AnimeNewsNetwork's Rebecca unofficially reviews Seven Seas'

>>16049156
>Masturbatory Fantasy

So like any romance novel aimed at women then.

This shit is tame compared to what Fujoshits push out, at least KC offered some semblance of worldbuilding with it.

Also the reviewer didn't notice that the setting is literally medieval era where values were different

>>16049156
>This porn book suffers from a severe case of masturbatory fantasy
No fucking shit Rebecca.

>>16049156
>doesn't mention the plight of gay men being turned into women as punishment for their homosexuality

Typical.

>>16049156
100% true. I was okay with slime girls and humanoid DQ monsters before this shit picked up, but MGE is the dumbest shit otaku have created. I mean seriously. Even furries aren't that pathetic.

>>16049216
We get it, you don't like the monstergirl threads.

>Missing the point this hard
So another day of normies being normies.

What else is new?

>>16049386
annoying homo.

>Reads like the worst romance novel
>Romance novel
>Romance
>Novel
Wait, I don't get it. Wasn't it presented in a encyclopedia format? Why the hell would an encyclopedia read like a novel? Although, the Fallen Brides/Maidens books are novels, I think.

Also
>ANN

>This book feels like a guide for an unreleased adult visual novel
>unreleased
Has she been living under a rock?

>>16049535
Fallen Maidens is a "World Guide". Less artwork, more descriptions, but far from a novel.

Fallen Brides is one of several Light Novel-styled collections of MGE fanfiction.

>>16049156
>with the disturbing, and consistently reinforced, notion that human women do not enjoy sex and find male sexuality a burden,
Since when wasn't this true?

>>16049541
I think you're confusing this with MGQ, which the author did work on but isn't related to this. Unless you're talking about that official rpgmaker game released a while back.

>>16049156
Huh. How often do people try to seriously review porn? Is that a thing that happens?

>>16050262
Yeah. Just go to the BDSM/Romance etc part of GoodReads. 99.9% of the content is garbage, and the reviews will only slightly help you navigate the shit.

>>16049216
>>>/trash/

Go whine there.

>>16049156
Why is the fact the girls aren't drawn with pubic hair a bad thing?

>>16050525
Something to the effect of "unrealistic expectations" or whatever. Who knows the mental gymnastics involved in this argument.

>>16050535
I guess having wings or a tailpussy isn't unrealistic expectations.

FWIW Rebecca's feedback (from the ANN Forums):

"Just be aware that this wasn't written in a professional capacity, so I took less care with my phrasing. I didn't mention it on Goodreads, but there are some loli elements as well. The physical book itself is gorgeous. Also, the book I referenced in the middle there is by Peggy Orenstein. "

>Rebecca unofficially reviews
>(See Girls & Sex: Navigating the Complicated New Landscape for why this is an issue.)
>the disturbing, and consistently reinforced, notion that human women do not enjoy sex
>To say that this is outdated and offensive is an understatement.
>the issues I have with its depiction of female sexuality

This shit thread DOES NOT deserve to belong on /jp/
It should be deleted, please

How do you review an encyclopedia anyways?

>>16051948
I really wouldn't call it an "encyclopedia" I mean it is in the title but it's more like an artbook with detailed descriptions

>>16049757
>Since when wasn't this true?
The really funny thing is that, in taking issue with this rather than finding appreciation in the MGs themes of sexual liberation, she's just proving herself a hypocrite.

Also, anyone wonder what this chick's reaction would have been if Seven Seas hadn't censored all the explicit pedo-stuff to just be about "Diminutive" and "Petite" girls?

File: we just don't know.gif (917KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

917KB, 250x251px

>>16049757
>>16052329
>with the disturbing, and consistently reinforced, notion that human women... find male sexuality a burden
Preceded and followed by complaining about male sexual fantasies.

File: 1478042221787.jpg (29KB, 450x685px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 450x685px

>>16049156
Rebecca, that was beautiful. Thank you for helping us to understand. I appreciate your call for quality.

>>16052300
While that's not quite as thorough as a real life encyclopedia, it's close enough to one.

Maybe bestiary would be more accurate? Reviewing it like a story would be weird in any case.

>>16049156
Obviously there are legitimate issues one can easily find with the setting if one wants to, and I think KC himself has admitted he is more an artist than a writers, but this reviewer makes some outright factual errors in the assessment of the content. Namely:

1. The negative view human women have toward sex is plainly meant to reflect the pseudo-medieval, sexually repressive setting.

2. There's nothing about women being "happy" to allow monsters to take over so that they don't have to deal with male sexual cravings. Heck a major theme of the book is that the majority of humans fear monsters as killers and such.

3. The issue of eventual extinction is outright brought up and stated to be something that won't happen provided the monsters and their allied gods win against the anti-monster gods.

>>16055324
It goes deeper than that, the review as whole was nothing more than bashing MGE to sell another completely unrelated book. It is no better than spam.

the Rebecca acted completely unprofessionally with regard to MGE. It is one thing to not to review it for ANN because material was deemed too explicit for the site. It's quite another thing to go out of her way to bash it in the manner that she did. With all the misinformation that she spouted about the book's setting. Her criticisms of the book are disingenuous and she used those criticisms just as an ad for another book.

>>16050525
>>16050535
For a writer working on a weeaboo site, she conveniently forgets that the lack of pubic hair is a direct result of the "oppressive" censorship laws imposed by the occupying US army. Japan had pubes on all their erotic woodcut prints in the early 20th century and earlier.

>>16049156
>severe case of masturbatory fantasy
But that's literally what it is. It's porn. You're supposed to get off on it. What was she expecting?

>>16050525
I'm thankful they don't have pubic hair. Not into that at all.

>>16049156
>Shelves: fantasy, romance
This is a misconception a lot of folks seem to have about ero material. It's not "romance" in the western sense, but rather just expanded, self-indulgent masturbatory fantasy of the sort that used to be common in pornographic films back when they were still mostly watched in theaters. In light of this they should be considered only of the "fantasy" genre, and reviewed as such

>>16049156
>>suffers from a severe case of masturbatory fantasy
>>book about monster girls.
Isn't that the point?

>>16070323
I guess she likes her monster waifu pure.

kusothread

Uh oh, this thread is filled with crossboarders from the MG thread.

Also KC is a great artist but a fucking terrible writer.