Fem

Back in February Raphael Magarik discussed the mess that is Hugo Schwyzer. If you take a quick trip to Schwyzer's website you will be treated to this image:

I like to think that I am a feminist. I am a gay 30-something of the Gen X/Gen Y crossover years. I am hardly knowledgeable on feminism's more academic sides. But from my point of view our feminism is one based in theory. It is one of research and intelligent discourse. The idea being to push feminism into the upper areas of academia.

Today's feminism is different. I think it is more about 'real world' application. It isn't a rejection outright of theory, but a reaction to the over-ivory towering of it.

That said.

Look again at that picture. The bile rises as I read the stupid white box next to his ridiculous grin and above those obnoxious social media icons.

I have no horse in the game of feminism. So to speak. But I agree partially with Magarik's assertion that men cannot be leaders in feminism. I agree that a self-ascribed leader is silly. I also see the problems of a born-again, one-time violent, student dating white man being that self-ascribed leader.

But.

I think we should be able to discuss things we are interested in. Things we feel about. We should be able to discuss race, sexuality, religion.

That said. Schwyzer seems to be very into being an 'expert' a 'leader' he seems to really be into himself. A. Lot.

When I was younger. A teenager, a pre-teen. I was often called a sissy. I was not into sports. I was called 'girly'. I wondered why that was bad. I still do.

Things that are 'girly' that are fierce as shit:

- Make Up - You can entirely change your face with a little war paint. It's amazing.
- Dresses - Gowns...serious drama. Air all over you!

These are just two things that most men would toss out there. My point isn't to condescend with a look at why women should feel good about themselves. It is to say that these are things that are traditionally gendered as female, and they are interesting. The list could also include uteri, breasts, etc. It could also include art, theater, music, poetry, feelings. All things that are viewed as less than masculine.

Again. I am not as well-read on this subject as I should be. The article on Schwyzer was interesting in that this man was basically driven out of a lot of the areas he has been involved professionally by his admittance of past behavior that is abusive and anti-woman. I don't want to defend him, I don't know him, but he seems to have moved beyond those earlier 'issues'.

BUT     BUT     BUT

He seems to have replaced those problems with a strange narcissistic sermon-y persona that is just as disturbing. And he doesn't seem to see the problem in his past. He doesn't seem to care that much about it. Neither does The Atlantic. He still writes for them regularly.

Dust Jacket : The Last Policeman

The Last Policeman

Designed by: Doogie Horner

First thing's first. This cover was designed by a stand-up comedian. Who was on America's Got Talent. The same man who designed the cover for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

So that is a thing.

More importantly the cover is a simplistic act of beauty. The sort of newspaper feel of it, the letters being burned away as the comet glides across it. It communicates the story without giving anything away.

This will be an apocalyptic novel. Things will burn.
It will be about that.

There is an almost comic book feeling to the work. The drawing of the letters, reminds me of The Human Torch. His fire always represented by a bunch of wavy lines rendered in reds and oranges.


The sheer simplicity of the cover catches the eye. I love a good text-based cover and this one manages to be one of the most simplistic and also most evocative.

Sadly this cover no longer exists. The author, Ben H. Winters and Quirk books recently announced that this was the first book in a trilogy. With the announcement came a new cover.


The new cover was also done by Doogie Horner. I couldn't locate information on who took the photos.

This new cover is also really good. It communicates that the book is about something weird. That there is a comet, that the world will not be the same because of it. And a good photo-based cover is welcome. Too often they are silly or used only for bargain books.

But this cover looses something of the original. It starts to look like an ad for a TV show.

The second book comes out this summer, and the new cover treatment carries through. Which is good.

I feel like there is a missed opportunity to utilize the simplicity of the first book. They could have carried that idea through just as well. A different color scheme or a closer drawing of the comet. Or any other number of ideas.

The photos on the cover evoke the work of Gregory Crewdson, specifically this one. The sort of surreal suburban magic realism of it makes sense. This is not a bad thing, in fact it's the best part of the cover. It also calls to mind the Chris Van Allsburg illustration, "The House on Maple Street".

I assume that Doogie Horner knows his illustration history. The Van Allsburg image appears in a book about a mysterious illustrator who drops off his work then goes missing. The book attempts to piece together the 'mystery'. Stephen King used the same image of Maple Street to write a short story with the same title.

That Horner would pull from these places to create a cover is not surprising. The surprise is that I like the less referential cover more.

EDIT:
On Thursday the New York Times ran a short slide show on the book design process. There is a gallery of rejected vs. final covers. Definitely worth a look.


Dust Jacket is a sometime article about the design and art of book covers. The idea is to shine a spotlight on the work of the designer separate from the author. Literally judging a book by its cover.

Tattoo

On Friday the New York Times published the latest entry in their My Story series. It was by Louise Rafkin and called Forever, The Girl With The Unicorn Tattoo. Basics out of the way. She regrets her poorly drawn, ill-placed tattoo. Here, the ending of her essay:

"Beyond my self-appointed mission to thwart young people from joining the tribes of the inked, my tattoo underscores a lesson I’ve had to learn time and again: some things in life are hard to undo.

And for those who glibly claim that youthful indiscretions fade with time, I say this: sometimes not enough."

You don't really need to read the rest. Two things:

1) So tired of people pointing to tattoos and saying they are 'bad'. Just. YAWN.

2) She got a tattoo of a UNICORN that was traced from a coloring book. And she got it in GREEN on her ASS.

Of course your ass tattoo deformed with age. Of course it faded into a blobby thing. DUH DUH DUH DUH DUH. I am sorry that you and your friends got trampy overly girly tattoos that you regret. But. You do not know my life. Or anyone else's.

Rafkin projects her personal experience really out past the point of sense. She says that these 'youthful indiscretions' are not a good idea. That universally tattoos are bad decisions. Because she got a unicorn on her ass.

Yes, getting stupid tattoos is a bad decision. Just ask the folks with butterflies on the small of their back. Or the dude with a Tasmania Devil on his shoulder. Or...that guy up there with the Romney logo on his face.

But if it is meaningful, well done, and placed right - a tattoo can be amazing.

This woman had breast cancer and decided against implants. Instead, she opted for an amazing representation of beauty in the face of great personal loss.

Interestingly, Facebook took the photo down claiming it was 'offensive'.

And maybe I'm being hard on the cartoon tattoo folk of the world. Maybe Taz means a lot to some people.

I have 3. They all have great personal meaning. A story to with them.

Two I got in my early 20s and one in my early 30s. I plan on others. With time, the edges have softened and the color has faded. But I love them.

People are dumb. They do impulsive, irrational, hard to explain things daily. That some seem incapable of critical thinking is my take away from this essay and from pictures like the man with the Romney logo on his head.

That is the lesson that Rafkin should have learned. For the record, I think you could easily get a great unicorn tattoo. I don't know what that would look like and this Google search is a hot mess.

A tattoo should be like those of the Illustrated Man in Ray Bradbury's classic book of stories. Each with a tale to tell. A future and past to showcase. Even a bad one. Those stories are important too. And wishing them away is missing the point.

We make decisions. They impact us. We cannot erase or eliminate ourselves in this way. And even if it gets all discolored and blobby. That history got us here. We can point to it, even if it is on our ass, and say "I did this. This is when, where, how, and why." Even that guy with the Romney tattoo can look in the mirror and know what 2012 meant for him. That's more than a lot of people can say.

Follow-Up : Ladies on Top

I will admit that I feel remorse for my post on Lean In and Give and Take from last week. I would be interested in someone who has read either of those books letting me know how they liked/disliked it.

Since that post Give and Take has fallen to #6 on the Times Bestseller list. In its place we have The Athena Doctrine (Jossey-Bass 4/16/13):

"Among 64,000 people surveyed in thirteen nations, two thirds feel the world would be a better place if men thought more like women. This marks a global trend away from the winner-takes-all, masculine approach to getting things done. Drawing from interviews at innovative organizations in eighteen nations and at Fortune 500 boardrooms, the authors reveal how men and women alike are recognizing significant value in traits commonly associated with women, such as nurturing, cooperation, communication, and sharing. The Athena Doctrine shows why femininity is the operating system of 21st century prosperity."

I like to let the copy do the talking up front. Get the PR and author words out of the way. It vaguely makes what I have to say fair.

I said at the top that I felt kinda bad about the post on Lean In. Mainly because I think the book is an honest attempt to address what appears to be a new zeitgeist in business self-help. That of the 'feminist approach to business'. Call it a 5 years late Hilary Clinton effect or something.

We have had moments like this before. In the 80s, there was the rise of the 'power suit' ladies that in retrospect are harshly judged as overly-masculine. The 90s gave way to the Hilary model of no-nonsense but also apologetically feminine power lady. Headbands and all. The 00s sort of brought us into a softer form of business feminism, the fashion-forward kind. That could still kick ass.

If all of this sounds patronizing - I agree.

Women should be taken seriously in the workforce. I all things. And I think Sheryl Sandberg's book is an attempt to say that. I just think it seems focused on a very narrow, very rich, very white part of the lady-population.

My issues with The Athena Doctrine are deeper. The authors - John Gerzema and Michael D'Antonio - are qualified social theorists and consumer experts. They are also men. From an interview they did with Amazon:

"We want to make clear that we're not saying women are "born this way" or that they are "naturally" more empathetic or open. Rather, these are skills that have been traditionally segregated or labeled as part of women's domain, and often are undervalued, when in truth, being "feminine" actually make all people more human, and helps them become the best version of themselves. These skills will help people match the needs of the future economy. In a collaborative world where value creation is increasingly based on services, economic growth and standard of living are enhanced by including feminine values."

Mmm Hmm...

Then, from the same interview:

"We're both dads in all female households with three beautiful daughters between us. We are excited about what we found because feminine values are really a form of innovation and competitive advantage for today's world."

I'm not saying these guys didn't so the research, were not rigorous in their methods. They say they surveyed 64,000 people. I choose to believe this is true. They say that those people called these things 'feminine' and 'masculine'. I would be interested in seeing their survey.

I would be interested in seeing where they think trans issues fall in this debate. Where societal construction comes into play. This all just seems like "death of man" nonsense dressed up in a wrapper that will appeal to a wide audience. A softer version of it for sure, but the same alarm call to all men all places.

Gender norms are a thing. This is not debatable. Thinking in "nurturing, cooperation, communication, and sharing" ways is not feminine. It is just thinking and experiencing outside of yourself. It is just not being selfish.

Maybe the book should have focused on the inherent selfishness in the society? They cite examples of poorer children in London teaching bankers beekeeping. This is not feminine. It is agrarian. Those things are not the same.

A doctor in Pakistan who is compassionate and cares about patients more than his research is not weird.  It is not "lady". It is sensible and makes me want to move there and have him take care of me.

What I'm saying is that the frame of this discussion seems odd to me. It seems sexist. It seems like the say "masculine" and "feminine" when they mean to say "selfish" and "not selfish". It does have a great cover though. But man that sub-title is LAME.

This does nothing to improve my feelings on the best-seller list.

Harlem Shake

In November 2011 I posted a bunch of poems based on songs that were #1 on my birthday. Then I posted my 2011 and 2012 songs in May of last year.

This year Harlem Shake was #1 on my birthday. The week before it was Macklemore's Thrift Shop. Then after only another week Thrift Shop was #1 again.

That is the Backstreet Boys.

The song is inoffensive - though annoying as hell - but inoffensive. The weird viral-video crap of white people acting foolish...just NO.

This happened because Billboard changed the rules of how they calculate the #1 on the Hot 100. They have added in views on YouTube and other social media platforms. Harlem Shake would have NEVER been #1 otherwise.

I went to college with Macklemore. I wanted his song to be my birthday #1. It would have been right.

But...I made the rules and must live by them. So. Here is my 2013 birthday poem.


Harlem Shake

Con los terroristas

with those 9-5s - making dollars

do the Harlem Shake

Walk yourself to the 2 train

take yourself to that dead-end job

con los terroristas

History in the concrete

history in the basements

Do the Harlem Shake

This city forgets itself - breaks bread

with whomever has the dollars

con los terroristas

Dance your ass off

for the man? - or yourself

and do the Harlem Shake

Eventually everything blends

every block looks the same -

con los terroristas

and do the Harlem Shake

Sellers : Lean In / Give And Take

I was asked recently why I stopped writing about best-sellers. There are several answers to this question. The easiest way to explain is to have you look at the bestseller list for non-fiction this week.

Take your time.

The first two books on that list are self-help. I will not accept someone calling them anything else. This is what they are. They are supposedly "rich" "adjusted" people telling you how you are doing it wrong and how you should do it like they did.

The number one over on the fiction list is by Mary Higgins Clark. Who, as far as I'm concerned is interchangeable with Nora Roberts, whom I talked about already.

This is why I stopped doing best-sellers. It's the same thing up there week after week and it's hard to find new things to say about another bland book about absolutely nothing.

I'm being harsh, glib, and unfair. But it's tiring to think about these books for more than a few seconds.

Let's break down the #1 and #2 non-fiction books just for argument's sake.

Lean In
Author: Sheryl Sandberg
Publisher: Knopf
Date: 3/11/13
240p

This is a book by Facebook's chief operations manager. She is a rich woman. She worked for Google, at the beginning, and has the dollar bills to prove it.

The book is not for women who do not already have some means. It is for those who have the education and the position to benefit from what seems to amount to an FAQ for the boardroom.

At Huffington Post Daria Burke looks at the book as it relates to women of color. Then over at US News & World Report Mary Kate Cary sort of tears the book apart on its ivy-league crowd-sourced writing and the contradictions that Sandberg exhibits in her anecdotes.

I don't really care for wealthy people telling me how to better live. It's why I won't buy Gwyneth Paltrow's new cook book. This just seems like another in a long line of pseudo-sciencey books about how to break in to the 1% with a layer of gender studies glazed on top to make it more interesting or somehow critic-proof.

Give and Take

Author: Adam Grant

Publisher: Viking

Date: 4/9/13

320p

Let's just read the copy for this one, the italics are mine:

"For generations, we have focused on the individual drivers of success: passion, hard work, talent, and luck. But today, success is increasingly dependent on how we interact with others. It turns out that at work, most people operate as either takers, matchers, or givers. Whereas takers strive to get as much as possible from others and matchers aim to trade evenly, givers are the rare breed of people who contribute to others without expecting anything in return.

Using his own pioneering research as Wharton's youngest tenured professor, Grant shows that these styles have a surprising impact on success. Although some givers get exploited and burn out, the rest achieve extraordinary results across a wide range of industries. Combining cutting-edge evidence with captivating stories, this landmark book shows how one of America's best networkers developed his connections, why the creative genius behind one of the most popular shows in television history toiled for years in anonymity, how a basketball executive responsible for multiple draft busts transformed his franchise into a winner, and how we could have anticipated Enron's demise four years before the company collapsed-without ever looking at a single number.

Praised by bestselling authors such as Dan Pink, Tony Hsieh, Dan Ariely, Susan Cain, Dan Gilbert, Gretchen Rubin, Bob Sutton, David Allen, Robert Cialdini, and Seth Godin-as well as senior leaders from Google, McKinsey, Merck, Estee Lauder, Nike, and NASA-Give and Take highlights what effective networking, collaboration, influence, negotiation, and leadership skills have in common. This landmark book opens up an approach to success that has the power to transform not just individuals and groups, but entire organizations and communities."

You're welcome. I saved you the time reading this double "landmark" book. You just have to be a "giver" not a "taker" and everything will be great. My favorite line: "Although some givers get exploited and burn out, the rest achieve extraordinary results across a wide range of industries."

Some people will be successful doing something while others will not be so successful.

WHAT!?! That took some research to come up with? Before anyone gets all angry with me about this, please...re-read that copy. I know book PR copy is always silly (I review books for money) but COME ON.

Le sigh.

Sellers is my attempt to examine what books are topping the best-seller list and why. To talk about and understand the trends in popular writing.

Stuffing

I have discussed my love of entropy a few times.

I have not discussed my love of taxidermy. Over at Lapham's there is a long read on Barnum's American Museum and the long history of making dead animals look alive.

Bobcat Form - Foster Taxidermy Supply

I'll sum it up. The American Museum of Natural History was set up in 1909. At the time, there was little concern for making things look real. Then Carl Akeley came along and invented processes that recreated musculature and bone under the skin. He posed the stuffed animals in lifelike poses, sensationalist ones. It was a revolution in making dioramas. He went through and remade all the AMNH scenes. To do so, a lot of animals had to die.

I once dated a guy who lived with my good friend and co-worker B. Their flat was divided by a large living room and kitchen. I dated C only for a few months, but one night I went to get ice for some water and discovered the bodies of several rats in the ice box.

In zip-loc bags.

B was, and still is, an amateur taxidermist. She made surreal and fascinating tableau out of them. I loved it and immediately began to research the process involved. The skinning, de-boning, drying, and then the assembling.

Whitetail Form - Foster Taxidermy Supply

What amazes me is that at one point the process involved filling a skin with sawdust and beating it until it looked vaguely like the animal it once was.

Today there is a whole industry built around this. Naturally. The forms that replicate musculature are amazing ghost-like images. It is like staring into the abyss of death.

The faces of these forms is what I can't help but stare at. They seem judgmental, angry. That they are molded to look very realistic is telling. One could argue that this is a good thing. That the people who kill then mount these animals should have to stare into that hollow face day in and day out.

I don't have a real problem with hunting. Nor with trophies. As long as the hunting wasn't brutal or illegal I have no issue. I would hope that the animal in question is at least used for meat.

I will admit to a massive sense of unease when coming into a room full of trophies. The false glass eyes, the slightly misty skins. Again. Ghosts. Tombs.

Like wondering through a catacomb filled with skulls.

It is a mirror of our own mortality. And it fascinates me that people who hunt would want that in their homes.