
Sean O'Hara
>
> Uhm, you ARE aware that a good proportion of anime' is sexually explicit,
> and that it is NOT being marketed to children?
>
Sean O'Hara
>
> "Sean O'Hara" <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> message news:3D00EFD8...@myrealbox.com...
> >
> > Quite frankly, that's the parents' responsibility. If they're so
> > lax that they don't check the order-forms before sending them out,
> > they deserve to have kids watching "Ass Blasters from the Gynoid
> > Nebula."
>
> their responsibility for, from the looks of it, deliberately
> marketing pornography to children. And certainly, there's
> nothing wrong with making sure the prospective members
> know what they'll be getting in the mail if they join.
>
As others have pointed out, minors cannot join the SFBC without
parental approval. As such, SFBC has a reasonable expectation that
its clientelle is adult.
If you think that the porn is being marketed to kids because it's
next to the D&D stuff, I suggest you take a trip to a local college
and peek in on the anime or RPG groups. Yes, they're playing
D&D, and yes, many of them could use the porn.
Eric Lee Green
> Eric Lee Green wrote:
>>
>> Uhm, you ARE aware that a good proportion of anime' is sexually explicit,
>> and that it is NOT being marketed to children?
>>
> Well, not in the US.
Huh? I can go down the street to Fry's Electronics or to the local
comics shop and buy all sorts of sexually explicit anime' on DVD. In
case you don't know, I'm in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Yes, these DVD's
have the parental warning advisory sticker on them. Yes, these anime'
disks are being marketed to adults, not to children.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> In article <nhb3guoj16fhqh69k...@4ax.com>, Terry Austin
> <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
> > (Books are cheaper than standard hard covers, but are normally book
> > club print runs, which are not done to the same standards as what
> > you'd expect from a book store, or so I'm told.)
>
> Um, maybe I should leave this to the local expert, but since he's an
> employee, I suppose an independent confirmation could still be
> helpful.
>
> Book club books are *normally* not as well bound as *normal* regular
> hardcovers; exceptions exist.
>
> I don't know the technical details, but one of the visible signs is
> that book clubs normally don't have those little ridges of cloth
> that you'll see at the top and bottom of the spine where the pages
> meet the binding - argh, this is unclear, I mean: hold a book
> upright, so you're looking at its top, then look along the pages' top
> edges towards the spine, the little hill of cloth on that horizon
> before the actual spine of the binding - that's what book club
> editions normally don't have. I speculate that this means book club
> editions are glued ("perfect bound", in one of the great misnomers of
> industry) rather than sewn, but I don't know.
Those are called "headbands" and "footbands," depending on which end of
the binding they appear on. A quick glance at my recent hardcovers piles
seems to show that they're ubiquitous on trade hardcovers. At the
bookclubs, we include them seldom or never on the books we print.
I think most trade books have glued rather than sewn bindings nowadays,
though I haven't ripped any apart in a while to be sure. Publishers
usually do make a big deal when a particular book is "Smythe sewn," so I
think that it's now fairly rare -- not quite "fine bookmaking," but
definitely not the standard. (You don't see printed endpapers -- outside
fantasy, where it's a convenient place to put the map -- much anymore, either.)
Just about all hardcovers these days have cardboard covers, rather than
cloth-covered boards. The bookclubs might have pioneered this (or might
not; I'll admit I'm a bit rusty on the history of 20th century
bindings), but it's very rare to see a trade book with cloth covers.
(Outside of a classics line like Library of America or Everyman's
Library, that is.)
Book Club editions are sometimes on lower quality paper than trade
books, though this varies wildly on both sides. For a couple of years in
the mid-90s, most of Doubleday Direct (which was then SFBC's parent)
printed just about all of its books (excepting SFBC and a few other
cases, thank Ghod) on a hideous stock called "Groundwood," which did
indeed look like it was just wood ground up and mashed flat. On the
other hand, I've seen rotten paper quality on some trade books -- I
think from Putnam, since I remember a Robert Parker novel in particular
-- now and then. I think it depends on the supplies of paper at the
time, so it can vary book by book from any particular publisher.
Book Club editions have simpler and cheaper covers, too -- this is
probably the most obvious difference. (Besides the books that are
smaller in physical size, of course.) We eliminate embossing, vellum
overwraps, and other fancy tricks like that. Occasionally (as with
Harlan Coben's last two novels, as I just realized this week), we end up
with a cover that is *more* readable than the publisher's, which is very
strange. Our covers are also sometimes printed on a slightly
lower-weight (-cost, -quality -- however you want to put it) stock,
depending on how fancy the publisher went.
The exceptions to all these general cases are art books and other
similar titles where the physical quality of the book is one of its
intrinsic selling points -- those, we generally run with the publisher
and get books that are identical to theirs. (Or sometimes we strip out
their price and make other small, cosmetic changes.)
> Some regular publishers do the same thing. Doubleday used to own the
> SFBC, and as it turns out, Doubleday hardcovers from that period look
> *just like* BC editions, and have the same general life expectancy.
>
> Some book clubs do differently. Lots of book clubs do trade
> paperbacks now (which is *definitely* glued rather than sewn),
> although I haven't seen SFBC trade paper editions yet. I *have* seen
> book club editions that are real sewn hardcovers with little ridges
> of cloth at each end of the spine; I *think* I've seen SFBC editions
> thus done.
The Quality Paperback Bookclub is now one of our siblings, so we
occasionally pick up books from them in paperback. (And from other clubs
in paper, as well.) We don't print books ourselves in paper, but some of
our art books and comics collections are in the publisher's paperback edition.
The only books we've done with head- and footbands that I can think of
are our various leatherbound books (we did _Stranger in a Strange Land_
for our 40th anniversary at a special low price, and about six other
books in a similar format a few years later) and the novellas-as-books
"SFBC Collection" series, also in the mid-90s. But we've probably picked
up books from other clubs (especially the small science clubs), that
were identical to the trade editions.
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
"The world is quiet here."
-V.F.D.
Terry Austin
>Terry Austin wrote:
>>
>> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >At least ir's largely genre-related porn, as opposed to OT porn.
>> >
>> True, though this month is a bit exceptional in that regard. I still think
>> it's a big over the top to put this stuff opposite D&D stuff, though.
>>
>Have you met the sort of people who play D&D in college and beyond?
>Believe me, it's very well targeted.
I sell gaming stuff online, and know the market. Yes, there are a lot of
college age D&D players. But the main demographic - the majority of the
players - is under 18, and averages, IIRC, about 14.
Terry Austin
>Terry Austin wrote:
>>
>> "Sean O'Hara" <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote in
>> message news:3D00EFD8...@myrealbox.com...
>> >
>> > Quite frankly, that's the parents' responsibility. If they're so
>> > lax that they don't check the order-forms before sending them out,
>> > they deserve to have kids watching "Ass Blasters from the Gynoid
>> > Nebula."
>>
>> I don't disagree. However, that does not relieve SFBC from
>> their responsibility for, from the looks of it, deliberately
>> marketing pornography to children. And certainly, there's
>> nothing wrong with making sure the prospective members
>> know what they'll be getting in the mail if they join.
>>
>As others have pointed out, minors cannot join the SFBC without
>parental approval. As such, SFBC has a reasonable expectation that
>its clientelle is adult.
No, not really. They have a reasonable expectation that their clientele has
adult supervision, perhaps, but I would think their customers would have a
reasonable expectation that SFBC would not put D&D stuff opposite sexually
explicit videos, too.
>
>If you think that the porn is being marketed to kids because it's
>next to the D&D stuff, I suggest you take a trip to a local college
>and peek in on the anime or RPG groups. Yes, they're playing
>D&D, and yes, many of them could use the porn.
The average D&D player is under 18. Really.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Sean O'Hara <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >Terry Austin wrote:
> >>
> >> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >At least ir's largely genre-related porn, as opposed to OT porn.
> >> >
> >> True, though this month is a bit exceptional in that regard. I still think
> >> it's a big over the top to put this stuff opposite D&D stuff, though.
> >>
> >Have you met the sort of people who play D&D in college and beyond?
> >Believe me, it's very well targeted.
>
> I sell gaming stuff online, and know the market. Yes, there are a lot of
> college age D&D players. But the main demographic - the majority of the
> players - is under 18, and averages, IIRC, about 14.
And people under 18 would have no interest in porn, of course.
Don't you have to have a credit card to use the SFBC? And lets face
it: if you have a credit card, and you want porn, you're going to get
it. In fact, I got the impression that Adult Verification Services
(for porn sites) use credit cards to define whether someone is or is
not an adult.
--KG
Sean O'Hara
>
> Sean O'Hara <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >Have you met the sort of people who play D&D in college and beyond?
> >Believe me, it's very well targeted.
>
> I sell gaming stuff online, and know the market. Yes, there are a lot of
> college age D&D players. But the main demographic - the majority of the
> players - is under 18, and averages, IIRC, about 14.
>
think it'd increase your business?
Sean O'Hara
>
> In article <3D039C06...@myrealbox.com>, Sean O'Hara ruminated:
> > Eric Lee Green wrote:
> >>
> >> Uhm, you ARE aware that a good proportion of anime' is sexually explicit,
> >> and that it is NOT being marketed to children?
> >>
> > Well, not in the US.
>
> Huh? I can go down the street to Fry's Electronics or to the local
> comics shop and buy all sorts of sexually explicit anime' on DVD. In
> case you don't know, I'm in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Yes, these DVD's
> have the parental warning advisory sticker on them. Yes, these anime'
> disks are being marketed to adults, not to children.
>
appropriate for children.
--
Sean O’Hara
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Don't you have to have a credit card to use the SFBC?
No. It would make some things easier that way, but I think the great
majority of our sales are still the traditional bookclub model -- we
ship the books with an invoice, and get payment whenever the member
sends a check.
Terry Austin
>Terry Austin wrote:
>>
>> Sean O'Hara <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Terry Austin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >At least ir's largely genre-related porn, as opposed to OT porn.
>> >> >
>> >> True, though this month is a bit exceptional in that regard. I still think
>> >> it's a big over the top to put this stuff opposite D&D stuff, though.
>> >>
>> >Have you met the sort of people who play D&D in college and beyond?
>> >Believe me, it's very well targeted.
>>
>> I sell gaming stuff online, and know the market. Yes, there are a lot of
>> college age D&D players. But the main demographic - the majority of the
>> players - is under 18, and averages, IIRC, about 14.
>
>And people under 18 would have no interest in porn, of course.
>
It is a federal crime to sell porn to minors. So is attempting to on
purpose.
>Don't you have to have a credit card to use the SFBC? And lets face
>it: if you have a credit card, and you want porn, you're going to get
>it. In fact, I got the impression that Adult Verification Services
>(for porn sites) use credit cards to define whether someone is or is
>not an adult.
>
That parents need to pay attention to what their children do does not alter
SFBC's responsibility to obey the law.
Terry Austin
>Terry Austin wrote:
>>
>> Sean O'Hara <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Have you met the sort of people who play D&D in college and beyond?
>> >Believe me, it's very well targeted.
>>
>> I sell gaming stuff online, and know the market. Yes, there are a lot of
>> college age D&D players. But the main demographic - the majority of the
>> players - is under 18, and averages, IIRC, about 14.
>>
>And if you had a way to market porn to the over 18 crowd, don't you
>think it'd increase your business?
So you approve of SFBC selling porn? That's what you joined SFBC for? Not
what I joined SFBC for. I joined to buy science fiction an fantasy. For the
last year, they've average about half their mailings being science fiction
or fantasy, sometimes less. And an increasing amount of porn. I have no
objections to porn, but it does get tiresome to see space (and money) that
could be used to sell science fiction and fantasy used to market stuff I
have absolutely zero interest in buying.
SFBC is rapidly becoming a complete and utter waste of time to even open the
mailings.
(Plus, it's a felony to market porn to children. I doubt they'd be
prosecuted for it, even if somebody complained, but I'll bet they get a
nasty phone call or two.)
Eric Lee Green
> So you approve of SFBC selling porn? That's what you joined SFBC for? Not
I joined SFBC to buy science fiction and fantasy. Some of which is anime'.
And much anime', aside from being science fiction, is also sexually explicit.
> objections to porn, but it does get tiresome to see space (and money) that
> could be used to sell science fiction and fantasy used to market stuff I
> have absolutely zero interest in buying.
Obviously some people DO have an interest in buying it, otherwise SFBC
wouldn't sell it.
> (Plus, it's a felony to market porn to children. I doubt they'd be
If you're talking hard-core XXX stuff, maybe. Much anime' may be
sexually explicit, but few would claim that it qualifies under the
classic definition of "porn" (i.e., is solely a vehicle for
sex with no redeeming artistic value).
It sounds to me like you need to get your head out of your Southern
Baptist preacher man's butt, and quit harping on the subject.
It should be obvious to you by now that many people disagree with you
and are annoyed by this whiney crusade of yours. It seems to me that
this is the time to agree to disagree, and drop the subject.
John Hill
> It should
> be obvious to you by now that many people disagree with you and are
> annoyed by this whiney crusade of yours.
I'm baffled as to why. From the opposing side, all I'm hearing is,
"Yay, free market. Porn in SF. Porn in the Haynes manuals. Porn in
the cookbooks. Porn in cute cat calendars, porn porn everywhere."
The SFBC may, or may not, be turning their catalog into a cesspool.
Whether this would be a good long-term strategy for them is SEP,
but it's still a fair question. And, freakishly enough, on topic.
Bias note:
I'm in Cincinnati, and we aren't allowed to have nipples here.
JH
Htn963
>Eric Lee Green wrote:
>
>> It should
>> be obvious to you by now that many people disagree with you and are
>> annoyed by this whiney crusade of yours.
>
>I'm baffled as to why.
I suspect it's because the OP has typecasted himself so well here as a
troll that few take whatever he says seriously. He's just not crusader
material.
Besides, when someone say they're speaking "for the children" -- ages 14
and up, uh huh -- they are really speaking for themselves.
>From the opposing side, all I'm hearing is,
>"Yay, free market. Porn in SF. Porn in the Haynes manuals. Porn in
>the cookbooks. Porn in cute cat calendars, porn porn everywhere."
You're exaggerating, but if that is what people really want, then yes,
that's free market for you.
>The SFBC may, or may not, be turning their catalog into a cesspool.
>Whether this would be a good long-term strategy for them is SEP,
>but it's still a fair question. And, freakishly enough, on topic.
One can be on topic *and* irrelevant.
>Bias note:
>I'm in Cincinnati, and we aren't allowed to have nipples here.
Geez, and now that you've lost your football team, what do you do for fun?
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
John Hill
> John Hill wrote:
>>The SFBC may, or may not, be turning their catalog into a cesspool.
>>Whether this would be a good long-term strategy for them is SEP, but
>>it's still a fair question. And, freakishly enough, on topic.
>
> One can be on topic *and* irrelevant.
>
>>Bias note:
>>I'm in Cincinnati, and we aren't allowed to have nipples here.
>
> Geez, and now that you've lost your football team, what do you do
> for fun?
HUH? Oh crap, I guess I need to buy a newspaper.
Maybe we could fill the new stadium with sand and have gladiator fights.
JH
Mike Schilling
news:20020610043019...@mb-ms.news.cs.com...
> >Bias note:
> >I'm in Cincinnati, and we aren't allowed to have nipples here.
>
> Geez, and now that you've lost your football team, what do you do for
fun?
Nyrath the nearly wise
> Nyrath the nearly wise <nyr...@io.com> writes:
>> Well, it has been my experience that one innocent mistake
>> with a web search engine and you can suddenly find
>> your browser spawning new windows full of porn faster
>> than you can shut them.
>
Yeah, I gave up in disgust and went to using
Mozilla as my web browser. Never looked back.
Rich Clark
These seem to be facts:
SFBC sells some erotica (whether it's "porn" is a separate discussion), and
"explicit content" is present in various of its offerings.
SFBC does not actively screen applicants for adult status. One need not
represent oneself as being 18 or over in order to join.
One does not need a credit card or even a checking account to be a member.
Invoices can be paid by money order, which anyone of any age can purchase.
They lead to this conclusion:
It is possible for a minor to buy erotica from the SFBC.
Now, based on information from my own teenage son, it's clear that it's
possible for minors to buy erotica from any number of sources, but teenagers
rarely do because it's so readily available for free.
The next question is whether the SFBC is *marketing* this material to
minors. Is it advertising in magazines or on TV shows geared to that market?
Is it in any other way targeting the under-18 market in order to get these
advertisements into their mailboxes in the guise of book club mailings?
I've never seen this, but I haven't seen everything. If someone has seen
such targeted marketing conducted by SFBC, it would be good to cite it.
Finally, I'd like to make this point. In my experience, *all* book clubs
include "adult" offerings in their mailings from time to time. "How to Be a
Better Lover" sorts of things, or "20 Greatest Erotic Short Stories" type
collections. Not usually what most people would label sleazy, but clearly
not intended for minors. It's true of the Literary Guild, the BMC, the QPBC,
etc. Probably all of them.
Assuming for the sake of argument that membership in all these clubs is
equally accessible to minors, is it being suggested here that the SFBC
should be singled out specifically because sf appeals to minors? That the
SFBC should *by its nature* be considered "marketing to minors* where the
other clubs are not?
Or are we saying that no book club should offer this material without
permission or warning? And in that case, should every book they offer be
screened?
I'm just trying to clarify the nature of the complaint, here.
RichC
Sea Wasp
>
> Assuming for the sake of argument that membership in all these clubs is
> equally accessible to minors, is it being suggested here that the SFBC
> should be singled out specifically because sf appeals to minors? That the
> SFBC should *by its nature* be considered "marketing to minors* where the
> other clubs are not?
No, the contention I was seeing was that there is, by the nature of
the SFBC catalog's layout, an ability to make choices as to what
material is displayed in conjunction with what other material.
Therefore, if "porn" is displayed on a page that is directly opposite
material that is demographically generally sold to minors, when it
COULD have been displayed on a page that was NOT immediately next to
material for minors, there is at least some reasonable question as to
whether or not this placement is deliberate.
If, as Terry asserts, the general audience for D&D products is 14,
and the D&D material is directly next to erotica, one could indeed ask
the question as to whether the marketing department, knowing that the
average D&D player is also male, took advantage of this knowledge and
is placing erotica where a young male is most likely to see it. If
they did, then this would certainly count as a potential marketing of
porn to minors.
(Note that I don't necessarily agree with Terry's asserted age group;
I think the AVERAGE age of *D&D players is 18 - 22 -- college age.
Yes, there's bunches younger. There's bunches older, too. However, if
you take his figures, his gripe is not unreasonable. Note also that I
don't really give a ruddy damn about where "porn" is marketed since I
don't see the stuff as being nearly as dangerous overall as the
violence which we don't even concern ourselves with marketing.)
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Brian McCullogh
*snip*
> The exceptions to all these general cases are art books and other
> similar titles where the physical quality of the book is one of its
> intrinsic selling points -- those, we generally run with the publisher
> and get books that are identical to theirs. (Or sometimes we strip out
> their price and make other small, cosmetic changes.)
*snip again*
Hi Andrew,
Are the SFBC copies of the _Spectrum_ series and the Frank Frazetta
books from Underwood identical to the ones sold elsewhere? Since I
missed the first few volumes in the _Spectrum_ series, and foolishly
passed on _Icon_ and _Legacy_ because I have copies of Frazetta's
earlier books from Peacock Press, I am considering buying copies in the
expensive out-of-print market. It would help to know if a copy
advertised as "first edition HC" is the real McCoy and not a club copy
with "small, cosmetic changes", please. _Testament_ and the recent
_Spectrum_ volumes from the SFBC are certainly beautiful books but I
have not seen any copies in the stores in Montreal with which to compare
to the club's for any differences.
I noticed in the June issue of "Locus" that Underwood will be reprinting
_Icon_ in the fall. Will the SFBC be offering copies as well? If so, I
would be quite content to wait until they became available.
Thanks,
Brian McCullogh
(posted and emailed)
James Nicoll
first and third of white paper, middle of a tan coloured paper. Was that
some sort of cost management scheme using lower grade paper?
Terry Austin
"Rich Clark" <rdcla...@TRAPacnatsci.org> wrote in message
news:9E3N8.9519$T_.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>
> "Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:j3s7guo200cuon8kq...@4ax.com...
> > Sean O'Hara <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> > (Plus, it's a felony to market porn to children. I doubt they'd be
> > prosecuted for it, even if somebody complained, but I'll bet they get a
> > nasty phone call or two.)
>
> These seem to be facts:
>
> SFBC sells some erotica (whether it's "porn" is a separate discussion),
UK:18 is the UK equivalent to NC-17, isn't it? And they
say "you must be 18 to buy this stuff", so they obviously
consider it adult material.
>and
> "explicit content" is present in various of its offerings.
>
> SFBC does not actively screen applicants for adult status. One need not
> represent oneself as being 18 or over in order to join.
>
> One does not need a credit card or even a checking account to be a member.
> Invoices can be paid by money order, which anyone of any age can purchase.
And they put the erotical directly opposite the D&D stuff, which
is a game product line that has a market demographic that average
about 14 years old. Convenient that you left that part out.
>
> They lead to this conclusion:
>
> It is possible for a minor to buy erotica from the SFBC.
>
> Now, based on information from my own teenage son, it's clear that it's
> possible for minors to buy erotica from any number of sources, but
teenagers
> rarely do because it's so readily available for free.
>
> The next question is whether the SFBC is *marketing* this material to
> minors. Is it advertising in magazines or on TV shows geared to that
market?
It is putting this stuff directly opposite D&D stuff.
> Is it in any other way targeting the under-18 market in order to get these
> advertisements into their mailboxes in the guise of book club mailings?
Frankly, I doubt they did it on purpose. I think whoever laid out
that particular insert was just clueless. But it looks damned odd.
>
> I've never seen this, but I haven't seen everything. If someone has seen
> such targeted marketing conducted by SFBC, it would be good to cite it.
>
> Finally, I'd like to make this point. In my experience, *all* book clubs
> include "adult" offerings in their mailings from time to time.
With SFBC, it's been pretty much 100% of the last year's mailings,
with no sign it will ever cease.
>"How to Be a
> Better Lover" sorts of things, or "20 Greatest Erotic Short Stories" type
> collections. Not usually what most people would label sleazy, but clearly
> not intended for minors. It's true of the Literary Guild, the BMC, the
QPBC,
> etc. Probably all of them.
>
> Assuming for the sake of argument that membership in all these clubs is
> equally accessible to minors, is it being suggested here that the SFBC
> should be singled out specifically because sf appeals to minors?
Nope. SFBC just happens to be the club I'm a member of.
> That the
> SFBC should *by its nature* be considered "marketing to minors* where the
> other clubs are not?
>
> Or are we saying that no book club should offer this material without
> permission or warning? And in that case, should every book they offer be
> screened?
>
> I'm just trying to clarify the nature of the complaint, here.
>
The real nature of the complaint is that maybe half of the stuff in
the average mailing is actually science fiction or fantasy. The rest
is little to nothing to do with the purpose of the club. It just gets
a little tedious to not be able to open up a mailing without having
"GIRLZ DOING GIRLZ" ads any more.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
"Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
news:3D04CB...@wizvax.net...
> Rich Clark wrote:
>
> >
> > Assuming for the sake of argument that membership in all these clubs is
> > equally accessible to minors, is it being suggested here that the SFBC
> > should be singled out specifically because sf appeals to minors? That
the
> > SFBC should *by its nature* be considered "marketing to minors* where
the
> > other clubs are not?
>
> No, the contention I was seeing was that there is, by the nature of
> the SFBC catalog's layout, an ability to make choices as to what
> material is displayed in conjunction with what other material.
>
> Therefore, if "porn" is displayed on a page that is directly opposite
> material that is demographically generally sold to minors, when it
> COULD have been displayed on a page that was NOT immediately next to
> material for minors,
Such as, say, the *other* entire page of erotic videos.
> there is at least some reasonable question as to
> whether or not this placement is deliberate.
>
> If, as Terry asserts, the general audience for D&D products is 14,
Last time I heard real figures from WotC, it was. Overall. I suspect
that SFBC's average customer is a bit older, but I suspect they have
a very large minority who are not 18, and I suspect the average age
of the customer who buys D&D stuff from them is lower than the
average age of their customers.
> and the D&D material is directly next to erotica, one could indeed ask
> the question as to whether the marketing department, knowing that the
> average D&D player is also male, took advantage of this knowledge and
> is placing erotica where a young male is most likely to see it. If
> they did, then this would certainly count as a potential marketing of
> porn to minors.
I'm more inclined to think it was just cluelessness, but it's the sort
of cluelessness that there's just no excuse for.
>
> (Note that I don't necessarily agree with Terry's asserted age group;
> I think the AVERAGE age of *D&D players is 18 - 22 -- college age.
> Yes, there's bunches younger. There's bunches older, too. However, if
> you take his figures, his gripe is not unreasonable.
My figures are several years old, but they came from WotC. And the
demographics of the D&D market hadn't changed at that point since
the days of Gary Gygax. I certainly believe that most of the players
you know are over 18, but anecdotal evidence isn't, and WotC (and
TSR before them) did real marketing research. They disagree with
your experience.
SFBC may not be aware of this, of course, but they *should* be
if they're selling D&D stuff. WotC has never been secretive about
it, after all.
>Note also that I
> don't really give a ruddy damn about where "porn" is marketed since I
> don't see the stuff as being nearly as dangerous overall as the
> violence which we don't even concern ourselves with marketing.)
>
I would agree it's not dangerous. It's just annoying. It's especially
annoying when you join a book club to buy science fiction and
fantasy, and _every_ _singe_ _mailing_ has "GIRLZ DOING
GIRLZ" videos, and as much other stuff that's *not* science
fiction and fantasy as it has that *is*.
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
"Eric Lee Green" <er...@badtux.org> wrote in message
news:slrnag802...@badtux.org...
> In article <j3s7guo200cuon8kq...@4ax.com>, Terry Austin
ruminated:
> > So you approve of SFBC selling porn? That's what you joined SFBC for?
Not
>
> I joined SFBC to buy science fiction and fantasy. Some of which is anime'.
> And much anime', aside from being science fiction, is also sexually
explicit.
The "B" stands for "book", oddly enough. Videos are not books. Aside
from that, quite a few people consider anime a different genre from science
fiction, primarily because the themes and conventions are quite different.
>
> > objections to porn, but it does get tiresome to see space (and money)
that
> > could be used to sell science fiction and fantasy used to market stuff I
> > have absolutely zero interest in buying.
>
> Obviously some people DO have an interest in buying it, otherwise SFBC
> wouldn't sell it.
Your claim is that they are perfect? They never, ever, ever make
a mistake?
Regardless, the point is not whether or not it sells, but why people
join a book club. Perhaps you join a book club to buy videos,
and join a science fiction book club to buy porn videos. God
knows, there are lots of idiotic people in the world. But that's
certianly not why I joined a science fiction book club. If the
are going to abandon science fiction (and fantasy) books,
then perhaps I should cancel my membership and look
for a porn video club to buy science fiction books from.
>
> > (Plus, it's a felony to market porn to children. I doubt they'd be
>
> If you're talking hard-core XXX stuff, maybe.
Nope. It is illegal to sell any sexually explicit material to children.
> Much anime' may be
> sexually explicit, but few would claim that it qualifies under the
> classic definition of "porn" (i.e., is solely a vehicle for
> sex with no redeeming artistic value).
Classic definition is irrelevant. Only legal definitions matter
in law. Call the FBI and ask them, if you don't believe me.
>
> It sounds to me like you need to get your head out of your Southern
> Baptist preacher man's butt,
I live in southern California, the most liberal place on earth
other than San Francisco, and have far less use for Southern
Baptists than you do, since I grew up around them in Missouri
(where they shoot Catholics for not being Christian enough,
even today. Or yesterday, as the case may be.)
>and quit harping on the subject.
So you approve of marekting porn to children? Pervert.
> It should be obvious to you by now that many people disagree with you
> and are annoyed by this whiney crusade of yours. It seems to me that
> this is the time to agree to disagree, and drop the subject.
Then drop the subject, pervert, and kill the thread. Nobody
is forcing you to read it.
Pervert.
Terry Austin
Eric Lee Green
> Bias note:
> I'm in Cincinnati, and we aren't allowed to have nipples here.
Ah yes. Isn't that the city that sued the Discovery Channel for
showing pictures of works of art by Michelangelo and other noted
Rennaissance artists that the prudes who ran the city deemed
"indecent"?
rr...@lmi.net
<rdcla...@TRAPacnatsci.org> wrote:
>Finally, I'd like to make this point. In my experience, *all* book clubs
>include "adult" offerings in their mailings from time to time. "How to Be a
>Better Lover" sorts of things, or "20 Greatest Erotic Short Stories" type
>collections. Not usually what most people would label sleazy, but clearly
>not intended for minors. It's true of the Literary Guild, the BMC, the QPBC,
>etc. Probably all of them.
I was a member of a book club that specialized in gardening, cooking,
and interior decorating books. And yes, they had the "Massage for
Lovers" videos and books about improving your sex life. So, it's,
pretty ubiquitous out there in the book clubs.
rr...@lmi.net
> No, the contention I was seeing was that there is, by the nature of
>the SFBC catalog's layout, an ability to make choices as to what
>material is displayed in conjunction with what other material.
>
> Therefore, if "porn" is displayed on a page that is directly opposite
>material that is demographically generally sold to minors, when it
>COULD have been displayed on a page that was NOT immediately next to
>material for minors, there is at least some reasonable question as to
>whether or not this placement is deliberate.
>
> If, as Terry asserts, the general audience for D&D products is 14,
>and the D&D material is directly next to erotica, one could indeed ask
>the question as to whether the marketing department, knowing that the
>average D&D player is also male, took advantage of this knowledge and
>is placing erotica where a young male is most likely to see it. If
>they did, then this would certainly count as a potential marketing of
>porn to minors.
Would it? My local video store has a section clearly marked
"Childrens". It also has an "Animated" section. For some reason not
at all clear to me, the Digimon, Pokemon, and DragonBallz videos are
all in the "Animated" section, mixed in with the other anime, much of
which is adult oriented. And new releases are placed on the walls in
alphabetical order, which puts things like the "Little Mermaid" right
next to "Lost in Lust". Now, is the simple placement of these items
next to each other mean that you are marketing those adult videos to
the kids?
They do have a line that says "If you are under 18, your parent must
sign here" on their mailers. (I checked the one I got recently). So
I think that they can safely assume that their audience is either over
18, or being monitored by adults. Then again, having seen way too
many adults asking 8-year-olds which of two R-rated movies they want
to get, perhaps I have too much faith in parental supervision.
Now, as to putting "porn" right next to D&D products, it could be
that, instead of trying to market porn to underage kids, they are
trying to market D&D to people who like those kinds of videos. Which
might be reasonable, if market research shows that there is an overlap
between the two groups, and their policy is to sell only to over-18's
or under-18s with parental permission.
Rebecca
Terry Austin
The comparison would be putting the adult titles in the "Children's"
section, which is actually quite a bit stronger (and more blatant,
and less likley to have been accidental) than what SFBC did.
>
> They do have a line that says "If you are under 18, your parent must
> sign here" on their mailers. (I checked the one I got recently). So
> I think that they can safely assume that their audience is either over
> 18, or being monitored by adults. Then again, having seen way too
> many adults asking 8-year-olds which of two R-rated movies they want
> to get, perhaps I have too much faith in parental supervision.
It's a matter of expectation. Do people expect to need to pay
such close attention to a book club mailing? Perhaps they do,
from the responses here. I certainly wouldn't, any more than
I'd expect to go to Disneyland and see Mickey Mouse selling
the same videos.
>
> Now, as to putting "porn" right next to D&D products, it could be
> that, instead of trying to market porn to underage kids, they are
> trying to market D&D to people who like those kinds of videos.
What a bizarre thought.
>Which
> might be reasonable, if market research shows that there is an overlap
> between the two groups, and their policy is to sell only to over-18's
> or under-18s with parental permission.
>
I'm not aware of any marketing data that indicates that over 18s
are the primary segment of the D&D market, though I suppose
they might be a large minority.
Terry Austin
Justin Fang
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>> If, as Terry asserts, the general audience for D&D products is 14,
>My figures are several years old, but they came from WotC. And the
>demographics of the D&D market hadn't changed at that point since
>the days of Gary Gygax. I certainly believe that most of the players
>you know are over 18, but anecdotal evidence isn't, and WotC (and
>TSR before them) did real marketing research. They disagree with
>your experience.
I remember hearing about that survey; I also remember the results
differently.
[googles]
Ah. WotC released a summary of their market research which is available at
several places on the web, including:
<http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/wotcdemo.html>
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Release Date: February 07, 2000
Permissions: This file is Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast. This file
may be freely redistributed or quoted in whole or part, provided that this
attribution remains intact.
Anyway, they don't have a number for the average age of D&D players; in
fact they only surveyed gamers between the ages of 12 and 35. The closest
thing I can find is the following, which breaks down all "TRPG" ("Tabletop
Roleplaying Game") players by age catagory. (Ignore the other catagories.)
Age TRPG MWG CRPG All Gamers(*)
12-15 23% 27% 23% 11%
16-18 18% 17% 16% 7%
19-24 25% 24% 23% 13%
25-35 34% 32% 37% 29%
I also found the following, which reports ages at which people learned to
play D&D:
Age: <12 12-15 16-18 19-24 25-25
Learned D&D: 23% 41% 15% 12% 9%
66% of TRPG players reported playing D&D at least once a month, and it
seems highly probable that there are more over-35 D&D players than
under-12 players. So while most people first encounter D&D while
under the age of 18, most people who actually play it are over 18.
--
Justin Fang (jus...@panix.com)
Terry Austin
Joseph Michael Bay
>rr...@lmi.net wrote:
>> Now, as to putting "porn" right next to D&D products, it could be
>> that, instead of trying to market porn to underage kids, they are
>> trying to market D&D to people who like those kinds of videos.
>What a bizarre thought.
...
>I'm not aware of any marketing data that indicates that over 18s
>are the primary segment of the D&D market, though I suppose
>they might be a large minority.
Over-18s might be a demographic where the companies are trying to
achieve market penetration. Because you can get in trouble trying
to penetrate the under-18 demographic, I hear.
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
Putting the "harm" in molecular pharmacology since 1998
t3H quIc/< 6roWn Ph0x0r jUmP3D ovER T3h 14zY do9 !( @|=>
Do you like http://www.stanford.edu/~jmbay gladiator movies?
Andrew Wheeler
>
> SFBC does not actively screen applicants for adult status. One need
> not represent oneself as being 18 or over in order to join.
To make this correct, replace "screen" with "pre-screen." We can -- and
do -- screen applications against a variety of databases. Not all
applications result in a membership.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Overall. I suspect that SFBC's average customer is a bit older,
About 38. Quite a bit older.
> but I suspect they have a very large minority who are not 18
Last time we asked (a year or so ago), the percent of club members under
18 (and they threw in the people whose ages we just didn't know, as
well) was insignificant -- no more than 1 or 2 percent.
> I would agree it's not dangerous. It's just annoying. It's especially
> annoying when you join a book club to buy science fiction and
> fantasy, and _every_ _singe_ _mailing_ has "GIRLZ DOING
> GIRLZ" videos, and as much other stuff that's *not* science
> fiction and fantasy as it has that *is*.
I'm afraid that will always be the case, with any bookclub. We can mail
up to 3.5 ounces at our postal rates, so we fill up the envelope to as
close to 3.5 as we can possibly go. (Mailing at a lower weight is
essentially throwing money away.) The targeted pieces (those originated
by that club) go in first, but the rest is filled up by "pick-up" flyers
from whatever other clubs, and in whatever other categories, that have
been the most financially successful in the past. Those categories
aren't always the ones that the club editors like, but it's hard to
argue with success -- we *are* in business to sell books, after all.
If it's any consolation, there are probably members of the Military Book
Club, Venus and Crafter's Choice complaining about all of the "Buck
Rogers stuff" in their mailing envelopes.
Terry Austin
>In article <pan.2002.06.10.02...@fuse.net>, John Hill ruminated:
>> Bias note:
>> I'm in Cincinnati, and we aren't allowed to have nipples here.
>
>Ah yes. Isn't that the city that sued the Discovery Channel for
>showing pictures of works of art by Michelangelo and other noted
>Rennaissance artists that the prudes who ran the city deemed
>"indecent"?
Wouldn't be the first time. I recall in incident in St. Louis where all the
statues in the big park had underwear put on 'em. one night.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Are the SFBC copies of the _Spectrum_ series and the Frank Frazetta
> books from Underwood identical to the ones sold elsewhere? Since I
> missed the first few volumes in the _Spectrum_ series, and foolishly
> passed on _Icon_ and _Legacy_ because I have copies of Frazetta's
> earlier books from Peacock Press, I am considering buying copies in
> the expensive out-of-print market. It would help to know if a copy
> advertised as "first edition HC" is the real McCoy and not a club
> copy with "small, cosmetic changes", please. _Testament_ and the
> recent _Spectrum_ volumes from the SFBC are certainly beautiful books
> but I have not seen any copies in the stores in Montreal with which
> to compare to the club's for any differences.
Our copies, for all of the _Spectrum_ volumes and the three Frazetta
books, ran on the same presses at the same time as Underwood's books, so
they *are* first edition copies. Any differences would make them a
different state of the first edition, as far as I can tell.
I just checked my personal copies of those books, and none of them have
prices on the front flaps. But I don't have copies of these books in
their trade state, so I don't know if *those* books have prices there --
quite possibly not, since they were all shrinkwrapped. I can tell that
we didn't strip out the UPC on the back of any of the books, which is
the other major change we sometimes make.
So I'm pretty sure that our copies of these books were identical to all
of the other hardcovers. (And, given the relative quantities, our
hardcovers probably outnumber the ones sold through the trade by several
to one -- so any book you find is statistically likely to have come
through the SFBC.)
> I noticed in the June issue of "Locus" that Underwood will be
> reprinting _Icon_ in the fall. Will the SFBC be offering copies as
> well? If so, I would be quite content to wait until they became
> available.
Sorry, no. We have too many art books right now to begin with, and it
looks like we can only sell one Frazetta book at a time. So we're trying
to be sensible and not buy all of the cool books we like, though it's hard.
--
Andrew Wheeler (also posted and e-mailed)
John Hill
> In article <pan.2002.06.10.02...@fuse.net>, John Hill
> ruminated:
>> Bias note:
>> I'm in Cincinnati, and we aren't allowed to have nipples here.
>
> Ah yes. Isn't that the city that sued the Discovery Channel for
> showing pictures of works of art by Michelangelo and other noted
> Rennaissance artists that the prudes who ran the city deemed
> "indecent"?
I hadn't heard about that one, but we are the folks who...
Hang on, let me refresh my memory <google, google>
Ah, 'Man in Polyester Suit'. Anyway.
We are the folks who indicted an art museum on obscenity charges
for displaying Robert Mapplethorpe photographs. That's just one
fun example of how we are. Sued the Discovery Channel? Probably.
All of this may color your opinion of my opinion, that it's too
bad that the SFBC might not be a suitable vector for golden-aged
SF readers anymore.
Well, I gotta cut this short. The local Hustler store's all the
way in another county.
JH
Andrew Wheeler
I'm tempted to blame it on shoddy Canadian manufacturing, but I'll try
to hold my tongue...
That's really not my area of expertise, and it doesn't sound familiar to
me. Were there any ads in those books? There was a fad, mostly in the
'70s, of inserting four-color advertisements into rack paperbacks,
usually in two places (roughly at the thirds of the book). Those pages
were heavier cardstock, though. (And the whole thing went away when
enough big authors got annoyed enough about it to have a "no non-book
advertising" clause put into their contracts.)
Otherwise, it rings no bells with me.
--
Andrew Wheeler
Alan Barclay
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>UK:18 is the UK equivalent to NC-17, isn't it? And they
>say "you must be 18 to buy this stuff", so they obviously
>consider it adult material.
Not really. It's more directly comarable to the US R rating.
Eric Lee Green
> Wouldn't be the first time. I recall in incident in St. Louis where all the
> statues in the big park had underwear put on 'em. one night.
Yeah, but that's Missouri, home of John Ashcroft, he who requires the
Spirit of Justice to be hidden behind dark curtains for fear that the
sight of naked Justice will be offensive.
Htn963
> Htn963 wrote:
>
> >>Bias note:
> >>I'm in Cincinnati, and we aren't allowed to have nipples here.
> >
> > Geez, and now that you've lost your football team, what do you do
> > for fun?
>
> HUH? Oh crap, I guess I need to buy a newspaper.
> Maybe we could fill the new stadium
My apologies Cincinnati, I've always confused you with Cleveland.
And, yes, yes, checking the latest NFL schedules, I see that
Cleveland got its football team back. I've kept up with football
about as well as I've kept up with SF for the past decade. Don't cry
for me Cincinnati.
>with sand and have gladiator fights.
I'd take that over porn anytime.
James Nicoll
Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> A number of my older books had an odd construction: three
>> sections, first and third of white paper, middle of a tan coloured
>> paper. Was that some sort of cost management scheme using lower grade
>> paper?
>
>I'm tempted to blame it on shoddy Canadian manufacturing, but I'll try
>to hold my tongue...
Nah, it was a number of publishers. Pocket (who did print in
Canada then) and Ballantine (Who I don't think did) are two I remember
for sure.
>That's really not my area of expertise, and it doesn't sound familiar to
>me. Were there any ads in those books? There was a fad, mostly in the
>'70s, of inserting four-color advertisements into rack paperbacks,
>usually in two places (roughly at the thirds of the book). Those pages
>were heavier cardstock, though. (And the whole thing went away when
>enough big authors got annoyed enough about it to have a "no non-book
>advertising" clause put into their contracts.)
I remember those. Sometimes they were the SFBC ads with the big
headed martian guy and I think that's how I became a member in the 1970s
but often they were just cigarette ads, if I recall correctly. This was
different, two grades of paper but all with story text on them.
>Otherwise, it rings no bells with me.
Well, maybe it was a Canadian thing.
Rich Clark
> > If, as Terry asserts, the general audience for D&D products is 14,
>
> Last time I heard real figures from WotC, it was. Overall. I suspect
> that SFBC's average customer is a bit older, but I suspect they have
> a very large minority who are not 18, and I suspect the average age
> of the customer who buys D&D stuff from them is lower than the
> average age of their customers.
Upon what do you base these suspicions? (Wheeler has posted elsewhere that
the average age of SFBC customers is 38, but I still wonder.)
I seriously doubt that SFBC is a significant source of D&D and other
non-book genre merchandise for the under-18 market. These are kids who are
at home in the places that deal in this stuff and have far wider selections
than the SFBC does, who actively play and trade and participate in the
culture. They don't need the SFBC for this.
Older people who feel uncomfortable entering youth-culture establishments
are far more likely to use SFBC as a source for such material. I suspect
that's why it's there.
RichC
Terry Austin
>In article <d9jagu8mnec7msiga...@4ax.com>, Terry Austin ruminated:
>> Wouldn't be the first time. I recall in incident in St. Louis where all the
>> statues in the big park had underwear put on 'em. one night.
>
>Yeah, but that's Missouri, home of John Ashcroft, he who requires the
>Spirit of Justice to be hidden behind dark curtains for fear that the
>sight of naked Justice will be offensive.
And how lost an election to a dead man. Who had been dead for months, IIRC.
I don't miss uncle-grandpa country. At all. Stopped shooting at it years
ago.
Terry Austin
>Terry Austin wrote:
>>
>> Overall. I suspect that SFBC's average customer is a bit older,
>
>About 38. Quite a bit older.
>
>> but I suspect they have a very large minority who are not 18
>
>Last time we asked (a year or so ago), the percent of club members under
>18 (and they threw in the people whose ages we just didn't know, as
>well) was insignificant -- no more than 1 or 2 percent.
Interesting.
>
>> I would agree it's not dangerous. It's just annoying. It's especially
>> annoying when you join a book club to buy science fiction and
>> fantasy, and _every_ _singe_ _mailing_ has "GIRLZ DOING
>> GIRLZ" videos, and as much other stuff that's *not* science
>> fiction and fantasy as it has that *is*.
>
>I'm afraid that will always be the case, with any bookclub. We can mail
>up to 3.5 ounces at our postal rates, so we fill up the envelope to as
>close to 3.5 as we can possibly go. (Mailing at a lower weight is
>essentially throwing money away.) The targeted pieces (those originated
>by that club) go in first, but the rest is filled up by "pick-up" flyers
>from whatever other clubs, and in whatever other categories, that have
>been the most financially successful in the past. Those categories
>aren't always the ones that the club editors like, but it's hard to
>argue with success -- we *are* in business to sell books, after all.
I guess it's just too much to think you might include more science fiction.
>
>If it's any consolation, there are probably members of the Military Book
>Club, Venus and Crafter's Choice complaining about all of the "Buck
>Rogers stuff" in their mailing envelopes.
>
No doubt. And members of the Porn Video Club complaining about all the D&D
stuff, too.
It's still in poor taste. And if the opinions of your customers matter at
all, you can quote me on that.
Terry Austin
>
>"Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
>news:ae2m4...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>> > If, as Terry asserts, the general audience for D&D products is 14,
>>
>> Last time I heard real figures from WotC, it was. Overall. I suspect
>> that SFBC's average customer is a bit older, but I suspect they have
>> a very large minority who are not 18, and I suspect the average age
>> of the customer who buys D&D stuff from them is lower than the
>> average age of their customers.
>
>Upon what do you base these suspicions? (Wheeler has posted elsewhere that
>the average age of SFBC customers is 38,
In response to the same post.
> but I still wonder.)
Apparently, butt monkeys.
>
>I seriously doubt that SFBC is a significant source of D&D and other
>non-book genre merchandise for the under-18 market.
With the average age Andrew indicated, I'm amazed they sell any at all.
Especially since their prices aren't anything special.
> These are kids who are
>at home in the places that deal in this stuff and have far wider selections
>than the SFBC does, who actively play and trade and participate in the
>culture. They don't need the SFBC for this.
>
>Older people who feel uncomfortable entering youth-culture establishments
>are far more likely to use SFBC as a source for such material. I suspect
>that's why it's there.
>
You haven't been in too many game stores, have you? Older people are
generally made to feel welcome, because they have actual money, nearly every
time.
Mike Schilling
news:3D054D75...@optonline.com...
> Terry Austin wrote:
> >
> > Overall. I suspect that SFBC's average customer is a bit older,
>
> About 38. Quite a bit older.
Is it going up? If so, not a great sign for written SF.
Mike Schilling
news:ae3rli$o7e$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> >> A number of my older books had an odd construction: three
> >> sections, first and third of white paper, middle of a tan coloured
> >> paper. Was that some sort of cost management scheme using lower grade
> >> paper?
Well, if the tan sections were in French...
Rich Clark
> Apparently, butt monkeys.
What?
> You haven't been in too many game stores, have you? Older people are
> generally made to feel welcome, because they have actual money, nearly
every
> time.
Not a lot, but generally the ones in the city seem as you describe; the ones
in the suburbs full of high school kids exuding hostility.
In any case, as I leave this now dying thread, we seem to have Austin still
aghast at SFBC marketing "Better Sex" guides to children whom Wheeler
insists are 38 years old. Meanwhile, somewhere, a pimpled adolescent stands
in line at the 7-11 to buy a money order to pay for his Introductory Package
full of Lensmen omnibuses and the latest Greg Bear bloodboiler, none of
which he wanted or would normally pay for, but word on the playground is
that once you become a "member" (heh, heh, he said "member") you get the
chance to buy all kinds of smut, and they don't even check your age! Whoa!
Meanwhile, all his 14-year old friends are back in the computer lab watching
a boot of the latest Jenna Jameson movie they downloaded using the wicked
wideband connection that was just donated to the school by the local cable
company.
RichC
Walter R. Strapps
Yes, I would like to complain about that and about now being on the NRA
mailing list to boot because of the MBC.
Cheers,
Walter R. Strapps
Sea Wasp
>
> "Andrew Wheeler" <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote in message
> news:3D054D75...@optonline.com..
> > >
> > > Overall. I suspect that SFBC's average customer is a bit older,
> >
> > About 38. Quite a bit older.
>
> Is it going up? If so, not a great sign for written SF.
Only if the success of the SFBC is strongly correlated with the
success of written SF in general. I don't belong to the SFBC because I
don't like to buy books sight unseen. Joined them once, found that I
didn't get all that much use of of them.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Terry Austin
> "Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:ph1bguohnu65ndj32...@4ax.com...
>
>> Apparently, butt monkeys.
>
> What?
I was talking about my ass. Hind-sight is 20/20, after all.
>
>> You haven't been in too many game stores, have you? Older people are
>> generally made to feel welcome, because they have actual money,
>> nearly
> every
>> time.
>
> Not a lot, but generally the ones in the city seem as you describe;
> the ones in the suburbs full of high school kids exuding hostility.
Could be. I haven't spend much time in game stores for years,
because I don't buy many new games any more.
Terry Austin
Nancy Lebovitz
Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>I'm afraid that will always be the case, with any bookclub. We can mail
>up to 3.5 ounces at our postal rates, so we fill up the envelope to as
>close to 3.5 as we can possibly go. (Mailing at a lower weight is
>essentially throwing money away.) The targeted pieces (those originated
It's not quite that simple--if you annoy your customers (whether
by offending them or by wasting their time), you also might be
throwing your money away.
>by that club) go in first, but the rest is filled up by "pick-up" flyers
>from whatever other clubs, and in whatever other categories, that have
>been the most financially successful in the past. Those categories
>aren't always the ones that the club editors like, but it's hard to
>argue with success -- we *are* in business to sell books, after all.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com 100 new slogans
I want to move to theory. Everything works in theory.
don erikson
wrote:
> A number of my older books had an odd construction: three sections,
>first and third of white paper, middle of a tan coloured paper. Was that
>some sort of cost management scheme using lower grade paper?
The difference is caused by the age and manufacturer of the rolls the
paper used to make each signature or section of the book. As a book
ages these differences can become more noticeable, yellowing at
different rates. You still can see this in new books but the ravages
of time haven't yet made quit as obvious.
kesi...@math.ttu.edu
: "James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
It's just an application of the Canadian Content laws.
==Jake