I think the whole smart vs. beauty thing comes, or at least should come if at all, from a different direction.

There’s no obvious correlation between how smart or intelligent someone is, and how well they look. Well, barring things like nutrition as a child, affects on and of money, etc, etc, which aren’t the issue here in the general case.

What does have a noticeable either/or effect is how much effort and time people are putting into their look. Because that’s a limited resource. People who are good looking can certainly be smart as well. Often are. I know people of all four combinations of brains and beauty, from both genders.
But someone who will spend two-three hours each day arranging their hair, fingernails, and make-up, picking just the right clothes, shoes, wallet… well… have about two-three hours less every day to do other things with. And these time figures aren’t made up, I know real people who take this long.

If someone enjoys this “prettying up” process, that’s an entirely different matter, of course. Nothing against it as a hobby. But there are people, more women than men, who claim not to enjoy it, but that they have to spend this time or they won’t look good enough.

Someone who don’t put so much effort, if they have to go out in the evening, can do something like, erm, read a book, until quite a short while before they have to get quickly dressed and ready to leave.
But someone who needs hours to get ready, just for the sake of beauty/hotness, well, may very well prove to be statistically less intelligent/smart/capable/etc eventually.
Not because of how they look, but because at how much they invest just in order to look like it all the time.

It’s both the actual time, and the fact that the looks matter to the person enough to invest that time. Usually it will mean that the person cares about their looks a lot more than they care about their brain.

So when I see a really good looking woman, but her hair and make-up (and so on) look meticulously done, like they took a lot of work to get “just right”, the natural first impression will indeed be that her looks are either all she has, or at least all she cares about.

Though I guess that if it becomes a rule then it’s just an encouragement to taking even more time to get the fake “I just put something on and went” natural-like look. ;)

Beth: And you know, attractiveness is made up of a lot of things that people are not born with: the clothes they wear, their level of fitness, the way they present themselves, and so on. It’s something people work on.

And I agree: I have never once bought a book because of the way the author looked.

Bex: Welcome. Yeah, I hate it that girls are still getting the message that they can only be one or the other. Even my daughter is picking that up. I was attempting (pathetically, as I grew up a tomboy and never learned the skill) to paint my fingernails last night, and she told me, “You know, Mom, I don’t have to learn to paint my fingernails, because I’m going to be a rocket scientist, and rocket scientists are not beauty people.” *sigh*

La Gringa (colleen?): I think the reason it is mostly women who believe pretty=smart is because they are jealous of the women who are both. When I was younger I often found myself trying to find flaws in extremely beautiful women because I felt like I didn’t add up. I think those women who have put themselves in the “smart” category may have the same obssession.

Frankly, the concept that someone could sell a book by being attractive… boggles me a bit. Who’s looking at the author when they see that sucker in the slushpile? Better to get a cute agent, or one with a great phone voice.

The fact is, when you are in competition for that wee tiny slice of shelf space with more than 100,000 new books annually, you use what you have, and if you have a pretty face, well then hell – make it work for you.

Kaytie: Yeah, GalleyCat did a great job covering that. I haven’t noticed any backlash when the author’s a good-looking guy, either; I’m not sure if it’s there or not.