Oh, that's why you didn't mention zombies.

I've been sitting here trying to figure out why I'm having such a strong negative reaction. Part of it is definitely other stuff, like that stupid porn-schoolgirl cover on Discount Armageddon. But - at the end of your review all we know about how Art3mis relates to the main character and his story is, "Obvious love interest is The Girl to be gotten." (Which, to be fair, is twice as many sentences as Parzifal's best buddy got. But false equivalence is false.) And it hit me as just one more case of women being talked about as objects instead of people.

Part of it is definitely other stuff, like that stupid porn-schoolgirl cover on Discount Armageddon.

I'm not a huge fan of it either, but Seanan is quite happy with it, as it is accurate for the character, who works at a strip joint (as a waitress).

But - at the end of your review all we know about how Art3mis relates to the main character and his story is, "Obvious love interest is The Girl to be gotten." (Which, to be fair, is twice as many sentences as Parzifal's best buddy got. But false equivalence is false.)

Well, honestly, that is basically her role in the story. I liked her as a character, but that...is her role in the story. And Aech deserved to be written more about too, but I can't touch on everything in a review.

And it hit me as just one more case of women being talked about as objects instead of people.

Okay. I would have preferred it if you'd either commented on my post or at the very least addressed me here directly rather than talking about "someone" as if I weren't going to see it.

I'd want to know at least a little more. If the author has obviously designed the character to be no more than Our Hero's Love Interest, I'd argue that the reviewer could be simply pointing out a failing of the author. Conversely, if The Girl is an out and proud lesbian, the sentence would have me wondering about the reviewer's agenda.

Not having read the books or the review in question but knowing the reviewer fairly well, I'd think he intended the sentence to say that the author was transparently manipulating our expectations.

(Edited to Add: P-C, apologies for the crosspost.)

Okay. I would have preferred it if you'd either commented on my post or at the very least addressed me here directly rather than talking about "someone" as if I weren't going to see it.

I gotta agree here, Chris. If you have issues with P-C's review, or with the books he reviews, why come over all passive-aggressive about it here? It looks like you're trying to recruit Buffistas against him without addressing him directly.

Jebuslug knows we all vent here about shit we see elsewhere on the net: but we don't vent about other Buffistas in front of them while pretending they're not going to see it. This is not backchannel.

Part of it is definitely other stuff, like that stupid porn-schoolgirl cover on Discount Armageddon.

I'm not a huge fan of it either, but Seanan is quite happy with it, as it is accurate for the character, who works at a strip joint (as a waitress).

I also don't understand how the cover of a book you weren't even reviewing in that LJ entry (a cover which was undoubtedly chosen by the publisher rather than the author [and certainly not by you, the author's friend]) has anything whatsoever to do with the dislike of a phrase you chose to use in the review of a completely different book.

But whatever.

but we don't vent about other Buffistas in front of them while pretending they're not going to see it.

Also this. Don't do that shit.

By "other stuff" I meant, "other issues involving portrayal of women, not connected to P-C's review."

I would have preferred it if you'd either commented on my post or at the very least addressed me here directly

Fair point. My apologies.

If the author has obviously designed the character to be no more than Our Hero's Love Interest, I'd argue that the reviewer could be simply pointing out a failing of the author

If we're talking about Ready Player One...yeah, she's an object in the book. There is literally nothing to say about her in a review other than She Is The Girl. See also: Reason 37 Why Jess Hated This Book So So So Much.

(I could elaborate, but, spoilers.)

Apology accepted. I'd prefer the discussion to move on and focus on the actual book, which, despite not being particularly progressive in its portrayal of women, is pretty awesome and fun! Especially since I, too, grew up on video and computer games. It pretty much won my heart for the big honking Zork reference alone. You should have seen me freaking out and celebrating in my car when that happened. Couldn't believe I missed it either, Parzival.

Well, honestly, that is basically her role in the story.

I'm going to disagree with you on that point. Art3mis doesn't start out to be date meat. She's the chaotic neutral opponent who is kicking ass at one point. My interest was piqued. Then she was devolved and I got pissed off. It's not her role in the story at first. It's what the author chose to do in order to keep his character in line with a stereotype.

I can hate that part and love much of the rest of the book, but this is a major flaw for me.