VELOCITY #1: Pen-Elayne For Your Thoughts
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Writer: Kurt Busiek <kbu...@aol.com>
Penciller: Anthony Chun
Inker: Aaron Sowd, with assists from Melody White
Colorist: Ashby Manson, PLUS computer colors by a committee of 10,
PLUS one "color embellisher"
Letterer: Dennis Heisler
Assoc. Ed.: Brian Selzer
Editor(s): David Wohl/Len Wein
This Issue's Firesign Quote:
"We're one of you, and you're one of us, I think."
Here's what I thought...
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
I thought, for as many people working on this comic, especially on the
art end of things, it should have been much, much better than it was.
Say what you will about Image - and you will, I've done it too - I do try
to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to new titles. And
even though I realize this is a spinoff of some team or other created by
Mark Silvestri in which I had no interest, still, it's a female speedster
and it's written by Kurt Busiek. So my husband plunked down the $2.50.
The plot is real textbook standard, but briefly: Okay, Velocity's this
kid named Carin with red hair, a white face with a green lightning bolt
painted (?) down the right side of it, and a hellow and green costume.
She's in "Cyberforce - a group of cybernetically enhanced super-powered
mutants" which also includes such jolly handles as Ripclaw and Heatwave.
There's a monster on the loose named, alternately, Charnel and Chamel
(*very* sloppy proofreading, there) who's killing muties, or freaks, or
metas, or whatever they're called in the Image Universe, and presumably
absorbing their powers, even to the extent of being able to morph into
duplicates of them (he can do this after just scraping the DNA off
superfolks). And Velocity is still hung up over the fact that her powers
are pretty useless, especially compared to her sister Cassie, who totes
big guns and doesn't have the problem with killing that Carin does.
Nothing to write home about, typical standard plot, competently written
(although I should warn y'all not to expect another ASTRO CITY here :) )
- but I want to talk about the art.
Okay, Rule #1 that they ought to teach you in every damn life-drawing and
anatomy class in the world. Lissen up carefully, would-be artists
everywhere: A WOMAN'S WAIST IS NEVER SMALLER THAN EITHER OF HER THIGHS.
Got that? Never. You can have the waspiest, most anorexic waist in the
world, and your thighs will be toothpicks. You can have big, strong
thighs, and your waist will have to support the rest of your strong
torso. But you can't have a waist smaller than either of your thighs.
Now, take a ruler and measure the two on the cover of VELOCITY #1. Or
the full figure at the bottom of panel 1 on page 5. Something's really off.
So I got to thinking, why? I mean, besides the fact that this distorted
view of what a woman ought to look like is probably fodder for teenboy,
er, fantasies. What would give it logical, internally consistent sense?
And then I noticed something *else* very interesting on pp. 4 and 5 of
this issue.
These are the standard "townsfolk get enraged over muties, people fear
what they don't understand" pages. And I'm looking at the muties, and I'm
looking at the townspeople. And it suddenly occurs to me, the townspeople
*are* drawn to approximate actual human beings - they have different body
types, but they're all logically drawn the way human beings would look in
Real Life. So, like, the artist *can* draw "real" people if he wants to.
And the first panel of page 5 shows the townspeople up top facing off
against the metas at bottom... and the latter *are* freaks. Especially
Velocity, who stands forward a little from the rest of them.
So something really, really tragic is going on when the real-looking
people are presented as the bad guys (or, at the very least, the ones who
"know not what they do") and the anatomically-distorted people are
idealized as the heroes. Something that says to us on a very subtle level
that it's no longer possible to emulate heroes, because not only don't we
have these kewl powers (which was never as much a reason to emulate them
in the first place as were things like courage and a sense of justice) but
being like them, especially if you're female, would be more of a physical
impossibility than looking like the typical airbrushed anorexic cover girl
or supermodel - so why bother wanting to be heroic at all?
It's impossible for me to feel sympathy for or identify with a woman whose
body has this essential, illogical Wrongness about it. I identify with
the people in the upper half of the panel - I care more about what happens
to their town than what happens to people with no sense to the way they're
drawn. The only panel in which a full-figure Velocity looks halfway
correct to me is the first one on page 7 - if they were all drawn that
way, I'd be halfway tempted to pick up the second issue of this.
But these kinds of dynamic, active panels are few and far between.
Velocity does not exist, artistically, to act, but to be observed. As
long as she's drawn that way, no matter how well Busiek may write her,
she remains an object and not a subject to this reader. And that ain't
why I buy comics.
*plonk*
So, what did y'all think?
- Elayne
--
This review is c. 1995 Elayne Wechsler-Chaput. No portion of the
pictures, descriptions or accounts may be-- no, wait, that's baseball.
Pen-Elaynes are also on the Web (HTML and all!), CIS and AOL now; thanks
to my friends for taking the trouble to syndicate 'em!
fredrick b. chary
>VELOCITY #1
>
>Writer: Kurt Busiek <kbu...@aol.com>
>Penciller: Anthony Chun
>Inker: Aaron Sowd, with assists from Melody White
>Colorist: Ashby Manson, PLUS computer colors by a committee of 10,
> PLUS one "color embellisher"
>Letterer: Dennis Heisler
>Assoc. Ed.: Brian Selzer
>Editor(s): David Wohl/Len Wein
>
>the full figure at the bottom of panel 1 on page 5. Something's really off.
>
>So I got to thinking, why? I mean, besides the fact that this distorted
>view of what a woman ought to look like is probably fodder for teenboy,
>er, fantasies. What would give it logical, internally consistent sense?
>And then I noticed something *else* very interesting on pp. 4 and 5 of
>this issue.
I agree. I took one look at the cover and didn't buy it. My store
manager had even directed my attention to it. She's a woman :)
Mike.
Scott McMahan - Softbase Systems
than any bad artwork, since Top Cow has had several things pending
on the new releases lists and my bag has been empty for the past
few weeks.
Scott
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Jim Smith (jasm...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu) writes:
: On 19 Oct 1995, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
: >Okay, Rule #1 that they ought to teach you in every damn life drawing
: >and anatomy class in the world. Lissen up carefully, would-be artists
: >everywhere: A WOMAN'S WAIST IS NEVER SMALLER THAN EITHER OF HER
: >THIGHS....
: I've noticed this is a common theme throughout most of your reviews of
: woman-protagonist comics, Elayne. Is it a rule of thumb you found in an
: art book? Or is it just a reasonable estimate you came up with?
Actually, Jim, I should probably attribute that observation to Johanna
Draper - I believe it was she who first pointed it out to me. It's based
on common sense and a working knowledge of human anatomy.
: Anyway, this would-be artist has started being more careful from now on :)
And believe me, a lot of readers will be appreciative of this.
Matthew F Johnson (cr...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: It's not a rule of thumb, Jim, it's a law of nature. The waist is the
: linchpin of the whole body. You have big thighs, you have to have a strong
: waist on top of them; you have large breasts, you need a strong waist to
: support them. Even if your thighs are small, the waist has to be larger.
: It's science!
Exactly, Matt. I don't care how ridiculously concave artists want to
draw the belly itself (I personally think women with noticeable bellies
are more attractive than women with none, but then I thought Mae West and
Marilyn Monroe were very sexy women), but they ought to at least have a
ruler or something on hand and just plain measure inches. It's gotten to
the point where I'm no longer kvetching if they make the waist the *same*
width as each thigh.
I'd say the average waist, if you're talking about making body parts
proportionate (you know, torso half the length of the arms or something,
that sort of thing - damn, I wish I knew a little more about life-drawing
than I do, I pick a lot of this up second-hand), the waist should probably
be about double the width of each thigh. I'm fairly proportionate,
although my proportions come in extra-large size :), and my thighs seem
about half the size of my waist if I measure them.
I'm not saying artists can't exaggerate or stylize women, and I realize
there's a lot of fetish and objectification that's always going to happen
out there, but I wouldn't mind just a little more common sense about
these things. You draw a woman like Velocity or the new Black Cat, it
just looks like you're a bad and sloppy artist (and Black Cat artist Murphy
Anderson is one of the best who doesn't need this kind of rep, IMHO).
- Elayne
--
E-Mail me, the "Firehead Head," for more info about the official ()~~
Firesign Theatre newsletter, Four-Alarm FIRESIGNal, available via ##
snail mail or free online! (This .sig has been rated X the ##
Unknown... positively no one admitted... mitted... mitted...) _##_
Thrasher
Dang, now you got me curious...where's that tape measure?
Waist -- 31"
Thighs -- 22"
Of course, those are male dimensions, also....
Maybe I should call up that ex-girlgriend of mine....
--
________ __ "Good is the thing that you favor, evil
/_ __/ / _______ ____ / / ___ ____ is your sour flavor. You cannot sedate
/ / / _ \/ __/ _ `(_-</ _ \/ -_) __/ all the things you hate."-MARILYN MANSON
/_/ /_//_/_/ \_,_/___/_//_/\__/_/ CRAIG RETTIG--...@ucunix.san.uc.edu
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Dang, now you got me curious...where's that tape measure?
: Waist -- 31"
: Thighs -- 22"
: Of course, those are male dimensions, also....
I was actually curious to test my theory on myself, so I did. Thighs
about 23", waist around 44". Only two inches off being exactly double.
Glad I was right about figuring I was probably proportional.
As ever, Your Mileage May Vary. But you get the gist...
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: I'm not entirely sure this is true. While my experience in drawing
: anatomy is limited to the art I see in comics (and the book _How to Draw
: Comics the Marvel Way_), the "Thigh to waist ratio" really can't be
: exactly two. The waist is between the width of one or two thighs, and
: not more or less, as far as I can tell.
: When I say this, I'm referring to the physically fit women we see running
: around in spandex and fighting crime all day. Larger women (or men, for
: that matter) may have a different ratio, but it almost never comes up,
: because overweight superheroes are almost non-existant.
So far. Gimme a couple years, I'm working on this... :)
Actually, if one is proportional it shouldn't matter what one's size is,
the ratio should be around the same. Not everyone is necessarily
proportional, of course - real people come in so many different shapes and
sizes that "proportional" is probably a very subjective matter. But I
think we can certainly all agree that the waist ought to be larger than
each thigh, which was my original point. :)
Patman
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Thrasher (rett...@ucunix.san.uc.edu) wrote:
>
>: Dang, now you got me curious...where's that tape measure?
>: Waist -- 31"
>: Thighs -- 22"
>: Of course, those are male dimensions, also....
>
>I was actually curious to test my theory on myself, so I did. Thighs
>about 23", waist around 44". Only two inches off being exactly double.
>
>Glad I was right about figuring I was probably proportional.
>
>As ever, Your Mileage May Vary. But you get the gist...
Weight, weight, weight, err...wait, wait, wait...
Since comics is a 2-dimensional medium with some subtle shading
used to convey 3-dimensional shapes, I would think that it'd be better
to measure the diameter (or cross-sectional width) of your waist and
and thighs and then make your case on what's a "normal" waist/thigh
ratio is when you compare the way super-heroines are drawn in comics.
Remember, most slender people have cylindrical thighs, but their waists
are oval (shaped like a Speedstick deoderant), causing some distortion
in the perception of the cross-sectional width of the waists and
thighs depicted in comics.
I'd venture that the waist/thigh ratio is closer to 1.5:1.
So the cross-sectional width of both thighs should be 1/3 more
than the width of the waist.
So what are the cross-sectional widths of your waist and thighs? :)
Of course, if you (generic "you) are barrel-shaped, this question is moot. :)
Kirby Krueger
>: >and anatomy class in the world. Lissen up carefully, would-be artists
>
>I'm not saying artists can't exaggerate or stylize women, and I realize
>there's a lot of fetish and objectification that's always going to happen
>out there, but I wouldn't mind just a little more common sense about
>these things. You draw a woman like Velocity or the new Black Cat, it
>just looks like you're a bad and sloppy artist (and Black Cat artist Murphy
>Anderson is one of the best who doesn't need this kind of rep, IMHO).
>
I'd like to second this. I did pick up Velocity, too, and found the art
very unappealing. The writing was fine, but all these bizarre women
really make it hard to identify with. And the men, well, they aren't any
better.
How large do most muscular men's arms and legs get? Is it really
possible to get arms that are half a foot in diameter? I'm not talking
about the Hulks and Pitts of the universe, obvious freaks-of-nature. It
seems like the rippling-muscles-from-hell theme is as much a problem with
men as the no-waist, huge-thigh women. Generally in the same comic.
I'm not about to say that women aren't more degraded - a look at previews
will tell you the truth about that. But I pity the poor kids who look at
Cable or a random Image character for their body image. Steroids seem to
be the only way to look like that. Nobody can look like any of the
members of Sovereign Seven. Why do people keep buying this?
It's really a shame that the most popular style of art is doing little
but enforcing impossible self-images for everyone.
--
Kirby Krueger
kir...@peak.org
Patman
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Jim Smith (jasm...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>
>: I'm not entirely sure this is true. While my experience in drawing
>: anatomy is limited to the art I see in comics (and the book _How to Draw
>: Comics the Marvel Way_), the "Thigh to waist ratio" really can't be
>: exactly two. The waist is between the width of one or two thighs, and
>: not more or less, as far as I can tell.
>
>: When I say this, I'm referring to the physically fit women we see running
>: around in spandex and fighting crime all day. Larger women (or men, for
>: that matter) may have a different ratio, but it almost never comes up,
>: because overweight superheroes are almost non-existant.
>
>So far. Gimme a couple years, I'm working on this... :)
>
>Actually, if one is proportional it shouldn't matter what one's size is,
>the ratio should be around the same. Not everyone is necessarily
>proportional, of course - real people come in so many different shapes and
>sizes that "proportional" is probably a very subjective matter. But I
>think we can certainly all agree that the waist ought to be larger than
>each thigh, which was my original point. :)
I took a look at the Velocity #1 cover which had Elayne in a tizzy
over the waist/thigh ratio. To me, Velocity is almost sideways, which
makes it seem that her waist is way too thin relative to her thighs.
It's more of a side view of her waist, and w/r/t her thighs, it would
alway be that the thighs are thicker than the waist on a sideways view.
It's a bit of distortion. In the artwork inside the book, the waist/thigh
ratio is consistently what I've seen in most Image comics, and *gasp* ,
the waist is shown to be thicker than each thigh of Velocity. I think
we're making too big a deal on this one, folks.
Kynn Bartlett
-- but is it possible that Velocity's thighs are larger than her waist
because she's a super-speed character, whose legs can propel her far,
far faster than any normal human's legs could?
--Kynn
KBusiek
you.
By the way, Velocity doesn't feel that her _power_ is useless when
compared to Ballistic's. If FLASH comics exist in the Imageverse, I
expect she's seen lots of good examples of effective use of superspeed.
It's her timidity -- her consistent urge to flee from danger rather than
confront it, that gives Velocity doubts.
kurt
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Thanks for your feedback, Elayne, as always. Sorry it didn't work for
: you.
Ah well, to each their own. As I say, Kurt, I really wanted to like it,
but something didn't click with me. I suspect that, for me, the art
undermined a bit of what you were trying to do, and that's not really
fair, but it just didn't grab me. You shall have to be contented with my
continued fangirl slobbering over ASTRO CITY. :)
: By the way, Velocity doesn't feel that her _power_ is useless when
: compared to Ballistic's. If FLASH comics exist in the Imageverse, I
: expect she's seen lots of good examples of effective use of superspeed.
: It's her timidity -- her consistent urge to flee from danger rather than
: confront it, that gives Velocity doubts.
Thank you - I will admit to misspeaking a bit there. Although, to someone
with Carin's obvious timidity, I think it fair to state that she
associates her constant trepidation with her power. Can't flee ("flee? I
count four!" ...sorry, I'll never get that Waid line entirely out of my
head) if it doesn't dovetail perfectly into your superspeed power. And
personally, I'm waiting for the first hero who *accepts* "flight" as the
"fight or flight" option; I think it would make a refreshing change.
Johanna Draper
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:>: >A WOMAN'S WAIST IS NEVER SMALLER THAN EITHER OF HER THIGHS....
>
>: I've noticed this is a common theme throughout most of your reviews of
>: woman-protagonist comics, Elayne. Is it a rule of thumb you found in an
>: art book? Or is it just a reasonable estimate you came up with?
>
>Actually, Jim, I should probably attribute that observation to Johanna
>Draper - I believe it was she who first pointed it out to me. It's based
>on common sense and a working knowledge of human anatomy.
I did? If you say so, but my favorite is usually "A woman's breasts should
not be bigger than her head".
>You draw a woman like Velocity or the new Black Cat, it just looks like
>you're a bad and sloppy artist (and Black Cat artist Murphy Anderson is
>one of the best who doesn't need this kind of rep, IMHO).
Or it looks like you're trying to be hot without bothering to develop
and/or use a style of your own: image over substance, so to speak.
Johanna
Johanna Draper
I agree with you completely. I was really interested in the idea of this
book: female lead, super-speedster, Kurt writing, all great characteristics
as far as I was concerned. Then I flipped through it, and all the women
were in anatomically impossible poses. Standard fanboy crap. And my money
won't go to support that garbage.
Johanna
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Is this really a serious question? We're talking about stories that deal
: with SUPER heroes (i.e. not real people but fantasy objects). Attempting
: to make these kind stories realistic is to remove them from their
: mythological/fastastic element, which is fundemental to their appeal.
: Besides, wouldn't showing Joe-average running around in a cape and leotard
: would look pretty stupid?
Tom, I think Kirby's key word in this thread is "REASONABLY." Sure, many
superheroes are supposed to be as idealized as magazine cover girls (and
cover guys). Comic book artists are the fantasy equivalent of camera
trickery and airbrushes. But I think the mythological/fantastic element
that's fundamental to their appeal is NOT primarily physical - it has
more to do with the intangibles... courage, a sense of rightness, stuff
like that. And kewl powers, of course. :) But *not* necessarily
physical appearance. In other words, what they DO, not what they LOOK
LIKE. Their deeds, their accomplishments, their kewl powers :)... NOT
running around in a cape and leotard (which is just a means to an end).
A good writer can write incredible superheroes without having to resort
to distorting them beyond standard idealization. Look at STARMAN, for
example. Jack's "costume," such as it is, is the furthest thing from
spandex tights - but he's still got most of the mythological elements
that make up a hero for me.
Johanna Draper
I don't recall her legs being drawn as particularly muscled here, though.
They were pretty much the standard smooth ovals.
Johanna
Tom Attix
with SUPER heroes (i.e. not real people but fantasy objects). Attempting
to make these kind stories realistic is to remove them from their
mythological/fastastic element, which is fundemental to their appeal.
Besides, wouldn't showing Joe-average running around in a cape and leotard
would look pretty stupid?
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Well, look at Byrne's Captain America, Mazzuchelli's Daredevil, John
: Buscema's Conan. They're all muscular guys, but drawn according to normal
: anatomy, and all of them (and a lot of other super heroes, like Ross
: Andru's Spider-man, and even Gil Kane's stylized art) look very impressive,
: dynamic (you can't get more dynamic than Gil Kane), exciting, etc
Hell - Look at Jack Kirby. 'Nuff said.
KBusiek
the "fight or flight" option; I think it would make a refreshing change.>>
Oh, there've been plenty of stories about heroes who chose to leave rather
than fight when that was the most sensible thing to do. I think the first
time I saw it was in an issue of DAREDEVIL when some villain made it clear
that his only mission was to kill DD. Daredevil shrugged, took off,
switched back to Matt Murdock and went about his day. Unless he was
around as DD, what was the bad guy gonna do?
Trouble is, when heroes do that, the villains usually respond by causing
peoperty damage or threatening others until they come out and fight.
kurt
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: In article <469ds8$6...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
And, as I say, the one panel that showed her doing what she does best,
running rather dynamically, *did* have her fairly proportional. Dynamic
action panels don't work as well with misshapen women, IMHO.
Matthew F Johnson
I don't think this is an all-or-nothing proposition. You can still
be plenty mythological and fantastic without having characters with
impossible bodies. The fact is, the way these female characters are drawn
is so unrealistic that it makes reader identification basically impossible
- and that's one of the most important parts of myth, no? And it's also
true that until recently, there had been a strong trend mainstream comics
towards what our culture considers realism without any apparent ill effect -
compare George Perez to Mort Meskin, for example, or Alan Moore's writing
to Bill Finger's.
--
Matthew F. Johnson
This .sig brought to you by the makers of HUBRIS, the epic tragedy game
where the player who comes closest to winning, but loses, wins!
Ennead
: So I got to thinking, why? I mean, besides the fact that this distorted
: view of what a woman ought to look like is probably fodder for teenboy,
: er, fantasies. [...]
I agree that the tiny-waist-big-thighs thing is irritating; I find it
irritating in superheroes, and irritating when Gilbert Hernandez does it
in Love & Rockets. But I'd always assumed that the sexual fetish aspect
of it was the =primary= reason, which is what makes it particularly
embarrassing to see (nothing's sillier-looking than a fetish one doesn't
share).
: So something really, really tragic is going on when the real-looking
: people are presented as the bad guys (or, at the very least, the ones who
: "know not what they do") and the anatomically-distorted people are
: idealized as the heroes. Something that says to us on a very subtle level
: that it's no longer possible to emulate heroes, because not only don't we
: have these kewl powers (which was never as much a reason to emulate them
: in the first place as were things like courage and a sense of justice) but
: being like them, especially if you're female, would be more of a physical
: impossibility than looking like the typical airbrushed anorexic cover girl
: or supermodel - so why bother wanting to be heroic at all?
But for most women, looking like one of the more "anatomically accurate"
women - a John Byrne babe, f'instance - is every bit as impossible. Just
as the average male fan, no matter how many Charles Atlas kits he sends
away for <g>, will never be able to make a Man out of Mac. If
accessability has been the reason for reading or emulating (do people
really read superheroes to emulate them?) all along, then I don't see
what's so new and terrible about this particular exaggeration.
(That said, I also think you underestimate the importance of powers and
physique to the appeal of superheroes - but that's another discussion.)
: It's impossible for me to feel sympathy for or identify with a woman whose
: body has this essential, illogical Wrongness about it. [...]
But you probably don't have trouble feeling sympathy for the even less
realistically proportioned Fone Bone, Charlie Brown or Calvin. Or for
the creature in the novel =Frankenstein=, for that matter. It seems
to me that you're avoiding saying that the problem with Velocity isn't
just that she's drawn unrealistically, but that she's drawn
unrealistically in a particularly sexist manner.
: But these kinds of dynamic, active panels are few and far between.
: Velocity does not exist, artistically, to act, but to be observed. As
: long as she's drawn that way, no matter how well Busiek may write her,
: she remains an object and not a subject to this reader. And that ain't
: why I buy comics.
Exactly! No matter how unrealistic male characters get drawn - and they
get pretty damn unrealistic - they are always designed to be active and
formidable participants in whatever action is going down. No artist - or
at least no artist doing fan-favorite comics - would draw male heroes the
way Velocity is drawn.
I think it may have something to do with insecurity on the part of the
artists in dealing with strong, active, heroic women. After all, there's
no reason why female superheroes couldn't be exaggerated in the direction
of female bodybuilders - big muscles, wide shoulders, flat chest (this
would be much more realistic - most top-rated female athletes are pretty
flat-chested). But I think that the artists feel a need to prove that,
even though these characters are active and butch and beat people up,
they're still women - so they exaggerate the secondary sex traits all to
hell and back.
Anyway, that's my take on it. Thanks for an interesting post.
Yours,
--Ennead
Kynn Bartlett
>NICOLA (nic...@d0gs05.fnal.gov) wrote:
>: Well, look at Byrne's Captain America, Mazzuchelli's Daredevil, John
>: Buscema's Conan. They're all muscular guys, but drawn according to normal
>: anatomy, and all of them (and a lot of other super heroes, like Ross
>: Andru's Spider-man, and even Gil Kane's stylized art) look very impressive,
>: dynamic (you can't get more dynamic than Gil Kane), exciting, etc
>Hell - Look at Jack Kirby. 'Nuff said.
Funny, I've never found Jack Kirby to look all that dynamic and
impressive.
Granted, his _art_ certainly is. But for some reason, I just can't
imagine Jack himself swinging from building-tops or something.
--Kynn
Johanna Draper
Jim Smith <jasm...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On 23 Oct 1995, Tom Attix wrote:
>
>> Is this really a serious question? We're talking about stories that deal
>> with SUPER heroes (i.e. not real people but fantasy objects). Attempting
>> to make these kind stories realistic is to remove them from their
>> mythological/fastastic element, which is fundemental to their appeal.
Depends on what kind of fantasy you're aiming for, doesn't it? The current
female characters are only fit for the sexual type.
Realism is a confusing word, though; how about believability? Most comics
strive to be believable, with only a few deviations from our world.
>From hereon, I intend to hone my skills towards making superhero costumes
>look as though they are normal cloth.
Great choice, I think. They're doing similar with Shazam, and I really like
it.
Johanna
NICOLA
writes:
>
> Actually, I think there's been a strong trend towards more abstract artists:
> Bill S., Jon J Muth, Dave McKean, Marc Hempel, David Mazzuchelli, Ted
> McKeever.
>
Look at Sienkiewicz pre-New Mutants or Mazzuchelli's Daredevil. They
KNOW how to draw. When did Rob Liefeld draw a well proportionate human
being?
Sure we can say that many of the "small waist/big boobs" art is
stylized, and I actually saw Deodato's brazilian work wich were really
good, realistic stuff, but I think many of these artists can't do better
than that. They started to draw imitating (bad) stylized art, and can't do
better than that.
M.S.Nicola
Matthew F Johnson
> Elayne Wechsler-Chaput (fire...@panix.com) wrote:
>
> : So I got to thinking, why? I mean, besides the fact that this distorted
> : view of what a woman ought to look like is probably fodder for teenboy,
> : er, fantasies. [...]
>
> I agree that the tiny-waist-big-thighs thing is irritating; I find it
> irritating in superheroes, and irritating when Gilbert Hernandez does it
> in Love & Rockets. But I'd always assumed that the sexual fetish aspect
> of it was the =primary= reason, which is what makes it particularly
> embarrassing to see (nothing's sillier-looking than a fetish one doesn't
> share).
being a device to make women unthreatening. I mean, sure, the fetish
aspect is there, but I think the reason the characterstics have this
fetishistic appeal is because the make the women unthreatening...
>
> : So something really, really tragic is going on when the real-looking
> : people are presented as the bad guys (or, at the very least, the ones who
> : "know not what they do") and the anatomically-distorted people are
> : idealized as the heroes. Something that says to us on a very subtle level
> : that it's no longer possible to emulate heroes, because not only don't we
> : have these kewl powers (which was never as much a reason to emulate them
> : in the first place as were things like courage and a sense of justice) but
> : being like them, especially if you're female, would be more of a physical
> : impossibility than looking like the typical airbrushed anorexic cover girl
> : or supermodel - so why bother wanting to be heroic at all?
>
> But for most women, looking like one of the more "anatomically accurate"
> women - a John Byrne babe, f'instance - is every bit as impossible. Just
> as the average male fan, no matter how many Charles Atlas kits he sends
> away for <g>, will never be able to make a Man out of Mac. If
> accessability has been the reason for reading or emulating (do people
> really read superheroes to emulate them?) all along, then I don't see
> what's so new and terrible about this particular exaggeration.
There's a difference between ridiculously improbable and flat-out
impossible. It's like Denny O'Neil said regarding why he preferred Batman
to Superman - sure, he never would be like Batman, but theoretically he
could be. If he wasn't born Superman, it just wouldn't happen. Women (and
men, for that matter) don't have generally have trouble identifying with
very good-looking specimens of their sex... otherwise 90210, a show with a
female demographic if there ever was one, would have more normal-looking
women (of course, they do, or did, have some, which just shows that
variety is another thing missing from superhero comics).
>
> : It's impossible for me to feel sympathy for or identify with a woman whose
> : body has this essential, illogical Wrongness about it. [...]
>
> But you probably don't have trouble feeling sympathy for the even less
> realistically proportioned Fone Bone, Charlie Brown or Calvin. Or for
> the creature in the novel =Frankenstein=, for that matter. It seems
> to me that you're avoiding saying that the problem with Velocity isn't
> just that she's drawn unrealistically, but that she's drawn
> unrealistically in a particularly sexist manner.
But none of those characters are drawn in a realistic style. I mean,
Matt Feazell's women are anatomically impossible, but I've never known
anyone to have a particular problem with them. For that matter, Bitchy
Bitch is a bit suspect physiologically. But Velocity is drawn in a style
that is meant to be and recognized as "realistic", so we think of her as
being someone we might see in the real world - and in that context, she's
just outside of human range.
>
> : But these kinds of dynamic, active panels are few and far between.
> : Velocity does not exist, artistically, to act, but to be observed. As
> : long as she's drawn that way, no matter how well Busiek may write her,
> : she remains an object and not a subject to this reader. And that ain't
> : why I buy comics.
>
> Exactly! No matter how unrealistic male characters get drawn - and they
> get pretty damn unrealistic - they are always designed to be active and
> formidable participants in whatever action is going down. No artist - or
> at least no artist doing fan-favorite comics - would draw male heroes the
> way Velocity is drawn.
>
> I think it may have something to do with insecurity on the part of the
> artists in dealing with strong, active, heroic women. After all, there's
> no reason why female superheroes couldn't be exaggerated in the direction
> of female bodybuilders - big muscles, wide shoulders, flat chest (this
> would be much more realistic - most top-rated female athletes are pretty
> flat-chested). But I think that the artists feel a need to prove that,
> even though these characters are active and butch and beat people up,
> they're still women - so they exaggerate the secondary sex traits all to
> hell and back.
> Anyway, that's my take on it. Thanks for an interesting post.
> Yours,
> --Ennead
I agree with this section wholeheartedly. My feeling is that a lot
of artists - and more importantly, a lot of fans - feel threatened by
women and don't really like them that much. They're sort of an unknowable,
untrustworthy Other - and when you think of someone as Other, you draw
them that way, in the manner that non-white races were depicted in
cartoons up to the Fifties (and in some cases the Sixties and Seventies).
Dave......
>You think Kirby's style would be popular now? Unfortunately I doubt it.
>I think he would go unnoticed amongst the Adam Kuberts and Jim Lees.
>*Schniff*
>
Hey, Kirby was the guy who really popularized the really dynamic,
slightly exagerated gestures and layouts. I'm not much of a comic art
historian, but the body language of comic book characters before Kirby
and after Kirby are two very different things. Chances are, that if he
hadn't shown up until now, his style would still be as revolutionary is
it was way back when. If current artists can put out art that is higher
quality than Kirby's, then it is because they have the benefit of all of
Kirby's work to study from. (Whether this artwork IS of higher quality
than Kirby's is up to debate).
Dave.....
>Antony Scriven
>ad.sc...@ic.ac.uk
>
>
>
Dave Good
fire...@panix.com writes:
>: because overweight superheroes are almost non-existant.
>
>So far. Gimme a couple years, I'm working on this... :)
I don't get it. Are you going to stuff with yourself with Twinkies and
then learn how to fly? Tell me about it if it works! :)
Dave Good DG...@POMONA.EDU
"There are fights you fight, not because you expect to win, but because
they must be fought." --John Ostrander
Antony Scriven
I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought that Kirby wasn't any
good.
I'm just saying I don't think it would be very popular with the masses.
Unfortunately comics are the victim of fashion as much as anything else,
and the current trend is for bigger and more violent and more colourful
and small waists and big thighs and huge muscles and to hell with the
artistic quality in the process.
Antony.
Matthew F Johnson
> cr...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Matthew F Johnson) writes:
>> impossible bodies. The fact is, the way these female characters are drawn
>> is so unrealistic that it makes reader identification basically impossible
>> - and that's one of the most important parts of myth, no?
>
> that for almost all comic readers, having the anatomy of George Perez's
> Starfire or BWS's Conan is only slightly less unlikely than having a Deodato
> physique.
>
> And Watterson's art, or Herge's or Uderzo's or Schulztz's, isn't realistic,
> but it hasn't prevented their enormous popularity.
>
>
>> true that until recently, there had been a strong trend mainstream comics
>> towards what our culture considers realism without any apparent ill effect -
>> compare George Perez to Mort Meskin, for example, or Alan Moore's writing
>> to Bill Finger's.
>
> Bill S., Jon J Muth, Dave McKean, Marc Hempel, David Mazzuchelli, Ted
> McKeever.
>
>
I said "until recently" - I'd say from about 1963-1990. I do think
that most of the popular mainstream artists are still basically ripping
off Neal Adams, though they've started adding lots of jagged lines. By
"apparent ill effect" I mean that it didn't seem to interfere with reader
identification. And as I noted in another post, I was talking specifically
about the depiction of women in "realistic" art - therefore Uderzo, etc.
are outside the scope of my argument - and that in that realistic context,
there was a significant difference between the highly improbable and the
simply impossible (the difference between my becoming as able as Batman
and as able as Superman, to use Denny O'Neil's example).
Matthew F Johnson
>> of artists - and more importantly, a lot of fans - feel threatened by
>> women and don't really like them that much. They're sort of an unknowable,
>> untrustworthy Other - and when you think of someone as Other, you draw
>
> founders are married and are known to be devoted family men ?
I know quite a few married men who still think of women as the
Other. They're the ones in couples where each partner has completely
different tastes and interests, and you wonder what keeps them together...
and then you realize, "Oh, it's just that they're married". That's the
traditionally approved model of marriage... you don't spend time, share
your life with your spouse; you exist in separate worlds.
Abhiji...@transarc.com
Abhiji...@transarc.com
> Other. They're the ones in couples where each partner has completely
> different tastes and interests, and you wonder what keeps them together...
The second part of my comment also says "are known to be devoted family
men". Jim Lee, for instance, took time off from Image to spend more time with
his family. Doesn't sound like someone who feels threatened ...
Abhiji...@transarc.com
> identification. And as I noted in another post, I was talking specifically
> about the depiction of women in "realistic" art - therefore Uderzo, etc.
> are outside the scope of my argument - and that in that realistic context,
> there was a significant difference between the highly improbable and the
> simply impossible (the difference between my becoming as able as Batman
> and as able as Superman, to use Denny O'Neil's example).
But your analogy is pretty weak. A lot of people do prefer Superman over
Batman, for the majority of his career Supes has been more popular in
comics. And I'm willing to get folks identify more easily with the Dean Cain
or Chris Reeve Superman than the Michael Keaton Batman.
And quite frankly, even the Batman is all but impossible. The combination of
his physical prowess, intellect, wealth, drive, skill set is all but
impossible. In fact, I'd be very surprised if there were 100 people in the
United States with those combined abilities, but you might find easily over a
100 people with highly unlikely physiques, although those may be chemically
enhanced. That hasn't interfered with reader identification with the
character.
And people identify with Swamp Thing and Usagi Yojimbo as well, despite their
being impossible characters.
I also don't agree with this distinction between abstract art or cartoony art
and "realistic art". A lot of Bill Sienkwicz and Dave Mckean' work, for
instance, uses a mix of realistic art and highly stylized rendering. Bill
S. will show a drop dead gorgeous Elektra on one page, and then switch to a
stylized image of Elektra composed of just a few lines in the next
page. Again, that doesn't seem to prevent reader identification.
Jim Smith
On Fri, 27 Oct 1995, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> ka...@physics12.Berkeley.EDU (Katie Schwarz) wrote:
> >If [MD Bright] draws anybody as a pinup, it's Icon himself, with
> >that mega-cape.
>
> And he draws that just cuz he thought it would be cool to draw a
> mega-cape. :)
>
> (I still say the cape is some sort of 'parachute' from his crash
> vehicle, thus explaining its gravity-defying powers.)
The mega-cape rules! I loved it in Icon #17 (?) when Superman thought he
was slamming into Icon, but it was just the cape floating in the air, and
Icon whaled the tangled Supes.
Jim "Still likes Superman more, though" Smith
Kynn Bartlett
>If [MD Bright] draws anybody as a pinup, it's Icon himself, with
>that mega-cape.
And he draws that just cuz he thought it would be cool to draw a
mega-cape. :)
(I still say the cape is some sort of 'parachute' from his crash
vehicle, thus explaining its gravity-defying powers.)
--Kynn
Neto-San
23 Oct 1995 18:10:47 GMT, Antony Scriven <ad.sc...@ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>One of my hobbies is drawing comic-book art and this means I'm
>probably more critical than most people of the art I see in comics.
>
>The thing is, when I draw stuff that is more realistic, with
>better proportions and more life-like anatomy, it looks crap. Why?
>Because it doesn't look impressive, dynamic, exciting.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you. I also draw alot and
recently I've started to draw more realistic, and my drawings haven't
looked better. Yes, I can draw exaggerated proportions, i've been
doing it for years, but I got tired of looking like another clone.
The thing is that you can draw realistic proportions on a drawing and
still make it look dynamic. Like now, whenever I draw a woman I draw
her with "human" proportions and she still looks beautiful. I don't
need to draw huge breasts, and thighs to make her appealing.
I admit though, it is harder to draw correct anatomy. =)
Neto-San
--
NOTE: Please see the X-Info header for information on how to reply to this
message and other miscellaneous information.
A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.
Ennead
: The second part of my comment also says "are known to be devoted family
: men". Jim Lee, for instance, took time off from Image to spend more time
: with his family. Doesn't sound like someone who feels threatened ...
I hate these arguements - the "but Dave has female friends, so he can't
possibly be misogynistic" school of thought, which assumes that prejudice,
alone amongst all human traits, is a simple yes-or-no question.
The arguement is that a particular drawing style is a way of making a
powerful female character - one who beats up men and is enourmously more
powerful than the mostly male readers and creators - nonetheless
acceptably weak and feminine, by emphasizing her secondary sexual traits
above all. By, as Elaine put it, making her visually a creature to be
looked at rather than a creature of action. This implies a great deal of
discomfort (or fear, if you prefer) of women being powerful in
traditionally male realms (like combat).
It in no way follows, as your counter-arguement says, that Joe Artist must
then be fearful of all women in real life, or that he hates all women in
real life, for three reasons:
Firstly, in real life, Joe's beloved wife is (we can safely presume) not a
superhero with astonishing powers and combat abilities, so the conflict
some see in his work seems likely to not come up in his marriage.
Secondly, Joe isn't creating in a vacuum. Joe's art reflects not only his
own ambivalence (sp?) about powerful women, but the ambivalence of the
market and whatever fellow artists influence Joe - it may be that a minor
bit of sexism in Joe is magnified by a artistic enviorment that
=encourages= drawing women that way. Something doesn't have to be a
predominate part of Joe's personality to predominate his work, in other
words.
But most importantly, Joe Artist is a human being, who presumably has
internal conflicts and contradictions, like every other human being ever
born. Something present in his work won't necessarily be present in his
family life; and its absence in his family life doesn't say anything (one
way or the other) about what's in his work. I can't emphasize this too
much - it's such a basic point, yet so many people miss it entirely.
* * *
Admittedly, the language we use is confusing - because just as people
don't always say IMHO, assuming that it goes without saying, people don't
often say "when I refer to Joe Artist's sexism, I'm referring to the work
we're discussing, not every element of his life." Just as if I called an
artist lazy, I'm presumably referring to her slothful inking or
paint-by-numbers layouts, not her tendency to lounge in bed all day.
But people are so sensitive about sexism that perhaps that disclaimer
should be stated more often - but, dammit, just like IMHO, it =should= go
without saying.
Yours,
--Ennead
Abhiji...@transarc.com
enn...@teleport.com (Ennead) writes:
> Abhiji...@transarc.com wrote:
>
> : Oh, its definitely lazy to copy someone else's style. No question there.
..
> Rather than laziness, I'd think of imitation as artistic training
> wheels. It only gets problematic when an imitation is credited with
> great originality, or actually swipes panels.
Good point. I'll modify my statement.
"All artists are influenced by others, and copying of someone else's style is
a reasonable way to start out. But ultimately artists should develop their own
styles. Being the best Neal Adams clone is still no substitute for developing
your own style."
Abhiji...@transarc.com
enn...@teleport.com (Ennead) writes:
> Abhiji...@transarc.com wrote:
>
> : The second part of my comment also says "are known to be devoted family
> : men". Jim Lee, for instance, took time off from Image to spend more time
> : with his family. Doesn't sound like someone who feels threatened ...
>
> I hate these arguements - the "but Dave has female friends, so he can't
> possibly be misogynistic" school of thought, which assumes that prejudice,
Well, actually I do think Dave Sim is a misogynist.
> above all. By, as Elaine put it, making her visually a creature to be
> looked at rather than a creature of action.
But they can be both, right ? Look at BWS's Conan for instance. Traditionally,
(since Gilgamesh) the heroic mold has always included sexual characteristics,
although perhaps not to so high a degree as now.
>This implies a great deal of discomfort (or fear, if you prefer) of women
>being powerful in traditionally male realms (like combat).
I do believe that there is such discomfort and fear, but I don't agree that
sexual images imply this at all.
[ Several good points, which I mostly agree with, snipped]
> Admittedly, the language we use is confusing - because just as people
> don't always say IMHO, assuming that it goes without saying, people don't
> often say "when I refer to Joe Artist's sexism, I'm referring to the work
> we're discussing, not every element of his life."
That's a good point, but the comment I was responding to specifically said that
"I feel that these artists are actually fearful of women in real life or
don't understand them". It was referring to the person rather than the
work. In that context, pointing to their family lives is, I think, a
reasonable counter-argument. Another counter argument is that if an artist
changes styles to do more Image house styles, then said artist can be accused
of opportunism, but it doesn't necessarily mean that said artist's opinions
have changed suddenly.
Matthew F Johnson
Ennead (enn...@teleport.com) writes:
> Matthew F Johnson (cr...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> [...]
>
> : included, nor is Stan Sakai. There is no problem in identifying with
> : Swamp Thing because he is not an impossible human character, but a
> : nonhuman character ith different rules to follow. Velocity is a character
> : meant to be human who does not appear to be so except in the broadest
> : possible sense.
>
> Although Matt and I have been largely in agreement on this thread, in this
> case I think we disagree. Being drawn unrealistically in a (sort of)
> realistic drawing style does not, in and of itself, make reader
> identification harder. Cowboy Wally in Kyle Baker's =Cowboy Wally Show=
> was used quite well as a reader identification character in the last
> chapter, for instance, despite him being physically the least realistic
> character there. (And CWS has a far more realistic drawing than Velocity,
> imo.) The city slickers and other villians of =Lil' Abner= were often
> drawn more realistically by Capp than the Yokums (consider Abner's
> unrealistic chest-to-hip ratio). Nearly all superhero artists make the
> body much taller in proportion to the head than most any regular human being.
>
> I don't think it's as simple a rule as Matt's implying. It's not only
> that a character is warped, but how the character is warped and for what
> purpose, that makes the difference. It's not that Velocity is warped, but
> that she's warped in a particularly sexist manner, that's bothersome.
>
You're right, that's more or less what I meant. It's the intent
and message of the exaggeration/deformation that inhibits identification.
It's also true as you noted (and as noted in Understanding Comics)
that what McCloud calls "iconic" abstraction can make a character more
easy to identify with - as you said, in Li'l Abner the least sympathetic
characters tended to be the most realistic. What I was saying in my last
post is that I consider iconic abstraction a completely different kettle
of fish than the way in which female characters' sexual characteristics
are exaggerated in the comics under discussion.
Dave Good
ad.sc...@ic.ac.uk writes:
>You think Kirby's style would be popular now? Unfortunately I doubt it.
>I think he would go unnoticed amongst the Adam Kuberts and Jim Lees.
>*Schniff*
You are assuming that the Jim Lees and Adam Kuberts would ever have come
into existence without Kirby.
Jim Smith
On 30 Oct 1995, Eric Tiberius Cheng wrote:
> NICOLA (nic...@d0gs05.fnal.gov) on 25 Oct 95 13:11:49 -0600 wrote:
> : Look at Sienkiewicz pre-New Mutants or Mazzuchelli's Daredevil. They
> : KNOW how to draw. When did Rob Liefeld draw a well proportionate human
> : being?
> Liefeld can't even draw feet nor can he write either.
Why stop at feet? He can't draw ANYTHING! THe colorist of Liefeld's art
is prettty snazzy, but in B&W, you see it fpor what it is--crap. Liefeld
is everything I want to avoid as an artist. COnsider it a "Dark Side of
the Force" for pencilling...
Jim "Will never urn to the Dark Side" Smith
Eric Tiberius Cheng
: Look at Sienkiewicz pre-New Mutants or Mazzuchelli's Daredevil. They
: KNOW how to draw. When did Rob Liefeld draw a well proportionate human
: being?
Liefeld can't even draw feet nor can he write either.
--
Eric "yes I do hate Rob Liefeld" Cheng
UofO Anime Club's Founder and '94-'95 President
s56...@aix2.uottawa.ca
e...@capitalnet.com
http://www.capitalnet.com/~etc
Damon B. Crumpler
i agree with abhijit---
exaggerating females doesn't Necessarily mean that you are fearful of women,--
in fact, it could just as likely mean the exact opposite.
--
'No one is playing the race card.'R.Shapiro, Sept 1994. "A racist is someone
who has power over you.""I don't want to exacerbate racial problems. But you
have to be true to who you are."-J.Cochran// "Well, it's official-- Murder
is now legal in the state of California."Norm Macdonald, Saturday Night Live
Ennead
: > above all. By, as Elaine put it, making her visually a creature to be
: > looked at rather than a creature of action.
: But they can be both, right ? Look at BWS's Conan for instance.
: Traditionally, (since Gilgamesh) the heroic mold has always included
: sexual characteristics, although perhaps not to so high a degree as now.
: >This implies a great deal of discomfort (or fear, if you prefer) of women
: >being powerful in traditionally male realms (like combat).
: I do believe that there is such discomfort and fear, but I don't agree
: that sexual images imply this at all.
I didn't say that =all= sexual images imply this - I was talking about a
particular drawing style, and its, er, images. Do you think this is a
fair interpretation of the drawing style in =Velocity=?
: > Admittedly, the language we use is confusing - because just as people
: > don't always say IMHO, assuming that it goes without saying, people don't
: > often say "when I refer to Joe Artist's sexism, I'm referring to the work
: > we're discussing, not every element of his life."
: That's a good point, but the comment I was responding to specifically
: said that "I feel that these artists are actually fearful of women in real
: life or don't understand them". It was referring to the person rather than
: the work. In that context, pointing to their family lives is, I think, a
: reasonable counter-argument. [...]
You're right - I had forgotten that that's the specific comment you were
responding to. I'd disagree with the "in real life" comment, and pointing
out the family lives was reasonable. I suspect he just overstated himself
in the heat of arguement, as often happens...
I think we largely agree with each other on this one.
Yours,
--Ennead