It · Was · Already · Broke · When · I · Got · Here

No, it's not just you. But part of the reason it happens -- and there are many, many reasons it does -- is exactly what you did here. In the third paragraph of your entry, it's almost as if you suddenly got frightened that if you didn't mention that many of them are pretty some nebulous bad thing might happen!

Good point, and I stand corrected, and will delete said comment

Nope, you know what -- I won't delete the comments. I put my foot in it with those, and you were right to point that out. Shame on me.

Yeah, it's just the most tedious form of sexism, and a big dose of laziness besides.

Agreed.

Though I would pay good money to see someone start off an interview, with, say, "the dashingly coiffured James A. Moore".

I don't know, Jim needs to take care of his split ends first before "dashing" could be used.

give me a week and you'll have that interview.

What about "the biker-Viking studmuffin Jim Moore"?

I think I've used something along those lines in book reviews :)

-- C.

Have I got a Storytellers Unplugged post for you! ;-)

Couldn't part of it just be that our conversational language nowadays is filled with cliches and arbitrary, overused (and ultimately meaningless) phrases. Things that we say because we're so usedto saying them, that it sounds wrong when they're not said? Like 'last but not least', 'lovely and talented', 'sit back, relax, and enjoy'... even our answers to 'how are you?' 'I'm good, and yourself?'.. you poll people, I bet you get at least 50% that don't even know they're saying it, let alone mean it. Sure, it's nicety to say it, but the point I'm making is that it's said or written without true thought to what it means... just put there because it's supposed to be there.
Just a thought. :)

Yeah, I see it so often (and have done it myself a time or two) and then read right over it because it's almost expected. It's like adding a title or a prefix.

On the other hand, seeing an interview with "The hideous and imposing Matt Wagner" would be an amusing change, anyhow. :>

In all fairness, I usually refer to rdansky as the "lovely and talented Mr. Dansky." Perhaps that's the overabundance of male hormones in my bloodstream.

Oh, and I'm horribly offended I'm not on the list of women who don't make you want to gouge your eyes out--just sayin'.

Personally, I like being complimented. I don't have a problem with it nor do I think that men should be left out of the game. If I think you are handsome, I'll tell you so.

John Moore, case in point, I describe as the James Bond of authors. Hot. The man is hot. Michael Chabon? Such a dreamy guy. Did none of you pay any attention to the squeals that Neil Gaiman gets? Come on! It's not that women get sexualized unfairly, it's that we tend to be hotter than you guys.

Shouldn't there be a James Bond of editors? Ahem.

Something that hasn't been mentioned are the women who aren't considered lovely and beautiful. The ones who never find themselves listed with a long line of women on blog post or who aren't called out on messageboard topics about "the most attractive female writers." The ones who are simply ignored because they aren't considered pretty enough.

This is why I don't necessarily agree that it doesn't hurt anyone. I think instead it hurts everyone. Those women who are considered gorgeous because some will assume that they can't write and are simply beautiful, or worse, will assume they got publishing contracts because of their beauty. (How many times have you heard this rumor?) And the ones not mentioned, because it can make them feel unworthy, not beautiful.

Can anyone remember the Connie Willis and Paula Guran incidents?

Just a thought.

Can anyone remember the Connie Willis and Paula Guran incidents?

I missed those ... what happened?

This harks back to the point I was trying to make during one of the panels at Mo*Con. How many of the guys at that event worried about whether they were PRETTY enough to appear in public that day? Except maybe Maurice....

*Raises hand*

But I doubt anyone will ever say anything about my looks in interviews. Of course, not quite at the interview stage yet.

Personally, when I use the phrase "the lovely and talented" I use it ironicaly. But as a Gen-Xer, I tend to use everything ironically.

Anyway, when an article seems to *seriously* paint a female writer's physical attributes in gushing fanboy lingo, then it does annoy me--but only to the point of rolling my eyes and taking the article/interview that much less seriously. A thoughtful reader will take it for what it is: code, meant to subtly convey a wink-wink nudge-nudge assessment of the female writer's age, cup size and waist-to-hip ratio.

But it's also rather presumptious to assume that it necessarily victimizes or trivializes the female writer. Beauty is part of the brand for many female writers, and in those cases, pointing it out advances the individual woman's brand to some degree. Just like if I mention Jay Lake's Hawaiian shirt or Jeremy Lassen's Zoot Suit.

One last thought: Maybe more female horror writers are described as "beautiful" in order to highlight the cognitive dissonance between their sweet looks and the horror they put on the page?

Am I the only one who finds it insulting to said female horror writers that they re almost always characterized by their physical looks before their writing talent? And why aren't more female horror writers pissed off by this?

What is insulting to said female horror writers is women who can barely string together a sentence using their looks to get everyone to overlook their shortcomings. Luckily these ruses have a limited lifetime.

I don't think letting anyone know that such-and-such has beauty AND brains is any crime though. I view it as the advantage women have over men, anyway. I've learned to live with it.

I won't read a book by a female writer unless I know that writer is totally hot.

Just kidding.

But seriously, I think this is meant to be a selling point, because, you know, sex sells, and most horror readers happen to be lonely males. But yeah, it's kind of insulting, too.

Someone will yell at me for that. I'm ready.

For the record, when ever the subject of Brian Keen comes up I always mention is gorgeousness first, talent second. That's a rule that must be followed or he gets very hurt. He is very sensitive about his appearance.

Because Louis dared me to do it --

Therefore this is so clearly a male/male pissing contest:

http://possumqueen.livejournal.com/344997.html

I did it. You lose, Louis, all kinds of ways. Even though I complied.

Gary, the sexism and the hands-on machismo approach can be SO BAD that a little phrase like "the lovely and talented" disappears in comparison.

Some women writers/editors have been attacked in elevators, some have been grabbed my the arms and lead out of rooms in an ape-like manner, some have been physically threatened, emotionally tormented, accused of horrible things, assumed to be sluts, and some have been told they would be raped if the guy had a chance and to watch her back. Do you think these guys give a flying fuck if we "write" anything, let alone if it's any good? Does anyone think it matters if a woman is considered a 4, 6 or 9 out of 10?

Women talk to each other. We look out for each other. But, if we say anything *publicly* we're nasty bitches. There's a lot more going on that pisses us off (if I may speak for others for a moment). If a nice guy uses a phrase that's actually meant to be a compliment I'm not going to bite his head off, as misguided as it might be. Naturally we want to be credited for our brains as writers. Our looks should not be an issue whether it's in regards to pitching our projects, selling books at a table, or in a conversation online or in print.

Compliments are good! Sexism is rampant. At what point are we getting nitpicky and not focussing on the larger and more serious problem?

I don't have any more time to go into it, bums need to be changed. LOL! But you can bet yer ass MY boys are going to respect women when they grow up. :P

So true, Marcy -- speaking as a white male bum, that is!

A strong white man is ambitious and assertive.

A strong woman is an ungrateful bitch.

A strong black man is arrogant and dangerous.

The rules must be learned before they can be broken -- and, hopefully, thrown out the window altogether. We've still got a lot of evolving to do. Check back in a hundred thousand years - it should all be worked out by then!

So sez me, the lovely and talented Louie.

:)

I guess because I am a woman interviewing other women for Fearzone, I never fall into that trap. So far, all my interviews are based around their personalities. I called one mysterious once, but that was how I felt about her. I can call a guy that too. I teased Marcy about her height in my interview, but that's because I know Marcy. It was more to make a point that looks can be deceiving when I referenced her height.

When I interview people, I'm really trying to look into who they are.

I think it's undecided on which one of us would be able to kick the other's ass, so we tease instead. LOL!

But you make a good point, and would it make any difference if a woman called another "lovely and talented"? Or would it be okay then?

simple- we live a patriarchal society where women are, first and foremost, objects and everything else is secondary to the male gaze.

I ran into this at WHC this year. My publisher decided to throw a pajama party in honor of the book I was in -- a book by four women -- and advertised it before asking if I thought parading around in my underwear was a good idea. In fact, he invited me to the party by saying, "I hope you wear pajamas."

On one hand, I wanted to continue good relations (within in limits, of course) with my publisher. I wanted to have a party in my honor. I still want to sell the book.

On the other hand, I haven't worn my pajamas in public in 20 years. I hated that my body was being used to sell my book. And I felt I had absolutely no say in the matter, since the party was already being advertised.

I wore a nice dress. And everyone there commented on how I wasn't wearing pajamas. I don't know if it helped sell books...

Well, it's a trite phrase, and should be used less frequently for that reason alone.

I think you could use lovely for a male as well. Lovely doesn't merely imply visual beauty, but emotional beauty, and can be a synonym for wonderful. I honestly don't find it offensive in the least. We would all love to be both lovely and talented. Or talented and lovely. For fun someone should try to mix it up a bit and introduce someone as lovely or talented. Let the audience decide!

We are all visual creatures. Arguably, men are more overt about it. But women notice appearance as well as anyone. And we can be most treacherous about it to each other. Anyone out there have a mother who appraises your appearance when you walk in the door? I do. And how many times have you heard yourself or a female companion deprecate or express concern over their own appearance? Whether their hair is right, or makeup just so. Until we stop stressing ourselves out about how we look as women, I don't think we can expect anyone else to do the same.

Men can talk to each other about how their appearance and mostly they are not offended by it. Or if they are, they don't let it haunt them. In most cases, call a woman fat or ugly, and they will remember it for years. Perhaps even until they die.

Granted, we still have a very patriarchal world, but even on an individual level, everyone, regardless of gender responds more favorably to a visually attractive person. Many cultures revere physical beauty, whatever their standards may be. Appearance is more crucial in visual mediums. Ever notice the difference in appearance of folks from the marketing department versus the agents who work in a call center? How about television news reporters versus print journalists?

I see it happen daily. It can even happen with the sound of someone's voice. Ever work in a call center and hear a caller specifically request or inquire about "the british guy" (or insert a different nationality of your choice.)?

As for other people feeling hurt because they might not be referred to in that fashion, I think that's a personal problem. Should we feel insulted when Einstein is referred to as one of the most intelligent individuals of the 20th century? I mean, what about the rest of us!? The nerve! Just because my theories were less attractive than his! No. Let the compliments fly. And if the recipient of said compliment doesn't appreciate it, then let them handle it. The rest of us need to be secure in who we are, what we do, and what we look like.

We also need to make sure we don't exercise any biases we don't want to experience ourselves. I'll wager that will be rather difficult, though.

It's like when a newspaper headline is "GRANDMOTHER OF FIVE FIGHTS OFF KILLER BEAR" when the person in question is a 70-year-old woman, but it'd never be "GRANDFATHER OF FIVE FIGHTS OFF KILLER BEAR" when it was her husband. Maybe "70-YEAR-OLD MAN FIGHTS OFF KILLER BEAR" or possibly it'd list him by profession, but you never see "GRANDFATHER."

Anyway, I'm one of those unattractive female horror writers and damn it all, I just want to be known as a writer first. Everything else is adjectives. Same thing with being a gamer. Same condescending shit there too.

-- C.

Yeah, it all smacks of "You're a credit to your sex!"

There's a quote, I believe, about Emily Dickinson, though I'll be damned if I can find it or even evidence that Dickinson was the subject, but I'll paraphrase anyway: "Looking at her is just horrible, her face makes you want to gouge your eyes out, but spend five minutes speaking to her and you'll find yourself utterly smitten."

Women are expected to succeed as XXs first and People second, whereas men identify primarily as People. If you don't acknowledge that a woman has succeeded as an XX (Primo Mating Material), it's as good as saying she's failed at it, since the question is ALWAYS there for women of any profession: "...but is she pretty?" Inquiring minds want to know. We don't as care much about the guys' looks since it's a secondary or maybe tertiary concern and guys can glide by on wealth or brains or charm or humor without any concern for their own appearance. Many can go for years without being called good-looking and not fret, possibly not even notice.

Plus, for better or worse, the woman's comeliness is many times part of the product -- even if it's not what she's pitching, it's still what the consumer is examining.

I think this is a very good question and concern, Gary. I suppose in the long run it's all about intent, but it's also a phrase that plays into the deeper stereotypical issues of sexism. I'm a little fearful of PC language rules, because the people who need the rules are the ones who the rules won't have much impact on in their hearts, so I'm not quite sure what the answer is.

I do think Marci has the right idea--raise those boys to have true respect for women. Mothers make a strong impact in this area, but as I've seen by the behavior of my three brothers, it's the subtle and direct actions (not the words) of the father figure(s) that seem to have the most impact.

I've used the phrase in question WAY too much in blogs, message board posts and introductions, but oddly enough it's almost always men I'm referring to. I'm using it in a playful way by and large, but the fact is, I think men are often quite lovely, and their good character, sense of humor and talent make them even more lovely to me.

Moving up the age scale, I generally don't tend to mind being called lovely and talented. It fluffs my feathers a little, which is nice, but I can honestly say, I'll take the talented over the lovely any day.

Thanks for being so thoughtful, Gary. I think you should take the pretty blue foo-foo eyeglass case--how dare they censor you??

Much Love to the Lovely (hellsbells, we all know how darn talented you are!),
Fran

Interesting topic, Gary. I think the usage all boils down to context. Intrigued (and a little horrified that DSM was guilty as well!), I went back and looked through DSM's own interview archives. We recently ran an interview with Sarah Pinborough and I do refer to her attractiveness, but in the context of the introduction, it's meant to convey, in part, her "cool factor" with the high school students she teaches. I think it's often used to juxtapose what's visible on the outside with what spills out onto the page from the inside. Much like journalists will refer to an author's personality (which, like physical attributes, is completely irrelevant to the work itself) to contrast the work. (He's so amiable...but the nastiness of what he writes!). Speaks more to the "don't judge the book by the cover" idea, I think. That said, I don't doubt that some journalists use the term loosely without being part of some larger context. Some may even have intentions to flatter, as was pointed out. (I'll have to remember that tactic the next time I interview Kealan Patrick Burke and see where it gets me ~ LOL!)

That said, Fran and Chesya and Christina and the rest of the talented scribes who've responded above... you ARE all lovely and talented. Sexism be damned!

Well-said, Vince. Thanks for chiming in on this -- in fact, my thanks to everyone.