>I was somewhat disappointed because I thought one of the real strengths of the anthology would be the diversity of writers and styles -- I'm not speaking merely from a gender perspective here but I'm not excluding it either.
I think this is really relevant, because what strikes me about this cover isn't just that it doesn't have any women on it. What strikes me about the cover is that what I'd expect from the inside, based on it, is not at all the same thing that I'd expect from the inside, based on the TOC.
Which seems like a shame.
The names on the cover makes me think, "Probably well-written, but pretty much the usual suspects." (Honestly, Shepard's name alone gets me most of the way there.) I'd expect to enjoy the book, but (sorry, Jeff) I wouldn't be in any particular rush to get to it.
What I get from the TOC is, yeah, exactly what you say above. It's, "Wow, that's a really solid and unusual lineup." And then I start to get excited.
I haven't, obviously, had a chance to read the book yet. My impression may be totally misguided. But if not--if this _is_ the cleverly put together and intriguing book that the TOC makes it look like--then it seems like a real shame that the cover doesn't reflect that.
The cover text and art look like Old Skool Rocketships & Ideas, with a dollop of art. The TOC leads to a far more complex and interesting conclusion--and, I submit, a broader potential audience.
As for the gender-blind issue: to quote hth_the_first, Be Less Blind.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
coalescent) wrote2007-08-29 10:18 am
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Re: The real answer
I think this is really relevant, because what strikes me about this cover isn't just that it doesn't have any women on it. What strikes me about the cover is that what I'd expect from the inside, based on it, is not at all the same thing that I'd expect from the inside, based on the TOC.
Which seems like a shame.
The names on the cover makes me think, "Probably well-written, but pretty much the usual suspects." (Honestly, Shepard's name alone gets me most of the way there.) I'd expect to enjoy the book, but (sorry, Jeff) I wouldn't be in any particular rush to get to it.
What I get from the TOC is, yeah, exactly what you say above. It's, "Wow, that's a really solid and unusual lineup." And then I start to get excited.
I haven't, obviously, had a chance to read the book yet. My impression may be totally misguided. But if not--if this _is_ the cleverly put together and intriguing book that the TOC makes it look like--then it seems like a real shame that the cover doesn't reflect that.
Re: The real answer
well, probably not
Re: The real answer
Re: The real answer
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: The real answer
The cover text and art look like Old Skool Rocketships & Ideas, with a dollop of art. The TOC leads to a far more complex and interesting conclusion--and, I submit, a broader potential audience.
As for the gender-blind issue: to quote