The retailers didn't contact Lea Hernandez; she contacted them and asked for commentary. Not all of the responses that she's posted have condemned the cover, either. My point, though, is that a lot of people - a LOT of people - are still calling out the cover as porn. You can make unfavorable comparisons to Fox News all that you want, but that doesn't change the fundamental way that language works. Subjective terms are defined and applied by majority rule. That's not O'Reilly-speak, that Linguistics 101. Am I wrong in assuming that a majority sees the cover as porn? I can only base my impressions on what I hear and see people actually say. I'm not psychic and I can't read the minds of the "silent" majority who may or may not theoretically like the cover. But if they don't throw their hats into the ring, then the people who DO speak out are the ones who get to define and apply labels to the HfH cover. And right now, the majority has voted for porn.
If you'd really like to prove or disprove that point, then go ahead and make a poll or something. Ask people what they really think. But right now, the jury - or at least a jury - has already spoken.
The remix - I was asking more about the release of the original cover - I don't foresee anyone handing the cover back to the original artist and saying "do it again, but not wrong and evil this time."
Actually, whichever editor at Marvel is responsible for the cover *should have* done that the moment that s/he saw the artwork submitted in the first place. It's not an uncommon practice. And then we wouldn't have this bruhaha on our hands.
Of course I agree that the cover isn't forseeably going to be changed, now that it's out there and made public. My point in linking to the remix was to show how the same concept could have been executed without sucking. Since you've clarified that you were asking about the release of the original cover, though... Well, then, my answer would be no. Not unless Marvel changes the age rating on that book, at least.
As for semantics: well, if you don't want to go there, I won't belabor the point too much. I will close, though, by saying that if you insist on defining something as porn which other people do not see as porn, it's an argument that will resurface repeatedly.
No, it's an argument that surfaces when people want to argue about semantics rather than discussing what's actually wrong with the cover. Whether you call it "porn" or "sexually explicit" or "sexually suggestive" or whatever, it's just splitting hairs. That doesn't change the fact that there's a tentacle dripping fluid on Felicia's exposed breasts while she's bound in chains, making a face that looks like she's crying, and cringing away in horror.
no subject
If you'd really like to prove or disprove that point, then go ahead and make a poll or something. Ask people what they really think. But right now, the jury - or at least a jury - has already spoken.
The remix - I was asking more about the release of the original cover - I don't foresee anyone handing the cover back to the original artist and saying "do it again, but not wrong and evil this time."
Actually, whichever editor at Marvel is responsible for the cover *should have* done that the moment that s/he saw the artwork submitted in the first place. It's not an uncommon practice. And then we wouldn't have this bruhaha on our hands.
Of course I agree that the cover isn't forseeably going to be changed, now that it's out there and made public. My point in linking to the remix was to show how the same concept could have been executed without sucking. Since you've clarified that you were asking about the release of the original cover, though... Well, then, my answer would be no. Not unless Marvel changes the age rating on that book, at least.
As for semantics: well, if you don't want to go there, I won't belabor the point too much. I will close, though, by saying that if you insist on defining something as porn which other people do not see as porn, it's an argument that will resurface repeatedly.
No, it's an argument that surfaces when people want to argue about semantics rather than discussing what's actually wrong with the cover. Whether you call it "porn" or "sexually explicit" or "sexually suggestive" or whatever, it's just splitting hairs. That doesn't change the fact that there's a tentacle dripping fluid on Felicia's exposed breasts while she's bound in chains, making a face that looks like she's crying, and cringing away in horror.