Much Ado about a 'sucky' title

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

(Apologies to the cover artist, I blacked out some of the letters in title. For the fullview & synopsis, etc, go here. nsfw.)

There's a discussion going on at Karen's (and elsewhere) re the title of this book. I was going to leave a comment, but then the conversation moved on (sorta), so since I need a post, I'll just pop it in here. :-p

I saw that title when it was still a coming attraction and my eyebrows rose up my forehead, around the back of my skull, down my spine and settled in the crack of my butt, where they itched something awful.

Having said that, while it's not an epithet I use, I didn't take it to be offensive or particularly homophobic.

Just in very bad taste.





But I haven't read the story, so it just might be the perfect title as the author/publisher state.






As far as I'm concern any and everyone can be a c---skr. Male or female. Everyone from the temper-tamtrum throwing bratty spoiled kid telling his mom off at the top of his lungs in the middle a busy department store, to the crotchety old beyoitch whose longevity seems to be in direct correlation to her bitterness and plain ole nastiness--the vinegar in her veins seemingly working on the same principle as formaldehyde--as she strives to make as many peeps as she comes in contact with as miserable as she is before she kicks off.

To be honest, it's just not something I think of in literal terms. If I called someone a cskr, that doesn't necessarily translate to my believing that they've ever done so. Also, since there's nothing wrong with the practice, it's not really an insult in my book. Kinda reminds me of those peeps that won't eat at other peeps houses whom they suspect of engaging in oral sex. That'd be a pretty damn phenomenally fool-proof diet, if it could marketed right. ::snortle::

Getting back on topic... I can't speak for those who are offended by the title. They have every right to be. I can't shake a finger at someone else's personal reaction to certain words. Even if in some cases (this is not one of them) the phrase 'take a chill pill' comes to mind. But from what I've read at Karen's, the publisher's/author's explanations/apologies/excuses, suffice, insomuch as my caring about any of this at all.

Hats off to the folks who have the wherewithal to dive into the midst of these things time and again over the years. :-P



Blog Widget by LinkWithin

4 comments:

raine said...

Kinda reminds me of those peeps that won't eat at other peeps houses whom they suspect of engaging in oral sex.

Are you serious?!
Ahhh-ha-ha-haaa... :D

It's certainly a title that'll attract attention. Don't use the word, but never attributed it specifically to gay activity.
I thought the discussion about the pluses or minuses of such a title itself would be interesting enough, but that one proceeded to go around the bend, down the street, 'cross the river... :-/

Lynn Viehl said...

Like Raine, I don't personally use the word, but I don't associate any stigma to it, except that you should never call a homophobe that word unless you want to get into a fist fight. Then it comes in rather handy.

Shock value has always been a selling tool, but not a very intelligent one. I don't find any allure in calculated profanity like this. It's like a stripper taking off her clothes, it's only being done for the money. A subtle and clever title would have caught just as much interest from me, but unlike this one, it also would have held onto it.

Happy 2009, ladies.

vanessa jaye said...

"I thought the discussion about the pluses or minuses of such a title itself would be interesting enough,but that one proceeded to go around the bend, down the street, 'cross the river..."

Honestly, Raine, in theory that would be an interesting conversation, except I don't think there's actually a lot to discuss here.

The title is obviously a marketing ploy (as all titles should be, but this one really screams 'gimmick' rather than 'thought was put into this'.

And the general response is either you hate it because it's offensive, or you think it's dumb and crass.

I haven't seen one person yet who thought it was clever/subversive/a social statement--or the conversation might've gone that more interesting path you were hoping for.

vanessa jaye said...

"Shock value has always been a selling tool, but not a very intelligent one... A subtle and clever title would have caught just as much interest from me.."

Word. That's exactly why this title was picked, for its calculated shock value. That's the one thing that everyone agrees on, except the author/publisher to still hold to it being the 'perfect' title for the book due to a pivotal scene. It might be that, but potential readers aren't familiar with the scene in question, so all they're left with is the gimmick.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
 

2008 Vanessa Jaye | All Rights Reserved | Design by Katrina Glover | Back to top

You are visitor number:

web stats