On a number of the images I have marked lines defining the height of characters. These are of course approximate. They disregard hair height and go through the approximate area of the heel of the foot which negates high heels and standing on the balls of the feet. In these figures, the pubic area (on which I have marked an approximate line through the area) is quite obviously above the mid-point of the body. A standard female body will have the pubic area slightly below the midpoint of the body. Further explanation can be found in the three part 'Notice the Difference' essay.
Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3
On a number of figures I have also marked lines of the shoulders down to the hips. The standard female body should have hips slightly wider than their shoulders but on these figures the shoulders are wider than the hips - a male body trait. Perhaps if the characters weren't so unconscionably thin their hips might be wider than their shoulders.
I have also provided a figure of standard male and female anatomy to compare the comic character bodies against. Obviously the images are not to scale, however they do provide a decent reference.
Below are the characters Sara Pezzini (Witchblade #1 November 1995), Aspen Mathews (Fathom #4 March 1999) and Synergy (Stormwatch Sourcebook, #1 January 1994).
Characters below are again Aspen Mathews (Fathom #1 August 1998) , and a character sketch of Fairchild (Gen 13, #1 February 1994).
Below is Void and Zealot (WildCATS, #1 August 1992).
Below is the character Flint from Stormwatch (#47 May 1997) and although her hips are offset, they are obviously smaller than the width of her shoulders. Similarly the Witchblade (Witchblade Infinity, #1 May 1999) character has the same features.
The images of Mystique are from her run in X-Factor (#130 1997 and #127 1996 respectively). In the first her elongated legs are evident which come from having the pubic above the mid-point of the body. The second her also exhibits shoulders wider than her hips.
The images of Wonder Woman and Supergirl from Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Strikes Again (2001-02) show the characters with broad masculine shoulders.
The images below are from Matt Fraction and Fabio Moons Casanova: Gula (#3 March 2011). Both show the female character with pubic area above the mid-point of the body leaving the torso/upper body too short and elongating the legs.
Artist Adam Hughes also likes to see Wonder Woman with broad, masculine shoulders and slim hips. This is the cover image for Wonder Woman #178 (March 2002).
Below is Stuart Immonen's characters from the cover of Nextwave: Agents of H.A.T.E #1 (March 2006). The female characters display the pubic area above the mid-point of the body leaving the torso/upper body too short and elongating the legs.
Below is a character sketch of the WildCATS character Zealot, by Travis Charest (Charest worked on WildCATS from 1994 to 1998), again with pubic area too high.
Below are images of figurines based on the Justice League Unlimited animated series (running from 2004-06) characters and we can see here that Wonder Woman also exhibits the male characteristics of shoulders wider than her hips. The male characters are rendered in a hypermasculine manner with incredibly broad shoulders.
I think you're reading too much into this. Superhero comics are just fantasies aimed at a certain kind of reader in order to entertain them. Those readers are not seeking realistic depictions of women. Maybe they should be, but that's another matter. Publishers who make money from selling this kind of stuff can't really be held responsible; they print what will be popular. They are not in the business of changing social attitudes, they are in the business of making money. A publisher offering 'realistic' depictions of super-powered fantasy characters would soon be overtaken by one depicting idealized caricatures, or at the very least be seen as kind of daggy. Who would want to read comics that are seen as 'good for you', when escapism is what is really desired from superhero comics? Now, if every publisher were guilt-tripped into doing it somehow, or forced to by the government, by means of a Comics Code-style regulation, maybe it would happen then. Unfortunately that would involve diminishing freedom of expression, and as we've seen from history, eventually people rebel against that, as they did against the Comics Code.
ReplyDeleteJ, thanks for your comment.
ReplyDeleteI'm don't feel I'm reading into it if the images are there, which they certainly are. I'm simply presenting my theory of what I've found. I'm certainly not holding publishers responsible nor advocating for any kind of code to make comics 'good' for readers. I mean, I read them myself! And further I make no point about what readers are seeking. I would however point out at least that some of the images make women look 'wrong' if you get my meaning.
I'm not, nor ever will be, for diminishing freedom of expression. My theory is simply about what appears on the page. In a way your comment supports my theory. If readers enjoy these comics which depict women with masculine traits - why is that? Perhaps this is a reason why female readers are so hard to attract to superhero comics?
I will however also point out that a publisher has offered a more realistic depiction of superpowered fantasy characters, and that offering is called Watchmen, one of the biggest selling and most popular comics ever produced.
As ever, discussion is good.
Sincerely
Ross
Thanks for the reply. What's the theory that you mentioned in your reply, exactly? Is it in another post? You've presented some evidence but I can't really see why, and that is the reason why I made my own suppositions about your motives in my first post. Sorry to sound harsh, but what are you trying to get at in this post, if it's not what I supposed it was? You've shown that popular superhero comics often portray active or heroic women with masculine traits, but what are you getting at?
ReplyDeleteWatchmen can't really be counted, I'm afraid. You are looking at normal, popular, commercial superhero comics in your post, but Watchmen was written by a nonpariel genius interested in creating a timeless work of art. Hoping for all comics always to be at that standard is simply not possible. It's like wondering why all cricketers can't be as good as Bradman. Watchmen is a best seller because it's a brilliant work of genius, not because of the way the female characters in it are portrayed. Moreover, Moore was interested in challenging and smashing stereotypes, and showing the superhero genre for what it is. Second-to-lastly, works of escapist fiction, distraction and fantasy are seldom given critical approval; in order for that to happen one must reflect, present or reveal truth or reality. Moore was certainly aiming for something along those lines, which is a big reason why the female characters were portrayed in that way in Watchmen. The works you referenced above do not do that. Lastly, the bestselling American superhero comic of all time, I believe, is X-Men #1, which holds many answers to the mindset of 90s comics readers.
As for why readers seem to prefer female characters with masculine physical and personal traits, the answer to that is very clear.
J,
ReplyDeleteMy theory is presented in the three part essay 'Notice the Difference' the first part is here - http://mapping-the-multiverse.blogspot.com/2010/06/notice-difference-eliminating-feminine.html.
Sorry, I will put the links to the initial essay in the post soon.
My theory isn't simply about popular comics. I have an example from Casanova and I don't regard that as particularly popular, going by sales that is.
I disagree that I can't suggest Watchmen. I'm looking at the art which was drawn by Dave Gibbons. It is still a superhero comic, obviously a classic, but still a superhero comic.
Again, I'm not arguing (or hoping) for all comics to adhere to a standard, simply interpreting and presenting a theory based on observations.
And how is Watchmen not 'popular' or 'commercial'? Its sales and longevity indicate it quite clearly is. That the artwork presents women more realistically hasn't affected this.
Yes, X-Men #1 is the biggest selling single issue of all time, but that had more to do with the fact it shipped with five different covers to cash in on the 'collecting craze' of the time.
Lastly, about works of escapist fiction. They're certainly given critical approval if they're good!
Comics are also experiencing a boom in critical analysis indicated by several new critical journals - including the Journal of Comics and Graphic Novels - recently being produced.
J,
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to address a point in your original comment, that being that 'Superhero comics are just fantasies'. If I thought they were just fantasies I wouldn't have invested time (and money) in researching them. In fact the research I did on Darkchylde - a comic which I thought had no particular currency other than face value - I never expected to find what I did!
Saying superhero comics are "just" fantasies is like saying Blade Runner is "just" a science-fiction story. And certainly sells them short. All forms of media - creative or otherwise - reflect cultural attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, etc. They provide windows into ways of seeing and thinking. Of course not everyone will agree with what is seen nor do they have to.
I'll separate my answers here so it's clearer. Re Watchmen:
ReplyDeleteWhen I say Watchmen is not commercial, I mean it was not created simply for the comics market, which mainly exists because there is a market to sell power fantasies and so on to young, sensitive people, people who perceive themselves as weak, etc. But Watchmen was intended as a work of art. Because Alan Moore is highly talented, frankly a genius, and because comics readers were by 1986 mature enough to want to seek out work like that it also sold very well. However, most other action comics, such as the ones you mentioned above, are simply about fantasy and escapism. It is catering to the 'wants' of the market. Watchmen caters to neither economic wants nor needs, its aims are chiefly artistic.
This is the main difference between 'commercial' and 'artistic' works: The former satisfies basic, biological and emotional desires. The latter aims to reveal or reflect some kind of truth. Yes, a researcher like you can look at commercial works to find out truths about the culture, as well as cultural and social motivations of the creators, but that does not make them equivalent with artistic works. These two are not completely separated, there is some crossover between the two.
Watchmen did sell well, however that does not mean an comics market could be sustained if all comics were like it. The market for superhero comics exists because enough people want to read them. In fact, Watchmen could not have existed if there weren't a comics market for Moore to comment on and critique. Watchmen was popular because it was brilliant, not because it was catering to some basic (i.e. 'base' desires of its readership.) As a work of art it had to use realistic characters, rather than caricatures, for the reason I gave in my last comment.
There is also a factor if this, involved in the success of Watchmen: "It's deep, like the novels I read as an adult, but it's about the kind of characters I liked as a child." That was and still is a novelty.
The reason I commented that I think you are looking to much into this, is because I think there is a simple reason for the female characters to look the way they do.
Re: X-Men #1.
ReplyDeleteYes, I predicted that you'd say that. Why was there a collecting craze? Why was there a fad for variant covers? Why does one individual think something is 'valuable'? If you look into the motivations of both the comics companies and the readers who bought into it so eagerly, you'll get very good answers about the mindset of comics readers and comics people in general, as well as about our western culture with its economic arrangement, and how that economic arrangement affects the individual.
Re: Critical approval to escapist fiction.
ReplyDeleteIf a creative work is made with talent, skill, dedication, hard work, and effectively does what it sets out to do, whether it's to titillate, or rouse the emotions with a well-told story, or whatever, people will praise it because that kind of good work is praiseworthy. However if its intentions are commercial, it will seldom be regarded as art.
Re: The boom in critical analysis.
ReplyDeleteI don't generally trust university people because I'm well informed enough on my own to know the difference between good and bad works. Also I tend to fell that these uni types are bogged in ideology, and also that certain aspects of their own psychology affect their preferences and tastes. However, I think you will find that the critical analysis of comics tends to be of the 'literature' comics. Superhero comics etc. are studied because either people think that all 'texts' are equal and thus all worthy of attention, (I disagree) or that certain knowledge about a culture can be found by analyzing its pop culture. This aspect of research is fairly worthy, and not that new, either.
However from what I've seen of the other post you linked to, that research seems ideologically based. Referring to your other post, the idea that, say, Void from WildCats is a masturbatory fantasy, 'eye candy for the male gaze', is simplistic and also seems contrary to this post, i.e. that the female characters seem to look more masculine. That is also contrary to the images of women that teenage boys actually have masturbatory fantasies about, namely pornography.
Re: Selling comics short by describing them as just fantasies.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, there is a line between commercial and artistic creative works, which I wrote about above. It's not wrong to describe them like that and to give them different categories. I also don't think it's a problem if a talented, motivated individual is driven to create escapist fantasies. If that is their path, that's their path, and they are unlikely to be happier doing something else. Richer, maybe!
So basically, I don't see it as a problem to describe say, a comic about 7" tall blonde girls wearing nighties fighting each other with magic swords as just a fantasy. It is what it is.
Similarly, I don't think researching pop culture is a waste of time or money. If that's what you are motivated to do, then that's what will make you happy and you are on the right path. I just happen to think some of your conclusions are off.
Human motivations are key. Compare the motivation of Randy Queen to create Darkchylde with the motivation of Alan Moore to create Watchmen. Compare everything about those two creators, it's elucidating.
I personally see the woman's body proportions as being "leggier" than the man's. Long legs are globally viewed as an attractive characteristic in women so the whole "pubic line" theory seems off... Also, women's legs are drawn longer compared to the torso in a majority of manga and anime, see Sailor Moon. The Sailor Scouts were girl's superheros and they did not have stocky legs or wide hips, but the characters are very feminine.
ReplyDeleteTo compare fantasy to reality, I'm a 5'9" woman and my shoulders and hips are about the same width. I have a girl friend who is 5'11" and has a very curvy body, big boobs, round butt... Wider shoulders than hips, and she has got hips! The taller you are the wider your shoulders, in general I think its just physics.
Also, you totally skipped over waist to hip ratio. All of the characters you posted pictures of have tiny waists, and compared to their hips it's obvious they aren't guys. Men are shaped like a V with no inflection point at their middle.
The statement that female superheros have masculine features that make them more closely resemble men than women does not seem to be supported in your arguement. ^_^'
Personally, I enjoy both the cartoony stuff and the realist. When it's cartoony, I want it to be wacky. The Stuart Immonen Nectwave stuff appeals to me quite a bit. I also like Chris Bachalo and Humberto Ramos. I enjoy the motion ang hard edges. When it comes to realism, I want to see a variety of body and face shapes. Most artists who do realism (like myself) tend to use models to draw from. This means there is going to be a bit of repeat archtyoes used. What I like is an artist that clearly doesn't use many models, yet captures realism in an organic and flowing way. I think one of the best examples of this today is Travel Foreman's work on Animal Man. Very full of motion, yet it feels believable.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the reason we get alot of formulaic art is because comic illustrators have to use photo reference and don't get to draw from life as much. Also, there is a style that sells, and the comic industry is going to hire artists that can mass produce the familiar art work. I've grown pretty tired of the cheesecake stuff, though, and like to see interesting and not the run-of-the-mill artists getting to be more expressive with their artwork.
I think your post was an interesting personal take on how you feel about the artwork in comics that you read. I don't think you need to justify your opinions on your own blog to anyone. We're here to hear what you think, not to critique your opinions as a comics appreciator. I respect the time you take to explain the observations you have made. The conclusions you have made are conclusions about how YOU appreciate artwork, not conclusions you are telling us to come to as well. People who try to tell you that your opinion is wrong do not understand what an opinion is.
ReplyDeleteYou are confusing masculine physique with athletic physique. Broad shoulders, slim hips, expanded chest capacity are all characteristics of athletes, regardless of gender.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. Any evidence to back that up? What about those athletes that play hockey, cricket, diving, cycling? What about long distance runners, high jumpers? All athletes - male and female - look the same do they? There is more than one "athletic physique". I hope you read all three parts of the essay. It explains in more detail the theory behind it all.
Delete