Hatcher's trashing her past audience no surprise here

Posted by carol irvin on April 15, 2002 at 09:24:44:

In Reply to: Re: An article about Robin Lee Hatcher that may surprise you posted by Joan on April 14, 2002 at 23:14:30:

I found the 2 Hatcher covers pictured in the Idaho article of extreme interest. Hatcher's present day cover shows a way of life that has been gone since the 1950s with a woman in the most traditional of roles. For some women, returning to that era IS a huge fantasy because they want to be in an era of so-called women's protection, no divorce, no careers, limited legal rights, thinking that they would be part of the "up" side of that era. (This is rather like most of us envisioning that we would be an earl's daughter instead of a shopkeeper's in regency England.) The truth is that substantial percentages of American women had illusory protection at best in the '50s so that newer cover is the dangerous fraudulent fantasy. I find the historical cover less problematic because it is just outright sexual and romantic fantasy, which a woman in 2002 should be comfortable in admitting that she might need from time to time. Just like she might admit to going to the Good Vibes store online. As for Hatcher herself, I have long felt that she is a very opportunistic author who will do or say just about anything to sell books. She is obviously speaking to her new niche market to garner more sales there and that necessitates trashing her "bad" impulses (and audience) from the past in writing. This is bound to ring up more sales for her with the buyers in that niche market...but not with me. The woman is a born marketeer over and above every other aspect of her profession. One can't help but wish she were as devoted to the beauty of writing and creativity in every genre.

Follow Ups:

Inconsistent standards Karen M 09:39:36 04/18/02 (1)
- Re: Inconsistent standards LLB 09:54:42 04/18/02 (0)
Re: Hatcher's trashing her past audience no surprise here Rosalyn Alsobrook 19:09:23 04/17/02 (0)

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: I found the 2 Hatcher covers pictured in the Idaho article of extreme interest. Hatcher's present day cover shows a way of life that has been gone since the 1950s with a woman in the most traditional of roles. For some women, returning to that era IS a huge fantasy because they want to be in an era of so-called women's protection, no divorce, no careers, limited legal rights, thinking that they would be part of the "up" side of that era. (This is rather like most of us envisioning that we would be an earl's daughter instead of a shopkeeper's in regency England.) The truth is that substantial percentages of American women had illusory protection at best in the '50s so that newer cover is the dangerous fraudulent fantasy. I find the historical cover less problematic because it is just outright sexual and romantic fantasy, which a woman in 2002 should be comfortable in admitting that she might need from time to time. Just like she might admit to going to the Good Vibes store online. As for Hatcher herself, I have long felt that she is a very opportunistic author who will do or say just about anything to sell books. She is obviously speaking to her new niche market to garner more sales there and that necessitates trashing her "bad" impulses (and audience) from the past in writing. This is bound to ring up more sales for her with the buyers in that niche market...but not with me. The woman is a born marketeer over and above every other aspect of her profession. One can't help but wish she were as devoted to the beauty of writing and creativity in every genre.