Warning - Unintended Consequences cover not family friendly - Page 2

Pete · July 2nd, 2007, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QKShooter

Truthfully the cover is not bad at all.
Just my opinion on that. Opinions will naturally vary.
There are actually more square inches of skin showing on any DOVE or Lever Soap TV Commercial.
Nudity is not pornography.
Nudity in Art is a celebration and an exaltation of the greatest, most complex and amazing creation.
And that would be us in combination with the outer shell that we arrived brilliantly housed in.

Thanks QK, I thought maybe I was out there on my own for a minute...
IMO I could post the UC dust jacket picture here and not offend anyone, her arm covers one breast and her hair covers the 'offending article' on the other.
I didn't post it though as the ATF would probably kick my door in and seize my Mac...

Bud White · July 2nd, 2007, 09:09 PM

Nope Pete im with you and QK its just not that big of a deal i see more on TV than it shows

Pete · July 2nd, 2007, 09:18 PM

Well, I piped up more than I should (nothing unusual there) because I didn't want anyone to think twice about buying the book based on this thread.
IMO everyone should read the book, and then get angry at what they read...

QKShooter · July 2nd, 2007, 09:23 PM

Here is an interesting page for folks to read concerning nudity in Art intended for the people who have religious concerns related to nudity in Art...and NO this is NOT a trick link.
There are no nude bodies or anything visually shocking on the linked page.
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2...655&forumID=27

Scroll down a little bit on that page to:
TOPIC: Nudity in Art
AUTHOR: Brian K. Yoder

FIREARMZ · July 2nd, 2007, 09:24 PM

I think it was very good art

Pete · July 2nd, 2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QKShooter

TOPIC: Nudity in Art
AUTHOR: Brian K. Yoder

Great link, reply #5 nails it IMO...

TexasDuck · July 3rd, 2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

It isn't pornographic, it is nudity. SCOTUS probably defined the difference for either Larry Flynt or Frank Zappa years ago...

Mainstream bookstores carry far more risque covers than UC, I'm guessing you don't look in the Erotic Fiction or Sexual Health sections too often.

The old saying is you can't judge a book by it's cover, but, I have almost always found that publishers will resort to nudity on the cover when the inside is lacking content. I would avoid it too. I respect Bob's judgement in thinking of his family first. There's absolutely nothing prudish about that.

QKShooter · July 3rd, 2007, 09:23 AM

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.
http://www.50bmgstore.com/images/unintsm.jpg
Warning...if you're under the age of 11 years old don't look.

bobernet · July 3rd, 2007, 11:13 AM

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.

The End.

Pete · July 3rd, 2007, 11:27 AM

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.

July 2nd, 2007, 09:23 PM	#14
QKShooter Assistant Administrator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Runthegun, USA Posts: 19,197	Here is an interesting page for folks to read concerning nudity in Art intended for the people who have religious concerns related to nudity in Art...and NO this is NOT a trick link. There are no nude bodies or anything visually shocking on the linked page. http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2...655&forumID=27 Scroll down a little bit on that page to: TOPIC: Nudity in Art AUTHOR: Brian K. Yoder __________________ The lion does not turn around when a small dog barks.

July 2nd, 2007, 09:24 PM	#15
FIREARMZ Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Georgia Posts: 250	I think it was very good art __________________ Ken Forbus Owner of FIREARMZ FIREARMZ FORUM

July 3rd, 2007, 09:23 AM	#18
QKShooter Assistant Administrator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Runthegun, USA Posts: 19,197	It's Important To Be Accurate Here 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. http://www.50bmgstore.com/images/unintsm.jpg Warning...if you're under the age of 11 years old don't look. __________________ The lion does not turn around when a small dog barks.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 2nd, 2007, 09:09 PM	#12
Bud White VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Elsewhere Posts: 17,476	Nope Pete im with you and QK its just not that big of a deal i see more on TV than it shows

July 2nd, 2007, 09:18 PM	#13
Pete Ex Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: USA Posts: 2,572	Well, I piped up more than I should (nothing unusual there) because I didn't want anyone to think twice about buying the book based on this thread. IMO everyone should read the book, and then get angry at what they read...

July 3rd, 2007, 11:13 AM	#19
bobernet Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Nevada Posts: 134	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. The End.

July 3rd, 2007, 11:27 AM	#20
Pete Ex Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: USA Posts: 2,572	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.