15 Love...good lord
Jeremy Henderson
series 15 Love, which has been described as "Millie the Model meets
Anna Kournikova". Presumably this another book in the same vein as
Trouble, aimed at a teenage girl demographic.
Problem is...well, take a look at the cover:
http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0308/09/15love.htm
Maybe it just says something about my mind, but with that photo and
that title, am I the only one who thinks if I came across that comic
on the stands, and it didn't have the Marvel logo, my first thought
would be "kiddie porn"? Given the controversy Trouble's photo cover
caused, Marvel has to know the cover is going to cause this kind of
furor, and simply did it anyway to antagonize people.
_______________________________
Boring stories by a boring man:
http://tinyurl.com/72v9
NedLeedsjr
>Maybe it just says something about my mind, but with that photo and
>that title, am I the only one who thinks if I came across that comic
>on the stands, and it didn't have the Marvel logo, my first thought
>would be "kiddie porn"?
Not only that, but it strikes me that cover would be found more appealing to
adolescent boys, than to any female.
Paul O'Brien
Henderson <hel...@tampabay.rr.com> writes
>
>Maybe it just says something about my mind, but with that photo and
>that title, am I the only one who thinks if I came across that comic on
>the stands, and it didn't have the Marvel logo, my first thought would
>be "kiddie porn"?
"Kiddie porn" implies prepubescence, and in fairness to TROUBLE, a photo
of two teenage girls in bikinis is not wildly inappropriate for a series
about two teenage girls on holiday.
That 15 LOVE cover, however, is... missing the point quite badly.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
KurtBusiek
Is it? Here are some links to actual covers on contemporary YA girls' fiction.
I think Marvel may even have hired some of the designers on these books to do
the covers for TROUBLE and 15 LOVE.
In any case, I think that is most of these were advertised as the cover of a
comic aimed at girls, people here would be tut-tutting over them being
inappropriately objectifying and not the sort of thing that would attract
girls.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060289392/ref=pd_rhf_p_4/00
2-3583560-4260852?v=glance&s=books&n=3045741&no=*
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060289376/qid=1060467351/sr
=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-3583560-4260852?v=glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316910333/ref=lib_dp_TFCV/0
02-3583560-4260852?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader#reader-link
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316912123/ref=pd_sim_books_
1/002-3583560-4260852?v=glance&s=books
kdb
Check out a FREE 8-page ARROWSMITH story at:
http://www.wildstorm.com/arrowsmith/arrowsmith.html
Slater5858
>In message <homajv0t0ig51vqk5...@4ax.com>, Jeremy
>Henderson <hel...@tampabay.rr.com> writes
>>
>>Maybe it just says something about my mind, but with that photo and
>>that title, am I the only one who thinks if I came across that comic on
>>the stands, and it didn't have the Marvel logo, my first thought would
>>be "kiddie porn"?
>
>"Kiddie porn" implies prepubescence, and in fairness to TROUBLE, a photo
>of two teenage girls in bikinis is not wildly inappropriate for a series
>about two teenage girls on holiday.
>
>That 15 LOVE cover, however, is... missing the point quite badly.
>
>--
>Paul O'Brien
>
I just see a girl with a tennis racket. Its possible I have a different
definition of kiddie porn than the rest of the world, but this looks innocent
to me.
Sean Walsh
news:homajv0t0ig51vqk5...@4ax.com...
> Comicscontinuum.com has a preview of the cover to Marvel upcoming
> series 15 Love, which has been described as "Millie the Model meets
> Anna Kournikova". Presumably this another book in the same vein as
> Trouble, aimed at a teenage girl demographic.
>
> Problem is...well, take a look at the cover:
> http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0308/09/15love.htm
*Sean spits out soda.......seriously this time*
WTF?!
--
Sean
My webpage: http://www.Sean-Walsh.com
Quantum Piett! http://www.geocities.com/quantumpiett/
¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
COLIERRANND2
>I just see a girl with a tennis racket. Its possible I have a different
>definition of kiddie porn than the rest of the world, but this looks innocent
>to me.
If yours is different than so is mine. I just don't see anything so bad.
But then again, I never saw the big tadoo over the "Trouble" cover. In fact,
someone had to point out to me the fact that those girls were supposed to be
underage because I just saw them as models. With models being so thin and
flatchested nowadays, I assumed they were of age really. But even at them being
14 or 15 or whatever, you see girls in bikinis or tennis players all the time
on tv, at the beach and so on....
I think the real problem isn't the girls ages or the cover images but the
dirtiness of the minds looking. I think the problem really lies in what these
complainers are thinking as they look. Maybe it's time for some
selfexamination?
Col
Being an Alan Scott fan is alot like being a pagan in america...you know others
exist but you never see them on tv.
starblood
news:20030809191644...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> But then again, I never saw the big tadoo over the "Trouble" cover. In
fact,
> someone had to point out to me the fact that those girls were supposed to
be
> underage because I just saw them as models. With models being so thin and
> flatchested nowadays, I assumed they were of age really. But even at them
being
> 14 or 15 or whatever, you see girls in bikinis or tennis players all the
time
> on tv, at the beach and so on....
I had no idea there was a controversy about the TROUBLE cover. Are underage
girls in normal summer garb to be outlawed now?
> I think the real problem isn't the girls ages or the cover images but the
> dirtiness of the minds looking. I think the problem really lies in what
these
> complainers are thinking as they look. Maybe it's time for some
> selfexamination?
As usual.
Marcovaldo
news:20030809183321...@mb-m11.aol.com...
>
>
> I just see a girl with a tennis racket. Its possible I have a different
> definition of kiddie porn than the rest of the world, but this looks
innocent
> to me.
That's what I see also.
COLIERRANND2
>girls in normal summer garb to be outlawed now?
Oh for some reason,in america at least, there is this paranoia about child
pornography being around every corner....
People need to stop thinking that sex,nudity,bikinis and short skirts are
automatically dirty. Maybe if they didn't spend so much time worrying about
whether the girl wearing a bikini in the picture is underage, they'd have time
to see that Little Johnny is building a pipe bomb in his room.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I had no idea there was a controversy about the TROUBLE cover. Are underage
> girls in normal summer garb to be outlawed now?
Depends on the context. From one perspective, Marvel is just trying to
mimic teen romance covers; from another, Marvel is using this picture to
sell its comic to teenage boys, which puts it in a whole 'nother
context.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Bad Girls, Batman: Death & Maidens, Formerly Known as
the Justice League
starblood
message news:johanna-A92678...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> "starblood" <moonh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I had no idea there was a controversy about the TROUBLE cover. Are
underage
> > girls in normal summer garb to be outlawed now?
>
> Depends on the context. From one perspective, Marvel is just trying to
> mimic teen romance covers; from another, Marvel is using this picture to
> sell its comic to teenage boys, which puts it in a whole 'nother
> context.
Not really. Shouldn't teenage boys be interested in teenage girls?
M.O.R
what kinda bugs me. I mean if nobody had a clue about the scoring system in
tennis, 15 love would seem kinda creepy and has more of an association with
kiddie porn, but even then you would have to have no idea what the book is
about, which is a teen romance hence the title is appropriate. Kurt Busiek
gave links to pictures of teen books aimed at girls that looked worse. I
had a prob with the Trouble cover, not the teens in bikinis, but the way
they were posed, but that's just me.
MOR
"Marcovaldo" <Marco...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:oQkZa.92245$3o3.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Shouldn't teenage boys be interested in teenage girls?
Depends on how homophilic one is. :)
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: > I had no idea there was a controversy about the TROUBLE cover. Are underage
: > girls in normal summer garb to be outlawed now?
:
: Depends on the context. From one perspective, Marvel is just trying to
: mimic teen romance covers; from another, Marvel is using this picture to
: sell its comic to teenage boys, which puts it in a whole 'nother
: context.
It's being done in advertising all the time.
That said, I have to admit I don't see anything particularly wrong about it, either.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
Dersc...@hotmail.com
Hand sell and grey tell fair ear ten sick am vault.
--
[Please note: This is a Usenet message, originally posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups.
If you see it in a moderated or censored forum, it was copied there without my consent.]
Aaron (Brother Head) Moss
> Problem is...well, take a look at the cover:
> http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0308/09/15love.htm
>
> Maybe it just says something about my mind, but with that photo and
> that title, am I the only one who thinks if I came across that comic
> on the stands, and it didn't have the Marvel logo, my first thought
> would be "kiddie porn"? Given the controversy Trouble's photo cover
> caused, Marvel has to know the cover is going to cause this kind of
> furor, and simply did it anyway to antagonize people.
It must just be your mind, cuz when I see that (with out the Marvel logo)
I would think it's tennis magazine or something. And that's coming from
someone at work known for his love of porn. 8)
But that could just be me.
Rev. Aaron *Brother Head* Moss
TheBr...@brotherhead.net
**************************************
Visit my website at:
http://brotherhead.net
**************************************
There is always more hell that needs raising.
-- Lauren Leveut
Michael Wood
Good Lord is right!
I know that most posters are saying that from an objective standpoint, they
see nothing wrong with the cover.
But come on! "15 LOVE" ?!! Lolita pose. Can I see the underwear? Add to that
the connection between tennis girls and male interest (knickers).
This is obviously inappropriate for a major organisation to be putting on a
cover. Everyone knows what this is selling, and maybe is being deliberately
obtuse to protect themselves from the thoughts.
If you want a mag that attracts girsl, you put BOYS on it. This is for
thirty year old or older male comic buyers who are "collecting" for
completeness, and congratulating themselves on their openness. It is sleaze
for the comic shop guys.
Geez.
--
"There is right and wrong in the Universe and it is not too hard to tell the
difference"
Michael Wood
Reply to: BLOCKm...@hotmail.com (remove BLOCK to reply)
KurtBusiek
We'll let the publishers of SEVENTEEN, the popular SWEET VALLEY HIGH books and
so many others from BABYSITTERS CLUB to COSMO know; they'll be mortified
they've been doing it wrong all these years.
From what those publishers have experienced, girls and women are more
interested in images they can identify with (i.e., girls who look like it'd be
fun to be), while it's boys that more often are attracted by images of "objects
of desire."
Mike Mc
> series 15 Love, which has been described as "Millie the Model meets
> Anna Kournikova". Presumably this another book in the same vein as
> Trouble, aimed at a teenage girl demographic.
>
> Problem is...well, take a look at the cover:
> http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0308/09/15love.htm
>
> Maybe it just says something about my mind, but with that photo and
> that title, am I the only one who thinks if I came across that comic
> on the stands, and it didn't have the Marvel logo, my first thought
> would be "kiddie porn"? Given the controversy Trouble's photo cover
> caused, Marvel has to know the cover is going to cause this kind of
> furor, and simply did it anyway to antagonize people.
My views on this sort of thing can be found, currently as I've
mentioned it before, in the New Ant-Man in Max Line (or something like
that) thread.
Suffice to say, I think this is all way overblown.
Mike
Mike Caprio
KurtBusiek <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>>> If you want a mag that attracts girsl, you put BOYS on it.>>
>We'll let the publishers of SEVENTEEN, the popular SWEET VALLEY HIGH
>books and so many others from BABYSITTERS CLUB to COSMO know; they'll
>be mortified they've been doing it wrong all these years.
>From what those publishers have experienced, girls and women are more
>interested in images they can identify with (i.e., girls who look
>like it'd be fun to be), while it's boys that more often are
>attracted by images of "objects of desire."
In other words - everybody likes women! Big surprise there. :)
Mike
KurtBusiek
>interested in images they can identify with (i.e., girls who look
>like it'd be fun to be), while it's boys that more often are
>attracted by images of "objects of desire."
>> In other words - everybody likes women! Big surprise there. :) >>
The description I once heard is that the major difference between a PLAYBOY
cover and a COSMO cover is that on the PLAYBOY cover, the model looks like
she's saying "Yes," and on the COSMO cover she looks like she's saying "No."
Where the (implied) power is makes the difference between fantasy possession
and fantasy identification.
In girls-book marketing, it's more about glamor than sex -- presenting pictures
of attractive girls who are doing something glamorous (and that's a broad
definition; being a sports star would be included) or exciting, who promise an
entertaining fantasy experience. I.e., "It would be cool to live that life."
Which is, in the end, simply a younger version of the COSMO fantasy allure.
Male fantasy identification is more external -- less about, "It would be cool
to be that image" and more "It would be cool to do those things." Thus, MAXIM
and others offer fantasy visions of travel, sex, extreme sports, sex, drinking,
sex and a little sex to top it off.
The 15 LOVE cover seems smack in the middle of the girls-identification
category. The drawing is of a fresh-scrubbed girl posing on a tennis court --
the tennis-star/model focus seems more about the exotic fantasy life it would
be fun to imagine. The character (Millie, I would assume) doesn't look
terribly sexual -- if she's got breasts the picture doesn't display them, and
her expression seems far more innocent than inviting. She's showing a lot of
leg, but then, she's a tennis star and model. Nothing about it seems
"naughty."
I suspet the people who are outraged by it are so used to seeing images of
women of comics covers from a male, exterior perspective, that they simply
don't see any other. Fantasy-possession is assumed, fantasy-identification
isn't even considered. The only acceptable image of girls that could be
marketed to girls would be something that walls off any hint of
fantasy-possession -- make sure it's the kind of image that male
fantasy-identification involves (an action pose, for instance) and bundle the
poor girl up, so there's no hint at all of sexualization. But that's not what
the girls-book market is looking for, so designing covers to wall off the male
gaze doesn't actually accomplish the purpose.
I've seen posts that had to misdescribe the image in order to critique it (one
described Millie as "bending over," which she's not). And that title -- 15
LOVE -- has been described as clearly about underage sex. Well, no. Not to
the presumed target audience. Sure, if Mille was giving a come-hither gaze,
had too much lipstick on and a lollipop, then that image and the title would
come across majorly skeevy -- but that image and the title YOUNG LOVE would do
the same, and nobody suggested that title was about kiddie-porn when it debuted
in 1947 and became a sales smash. 15 LOVE, as a title, simply implies (a)
tennis, and (b) that it's a love story about a 15 year old, maybe. There have
been a lot of those over the years.
I think the only way that 15 LOVE and its cover can be construed as kiddie porn
is if the assumption is made that that image and title are designed to attract
the attention of adult men. But that's an assumption made by the viewer --
from the start, this has been described by Marvel as outreach to a girl market.
Just like the original MILLIE book, or its Eighties successor, MEET MISTY
(which was about Millie's niece).
Mike Mc
I love that none of the detractors have, as yet, responded to these examples.
Not that they can't be responded to, just that no one has.
Mike
queenvolcano
I don't know about "everybody." If I were 15 years old I would have
the exact same reaction to the covers for TROUBLE and 15-LOVE as I do
today... recoiling at their cheesiness! There are plenty of young
girls who think that kind of stuff is total crap. If a mainstream
comic is putting women on the cover in order to attract me I would
prefer them to be dressed reasonably stylishly -- no 80s-metal-video
butt-floss AND no cheerleader/tennis outfits -- and doing something
interesting like flying around fighting monsters.
Things like Sweet Valley High are really popular, but I think that the
audience of girls who buy stuff like that is not the same as the
audience of girls who actually shop at comic stores. I'm sure it
overlaps, but it's definitely not the same. A lot of girls I see in
my local comic shops are buying pretty gothy stuff and would be
completely turned off by something like 15-Love.
Game Master
My Dearest Colonel,
I'm certain that by now you have heard of this "15 Love" controversy. I
can only pray that I am not the first to tell you of this for I would
absolutely despise the notion of being the one to cause you such alarm.
I'm trusting that you've already received word of this through other and
varied sources and have had enough time to properly regain your
composure prior to recieving this dainty missive of my own. As stated,
it's not my intent to cause you further grief or even bring upon you a
rather nasty case of the vapors (I mention this only because I recall
how you initially reacted to the infamous "Tipper Gore kisses Hillary on
the cheek" incident of 1992, but I digress).
I write you, old friend, not to cause undue alarm but rather because I
know--as do you--that the alarm must be sounded and the morally
righteous army must be mustered post-haste. Post-haste, I say!
I can only assume with a hopeful heart that Jerry Falwell and the rest
of our friends in the Moral Majority have been made duly aware of this
most recent (and quite alarming!) threat to the moral fiber of our fair
nation?
This "15 Love" problem cannot be overstated. Be warned, I am preparing
to offer vivid descritpions of the content of this rather lurid
periodical, and I am trusting that you will not (now or ever) allow any
eyes belonging to the fairer sex to gaze upon this missive. (I can only
imagine what horror would ensue if so delicate eyes should ever gaze
upon the source of the controversy itself, this "15 Love" comic
periodical cover. My God, man. Think of it!) In any case, I will now
continue, albeit with great trepidation. You have been duly warned.
This "15 Love" cover depicts...and forgive me again, old friend, but
duty demands that I continue--a girl. Obviously, a teenager. In a rather
short skirt and weilding a tennis racket. That she also peers out
towards the audience, breaking the literary convention of the fourth
wall, only adds insult to the injury! Why, she sits there in a pose
remniscant of that tart in that horrid novel by Nabakov (no more than a
third rate hack at best, and certainly no match for your own prose
concerning the virtues of chastity!) Oh, and I am reminded--the "club"
is to gather soon for another "burning" session, isn't it? I did so
enjoy our last meeting, concerning the perverted works of one Anais Nin
(even though the situation did get somewhat out of hand when the flames
grew too high and the spark from our "bon" leapt like demon-flame
towards the good, young Reverend Brown, setting his very hair ablaze and
sending him frailing about sqeualing like a young school girl. I must
admit to surpressing a snicker at his expense--oh dear, I seem to be
digressing again).
Now, back to the matter at hand: consider: Short skirts. Tennis rackets.
The possibilities. The mind reels.
Oh, Colonel--I am overcome. I fear that I cannot go on and I must retire
for a time--I know you will give this matter your undivided attention.
My love to the "lads." I'm sure I will see you all in September for our
annual book burning and fish fry.
I know we are slated to take on that insidious Nabakov, but perhaps we
could work a few of these horrid "15 Love" phamplets into the mix as
well? They are rather flimsly. Perhaps as kindling?
Until then, I remain a faithful servant both to you and to the good
fight!
Forever loyal,
Regis
http://community.webtv.net/powerofthecrusaders/CrusadersInAction
Paul O'Brien
queenvolcano <hhat...@yahoo.com> writes
> If a mainstream comic is putting women on the cover in order to
>attract me I would prefer them to be dressed reasonably stylishly -- no
>80s-metal-video butt-floss AND no cheerleader/tennis outfits
Well yeah, but in fairness, the lead character IS a tennis player. So
the tennis outfit is hardly gratuitous in and of itself.
QueenVolcano
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <d42a4346.03081...@posting.google.com>,
> queenvolcano <hhat...@yahoo.com> writes
> > If a mainstream comic is putting women on the cover in order to
> >attract me I would prefer them to be dressed reasonably stylishly -- no
> >80s-metal-video butt-floss AND no cheerleader/tennis outfits
>
> Well yeah, but in fairness, the lead character IS a tennis player. So
> the tennis outfit is hardly gratuitous in and of itself.
Well, I didn't say that the cover would be gratuitous, just that it
looked cheesy. If the cover WAS gratuitous, and the story inside was
actually full of crack-dealing mutant vampires with shotguns, and it was
written well, maybe I'd buy it! But if it really is a tennis story in
the style of Sweet Valley High, then it's going to be really crappy. I
read half of one of those books over a decade ago and I still remember
how bad it was.
It's just too bad that Marvel seems to be aiming this at the lowest
common denominator for female readers, and I have a lot of doubts as to
whether it's going to work or not. On the other hand, male readers have
already been "targeted" with the silliness that is X-Men Phoenix Legacy
of Fire, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much.
Anyway, regarding the main argument of this thread -- is the cover
objectionable in a sexual way -- it doesn't bother me like that, I just
think it's cheesy and kind of lame.
Mike Mc
> Well, I didn't say that the cover would be gratuitous, just that it
> looked cheesy. If the cover WAS gratuitous, and the story inside was
> actually full of crack-dealing mutant vampires with shotguns, and it was
> written well, maybe I'd buy it! But if it really is a tennis story in
> the style of Sweet Valley High, then it's going to be really crappy. I
> read half of one of those books over a decade ago and I still remember
> how bad it was.
Different strokes for different folks... my girlfriend probably never
read one of those books in her entire life, but my sister has a
collection somewhere from her early teen/pre-teen days.
This wasn't, supposedly, being aimed at adult female comics readers
but the original audience of books like Sweet Valley High, among
others.
Mike
starblood
news:e579049.03081...@posting.google.com...
> QueenVolcano <hhat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<hhatlanta-06505...@news.so-net.com.hk>...
>
> > Well, I didn't say that the cover would be gratuitous, just that it
> > looked cheesy. If the cover WAS gratuitous, and the story inside was
> > actually full of crack-dealing mutant vampires with shotguns, and it was
> > written well, maybe I'd buy it! But if it really is a tennis story in
> > the style of Sweet Valley High, then it's going to be really crappy. I
> > read half of one of those books over a decade ago and I still remember
> > how bad it was.
>
> Different strokes for different folks... my girlfriend probably never
> read one of those books in her entire life, but my sister has a
> collection somewhere from her early teen/pre-teen days.
As did mine. Now I work in a used bookstore and get calls for them on a
regular basis.
Girls love them.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I love that none of the detractors have, as yet, responded to these examples.
What's to respond to? I already said it's all about context. A woman in
a bathing suit carries a different message on the cover of Sports
Illustrated as compared to a product picture in the Lands End catalog. A
woman flashing her panties on a tennis court reads differently in an
action shot of Venus or Serena as opposed to the cover of a comic sold
to teenage boys.
It'll be interesting to see whether Marvel reuses any of these pictures
on the assumed collected editions.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: August Previews
Mike Mc
> mlmc...@olemiss.edu (Mike Mc) wrote:
>
> > I love that none of the detractors have, as yet, responded to these examples.
>
> What's to respond to? I already said it's all about context. A woman in
> a bathing suit carries a different message on the cover of Sports
> Illustrated as compared to a product picture in the Lands End catalog. A
> woman flashing her panties on a tennis court reads differently in an
> action shot of Venus or Serena as opposed to the cover of a comic sold
> to teenage boys.
And, as my point has been over most of this sort of thing, these
comics are not being targeted at teenage boys... they are just being
poorly (due to method, not packaging) targeted at teenage/pre-teen
girls so far. We'll see what happens with the trades.
Therefore the covers are entirely within the proper context... unless
you are assuming that comic books, direct market or no, are mainly for
of teenage boys. In that case, alot of the comics being put out today
are entirely innapropriate and have incredibly misleading covers:
Powers, Alias (painted half-naked woman half the time), Fables (again,
while more cartoony, a fair number of covers recently with
scantily-clad females), and more than I really care to dredge up right
now.
Now, if you want to talk context (and remember that alot of the uproar
over this has been over the fact that having the girls on the covers
makes it obvious that these comics are NOT targeting girls but boys,
whether that is your contention or not) I would like to point to the
last cover that Kurt linked to.
Sorry, I'm taking a long time to answer your intial question in
response to my comment.
Considering some of the problems people have with this concept, even
ones mentioned in other parts of this thread, I'd think that the very
fact that romance novels aimed at young female readers have these
sorts of covers would put a major hurting on their arguments. Of
course arguments can be refined or specified over the course of a
discussion to include new information... but at the time I posted
there was no reaction of the "Oh... well..." OR "Yes, but that still
doesn't mean..." variety.
Lastly, I apologize if I'm coming off really antagonistic... I'm
trying not to be, but short of going back and re-writing this from the
beginning I've edited it for that sort of vibe as best I feel I can.
Good evening,
Mike
COLIERRANND2
>a bathing suit carries a different message on the cover of Sports
>Illustrated as compared to a product picture in the Lands End catalog. A
>woman flashing her panties on a tennis court reads differently in an
>action shot of Venus or Serena as opposed to the cover of a comic sold
>to teenage boys.
Actually lets substitute Venus or Serena with Anna Kournikova...now what's the
difference? Is it the same?
I ask because Anna is widely considered a main-stream sex symbol and the
Williams sisters are not.
I still contend that you get out of a picture what your mind puts into it.
I can see a picture of a naked woman and get nothing from it, yet I can see a
woman dressed as a nun(Sally Field for instance) and feel very nice about that.
So...what does that say?
starblood
> I can see a picture of a naked woman and get nothing from it, yet I can
see a
> woman dressed as a nun(Sally Field for instance) and feel very nice about
that.
> So...what does that say?
That you went to one of those Catholic schools that you only see in
b-movies?
Johanna Draper Carlson
> >woman flashing her panties on a tennis court reads differently in an
> >action shot of Venus or Serena as opposed to the cover of a comic sold
> >to teenage boys.
>
> Actually lets substitute Venus or Serena with Anna Kournikova...now what's
> the difference?
I can spell the first two... :)
> I still contend that you get out of a picture what your mind puts into it.
The person being communicated to is part of the whole thing, yes, but
I'm also leery of statements like yours being used to hand-wave away
what can be serious concerns.
> So...what does that say?
I don't want to hear any more about you and nuns. :)
COLIERRANND2
>I'm also leery of statements like yours being used to hand-wave away
>what can be serious concerns
I certainly wasn't using it that way. I was just meaning that usually you can
find websites(yea, they're out there) that have pics of Anna just playing
tennis and it's obvious the intent of the pictures and I have yet to find the
same for the sisters.
But I really don't see this being that serious anyway. It's more like a bunch
of busybodies(and at that, not that many) with nothing to bitch about lately
finding something offensive in a picture of a girl in a tennis outfit.
>I don't want to hear any more about you and nuns. :)
>
Oh you should hear about me and cheerleaders! HAHA!
LordofTheBidding
Chicks dig guys who read 15 Love and Trouble. I was a 90 pound weakling and
now I'm a chick magnet! It can work for you too fellas! Go out to your local
comic shop or bookseller and pick up a copy of Trouble now on the stands! Be
the envy of the jocks while all the Bettys try to cozy up next to *you* to get
a peak at the newest issue! :>
Your days of humiliation are at an end, comic lover!
And be sure to be on the lookout for 15 Love, coming soon!
Tell them I, Mo Val Plant sent you! Excelsior!
Mike Mc
> Be the envy of the jocks while all the Bettys try to cozy up next to *you*
> to get a peak at the newest issue! :>
The "Bettys"? Either this is an Archie reference or someone's been
watching 'Clueless' too much. *L*
Mike
Mike Mc
Mike
Game Master
Well, Ultimate 15 Love will have an entirely different cover anyways...
M.O.R
"Game Master" <VandV_Ga...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8218-3F3...@storefull-2192.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>
> Well, Ultimate 15 Love will have an entirely different cover anyways...
>
enjoys playing with balls....and tennis rackets.
MOR
Johanna Draper Carlson
> And, as my point has been over most of this sort of thing, these
> comics are not being targeted at teenage boys...
I think most direct market comic shop customers are still male, and
Marvel claims that their audience is primarily teenagers and young
adults. That's the default assumption for a Marvel pseudo-superhero
book, and Marvel has done nothing concrete to make it otherwise.
> you are assuming that comic books, direct market or no, are mainly for
> of teenage boys.
No, that's not the discussion we're having. I know that there are a ton
more comics out there than that, but here we're talking about a Marvel
comic that's only been sold to superhero readers so far. (Evidence: all
the PR about whether or not this is Spider-Man continuity.) And that
audience is still majority young males.
> In that case, alot of the comics being put out today
> are entirely innapropriate and have incredibly misleading covers:
I agree. Especially if we restrict the discussion to Marvel, as it has
been so far.
> Considering some of the problems people have with this concept, even
> ones mentioned in other parts of this thread, I'd think that the very
> fact that romance novels aimed at young female readers have these
> sorts of covers would put a major hurting on their arguments.
Except that young girls buy those books, and there's been no evidence so
far that any young girls are buying this one. The only anecdotes I've
heard that relate come from male buyers who showed Trouble to a sister
or relative or friend, and most of them apparently said "ick". (Which
doesn't surprise me, because it's a poorly done book.)
PS No antagonism inferred, but thank you for asking. :)
Mike Mc
> No, that's not the discussion we're having. I know that there are a ton
> more comics out there than that, but here we're talking about a Marvel
> comic that's only been sold to superhero readers so far. (Evidence: all
> the PR about whether or not this is Spider-Man continuity.) And that
> audience is still majority young males.
I guess I wasn't thinking of Marvel as, creatively, any different from
any other company for the purposes of this discussion. Other than the
particular kind of press these sorts of books have gotten (as in the
type Marvel's becoming known for under Jemas) I wouldn't look at this
book any differently if it was published under any publisher. I guess
I can't see why anyone would.
> > In that case, alot of the comics being put out today
> > are entirely innapropriate and have incredibly misleading covers:
>
> I agree. Especially if we restrict the discussion to Marvel, as it has
> been so far.
See the above.
> > Considering some of the problems people have with this concept, even
> > ones mentioned in other parts of this thread, I'd think that the very
> > fact that romance novels aimed at young female readers have these
> > sorts of covers would put a major hurting on their arguments.
>
> Except that young girls buy those books, and there's been no evidence so
> far that any young girls are buying this one. The only anecdotes I've
> heard that relate come from male buyers who showed Trouble to a sister
> or relative or friend, and most of them apparently said "ick". (Which
> doesn't surprise me, because it's a poorly done book.)
And I was attempting to seperate the intent/actual (supposed, which I
see no reason as yet to question) content from the result (which has
been a failure, in my opinion, as I've noted before).
> PS No antagonism inferred, but thank you for asking. :)
Heh, I just didn't want to come off wrong, as I know the internet can
be hard when it comes to getting that sort of thing across.
Mike
Darren Lewis
as "pornographic" a picture as I have seen without any nudity in it.
Sickening.
COLIERRANND2
>Well, Ultimate 15 Love will have an entirely different cover anyways...
>
I for one hope not, just to spite the pious buttheads who are getting so upset
about it.
Darren Lewis
check out 15 love and phoenix and emma frost and marville --- come on
folks who is kidding who here?
Darren Lewis
her "lower body" you show that cover to any male with a pulse especially
a teenage and he can tell you IT IS NOT JUST A TEENAGE GIRL with a
racquet! There are 1000 different ways to show a teenage girl with a
racket and many if not most of these ways do not featuring a girl WHO
HAS HER DRESS HIKED ALL THE WAY UP.
Darren Lewis
defend PHOENIX LEGACY OF FIRE - again as close to porn as one can get
without nudity. Truely pathetic publishing move there!
Darren Lewis
TROUBLE cover - the people's faces are not even show. The suggestive
posing is not there. However I do find it incredible that those types
of books are being made for teenagers at all. By the way there are
plenty of teenage girl books that DO NOT feature these kinds of covers.
Why does MARVEL not copy those covers why does MARVEL copy or exceed the
few offensive covers. How about the covers for WHALE RIDER and STAR
GIRL. Or the bestselling HARRY POTTER series? It is a poor excuse to
say that cause a few other covers do it Marvel has to do too. Plus
Marvel exceeds those covers anyway getting into suggestive posing those
covers don't feature!
I V
> None of those Amazon covers come close to the 15 LOVE cover or even the
> TROUBLE cover - the people's faces are not even show. The suggestive
Well, how about this:
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0140324232.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
this,
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0140324275.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
or this:
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0140324208.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg ?
They strike me as very similar to the 15 Love and Trouble covers (the
Trouble cover is somewhat more sexualised, but, then, it's more a comic
about teenagers having sex).
> posing is not there. However I do find it incredible that those types
> of books are being made for teenagers at all. By the way there are
Why? What sort of books do you think teenagers should be reading (and,
given that many seem to like these books, who are you to tell them not to read
them)?
> plenty of teenage girl books that DO NOT feature these kinds of covers.
> Why does MARVEL not copy those covers why does MARVEL copy or exceed the
> few offensive covers. How about the covers for WHALE RIDER and STAR
> GIRL. Or the bestselling HARRY POTTER series? It is a poor excuse to
Maybe because those books are in completely different genres, aimed at
a considerably younger audience?
> say that cause a few other covers do it Marvel has to do too. Plus
> Marvel exceeds those covers anyway getting into suggestive posing those
> covers don't feature!
The Trouble cover is (slightly) suggestive, appropriately so, given its
content. But no more so than this one of Kurt's examples, say:
Which seems to be, similarly, a book about teenagers having sex. In both
cases, the cover seems appropriate to the content.
I don't see anything objectionable in the 15 Love cover, though. It's an
image of a girl wearing tennis gear, which, inevitably, includes a short
skirt. But, unless you're a Victorian, 'seeing a bit of leg' doesn't equate
with 'presented in a sexualised way'.
starblood
news:17677-3F...@storefull-1903.public.rogers.webtv.net...
> Oh yeah all those standing up for MARVEL please I want to hear you
> defend PHOENIX LEGACY OF FIRE - again as close to porn as one can get
> without nudity. Truely pathetic publishing move there!
Wow, you need to lighten the hell up, man.
MattLB
>
> >From what those publishers have experienced, girls and women are more
> >interested in images they can identify with (i.e., girls who look
> >like it'd be fun to be), while it's boys that more often are
> >attracted by images of "objects of desire."
>
> >> In other words - everybody likes women! Big surprise there. :) >>
>
> The description I once heard is that the major difference between a PLAYBOY
> cover and a COSMO cover is that on the PLAYBOY cover, the model looks like
> she's saying "Yes," and on the COSMO cover she looks like she's saying "No."
> Where the (implied) power is makes the difference between fantasy possession
> and fantasy identification.
>
> In girls-book marketing, it's more about glamor than sex -- presenting pictures
> of attractive girls who are doing something glamorous (and that's a broad
> definition; being a sports star would be included) or exciting, who promise an
> entertaining fantasy experience. I.e., "It would be cool to live that life."
There's little connection to the glamorous world of tennis there though.
Shouldn't she be holding up a trophy, jumping over the net or actually
doing something tennis-y? The cover does have a suggestive air about it
and doesn't really scream fun and exuberence.
> The 15 LOVE cover seems smack in the middle of the girls-identification
> category. The drawing is of a fresh-scrubbed girl posing on a tennis court --
> the tennis-star/model focus seems more about the exotic fantasy life it would
> be fun to imagine. The character (Millie, I would assume) doesn't look
> terribly sexual -- if she's got breasts the picture doesn't display them, and
> her expression seems far more innocent than inviting. She's showing a lot of
> leg, but then, she's a tennis star and model. Nothing about it seems
> "naughty."
It's more gratuitous and suggestive than I would expect if it's aimed at
girls, but then I don't know what girls would see when they look at it.
Is flashing your panties at boys part of the glamour of tennis? Since
you could easy produce a cover that would appeal only to boys, producing
one that appeals only to girls would seem to be possible.
> I suspet the people who are outraged by it are so used to seeing images of
> women of comics covers from a male, exterior perspective, that they simply
> don't see any other. Fantasy-possession is assumed, fantasy-identification
> isn't even considered. The only acceptable image of girls that could be
> marketed to girls would be something that walls off any hint of
> fantasy-possession -- make sure it's the kind of image that male
> fantasy-identification involves (an action pose, for instance) and bundle the
> poor girl up, so there's no hint at all of sexualization. But that's not what
> the girls-book market is looking for, so designing covers to wall off the male
> gaze doesn't actually accomplish the purpose.
> I think the only way that 15 LOVE and its cover can be construed as kiddie porn
> is if the assumption is made that that image and title are designed to attract
> the attention of adult men. But that's an assumption made by the viewer --
I don't think that's necessarily true. You could view the photo in
isolation and while it may lose the girl-attractive aspects (loss of
context), I doubt it would lessen the male-attractive aspects (young
girl in revealing skirt). Only minor changes would remove any perceived
sexual come-on or exhibitionism aspects. Surely, the girl-attractive
aspects wouldn't be lost by her altering her pose to not show so much?
MattLB
I V
I don't see the analogy. On the one hand, we have a book aimed at teenage
girls, with a cover showing a teenage girl. On the other, we have a book
presumably aimed at late-teenage, early twenties boys/men, with covers
(and, apparently, interiors) showing various women in skimpy clothes and
(often absurdly) sexualised poses. In other words, one is an entirely
unobjectionable representation of a teenage tennis player, the other is
soft porn.
I suppose the only similarity is that, in both cases, Marvel seems to know
its target audience. Many teenage girls seem to be attracted by pictures
of teenage girls doing exciting things (like being a tennis star). Many
young adult men seem to be attracted by soft porn. In both cases, the
covers are appropriate to the books; that sounds like quite a sensible
publishing move to me.
Much more objectionable are Greg Horn's covers to Elektra, Black Widow or
(perhaps especially) Emma Frost. All these are serious books about strong
female characters, the latter being the sort of coming-of-age story that
might well appear to teenage girls, but they have all the most incredibly
offencive and sexist covers. I wonder if Marvel is perhaps trying to have
it's cake and eat it, here. Content that will sell to Vertigo or manga
readers in the bookstores, and fanservice covers for the direct market. It
seems like a stupid idea to me, pissing off both audiences rather than
attracting both, but its the only reason I can think of for Greg Horn's
continued employment (well, perhaps Marvel just don't realise how
disgusting his covers are, but I hope they're not that stupid).
--
"Mr Crowley, won't you ride my white horse,
Mr Crowley, it's symbolic of course."
http://huh.p5.org.uk/
Michael Wood
news:20030814225040...@mb-m24.aol.com...
> >> If you want a mag that attracts girsl, you put BOYS on it.>>
>
> We'll let the publishers of SEVENTEEN, the popular SWEET VALLEY HIGH books
and
> so many others from BABYSITTERS CLUB to COSMO know; they'll be mortified
> they've been doing it wrong all these years.
>
> From what those publishers have experienced, girls and women are more
> interested in images they can identify with (i.e., girls who look like
it'd be
> fun to be), while it's boys that more often are attracted by images of
"objects
> of desire."
>
>
> Check out a FREE 8-page ARROWSMITH story at:
> http://www.wildstorm.com/arrowsmith/arrowsmith.html
But who can identify with this image - Lolita?
The image does not show any achievement at all. It is purely physical pose
for an underage girl.
Girls are attracted to boys, but want to read stories about girls.
And yes underage girls are automatically attractive to underage boys. That
is not the point.
This image is specifically designed to market the GIRL to MEN, not the book
to teenage girls.
I am amazed that people are not responding to that.
--
"There is right and wrong in the Universe and it is not too hard to tell the
difference"
Michael Wood
Reply to: BLOCKm...@hotmail.com (remove BLOCK to reply)
KurtBusiek
something tennis-y? >>
Action poses tend to be boy-oriented. Boy-marketing is about doing things;
girl-marketing is about being things. It's why, every time there's a male exec
in charge of the Barbie brand at Mattel, Barbie starts becoming a toy that does
things (hook her up to a dance machine, etc.) and sales drop, and when female
execs are in charge, she goes back to being a toy you do things with (dress her
up, etc.) and sales go back up. It's all about the difference between watching
something and pretending to be something.
It's not by coincidence that books aimed at women tend to have pose-y covers
and books aimed at men tend to have action-scene covers.
>> Surely, the girl-attractive aspects wouldn't be lost by her altering her
pose to not show so much? >>
I don't think that's really a concern of the cover designers -- and as noted, I
think Marvel is using designers of the kind of books I showed as examples.
Nor do I think that the 15 LOVE cover is particulary racier (or even as racy)
as some of the covers I linked to. One response said that none of the covers I
linked to were as suggestive, which just strikes me as selective blindness,
considering that one of them was a direct shot on the undy-clad hips of a boy
and a girl, another suggested nudity, and virtually all of them showed a lot of
leg and very short skirts when there were skirts at all.
WaltStone
>>From what those publishers have experienced, girls and women are more
>>interested in images they can identify with (i.e., girls who look
>>like it'd be fun to be), while it's boys that more often are
>>attracted by images of "objects of desire."
KurtBusiek wrote:
> The description I once heard is that the major difference between a PLAYBOY
> cover and a COSMO cover is that on the PLAYBOY cover, the model looks like
> she's saying "Yes," and on the COSMO cover she looks like she's saying "No."
> Where the (implied) power is makes the difference between fantasy possession
> and fantasy identification.
>
> In girls-book marketing, it's more about glamor than sex -- presenting pictures
> of attractive girls who are doing something glamorous (and that's a broad
> definition; being a sports star would be included) or exciting, who promise an
> entertaining fantasy experience.
Time was, the romance book publishers didn't offer the "bodice ripper"
covers, but when the first few were hits, the bodice ripper covers were
suddenly everywhere. Why? Was it because the female audience bought
the covers thinking they wanted to have a Fabio-alike grasping at their
more than ample bossom?
No. It seemed the DISTRIBUTORS at the time were primarily men, and they
would buy more of the sexy covers to put in the stores. The bodice
ripping covers simply got more shelf space, thus more sales.
In my mind, the marketing decision for 15-Love may have been to create
the cover to get this teen female story(?) on the shelves via the male
dominated distribution system (i.e.: most of the Direct Store buyers) so
the young girls actually have a chance to read it in the first place. (I
say this not having read any of the promotional material so I have to
guess at the intended audience)
In the end, if there were a variety of established "lines" of comic
books that girls and young women purchased, the covers COULD reflect the
inner content, as do many of the "series" adult romance books published
by Harlequin.
I've been an advocate for romance comics for some time.
Adventure-romance, paranormal romance, all are legitimate sub-genres
that the young women will buy.
The American Bookseller Association reported that 2001 romance sales
amounted to $1.52Billion, up from $1.37 Billion in 2000.
8% of romance readers are aged 19 or under.
I do not believe this number includes any of the "teen fiction" (Sweet
Valley High, etal) market.
15-Love may be much closer to the "teen fiction" market than the tightly
defined romance market. But no matter what the inner content, the
success or failure may still hinge on the cover art.
Walt Stone
dh of romance author writing as Alison Kent
KurtBusiek
PHOENIX LEGACY OF FIRE - >>
I think your mistake is that you're assuming that anyone who thinks the 15 LOVE
cover looks like a girls book (and it does) is therefore making a statement
that everything Marvel has ever done is justified -- to say they did one thing
right is tantamount to saying they do all things right.
In short, your knee is jerking. There is no requirement on anyone's part to
think the LEGACY OF FIRE covers are appropriate, just because they think the 15
LOVE one is.
KurtBusiek
to teenage girls. I am amazed that people are not responding to that.>>
I think they've been responding to it all along, mainly by disagreeing with it.
MattLB
>
> >> Shouldn't she be holding up a trophy, jumping over the net or actually doing
> something tennis-y? >>
>
> Action poses tend to be boy-oriented. Boy-marketing is about doing things;
> girl-marketing is about being things. It's why, every time there's a male exec
> in charge of the Barbie brand at Mattel, Barbie starts becoming a toy that does
> things (hook her up to a dance machine, etc.) and sales drop, and when female
> execs are in charge, she goes back to being a toy you do things with (dress her
> up, etc.) and sales go back up.
Have you been researching for the writing job on the Barbie comic :-)?
> It's all about the difference between watching
> something and pretending to be something.
If it is about aspiration, it's hard to see what's being aspired to.
What aspect of a girl sitting on a tennis court showing off her legs is
attractive to the girls, to the extent they'd like to take her place or
have her life? The glamour doesn't see to be there.
> It's not by coincidence that books aimed at women tend to have pose-y covers
> and books aimed at men tend to have action-scene covers.
>
> >> Surely, the girl-attractive aspects wouldn't be lost by her altering her
> pose to not show so much? >>
>
> I don't think that's really a concern of the cover designers -- and as noted, I
> think Marvel is using designers of the kind of books I showed as examples.
>
> Nor do I think that the 15 LOVE cover is particulary racier (or even as racy)
> as some of the covers I linked to. One response said that none of the covers I
> linked to were as suggestive, which just strikes me as selective blindness,
> considering that one of them was a direct shot on the undy-clad hips of a boy
> and a girl, another suggested nudity, and virtually all of them showed a lot of
> leg and very short skirts when there were skirts at all.
Those covers were interesting. To me, although there was more "flesh"
being shown, it was in a far more abstract form, with isolated bodyparts
and no face looking into the camera/at the viewer. They were far more
like art than the 15 LOVE cover which is simply a photo of a young girl.
I think the fact there were male and female bodies also adds context,
suggesting the book is about their relationship.
MattLB
Paul O'Brien
<kurtb...@aol.comics> writes
>
>Action poses tend to be boy-oriented. Boy-marketing is about doing
>things; girl-marketing is about being things.
I have a mental image now of Zen Barbie.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
Slater5858
Girls have curvy parts, gentlemen. You're just going to have to deal with.
Confusion is natural at a young age... or some shit. I have no idea what I'm
talking about. I just amazed by how people are overreacting to this.
Darren Lewis
suggestive but they lack "come on" that both TROUBLE and LOVE 15 have.
The "come on" looks coupled with massive skin exposure is what does it.
They are Greg Horn covers in essence. Show her standing up. Show her
leaning on a judges chair. To say no one at Marvel -the
company that uses Horn and did Marville covers and Phoenix - thought
let's show this girl with a hiked up dress right to her butt cause it
WON'T sell the book to older men and teenage boys but will to girls is
being a bit naive. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
But if the pics are too sexualized for males I don't think it will
attract teen females.
Darren Lewis
covers and giving the go ahead are responsible for the other set as
well. Is it a coincidence that sexy covers are being used all over
Marvel books. Is it a coincidence that when I go into a comic book
store it is filled with young men and teen boys? I think maybe Marvel
wants to ensure some sales at least so they did the covers this way as a
back up plan. There are other ways to photograph teenage girls in
tennis dresses and bathing suits then this way.
R. Tang
No kidding.
Every negative reaction so far just makes me think that Jemas was
quite correct in his estimation of a portion of the fan base. Sex obsessed
indeed.....
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
COLIERRANND2
>This image is specifically designed to market the GIRL to MEN, not the book
>to teenage girls.
>
>I am amazed that people are not responding to that.
>
You're just really not paying attention. Maybe you're choosing not to. In any
case, the covers of both "15 Love" and "Trouble" are made to look like covers
of adolescent romance novels. The same as the "Sweet Valley High" books.
Isn't the saying "Prudism before a fall"? Geez....
COLIERRANND2
>Shouldn't she be holding up a trophy, jumping over the net or actually
>doing something tennis-y? The cover does have a suggestive air about it
>and doesn't really scream fun and exuberence.
Maybe it's a picture from one of those JCPenny-type mailers with an ad for the
outfit? To me it screams girl in tennis outfit,nothing more.
Dirty minds....
>It's more gratuitous and suggestive than I would expect if it's aimed at
>girls, but then I don't know what girls would see when they look at it.
>Is flashing your panties at boys part of the glamour of tennis?
Sorry I didn't look for panties. You were? Not surprising....I'll have to find
the cover again and actually look for the dirty thing you say is there.
Since
>you could easy produce a cover that would appeal only to boys, producing
>one that appeals only to girls would
>seem to be possible.
I think they did. It obviously would appeal to girls more than the covers of
say,Amazing Spider-Man.
>I don't think that's necessarily true. You could view the photo in
>isolation and while it may lose the girl-attractive aspects (loss of
>context), I doubt it would lessen the male-attractive aspects (young
>girl in revealing skirt). Only minor changes would remove any perceived
>sexual come-on or exhibitionism aspects. Surely, the girl-attractive
>aspects wouldn't be lost by her altering her pose to not show so much?
>
>MattLB
>
What you and others who are arguing it's badness seem to be saying is that
because maybe one perv(or yourselves) find this picture arousing or
offensive(or both) it is wrong.
I think a normal guy is gonna look at it and say, "Hey cute girl in a tennis
outfit" and move on. No self-respecting straight guy(I mention straight only
because we're talking about the purient interest in the picture)is gonna buy a
romance comic anyhow.
Mike Mc
> But who can identify with this image - Lolita?
Or young female tennis players, or simply young females who wish they
were more athletic... or more attractive... or just want to live
vicariously through another for reasons unrelated to either of those.
Do you know many teenage girls? One of my sisters just exited those
years, and one just entered them. These images, for whatever reason,
are not that odd.
As for why? No clue. I have noted many times, to myself and others,
how magazines aimed at women seem to show almost as much skin (in the
content) and more/as much as skin (in the ads) as mens magazines.
> The image does not show any achievement at all. It is purely physical pose
> for an underage girl.
Umm... and?
When did "showing achievement" become a requirement? I can see why one
might LIKE such things, as an uplifitng message is usually a good
thing (if well done) for anyone in the sticky time period known as
adolescence... but they are by no means required when entertaining
boys or girls.
> Girls are attracted to boys, but want to read stories about girls.
>
> And yes underage girls are automatically attractive to underage boys. That
> is not the point.
>
> This image is specifically designed to market the GIRL to MEN, not the book
> to teenage girls.
>
> I am amazed that people are not responding to that.
Maybe because that is not necessarily the case, merely your
conclusion. A conclusion, I'd like to note, that I disagree with.
Mike
COLIERRANND2
>as some of the covers I linked to. One response said that none of the covers
>I
>linked to were as suggestive, which just strikes me as selective blindness,
>considering that one of them was a direct shot on the undy-clad hips of a boy
>and a girl, another suggested nudity, and virtually all of them showed a lot
>of
>leg and very short skirts when there were skirts at all.
>
>kdb
>
That might've been me but I'm sort of bohemian when it comes to nudity and sex.
>
>Check out a FREE 8-page ARROWSMITH story at:
>http://www.wildstorm.com/arrowsmith/arrowsmith.html
>
Hey Kurt, let's put this same cover on an upcoming issue of Arrowsmith. That
it'll really stir things up!
Sorry,couldn't resist.
COLIERRANND2
>What aspect of a girl sitting on a tennis court showing off her legs is
>attractive to the girls, to the extent they'd like to take her place or
>have her life? The glamour doesn't see to be there.
>
Bingo! You got it! Let me quote the exact answer, from your own post.
>What aspect of a girl sitting on a tennis court showing off her legs is
>attractive to the girls, to the extent they'd like to take her place or
>have her life?
See? How hard is that?
>Those covers were interesting. To me, although there was more "flesh"
>being shown, it was in a far more abstract form, with isolated bodyparts
>and no face looking into the camera/at the viewer.
>They were far more
>like art than the 15 LOVE cover which is simply a photo of a young girl.
>I think the fact there were male and female bodies also adds context,
>suggesting the book is about their relationship.
So a face can't be art? I'll remind Michaelangelo....
I have a question: Would these same people be upset if it was a guy in the
exact same pose with shorts on instead of the skirt?
COLIERRANND2
Mike Mc
> There are other ways to photograph teenage girls in
> tennis dresses and bathing suits then this way.
And many ways will likely be used over the course of 15-Love...
considering the way the story is going i doubt that the same can be
said for Trouble.
But the point is that some of these ways are not at all interesting or
eye-catching... they happened to go with one they thought was both of
those things.
Mike
COLIERRANND2
>suggestive but they lack "come on" that both TROUBLE and LOVE 15 have.
Where do you see "come on" in "15 Love"? "Trouble"? maybe. But the tennis cover
has her just smiling. You're definitely putting your own interpretation in.
>They are Greg Horn covers in essence.
You don't look very closely(or at all) at Greg Horn's work do you?
>Show her standing up. Show her
>leaning on a judges chair.
But then you'll just say she's coming on to the judge.
>To say no one at Marvel -the
>company that uses Horn and did Marville covers and Phoenix - thought
>let's show this girl with a hiked up dress right to her butt cause it
>WON'T sell the book to older men and teenage boys but will to girls is
>being a bit naive.
Have you SEEN the picture? I can show you pictures far worse of tennis players.
That skirt is not, I repeat NOT hiked up to her butt.
>They are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
>But if the pics are too sexualized for males I don't think it will
>attract teen females.
The concept won't attract some females. But to say this is like a Greg Horn
peice is stretching.To say the least,
Oh and to whoever suggested you can see pantie: I didn't see them in that pic
but tennis players where a type of shorts over their undies under the skirt.
Same as cheerleaders.
COLIERRANND2
I have to ask. Are you just trying your hand at farce?Parody?Satire?
If not, I hate to quote Chuck Austen but :Don't read it!
Geez, I may go buy this book just to get sales up and bug people.
KurtBusiek
Packaged with a hungry tiger, a strawberry and Barbie's Dream Cliff.
kdb
KurtBusiek
talking about the purient interest in the picture)is gonna buy a romance comic
anyhow. >>
I've bought a bunch of them. Heck, I've talked to people about maybe writing
them someday.
Paul O'Brien
<colier...@aol.com> writes
>No self-respecting straight guy(I mention straight only because we're
>talking about the purient interest in the picture)is gonna buy a
>romance comic anyhow.
Well, presumably plenty of them bought TROUBLE. I can't imagine that
gay men and girls accounted for all the sales of issue #1.
I V
group? You were nearly drowned out by the penis-enlargement spam.
Darren Lewis wrote (in an e-mail):
> Hey show a tennis player playing tennis! They could have posed a girl in
> 10000 other positions then that one. That is a classic Horn cover the
> girl's dress is HIKED UP RIGHT TO HER PANTIES AND BUTT. As she looks
> into the camera. That cover was designed for teenage boys not girls well
> actually older males too (sadly). It is not a coincedence. You cannot
> have your cake and eat it too alas.
Nice of you to ignore everything I posted. First - how does the 15
Love cover differ from the examples I posted, which also consist of
young girls in tennis gear, sitting around looking to 'camera', rather
than playing tennis? If Kurt Busiek is to be believed, the point of
identification (or fantasy) is not with playing tennis per-se, but
with the lifestyle of a tennis star. Thus, an action cover would
rather badly miss the point.
Second, there's no way that the cover is comparable with Horn's
objectionable work. The girl on the front of 15 Love is not in a
distorted pose designed to emphasise her sexuality, she does not have
an unrealistic physique, and she is not pictured in a submissive or
dominated position. And her dress is not 'hiked up' - it's a short
skirt because _that's what tennis players wear_. Neither her pants or
her arse are shown. It's true that she could have been posed
differently to show a bit less thigh, but I'm not sure why that should
be required - it's a perfectly natural pose for someone sitting on a
tennis court.
It's certainly true that some could find the picture attractive, but
a) someone could find anything attractive, and b) the element of
fantasy-identification requires that the girl pictured by moderately
attractive (who wants to be ugly?). What would be problematic would be
if that attractiveness was tailored specifically to appeal to boys or
men (not that there's anything wrong with that, but it would be
inappropriate for this particular book). I don't think you've provided
any convincing arguments that this is the case. You've not shown a
difference in kind between this picture and pictures we can reasonably
assume are _not_ targeted at boys (the pictures Kurt posted), nor have
you identified any way in which the girl is presented as a sex object
(as opposed to a person with a definite gender) - the short skirt is a
standard part of the costume, and 'looking at the camera' is not by
itself objectionable: she's not pouting or giving a 'come-hither'
look. Finally, I haven't seen any argument from you against the
reasons given that this picture could be aimed at girls, as a picture
of someone you'ld like to be, instead of (or, as a consequence, as
well as) being a picture of someone you'ld like to fuck. What's so
implausible with the idea that girls might be attracted by a picture
of an attractive young woman with what looks like an exciting
lifestyle?
Stranger
news:20030818160129...@mb-m22.aol.com...
> I think a normal guy is gonna look at it and say, "Hey cute girl in a
tennis
> outfit" and move on. No self-respecting straight guy(I mention straight
only
> because we're talking about the purient interest in the picture)is gonna
buy a
> romance comic anyhow.
We buy romance comics all the time, they're just not dressed up that way.
What do you think the appeal is in spending page after page on a young Peter
Parker's love-life? Or the issue where Donna Troy and Green :Lantern fall
in love, or the issue where they break up.
If superheroes were only about fighting, this industry would have been dead
long-ago.
--
Stranger- Impulse's #1 fan, next to Max of course.
Also goes by the name of Dan Nguyen or "Space Cowboy"
Johanna Draper Carlson
> As for why? No clue. I have noted many times, to myself and others,
> how magazines aimed at women seem to show almost as much skin (in the
> content) and more/as much as skin (in the ads) as mens magazines.
The theory of the Female Gaze suggests that women are taught to think
about being looked at, at preparing themselves for men to see them. That
is, the male gaze goes outwards, the female gaze is directed back at
herself.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: August Previews
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I guess I wasn't thinking of Marvel as, creatively, any different from
> any other company for the purposes of this discussion.
How can you not? They're the only ones doing these kinds of photo
covers, in this particular case. They're different as a company in all
kinds of ways, but that's the most immediately relevant.
starblood
> >Show her standing up. Show her
> >leaning on a judges chair.
>
> But then you'll just say she's coming on to the judge.
Or that you can see down her top. You can't win.
Mike Mc
> >> No self-respecting straight guy(I mention straight only because we're
> talking about the purient interest in the picture)is gonna buy a romance comic
> anyhow. >>
>
> I've bought a bunch of them. Heck, I've talked to people about maybe writing
> them someday.
>
> kdb
>
Did you know that Robert Heinlein, famed sci-fi writer, once wrote
several female-centered romance stories under a psuedonym just to
prove to the editor of the magazine they were published in that he
could?
They're actually very good. More power to you.
Mike
KurtBusiek
female-centered romance stories under a psuedonym just to prove to the editor
of the magazine they were published in that he could?>>
You mean the Puddin' stories? "Cliff and the Calories," and like that?
I think he wrote those to prove to his YA book editor that he could, since she
was griping that they didn't have enough girls' fiction and he offered to write
her a girls' book and she dismissed the idea out of hand.
As far as I know, only two have been collected, "Calories" and "Poor Daddy," I
think, but there are a couple more. I liked those two, and would happily read
the others if I could find 'em.
Darren Lewis
Eyecatching? Attractive? Sure to men and teen boys... that photo is
worthy of MAXIM exposure but at least MAXIM can't show underage girls!
Maybe you need to leaf through some Maxim mags to get the gist of what
that pic is all about. That is not an attractive pic to teenage girls
unless maybe there lesbians.
Darren Lewis
debate by default. ;) The "just don'
buy it" arguement would end almost all the posts on here. This place is
for debate about different issues: writers, artists, story lines,
characters, covers, artwork etc If everyone does an "Austen" and says
"don't like it don't buy it" that would pretty much end all debate and
discussion on here and other message boards elsewhere.
Darren Lewis
Darren Lewis
tennis girl sitting you emailed me and the 15 love picture. Compare the
2 pictures then you might get what I am saying. By the way I already
made this point several times let me repeat it again: (1) YES THERE ARE
A FEW SEXY COVERS FOR GIRLS BOOKS (2) The vast majority of teen girl
book covers are NOT SEXY (3) even those sexy book covers are NOT LIKE
TROUBLE and LOVE 15 cause they lack the "come on" look (well known to
photographers and people in publishing who aim for this look and know
how to achieve it).
COLIERRANND2
>I've bought a bunch of them. Heck, I've talked to people about maybe writing
>them someday.
>
>kdb
But Kurt, are you self-respecting? j/k....you know I'd love to see you write a
romance book and have YOU in the tennis outfit on the cover...skirt and all!
C'mon!
COLIERRANND2
>said for Trouble.
Since it's about teenage pregnancy wouldn't it be something if all of the
sudden on one issue one of the girls was wearing a bikini and pregnant?
COLIERRANND2
>buy it" arguement would end almost all the posts on here. This place is
>for debate about different issues: writers, artists, story lines,
>characters, covers, artwork etc If everyone does an "Austen" and says
>"don't like it don't buy it" that would pretty much end all debate and
>discussion on here and other message boards elsewhere.
>
True but you just seem so upset and obsessed with it, I thought I'd give you an
out.
KurtBusiek
a
romance book and have YOU in the tennis outfit on the cover...skirt and all!>>
Oh, no you wouldn't.
But my wife came into my office tonight, and I showed her the 15 LOVE cover.
No additional information, I just asked her what she thought of it.
"Ehh," she said.
I asked her what she thought it was a cover for.
"A teen romance?" she guessed.
I asked her who she thought it was aimed at.
"Teenage girls," she said.
I told her there were people who thought it was sexed up kiddie porn.
She looked at me for a long moment.
"They don't see many teen romances, I'd guess," she said. On her way out, she
added, "Or kiddie porn."
Paul O'Brien
Darren Lewis <Minn...@interactive.rogers.com> writes
>Anyone know what the sales were for TROUBLE?
Issue #1 charted at number 27 in the direct market.
MattLB
>
> >There's little connection to the glamorous world of tennis there though.
> >Shouldn't she be holding up a trophy, jumping over the net or actually
> >doing something tennis-y? The cover does have a suggestive air about it
> >and doesn't really scream fun and exuberence.
>
> Maybe it's a picture from one of those JCPenny-type mailers with an ad for the
> outfit? To me it screams girl in tennis outfit,nothing more.
Are you unable to conceive of someone viewing the cover differently to
you? I'm talking in people in general, not me in particular.
> >It's more gratuitous and suggestive than I would expect if it's aimed at
> >girls, but then I don't know what girls would see when they look at it.
> >Is flashing your panties at boys part of the glamour of tennis?
>
> Sorry I didn't look for panties. You were? Not surprising....I'll have to find
> the cover again and actually look for the dirty thing you say is there.
I don't think you can see them in the photo, but that's a slightly
different issue. My point was that if the cover is supposed to be saying
"don't you want to be like me?" to girls, what is it about her that
isn't there in images like:
http://www.playerstennis.com/teams/teams.html
I'd argue it's the way she's sitting. However naive my understanding of
girl-attractive covers may be I'd think image 3 on that page would be
considered more glamorous and aspirational by girls.
> Since
> >you could easy produce a cover that would appeal only to boys, producing
> >one that appeals only to girls would
> >seem to be possible.
>
> I think they did. It obviously would appeal to girls more than the covers of
> say,Amazing Spider-Man.
What if the cover Spider-Man was a black and white photo from behind of
Toby Maguire peeling off the costume? Who would be more interested in
that cover (and not necessarily to buy)?
> >I don't think that's necessarily true. You could view the photo in
> >isolation and while it may lose the girl-attractive aspects (loss of
> >context), I doubt it would lessen the male-attractive aspects (young
> >girl in revealing skirt). Only minor changes would remove any perceived
> >sexual come-on or exhibitionism aspects. Surely, the girl-attractive
> >aspects wouldn't be lost by her altering her pose to not show so much?
> What you and others who are arguing it's badness seem to be saying is that
> because maybe one perv(or yourselves) find this picture arousing or
> offensive(or both) it is wrong.
I'm not arguing its badness or wrongness, just that as it stands it does
as much for the titillation of guys as for the aspirations of girls, if
not more.
> I think a normal guy is gonna look at it and say, "Hey cute girl in a tennis
> outfit" and move on. No self-respecting straight guy(I mention straight only
> because we're talking about the purient interest in the picture)is gonna buy a
> romance comic anyhow.
I'm not suggesting Marvel are pitching it at guys, just that with the
particular image chosen it will get more guy attention than if she were
standing up, facing to the side, not looking into camera, or whatever.
MattLB
MattLB
>
> >If it is about aspiration, it's hard to see what's being aspired to.
> >What aspect of a girl sitting on a tennis court showing off her legs is
> >attractive to the girls, to the extent they'd like to take her place or
> >have her life? The glamour doesn't see to be there.
> Bingo! You got it! Let me quote the exact answer, from your own post.
>
> >What aspect of a girl sitting on a tennis court showing off her legs is
> >attractive to the girls, to the extent they'd like to take her place or
> >have her life?
>
> See? How hard is that?
So you're saying that's it? Sitting on a tennis court and showing off
their legs is really something girls aspire to? They could just go and
do that and give the boys a thrill. Why would they want to buy a comic
about it? Surely aspiration is about something you can't just go and do?
> >Those covers were interesting. To me, although there was more "flesh"
> >being shown, it was in a far more abstract form, with isolated bodyparts
> >and no face looking into the camera/at the viewer.
> >They were far more
> >like art than the 15 LOVE cover which is simply a photo of a young girl.
> >I think the fact there were male and female bodies also adds context,
> >suggesting the book is about their relationship.
>
> So a face can't be art? I'll remind Michaelangelo....
That'll be a good trick.
As soon as you have eyes looking at the viewer it becomes more engaging,
more real and less abstract - surely you realise that? If the girl on
the 15 LOVE cover was looking off to her side, or up in the sky, or even
wearing shades it wouldn't have the same impact. If all you could see
was her feet and the tennis racquet it would be arty and abstract. It
would be about the image rather than about the girl. An isolated face
could quite easily be artistic, but again it's more abstract and not
just a picture of a woman that includes her face.
> I have a question: Would these same people be upset if it was a guy in the
> exact same pose with shorts on instead of the skirt?
I doubt it, but then I see a difference between men and women.
MattLB
Darren Lewis
with it - just calling a spade a spade.
Darren Lewis
Mike Mc
> As far as I know, only two have been collected, "Calories" and "Poor Daddy," I
> think, but there are a couple more. I liked those two, and would happily read
> the others if I could find 'em.
>
> kdb
Thos two exactly... and that's something like the story as I remember reading it.
Mike
Mike Mc
I think that this just proves that you have no idea of what you are
talking about and have not taken in any of the information given
throughout this thread enough to actually discuss the topic.
As far as this being worthy of Maxim... possibly, as they have a wide
range of shots. A cover image for Maxim? Way too tame.
BTW: I don't know what you think is "SEXED UP to the max," but if this
is "the max" for you I am really worried about your future
relationships. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say this was "SEXED UP" to
about 4 or 5; it looks nice, and she's attractive, but I'm not oggling
her or anything.
Mike
Mike Mc
> mlmc...@olemiss.edu (Mike Mc) wrote:
>
> > I guess I wasn't thinking of Marvel as, creatively, any different from
> > any other company for the purposes of this discussion.
>
> How can you not? They're the only ones doing these kinds of photo
> covers, in this particular case. They're different as a company in all
> kinds of ways, but that's the most immediately relevant.
I just meant that I was looking at the comic no differently than I
would if any other company had been putting it out... therefore the
fact that Marvel had put it out really was relevant only as publisher,
not creatively.
If Image or small independent publisher had put out the exact same
comic, I don't see how anything about the comic's content/cover/intent
could be judged any differently... the mere fact that the comic is
coming out from Marvel should not be taken into consideration when
looking at its worth as entertainment or whether it is offensive or
not.
If the fact that it is Marvel publishing the comic was relevant, it
would be like an individual being judged differently based on who
their parents are; something that happens, but isn't fair or actually
a good measure of the person's character.
Just my opinion on that portion of it... which is part of why I've
said from the beginning that it's Marvel's marketing I've seen as
suspisious.
Mike
starblood
news:1vd0b.646$%W4.335...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> We buy romance comics all the time, they're just not dressed up that way.
> What do you think the appeal is in spending page after page on a young
Peter
> Parker's love-life? Or the issue where Donna Troy and Green :Lantern fall
> in love, or the issue where they break up.
Or even Strangers in Paradise.
starblood
news:23422-3F...@storefull-1903.public.rogers.webtv.net...
> They went with one that WAS SEXED UP to the max.
> Eyecatching? Attractive? Sure to men and teen boys... that photo is
> worthy of MAXIM exposure but at least MAXIM can't show underage girls!
Not true. They had a feature on t.A.t.U recently. Or was that FHM?
Johanna Draper Carlson
> If Image or small independent publisher had put out the exact same
> comic, I don't see how anything about the comic's content/cover/intent
> could be judged any differently...
I think you could, based on the fact that one of Marvel's current
leaders has made statements about intending to do comics about "bad
girls for fanboys", while the publisher of Image hasn't said anything so
ridiculous. We have to look at the history of the companies in order to
help understand whether something is, for example, a pattern or an
aberration.
> If the fact that it is Marvel publishing the comic was relevant, it
> would be like an individual being judged differently based on who
> their parents are
No, I think it would be more along the lines of considering previous
convictions when determining who the likely felon is. :)