I agree with John–nicely played scenario with the cover, since it definitely would create controversy, which brings attention, even as it fits the subject matter. And can be explained in such lovely literary terms. Beautiful essay.

An interesting dichotomy, too, in that you use a masculine term (big balls) to describe Hughes’ decision to go with the boob cover, in an essay limned with the strength to be found in a woman and her body. I find that worth some thought on my part.

And is this the correct discreetly\discretely usage? “Here are the two covers, with boob and with discretely covered boob:” Or am I confused about how you are using the word?

I got my copy of TCOW the other day and was puzzled by the band, like Betsy above. Last night I posted about it at WWAATD and someone nicely told me about this post. I’m glad he did, because this is a wonderful discourse on the convoluted power of images of bodies or body parts.

To that, I disagree. To assume “well, smarty women” would only move toward some kind of “authentic” representation of sexuality is simply furthering sexual misunderstanding. It is also, not to mention, offensive. The body is and never will be a pure, unfettered space. Like Irigaray wrote in regard to language, the body is a construction site, a place where building and choice must occur in order for there to be dialogue.

Choosing to embody or put on a cover a representation of “tantalizing sexualization” should not necessarily correlate with the intellectual capacity of that body’s brain.

That absurdity has cost it a customer, and probably more than one. It does not cost Hawthorne Books $16 to send a book even airmail to Europe or Australia.

That may be HB’s way of saying it has the same attitude towards the rest of the world as most Americans do. I’m not interested in supporting that. I’ll get the book another way.