A Dichotomy, Or Not

[lizvogel]

This struck me as I was wandering about the internet, so I'm giving it a swing at you, too.

Here you can see the "Red Sonja" cover that was the starting point of the recent SFWA Bulletin kerfluffle.

And here you can see the cover of Apex Magazine's 50th issue.

One of these covers is considered exploitative of women. One of them frankly makes me uncomfortable, and that's a hard thing to do.

They are not the same cover.

Yes, folks, I officially Do Not Get It.

Comments

[onyxlynx]

I think the Apex cover looks more like an unwritten horror story but I can see it disturbing someone. (Snake? Really?) Also, the illustrated woman is fully dressed. You know Americans are odd about bodies, right?

(This is the first time I've even heard of Apex, so it might not be on the radar in the same way that the SFWA Bulletin is, nor is it the face of a professional organization to the organization the way the Bulletin is.)

[lizvogel]

You know Americans are odd about bodies, right?

Seeing as I am one, oh, lord, yes. I'm the first to acknowledge that my countrymen are messed up about skin and the showing thereof.

Apex is a pretty big deal in the SF short story world. It's a SFWA-qualifying professional market, and it's *the* place to sell a story these days, after the Big Three. It's definitely on the radar of the same people who would care about the SFWA Bulletin. (I wouldn't be surprised to learn it has larger subscription numbers.) Also relevant, Apex's editors are in the forefront of the political correctness/social justice/call it what you will wave currently sweeping SF fandom; for example, they just announced they're going to start putting trigger warnings on stories. So if anybody's going to be alert to these issues, it's them.

[infiniteviking]

I think part of the problem with the SFWA cover was that it's a professional publication about professional stuff, not a ~thrilling exciting fiction~ magazine with content that might have justified a bikini-warrior-in-the-snow cover; that the cover was on the 200th issue (a landmark, supposedly); and that the "lady editors" and "be like Barbie" mess erupted at about the same time.

Is anyone saying the other cover is not exploitative of women?

[lizvogel]

and that the "lady editors" and "be like Barbie" mess erupted at about the same time.

Oh, that's definitely part of it. I doubt the Red Sonja cover would have made much of a ripple on its own. (Though you never know; this is the Internet, after all.) And the Bulletin is not exactly known for its cutting-edge covers anyway.

that the cover was on the 200th issue (a landmark, supposedly)

That's another part of the dichotomy; Apex's 50th issue is definitely being treated as a landmark. (And deservedly so.)

Is anyone saying the other cover is not exploitative of women?

To the best of my knowledge, no one's saying anything about it. But Apex's editors are definitely Sensitive New Age Persons of Unspecified Gender; they are at the forefront of the current wave of... well, let's say political correctness for lack of a better term... that's sweeping SF fandom these days. The Editor-in-Chief also edited Chicks Dig Time Lords. Apex recently announced it's going to put trigger warnings on stories. Etc. So I think the very fact that that cover's on an issue of Apex is a de facto statement that they don't think it's exploitative.

(ObStatement: I've met Lynne & Michael Thomas several times, and they're lovely people. In no way do I mean this to dis them personally. I just find the juxtaposition... odd.)

[infiniteviking]

"It's as if SFWA knows its mom dresses it funny." Heee! Yeah, looking through my secondhand stack, six out of twenty have people on the covers (the rest are space, crafts, futuristic cities, dragons, etc), and of those six, one's a generic silhouette, two have people fully clothed, and the other three are a butterfly girl, a shirtless barbarian, and this.... In hindsight it's not hard to say SFWA should have gone with the kind of non-bikini-babe type of cover the Bulletin used most of the time anyway.

Apex sounds really cool. I'll have to keep it in mind! And that is odd, now that you put it that way. My next question would be whether the scene on the cover appears in any of the stories inside. Hmmm.

[lizvogel]

I don't know... to me, shirtless barbarian and chainmail bikini are pretty solidly in the same category. (Assuming it's the usual sort of shirtless barbarian -- I don't have access to the Bulletin myself.) So if the one was okay, I don't see why the other shouldn't be.

My next question would be whether the scene on the cover appears in any of the stories inside.

According to their submission guidelines, Apex only uses reprint art, it does not commission new work specifically for the magazine. So presumably the cover's not directly related to any of the stories, though there may be a thematic similarity.

[infiniteviking]

The explanation I've seen most frequently is that beefy shirtless warriors are a male power fantasy, not a female sex fantasy, while chainmail bikini babes in the snow are a male sex fantasy, not a female power fantasy. But mileage may well vary depending on presentation. I couldn't find a jpg of this particular cover, but the guy's legs were fully covered and he was in an action pose, shooting a very large gun.

*nodnod* Then yeah, I'd put the Apex cover and the Bulletin cover under the same umbrella, with the slight caveat that Apex is for thrilling stories and the Bulletin is for professional discussions on the state of the industry and the timing of the Red Sonja cover was really unfortunate.

[lizvogel]

I've seen that explanation too; I just don't necessarily agree with it. ;-) IMO, it seems to fit the evidence to the conclusion at least as often as the other way around.

Honestly, I doubt I'd have given the Apex cover a second thought if it weren't for all the fuss currently going on. There are people who consider that raising awareness and a good thing... but I don't necessarily agree with that either.