This is a discussion on Warning - Unintended Consequences cover not family friendly within the Defensive Books, Video & References forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by QKShooter TOPIC: Nudity in Art AUTHOR: Brian K. Yoder Great link, reply #5 nails it IMO......
It's IMPORTANT to be fair to John Ross here since this thread is really about HIS specific book cover and the thread is NOT a justification thread of nudity in general in art and illustration.
First of all the female on his cover is NOT totally nude.
The correct term would be scantily clad and blurred topless as VS fully nude.
She has a lot of one leg showing & there is much detail lacking in other areas as well.
In fact, there is not very much detail to her female form at all.
She is almost impressionistic in the way that she has been rendered.
It's an Illustration (not a photograph) and basically it is a "graphic artish" visual representation of a captive, blindfolded female and the visual insinuation is that she is a "hot babe" but, she is incredibly mild and almost "generically female" in the manner that she has been rendered.
Honestly there are classic movie posters from the doggone 20s 30s 40s & 50s that are more highly detailed and graphically provocative than his dust jacket illustration.
It's also been a key part of the paperback and book industry for many years to do book covers in a style that has been proved to sell books.
Many of the Adventure, Mystery, Romance, & even Science Fiction paperback books have similar type covers.
They pick one event, situation, or happening in the book and visually "spice it up" a bit on the dust jacket or cover to sell books.
That for sure has been a paperback industry thing for a real long time. It's nothing new.
You can judge his book cover for yourself.
Sorry that I can't give you a larger scan right now so I'll just link to this smaller one on the web.
VIEW THE COVER & Be Your Own Judge.
Warning...if you're under the age of 11 years old don't look.
Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ
Wow. I never expected people to get so defensive.
Let me be perfectly clear... I'm not questioning the quality of the writing, the value of the message, whether one should own the book or not. Obviously I felt there was value or I would not have bought the book.
My post was intended as a public service message to fathers with young children or sensitive wives.
You guys can justify the nudity on the cover any way you want, but my original point stands. The average guy opening this book in front of an average wife with young kids around is going to have questions to answer.
They could have put a collage of WWI/WWII images, a man laying under cover with a long range rifle while three helicopters came over the hill towards him, lots of other options. My point was, that would have been a better representation of the book, rather than the Harlequin Romance looking cover it has.
People here have acted like I posted 4 pages railing against the author and his crummy writing, but all I did was note that if you have concerns... open the book away from your little ones and toss the dust cover.
It's not the end though, as we have already said, this thread will exist to dissuade future potential purchasers of that fine book, and that is a sad state of affairs.
I'm an average guy too, we all are. But some have a broader frame of reference, I guess studying Art History didn't do me any harm. I guess having a wife who drags me to the Hustler store doesn't either...
I respect your decision, but the matter was brought up on a public forum for discussion, not just a one-sided 'warning'. As such, myself and others have defended John Ross and his fine book.
Life is far too short to be upset over breasts.
This isn't about *me* and that's where your point loses its force. If I came on here and said "my oh my, I saw a breast and I'm offended" then your Art History comments might be relevant. I never worried that adult males hanging out in a gun forum were going to get traumatized by a little nudity.I'm an average guy too, we all are. But some have a broader frame of reference, I guess studying Art History didn't do me any harm. I guess having a wife who drags me to the Hustler store doesn't either...
And maybe I am the total oddball here, but I don't think wives dragging their husbands to the store to buy Hustler is "average."
And my depiction of average served to indicate that although we all deem ourselves average, none of us in fact are - it's all subjective.
Average is as misused as reasonable.
We don't agree, I have no problem with that. But what I do find a problem is the censorship of art in the name of moral superiority.
Let others live how they want, it doesn't need to be your problem. I'm not about to make a thread warning people about the Dillon Press catalogs...
I know you mean well, I am just very wary of 'outrage'. It's what the antis use against us - 'think of the children'...
BTW, you didn't see the cover before you ordered at Amazon? It is impossible not to.
Actually, if you go re-read my first post it was specifically about its affect on someone's wife and children, and whether it's something they want displayed in their home.
I'm also not sure where you are getting my "outrage" from. My exact word was "dismayed," which is a far cry from "outraged."
And I never suggested censoring anything. I didn't say kids might see the cover at the bookstore so the book should be banned. I said people who don't want this stuff around their kids might want to keep that in mind when they open the package.
The only "outrage" in the whole thread has been from those who feel the need to somehow protect John Ross' honor, because some people might not want the dust jacket from his book laying around their house.
Choosing what I want or don't want in my home is not censorship... it's leadership and honor toward my wife and children.
P.S. I did not see (or notice) the cover on Amazon when I ordered. I ordered 4 books at the same time, so didn't go to each book's main detail page. It probably only displayed a very small thumbnail image that I would have ignored.
Last edited by bobernet; July 3rd, 2007 at 01:41 PM. Reason: typos
Well I think that about sums it up.
Some people don't mind it, and some dont't want it being displayed. Either way is fine with me at this time.
This is getting way to personal. Bobernet put out a friendly advisory, this is not a moral debate, but a friendly heads up to those that don't want that type of material on display.