Everyone’s heard that you’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover. I think that’s supposed to be metaphorical though, and to apply to not making assumptions about people based on their surface appearance. You know, like ugly people might have really great personalities, or that handsome Christian Bale might be a rude, scary guy to work with on a set. Like that.
When it comes to actually books, it’s not always a bad idea to judge them by their covers. Particularly if you’re talking comics, since the cover is one of the few things retailers have to judge them by when deciding whether to order them or not (along with the creator credits, and a paragraph or two worth of description provided by the publisher. And, perhaps, whatever press the company or creators do).
The direct market’s two biggest publishers each announced a new series debuting in the summer that a lot of folks have judged by their covers and the little info so far available, and ended up judging them pretty harshly.
These are, of course, Marvel Divas, a four-issue miniseries by Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa and Tonci Zonjic featuring four random characters and being promoted as a sort of ensemble superhero soap opera (albeit a soapier one than all the other superhero soap opera’s Marvel publishes), and Gotham City Sirens, a new ongoing series by Paul Dini and Guillem March featuring a trio of Batman villainesses.
The criticism of each is, for the most part, fair, and certainly anyone with an Internet connection or soap box and megaphone are entitled to pre-judge the hell out of them. That is why DC and Marvel release the covers and solicits, and then promote the books through media interviews and through in-house press efforts: To get retailers and readers thinking about buying their books.
Since the books were announced, I’ve heard an awful lot of criticism about the work of Siren artist Guillem March, based on the cover for the first issue that was released, and some of his other cover work for the Batman office.
I just wanted to take a few minutes today to defend March from some of the criticism, which seems to focus on how sexy he draws female characters, and whether or not it is somehow exploitive or inappropriate for the comics or the characters within them. While the effects of such art in general is certainly up for debate, I would just like to point out an important difference between March and a lot of the more established and popular here’s-a-drawing-of-a-lady-posing type artists: March is a really, really great artist.
You need not take my word for it, of course. I’d encourage anyone who likes looking at really good drawings to checking out his website for plenty of his comics and illustration work (Some images may not be safe for work, depending on where you work and how cool your boss is).
I haven’t personally read all of the work he’s done, not have I even read all of the work he’s done for DC’s Bat-books so far, but what I have seen has been pretty incredible, and puts him head and shoulders above some of his peers (Head, shoulders and torso over some of the guys who get paid to draw pictures of superheroes these days).
Let’s start with that Gotham City Sirens cover, and first look at it completely divorced from what we know about the book so far.
It’s the books three stars, wearing their regular costumes (actually, Poison Ivy’s wearing a lot more costume than she’s been wearing lately), posing on a spotlight, perhaps meant to be the Bat-signal.
First up, I count six feet, so hooray hooray, a comic book cover artist who can actually draw a human being from head to toe.
The content is perhaps a little silly; it’s safe to assume the trio won’t all be standing on a spotlight at any point in the story, and really, what’s Catwoman supposed to be whipping at? This isn’t really a story cover at all, but a pose cover; the equivalent of photo shoot with models, only instead of selling clothing or perfume they’re selling the comic itself.
It’s pure cheesecake, of course, but as often as I complain about comics’ treatment of female characters and figures, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with cheesecake or sexy art, I just prefer that it:
a) Not be gross, focusing on characters we know are minors and who may also be sold as children’s characters
b) Not be completely counterproductive to the story the writer is trying to tell, like almost every panel of Ed Benes’ Justice League of America run, which usually strives to make the story about Wonder Woman or Black Canary’s ass, whatever the characters might be talking about
and
c) Not be terribly drawn. Drawings of women (and men) don’t have to look like photorealistic women (and men), but some interior logic within the comic art is a must, and while anatomy can and probably should be exaggerated or abstracted in various ways, it should still stay within some set of rules. For example, just as it would be wrong to draw Superman with three arms or Batman with a little Tyrannosaurus Rex arms that don’t reach his waist, Wonder Woman’s breasts shouldn’t each be twice the size of her head and Supergirl shouldn’t have three rib cages stacked on top of one another.
In addition to being a nice drawing, the anatomy in that Sirens cover drawing is, as far as I can tell, perfect, as is what little drapery there is (only Catwoman has loose enough material for the material to even register as material), and the lighting all seems consistent.
(This is all art 101 of course, and stuff we should take completely for granted these days, but sadly, it actually sticks out as remarkable.)
And even though Harley Quinn is striking the classic display-both-breasts-and-ass-simultaneously pose, March draws only as much of her breasts as you’d be able to see if she were a real woman trying to turn at the waist as much as possible.
Now, I haven’t read the book at all of course, but based on the solicitation and Dini’s reputation for writing good girl and bad girl comics, I think it’s safe to say this cover isn’t selling anything that isn’t inside it.
Now just to compare March’s cover with something similar, let’s look at the Marvel Divas cover:
J. Scott Campbell’s style is looser and cartoonier, for which you can forgive the much less realistic proportions of his women…to a point. He’s not afraid or unable to draw feet, but in Black Cat’s case at least, he’s not drawing them right.
The characters are all posing, but it’s a pretty get-em-all-in boring sort of pose, one completely divorced from reality. (Where are they supposed to be, exactly?)
And what’s up with the lighting? There’s a sun-like flare at the top, and Firestar is generating flames in a bunch of different places, so the light is coming from everywhere, and everything seems to glow from within.
All four women look the exact same, and they’re only distinguishable by their costumes and hair.
And Monica Rambeau’s left fist is about the size of her lips, the poor, poor woman. I bet she has a hard time shopping for gloves.
Is this image representative of the contents of the book? Well, not only is Campbell not drawing the interior, but artist Zonjic has a completely different style. Check out his blog here.
But back to March. He’s been providing covers for a couple of time-marking Batman-related miniseries, Azrael: Death’s Dark Knight, of which I’ve heard virtually nothing positive or negative beyond “Holy crap, Frazer Irving’s drawing an Azrael comic?!, and Oracle: The Cure, which has been read and reviewed by a lot of female fans on the Internet, and they haven’t been all that happy.
This is perhaps unsurprising, given that Oracle and Black Canary are two characters that are pretty popular with female super-fans, or at least with female super-fans that talk about comics online.
They haven’t been thrilled with the book, which I haven’t been reading myself. Here are March’s covers for it, and you can probably guess what a lot of readers don’t like about ‘em:
They’re all good drawings. Again, note the anatomy, the clothing and the lighting; really, note the clothing—how often is Oracle seen just wearing a skintight boobsock-style spandex turtle neck or some other garment that only exists in comic books? That shirt looks like a real shirt you might find in a real story and be able to wear in the real world. That…that shouldn’t be as rare as it is, should it?
Oracle’s a grown woman so it’s not super-creepy to be ogling her the way it might be if that was Supergirl’s blouse we were meant to be staring down on the second issue’s cover. Whether that’s the best way to sell a comic book is, of course, a different matter, and I would understand any complaints about the third cover working a woman in peril theme into a sexy drawing of Oracle being sexy at the same time.
March isn’t drawing the interiors, so I suppose it’s something of a bait-and-switch, although not tonally. Whether you appreciate the decision to use Oracle as a sexual object on the covers, they’re consistent wiht the interiors: the first issue featured a shower scene, so it’s not like DC was selling sex on the cover of sexless book or anything.
As for interior work, March illustrated last year’s Joker’s Asylum: Poison Ivy #1 and a portion of the recent Gotham Gazette: Batman Dead? #1, neither of which I’ve read.
I did read his two-part “Last Days of Gotham” story with Denny O’Neil, one of the several “Batman: R.I.P.” codas that followed the climax of Grant Morrison’s run, and March’s art work just blew me away. He proved adept at character design, at acting through the characters, of orchestrating action, at designing a page and laying the story out in a way that pulls the reader’s eyes through it.
Again, this is all stuff that all comics artists should be good at, certainly by the time they get a gig drawing one of the industry’s biggest publisher’s biggest books, but coming after Tony Daniel’s run on Batman, it was a breath of fresh air, a reminder that, “Oh yeah, this is what a comic book is supposed to look like, huh?”
So, in summary, Guillem March is a very good artist, and while fans can continue to talk all the trash they want and avoid any comic for any reason, I do hope they keep in mind that sexy Batman covers could be assigned to much, much, much worse artists, and Gotham City Sirens is pretty lucky to have him drawing it.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Hey, look, it’s another post about the portrayal of women in super-hero comics, and look who’s responding? ME!
I don’t have a problem with cheesecake shots, necessarily… let me take that back. If I must have cheesecake, I would at least like to to be an action shot or say something about the character. There’s an illustration of Power Girl by Adam Hughes that has her reclining as she’s flying, with her hands behind her head. I love that shot, because it’s a great illustration of her personality.
The Oracle shots at least tell a story. Babs is a little top-heavy, and that second cover is pretty gratuitous, but at least she’s doing something, so I can forgive the cheesecakiness of it.
The Divas cover… well, you’ve said just about everything you can about it. Everything about Marvel Divas, from the tone of the cover to the tone of the solicit to the tone of Joe Quesada responding to the kerfluffle… it all seems like it was created by fratboys for fratboys. It’s a very narrow, immature viewpoint, disrespectful to women readers and a lousy way to get new ones.
April 30th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I’ve seen no one going after March, as he does cheesecake right, like Adam Hughes. It’s not Ed Benes or even Ed McGuiness cheesecake. Those Oracle covers are nice because it still emphasizes the point that while Babs is in a wheelchair, she’s not some unkempt slob who doesn’t take care of her appearance.
And Gotham Sirens has Paul Dini writing it, the person who made the characters work in BTAS. He has a track record of doing good things with the characters.
Marvel Divas, however, sounds stupid. Like tie in with a soap opera stupid (gee, same company). Also, coupling it with “Sex and the City” in an attempt to piggyback onto something where the comics genre and SATC demo converge, doesn’t really work. Especially when all 4 characters are relative unknowns in the real world.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
“No no guys, these gratuitous titty shots of a wheelchair bound woman who looks like she’s perpetually slathered with vaseline are totally cool because get this: they’re well drawn.”
Also I know when I think of “fratboy” creators my mind immediately jumps to GLAAD award-winning playwright Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Dudes saying they don’t mind cheesecake! Awesome. Glad we cleared that up.
I can’t believe I’m saying this but…. I prefer the Marvel Diva’s cover. At least they’re not wearing heels so they can conceivably fight crime, and at least I don’t have to guess whether or not they’re sporting underwear.
Also, if we’re being honest here…how the hell can you complain about J. Scott Campbell’s cheesecake? When it’s not on a book claiming to be about women’s difficulties in male dominated industries (that was, by the way, the main complaint of Divas — not the cheesecake. But if you want to continue to insist the evol feminists want to take your softcore porn away, who am I to stop you….) it’s pretty damn nice and he’s got a great eye for composition and style.
I don’t think cheesecake needs defense, it just needs honesty. Not spluttering of “It’s not for you!” or “It’s comics, suck it up!” or “Stop whining! It’s only comics!” (LOL.)
April 30th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
As a woman in her mid-50s, I love the covers for Oracle and think the one for Gotham Sirens is nice. I wouldn’t mind seeing the artist draw my favorite male characters.
There is nothing wrong with sexy adult female characters depicted as such. There’s a difference between sexy and slutty. I just prefer more equality. If you show the women as sexy, you should show the men that way, too. I can’t get enough bare-chested shots of my fave guys.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
As someone who’s a huge Batman fanatic and also a female reader… honestly, I just roll my eyes at all the cheesecakey poses and then PRAY to the PTB that we’ll have a sexy pose of Dick or Tim or even Bruce on the cover of a Batbook someday…
April 30th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I like March’s art. I never feel like he’s needlessly degraded his ladies. Based on the stuff in his blog, I feel like he’s been pressed to sex them up to an unfortunate extent.
I liked his handling of Nightwing – I think DC does itself a disservice by only putting him on female characters. He brings a different, less OMG HULK MUSCLE look to the hero profile. Wish they’d give him more of that. Also his wash colors over his own inks – lovely.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:31 am
I’m one of the people who’ve talked about March’s work recently, and I feel like I should weigh in.
I don’t see how anyone can deny that March is talented, but he’s talented in a very specific area. His background is in erotic art, and it shows in how he depicts his women. He’s cheesecake-y, which I guess is why DC hired him. All three of the women on that Sirens cover are wearing high heels, but two out of the three are gymnasts. It looks silly.
My problem, and the one I expand upon in my post, is that I don’t think his work is appropriate for some of the books he’s been put on. Power Girl and Oracle in particular are books that don’t necessarily need his touch. Oracle had a shower scene, yes, but it was also out of place in the book. We don’t really need to see Oracle putting them on the glass when the book isn’t about that. Power Girl isn’t an inherently cheesecake-y character because of the window, either. Palmiotti, Gray, and Conner look to be doing a fun story about a grown-up Supergirl, rather than something full of shower scenes and titillation.
Basically, I don’t get why books starring women gotta be the ones with the super sexy covers. I don’t understand why someone being an okay artist means that what he draws fits the tone.
This is silly. “It could be worse, so be thankful for what you have?” What happened to expecting someone to put their best foot forward, and not the typical one?
May 1st, 2009 at 1:31 am
Cheesecake is only allowable when it’s well drawn? So in other words “no fuglies allowed?”
I agree that Marvel would have been better served picking a different cover artist for a book by (as previously mentioned) GLAAD award-winner Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa and Iron Fist artist Tonci Zonjic. I haven’t seen a whole lot of Tonci Zonjic’s work outside of Iron Fist, but “cheesecake” is NOT one of the first things that pop to my head when I think of his art.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:17 am
The one thing that annoys me the most about March’s detractors is that they make it sound like his art is created in this vacuum without editorial consent.
In the case of these Oracle covers, Guilliem did several thumbnails, seen here – http://guillemmarch.blogspot.com/2009/01/oracle-2-portada-cover.html and here http://guillemmarch.blogspot.com/2008/12/oracle-1.html. These were presented to DC Editorial and they looked over and proceeded to give him changes.
March got his start in porn comics, which is fine when you are producing adult only comics. If he’s asked by his editor to show more skin, he’s going to do it.
Looking at pages like, http://guillemmarch.blogspot.com/2009/03/gotham-gazette-batman-dead-vicki-vale.html, shows that when left to his own devices, March is a capable artist with a clear grasp of storytelling. He’s not just a cheesecake guy and remarking him as such is just making assumptions based on his cover work which is clearly being forced to his ability to draw adult oriented material. You can see it his male only covers, the man can draw.
I also don’t think it’s fair to compare him to Conner et al, when he clearly doesn’t have the editorial latitude that they do in regards to what type of covers they do.
May 1st, 2009 at 7:10 am
Dave:
“Also I know when I think of “fratboy” creators my mind immediately jumps to GLAAD award-winning playwright Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa.”
Valid point. But the solicit was also… well, hell, let me just find it:
“Diva (dee-vah), noun: An unusually glamorous and powerful woman. See: Patsy “Hellcat” Walker; Felicia “Black Cat” Hardy; Angelica “Firestar” Jones; and Monica “Photon” Rambeau. What happens when you take four of the Marvel Universe’s most fabulous single girls and throw them together, adding liberal amounts of suds and drama? You get the sassiest, sexiest, soapiest series to come out of the House of Ideas since Millie the Model! Romance, action, ex-boyfriends, and a last page that changes everything! Let your inner divas out with this one, fellas, you won’t regret it!”
Does that look like it will be empowering for women or girls? “Don’t judge it until it comes out,” you may say. But according to the above solicit, as well as EVERYTHING I’ve seen regarding it, Marvel’s emphasizing “sudsy fun” over everything else.
I’m not busting on Sacasa here; I am saying that NOTHING that I’ve seen so far that would make me want to pick this up, because EVERYTHING I’ve seen is insulting to women readers.
And yeah, March’s covers may be gratuitous in their focus, but at least they tell a story. Campbell’s cover looks like the cover of Entertainment Weekly’s annual “Glamorous Women of Heroing” issue. So design does come into play. If there are two cheesecake shots, and one tells a story and tells me something about the character portrayed, I’m going to prefer that one.
May 1st, 2009 at 7:20 am
Mozzocco wrote: “They’re all good drawings. Again, not [sic] the anatomy, the clothing and the lighting; really, note the clothing—how often is Oracle seen just wearing a skintight boobsock-style spandex turtle neck or some other garment that only exists in comic books? That shirt looks like a real shirt you might find in a real story and be able to wear in the real world. That…that shouldn’t be as rare as it is, should it?”
Uh, yeah. Because women who wear “real shirts” tend to wear them just so their lovely breasts can be exposed just so. Yeah, a lot of us women comics fans would rather the women heroes not be drawn in skimpy spandex. But… way to not get the point in an epic manner. You’re saying we should be happy, because look, Oracle’s wearing an unbuttoned shirt instead of spandex!
I assure you, us lady comics fans really like good art. Pretty sure we wouldn’t be into sequential art if we didn’t. The point is, drawing a powerful character as if she’s a vacuous porn star (wide, blank eyes, parted puffy lips, convenient view down shirt) is ridiculous and objectifying and yes, sexist. Would Batman be drawn like this? No. There’s your answer, any time this issue comes up. Until Batman is drawn like a porn star, don’t try to defend this to me as just good art.
May 1st, 2009 at 7:42 am
Amy (a different Amy):
“Because women who wear “real shirts” tend to wear them just so their lovely breasts can be exposed just so.”
To be fair, I know (or have met) a lot of women who wear shirts with that cut. I tend to see it most with salespeople, where a little sex appeal sells.
Not necessarily defending March on this one; I’m just saying it’s not all that uncommon.
May 1st, 2009 at 7:56 am
Have to agree about March’s talent on internal pages… his Vicki Vale story in “Gotham Gazette: Batman Dead?” was excellent. I’m eager to see him on more storytelling with male and female characters.
That said, the Oracle covers tell an interesting story when you see them all at once. And it’s not a good one.
The first, I really liked. I liked it enough that I didn’t even realize her shirt was half-open. Look at her face and pose… that’s Oracle as we know her, sharp and defiant and ready for action.
Second issue had some wonderful parts. I love the “oh, crap!” expression on her face and the reflection in her glasses. it tells you something big and scary is happening… but it doesn’t make Oracle look helpless so much as surprised. However, while the first was so good I didn’t notice the cleavage, this one let the cleavage pull attention away from the wonderful face work. The way the image is framed puts the attention in the wrong place.
Third… no. No, no, no. The “woman in peril” shot simply doesn’t suit Oracle at all. If he’d taken the basic theme of the shot (Oracle partway through a tough fight) and added the defiance shown in the first shot (like we saw when Oracle fought Spy Smasher as well), then the cover would have a very different message.
But having them in order like this is where the story becomes even more troubling. #1: Oracle’s strong and ready. #2: Oracle meets an overwhelming force. #3: Oracle is defeated and pleading. It’s a bad sequence, and someone along the line should have noticed that.
-J
May 1st, 2009 at 9:04 am
Mr. Wesley: “To be fair, I know (or have met) a lot of women who wear shirts with that cut. I tend to see it most with salespeople, where a little sex appeal sells.”
Exactly. A little sex appeal sells. You don’t see the male salespeople in skin tight pants that expose thong underwear, etc. At least, not very often. And certainly not on the covers of male superhero comics.
This is exactly the point. The women who feel they have to flaunt cleavage to sell products are influenced by the same double-standard sexist environment as the rest of us. Why do they need to show off their breasts in order to sell anything?
The point isn’t that women don’t wear shirts like this out in the real world. The point is that Oracle’s breasts are being used to sell a comic book, here, regardless of whether she’s wearing a shirt or spandex.
Honestly, that first cover doesn’t bother me that much. She’s shown in an action pose, showing a little cleavage, but that’s not the sole focus of the image. But that second cover, especially: the entire point is that the angle chosen just happens to look right down her shirt. Right? Right.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:20 am
Amy (a different Amy) I wasn’t aware that Nightwing and The Flash had adopted less ass-shaping outfits at any point in the last 30 years. They’ve been wearing the equivalent of the Speedo LZR Racer with nary a complaint from anyone.
I don’t like the second Oracle cover but the shirt is consistent first to second cover, and the third cover surely doesn’t emphasize breast. Her eyes are red either because she’s crying – you’re telling me Batman’s never cried? – or irritation from the destruction of the equipment around her (see the fire in the background?) I think you’re seeing things that aren’t there.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:21 am
Whoever has a problem with this artist is insane. He’s amazing.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
Amy (a different Amy):
I’m not disagreeing with you here. In fact I made a similar comment at CBR about the fact that you’d never see Batman bent over the hood of the Batmobile with his butt in the air to sell an issue of Detective.
On the other hand, as far as salespeople go… to paraphrase Al Capone in The Untouchables, “You can get more with a kind word and nice teeth than you can with just a kind word.” Looks are a component with sales and media for both sexes. That’s just a fact, and has been since the Kennedy/Nixon debates.
I guess I’m willing to give the shirt a pass because it’s not something that a real woman would never wear. But the cover to issue 2 is a little ridiculous.
On the OTHER hand….
According to the original sketches for the cover that Pedro linked to above, Babs’ shirt was buttoned to the top. Whether the open collar idea was March’s or an editor’s, we’ll probably never know. But the concept for a more demure look was at least entertained.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:56 am
Amy (just Amy):
I know what you’re saying about men in spandex. But can you point to one cover where a super-hero’s butt is emphasized to titilate to the teenage girls?
There’s really only one male hero that seems to be drawn with female readers in mind (keeping in mind this is coming from a man in his 30s), and that’s Connor Kent, Superboy. His shoulders are about two city blocks across, and those’re some tight jeans he’s wiggled up in.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:01 am
Amy: the difference is that The Flash, et al, aren’t presented in typically sexualized poses, straight out of porn. Their sexual characteristics are not emphasized as the focal point of the drawing — usually it’s their muscles, to show that they are powerful or strong.
I disagree that the third cover does not emphasize her breasts. While the third cover is no where near as obvious as the second, her body is posed specifically to frame her cleavage. I didn’t actually address anything about her crying, which has very little to do with the issue at hand.
Ryan:
No one has said the artist can’t draw. But should women count ourselves lucky that the objectification is being done with skill, as the original post suggests?
May 1st, 2009 at 11:06 am
Mr. Wesley: “Looks are a component with sales and media for both sexes.”
Yes, true. I agree. I’m just saying that this is applied in a sexist double standard in our society. This is probably getting off topic, but my point is: look at how men and women are treated as far as looks go in the media — both genders must be attractive, but the women must sell their sexuality much more than the men do, yes? So you might have two salespeople, one male, one female, both cover model gorgeous. Which of the two is going to be showing off their sexual characteristics?
May 1st, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Both genders are, in fact, drawn unrealistically in comics, and both are drawn to appeal to the fantasy life of men. The women are drawn with a focus on their sex appeal, so that the male audience will want them; the men are drawn with a focus on their strength and power so that the male audience will want to be them.
Being a woman who reads comics is like continually going to parties where everyone’s focus is on someone else. Eventually, it’s hard to ignore the fact that you’re not wanted.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
To further explain, since I’m still not past the fact that the author of this article thinks that focusing on the artist’s technique is a legitimate defense against complaints about content, let me break this down into easy-to-understand chunks.
When we complain about how a female superhero, or villain, is drawn all out of proportion in order to exaggerate her sexual attributes, we’re not complaining that the artist in question needs to brush up on his technique, we are complaining about how the artist, and the editor, are focusing on the woman as a sex object above all other considerations of form and logic.
When we complain about how a female superhero, or villain, is drawn in cheesecake poses regardless of the content of the scene, we are not complaining that the artist in question sucks at drawing women, we are complaining about how the artist, and the editor, are focusing on the woman as a sex object above all considerations of what the scene requires.
When we complain about how a female superhero, or villain, is drawn in shrink-wrap costumes (guys, really, spandex doesn’t work that way with belly buttons, I don’t care how tight it is) or is showing way too much skin, or we complain that women don’t really flounce around their apartments alone in skimpy lingerie, we are complaining about how the artist, and the editor, are focusing on the woman as a sex object above all considerations of character, plot, and the simple reality of how women actually act and what women actually wear.
You may see a theme here.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Is R. Ragnell/Lisa Fortuner? Because “let me break this down into easy-to-understand chunks” sure sounds like her usual condescending tone.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:59 pm
R.: yes, exactly.
This additional thought occurred to me:
That shirt in the Oracle covers wasn’t chosen because it’s a normal thing for a woman in her own space to be wearing, a casual shirt she’s comfortable in. Most of us, when alone in our own space, wear not so revealing clothing. Really, what she’s doing is comparable to telecommuting, right? And the advantages of telecommuting? Not having to dress yourself up for an audience.
No, in these covers she’s showing off her breasts. While alone. Who is she showing them off to? Not anyone in the frame of the story (again, she’s alone) — she’s flashing the reader/potential buyer. She’s showing off for the absent (male) gaze of the comic reader.
That is the difference between the portrayals of men and women superheros in comics, as R. said. The male characters are not there to titillate, because the assumed consumer of the comics is heterosexual men.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I don’t know who R. is, but she is right on the money. She’s articulated what I’ve been trying to get across for the past three weeks.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Amy (a different Amy): you’re not kidding. Let’s not even get into the illogic of going braless with those size breasts and a tailored shirt; it’s just another indication that those pictures were drawn by a man, for other men, and no woman was involved in the process or considered as an audience member.
Mr Wesley: Thank you.
Z: I’m sorry you felt condescended to.
When I was five years old I would spin around until I was too dizzy to stand, pretending that I could turn into Wonder Woman. When I was eight years old I would close my eyes and strike the Firestar pose, pretending that I could light up with flame. When I was ten years old I used to jump off of my bunk bed, pretending that I could fly like Supergirl. I want to see my heroes be heroes first, not always being distracted by posing for the male audience. I want to see my heroes defined by what they can do, not how they look. I want to be able to look in this paper mirror and pretend that once upon a time, there were women who fought villains and monsters and all kinds of evil, and that they were too awesome to give a damn if they broke a nail or looked unladylike or if other people thought they needed to wear a skirt so they wouldn’t scare the menfolk by being too strong.
Instead, I get people explaining that I shouldn’t feel too bad about all the female characters being objectified because at least this dude can draw feet! Yeah, that’s not condescending at all.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:44 pm
A Different Any: Ripped guys and “top-heavy” women are a conceit of the genre. Of course, this argument will go on forever.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:44 pm
That is, A Different AMY…
May 1st, 2009 at 1:47 pm
R.: thank you.
It’s not just that every time I try to read a comic with women heroes I feel objectified myself, or alienated, or invisible; it’s that boys are growing up reading these things, forming their relationships to the opposite gender through them. So are girls, for that matter, but boys are still the majority of the readers, and what they’re learning from comics is that women are there to be stared at, displayed as sexual objects, existing for the pleasure of men. Among other things.
Yeah, often the cover doesn’t reflect how the heroine is portrayed in the comic itself; but the cover is the most visible aspect of the comic, what catches the eye, what is supposed to draw the reader. What are we saying if we have a kickass women hero inside the comic, but her representative cover is cheesecake/porntastic? The cover ends up negating whatever strength she displays in the story, in one fell swoop.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Can I just say, man, I’m sick of images like this in comics:
http://www.skyseastone.net/nuadha/hand/conan.jpg
or
http://www.supermantv.net/superman/comicbooks/new/worlds-finest-jimlee.jpg
What impossible images for men to live up to. I’m sick of this type of cheesecake in my comic books. Why don’t all men in comics look like regular guys, wearing jeans and a sweat-stained t-shirt? And I mean, look at their jobs! One is a king, one is a famous reporter, and one is a playboy millionaire! Where’s the super heroes that work at Denny’s or pump gas? I’m sick of the unrealistic views that superheroes show young men.
…
May 1st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Ryan Higgins: “Ripped guys and “top-heavy” women are a conceit of the genre. Of course, this argument will go on forever.”
This is exactly the point. So, this is the status quo, and we all have to live with it? Nothing ever changes in comics? Please. The question for me becomes: why are so many guys so invested in defending this status quo?
As this has one been explained a couple of times upthread, I’ll just link you to the bingo card entry so kindly supplied by Girls Read Comics: http://girl-wonder.org/girlsreadcomics/?p=4#13
May 1st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
OH, should have added this one, as Ryan’s point hit two bingo squares at once!
http://girl-wonder.org/girlsreadcomics/?p=4#25
aka Comics are never going to change. You’re wasting your time.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Ryan — if you can’t tell the difference between sexual objectification and aspirational, then yes, you’re right, this will go on forever.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Ryan: congratulations on the bingo squares! Please back up and try reading again. You may have missed this:
Both genders are, in fact, drawn unrealistically in comics, and both are drawn to appeal to the fantasy life of men. The women are drawn with a focus on their sex appeal, so that the male audience will want them; the men are drawn with a focus on their strength and power so that the male audience will want to be them.
In smaller words, what I’m saying here is this: You get the good things in the drawing of both genders, because you are the chosen audience. I don’t get anything good; both men and women are drawn to appeal to your fantasy life, not mine. I’m sure that this is fine for you, since you are being catered to, but you’ll have to pardon me for thinking that it sucks.
I don’t mind the unrealistic proportions; being able to roll with a certain (large) lack of realism is part and parcel of being a fan of the superhero comic genre. What I mind is that everything else about the female heroes are secondary to their sex appeal, while the male heroes don’t have that burden. (Unless, of course, we’d get to turn the tables on the Marvel Divas comic like this. Seeing the men depicted as sex objects first, people second is sort of refreshing.)
May 1st, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Personally, I wouldn’t be interested in this argument at all if the defense wasn’t even a defense at all, but an admission of “I just don’t care that it’s cheesecake.” Because that’s how I feel. I’m going to admit it. It’s escapist fantasy for me where the men are powerful and the women are sexy. But the defenders here are doing themselves a disservice here by trying to justify it with “but there’s a story, and it’s a normal blouse.” Cheesecake is still cheesecake even if you decorate it. And I’m fine with it.
What’s annoying to me are the people lying to themselves saying “she’s not striking a pose like that other cover so it’s okay. I’m better than the people that read THAT smut. My smut is art.”
May 1st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Ah, the internet. Never change!
May 1st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Linking to girl-wonder = automatic fail.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Ryan: I’m going to assume that means that you have no comeback and that you can’t face actually arguing with girls who can fight back, so you’re just taking refuge in sixth-grade-level taunting. Very cute. Wanna try again, maybe come up with something that actually addresses the argument this time?
May 1st, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Joe: “I’m going to admit it. It’s escapist fantasy for me where the men are powerful and the women are sexy.”
THANK YOU. Thank you for being honest. I actually respect this. I still think it’s enormously problematic for us women fans, but at least it’s honest, you know? It’s these endless arguments pretending that it’s something that it’s not that drives me more mad.
May 1st, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Ryan:
Assuming you’re just not trolling, then you’re very close minded. There’s a difference between the IDEALIZED form, which you’re talking about, and the SEXUALIZED form, which the grown-ups are talking about.
All heros are drawn to idealized standards, true. But women heroes are consistently drawn to titilate readers. So the images you linked to don’t count. Show me an image of Superman where I can see his nipples through his costume. Show me a picture of Batman in a speedo. Show me a shot of Captain America where I can make out the outline of his wang through his tights.
That’s what we’re talking about. It’s absurd to think that the male icons would be portrayed in such a beefcake fashion. Yet the most prominent female super-hero in the known world has a costume that is essentially a swimsuit. Two other prominent female heroes in the DCU wear fishnets as part of their crime-fighting costume. The last time I checked, Huntress wears thigh-high boots and has an opening around her mid-riff.
There are some instances that I’ll give a pass to: Supergirl is a teenager, so I can see her baring her mid-riff (plus the fact that she’s bulletproof negates the need for armor of any kind). Starfire’s exhibitionism was established early in New Teen Titans.
But are there ANY comparable example on the male side of the board? Sure, the Thing goes around without a shirt, but HE’S A MONSTER. Namor usually wears nothing more than a swimsuit, but then again, HE’S A SWIMMER. There is not a hero from either DC or Marvel that shows his skin without a logical explanation.
Give me one example, Ryan. Just one. Prove to us that you’re more than a troll, and that you have something to contribute to the discussion.
Futhermore, not ALL heroes are perfectly idealized forms. Two prominent examples I can think of are Mark Bagley’s rather scrawny Ultimate Spider-Man and the Runaways. I think Runaways is especially notable because these are heroes who 1) have no costumes, and 2) are portrayed with normal bodytypes for teenagers their age.
And what’s wrong with girl-wonder? That’s a serious question, Ryan. I’ve never been, so I want to know what you think about it.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:17 pm
The shower scene in Oracle was amazing. To show how difficult it is for people with disabilities to do everyday things was great. Sure, we’ve seen how difficult it is for Babs to maneuver on the streets when there’s no ramp, but usually, we see her working out with weights to maintain her upper body strength or other activities that show that being in a wheelchair hasn’t made her weak. But in that one brief scene, that I do not think was sexed up (and shower scenes have been in comics for a long time now, if not often), we see, without it being overdone or overwrought the sorts of obstacles she has to overcome every day.
I applaud the guts to show that.
May 2nd, 2009 at 2:05 am
Amy (a different Amy) Says:
THANK YOU. Thank you for being honest.
You’re welcome. Don’t get me wrong, I do love stories with stronger women (Runaways was mentioned, which I love, and lots of manga like Fullmetal Alchemist and Battle Angel Alita feature strong women) I just don’t mind a little cheesecake for dessert.
And I can understand the frustration a little bit. I enjoy good romance stories, but a majority of them are aimed for women, often times portraying the man in the poor light. “Woman’s husband is philandering jerk so she leaves him for someone else.” Or “Woman stuck in unsatisfying marriage with man that doesn’t appreciate her so a sexy stranger saves her from it!” In one story the man is the cheater and in the wrong (rightfully so) but in the other the woman is the unfaithful one and is rewarded for it (huh?). But it’s aimed at women and not me.
So I think the REAL problem isn’t how women and men are portrayed in these stories, but do they actually help mold our preconceived opinions of each other? I think they do on a small scale, but I think personal interaction with the opposite sex affects it a lot more. That’s why it doesn’t bother me much.
May 5th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
If we’re recalling those oh-so-rare occasions where somebody actually was Doin’ It Right[tm], I have to recall how Bob McLeod used to draw The New Mutants, back in the day. The kids looked healthy and strong, sure– but they didn’t literally look like adult bodies with cartoon baby faces tacked on. They were teens and they had teen proportions, which didn’t mean that Xi’an had the same body as Dani anymore than Sam had the same body as Roberto.
Brent Anderson was the same way when he was drawing Strikeforce: Morituri, if memory serves.
And to almost quote my favorite obscure cartoonist, E. Fitz Smith, the trouble with cheesecake and cherry tarts is that if you live on them, you get diabetes and your teeth fall out. I could live with it more readily if it wasn’t so damn prevalent.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
That last Oracle-in-peril cover isn’t a good drawing at all. How long are her thighs? That’s right, way too long, and if you extrapolate the contour of her hip and the contour of her thigh, the two don’t converge — on EITHER side. These are pretty serious issues.
March 7th, 2010 at 4:00 am
I’m a guy and i absolutely agree with everything R. and different Amy have said! When women are gratuitously portrayed on covers, and indeed inside comics, it puts me right off! It does absolutely nothing for me and comes across as entirely unnecessary and offensive to the characters. I remember when i used to get the Catwoman titles, and for i time i was really put off by the cleavage shots on the front covers. this seemed to me to be very unlike selina, wrong to her character, just like it just doesn’t fit for oracle. I actually feel manipulated by it, like the comic industry thinks i’m some knuckle-dragging gristle head who thinks women are only good for one thing! I also think it’s just plain lazy of the comic companies, it’s a cheap shot to reel in readers with sex. I for one, probably like most others, don’t read comics for sexiness! I’m not interested in it, unless it actually serves a purpose to the character. For example, the early catwoman was supposed to be a sassy femme fatale type character, so a certain degree of glamor was needed – indeed femme fatales are characterised by their use of seduction to manipulate their prey, so in that case it’s okay – it’s part of the story and the character.
Anyway my main point is that, yes it’s degrading to women, and probably damaging to men, who grow up thinking that it’s okay to treat women as objects, but for me, it’s also insulting to us guys – it treats us like sex-crazed idiots – that ain’t me , don’t tar me with that brush! whatever the media wants you to think, most guys i know are capable of emotions and intelligence, the caveman male is a myth that a lot of stupid guys feel they have to live up to. girls – yes society is skewed to the advantage of males, and the media is awash with the sexualisation of women, and i’m right there with you on the frontline fighting alongside you… but be careful not to let your anger run away with you, don’t blame guys who were born into society just as you were and found it screwed up – we didn’t create the status quo, and i know there are millions of men out there that want it to be different too.
Ultimately comics are aimed at mostly men or teenage boys, but that shouldn’t be a get out clause, letting them get away with hyper-sexualised images!
lastly – Joe – i think you’re on to something there too. If you read/watch media aimed purely at a female audience it’s not exactly realistic either! I would feel both offended and a li’l insecure if i felt i had to live up to the 2-dimensional male characters in romance fiction!
November 13th, 2010 at 3:01 am
casual shirts are really great for day to day activitites and it is easy to wash and dry too ‘~’
January 17th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
May 20th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Personally i think that you could perhaps show your class on how to make a superb blog. That is wonderful! This wasn’t state, everything that definitely got people had been a type. You recognize how to make your website above a rant approximately a challenge. Youve meant it was practical for individuals to get in touch. Useful in since possibly not more and more persons realize theyre accomplishing
November 28th, 2011 at 9:53 am
I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was wonderful. I don’t know who you are but definitely you’re going to a famous blogger if you are not already Cheers!
November 28th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Sometimes I contemplate if folks truly take time to publish something original, or are they only just dishing out words to fill a site. This certainly doesn’t fit that mold. Thank you for taking the time to write with awareness. At times I look at a page and question whether they even proofread it.Fantastic work with this article.
April 9th, 2013 at 9:05 pm
We’re a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your website offered us with valuable information to work on. You have done a formidable job and our entire community will be grateful to you.
June 15th, 2013 at 10:06 am
Would adore to perpetually get updated wonderful weblog ! .