Female Superheroes Superpowers
John Todd
Reinbold) wrote:
> I just would like to say that I think almost every female superhero must
> have super back strength as one of her powers. Why do they all have to be
> so huge-breasted anyway? It's kind of boring. They all look the same. I
> really think some of these artists should get out more. That's all.
>
> Me
i know. one of the original aspects that i liked about pstche (or moirage
or moonstar) was that she was "flatchested" as was kitty pride. it's true
that either the artists or the fans need to concentrate on other features
of these women.
john
Felix J. Torres
>i know. one of the original aspects that i liked about pstche (or moirage
>or moonstar) was that she was "flatchested" as was kitty pride. it's true
>that either the artists or the fans need to concentrate on other features
>of these women.
>john
I liked the original Terra and her buck teeth... And the original costume with the
long mousy brown hair...
Jade used to be barely 5 ft tall...
And, once upon a time, Booster Gold was about two inches taller than just
about everybody else...
For a while there, in the late 80's, artist were actually making their
characters look like real people (in their proportions). Then came the
Image crowd and everybody got steroids and/or silicone... :-)
Hauss James Reinbold
Felix J. Torres
<el...@andrew.cmu.edu> says:
>of cours, you have to take into consideration that Kitty is still a
>kitten(still a kid, I mean). She still might have some developing to do
>
>"and if ya don't know, now ya know!"
You clearly haven't been skimming Excalibur lately.
Her appearance varies with the artist, but if she does any more developing
she'll be in early Power Girl territory (the Wally Wood version). :-)
Elliott James Lawrence
>i know. one of the original aspects that i liked about pstche (or moirage
>or moonstar) was that she was "flatchested" as was kitty pride.
of cours, you have to take into consideration that Kitty is still a
kitten(still a kid, I mean). She still might have some developing to do
elliott
Dwayne MacKinnon
>You're absolutely right -- it's hard to find a flat-chested (or even
>NORMALLY-ENDOWED) female super hero out there. When Dwight Coye, James
>Brock and I conceived of the female version of Turbo (auxiliary member of
>NEW WARRIORS), we tried to make her "average" in that department.
>Well, by the time she had her first splash page (i.e. her first
>appearance), she had gained at least two cup sizes! What can I say, guys
>want to draw big ones...
>--Evan Skolnick
First off, Evan, welcome back!! Either I've been missing your posts or you
haven't been around lately. (Or lurking. Lurking is always a possibility.)
First off.... you created Turbo? Interesting. Now that I know that
little tidbit of info, I feel completely justified in demanding a Turbo
origin, SOON!!!! :-) :-)
Also.... about your first issue of New Warriors.... I'm pretty neutral.
I'm sorry, but the "Warriors in a war zone" bit has been done before, so I
find it rather uninteresting. Plus, as Dave Van Domelen noted in his review,
there was a bit too much brutality in there to suit my tastes. But, I've been
with these characters from the beginning, so I'm gonna give you a few more
issues to get your "sea legs" under you. I've always believed in giving
people a fair chance.
Looking forward to the next issue......
DMK - Keeper of the Alpha Flight flame.
--
"Making tough decisions is what got me into this mess in the first place."
- Weapon Omega, Alpha Flight #104
Dwayne MacKinnon My opinions are my own,
910...@dragon.acadiau.ca never those of my employer.
Eric Tolle
After a bs session with a female friend, we came to the conclusion that it was
because the artists had never actually seen a naked women (outside of
Penthouse mags), and had 'learned' to draw them from going back and reading
old copies of comics.
That's why the two of us are taking up a collection to send some lucky
comic artists to life Drawing class. Send your non-tax deductable
contribution to 'Send A Hack to School', care of Im...er, Val, er...actually
I better not name any names here....
Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu
Cause some kid will get all upset that we're ragging on his favorite
comic company...
EvanSkol
Tim Hewing
>From: unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu (Eric Tolle)
>Subject: Re: Female Superheroes Superpowers
>Date: 17 Nov 1994 23:37:51 GMT
NOt a bad idea but seriously what kind of curriculm(sp) do they teach at
"comic book art" schools such as Kubert's?(Are there any other
official "comic book art" schools?)
Tim Hewing Phone: (217)333-1070
Broadcast Operator FAX: (217)244-6386
WILL-TV Internet: t-he...@uiuc.edu
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
The Mystic Mongoose
1. For every big-breasted female, there's a overly muscled guy.
2. Spandex bodysuits show off women's breasts fairly well.
3. Not all artists draw similarly.
4. Not all female superheroes have 'huge' breasts.
5. Saying anyone 'should get out more' is a juvenile tactic.
6. But yes, there is a tendency to dramatize the chest in females in the
comic book industry. So? If you don't enjoy it, find comics that don't and read
those.
The Mystic Mongoose, aka Robert W. Armstrong
"Gah! That's Wonder Woman? That's.. that's.. biologically unrealistic!"
-Kristen Armstrong, on seeing cover to WW #0.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Gee, 'Female Physiques' has returned again...
:
: 1. For every big-breasted female, there's a overly muscled guy.
And this is supposed to make either "okay"?
- Elayne
The Mystic Mongoose
basis of 'comic book artists need to get out more' is not valid, as they show
a similar exaggeration in male physiques.
The Mystic Mongoose, aka Robert W. Armstrong
the middle of the people in green shirts, Thanksgiving morn on ABC!
Daniel Yauger
Excerpts 19-Nov-94 Re: Female Superheroes Superpowers.. by E.
Wechsler-Chaput@panix
But is it really wrong? The entire concept behind superheroes is
that they're larger than life, both in action and physique. Otherwise,
they wouldn't be half as exciting to read about.
The only complaint I have about the treatment of female characters
in comics is that their costumes seem a lot tighter than those of the
males. If these costumes are showing nipples so well, why aren't
certain areas of the men being shown equally detailed?
-Daniel Yauger-
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash, 'Army of Darkness'
EvanSkol
910...@dragon.acadiau.ca (Dwayne MacKinnon) writes:
<<<< First off, Evan, welcome back!! Either I've been missing your posts
or you haven't been around lately. (Or lurking. Lurking is always a
possibility.)
First off.... you created Turbo? Interesting. Now that I know that
little tidbit of info, I feel completely justified in demanding a Turbo
origin, SOON!!!! :-) :-)
Also.... about your first issue of New Warriors.... I'm pretty
neutral.
I'm sorry, but the "Warriors in a war zone" bit has been done before, so I
find it rather uninteresting. Plus, as Dave Van Domelen noted in his
review, there was a bit too much brutality in there to suit my tastes.
But, I've been with these characters from the beginning, so I'm gonna give
you a few more issues to get your "sea legs" under you. I've always
believed in giving people a fair chance.
Looking forward to the next issue...... >>>>
First off, Dwayne, thanks for spelling my name correctly! You get a gold
star!
I CO-created Turbo, yes, and I've been itching to tell that origin story
in a TURBO limited series for over five years! But I guess a story arc
within the confines of NEW WARRIORS will do fine (and yes, it's in the
works)!
Sorry you were underwhelmed by my first issue of WARRIORS. I felt it
worked out pretty well (and there was no more brutality in the story than
has already happened in our REAL-WORLD Rwanda, which was one of the
story's points), but to be honest, I feel that #55 is better, and #56 even
better than that! In a couple of weeks you can let me know if you agree.
And yes ... I've been lurking. I'm the kind of guy who speaks when spoken
to (at least on the Internet).
Looking forward to your reaction to the next issue...
--Evan
Johanna Draper
The Mystic Mongoose <tmmon...@delphi.com> wrote:
>1. For every big-breasted female, there's a overly muscled guy.
Muscles aren't linked to sexuality as strongly as breasts are.
Muscles make sense in context.
Men aren't sexualized and objectified in every other media as well.
>2. Spandex bodysuits show off women's breasts fairly well.
As someone else pointed out, women's are drawn tighter than men's.
>3. Not all artists draw similarly.
Then why are there a variety of body types for men and not for women?
>4. Not all female superheroes have 'huge' breasts.
See #3. Female superheros have a range of breast sizes, but they begin at
Dolly Parton level (in our world).
Women are also drawn in cheesecake type poses, whereas men are drawn in
action or achieving something.
You can say "if you don't like it, don't read it," but I prefer to make
known ways that the genre can improve. What other choice do I have if I
want to read superhero comics?
Johanna
The Mystic Mongoose
>The Mystic Mongoose <tmmon...@delphi.com> wrote:
>
>>1. For every big-breasted female, there's a overly muscled guy.
>
>Muscles aren't linked to sexuality as strongly as breasts are.
>Muscles make sense in context.
>Men aren't sexualized and objectified in every other media as well.
Superheroes. You are correct in that there is not as *strong* of a link between
muscles and sexuality as there is breasts and sexuality, but there is
certainly a link. And yes, muscles do make sense in context.
>>2. Spandex bodysuits show off women's breasts fairly well.
>
>As someone else pointed out, women's are drawn tighter than men's.
cosumes that must have been vacusealed on them. I don;t see any significant
differentiation in costume tightness from what I've read.
>>3. Not all artists draw similarly.
>
>Then why are there a variety of body types for men and not for women?
unfortunately. Oh, and Spider-man skinny and highly jointed. There is
steroetyping and over-exaggeration in *both*. Admittedly, there is a hgher
incidence of Similar ody Type in females.
>>4. Not all female superheroes have 'huge' breasts.
>
>See #3. Female superheros have a range of breast sizes, but they begin at
>Dolly Parton level (in our world).
Most treatments of the Wasp as examples to the contrary. However, a
high percentage of females to have large breasts. I'm just pointing out that
not *all* of them do.
>Women are also drawn in cheesecake type poses, whereas men are drawn in
>action or achieving something.
>You can say "if you don't like it, don't read it," but I prefer to make
>known ways that the genre can improve. What other choice do I have if I
>want to read superhero comics?
comics that are good about this type of thing; I've listed some, and could list
others. I don;t disagree that women are *generally* or *often* bodily/costumely
stereotypical in comics, but they aren't *always* the case, and I don;t think
the motivation behind it is always or even often one of sexism.
The Mystic Mongoose, aka Robert W. Armstrong
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: But is it really wrong? The entire concept behind superheroes is
: that they're larger than life, both in action and physique. Otherwise,
: they wouldn't be half as exciting to read about.
: The only complaint I have about the treatment of female characters
: in comics is that their costumes seem a lot tighter than those of the
: males. If these costumes are showing nipples so well, why aren't
: certain areas of the men being shown equally detailed?
Well, I put "okay" in quotations for a reason. I do recognize the point
you're making vis a vis fantasy, it's just that - as you note - teenboy
fantasies are catered to a LOT more than women's fantasies, IMHO.
Personally, *I* wouldn't mind a bit more crotch detail in some of those
guys, woof... But seriously, for me the fantasy element lies much more in
the writing, in the IDEAS behind the action, in the CHARACTERS, than in
how they're packaged. I've always been more of a reader of writing than
a viewer of art, I'm afraid.
- Elayne
Daniel Yauger
Excerpts by E. Wechsler-Chaput@panix
> Daniel Yauger (dy...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
>
> Well, I put "okay" in quotations for a reason. I do recognize the point
> you're making vis a vis fantasy, it's just that - as you note - teenboy
> fantasies are catered to a LOT more than women's fantasies, IMHO.
> Personally, *I* wouldn't mind a bit more crotch detail in some of those
> guys, woof... But seriously, for me the fantasy element lies much more in
> the writing, in the IDEAS behind the action, in the CHARACTERS, than in
> how they're packaged. I've always been more of a reader of writing than
> a viewer of art, I'm afraid.
>
> - Elayne
Ooops! I missed the quotes, but I do understand your points about
inequality in terms of who comics are being aimed at. My own views are
that if the sexes are treated differently, there is sexism. That's why
I find tighter costumes on female characters sexist, but not large
breasts, as large muscles are also depicted on men.
With the limitations of sequential art, it is necessary to tell a
lot more about something with a single picture than in a few seconds of
a movie. This is one reason comics must exagerate things to get their
points across better. One of these exagerations is in character design,
where for the 'superhero' genre idealized versions of people are needed.
The ideals of masculinity are muscles, and thus they are
emphasized. The ideals of femininity are breasts, which are thus also
emphasized in comics. Sexism has been the cause of these idealizations,
but I don't think the use of these ideals in the 'superhero' genre is
'sexist'. The things that brought about these ideals were wrong, but I
do not think the ideals are themselves wrong. They further
characterization by showing that these 'superheroes' are indeed larger
than life, that they represent what society views as 'super'.
Someone pointed out that breasts are seen as more sexual than
muscles. Yes, but thanks to the Victorians, what part of the female
anatomy hasn't become more sexual than that of the corresponding male
part? Unless they were covered head to toe, female characters would
always be sexist by this definition.
As for the story being more important, I agree, but as a comic book
is such a visual medium, I think art has to complement the story and be
equally important in carrying forth ideas. For example, Sam Keith's
'the Maxx' has a really cartoony look which I would not usually like.
However, he combines his use of panels and other art so as to maximize
the effect of the story in such a way, that I can't help but to come
back every issue. Comics, at their best, are a synthesis of literature
and art, not a weak imitation of one or the other.
Well, that's my rant for now. Thanks for listening. Opinions?
Eric Tolle
>>: 1. For every big-breasted female, there's a overly muscled guy.
>>And this is supposed to make either "okay"?
>No, it's supposed to point out that complaining about breast sizes on the
>basis of 'comic book artists need to get out more' is not valid, as they show
>a similar exaggeration in male physiques.
Hmmph. I'd say it actually means that the comic artists are
passing up a chance to draw halfway reaslistically in favor of the
steriotypical Marvel/DC/Image/Wahtever Way.
i will note that that in older comics (_old_ batemans for example) the
characters while muscled did not have the 'scales upon bumps' look that's so
popular these days. You can call it artistic exaggeration, but I think it's
more in the line of passing over actully 'creating' a body in favor of just
copying a corporation template.
Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu
I know, i know, talking about 'realism' in comics, but I still think they're
badly drawn...
Eric Tolle
>: The only complaint I have about the treatment of female characters
>: in comics is that their costumes seem a lot tighter than those of the
>: males. If these costumes are showing nipples so well, why aren't
>: certain areas of the men being shown equally detailed?
Unfortunatly youre coming to the _real_ angst and tragedy of superheroes.
The sad, sad thing is the men's crotchs are equally as detailed and tight
as the female's breasts in the costumes. The result is that the men cover
up their embarressment and shame by carrying around huge guns and engaging
in massive amounts of ultraviolence.
Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu
And here you thought they all were wearing cups....
Johanna Draper
The Mystic Mongoose <tmmon...@delphi.com> wrote:
>Johanna Draper <sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> writes:
>
>>The Mystic Mongoose <tmmon...@delphi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>1. For every big-breasted female, there's a overly muscled guy.
>>
>
>We're not arguing other media here, Johanna. Just comic books and
>Superheroes.
I wasn't aware that we'd already set up the boundary. Regardless, you can't
discuss comics in a vacuum. You're comparing number of portrayals, as am I,
I'm just widening the group considered.
You can't easily separate comics from their cartoon, movie, and video
influences. When women are bombarded with images that tell them they're
only suited for one thing, then the portrayal of that gender in any
particular medium must be considered in light of those other influences.
What I'm trying to say is: if women were portrayed as equal in other media,
then the comic portrayal wouldn't matter so much. It wouldn't be supported
elsewhere, and other portrayals wouldn't reinforce that attitude. But as
things stand, I can't escape these pressures in comics, and in some ways,
seeing these negative attitudes in my entertainment, my escapism, is more
devastating.
>>Women are also drawn in cheesecake type poses, whereas men are drawn in
>>action or achieving something.
>
>This is a bit of a generalization...
And the rest of this conversation isn't? :)
Let me give you an example. I was reading a back issue of Flash. On one
page, the artist draws Linda talking on the phone. Her body is drawn full
over all the other panels on the page, and her body structure is
better suited for lying back on a bed than standing in a kitchen. Her knee
is cocked and her back is arched. I don't see males drawn like this when
they're supposedly just standing around.
>I don;t disagree that women are *generally* or *often* bodily/costumely
>stereotypical in comics, but they aren't *always* the case, and I don;t think
>the motivation behind it is always or even often one of sexism.
When often is 90% or so of the time, it doesn't have to be always to
demonstrate the point.
Would you like to suggest another reason that doesn't stem from treating
women primarily as sex objects? Note that I'm not accusing any particular
person of sexism, but I think it's fairly obvious that the portrayal of
women in comics comes from a pervasive societal attitude that is commonly
described as sexist.
Johanna
Felix J. Torres
>
>In <5kw08Rz.t...@delphi.com> The Mystic Mongoose <tmmon...@delphi.com> writes:
>
>>>: 1. For every big-breasted female, there's a overly muscled guy.
>>>And this is supposed to make either "okay"?
>>No, it's supposed to point out that complaining about breast sizes on the
>>basis of 'comic book artists need to get out more' is not valid, as they show
>>a similar exaggeration in male physiques.
>
>Hmmph. I'd say it actually means that the comic artists are
>passing up a chance to draw halfway reaslistically in favor of the
>steriotypical Marvel/DC/Image/Wahtever Way.
>
>i will note that that in older comics (_old_ batemans for example) the
>characters while muscled did not have the 'scales upon bumps' look that's so
>popular these days. You can call it artistic exaggeration, but I think it's
>more in the line of passing over actully 'creating' a body in favor of just
>copying a corporation template.
>
is making a statement?
A "realistic"(Grey Morrow/Alex Toth) type of artist says "I want my characters
to look like real people." These guys go to the trouble of drawing *everything*
to resemble real world objects as much as possible. Cars are often recognizable
brands and models. Women usually still look like supermodels, but they're within
the laws of physics.
A cartoony/stylized (Joe Staton/Jack Kirby/Giffen/Jim Lee) type says "This stuff
is fantasy anyway, so I want it to look as different from reality as possible.
I want it to reflect *my* style over everything else. Consider the stereotypical
Kirby-esque super-science hardware; nobody expects a real world device to look
like that, just like nobody expects people to have square fingertips. :-)
Most artists seem to drift over time into the second camp and those that stay
in the first, do so because they choose to adopt such a style as their "signature".
The question here, though, is why do artists *choose* to draw characters with
certain characteristic exagerated? It is probably the same reason why everybody
carries a humoungous gun, a trench coat, *and* body armor these days.
It sells.
What artists draw is what they feel comfortable with or what they feel they have
to draw to sell their product and make a living. It is a hell of a lot easier to
replicate the hot-artist-of-the-week and get work, than it is to try to sell a
unique vision.
As long as it sells, they'll keep on doing it.
Is the stuff they produce sexist? Hell, yes.
Are the artists/companbies themselves, sexist? Probably not. They're probably a
bunch of well-adjusted, sensitive and caring bunch of young democrats that would
never dream of insulting or demeaning another human being. But, look where the
money is. Look at the demographics that such product produces and is produced by.
The problem is not the artists.
Or the editors.
Or the companies.
It is the industry itself.
What we are facing is a feedback loop where certain conventions have become standardized.
The same feedback loop that is reducing the industry to 90% super-hero teams is also
driving the growing stereotypical stylization of the characters, male, female, and
alien.
It's a fad. And fads tend to get milked for all they're worth.
Technically, the fad will wear itself out sooner or later.
The problem is, right now it looks more likely to be later than sooner.
We all know that, style sells more than story (substance), right?
Same old same old...
Doctor Feelglenn
>i will note that that in older comics (_old_ batemans for example) the
>characters while muscled did not have the 'scales upon bumps' look that's so
>popular these days. You can call it artistic exaggeration, but I think it's
>more in the line of passing over actully 'creating' a body in favor of just
>copying a corporation template.
Yes, but those old Batemans made up for what they were missing in the
way of sex appeal by adding great gobs of gore, so you pays your money
and you takes your chances. Oh that was Batesman, wasn't it. Sorry.
Pax ex machina,
Glenn
......................................................................
"Satan has just inherited What If"
--- Marie Javins
g-car...@uchicago.edu, if you must know
<A HREF="http://www.digimark.net/wraith/">Phone Homey the Page!</A>
......................................................................
Abhiji...@transarc.com
sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
>When women are bombarded with images that tell them they're
> only suited for one thing, then the portrayal of that gender in any
> particular medium must be considered in light of those other
>influences.
Oh, and what about all the comics which show women as leaders of
superhero teams or as professionals : scientists, lawyers, reporters
etc. ? Maybe those are intended as positive images. Nah, it couldn't
be.
> elsewhere, and other portrayals wouldn't reinforce that attitude. But as
> things stand, I can't escape these pressures in comics, and in some ways,
> seeing these negative attitudes in my entertainment, my escapism, is more
> devastating.
Simple Solution : If this bothers you so much, buy comics which DON'T
have this problem. Of the 8 comics I bought this week, 6: Shaman's
Tears, Hellblazer, Icon, Starman, Prince Valiant, Sandman Mystery
Theater don't have a problem at all (if you want beefcake, Shaman's
Tears is a good place to look). JLA is borderline and Extreme Justice
is too early to tell.
> >>Women are also drawn in cheesecake type poses, whereas men are drawn in
> >>action or achieving something.
Gosh, my copy of Extreme Justice has Maxima blowing up lots of things.
It has Maxima taking up poses, but it also has Captain Atom doing just
that :-).
But there's an interesting point to be made here. Even artists like
George Perez, Brian Bolland or John Byrne typically show female
superheroines who are drop dead gorgeous and have physiques like
supermodels (if not like Dolly Parton). Is that equally sexist ? If
not, why not ?
The Mystic Mongoose
>In <5kw08Rz.t...@delphi.com> The Mystic Mongoose <tmmon...@delphi.com> writes:
>
>>>: 1. For every big-breasted female, there's a overly muscled guy.
>>>And this is supposed to make either "okay"?
>>No, it's supposed to point out that complaining about breast sizes on the
>>basis of 'comic book artists need to get out more' is not valid, as they show
>>a similar exaggeration in male physiques.
>Hmmph. I'd say it actually means that the comic artists are
>passing up a chance to draw halfway reaslistically in favor of the
>steriotypical Marvel/DC/Image/Wahtever Way.
>i will note that that in older comics (_old_ batemans for example) the
>characters while muscled did not have the 'scales upon bumps' look that's so
>popular these days. You can call it artistic exaggeration, but I think it's
still exaggeration, but of a different sort. I'd say it's a matter of realism
vs expressionism.
The Mystic Mongoose
>In article <hgzXdGB.t...@delphi.com>,
>The Mystic Mongoose <tmmon...@delphi.com> wrote:
>>Johanna Draper <sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> writes:
>>
>>>The Mystic Mongoose <tmmon...@delphi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>1. For every big-breasted female, there's a overly muscled guy.
>>>
>>>Men aren't sexualized and objectified in every other media as well.
>>We're not arguing other media here, Johanna. Just comic books and
>>Superheroes.
>I wasn't aware that we'd already set up the boundary.
talking about: female Superheroes.
>You can't easily separate comics from their cartoon, movie, and video
>influences. When women are bombarded with images that tell them they're
>only suited for one thing, then the portrayal of that gender in any
>particular medium must be considered in light of those other influences.
that sexism does not exist in other media- *or* comics. I'm trying to point out
that not every... oh, what's the term I want... emphasized bosom in comics is
an attempt to sell sex, and that not every bosom is emphasized.
>What I'm trying to say is: if women were portrayed as equal in other media,
>then the comic portrayal wouldn't matter so much. It wouldn't be supported
>elsewhere, and other portrayals wouldn't reinforce that attitude. But as
>things stand, I can't escape these pressures in comics, and in some ways,
>seeing these negative attitudes in my entertainment, my escapism, is more
>devastating.
you get upset over anything which is against them. Since you feel (and I
somewhat agree) that there's too much sexsim in other media, you can't
stand it when it's in comics as well. Is that what you're saying?
>>>Women are also drawn in cheesecake type poses, whereas men are drawn in
>>>action or achieving something.
>>
>>This is a bit of a generalization...
>
>And the rest of this conversation isn't? :)
>Let me give you an example. I was reading a back issue of Flash. On one
>page, the artist draws Linda talking on the phone. Her body is drawn full
>over all the other panels on the page, and her body structure is
>better suited for lying back on a bed than standing in a kitchen. Her knee
>is cocked and her back is arched. I don't see males drawn like this when
>they're supposedly just standing around.
Possibly cheesecakism, from what you've described. Then again, I've seen my own
siter in weird body contortions while on the phone.. but I digress.
>>I don;t disagree that women are *generally* or *often* bodily/costumely
>>stereotypical in comics, but they aren't *always* the case, and I don;t think
>>the motivation behind it is always or even often one of sexism.
>
>When often is 90% or so of the time, it doesn't have to be always to
>demonstrate the point.
'siter'. Gah. Horrid typo to have made. Anyway...)
I don;t think it's even 90%. I'd say maybe 50-60% of the time. I'd also say
that males are bodily/costumely stereotypical about 30-50% of the time. But
that's *my* reading of the comics. I expect you'd be more concerned about this
, and
have higher percentages. But 90%? Not unless you're including 'Bad Girl'
comics (which I never enjoyed, BID.).
>Would you like to suggest another reason that doesn't stem from treating
>women primarily as sex objects? Note that I'm not accusing any particular
2. Non-imitative art- people try to draw *better* than their predecessors (
which usually means exaggeration, of muscles *and* bosoms);
3. The aforementioned spandex factors.
The Mystic Mongoose, aka Robert W. Armstrong
watkins julia k
an Alan Moore / Alan Bolland (sp?) Superman annual. Batman, Robin (Jason
Todd before he got retcon'd & killed), & Wonderwoman are visiting
Superman; bringing a birthday present (maybe).
It's cold; you can see Bruce & Jason's breath. Diana, in skimpy costume,
is having no problem with the cold. Bruce, an aside to Jason, says
"Think clean thoughts."
Into Fortress of Solitude. Superman is standing there--caught in a trance--
with something alien stuck on his chest. Things look bad. Then the big
bad guy shows up. A captionless panel: Bruce & Diana look at each other.
Then Diana attacks & Bruce runs away. Diana, who has the better chance of
survival, is buying Bruce & Jason time to figure a rescue. I didn't even
notice it the first time through. The rest of the story is top-notch also.
Julie
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: I find tighter costumes on female characters sexist, but not large
: breasts, as large muscles are also depicted on men.
: emphasized. The ideals of femininity are breasts, which are thus also
But in reality (yeah, I know, we're not talking about reality, but
still), breasts are in NO way equivalent to muscles! They're friggin'
FAT glands! Yeah, I suppose some might consider large breasts to be some
sort of feminine ideal, but then some people consider Kate Moss to be
some sort of feminine ideal...
: Sexism has been the cause of these idealizations,
: but I don't think the use of these ideals in the 'superhero' genre is
: 'sexist'. The things that brought about these ideals were wrong, but I
: do not think the ideals are themselves wrong.
Well, I kinda do. I'm not saying people shouldn't have ideals, but I
*am* saying that presenting a certain body type as THE ideal to a whole
mass of people, many of whom never aspire to emulate (and many of whom
don't even CARE for) that particular body type, is wrong. Sure, bring on
the impossibly thin women with impossibly fatty mammaries (BTW, my
husband just wants to point out that, were there superheroines in REAL
life, they'd more likely resemble female body builders, who as you
probably know are ANYthing but big-breasted) - just bring on superheroes
whose body types look REAL too.
: They further
: characterization by showing that these 'superheroes' are indeed larger
: than life, that they represent what society views as 'super'.
I'd just rather see those "super" ideals represented by IDEAS and
CHARACTER instead of body type. Therein lies REAL heroism, REAL
larger-than-life people.
: Someone pointed out that breasts are seen as more sexual than
: muscles. Yes, but thanks to the Victorians, what part of the female
: anatomy hasn't become more sexual than that of the corresponding male
: part? Unless they were covered head to toe, female characters would
: always be sexist by this definition.
And even then, considering many of the dress codes in some Arab societies.
: As for the story being more important, I agree, but as a comic book
: is such a visual medium, I think art has to complement the story and be
: equally important in carrying forth ideas...
Complement, yes. Upstage, no.
- Elayne
Felix J. Torres
>
>My favorite example of female superpowers & good non-verbal writing was
>an Alan Moore / Alan Bolland (sp?) Superman annual. Batman, Robin (Jason
>Todd before he got retcon'd & killed), & Wonderwoman are visiting
>Superman; bringing a birthday present (maybe).
I'm pretty sure it was Dave Gibbons.
There was some pretty fun interplay with the birthday gifts, too.
Todd VerBeek, GWM
>ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) writes:
>> Surveys of women (and anecdotal evidence from gay men)
>> identify men's =butts= as the most commonly appreciated piece of anatomy.
>> But (or should I say "however" <grin>) in comics, those butts that are
>> not hidden by capes are typically pretty flat and formless. (This seems
>> to be changing, but butt/breast parity is still a long way off.)
>Well, we could change this. A letter writing campaign to DC :-). Better
>Butts :-).
<foraging for stamps> Who should I address my letter to?
>> Secondary sex traits like facial and body hair are also ignored.
>Well, I don't know. I seem to remember a lot of discussion about
>Superman's facial hair last year. A friend of mine said that she
>thought it was cute.
But doesn't that support my point? Cos last I looked, Supes didn't
=have= any "cute" facial hair (and the sexy Fabio hairdo has come under
fire from fans). It's a rarity.
>> Which is not to mention the =primary= male sex trait, which is often
>>=missing=.
>Well, the same goes for the primary female sex trait.
Not necessarily =missing=... just hidden by panty liners. No self-
respecting =male= sex object could say the same. <grin>
>> The traits usually exaggerated are the ones related to male =power=,
>> not sexuality.
>I thought male power was linked to sexuality :-).
Hmph. Typical male attitude. <smile>
Cheers, Todd "Yin and Yang. Chaos and Order. Smooth and Crunchy."
[Recommendations: Batman Adv., Blood Syndicate, Bone, Books of Magic,
Boom Boom, Damage, Flash, Gay Comics, getting a life, Hardware, Hepcats,
Hulk, Icon, Kobalt, Legion*, liberals, Madman, Negative Burn, Ninja HS,
One Eye Open One Eye Closed, Robin, safer sex, Savage Love, Spectre,
Starman, Static, sugarless gum (for people who chew gum), Superboy,
True Swamp, Xombi, and Xxxenophile.]
Todd VerBeek, GWM
>ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) writes...
>>There aren't many prominent straight female and gay male artists I can
>>point to, but you might try Colleen Doran, Howard Cruse, or P.Craig
>>Russell(*) for examples of man-I'd-like-to-have-sex-with renderings.
>>
>>(*) I don't know if Russell is gay, but it wouldn't surprise me, given the
>>way he renders the male body.
>Yep--- Mr.Russel is quite openly gay, but I don't know how you can tell that
>from the way that he draws. Is it because that it's finely-detailed or what?
I can't put my finger on anything in particular. Call it "intuition",
"gaydar", or just "I find his men attractive and can't imagine a straight
man figuring out how to do that". <shrug>
>He draws in ( I believe it's called ) a "Raphael-esque" manner, where the
>figures are supposed to look like that. The fact that he's gay has nothing
>to do with it .... The point is, you can't judge a book by it's
>cover.
I know that. (That's why I have such a difficult time finding dates... or
being =found by= them. <grin>) I wasn't claiming that I =could=; that's
why I left the question of PCR's orientation up in the air.
>>Like I've said before, muscles aren't that big a =sexual= characteristic.
>>In fact, the body-builder-level muscles that superheroes typically sport
>>would often be a turn-off.
>Muscles aren't a turn-on, how about Linda Hamilton in T2 ( or Madonna at
>different parts in her career).
Didn't notice. <shrug>
Michael A. Chary
In a previous article, ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) says:
>I can't put my finger on anything in particular. Call it "intuition",
>"gaydar", or just "I find his men attractive and can't imagine a straight
>man figuring out how to do that". <shrug>
Oh, I've got happy feet, oh yes happy feet, and when they hear that low down
beat, they begin Daaaannn-sing, cuz I've got hap, hap, happy feet.
<tap,tap,shuffle,tap..tap,tap>
Oh, you didn't mean "gaydar" as "locate happy people." my bad :):)
--
"Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies." - Rob Knauerhase
"Ipsa scientia potestas est" - Roger Bacon
"Some say that punning is the lowest form of humour, but poetry is verse."
"Number your magazine pages consecutively." - Bill Gaines on publishing
Todd VerBeek, GWM
>fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) says:
>>Michael A. Chary (ma...@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:
>>: defined muscles on men are generally conssidered attractive in our society.
>>Not this portion of it, I'm afraid.
>If you mean you, personally, don't find such
>attractive, well that's clearly your business. I would submit, though,
>that if you refer to Usenet, or even this newsgroup, you might have a
>harder time making a case for that assertion.
Are you saying that you think the majority of netters find big muscles
sexually attractive? If so, I bet some of the guys here would like you
to step outside for a few minutes. <grin> Even if you restricted the
straw poll to the appropriate demographic target, I suspect you'd be
disappointed by the response.
Michael A. Chary
In a previous article, ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) says:
>ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>>fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) says:
>>>Michael A. Chary (ma...@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:
>>>: defined muscles on men are generally conssidered attractive in our society.
>
>>>Not this portion of it, I'm afraid.
>
>>If you mean you, personally, don't find such
>>attractive, well that's clearly your business. I would submit, though,
>>that if you refer to Usenet, or even this newsgroup, you might have a
>>harder time making a case for that assertion.
>
>Are you saying that you think the majority of netters find big muscles
>sexually attractive? If so, I bet some of the guys here would like you
I didn't say anything about "big muscles." I said "defined muscles."
There is a substantial difference. I know many, many, many people,
including on this newsgroup who consider a "ripped" look attractive.
Either they find it attractive, or they think others will find it so.
>to step outside for a few minutes. <grin> Even if you restricted the
What is it with threats here? This is the third time in as many moths
someone has at least insinuated violence against me..
T Nielsen Hayden
of water balloons -- you know, the kind where you could tuck a magic marker
into the under-cleavage and not have it fall out? My best guess is that
artists get into the habit of drawing breasts that way and just stop
thinking about any real-world aspects they might have. For instance, that
ripely tumescent shape can only be produced by flesh that's less than
perfectly firm; and yet, when the character moves, the shape of her breasts
doesn't change. What are they -- styrofoam falsies?
And female characters do indeed turn up in cheesecake postures that have
nothing to do with the ostensible action of the moment. In a recent issue of
a fairly major book there was a scene in which a pair of superheroes -- one
male, one female, both members of the same team -- had a brief exchange of
dialogue in which they disagreed with one another. The guy's movements were
within normal human range. The babe, in spandex and high heels, (1.) stood
with her feet close together and her knees locked; (2.) stuck out her rear;
(3.) arched her lower back like a yoga adept; (4.) threw her chest forward
while clasping her hands behind her tailbone; and (5.) had to tilt her head
way back to talk to the guy, because otherwise her stance would have had her
looking him directly in the chest.
Men who think there's anything natural about that position should try it.
Standing with your heels on a dictionary and your toes on the floor will
duplicate the effect of the shoes.
Still, I'd be slow to accuse the artists (or their editors, or their
publishers) of conscious sexism. Cheesecake is a set of visual cliches the
artists pick up and absent-mindedly duplicate. Also, breasts and body
language aren't the only area where comics has a sparse visual vocabulary.
You couldn't tell Rogue and Jean Grey apart if Rogue didn't have that white
splotch in her hair; and, aside from the absence of pupils, it's only the
colorist that makes it possible to distinguish either of them from Storm.
Most comics feature a very stripped-down set of artistic conventions in
which the normal variations of height, proportion, body type, head shape,
facial features, etc. almost completely disappear. Interestingly, when you
do get genuine physical individuation, it's far likelier to occur in male
characters.
I don't know how much good it would do to yelp about sexual stereotyping.
I'd rather point out to artist-wannabes that if they want their work to
stand out, learning to draw real people is a startlingly effective
technique.
:::Teresa Nielsen-Hayden
:::t...@panix.com
GollyMoses
1. For every big-breasted female, there's a overly muscled guy.
There's also a reptilian creature with big ol' horns and a saliva problem.
Someone else said:
Not all artists draw the same (or something like that).
____________
Hmm. them why do all their characters *look* the same?
Bottom line on all this is that we crave diversity. We want more
Zeppelins, we want more "real people." (or at least I do).
Carl Fink
I think the best quote on, um, artistic invention in the field of
female anatomy comes from Peter David, on GEnie, referring to the
reason Betty Banner was lying on the ground at the end of the current
Hulk:
"Actually, Betty was hurled to the ground due to the unexpected
weight of her newly massive breasts."
And the artist had *reduced* her bust size from the original version!
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com CARL.FINK (GEnie)
Todd VerBeek, GWM
>In a previous article, ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) says:
>>ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>>>fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) says:
>>>>Michael A. Chary (ma...@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:
>>>>: defined muscles on men are generally conssidered attractive in our society.
>>>>Not this portion of it, I'm afraid.
>>>If you mean you, personally, don't find such
>>>attractive, well that's clearly your business. I would submit, though,
>>>that if you refer to Usenet, or even this newsgroup, you might have a
>>>harder time making a case for that assertion.
>>Are you saying that you think the majority of netters find big muscles
>>sexually attractive? If so, I bet some of the guys here would like you
>I didn't say anything about "big muscles." I said "defined muscles."
>There is a substantial difference. I know many, many, many people,
>including on this newsgroup who consider a "ripped" look attractive.
>Either they find it attractive, or they think others will find it so.
OK, that's a good distinction, and you're right: =definition= is commonly
considered attractive (though not to the point where you can make out the
striations in the ligaments... ick!). Muscle =size= is the characteristic
that gets the most attention, and it didn't register for me when you
brought up a different one.
>>to step outside for a few minutes. <grin> Even if you restricted the
>What is it with threats here? This is the third time in as many moths
>someone has at least insinuated violence against me..
Relax, Michael. I was not threatening you. I was kidding with you,
about the fact that there are many straight men here, that most of them
would not find men of =any= kind attractive, and that they might take
offense at a statement that apparently implied that they would. I was
not in the least bit serious, nor was I advocating it at all.
Michael A. Chary
In a previous article, ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) says:
>ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>>In a previous article, ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) says:
>OK, that's a good distinction, and you're right: =definition= is commonly
>considered attractive (though not to the point where you can make out the
>striations in the ligaments... ick!). Muscle =size= is the characteristic
>that gets the most attention, and it didn't register for me when you
>brought up a different one.
Well, learn to read :):):):):) (just kidding, just kidding)
>>>to step outside for a few minutes. <grin> Even if you restricted the
>>What is it with threats here? This is the third time in as many moths
>>someone has at least insinuated violence against me..
>Relax, Michael. I was not threatening you. I was kidding with you,
>about the fact that there are many straight men here, that most of them
>would not find men of =any= kind attractive, and that they might take
>offense at a statement that apparently implied that they would. I was
>not in the least bit serious, nor was I advocating it at all.
I know, it's just that sort of thing rather common, and not only on the net
(threatening people, I mean.) I am trying to stomp it out.
--
"Purple Haze all in my brain. Lately things just don't seem the same. I
feel funny, but I don't know why. 'Scuse me while I kiss the sky...(incredible
guitar riff)" -- Jimi Hendrix, the Master of the Stratocaster, born this
week in 1942. Happy 52nd, Jimi, hope you're even more experienced. :^)
Dawn Friedman
Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>I didn't say anything about "big muscles." I said "defined muscles."
>There is a substantial difference. I know many, many, many people,
>including on this newsgroup who consider a "ripped" look attractive.
>Either they find it attractive, or they think others will find it so.
>
Most of the folks at the gym fall into one of four categories:
no visible muscles; small, gently-defined muscles; medium to big,
gently defined muscles; and big, well-defined muscles. I can't
even imagine the regimen that would give you small muscles but a
well-cut look.
Besides, really "ripped" surface musculature generally appears only
in superhero parodies. Megaton Man had bunched muscle-fiber striations,
popped veins everywhere, and so forth. Other superheroes have had
smooth-surfaced musculature with nice cuts between the muscles.
Most of the women I know like to see light to medium musculature and
definition, but not the skinless effect of no-fat-layer ripping.
Women who like body-builder muscles seem to be a respectable minority.
Which seems to support the idea that most comics are by-males-for-males,
just as most media slash is by-females-for-females (and it's fun to
compare the salient physical features in the genres. In fact, it's fun
to compare almost anything in the genres -- for example, the way each
treats angst.) This wouldn't be any problem at all if not for the
annoying fact that TV and movies also seem to be largely by-males-for-males.
But things are improving, not least because males seem to be developing
broader interests...
--
Dawn Sharon frie...@husc.harvard.edu
"For that matter, why were Kerr's nails so sharp? Could he be
filing them? Sharpening them on fractious computer consoles?"
--Aurora
Michael A. Chary
In a previous article, frie...@fas.harvard.edu (Dawn Friedman) says:
>Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>I didn't say anything about "big muscles." I said "defined muscles."
>>There is a substantial difference. I know many, many, many people,
>>including on this newsgroup who consider a "ripped" look attractive.
>>Either they find it attractive, or they think others will find it so.
>>
> Where are all these people with small, ripped-look muscles?
Well, look on a basketball court, a gynastics competition, a marathon, a
swim meet, etc.
>Most of the folks at the gym fall into one of four categories:
>no visible muscles; small, gently-defined muscles; medium to big,
>gently defined muscles; and big, well-defined muscles. I can't
>even imagine the regimen that would give you small muscles but a
>well-cut look.
I didn't say *anything* about muscle size, but a mixture of aerobic
conditioning and lifting regimendesigned with high reps/lower weight will
give a defined rather than a huge look.
>
> Besides, really "ripped" surface musculature generally appears only
>in superhero parodies. Megaton Man had bunched muscle-fiber striations,
>popped veins everywhere, and so forth. Other superheroes have had
>smooth-surfaced musculature with nice cuts between the muscles.
Jim Aparo, John Byrne, Frank Miller, Msarshall Rgoers, Neal Adams.
A bunch of artists draw ripped characters who don't look like Arnie.
> Most of the women I know like to see light to medium musculature and
>definition, but not the skinless effect of no-fat-layer ripping.
>Women who like body-builder muscles seem to be a respectable minority.
>
I have never said anything contrary to this.
> Which seems to support the idea that most comics are by-males-for-males,
How odes it support that idea? I don't disagree that such is the case, but
I see no connection between your facts and the phenomenon you use those
facts to try to support.
>just as most media slash is by-females-for-females (and it's fun to
>compare the salient physical features in the genres. In fact, it's fun
>to compare almost anything in the genres -- for example, the way each
>treats angst.) This wouldn't be any problem at all if not for the
>annoying fact that TV and movies also seem to be largely by-males-for-males.
>But things are improving, not least because males seem to be developing
>broader interests...
Speaking only for myself as a male, I find that last statement really
offensive, and as soon as I figure out how to use these opposable thumb
thingies, I will formulate a suitable reply.
Johanna Draper
<Abhiji...@transarc.com> wrote:
>
>Oh, and what about all the comics which show women as leaders of
>superhero teams or as professionals : scientists, lawyers, reporters
>etc. ? Maybe those are intended as positive images. Nah, it couldn't
>be.
I seem to recall the subject under discussion being female superhero
costumes and art styles. If you want to talk about role models, we can, but
they don't have anything to do with the current topic. Bringing them up
doesn't mean that women in superhero comics aren't drawn in a sexist
fashion.
>Simple Solution : If this bothers you so much, buy comics which DON'T
>have this problem.
Could you suggest a superhero comic with female characters that doesn't
have this problem? Out of your list (Shaman's Tears, Hellblazer, Icon,
Starman, Prince Valiant, Sandman Mystery Theater), I already read
Icon, and the others I'm either not familiar with or I know they don't
have any regular main female characters.
>Even artists like George Perez, Brian Bolland or John Byrne typically
>show female superheroines who are drop dead gorgeous and have
>physiques like supermodels (if not like Dolly Parton). Is that equally
>sexist ? If not, why not ?
Yes, that's sexist too. What's your point? Do you think that I'm saying
that only bad artists draw this way? I'm not. I don't consider those you
mention great artists, mostly because they don't seem able or willing to
draw a range of female figures.
Johanna
Johanna Draper
The Mystic Mongoose <tmmon...@delphi.com> wrote:
>I'm trying to point out
>that not every... oh, what's the term I want... emphasized bosom in comics is
>an attempt to sell sex, and that not every bosom is emphasized.
My mention of other media was meant to support my assertion that any
emphasized bosom is an attempt to sell sex because that's what our culture
has taught us to think.
As for the frequency of such bosoms, unless someone's aware of a study on
the subject, I think it boils down to how many you see and your tolerance
for such. I can't think of many female superheros who aren't overly
endowed. Can anyone else?
(If anyone has suggestions, mail them to me, and I'll start the list.
Unless someone already has one.)
>Since you feel (and I
>somewhat agree) that there's too much sexsim in other media, you can't
> stand it when it's in comics as well. Is that what you're saying?
Exactly. It's invading my escapism, darn it!
>Hmm. which issue is this? I've got a Flash collection of my own. Hmm.
Sorry, I don't remember. It would have been 20 - 10 issues ago. (I borrowed
them from a friend, so don't remember the exact number.)
Another great example from the same period: Jay and Wally are out running
on water. (They've got "Barry" with them, so it would have been from his
Return storyline.) They run by the shore, so we have two panels of women in
bikinis with the Flashes in the far background.
>Possibly cheesecakism, from what you've described. Then again, I've seen my
>own siter in weird body contortions while on the phone.. but I digress.
I doubt your sister contorts herself like she's posing for Penthouse ... :)
>I expect you'd be more concerned about this, and
>have higher percentages. But 90%? Not unless you're including 'Bad Girl'
>comics (which I never enjoyed, BID.).
But they're a significant part of the superhero market. Even more reason to
be concerned, IMO.
Johanna
Johanna Draper
T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Still, I'd be slow to accuse the artists (or their editors, or their
>publishers) of conscious sexism.
>do get genuine physical individuation, it's far likelier to occur in male
>characters.
That's precisely why I think it is sexist. If the artists can think, "Gee,
drawing the same guy all the time is boring and unrealistic, I'll make this
person look a little different," why can't they do the same for women?
Johanna
Scott Alan Malcomson
: Someone said:
: 1. For every big-breasted female, there's a overly muscled guy.
: ___________________________
: There's also a reptilian creature with big ol' horns and a saliva problem.
And in most cases, the reptile has more class, possibly because he or she
isn't intended to be a "serious" character and actually gets some depth
before the marketing department finds out about it.
: Someone else said:
: Not all artists draw the same (or something like that).
: ____________
: Hmm. them why do all their characters *look* the same?
Because the company says they have to in order to allow consistency during
any crossovers, amongst other reasons...can't have a Wolverine/Punisher
crossover if Punisher looks like a Tiny Toon and Wolverine doesn't...
: Bottom line on all this is that we crave diversity. We want more
: Zeppelins, we want more "real people." (or at least I do).
Try anthropomorphic comics. I especially recommend Fantagraphics'
long-defunct "Critters" line, which died primarily due to mismanagement.
Certain unpopular strips continued to be run in the face of waves of
letters begging them to be dropped, but nevertheless enough original and
interesting material crept in to help the title make it to #50. Check the
quarter racks at your local store and buy the lot; it's worth it!
---LCD
David Whiteley
: the subject, I think it boils down to how many you see and your tolerance
: for such. I can't think of many female superheros who aren't overly
: endowed. Can anyone else?
Well, if you want diverse female types "who aren't overly endowed",
I can think of some...
Zeppelin/Zephyr from HARBINGER
Terra from NEW TEEN TITANS (when George Perez drew her)
Jasmine from NEXT MEN
Jubilee and Shadwocat, depending on who's drawing them (I know,
they're still teenagers, but they count anyways)
Wasp (usually)
Raven (from NEW TEEN TITANS, again when Perez drew her)...
Dave Whiteley
Abhiji...@transarc.com
sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
> I seem to recall the subject under discussion being female superhero
> costumes and art styles.
I seem to recall that you said
>I wasn't aware that we'd already set up the boundary. Regardless, you can't
>discuss comics in a vacuum. You're comparing number of portrayals, as am I,
>I'm just widening the group considered.
You want to drag other media into the discussion and then you complain
because I drag in more aspects of comics portrayal ??
> >Simple Solution : If this bothers you so much, buy comics which DON'T
> >have this problem.
>
> Could you suggest a superhero comic with female characters that doesn't
> have this problem? Out of your list (Shaman's Tears, Hellblazer, Icon,
> Starman, Prince Valiant, Sandman Mystery Theater), I already read
> Icon, and the others I'm either not familiar with or I know they don't
> have any regular main female characters.
SMT has a female character with a role nearly equal to the main
character. Prince Valiant focused almost completely on a female
character this issue. Hellblazer has several recurring female
characters with fairly major roles. Starman and Shaman have some female
characters although it remains to be seen how long they will last.
As to other superhero titles, I don't consider Robin, both L* titles,
Superboy, Spectre, Flash, Fate, Green Arrow, Guy Gardner, Mr Hero, Next
Men, Swamp Thing, Clandestine, Ultraforce, most of the Super and Bat
titles (which I don't read, but have flipped through) to have any
problems. Probably Primal Force as well. I don't read most Marvel, any
Image or Valiant comics, or I could probably give you more examples.
[ Not all of these have a large number of female characters, but quite
a few do. ]
> >Even artists like George Perez, Brian Bolland or John Byrne typically
> >show female superheroines who are drop dead gorgeous and have
> >physiques like supermodels (if not like Dolly Parton). Is that equally
> >sexist ? If not, why not ?
>
> Yes, that's sexist too. What's your point?
They also draw males who have model-like physiques. Is that sexist too?
If not, why not ?
> Do you think that I'm saying
> that only bad artists draw this way? I'm not. I don't consider those you
> mention great artists, mostly because they don't seem able or willing to
> draw a range of female figures.
Perez, Bolland and Byrne can and have drawn a very, very wide variety
of figures (both male and female) at times. When drawing regular
superhero comics, their male and female characters show about the same
variation in figures. I can understand (and support) your objections
to the Jim Lee copycat artists, but it seems to me that you're all too
willing to brand any artist as sexist.
Do you consider Wil Eisner (famous for his female figures) a great
artist ? Milton Caniff (ditto) ? Whom do you consider a great artist ?
Abhijit
Michael A. Chary
If you don't consider Bolland, Perez, and Byrne great artists, then I
dismiss your opinion on the basis that you lack valid aesthetic judgement.
This opinion is so far outside the the general standards of the medium
(on a par with saying Speilberg, Scorcese, and Copalla are not great
directors) that it demands a defense. I challenge you to provide one the
doesn't invoke the idiosyncratic standard that "they don't seem able or
willing to draw a range of female figures." I standard which, I might add,
is provably false. Byrne, Perez, and Bolland have all shown old women,
average women, children, and many other varieties of women in their work.
They tend to draw beautiful women, but so did Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, and
Curt Swan. I challenge you, Johanna.
Eli McInnis
>Dave Whiteley
I used to really like The New Mutants (hey, they were pre-teens and teens
with problems ... and there were quite a lot of issues concerening teen
problems) .... And THEY WERN'T OVERDEVELLOPED (YEAH!!!) .... but THEN!
evil monster authors came in and decided when they become ONE year older
that BAM, they've got enormous (whchi is kind of revolting in ANY person
...depending on your weird fetishes) well ... you know what I mean ....
That mangled the concept of who Rahn was altogether .... I dropped the
ceries (and all others as well .... I was VERY disapointed) ... darn, I
have to go to class... guess I'll talk later..
E-mail 014...@dragon.acadiau.ca
--
E-mail 014...@dragon.acadiau.ca
Charles M Seaton
[Replying to Johanna:]
: If you don't consider Bolland, Perez, and Byrne great artists, then I
: dismiss your opinion on the basis that you lack valid aesthetic judgement.
: This opinion is so far outside the the general standards of the medium
: (on a par with saying Speilberg, Scorcese, and Copalla are not great
: directors) that it demands a defense.
Talk about provincialism! ;)
Them there's the general standards of the superhero genre, *not* the
general standards of the entire medium - probably very few people of
the thousands of people who consider "Krazy Kat" or R. Crumb the
height of the medium would say that George Perez is a great artist.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of any of them, although they've all
done work I like from time to time. Bolland draws stiffly and
renders to death, Perez is workmanlike but bland as hell, and Byrne
is Kirby mushed into babyfood. (IMHO, obviously.)
: I challenge you to provide one the doesn't invoke the idiosyncratic
: standard that "they don't seem able or willing to draw a range of
: female figures." [...]
(As if there are non-idiosyncratic standards!) Johanna's seems like
a perfectly good standard to me; if an artist draws the same cliched
woman (or man) over and over again, it's boring, and boring art is
bad art. And if the one woman drawn is an annoying, sexist
characature (see Dave Stevens), then the female characters will be
both annoying and boring, which isn't a great combination.
(Nor do I see it as a mitigating factor that Bolland is able to draw
non-cliched women, but usually chooses not to. Kind of the opposite,
really...)
(Okay, yes; I don't think that this would be good as someone's sole
standard for determing good from bad art - but I don't think Johanna
ever said this was her ONLY standard. As one of several standards,
it's perfectly legitimate.)
Someone brought up the example of Eisner; yeah, he's a great
cartoonist, but his recent work - when he's started drawing women
who look like full, varied characters, rather than pin-ups - is much
to be prefered. The mother in "To The Heart of the Storm" has much
more character than any of the interchangable good girls in "The
Spirit."
Yours,
--Ennead
Charles M Seaton
[Someone wrote:]
: > >Even artists like George Perez, Brian Bolland or John Byrne typically
: > >show female superheroines who are drop dead gorgeous and have
: > >physiques like supermodels (if not like Dolly Parton). Is that equally
: > >sexist ? If not, why not ?
[Johanna:]
: > Yes, that's sexist too. What's your point?
[Abhijit:]
: They also draw males who have model-like physiques. Is that sexist too?
: If not, why not ?
The Very Brief Answer: Sexism is not an absolute, but a social
construct. In the context of a sexist society, a sexist way of
treating female characters is not necessarily a sexist way of
treating male characters.
(And to talk about sexism outside of the context of society is to
talk nonsense, of course.)
Personally, I find the way (to pick one) Bolland draws both sexes in
superhero comics to be sexist - he tends to draw women as pin-ups,
men as powerhouses, which is a pretty sexist take on gender, imo.
Outside of superhero comics, he tends to draw women as pin-ups, and
men as humans, which I see as sexist against women only.
Yours,
--Ennead
Charles M Seaton
I said:
: (Okay, yes; I don't think that this would be good as someone's sole
: standard for determing good from bad art - but I don't think Johanna
: ever said this was her ONLY standard. As one of several standards,
: it's perfectly legitimate.)
Also, I'd better specify that Johanna wasn't using her standard to
distinguish between "good" and "bad," but between "good" and
"great." If I understood her, she was saying that Byrne is a good
artist, but his limitations in drawing women kept her from
considering him a "great." Which seems perfectly fair to me.
--Ennead
Michael A. Chary
In a previous article, ENN...@phobos.ucs.umass.edu (Charles M Seaton) says:
>Michael A. Chary (ma...@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:
>
>[Replying to Johanna:]
>
>: If you don't consider Bolland, Perez, and Byrne great artists, then I
>: dismiss your opinion on the basis that you lack valid aesthetic judgement.
>: This opinion is so far outside the the general standards of the medium
>: (on a par with saying Speilberg, Scorcese, and Copalla are not great
>: directors) that it demands a defense.
>
>Talk about provincialism! ;)
Okay, let's talk about provincialism. Bolland, Perez, and Byrne are
recognized all over the world as great artists. They have all done
alternative work. Pigeonholing them as "superhero" artists ignores that
and is provincial.
(I just sold a bunch of Bolland covers and Byrne FF's to someone who is
going to resell them in Thailand of all places.)
>
>Them there's the general standards of the superhero genre, *not* the
>general standards of the entire medium - probably very few people of
>the thousands of people who consider "Krazy Kat" or R. Crumb the
>height of the medium would say that George Perez is a great artist.
Well, you can put me on the list.
>Personally, I'm not a big fan of any of them, although they've all
>done work I like from time to time. Bolland draws stiffly and
>renders to death, Perez is workmanlike but bland as hell, and Byrne
>is Kirby mushed into babyfood. (IMHO, obviously.)
I don't like Bolland all that much myself, but by the standards of
aestheticism the comic book medium uses he is a great artist.
>
>: I challenge you to provide one the doesn't invoke the idiosyncratic
>: standard that "they don't seem able or willing to draw a range of
>: female figures." [...]
>
>(As if there are non-idiosyncratic standards!) Johanna's seems like
There are many non-idiosyncratic standards, but I will desist from dragging
this into a discussion of aesthetic philosophy, no, wait, I don't think I
will desist. Instead I will charge ahead. At a minimum a comic book
artist should be able to draw recognizable characters, show the flow of
panels through a story, and be able to incorporate detail in their work.
The artists who can do that and maintain astyle that is their own while
influencing others and do it over a period of years are the good ones. The
great ones are the artists for whom that standard is laughably easy. They
are the artists who ideas and visions set standards. Byrne, Bollands, and
Perez are consistently used as the yardstick for other artists. They are
great.
>a perfectly good standard to me; if an artist draws the same cliched
>woman (or man) over and over again, it's boring, and boring art is
>bad art. And if the one woman drawn is an annoying, sexist
>characature (see Dave Stevens), then the female characters will be
>both annoying and boring, which isn't a great combination.
Well, then I am inclined to issue the same challenge to you. Defend that
statement. Additionally, the statement is simply wrong as Bolland, Byrne,
and Perez can and do draw a wide variety of female figures.
>
>(Nor do I see it as a mitigating factor that Bolland is able to draw
>non-cliched women, but usually chooses not to. Kind of the opposite,
>really...)
Nonsense, they all draw a variety on a semi-regular basis. Look at Next
Men or Perez's Titans work.
>
>(Okay, yes; I don't think that this would be good as someone's sole
>standard for determing good from bad art - but I don't think Johanna
>ever said this was her ONLY standard. As one of several standards,
>it's perfectly legitimate.)
No, it isn't because it is incorrect in the case of those artists and
outside the standards of the medium in general. (A fairly good case could
be made, I think, that exaggerated physical characteristics whether they be
used to show beauty, strength, age, wisdom, or whatever, are part of what
makes the comics medium what it is. I would not argue that Byrne's lantern
jawed heroes are not exaggerated, but he does draw a variety of female
figures. The fact that Sue storm, She-Hulk and Aurora were knockouts does
not reflect an adequate basis for impugning Byrne as a great artist anymore
than Renoir's tendency to paint only beuatiful, idealized women does him.)
>
>Someone brought up the example of Eisner; yeah, he's a great
>cartoonist, but his recent work - when he's started drawing women
>who look like full, varied characters, rather than pin-ups - is much
>to be prefered. The mother in "To The Heart of the Storm" has much
>more character than any of the interchangable good girls in "The
>Spirit."
I can't really speak to the issue of Eisner's women, but my bet is that
someone will.
Christopher Vitek
> In article <wip0CECSM...@transarc.com>,
> <Abhiji...@transarc.com> wrote:
>>
>>Oh, and what about all the comics which show women as leaders of
>>superhero teams or as professionals : scientists, lawyers, reporters
>>etc. ? Maybe those are intended as positive images. Nah, it couldn't
>>be.
>
> I seem to recall the subject under discussion being female superhero
> costumes and art styles. If you want to talk about role models, we can, but
> they don't have anything to do with the current topic. Bringing them up
> doesn't mean that women in superhero comics aren't drawn in a sexist
> fashion.
>
>>Simple Solution : If this bothers you so much, buy comics which DON'T
>>have this problem.
>
> Could you suggest a superhero comic with female characters that doesn't
> have this problem? Out of your list (Shaman's Tears, Hellblazer, Icon,
> Starman, Prince Valiant, Sandman Mystery Theater), I already read
> Icon, and the others I'm either not familiar with or I know they don't
> have any regular main female characters.
Many Valiant titles have female characters as leads, and they go out
of their way to try and portray them realistically. After all, they now have
Faith as the main character is Harbinger.
Although this all MIGHT change since they are going out of their way
to eliminate the "Valiant House Style" idea.
Chris
********************************************************************************
** Christopher J. Vitek ** "Question with bold- ** To remain silent in the **
** (201)-408-3419 (O) ** -ness even the ** face of great social **
** (201)-334-2570 (H) ** existance of a God; ** evil is to be an **
** CVI...@DREW.DREW.EDU ** because, if there ** accessory to social **
*************************** be one, he must ** injustice. **
** more approve of the homage of reason, than ******************************
** that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson ( 1743 - 1826 ) **
********************************************************************************
adeb...@daniel.drew.edu
> Johanna Draper <sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> writes:
>
>>The Mystic Mongoose <tmmon...@delphi.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Muscles make sense in context.
>>Men aren't sexualized and objectified in every other media as well.
>
> We're not arguing other media here, Johanna. Just comic books and
> Superheroes. You are correct in that there is not as *strong* of a link between
> muscles and sexuality as there is breasts and sexuality, but there is
> certainly a link. And yes, muscles do make sense in context.
I remember an interview with Don Simpson in Comics Scene Magazine back
before he ever did work for Image where he talks about how all
superhero comic books are about sex. Superheroes are just metaphors
for sex. The guys get bigger when they fight and everyone parades in
their underwear. He went further, but I don't remember it offhand.
Maybe I'll go in search of the quote and post it up here tomorrow...
-Augie De Blieck Jr.
adeb...@daniel.drew.edu
> <Abhiji...@transarc.com> wrote:
>>
>>Oh, and what about all the comics which show women as leaders of
>>superhero teams or as professionals : scientists, lawyers, reporters
>>etc. ? Maybe those are intended as positive images. Nah, it couldn't
>>be.
>
> I seem to recall the subject under discussion being female superhero
> costumes and art styles. If you want to talk about role models, we can, but
> they don't have anything to do with the current topic. Bringing them up
> doesn't mean that women in superhero comics aren't drawn in a sexist
> fashion.
>
>>Simple Solution : If this bothers you so much, buy comics which DON'T
>>have this problem.
>
> Could you suggest a superhero comic with female characters that doesn't
> have this problem? Out of your list (Shaman's Tears, Hellblazer, Icon,
> Starman, Prince Valiant, Sandman Mystery Theater), I already read
> Icon, and the others I'm either not familiar with or I know they don't
> have any regular main female characters.
While it may be true that Shaman's Tears doesn't have any problem with
women in super-tight costumes, they also did have an issue (#2?) with
one bare-chested, and not looking very "wanting", if you know what I
mean. In fact, they had a couple letters about the "titty shot" in
the letters column for #3.
-Augie De Blieck Jr.
Abhiji...@transarc.com
ENN...@phobos.ucs.umass.edu (Charles M Seaton) writes:
> construct. In the context of a sexist society, a sexist way of
> treating female characters is not necessarily a sexist way of
> treating male characters.
Fair enough. I agree with that statement, although I'm not sure I agree
with its application here.
> Personally, I find the way (to pick one) Bolland draws both sexes in
> superhero comics to be sexist - he tends to draw women as pin-ups,
> men as powerhouses, which is a pretty sexist take on gender, imo.
This is heavily disputable. In many cases, Bolland is drawing already
existing characters. Secondly, Bolland does show divergent body types
even within superhero comics. Look at Camelot 3000 and look at the
trickster knight, Sir Kay.
> Outside of superhero comics, he tends to draw women as pin-ups, and
> men as humans, which I see as sexist against women only.
Again, this is disputable. Mr Mamoulian uses a heavily abstract style
for both men and women. "The bishop and actress" draws the actress as
a sexy young woman, but there's a good reason for that.
The point is that Bolland can and does draw well outside of the
superhero/fantasy arena.
ENN...@phobos.ucs.umass.edu (Charles M Seaton) writes:
> (As if there are non-idiosyncratic standards!) Johanna's seems like
> a perfectly good standard to me; if an artist draws the same cliched
> woman (or man) over and over again, it's boring, and boring art is
> bad art.
Fair enough, but neither of Bolland, Perez or Byrne do that, and when
it comes to supporting characters or non-heroic characters, they
use wide ranges of figure. Furthermore, both Perez and Bolland use
detail to such an incredible extent that its hard to be bored (for me,
anyway).
[ Colleen Doran, by the way, uses very similar faces and figures, and
even her male and female faces are very alike : do you consider her a
bad artist ? Abstract artists will occasionally use just a few lines to
represent a figure : is that bad ? ]
> Someone brought up the example of Eisner; yeah, he's a great
> cartoonist, but his recent work - when he's started drawing women
> who look like full, varied characters, rather than pin-ups - is much
> to be prefered. The mother in "To The Heart of the Storm" has much
> more character than any of the interchangable good girls in "The
> Spirit."
But the original topic was about superhero comics, and only the Spirit
would qualify. Eisner did draw a whole bunch of male body types (the
Spirit's look is relatively unique), but his females, especially the
ones in the 18-35 year range are quite similar. By the way, Eisner
didn't have that many good girls that I remember (Ellen Dolan,
obviously, but few others). But he had lots of sultry and sensuous
villainous women : Sand Saref, Lorelei the Siren, Plaster of Paris
etc. etc, all of whom were very similar. This is not to accuse Eisner
of sexism, but to point out that by Johanna's definition, he would not
be considered a great artist.
To the matter at hand : I believe idealized illustrations and physiques
to be a part of the superhero genre. Even the fantasy genre uses
idealized illustrations. Frank Frazetta, John Bolton, Tom Canty, Scott
Hampton and Charlie Vess all draw very beautiful women and men,
although in different ways. This is not something that I particularly
want to see changed, although I wouldn't be at all unhappy to see
Vampirella vanish :-).
Finally, if you really want to talk about stereotyped, poor
representations in American mainstream comics, the worst portrayal by
far is that of Arabs. Just about every Arab character is portrayed as a
terrorist, a fanatic, a murderer or worse. Marvel, to its credit, has
one Arabic hero, albeit a heavily stereotyped one in the Arabian
Knight. DC has none, although they do have one Arab American immigrant
as an occasional hero. Appalling is a mild term, although its not
out of synch with the rest of the media ....
Johanna Draper
<Abhiji...@transarc.com> wrote:
>sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
[Abhijit's list of comics and whether they have female characters deleted.
I don't think anyone's interested in a book-by-book analysis of their
portrayals of women. Most of the titles he cites that I know about
either have women show up only occasionally or as supporting
characters, in which cases they're mostly cheesecake relief. Others
which have admirable female characters, such as the Legion books, still
draw them as too developed. Some are better than others, but I wouldn't
say that all of his list has no problems, as he claimed.]
>They also draw males who have model-like physiques. Is that sexist too?
>If not, why not ?
If they draw all their men to look that way, yes. I don't think they do,
though.
>Perez, Bolland and Byrne can and have drawn a very, very wide variety
>of figures (both male and female) at times. When drawing regular
>superhero comics, their male and female characters show about the same
>variation in figures. I can understand (and support) your objections
>to the Jim Lee copycat artists, but it seems to me that you're all too
>willing to brand any artist as sexist.
If the artists you cite draw a variety of male and female figures, then
more power to them. I don't recall claiming that any particular artist was
or wasn't sexist. In fact, I seem to remember talking about the
industry in general. I'm sure that there are exceptions to the
outrageous portrayal of women, but citing them doesn't mean that they're
the norm. I'd love to see more artists that draw a variety of body types
for both men and women.
>Do you consider Wil Eisner (famous for his female figures) a great
>artist ? Milton Caniff (ditto) ? Whom do you consider a great artist ?
I'm not familiar with the two you cite, or with many others for that
matter, because I don't read comics for the art. (I'm beginning to suspect
that I don't because if I did, I'd have to give up most of the comics I
enjoy.) I don't see the point in discussing specific artists for the same
reason I don't think anyone would be interested in the list of titles
above.
Johanna
Johanna Draper
Not Criticize.
In article <3bh2b6$q...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>If you don't consider Bolland, Perez, and Byrne great artists, then I
>dismiss your opinion on the basis that you lack valid aesthetic judgement.
Look, I don't pay any attention to art. Abhijit (I apologize if I've
misspelled his name) said that those artists usually draw only one time of
female figure. I said they weren't great artists on that basis, since great
artists in my mind draw a variety of human body types to better reflect the
world around them.
Since when is there a right and a wrong in artistic commentary? Aren't we
talking about opinion here?
>I challenge you, Johanna.
Am I supposed to care?
Johanna
Rick Jones
> In article <wip0CECSM...@transarc.com>,
> <Abhiji...@transarc.com> wrote:
> >Simple Solution : If this bothers you so much, buy comics which DON'T
> >have this problem.
> Could you suggest a superhero comic with female characters that doesn't
> have this problem? Out of your list (Shaman's Tears, Hellblazer, Icon,
Statc, Legion, Bone, Books of Magic, ClanDestine, Strangers in Paradise,
Blood Syndicate. All of whom have female characters in them who aren't
just pretty faces and big bosoms.
> >Even artists like George Perez, Brian Bolland or John Byrne typically
> >show female superheroines who are drop dead gorgeous and have
> >physiques like supermodels (if not like Dolly Parton). Is that equally
> >sexist ? If not, why not ?
> Yes, that's sexist too. What's your point? Do you think that I'm saying
> that only bad artists draw this way? I'm not. I don't consider those you
> mention great artists, mostly because they don't seem able or willing to
> draw a range of female figures.
Perez, Bolland, and Bryne all draw characters of differing body types.
Heck, one of the things I like about Perez's art is that everyone has
their own face and their own bodytype. Wonder Girl looked different from
Starfire from Raven from Terra from Frances Kane. Perez will shamelessly
admit that he likes to draw "that way" [he did to Sachs and Violens,
after all], but unlike some artists, he can and does draw women who look
different. For instance, in Wonder Woman, he drew women will all kinds
of looks. From Diana, to Myndi Mayer, to Etta Candy, Vanesa and Julia
Katapelis.
--
Rick Jones I'm calm. I'm quiet and collected. How that
ri...@blkbox.com desk got tossed out the window is anybody's
Mey...@aol.com guess. --J.M. Straczynski
Todd VerBeek, GWM
>In a previous article, ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) says:
>><grin>
>Well, let's see. I maintain that muscle definition is typically considered
>an attractive trait in our society (American) and that comic books reflect
>that. I invoke as evidence the marketting schemes which seem to at least
>*try* to follow the "sex sells" school of thought. Calvin Klein ads,
>Obsession, Sports clubs, beer commercials, magazine covers, and even movie
>adverts. Where do you maintain my understanding of such phenomena is lacking?
As far as I can tell from what you've said, you don't =know= what people find
sexually attractive about the male body, you're just =inferring= it from these
indirect indicators. To put it in graphic terms, your "understanding" is all
up here [pointing at head], not down here [pointing at... gut]. (I'd say the
same thing to a black man talking about white people's attitudes, a hindu
lecturing me about christian theology, etc.)
>>I've tried to avoid making sweeping, definitive statements about what
>>attributes of women are considered "sexy" or "erotic". I could make
>>suppositions based on what I see happening and dredging up what little
>>heterosexuality I have to make some guesses, but ultimately it's just that:
>>a guess.
>I am not relying on any heterosexual sensibilties. I am observing
>marketing trends.
Marketing trends would lead you to believe that men are attracted to =white=
women, but I suspect that this is not true among black, asian, or hispanic
men. (I might add that most of this marketing is still directed and
executed by men... not the best experts on female's tastes.)
>> I'd be out of bounds stating, "[Some particular characteristics
>>on women] are generally conssidered attractive in our society. Period."
>Well, first, I was talking about the general
>populace either finding muscle definition attractive, or thinking other
>people would find it so. I have invoked evidence. Second, I don't think
>you would be out of bounds making a general statement that, for instance,
>"Long legs are considered attractive in our society. Period." You might
>get an argument, but you would have enough supporting evidence to amke a
>case and defend it. (Note that I have just used this as an example, and I
>have no intention of defending that statement. I will defend the muscle
>definition statemnt, however.)
I consider =any= declarative statement that ends with the spoken punctuation
"period" pretty hard to defend (even if it contains a "generally" as an
escape hatch for when it's shown to be wrong or overly broad). When it's
based entirely on the "evidence" of secondary indirect inference, I give it
little credence. Try punctuating your analysis with disclaimers instead of
declarations and they'll be more palatable. And accurate.
>>Now, with middle-age waiting to greet me over the horizon, I read comics
>>again, primarily for the stories... because frankly, most of the guys just
>>aren't that hot. All the theorising in the world won't change that.
>I plead ignorance on the "sexiness" of comic book heroes,
[breaking out in relieved laughter] Thank you! That was, after all, what
I've been trying to talk about. Would you also admit ignorance on the
"sexiness" of men in general?
>though I would
>have thought Giffen,s v2 Dirk Morgna was a bit of a ladykiller.
I don't know... never seen him.
Adam Huby
>> Could you suggest a superhero comic with female characters that doesn't
>> have this problem? Out of your list (Shaman's Tears, Hellblazer, Icon,
>
>Statc, Legion, Bone, Books of Magic, ClanDestine, Strangers in Paradise,
>Blood Syndicate. All of whom have female characters in them who aren't
>just pretty faces and big bosoms.
Someone who thinks Bone's a *superhero* comic ?!? Wow !
Without getting into the old "define superhero" argument again, I think
it would be extremely difficult to characterize BoM (the only other one
of those that I read) as such, either.
Adam
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One day, my son, these views will be Crosfield's (but for the moment they're
mine, all mine).
--
Adam Huby Crosfield Electronics Ltd Hemel Hempstead HP2 7RH U.K.
uucp: a...@crosfield.co.uk
phone: +44 442 230000 ext 5251 or +44 442 345251
fax: +44 442 232301 telex: 827530 CROSEL G
Charles M Seaton
: In a previous article, ENN...@phobos.ucs.umass.edu says:
: >Michael A. Chary (ma...@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:
: >[Replying to Johanna:]
: >
: >: If you don't consider Bolland, Perez, and Byrne great artists,
: >: then I dismiss your opinion on the basis that you lack valid
: >: aesthetic judgement.
Incidentally, this has got to be one of the most snobbish statements
I've ever read on raca - and I'm a considerable snob myself. =)
You speak as if there is a single Standard of Aestheticism that all
comic readers Must Use or they'll lack Valid Judgement. By the
aesthetic standards used by The Comics Journal, Nemo, most of Japan,
or daily strips, Byrne is NOT a great artist. By the aesthetic
standards of most current American superhero comics, he is. There
is no single, "correct" standard.
: >: This opinion is so far outside the the general standards of the
: >: medium (on a par with saying Speilberg, Scorcese, and Copalla are
: >: not great directors) that it demands a defense.
: >Talk about provincialism! ;)
: Okay, let's talk about provincialism. Bolland, Perez, and Byrne are
: recognized all over the world as great artists. They have all done
: alternative work. Pigeonholing them as "superhero" artists ignores that
: and is provincial.
The vast, vast majority of Perez and Byrne's work is superheroes -
if you count by pages, I'd bet that they'd both have done 100 pages
of superheroes for every page of non-superhero. You might as well
say it's pigeonholing to call Speilberg a "Movie" director, since
he's directed two TV specials in his career.
(I'm not commenting on Bolland becuase he's had a lot of work
published in Britain that I've never seen - for all I know, you're
correct, and he's done significant amounts of non-superhero work.)
: (I just sold a bunch of Bolland covers and Byrne FF's to someone
: who is going to resell them in Thailand of all places.)
Actually, I meant provincialism in the sense of "considering
superheroes to be all of comics," not in the literal sense of what
country you're from. But since we're talking anecdotally, when I
was in Italy a couple of years ago none of the comics fans I met had
heard of Perez or Byrne (or any other 1980s superhero artist, for
that matter). The only American cartoonists I could find in most
comic book stores were Eisner and Corban, for what that's worth.
Another anecdote: Scott McCloud told me, regarding the con in
Germany he attended this summer (to publicize the German edition of
Understanding Comics), that what stunned him was the irrelevance of
superhero comics there - "No one there cares about what Jim Lee is
doing, but they consider Will [Eisner] a god!" was the exact quote.
I doubt that Perez is held in much higher regard, although I don't
doubt that he (and Lee) do have some fans there.
But, in any case, I didn't mean to imply that one must be recognized
in Europe or Japan to be great - sorry for the misunderstanding.
[snip]
: >: I challenge you to provide one the doesn't invoke the idiosyncratic
: >: standard that "they don't seem able or willing to draw a range of
: >: female figures." [...]
: >
: >(As if there are non-idiosyncratic standards!) Johanna's seems like
: There are many non-idiosyncratic standards, but I will desist from
: dragging this into a discussion of aesthetic philosophy, no, wait, I
: don't think I will desist. Instead I will charge ahead. At a
: minimum a comic book artist should be able to draw recognizable
: characters, show the flow of panels through a story, and be able to
: incorporate detail in their work.
I agree with all this, at least as regards fiction. I withdraw my
statement - there are non-idiosycratic standards, like the ones in
this paragraph.
: The artists who can do that and maintain a style that is their own
: while influencing others and do it over a period of years are the
: good ones.
Say what? You have to influence others to be good? Now, there
you've lost me: I don't think Crokkit (sp?) Johnson, for instance,
has had a noticable influence, but "Barnaby" is still a good strip.
: The great ones are the artists for whom that standard is laughably
: easy. They are the artists who ideas and visions set standards.
: Byrne, Bollands, and Perez are consistently used as the yardstick
: for other artists. They are great.
Consistantly used by which artists? Bill Watterson? Eddie
Campbell? Will Eisner? Chris Ware? Roberta Gregory? Alison
Bechdel? No, none of them. B, B & P are perhaps a yardstick
against which many adventure artists measure themselves, but I can't
imagine that many artists working in other genres use them that way
- in fact, many of them wouldn't even recognize B B & P's drawings.
(Of the folks I mentioned above, I doubt Watterson, Eisner, Gregory
or Bechdel would. Also, I bet that if you showed them B B & P's
work, none of them would consider it great - so does that mean they
all "lack valid aesthetic judgement?")
Nor, honestly, could I see a good argument being set forth for Perez
and Byrne having significant "ideas and visions." Neither one of
them would be spit on a fence without Kirby's vision to expand on.
They provide good, craftsmenlike, stylish variations on Kirby's
form, but neither one of them has enough original vision to deserve
the kind of acclaim you heap on them, imho.
: >a perfectly good standard to me; if an artist draws the same cliched
: >woman (or man) over and over again, it's boring, and boring art is
: >bad art. And if the one woman drawn is an annoying, sexist
: >characature (see Dave Stevens), then the female characters will be
: >both annoying and boring, which isn't a great combination.
: Well, then I am inclined to issue the same challenge to you.
: Defend that statement. Additionally, the statement is simply wrong
: as Bolland, Byrne, and Perez can and do draw a wide variety of
: female figures.
Defend it? How? It's a personal standard, and no sillier than your
undefended statement that an artist must influence other artists
before her work can be "good." I can explain WHY it matters for me,
but I don't think taste is really "defendable."
For me, it's a sign of poor characterization - if the characters are
distinct from one another only in hairdo and costume (and what the
colorist does), then the cartoonist is doing a poor job with the
characters. And good characterization is one of the things I enjoy
in comics.
Incidentally, I dug out my old Perez "Crisis" - and, sure enough,
Supergirl and Wonder Woman have identical bodies and facial
structures. Switch the costume and the hair, and you'd never know
the difference. Ditto for the majority of the female characters
drawn in "Crisis" - Perez draws with a "attractive woman" template
in mind, and only occasionally deviates from it. (Compare that to
Jamie Hernandez or real life.) Sue Richards and She-Hulk by Byrne
have the same face, although he does vary the bodies - more than he
did for Jean Gray and the two Hellfire Club women (or those women in
skimpy maids outfits hanging around the Hellfire club, for that
matter). Storm has the same body as the others, and the same facial
structure except for the eyes - as does the female Batman parody
from She-Hulk. As far as I can tell, hair is the only difference
between Bolland's Actress (from A1), Bolland's Barbara Gordon (from
Killing Joke), the female protagonist in "Camolot 3000" and the
woman at the end of Mother's Calling (from Gordon's Bar). I could
bring up dozens of examples, but space forbids...
Of course, there are exceptions - Byrne's Kitty Pryde, the hag-form
in Mother's Calling, Perez's Terra. But the point is, none of these
artists varies their female form except when they have to - that is,
when the writing calls for an adolescant girl, or an old woman, or a
giantess, or white eyes, THEN they vary things, but whenever they
have to draw a normal, healthy, attractive young woman, they'll use
the same chiched template 95% of the time. Certainly none of them
comes anywhere CLOSE to the variety of body and face types found in
recent Eisner, either Hernandez brother, Chester Brown, Alison
Bechdel, or real life.
: >(Nor do I see it as a mitigating factor that Bolland is able to draw
: >non-cliched women, but usually chooses not to. Kind of the opposite,
: >really...)
: Nonsense, they all draw a variety on a semi-regular basis. Look at Next
: Men or Perez's Titans work.
I don't read Next Men, but I'll take a look at it the next time I'm
in the store. Byrne never drew much variety in what of his work I
have read. In Titans, Perez had his two "nonstandard" characters
- Terra and Raven (who started out as another template character,
but then became more distinct) - but all the other female characters
were pretty much identical, imho.
: >(Okay, yes; I don't think that this would be good as someone's sole
: >standard for determing good from bad art - but I don't think Johanna
: >ever said this was her ONLY standard. As one of several standards,
: >it's perfectly legitimate.)
: No, it isn't because it is incorrect in the case of those artists
: and outside the standards of the medium in general. (A fairly good
Why do Johanna and I have to use whatever you think are the
"standards of the medium in general"? In any case, I dispute this
statement - these artists are great by superhero standards, but
pretty boring by any other standards, imo. Their figures are
wooden, their storytelling by rote, and most of their stories trite
- all sure signs of mediocrity, imho. Those are my standards - your
standards differ, which is cool.
: case could be made, I think, that exaggerated physical
: characteristics whether they be used to show beauty, strength, age,
: wisdom, or whatever, are part of what makes the comics medium what
There's a distinction between "exaggerated" and "iconic," which
you're not making. I do think that iconic forms are important to
the medium, and that Byrne-style exaggeration is ONE way of doing
that. But that doesn't show that it's the best way, that Byrne does
it well, or that he doesn't overdo it.
For =my= tastes, artists like B B or P - who draws relatively
realistic figures, with a lot of specific detail - should provide
varied faces and bodies, in order to bring the reader into a fuller
fictional world. Some artists do this well - Dave McKean in "Cages"
and "Hold Me" would be one example. (Look at the face of the woman
in "Hold Me" - she's definitely attractive, but she's not generic.)
A more iconic artist - Charles Schultz, for instance - can give
every character more-or-less the same body and it won't bother me,
because his drawings don't convey that sort of specific detail.
: it is. I would not argue that Byrne's lantern jawed heroes are not
: exaggerated, but he does draw a variety of female figures. The fact
: that Sue storm, She-Hulk and Aurora were knockouts does not reflect
: an adequate basis for impugning Byrne as a great artist anymore than
: Renoir's tendency to paint only beuatiful, idealized women does
: him.)
Renoir was not working in a storytelling, character-based genre,
where the ability to produce many distinctive characters, rather
than repeat one template over and over, is necessary. So I think
the comparison is irrelevant.
Byrne is working in a storytelling medium, and he confines himself
(usually) to telling stories about knockouts - an extremely limited
view, one which cuts him off from doing stories about most of
humanity. That doesn't in and of itself make him bad, but it a
detriment, something that the other aspects of his work must be good
enough to overcome. In Milt Caniff's case, he was brilliant enough
in other ways to overcome this limitation - but I don't think Byrne
is anywhere near that talented or original. (Ditto for Bolland and
Perez.)
Milage does vary, doesn't it? =)
Yours,
--Ennead
Kent Matthewson
>Look, I don't pay any attention to art.
Then why have you been posting to this thread? How would you have had any
objections in the first place?
Michael A. Chary
In a previous article, sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) says:
>Oh, gracious, Michael thinks I've violated the net list of Those You Shall
>Not Criticize.
>
No, Michael thinks that you have not criticized which involves some form of
analytical thought. Rather Michael thinks you have spit-balled on the basis
of one idiosyncratic criterion.
>In article <3bh2b6$q...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
>Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>
>>If you don't consider Bolland, Perez, and Byrne great artists, then I
>>dismiss your opinion on the basis that you lack valid aesthetic judgement.
>
>Look, I don't pay any attention to art. Abhijit (I apologize if I've
>misspelled his name) said that those artists usually draw only one time of
>female figure. I said they weren't great artists on that basis, since great
>artists in my mind draw a variety of human body types to better reflect the
>world around them.
And I am saying that statement has no rational basis. Even outside comic
books.
>Since when is there a right and a wrong in artistic commentary? Aren't we
>talking about opinion here?
No, we're not. There *are* absolute aesthetic standards, and if you want to
argue a relativist philosophy with me, let me point out that as soon as you
say "all things are relative" you have made an absolute statement.
>>I challenge you, Johanna.
>
>Am I supposed to care?
I suppose not, but I thought I would formalize it in case there was some
doubt.
You Don't Own My Elmo
> [list of books edited], Strangers in Paradise.
> All of whom have female characters in them who aren't
> just pretty faces and big bosoms.
I enjoy the tar out of SiP as much as the next guy, but it is a standard guy
fantasy book. All the women are gorgeous (and seriously stacked), all the
guys are just ordinary, and, of course, one of the women is a lesbian for
that extra sexual kick. The stories are titillating.
Now, it is a well-done SGFB with some intelligence and significant
characterization, but it is still, at its core, a book by a guy who
wants to draw sexy babes. This is not an indictment, just my analysis.
--
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom."
--Robert A. Millikan, c. 1930
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnal.fnal.gov)
Todd VerBeek, GWM
>In article <3bl87e$t...@hydra.cs.hope.edu> ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) writes:
>>Kent Matthewson writes:
>>>So a double standard applies to male portrayals in comics because women are
>>>objectified more in OTHER media? I disagree.
>>Are you saying that women are =not= more objectified in other media? Or are
>>you saying it's irrelevant? In either case, I'm curious why. (And a "double
>>standard" has to apply to =two= things, not just one.)
>I'm saying that you're applying a double standard by applying the judgement
>that it's acceptable to portray males in a physically stereotyped,
>unrealistic manner, but it is not acceptable to do so with females in
>comics. That counts on my little fingers as TWO things.
Good counting, but that's not what I've been saying. I'm saying that it's
unacceptable to portray females as sex fantasies and males as power fantasies.
If anything, I'm arguing =against= a double standard. And as I've said
elsewhere, I =don't= like the male physiques in comics. For one thing,
they're =ugly=.
>I am also
>saying that how women are portrayes elsewhere IS irrelevant only for
>the purposes of this discussion, as we're talking about their portrayal
>in comics, not everywhere else.
When it's part of a larger phenomenon I think that phenomenon =is=
relevant. If you narrow your focus enough, you can =always= find a
subset in which your belief is true.
>>>Also, your point that there are >>more varied
>portrayals of males is not exactly valid.
>>How is that? Are you saying that the variety doesn't exist?
>Now you're just being dense - you've quoted my explanation immediately below.
Well, your "explanation" explained nothing to me. (The "How?" following it
should have indicated that.) It was just a statement with no reasoning to
back it up.
>>>Sure, we have Spiderman
>>>(incredibly lean and muscular - though possible) to the Hulk (completely
>>>impossibly developed), but this variety only exaggerates the ridiculous
>>>portrayal of males.
>
>>How?
>
>>>In fact, it could be argued that males have it worse in comics.
>
>>Would you care to do this? (And wouldn't this be a <gasp> "double standard"?)
>Again, I think you're being deliberately dense.
I take too much pride in my intellect to play stupid. Either I really =am=,
or your explanations need to be more clear. Some constructive criticism:
Read what you write before you send it. You'll catch sentences that don't
make sense that way.
>Let me laboriously explain
>the subtle intimations of what I meant.
This will be a refreshing change from the "it should be obvious what I mean"
style of explanation.
>I believe that the portrayal of women in comics is at least within the realm
>of physical possibility (even Jim Balent - women such as Chesty Love, or
>Morganna the kissing bandit).
Evidently this is a definition of "physical possibility" of which I was
unaware. Not only are some of the women in comics biologically impossible
(i.e. they would be die quickly with such small waists), they violate the very
laws of physics (i.e. standing in poses in which any object in Earth gravity
would fall over... or at least sag). The fact that some of these portrayals
are considered "possible" helps explain why women develop such unrealistic
expectations of their bodies.
>However, the portrayal of males at the
>realistic end (such as Byrne - I see athletic, built guys such as Scott
>Summers in the gym) to Thor to the Hulk, which are completely impossible, even
>with steroids. When I say that it could be argued that males are worse off in
>comics, it is because the possible desire to have such a physique is beyond
>the realm of attainable reality.
Allowing for your belief that women are portrayed realistically, I can see how
this makes sense. (But I feel your premise is thorougly false.)
>>>Overall, however, I have always
>thought that heroic physiques were appropriate >>to comics, and I have no
>burning desire for that to change.
>>And what happened to your concern for the poor steroid-abusing boys of
>>America?
>I was making a point that it cuts both ways. And if you're sympathy for the
>poor acne-ridden geek who takes steroids to live up to female or male or
>societal expectations is so trivial, I suppose your attitude towards anorexics
>and bulimics is the same?
I =do= have sympathy for that acne-ridden geek (especially if he thinks that
the steroids will help his acne). I was (am?) one myself. But I don't think
there are as =many= of him as there are girls with self-induced malnutrition,
so I tend to see the latter as a =bigger= problem. I'm dismayed by your
apparent dismissal ("I have no burning desire for that to change") of =both=
problems.
Todd VerBeek, GWM
>In article <hgzXdGB.t...@delphi.com>, The Mystic Mongoose <tmmon...@delphi.com> writes:
>> Johanna Draper <sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> writes:
>>>Muscles aren't linked to sexuality as strongly as breasts are.
>> You are correct in that there is not as *strong* of a link between
>> muscles and sexuality as there is breasts and sexuality, but there is
>> certainly a link.
>I remember an interview with Don Simpson in Comics Scene Magazine back
>before he ever did work for Image where he talks about how all
>superhero comic books are about sex. Superheroes are just metaphors
>for sex. The guys get bigger when they fight and everyone parades in
>their underwear. He went further, but I don't remember it offhand.
>Maybe I'll go in search of the quote and post it up here tomorrow...
Interesting theory, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. <grin>
In any case, thinking about comics in this sense sounds more like a
metaphor for rape than sex. At best, it's "sex" as seen from a
male perspective.
Michael A. Chary
>>Well, let's see. I maintain that muscle definition is typically considered
>>an attractive trait in our society (American) and that comic books reflect
>>that. I invoke as evidence the marketting schemes which seem to at least
>>*try* to follow the "sex sells" school of thought. Calvin Klein ads,
>>Obsession, Sports clubs, beer commercials, magazine covers, and even movie
>>adverts. Where do you maintain my understanding of such phenomena is lacking?
>
>As far as I can tell from what you've said, you don't =know= what people find
>sexually attractive about the male body, you're just =inferring= it from these
>indirect indicators. To put it in graphic terms, your "understanding" is all
>up here [pointing at head], not down here [pointing at... gut]. (I'd say the
>same thing to a black man talking about white people's attitudes, a hindu
>lecturing me about christian theology, etc.)
See, now you Are taking a completely relativist position, and that's
hogwash. Because my only claim is that the artist who draws Power Man in
such a fashion might think that people will find him attractive. I draw as my
evidence for such a statement the fact that such is considered attractive
by our social standards. If your only counter opinion is the gainsaying
response that I can't say that because I am not using my glands as a
guide, then you are being absurd. You are being absurd because there exist
rational bases for making these judgements. You might not find Elle
MacPherson attractive, but you must admit that by the standards of our
socitety she is considered so, or you are open to a charge of intellectual
dishonesty.
(And for that matter, some Hindu Reilgious scholars have a decent to
expert handle on Christian theology.)
>>I am not relying on any heterosexual sensibilties. I am observing
>>marketing trends.
>
>Marketing trends would lead you to believe that men are attracted to =white=
>women, but I suspect that this is not true among black, asian, or hispanic
>men. (I might add that most of this marketing is still directed and
>executed by men... not the best experts on female's tastes.)
You're right. Marketing trends indicate exactly that men are attracted to
white women, and the NAACP has been fighting hammer and tong against that
message since before tv started. Since before comics even. And there's
been some progress. Tyra Banks and Iman and Denzel Washington are now
considered top sex symbols. You might notice that they are also all "hard
bodies." In comics, I consider Storm to be the first "sexy" black
character.
>>case and defend it. (Note that I have just used this as an example, and I
>>have no intention of defending that statement. I will defend the muscle
>>definition statemnt, however.)
>
>I consider =any= declarative statement that ends with the spoken punctuation
>"period" pretty hard to defend (even if it contains a "generally" as an
>escape hatch for when it's shown to be wrong or overly broad). When it's
First, this statement ain't all that hard to defend. Second, even if it
were hard to defend that doesn't make it incorrect.
>based entirely on the "evidence" of secondary indirect inference, I give it
>little credence.
"Secondary indirect referrence?" What are you talking about? I have
invoked hard, direct evidence taken from popular culture. Look at
People's list of the fifty most beautiful people. Look at the cover os
of magazines. Look at Playboy and Playgirl centerfolds. Heck, look at
your Sunday supplement. What message do you think they are sending about
personal physical standards? The same one that's being sent by most comic
books.
>Try punctuating your analysis with disclaimers instead of
>declarations and they'll be more palatable. And accurate.
The truth is very often not palatable, and you have yet to show *any*
evidence that my statement about the attractiveness of muscle definition is
inaccurate.
>
>>>Now, with middle-age waiting to greet me over the horizon, I read comics
>>>again, primarily for the stories... because frankly, most of the guys just
>>>aren't that hot. All the theorising in the world won't change that.
>
>>I plead ignorance on the "sexiness" of comic book heroes,
>
>[breaking out in relieved laughter] Thank you! That was, after all, what
>I've been trying to talk about. Would you also admit ignorance on the
>"sexiness" of men in general?
For me personally, yes. As to what society tells us makes men attractive, NO.
I can read and see tv commercials. I know what the media and socitey in
general wants us to consider attractive.
>>though I would
>>have thought Giffen,s v2 Dirk Morgna was a bit of a ladykiller.
>
>I don't know... never seen him.
Well, look him up, I would be curious to here your opinion.
Todd VerBeek, GWM
>> and/or well-defined muscles will make them sexy/important/whatever.
>> Especially since it tends to have the opposite effect (even more so with
>> artificial sterones).
>I think you're way overestimating the influence that comics have on
>folks. Do you also think that kids would start smoking because Gambit
>smokes ? And if so, what about all the positive influences that comics
>may have : the ethical codes of Superman, Spiderman, Robin etc ?
>[ Personally I think both the positive and negative influences of
>comics are way overblown. ]
What you didn't quote above was Kent's accusation that I didn't care about
steroid abuse (which =he= characterised as a Major Problem induced by
comic books). Taking offense at this, my reaction was rather strongly
stated.
To take your extreme example, no I don't think that kids will start
smoking just because Gambit smokes. Nor do I think they will because
they think Joe Camel is cool. Nor because the Marlboro Man smokes. Nor
because their friend Jimmy does. Nor because cigs are readily available
from vending machines. Nor because they are "adult" and "forbidden".
But all of these factors can come together to have a tremendous influence.
(This wholistic view is why I think its fairly meaningless to discuss
how women are portrayed =just= in comics.)
Todd VerBeek, GWM
>Johanna Draper (sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu) wrote:
>> Could you suggest a superhero comic with female characters that doesn't
>> have this problem? Out of your list (Shaman's Tears, Hellblazer, Icon,
>Statc, Legion, Bone, Books of Magic, ClanDestine, Strangers in Paradise,
>Blood Syndicate. All of whom have female characters in them who aren't
>just pretty faces and big bosoms.
Bone and Strangers in Paradise are definitely not superhero books, and I'd
argue that Books of Magic isn't either. (I haven't seen ClanDestine.)
Todd VerBeek, GWM
>In article <3bnfbg$8...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
>Then why have you been posting to this thread? How would you have had any
>objections in the first place?
I think she was refering to the art of specific artists. Or are you
just being "deliberately dense"? <grin>
Kent Matthewson
>I take too much pride in my intellect to play stupid. Either I really =am=,
>or your explanations need to be more clear. Some constructive criticism:
>Read what you write before you send it. You'll catch sentences that don't
>make sense that way.
>This will be a refreshing change from the "it should be obvious what I mean"
>style of explanation.
I suppose it's because I don't have time (I do this at work on breaks or
lunch, and I already go overlong) to explain every possible detail of my
argument and defend against every possible interpretation or counter argument.
This is a discussion group, not a philosophy course. I also don't like
writing or reading 100+ line posts. Some constructive criticism: trim a
little!
Kent Matthewson
>>>Are you saying that women are =not= more objectified in other media? Or are
>>>you saying it's irrelevant? In either case, I'm curious why. (And a "double
>>>standard" has to apply to =two= things, not just one.)
>>I'm saying that you're applying a double standard by applying the judgement
>>that it's acceptable to portray males in a physically stereotyped,
>>unrealistic manner, but it is not acceptable to do so with females in
>>comics. That counts on my little fingers as TWO things.
>Good counting, but that's not what I've been saying. I'm saying that it's
>unacceptable to portray females as sex fantasies and males as power fantasies.
>If anything, I'm arguing =against= a double standard. And as I've said
>elsewhere, I =don't= like the male physiques in comics. For one thing,
>they're =ugly=.
That's not what you've been saying (at least not in the post I responded to).
I didn't realize you were differentiating between the two, and saying that men
are portrayed as power fantasies. I have a couple of problems with this.
Firstly, how would females be portrayed as power fantasies? I think a large
number of artists portray females as fit and muscular as is likely for the
female physique. Secondly, how would males be portrayed as sex fantasies, if
not in skin-tight, often revealing costumes, with plenty of developed defined
muscles. (I don't buy the "this is not attractive" bit - maybe you think this
way, but most don't. Period. And no, I'm not going to do a general poll to
back this up - this is a *discussion* group - and I think some assumptions can
safely be made.)
>>I am also
>>saying that how women are portrayes elsewhere IS irrelevant only for
>>the purposes of this discussion, as we're talking about their portrayal
>>in comics, not everywhere else.
>When it's part of a larger phenomenon I think that phenomenon =is=
>relevant. If you narrow your focus enough, you can =always= find a
>subset in which your belief is true.
I'm not saying that women are not portrayed in a certain way, I am saying that
in COMICS the sexes are both portrayed in an unrealistic manner. How
they are portrayed elsewhere is a different manner, and one too large
(and out of context) for this group.
>>>>Also, your point that there are >>more
varied >>portrayals of males is not exactly valid. > >>>How is that? Are you
saying that the variety doesn't exist?
I'm saying her *point concerning the variety* is not exactly valid - the
point, not that the variety doesn't exist.
>Allowing for your belief that women are portrayed realistically, I can see how
>this makes sense. (But I feel your premise is thorougly false.)
I think that the women are portrayed are *possible*, (though very rare) and
yes, I agree that it sets up unreasonable expectations. However,
I think comics portray men in a way not even physically
attainable, and that any expectations to live up to that are
equally impossible, and therefore the artistic treatment of the
sexes in comics is equal.
>>>>Overall, however, I have always >>thought that
heroic physiques were appropriate >>to comics, and I have no >>burning desire
for that to change.
>I =do= have sympathy for that acne-ridden geek (especially if he thinks that
>the steroids will help his acne). I was (am?) one myself. But I don't think
>there are as =many= of him as there are girls with self-induced malnutrition,
>so I tend to see the latter as a =bigger= problem.
Some studies (a recent book by a female sociologist? whose name escapes me)
charge that the numbers are actually much lower (in fact close to the number
of steroid abusers, in fact).
> I'm dismayed by your
>apparent dismissal ("I have no burning desire for that to change") of =both=
>problems.
I don't have that desire because such physiques have been a part of heroic
adventure since the Greeks, and also because I don't really see them
as problems in comics.
Kent Matthewson
>PY...@finance.ubc.ca (Kent Matthewson) writes:
>>In article <3bnfbg$8...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
>>>Look, I don't pay any attention to art.
>>Then why have you been posting to this thread? How would you have had any
>>objections in the first place?
>I think she was refering to the art of specific artists. Or are you
>just being "deliberately dense"? <grin>
Touche, Todd :-)
Abhiji...@transarc.com
ENN...@frost.oit.umass.edu (Charles M Seaton) writes:
> comic readers Must Use or they'll lack Valid Judgement. By the
> aesthetic standards used by The Comics Journal, Nemo, most of Japan,
> or daily strips, Byrne is NOT a great artist.
This is way too broad. Firstly, there's no such thing as a single
standard for daily strips, nor is there a single standard for Japanese
comics. Hagar is different from the Phantom. Takahashi is different
from Tezumi etc. It is also incorrect to say that Byrne is not a great
artist by either standard : its just not a market he's tried to work
in (not that there's any guarantee that he'll be succesful in either,
but he hasn't even tried).
I might equally well claim that Byrne is a great artist by the
standards of Time, since his art has appeared on their cover :-).
> (I'm not commenting on Bolland becuase he's had a lot of work
> published in Britain that I've never seen - for all I know, you're
> correct, and he's done significant amounts of non-superhero work.)
He did lots of underground work prior to doing superhero work.
> was in Italy a couple of years ago none of the comics fans I met had
> heard of Perez or Byrne (or any other 1980s superhero artist, for
> that matter). The only American cartoonists I could find in most
> comic book stores were Eisner and Corban, for what that's worth.
I haven't been to Italy recently, but in most of Europe its pretty easy
to get superhero comics. And I suspect the most popular American artist
in Europe is Carl Barks.
> Supergirl and Wonder Woman have identical bodies and facial
> structures. Switch the costume and the hair, and you'd never know
> the difference. Ditto for the majority of the female characters
> drawn in "Crisis" - Perez draws with a "attractive woman" template
> in mind, and only occasionally deviates from it.
Perez was dealing with already existing characters. And quite frankly,
I sympathise with his predicament. Drawing literally hundreds of male
and female characters is no easy task.
> when the writing calls for an adolescant girl, or an old woman, or a
> giantess, or white eyes, THEN they vary things, but whenever they
> have to draw a normal, healthy, attractive young woman, they'll use
> the same chiched template 95% of the time.
The point is that idealized forms and figures are a staple part of the
genre. Byrne, Perez and Bolland CAN and very often do draw supporting
characters or characters in non-supporting roles very well. A great
example is provided in a Byrne issue of FF (#270 something) in which
the FF have actually set up secret identities and are inviting several
of their neighbours to a party. There's one great shot of all the
neighbours, showing about 20 different body types.
> Why do Johanna and I have to use whatever you think are the
> "standards of the medium in general"? In any case, I dispute this
> statement - these artists are great by superhero standards, but
> pretty boring by any other standards, imo.
Fine, but Johanna was originally talking about superhero comics, and
conventional ones at that. If you say they are great by the standards
of the superhero medium, then you're actually disagreeing with her.
> For =my= tastes, artists like B B or P - who draws relatively
> realistic figures, with a lot of specific detail - should provide
> varied faces and bodies, in order to bring the reader into a fuller
> fictional world.
Well, its a matter of taste. If BWS wants to draw about incredibly well
endowed men and women in a completely fictional world, thats fine with
me.
Actually, I don't agree with Mike's earlier statement that anyone who
doesn't like Perez, Bolland and Byrne lacks valid aesthetic judgement.
And I don't think they're great artists either. I think they're very
good to excellent artists, but a great artist needs to contribute
significantly to the visual medium. Therefore Perez, Bolland (or Alan
Davis or Charlie Vess or P Craig Russell or Paul Chadwick or Steve
Rude or Dave Sim or Wendy Pini) are not great artists : merely drawing
beautiful art doesn't qualify you. [ I'm talking ONLY art, not story
here. ]
Neal Adams, Jack Kirby, Sienckwicz, Cole, Kurtzman, Wood, Frank
Frazetta, Carl Barks etc. are greats. Dave McKean and John Bolton are
somewhere in between in my estimation : they're certainly very good
artists, but I'm not quite willing to call them great.
Finally, I don't think that drawing a relatively small number of body
shapes and types is a disqualifier from being a great artist. Eisner
used very few female types (and while his later work may have been
different, he was acknowledged as a great long before then), as did
Hal Foster, as did Milton Caniff, as did Byrne Hogarth, as did Alex
Raymond. Herge had practically the same body for all his male
characters (and no female characters to speak of). Most of them are
widely recognized as great artists.
Abhijit
Abhiji...@transarc.com
sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
> [Abhijit's list of comics and whether they have female characters deleted.
..
> draw them as too developed. Some are better than others, but I wouldn't
> say that all of his list has no problems, as he claimed.]
Actually, I withdraw Ultraforce from my list, having just read the
latest issue :-(. Great story, though.
sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
> Look, I don't pay any attention to art. Abhijit (I apologize if I've
> misspelled his name) said that those artists usually draw only one time of
> female figure.
My original posting wasn't clear in this regard. I should clarify it.
Bolland, Perez, Byrne draw gorgeous female superheroines, but when
dealing with supporting characters or in non-superheroic books, they
can draw a whole variety of body types.
Abhijit
m.a.hall
: adeb...@daniel.drew.edu writes:
: >In article <hgzXdGB.t...@delphi.com>, The Mystic Mongoose <tmmon...@delphi.com> writes:
: >> Johanna Draper <sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> writes:
: >>>Muscles aren't linked to sexuality as strongly as breasts are.
: >> You are correct in that there is not as *strong* of a link between
: >> muscles and sexuality as there is breasts and sexuality, but there is
: >> certainly a link.
: >I remember an interview with Don Simpson in Comics Scene Magazine back
: >before he ever did work for Image where he talks about how all
: >superhero comic books are about sex. Superheroes are just metaphors
: >for sex. The guys get bigger when they fight and everyone parades in
: >their underwear. He went further, but I don't remember it offhand.
: >Maybe I'll go in search of the quote and post it up here tomorrow...
: Interesting theory, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. <grin>
: In any case, thinking about comics in this sense sounds more like a
: metaphor for rape than sex. At best, it's "sex" as seen from a
: male perspective.
He's pretty close to my personal reasoning.
Superheroes are supposed to be people we look up to. Better than us in
all ways eg. superman. The men all are steroid giants, who could beat us
poor fanboys to a pulp. The women are the implant 'babes' who SOMEONE ELSE
has sex with every night. And they can beat up us poor fanboys too and
make us LOVE IT.
All sexually-orientated by the law of the jungle. Big man have big
muscles so he shag big breasted woman (Urgh! Urgh!). Little fanboy follow
around with tongue on ground. (Grunt!)
Mike Hall
zombie
>>Statc, Legion, Bone, Books of Magic, ClanDestine, Strangers in Paradise,
>>Blood Syndicate. All of whom have female characters in them who aren't
>>just pretty faces and big bosoms.
>
Are you saying it is Alternative? Have you cleared that with the a.c.a.
crowd?
zombie
--
##### I hate it when I can't gird my loins with funny animals. -Calvin #####
# Even the flies dropped like...What do flies drop like? -Porno For Pyros #
# I've got to pull myself together! What can I do? My natural studliness #
# has overwhelmed Susie's fragile grip on reality! -Calvin ## E.VEIT GEnie #
## zom...@netcom.com # 74563,1713 CompuServe # zom...@redeye.ebay.sun.com ##
Abhiji...@transarc.com
> unacceptable to portray females as sex fantasies and males as power
>fantasies.
Well, Elaine Lee seems to think that having big breasts is a female
power fantasy :-). BTW, for all the talk of outsized breasts being
purely sexual, I've yet to see anyone on racm claim that they liked
outsized breasts. Now racm is hardly typical, and maybe those who have
such desires are embarassed to admit them :-), but most supermodels
don't have huge breasts as well.
> >the purposes of this discussion, as we're talking about their portrayal
> >in comics, not everywhere else.
>
> When it's part of a larger phenomenon I think that phenomenon =is=
> relevant. If you narrow your focus enough, you can =always= find a
> subset in which your belief is true.
The problem is that this is a comics newsgroup. I've been trying to
avoid bringing other media into the discussion because they're not
relevant to this group. Sure, we wander off into other matters all the
time, but there's no reason to encourage it unduly.
> Evidently this is a definition of "physical possibility" of which I was
> unaware. Not only are some of the women in comics biologically
>impossible
Existence Proof : Dolly Parton. Its very unsual, but its certainly not
impossible. [ And for say Byrne or Perez's women, there are lots who
are similar to them.].
[ About male and female physiques.]
> so I tend to see the latter as a =bigger= problem. I'm dismayed by
>your apparent dismissal ("I have no burning desire for that to
>change") of =both= problems.
Quite frankly, I don't see a problem at all. The heroic physique has
been a staple of myths for almost as long as there have been hero
myths. Furthermore, while an excessive pursuit of the body beautiful is
bad, the excessive pursuit of anything is bad. Sure, yo-yo dieting is
bad, but someone who foregos that extra doughnut or walks that extra
mile is doing just fine, thank you.
But ultimately, comics (and most other forms of entertainment) are mainly
escapism. Sure, some (very few) comics and books will elevate you
mentally or spiritually, but most are entertainment. Part of that is
fantasy wish-fulfillment. As long as people don't confuse fantasy with
reality, there's nothing wrong with this. There's very often some
prurient appeal in fantasy fulfillment. Romance comics do it on a
gentler level, erotic comics have it as their main element etc. etc. Do
you consider romance comics to be bad because they give people
unreasonable unexpectations :-) ?
Japan has the most highly developed comic book industry in the world.
It has been argued that a large portion of the reason for the success
of manga is that the Japanese lead relatively humdrum lives and find
the comics great escapism. Sexual comics, ranging from the sex/humor
of Takahashi to pure hard erotica, are a large portion of this. This
doesn't seem to have done any great harm to Japanese society that I can
notice.
I have no particular interest in big muscles or big breasts, and didn't
even when I was a kid. But I do like characters in fantasy to be
attractively drawn and to be depicted as attractive figures. I find the
cutesy look (Robin, Ariana, the L* folks, Thorn, a number of Bachalo's
characters) to be quite appealing and I have no desire to see that
change.
Abhijit
adeb...@daniel.drew.edu
> variation in figures. I can understand (and support) your objections
> to the Jim Lee copycat artists, but it seems to me that you're all too
> willing to brand any artist as sexist.
>
>
Actually, it's not just the Jim Lee _clones_... One of my favorite
examples of this was the Uncanny X-Men issue where the X-Men fight
with the
Shiar during Lee's run. It had the triple-gatefold cover with all the
X-Men across it in their yellow and blue uniforms. Take a look at
Jubilee. How old is she supposed to be? She's got the development of
a 21 year old with overactive mammory glands... UGH
-Augie De Blick Jr.
Rodney Payne
>That's not what you've been saying (at least not in the post I responded to).
>I didn't realize you were differentiating between the two, and saying that men
>are portrayed as power fantasies. I have a couple of problems with this.
>Firstly, how would females be portrayed as power fantasies? I think a large
>number of artists portray females as fit and muscular as is likely for the
>female physique.
Rubbish. The comics portrayal of the female physique is
neither the pinnacle of fitness or muscularity. Extremely fit women,
exemplified by the marathon runner, are extremely thin and as far from
voluptuous as humanly possible. Extremely fit woman have narrow bodies
with a minimum of body fat, such as breasts. The only thing extremely
muscular women have in common with their comic counterparts is narrow
waists. They have wide shoulders, small breasts, and narrow hips. They
also have thick heavily muscled necks, another feature which would be
rarely found on comic females: even on She-Hulk.
>Secondly, how would males be portrayed as sex fantasies, if
>not in skin-tight, often revealing costumes, with plenty of developed defined
>muscles.
Whether or not heavy muscle development is a turn on in males is
irelevent. Let's assume it is. The point is that overdeveloped muscles are
a display of strength. Strength indicates dominance. Therefore, most
superhero comics are asserting male dominance over females. When a well
muscled man wants to `show off' his `power', hell take off his shirt and
strut about with his chest out. When was the last time you saw a well
endowed woman assert herself by walking around topless?
And anyway, men's costumes aren't revealing, for all intents and
purposes. Can you make out the male genetalia through the typical costume.
Unless they've just been in the refridgerator they should be visible: check
out the next guy you see in bike shorts. But you can't, 'cause the artists
wont draw them.
>(I don't buy the "this is not attractive" bit - maybe you think this
>way, but most don't. Period. And no, I'm not going to do a general poll to
>back this up - this is a *discussion* group - and I think some assumptions can
>safely be made.)
I'm sure it is attractive. But it's not corelated to vulnerability in the
same way scantily clad women's breasts and butts are.
>I think that the women are portrayed are *possible*, (though very rare) and
>yes, I agree that it sets up unreasonable expectations. However,
>I think comics portray men in a way not even physically
>attainable, and that any expectations to live up to that are
>equally impossible, and therefore the artistic treatment of the
>sexes in comics is equal.
There are two issues here. The one that you address (that unattainable
body shapes cause self image problems) may affect both sexes. The second
is that women are portrayed in a way that implies they are primarily for
male sexual gratification. Simple classical conditioning. If you pair one
thing (a woman) with another thing (a sexually attractive female shape)
for long enough then readers will start to see this exclusively. This goes
beyond their physiques: look at their body language. To a certain extent
this is countered by writing them in an assertive manner, but that doesn't
excuse the artists. Nor does this imply that it's intentional, but they
should take more responsibility.
>Some studies (a recent book by a female sociologist? whose name escapes me)
>charge that the numbers are actually much lower (in fact close to the number
>of steroid abusers, in fact).
Well, that's at odds with the majority of studies, so until you provide a
reference...
>I don't have that desire because such physiques have been a part of heroic
>adventure since the Greeks, and also because I don't really see them
>as problems in comics.
Enormous breasts, tiny waists, nonexistant feet, ridiculous hips. These
things aren't heroic, they're sexual.
--
Rodney Payne | What is the meaning of life? Life has no
| meaning. It's just a fortunate coincidence
spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | of carbon chemistry. Forget about it.
rgp...@cfs01.cc.monash.edu.au | Anonymous
You Don't Own My Elmo
> ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) writes:
>>Bone...definately not superhero
>
> Are you saying it is Alternative? Have you cleared that with the a.c.a.
> crowd?
not-Superhero not-equal Alternative. Or are you claiming that Archie
is alternative?
You might consider checking the raca charter, which defines alternative
as non-mainstream, before you engage in cheap shots.
--
"I saw how fabulous you look, like this incredibly voluptuous sweatpant-clad
wood nymph."--Joel Fleischman
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnal.fnal.gov)
Damon B. Crumpler
in response to rodney, who says that male muscl;es are
a display of male dominance over women-
i find that attitude distasteful, and wrong.
i think male muscles in comics are a sign of male dominance
over OTHER MALES.
the sexual thing rodney states is a cultural phenomenon that has
arisen with the feminist movement.
anyway, my point-
people in comics (or the ones we're talking about) are supposed to be idealized
forms of the human body-
ths is especially evident in the examples everyon'e been citing to prove their points.
i'll take byrne as an example-he draws extreme (but more believable ) physiques
for his heroes than for his secondary characters.
i thnk you'll find most artists do this.
the female physique, which has enhanced sexual characteristsics,
also has enhanced idealized characteristics (ie, they're extremely fit)
(and they have to be, to carry those breasts around)
the male has enhanced idealized characteristics, which in this culture,
and i owuld be willing to bet for as long as there
has been a culture (and before that) (hell, look at Greek
male form every once in a while)
ARE correlated with enhanced sexuality/desirability.
to say that your anecdotal evidence where you and/or your friends
don't find these male characteristics sexual is i think
ignoring 2000 years of representational evidence against
your statements.
female portrayals are sexist in comics only if you think they are,
or if society defines them as such.
there is no negative oppression of women by their portrayals
(and i'm ONLY speaking about visaul portraylals here)
unless YOU think there is.
I do not think it's oppressive to idealize and objectify
women this way, because I can separate reality from fanstasy
(for the most part)
i'm sure all of YOU can too.
so, for those of you who are saying that objectification of women
has a negative impact on society, you're saying that these people
who are affected are dumber than you, and hence you should be able to
determine what's good for them-
even if you Don't mean by censorship (and no
one's brought that up yet, so i won't:)
but at least by some sort of superior moral ability.
--
Reality is a strange attractor. The universe is at a complex
point between randomness and chaos. Everything is true. Chaos=>
Sameness. Knowledge is evil. Art is both substance and surface-
Those who go below do so at their risk(wilde). happy, happy, joy
Bob_Backlund
Why are you talking about this in the first place, while you could be
helping me bring morality back into the WWF? I'm not going to be
MENDACIOUS with you. I'm not going to be FALLACIOUS with you people.
Are you listening to me?!
You should know by now that I am a convivial person. I could've been
very truculent with you just now.
I will not retire until I procure the crossed-face-chicken wing on you!
- Bob Backlund
Abhiji...@transarc.com
spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Rodney Payne) writes:
> irelevent. Let's assume it is. The point is that overdeveloped muscles are
> a display of strength. Strength indicates dominance. Therefore, most
> superhero comics are asserting male dominance over females. When a well
> muscled man wants to `show off' his `power', hell take off his shirt and
> strut about with his chest out. When was the last time you saw a well
> endowed woman assert herself by walking around topless?
This is a completely spurious comparison. There's a heavy societal
taboo in the United States against public frontal female nudity. Except
for a special nudist camp, a woman could get herself arrested for doing
that. But yes, some attractive women (not all by any means) do like
displaying their figures at beaches or at fitness centers, and some men
with well formed figures do like that too. [ And if you're suggesting
that all men show off their power by acting in the way you mentioned,
then I have to say that you're wrong.]
> And anyway, men's costumes aren't revealing, for all intents and
> purposes. Can you make out the male genetalia through the typical costume.
> Unless they've just been in the refridgerator they should be visible: check
> out the next guy you see in bike shorts. But you can't, 'cause the artists
> wont draw them.
Do tell ? How many times can you make out -------'s in female spandex
shorts or pants ? [ Fill in the blank yourself.]. And if you think that
male size is not considered a power characterstic, then you don't live
in the same world I do.
A better answer is that the level of eroticism in any publication tends
to find a level that appeals to most of its audience without offending
too many. Playboy, for instance, will not show male p___'s or
females with their legs uncrossed.
> There are two issues here. The one that you address (that unattainable
> body shapes cause self image problems) may affect both sexes.
Does showing an incredibly brainy Reed Richards cause problems by
people thinking that they can't be as intelligent as him ? An
incredibly wealthy Bruce Wayne or Richie Rich :-)? And, within limits,
there's no particular harm in people trying to stay physically fit, and
developing a good physique. Excess of anything is bad.
And quite frankly, there will always be someone in your peer group, who
will be more intelligent, more handsome, more sexy etc. Everyone has to
learn to cope with that. For kids, its a good training for later life.
> is that women are portrayed in a way that implies they are primarily for
> male sexual gratification.
In some superhero comics, yes. Not in most, let alone all.
> Simple classical conditioning. If you pair one
> thing (a woman) with another thing (a sexually attractive female shape)
> for long enough then readers will start to see this exclusively.
Well, almost none of the attractive females in comics start jumping
into the sack with the first hero who comes along. Mere attractiveness
does not imply availabilty, In fact, two of the most popular women in
comics, Rogue and Death can't have sex at all (speculation in Dee's
case, but very probable).
If humans only interacted with Hollywood (or comic book) ideals of
beauty, then the human race would have gone extinct long ago.
> >I don't have that desire because such physiques have been a part of heroic
> >adventure since the Greeks, and also because I don't really see them
> >as problems in comics.
>
> Enormous breasts, tiny waists, nonexistant feet, ridiculous hips. These
> things aren't heroic, they're sexual.
If you think there was no sexual component to Greek heroes (or indeed
to heroes in most myths), then I have to disagree with you.
But I agree that ridiculous figures are a bad idea. However, one of the
major points that I've been asserting on this thread is that idealized
but non-absurd figures are a part of the larger than life feel of the
genre, and are not particularly bad. I'm talking superhero or fantasy
artists like John Byrne, Chris Bachalo, George Perez, Brian Bolland,
Charlie Vess and Scott Hampton. Their superhero (or hero) figures are
attractive and have some sex appeal, but many of them also draw
very distinct figures for non-superhero characters. If you think the
depictions of say Bolland or Vess or Bolton or Perez are attractive and
not harmful, then we have nothing to argue about. If you think they are
sexist, then we can go another round :-).
Abhijit
Rick Jones
BTW, I have been called on the proveribal carpet about listing Books of
Magic, Bone, and SiP as superhero books. There's a very simple
explanation about why I did it: I goofed. I was listing comics I collect
that do not have wome in the standard superhero build, and forgot to
limit it to the superhero ones. Mea Culpa.
You Don't Own My Elmo (mor...@fnalv.fnal.gov) wrote:
> I enjoy the tar out of SiP as much as the next guy, but it is a standard guy
> fantasy book. All the women are gorgeous (and seriously stacked), all the
> guys are just ordinary, and, of course, one of the women is a lesbian for
> that extra sexual kick. The stories are titillating.
Elmo, you ignorant slut..... [that's sarcasm, btw]
I just checked. Neither Katchoo or Francine are "seriously stacked".
Maybe comics like Catwoman or Mantra have changed my scales of stackdom,
but they aren't. They're not "seriously gorgeous" either, IMHO. Cute,
yes, but not your typcial comics sex kittens.
> Now, it is a well-done SGFB with some intelligence and significant
> characterization, but it is still, at its core, a book by a guy who
> wants to draw sexy babes. This is not an indictment, just my analysis.
Could be. But they aren't the women of my fantasy life. Francine's
pretty messed up and I've got the wrong plumbing for Katchoo. I just
thought it was a "(semi) real life story."
--
Rick Jones I'm calm. I'm quiet and collected. How that
ri...@blkbox.com desk got tossed out the window is anybody's
Mey...@aol.com guess. --J.M. Straczynski
zombie
>a display of strength.
Nope. Muscles are a result of exersize and genetics.
>Strength indicates dominance.
Huh? No way. Muscles indicate strength. They have nothing to do with
the intent (or lack of) dominating people.
>Therefore, most
>superhero comics are asserting male dominance over females.
What is this nonsense?
zombie
>You might consider checking the raca charter, which defines alternative
>as non-mainstream, before you engage in cheap shots.
That was a toung-in-cheek cheep shot, btw.
zombie
>so, for those of you who are saying that objectification of women
>has a negative impact on society, you're saying that these people
>who are affected are dumber than you, and hence you should be able to
>determine what's good for them-
>even if you Don't mean by censorship (and no
>one's brought that up yet, so i won't:)
>but at least by some sort of superior moral ability.
Very well said. I agree.
Patman
>mor...@fnalv.fnal.gov (You Don't Own My Elmo) writes:
>>You might consider checking the raca charter, which defines alternative
>>as non-mainstream, before you engage in cheap shots.
>
>That was a toung-in-cheek cheep shot, btw.
"Toung"? that sounds painful. :)
Rodney Payne
>This is a completely spurious comparison. There's a heavy societal
>taboo in the United States against public frontal female nudity.
Yes, but decency laws aside, is it really that strong? Many films feature
topless women, and I can use those films to illustrate my point. When
Arnie appears bare chested in _Conan the Barbarian_, the intent and effect
are not the same as when (I've gone blank) a female actress appears
similarly (let's say in the same film: there's female nudity in it, isn't
there?). Yes, there's no doubt a sexual connotation in both cases,
and I wont suggest for one minute that some people don't find `hard' muscles
attractive, but in Arnie's case there's a another issue. Muscles equal
strength, strength equals symbolic (and physical) power. This form of
symbolism is rarely if ever applied to female characters.
Please don't interpret this as an attack on those artists (or
screenwriters, or whatever), or an accusation of deliberate subversion.
It's simply a reflection of societal preferences for attractiveness.
Attractive men are generally muscular, attractive women generally approach
something like that portrayed in comics. But the unfortunate side effect
of drawing so many of them this way is that it implies a power imbalance
between the sexes.
>that. But yes, some attractive women (not all by any means) do like
>displaying their figures at beaches or at fitness centers, and some men
>with well formed figures do like that too. [ And if you're suggesting
>that all men show off their power by acting in the way you mentioned,
>then I have to say that you're wrong.]
No, I'm not making any blanket generalisations. But I think I can fairly
safely say muscles on men are far more often associated with power than
voluptuous figures are on women.
>Do tell ? How many times can you make out -------'s in female spandex
>shorts or pants ? [ Fill in the blank yourself.]. And if you think that
>male size is not considered a power characterstic, then you don't live
>in the same world I do.
Penis size may be a power characteristic, but a pretty obtuse one. I don't
subscribe to the Freudian obsession with phallic symbols. That aside, male
gentalia are a physically vulnerable zone, as I'm sure most guys have
experienced. My female friends tell me that breasts are as well. Yet
breasts are clearly visible on comic women, while the male organs are
rarely visible through the equally tight costumes of their male
counterparts. Which is simply inaccurate.
>A better answer is that the level of eroticism in any publication tends
>to find a level that appeals to most of its audience without offending
>too many. Playboy, for instance, will not show male p___'s or
>females with their legs uncrossed.
An appropriate bulge is not as explicit (though in line with the more is
less theory, may be more of a turn on) as a naked penis. Those who are
truly offended by a prominent male organ are probably just as peturbed by
the abundance of barely covered breasts.
>Does showing an incredibly brainy Reed Richards cause problems by
>people thinking that they can't be as intelligent as him ? An
>incredibly wealthy Bruce Wayne or Richie Rich :-)? And, within limits,
>And quite frankly, there will always be someone in your peer group, who
>will be more intelligent, more handsome, more sexy etc. Everyone has to
>learn to cope with that. For kids, its a good training for later life.
Well, while I don't think the issue is quite this simplistic, this isn't
really my arguement. I was just clarifying what was contained in the
previous post.
>In some superhero comics, yes. Not in most, let alone all.
Again, not really my contention. It happens in often enough to be a problem.
>> Simple classical conditioning. If you pair one
>> thing (a woman) with another thing (a sexually attractive female shape)
>> for long enough then readers will start to see this exclusively.
>Well, almost none of the attractive females in comics start jumping
>into the sack with the first hero who comes along.
I'd be happier if a few did: it would imply some assertiveness. I have no
problem with sex in comics, I'm not a prude. This is a power issue.
>Mere attractiveness does not imply availabilty,
According to recent date rape statistics, around 20% of men seem to think
it implies exactly that.
>In fact, two of the most popular women in
>comics, Rogue and Death can't have sex at all (speculation in Dee's
>case, but very probable).
This is really missing the point. I wont discuss Death, since she's a well
written character in a universally acknowlegded mature comic, but you've
missed the central appeal of Rogue. Yes, she's a virgin. She can't have
sex? It's difficult, but I suspect not impossible (as many racx threads
have shown). The whole point though, is that she is desirable for that
very reason. It all comes back to that power issue. Look how hideously
she's been depowered. All threats to masculinity have been removed from
her. She never uses her absorbing powers (which would put her in the
sexually dominant position). She is continually beaten by lesser males (as
far back as sabretooth in X-Men #213). She is simply a male lust object.
She's vulnerable, innocent, incredibly attractive: exactly the sought of
thing I've been talking about. Exactly the sought of thing that supplies
the wrong impression of women to young, unsocialised males.
>If you think there was no sexual component to Greek heroes (or indeed
>to heroes in most myths), then I have to disagree with you.
We dont' disagree here. But, as I've said, the muscular male figure
implies more than sexuality.
>But I agree that ridiculous figures are a bad idea. However, one of the
>major points that I've been asserting on this thread is that idealized
>but non-absurd figures are a part of the larger than life feel of the
>genre, and are not particularly bad. I'm talking superhero or fantasy
>artists like John Byrne, Chris Bachalo, George Perez, Brian Bolland,
>Charlie Vess and Scott Hampton. Their superhero (or hero) figures are
>attractive and have some sex appeal, but many of them also draw
>very distinct figures for non-superhero characters. If you think the
>depictions of say Bolland or Vess or Bolton or Perez are attractive and
>not harmful, then we have nothing to argue about. If you think they are
>sexist, then we can go another round :-).
Just half a round, I think. :) We more or less agree, these artists aren't
really involved in this phenomena. Again, I'm not interested in making
generalisations: I can walk into a comic store and point out which
comics/artists are at `fault' (though not necessarily with intention to
cause harm). I actually like looking at attractively drawn comic
characters of both sexes. But in many superhero comics, as well as many
other areas of the media, the portrayal of women leaves a lot to be
desired (if not uncovered :)).
(BTW, liked the observation on Ultraforce. A good comic, that. But *why*
does it have to go up to $2.50 (which is $4.00 here)?)
Rodney Payne
>>The point is that overdeveloped muscles are
>>a display of strength.
>Nope. Muscles are a result of exersize and genetics.
And they are not a sign of strength? What rubbish. In fact you go on to
contradict yourself.
>>Strength indicates dominance.
>Huh? No way. Muscles indicate strength. They have nothing to do with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And here is that contradiction.
>the intent (or lack of) dominating people.
So you cannot physically dominate someone with strength? And this cannot
be symbolic of a different form of dominance? You have no idea what
allegory is, do you? I just bet you're the type to see _Natural Born
Killers_ and say, `It was so stupid. I mean, bullets can't slow down.'
Stick to newspapers, they should be literal enough for you.
>>Therefore, most
>>superhero comics are asserting male dominance over females.
(I should have said `many superhero ...'. Typing with a headache, again.)
>What is this nonsense?
It's a valid arguement. Your blanket dismissal indicates you either don't
understand it, or are completely unable to counter it. Why not try arguing
your point next time? Or is this the best you can do?
Rodney Payne
>>so, for those of you who are saying that objectification of women
>>has a negative impact on society, you're saying that these people
>>who are affected are dumber than you,
The negative effects of the objectification of women are established social
phenomena. You don't have to be dumb to believe what you see every day of
your life. Escaping its effects has nothing to do with intelligence, it
has to do with education.
>>and hence you should be able to
>>determine what's good for them-
I'm not interested in determining what's good for them. `They' can think
whatever they like. I care about what female friends of mine have
to put up with, every day of there lives. Have you ever lost a promotion
because a male superior didn't take you seriously? Wake up and smell the
<insert substance of your choice>.
And just to link this in some way to comics, I propose the following
question. Who'd win: Doc Manhattan or the Beyonder?
Todd VerBeek, GWM
>In article <3bnuf5$k...@hydra.cs.hope.edu> ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) writes:
>>Good counting, but that's not what I've been saying. I'm saying that it's
>>unacceptable to portray females as sex fantasies and males as power fantasies.
>>elsewhere, I =don't= like the male physiques in comics. For one thing,
>>they're =ugly=.
>That's not what you've been saying (at least not in the post I responded to).
That's what I started out with. Others have sidetracked the discussion into
questions that are oblique to this point, so I haven't had opportunity to
reiterate it.
>I didn't realize you were differentiating between the two, and saying that men
>are portrayed as power fantasies. I have a couple of problems with this.
>Firstly, how would females be portrayed as power fantasies? I think a large
>number of artists portray females as fit and muscular as is likely for the
>female physique.
What about the massive fat deposits on their chests? Fit, muscular women don't
have breasts that large. There's also that matter of posing: women are posed
in positions right out of the skin mags; men are not.
>Secondly, how would males be portrayed as sex fantasies, if
>not in skin-tight, often revealing costumes, with plenty of developed defined
>muscles. (I don't buy the "this is not attractive" bit - maybe you think this
>way, but most don't. Period. And no, I'm not going to do a general poll to
>back this up - this is a *discussion* group - and I think some assumptions can
>safely be made.)
(That's what they said about assumptions like, "the earth is flat" and "heavier
objects fall faster".)
If you won't take my word (and that of the women who've expressed an opinion),
you might try reading surveys in women's magazines. None I've seen have
identified Arnold Schwartzenegger or Hulk Hogan as sexy. You see people like
Alan Alda, Tom Hanks, Dudley Moore, and Robert Redford right up there with
the Buff Model Of The Year.
And since you haven't read my past postings, I'll reiterate that the =butt=
is the most appreciated piece of male anatomy, followed by facial features
like eyes and smiles... none of which are focused on in most comics.
Shazam 101
M Seaton) writes:
>Nor, honestly, could I see a good argument being set forth for Perez
>and Byrne having significant "ideas and visions." Neither one of
>them would be spit on a fence without Kirby's vision to expand on.
Wrong. Byrne has 6 or 7 different artistic influences. Kirby is only
one of them. His other influences include artists who've been drawing
almost as long as Kirby like Kubert and Swan. Admittedly these
artists were influences by Kirby too, but they had their own styles.
[Ditko and Adams are two other Byrne influences, and both have their
own styles as well.]. Sure, Byrne would be a weaker artist without
Kirby, but to claim that he wouldn't be spit on a fence is completely
wrong.
>Of course, there are exceptions - Byrne's Kitty Pryde, the hag-form
>in Mother's Calling, Perez's Terra. But the point is, none of these
>artists varies their female form except when they have to - that is,
>when the writing calls for an adolescant girl, or an old woman, or a
>giantess, or white eyes, THEN they vary things, but whenever they
>have to draw a normal, healthy, attractive young woman, they'll use
>the same chiched template 95% of the time. Certainly none of them
>comes anywhere CLOSE to the variety of body and face types found in
>recent Eisner, either Hernandez brother, Chester Brown, Alison
>Bechdel, or real life.
I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with more of Byrne's work. Byrne's early
work on X-men isn't really that representative (although even then he did
vary body types), because he was a rookie at that time and he wasn't the
writer. However, his supporting characters in FF have a number of body
types.
Even his men are different. Both Johnny and Reed have distinctive. Sue
Richards is portrayed as an attractive woman, but her dimensions are way
different from those of Alicia, for instance.
The same thing is noticeable on Byrne's Superman. He actually beefed
up Clark Kent a bit, making him more muscluar, but the supporting
characters
have a variation of body shapes. In Next Men, (a non-conventional
superhero
comic), his heroes have distinct dimensions and his supporting characters
do too.
The best example to invalidate your comment is to suggest Babe. Its not a
very good comic, so don't bother to buy it. But of the three lead
characters in
the book, one is a small, semi-attractive young woman, and she comes
across
with a very distinctive body. Ditto for the second lead character, a
slightly sleazy
man. The third one is .. well a babe, with a She Hulk type heroic
physique,
but she's actually composed of five women, with distinct physiques.
Byrne's
faces typically have some Byrneian touches (I can spot a Byrne face a mile
of), but are still moderately distinctive.
Byrne's physiques (excluding his heroic characters) show as much
variation
as those of the Bros Hernandez. He can and does do such figures.
As far as Perez goes, practically the same holds. This despite the fact
that
Perez's books typically have huge casts. Perez has done relatively fewer
non-superheroish characters, but he does give them individual physiques.
And quite frankly, Perez is an artist who can render what looks like every
block
of rubble in a building, or every leaf in a forest. Look at some of the
crowd
scenes in Future Imperfect. When he draws a room, even a complicated one,
he makes sure everything is consistent in between shot to shot from
different
angles and perspectives. His costumes are rich and detailed, down to
miniature
details : so much so that other artists have been known to be unwilling to
draw Perez designed costumes. To suggest that someone who puts (or
used to put) so much effort and detail into his work is incapable or too
lazy
to draw individual physiques is an insult (albeit unintentionally).
You may not like Perez and Byrne's art, but don't cast doubts on their
abilities
without at least acquainting yourself fully with their work.
Abhiji...@transarc.com
ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) writes:
> If you won't take my word (and that of the women who've expressed an
>opinion), you might try reading surveys in women's magazines. None
>I've seen have identified Arnold Schwartzenegger or Hulk Hogan as
>sexy
But I've been saying all along that well-defined, toned muscles are
attractive. Arnie and Hulk do NOT fall into that category. They are
obscenely overmuscled, and I don't believe anyone ever said that that
was widely regarded as attractive ?
Just out of curiosity, how many men identify Dolly Parton or another
humongous breasted woman as attractive as compared to say, Kathy
Ireland ? Maybe big breasts aren't an attractive sex symbol either ..
>You see people like
> Alan Alda, Tom Hanks, Dudley Moore, and Robert Redford right up there with
> the Buff Model Of The Year.
I'll point out that personality of the characters involved may also
count. Redford, Alda etc. come across as the sensitive male, while
Hanks is universally known as a nice guy ... Arnie and Hulk have no
such reputations
Whereas, when we're dealing with fictional characters, their
personalities are what the writer conjures up.
Well-defined, firm muscles are considered attractive : look at
Chippendales calendar, or at male porno mags or at shows like Baywatch.
Abhijit
zombie
>zom...@netcom.com (zombie) writes:
>
>>>The point is that overdeveloped muscles are
>>>a display of strength.
>
>>Nope. Muscles are a result of exersize and genetics.
>
>And they are not a sign of strength? What rubbish. In fact you go on to
>contradict yourself.
Muscles themselves do not display.
>>>Strength indicates dominance.
>
>>Huh? No way. Muscles indicate strength. They have nothing to do with
>
>And here is that contradiction.
No contradiction.
>>the intent (or lack of) dominating people.
>
>So you cannot physically dominate someone with strength?
Yes, you can use strength to dominate. The simple fact of having
muscles indicates strength, but not necessarily the intention to
dominate. There are more uses for strength than domination.
[petty insults deleted]
FWIW, I didn't see Natural Born Killers.
>>>Therefore, most
>>>superhero comics are asserting male dominance over females.
>
>(I should have said `many superhero ...'. Typing with a headache, again.)
>
>>What is this nonsense?
>
>It's a valid arguement. Your blanket dismissal indicates you either don't
>understand it, or are completely unable to counter it. Why not try arguing
>your point next time? Or is this the best you can do?
*sigh*
I thought I spelled it out above. I guess I was not clear enough.
OK, here it is: Since I do not believe the mere act of displaying
strength (or doing things that develops muscles as a side effect)
indicates a desire to dominate, your conclusion that "Therefore,
[many] superhero comics are asserting male dominance over females," is
incorrect.
Charles M Seaton
: in response to rodney, who says that male muscl;es are
: a display of male dominance over women-
: i find that attitude distasteful, and wrong.
: i think male muscles in comics are a sign of male dominance
: over OTHER MALES.
It can be both at once. Yes, the muscles are a sign of direct power
over other men; but I agree with Rodney, they also indicated
dominance over women.
But (stated to be more in line with my views) that dominance isn't
the direct, Spiderman-beats-up-Storm sort of thing, but a visual
placement of proper roles. The visuals in most superhero comics
imply that men are for power and battle, women are for sex. IMHO
: the sexual thing rodney states is a cultural phenomenon that has
: arisen with the feminist movement.
Since the feminist movement predates superhero comic books in the
USA, I'm a bit confused by this statement. Yes, this is a feminist
interpretation of superhero comics; that doesn't in any way
invalidate the arguement.
: anyway, my point-
: people in comics (or the ones we're talking about) are supposed to
: be idealized forms of the human body-
The question is, =whose= ideals? Idealized for what purpose? Is an
idealized sex-object the same as an idealized heroic-object, and
which of these two idealizations is most often used for female
superheros?
[...]
: ARE correlated with enhanced sexuality/desirability.
: to say that your anecdotal evidence where you and/or your friends
: don't find these male characteristics sexual is i think
: ignoring 2000 years of representational evidence against
: your statements.
First: I do agree with Micheal on this point. Well-defined and
toned muscles on men are usually considered a sexually attractive
trait in contemporary US culture. This is my subjective view, based
on years of observation.
BUT: That doesn't mean that all drawings of muscular men are sexy or
sexualized. There is more to a sexualized drawing than just a
rendering of an attractive human body. (I'll address this point
more elsewhere on this thread, probably in reply to Abhijit.)
: female portrayals are sexist in comics only if you think they are,
: or if society defines them as such.
And they're nonsexist only if you think they are, or if society
defines them as such. That social questions are relative to society
is an obvious point, and one that doesn't particularly support your
argument, imo.
[...]
: so, for those of you who are saying that objectification of women
: has a negative impact on society, you're saying that these people
: who are affected are dumber than you, and hence you should be able to
: determine what's good for them-
: even if you Don't mean by censorship (and no
: one's brought that up yet, so i won't:)
: but at least by some sort of superior moral ability.
Utter garbage. By this light, it's impossible for anyone, ever, to
suggest that anything in society might have an adverse affect on
anyone else without automatically calling that anyone else dumb.
However, since some things DO have adverse affects, it would be
foolish to never admit this for fear of seeming concieted.
Nor have I, or anyone else in the thread that I've noticed, claimed
to be completely unaffected by media presentation of gender. (I'm
WORKING on being completely unaffected, but I'm not.)
Yours,
--Ennead
Charles M Seaton
: ENN...@frost.oit.umass.edu (Charles M Seaton) writes:
: > comic readers Must Use or they'll lack Valid Judgement. By the
: > aesthetic standards used by The Comics Journal, Nemo, most of Japan,
: > or daily strips, Byrne is NOT a great artist.
: This is way too broad. Firstly, there's no such thing as a single
: standard for daily strips, nor is there a single standard for Japanese
: comics. Hagar is different from the Phantom. Takahashi is different
I agree; I wanted to make my point concisely, and was too broad.
: from Tezumi etc. It is also incorrect to say that Byrne is not a great
: artist by either standard : its just not a market he's tried to work
: in (not that there's any guarantee that he'll be succesful in either,
: but he hasn't even tried).
I was judging by the work Byrne has actually done so far - I
wouldn't presume to judge work he may hypothetically do in the
future. I agree that holding Byrne to Bill Watterson's standards
would be silly - but I was pointing out that holding up a superhero
artist as a standard for an entire medium is silly.
[...]
: I haven't been to Italy recently, but in most of Europe its pretty easy
: to get superhero comics. And I suspect the most popular American artist
: in Europe is Carl Barks.
Now that you mention it, I did see a lot of Barks in Italy - it
slipped my mind when I wrote my earlier post. Thanks for the
correction. =)
[...]
: > Why do Johanna and I have to use whatever you think are the
: > "standards of the medium in general"? In any case, I dispute this
: > statement - these artists are great by superhero standards, but
: > pretty boring by any other standards, imo.
: Fine, but Johanna was originally talking about superhero comics, and
: conventional ones at that. If you say they are great by the standards
: of the superhero medium, then you're actually disagreeing with her.
Superheroes =aren't= a medium - they're a genre. Comics are a
medium. Michael said, "by the general standards of the medium," or
something in that line, and THAT was what I was replying to. If he
had used the word "genre," I doubt I would have objected.
[...]
: Actually, I don't agree with Mike's earlier statement that anyone who
: doesn't like Perez, Bolland and Byrne lacks valid aesthetic judgement.
: And I don't think they're great artists either. I think they're very
: good to excellent artists, but a great artist needs to contribute
: significantly to the visual medium. Therefore Perez, Bolland (or Alan
: Davis or Charlie Vess or P Craig Russell or Paul Chadwick or Steve
: Rude or Dave Sim or Wendy Pini) are not great artists : merely drawing
: beautiful art doesn't qualify you. [ I'm talking ONLY art, not story
: here. ]
I agree with everything here but Sim, who I'd rate higher - I don't
think anyone has done more to expand the visual storytelling aspects
of the medium in the last two decades. He's done more than provide
beautiful art and storytelling; he's actually increased the visual
vocabulary used in the medium. He's also been a concious influence
on the art of many other good artists - Alan Moore and Jeff Smith
come to mind - which I feels argues towards his "greatness." But
that's getting off topic, isn't it?
: Neal Adams, Jack Kirby, Sienckwicz, Cole, Kurtzman, Wood, Frank
: Frazetta, Carl Barks etc. are greats. Dave McKean and John Bolton are
: somewhere in between in my estimation : they're certainly very good
: artists, but I'm not quite willing to call them great.
I'd rate Bolton and Wood lower than you do (we've had the Wood
discussion before, I think =) - and I'd put Walt Kelly and Will
Eisner on my personal "short list," but again we essentially agree.
(It's amazing how often we two agree, really, considering how often
we're at loggerheads. =) It's too soon to call McKean "great,"
imho, but if his experiments with storytelling form continue then I
think he might be considered great someday. (Ditto for Chris Ware.)
: Finally, I don't think that drawing a relatively small number of body
: shapes and types is a disqualifier from being a great artist. Eisner
: used very few female types (and while his later work may have been
: different, he was acknowledged as a great long before then), as did
"may have been?" His recent work is obviously, evidently different,
especially regarding how he draws pretty women - I don't see how
anyone could think otherwise.
: Hal Foster, as did Milton Caniff, as did Byrne Hogarth, as did Alex
: Raymond. Herge had practically the same body for all his male
: characters (and no female characters to speak of). Most of them are
: widely recognized as great artists.
I agree (in fact, I even said so somewhere in the post you're
responding to, I think). IMHO, it's not a disqualifier but a
detriment; if a cartoonist's command of figure drawing isn't up to
snuff, then other aspects of her work need to make up the deficit if
she's to be "great."
Milt Caniff was brilliant in so many respects as to be great
=despite= his (probably self-imposed) limitations drawing women; but
John Byrne, I think you'll agree, is no Milt Caniff. =)
Yours,
--Ennead