User:NrmMGA5108/sandbox: Difference between revisions
NrmMGA5108 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
NrmMGA5108 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{user sandbox|plain=yes}} | {{user sandbox|plain=yes}} | ||
ALTHOUGH SOMETIMES PURCHASED BECAUSE OF A PLAYMATE’ S ALLURE, most ''Playboy'' magazines get read cover-to-cover, confirming the quip “I buy it for the articles.” Because less than ten percent of each issue contains nudity, the majority of monthly pages are well-known editorial features, such as the ''Playboy'' Advisor or the ''Playboy'' Interview, advice columns, cultural commentary, humor and literary selections. Using ''Esquire'' as a model, Hugh Hefner published fiction to position ''Playboy'' as more than a mere “skin-magazine.” Hefner juxtaposed the nude pictorials with literature because he believed that, for proper stimulation, both the mind and body should be addressed. The quantity of fiction published in ''Playboy'' is astonishing, making fiction the single largest component of the magazine. In just its first year of publication, from December 1953 to 1954, ''Playboy'' devoted 168 pages to literary selections, over thirty percent of its content (Lambkin 26). In the 1960s the magazine maintained over 200-page issues and published elite critics and authors such as Alfred Kazin, William F. Buckley, Leslie Fiedler, Ray Bradbury, James Baldwin, and Vladimir Nabokov. Most of ''Playboy’s'' fiction is either written by popular, contemporary authors or can be classified as a parody by an unknown author of a famous story. The cultural currency of contemporary authors or familiar narratives helped sell copies—by 1973, ''Playboy’s'' paid circulation peaked at seven million per month (Pitzulo 12). | ALTHOUGH SOMETIMES PURCHASED BECAUSE OF A PLAYMATE’ S ALLURE, most ''Playboy'' magazines get read cover-to-cover, confirming the quip “I buy it for the articles.” Because less than ten percent of each issue contains nudity, the majority of monthly pages are well-known editorial features, such as the ''Playboy'' Advisor or the ''Playboy'' Interview, advice columns, cultural commentary, humor and literary selections. Using ''Esquire'' as a model, Hugh Hefner published fiction to position ''Playboy'' as more than a mere “skin-magazine.” Hefner juxtaposed the nude pictorials with literature because he believed that, for proper stimulation, both the mind and body should be addressed. The quantity of fiction published in ''Playboy'' is astonishing, making fiction the single largest component of the magazine. In just its first year of publication, from December 1953 to 1954, ''Playboy'' devoted 168 pages to literary selections, over thirty percent of its content (Lambkin 26). In the 1960s the magazine maintained over 200-page issues and published elite critics and authors such as Alfred Kazin, William F. Buckley, Leslie Fiedler, Ray Bradbury, James Baldwin, and Vladimir Nabokov. Most of ''Playboy’s'' fiction is either written by popular, contemporary authors or can be classified as a parody by an unknown author of a famous story. The cultural currency of contemporary authors or familiar narratives helped sell copies—by 1973, ''Playboy’s'' paid circulation peaked at seven million per month (Pitzulo 12).{{sfn|Pitzulo|2011|p=12}} ''Playboy'' editors particularly sought out authors or fictional selections that would help them re-masculinize the act of reading in the midst of the Cold War gender debates. To fulfill this objective, editors first looked to Ernest Hemingway because the Hemingway code hero exemplifies the quintessential Playboy qualities—strong, adventuresome, educated, and womanizing | ||
{{pg|199|200}} | {{pg|199|200}} | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
{{pg|209|210}} | {{pg|209|210}} | ||
''Politics of Playboy'', panelists “primarily fixated on inane debates” (Pitzulo 31). | ''Politics of Playboy'', panelists “primarily fixated on inane debates” (Pitzulo 31).{{sfn|Pitzulo|2011|p=31}} For example, in response to ''Playboy’s'' concerns about some females refusing to complete household chores, three of the panelists debate the cost of aprons and the difference between drying and washing dishes. Mailer then stated that “there’s been a shift in the social and biological function of the woman, where she expected . . . not so much to create a home as she is to be an aide-de-camp or staff general to an ambitious opportunist” (49, June 1962). Mailer’s comments, regarding the change in duties for postwar women, hints at the supposed mid-century masculinity crisis—being a blue-collar worker was no longer sufficient for most men. Rather, the stresses of the Cold War and the evolving capitalistic economy forced men to adapt to domineering images of hyper-masculinity. Readers’ responses to the panel, as published in the “Dear ''Playboy''” letters, suggest that Mailer’s statements eclipsed the other panelists. Out of the four published “Dear ''Playboy''” letters that mention the womanization panel, three praise Mailer and the letter from John T. Gosset exclaims that Mailer’s insights “astounded” him (9, September 1962). | ||
At the panel’s conclusion, Mailer reminded ''Playboy'' readers that “masculinity is not something one is born with, but something one gains. And one gains it by winning small battles with honor” (142, June 1962). He warned those American men who fear the destruction of their masculinity to be wary of mass media because it gives an unrealistic view of life. Mailer claimed that the majority of mass media is out to “destroy virility slowly and steadily” (142, June 1962). This argument directly reinforced Spectorsky’s thoughts on the fundamental malaise about masculinity in America, as well as supported his argument that ''Playboy'' is a necessity for American males. American men needed magazines like ''Playboy'' to help combat the insipid depictions of masculinity in the mass media. And ''Playboy'' needed Mailer’s contributions to do so. Mailer’s presence on both panels reinforced his machismo status and added to ''Playboy’s'' cultural currency. | At the panel’s conclusion, Mailer reminded ''Playboy'' readers that “masculinity is not something one is born with, but something one gains. And one gains it by winning small battles with honor” (142, June 1962). He warned those American men who fear the destruction of their masculinity to be wary of mass media because it gives an unrealistic view of life. Mailer claimed that the majority of mass media is out to “destroy virility slowly and steadily” (142, June 1962). This argument directly reinforced Spectorsky’s thoughts on the fundamental malaise about masculinity in America, as well as supported his argument that ''Playboy'' is a necessity for American males. American men needed magazines like ''Playboy'' to help combat the insipid depictions of masculinity in the mass media. And ''Playboy'' needed Mailer’s contributions to do so. Mailer’s presence on both panels reinforced his machismo status and added to ''Playboy’s'' cultural currency. | ||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
{{pg|210|211}} | {{pg|210|211}} | ||
criticism, “The Prisoner of Sex,” sparked acrimonious debates, like the very public, 1971 Town Hall debate with feminists Germaine Greer and Jill Johnston. And at the 1986 birthday celebration of the Feminist Writers Guild, attendants played “Pin the Tail on Norman Mailer” in “satiric protest against what they consider his antifeminist writings” (Blades). In a similar vein, ''Playboy'' has dealt with its own share of feminist critique for the past five decades. From its inception, critics have lambasted the magazine for its centerfold: “it fetishized busty, young bodies for straight male consumption” (Pitzulo 35). | criticism, “The Prisoner of Sex,” sparked acrimonious debates, like the very public, 1971 Town Hall debate with feminists Germaine Greer and Jill Johnston. And at the 1986 birthday celebration of the Feminist Writers Guild, attendants played “Pin the Tail on Norman Mailer” in “satiric protest against what they consider his antifeminist writings” (Blades). In a similar vein, ''Playboy'' has dealt with its own share of feminist critique for the past five decades. From its inception, critics have lambasted the magazine for its centerfold: “it fetishized busty, young bodies for straight male consumption” (Pitzulo 35). {{sfn|Pitzulo|2011|p=35}} ''Playboy'' garnered backlash from feminists, such as Betty Friedan, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Gloria Steinem, as well as anti-pornography activists Gail Dines and Catharine MacKinnon. Steinem published her damning exposé on working conditions at the ''Playboy'' clubs in ''Show'' magazine and faced-off with Hefner for ''McCall’s'' magazine in a lengthy interview in 1970. Copies of ''Playboy'' were tossed into a “freedom trashcan” as part of the 1968 Miss America Pageant protest and ''Playboy'' confronted the feminist movement with its article “Up Against the Wall, Male Chauvinist Pig” (May 1970). Hefner intended the piece to criticize radical feminists, but his condemnation of the militants solidified his—and ''Playboy''’s—reputation as anti-feminist. | ||
''Playboy'' editors balanced the negative attention from Steinem’s experience as a ''Playboy'' Bunny with Mailer’s appreciation of the clubs. Mailer’s presence at the ''Playboy'' clubs and mansion “lent” them “literary and symbolic cachet they have won from few other public personalities” (Weyr 78). In “Ten Thousand Words a Minute,” Mailer does not censure the guests’ egregious behavior toward the female employees, nor does he disapprove of the Bunnies’ attire. Instead, Mailer matter-of-factly states that the club “looked about the way one thought it would look” with corporate executive patrons and Bunnies in all colors (qtd. in Weyr 78). Whereas Steinem claimed the boning in her bunny costume would have made “Scarlett O’Hara blanch and the entire construction tended to push all available flesh up to the bosom,” Mailer complimented the outfits: the Bunny costume “exaggerated their hips, bound their waist in a ceinture and lifted them into phallic brassiere” (Steinem 39; Weyr 78). In his ''Presidential Papers'', Mailer compares a Bunny’s breasts to the “big bullet[s] on the front bumper of a Cadillac” (23). Mailer’s approval of the costume, like his comparison of Hefner to Fitzgerald, captured how editors wanted the culture to view ''Playboy''—as an American icon. | ''Playboy'' editors balanced the negative attention from Steinem’s experience as a ''Playboy'' Bunny with Mailer’s appreciation of the clubs. Mailer’s presence at the ''Playboy'' clubs and mansion “lent” them “literary and symbolic cachet they have won from few other public personalities” (Weyr 78). In “Ten Thousand Words a Minute,” Mailer does not censure the guests’ egregious behavior toward the female employees, nor does he disapprove of the Bunnies’ attire. Instead, Mailer matter-of-factly states that the club “looked about the way one thought it would look” with corporate executive patrons and Bunnies in all colors (qtd. in Weyr 78). Whereas Steinem claimed the boning in her bunny costume would have made “Scarlett O’Hara blanch and the entire construction tended to push all available flesh up to the bosom,” Mailer complimented the outfits: the Bunny costume “exaggerated their hips, bound their waist in a ceinture and lifted them into phallic brassiere” (Steinem 39; Weyr 78). In his ''Presidential Papers'', Mailer compares a Bunny’s breasts to the “big bullet[s] on the front bumper of a Cadillac” (23). Mailer’s approval of the costume, like his comparison of Hefner to Fitzgerald, captured how editors wanted the culture to view ''Playboy''—as an American icon. | ||