The term I usually use for such breasts when observed in their natural habitat, the SF convention art show, is "improbable breasts."

Posted May 9, 2006 4:24 PM by Kathryn Cramer

'The term I usually use for such breasts when observed in their natural habitat, the SF convention art show, is "improbable breasts."'

oh yeah, I saw that guy.

Posted May 9, 2006 4:28 PM by bryan

A merely improbable breast might be made of anything. Tits in comics? Definitely styrofoam.

Posted May 9, 2006 4:28 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

I like the styrofoam hypothesis -- better, in fact, than the helium-filled-implants hypothesis. It does explain so much.

Posted May 9, 2006 4:30 PM by Electric Landlady

Criticizing comic-book breasts is like criticizing the scientific content of an Irwin Allen show.

Posted May 9, 2006 4:31 PM by Serge

okay, then is someone appreciating comic book tits like someone appreciating the scientific content of an irwin allen show? and if so should those people be criticized. And if criticizing those people leads inevitably to criticising the tits (hey, there's a pun in some dialects of english!) is this like criticising the scientific content of an irwin allen show, or is it in some way useful, or is it more like picking on a lame puppy dog.

Posted May 9, 2006 4:37 PM by bryan

It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it.

Posted May 9, 2006 4:38 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Well..

I care a lot.

Posted May 9, 2006 4:40 PM by bryan

is someone appreciating comic book tits

Oh alright, I'll appreciate them. But only because you asked.

Posted May 9, 2006 4:46 PM by Greg London

Faith No More! I love that song.

Posted May 9, 2006 4:51 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Althernately, breast implants in comic books use flubber instead of silicone.

Posted May 9, 2006 4:51 PM by Max

Nah, flubber would deform under acceleration.

Posted May 9, 2006 4:54 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Styrofoam breasts--this explains so much.

BTW, on another tits-in-art angle--ever notice how, in much of the nude work by the great masters, the breasts occupy a position (without any relation to the posture of the figure in question) that, in most women, they only assume when the woman those breasts belong to is lying on her back--somewhat separated, and tending towards the armpits?

A friend posits that is because that's the principle position the artists in question were used to seeing uncovered breasts in.

Art History--it's not just about discussing foreshortening and chiaroscuro.

Posted May 9, 2006 5:18 PM by fidelio

Actually, I think Miller just did a rather bad job of indicating the lower edge of the ribcage.

The explanatory power of the Nielsen Hayden Styrofoam Tit Hypothesis (NHSTS) is quite adequate, to be sure. However, before this can be submitted for review prior to formal publication, it will requre confirmation by means of a well designed experiment, employing a control group of course. Then of course there is the challenge, if the NHSTS is confirmed, of documenting replication of these results.

We certainly have our work cut out for us.

Posted May 9, 2006 5:21 PM by Claude Muncey

Pardon, the NHSTH, of course.

Posted May 9, 2006 5:24 PM by Claude Muncey

So it stands for Scientifical T & A Research Labs. That explains all sortsa things. On the other side of the bed, of course, we have Unstable Molecules.

If you'll excuse me, the Stark Autumn Couture Line is finishing up (we've had an excellent production season -- no deaths, only four major injuries) and the Adamantium Springform Instep is proving . . . difficult, shall we say?

See you in Paris.

John M. "not Tom" Ford

Posted May 9, 2006 5:26 PM by John M. Ford

Styrofoam--of course! I assumed some secret scientific spandex that had the property of rigid armor. (When I was younger, I kept on hoping they'd create a bra out of it so I could run without bouncing, but even our technology has improved, thank goodness...)

Posted May 9, 2006 5:29 PM by AliceB

Mr. Ford, we have a unique opportunity here to combine Serious Scientific Research with Haute Coture. There is no reason that the experiment to confirm the NHSTH could not be carried out on the runway. Properly carried out, you could combine the experiment with the public announcment, while picking up a nice sum in licensing for ready-to-wear.

If we move fast we could make next year's spring lines.

Posted May 9, 2006 5:33 PM by Claude Muncey

And yet...

...no shit, there I was at a party, and a woman with the shape and features of Power Girl walked in.

*wow* Man, I didn't know those action figures used live models!

(No, I didn't say a word to the woman. I was afraid she'd rip a large tree out of the ground and smack me with it.)

Posted May 9, 2006 5:43 PM by Bruce Arthurs

yeah, the newish comic book trend of ribs that are, apparently, made out of ropey muscles & stick out at 30-degree angles on women. i hope it goes away soon.

Posted May 9, 2006 6:06 PM by miriam beetle

C'mon. You only live once, Bruce.

Posted May 9, 2006 6:06 PM by wrye

wrye: yes, and therefore he wanted it to be for a long time.

Posted May 9, 2006 6:12 PM by Xopher

Easily the most gruesome mammary displacement on record since the great Rob Liefeld Transdimensional Man-Boob Controversy:

http://s8.invisionfree.com/Superdickery_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1458

Posted May 9, 2006 6:12 PM by Scott Lynch

Teresa: I only looked at a couple of gratuitous butt shots on that site (I'm at work), but I didn't see what was egregious about them.

Posted May 9, 2006 6:13 PM by Xopher

Flubber has anti-acceleration properties when bombarded by ... Gamma Rays.

Or maybe it was beta rays, I forget.

Posted May 9, 2006 6:17 PM by Max

Scott Lynch, wow.

Posted May 9, 2006 6:36 PM by Harry Connolly

A couple of friends and I once had to leave a WorldCon art show because we were disgracing ourselves giggling: our "migrating tit" jokes became "nomadic tits of the plains" jokes, and things did not get better from there.

Posted May 9, 2006 6:52 PM by Mris

fidelio said: Art History--it's not just about discussing foreshortening and chiaroscuro.

What is it with 'chiaroscuro' these last few days? I'd never come across the word until three days ago, and since then I've seen it here and within a matter of hours I found it again here (note the near-complete lack of connection between the subject matters of those sites). And now it's here. What's going on?

Posted May 9, 2006 6:59 PM by Jules

there's also balloons on parade

Posted May 9, 2006 7:09 PM by Greg London

Since when was comic art supposed to be realistic? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the human form as presented in cartoon is meant to be a caricature. Does the word "comic" mean anything here? Let's be honest. Would you rather open up your comics to a bunch of stocky, obese heroes in baggy clothing, or to something with some sort of aesthetic appeal to it?
Folks, this 7th-grade quality illustration passing as a comic book cover isn't "objectifying" women like the livejournal article says it does. Granted, its really quite crappy looking, but it isn't the ruin of civilization!
And even if it was... you don't see men going up in arms about how metrosexuality is objectifying them!

Posted May 9, 2006 7:12 PM by Xyz

Greg, those balloons look exactly like the bad bolt on implants of the trashy Dlist celebrities.

Posted May 9, 2006 7:16 PM by T.W

The draftsmanship isn't that great, and of course the breasts are rather exaggerated, but if you've ever seen a woman with a narrow waist and a big rib cage from that angle, you'll recognize immediately what he was trying to draw. Lots of Scandinavian-derived hard-working farm girls, for example.

Posted May 9, 2006 7:19 PM by David Dyer-Bennet

I dunno, I think there's a future in "Migrating Tits of the Plains"

Or possibly some variation of the Mam-gol Hordes.

Posted May 9, 2006 7:23 PM by Dave Weingart

Improbable Mammary Suspension is a technology brought to Earth by aliens in the mid-80s, and shared among the various comic book publishers to assure Mutually Assured Mammary Upthrust, or MAAU.

Teresa, I miss the old days when you counselled Keith Giffen to put bombs in the tits.

Posted May 9, 2006 7:36 PM by Madeleine Robins

Sequential Tart examined the subject at no little length, until supply o'erwhelmed demand, and they battened down the hatches for a bit.

Posted May 9, 2006 7:44 PM by Kip Manley

Why styrofoam? I think that some of those improbable, cantilevered frontages are actually fibreglass. That would explain their rigidity even better than styrofoam.

Posted May 9, 2006 7:47 PM by Fragano Ledgister

Fiberglass is much heavier, though.

Posted May 9, 2006 7:51 PM by AliceB

"Chiaroscuro" is one of those words that run in packs. It may feel that it's safer that way.

I love "Migrating Tits of the Plains". However, right about now (or at least very soon), some poor soul researching bird migrations is going to get a google search result they didn't expect.

Posted May 9, 2006 7:58 PM by fidelio

And remember, ladies, when dictating to your voice recorder, it's most convenient to be wearing only a bra, panties, high heels, jewelry, and lipstick, while stroking the stem of a martini glass.

Posted May 9, 2006 7:59 PM by Greg London

My wife used to work in a comic store and tells me that Styrofoam as we know it cannot be the material of which Artificial Supertits are constructed. Based on the height/weight/dimensions listed in Who's Who in the [Marvel/DC] Universe, the density is such that the Artificial Supertits must be lighter than air.

There's a mathematical proof, but I am lazy.

Posted May 9, 2006 8:00 PM by Michael Croft

Can't be bothered right now, I'm too busy appreciating. tough work, that.

Posted May 9, 2006 8:00 PM by Greg London

ohmygawdthesecretisaerogel!Ack!

Posted May 9, 2006 8:01 PM by Greg London

AliceB: On doit suffrir pour être belle.

Posted May 9, 2006 8:09 PM by Fragano Ledgister

"Mrs. Dibny! Stop that this instant!"

Posted May 9, 2006 8:24 PM by John M. Ford

Michael Croft: Is that like the proof that shows a woman conforming to Barbie's measurements would be incapable of standing up?

As for the styrotits - okay, but does that mean if I punched her in the chest, her boobs would collapse? And then pollute the ozone layer?

Posted May 9, 2006 8:26 PM by Leigh Butler

Since when was comic art supposed to be realistic?

Correct me if I'm wrong

but I'm pretty sure that the human form as presented in cartoon is meant to be a caricature.

Does the word "comic" mean anything here?

Let's be honest.

"Let's be honest" is one of the lamest rhetorical bludgeons in the bullshit arsenal. If you all would just be honest and admit what you really think, you'd agree with me.

Would you rather open up your comics to a bunch of stocky, obese heroes in baggy clothing, or to something with some sort of aesthetic appeal to it?

Posted May 9, 2006 8:38 PM by Scraps

if I punched her in the chest, her boobs would collapse?

Aerogel. Not only is it extremely light, it's also complete protection from any sort of fire/freeze attacks.

Posted May 9, 2006 8:43 PM by Greg London

This is all reminding me of some of my less successful attempts to decode Baen cover art - "now if that's the shoulder, I guess that must be the left arm - though I don't think it goes on at that angle - so by process of elimination, that lump must be... the right breast".

Also:
Teresa wrote:
> Faith No More! I love that song.

My respect for them rose when I saw them in concert, and between songs the singer called out asking why there was a big gap in the crowd. Someone from the audience called back that someone had vomited there.

The singer's response: "Come *on* people - it's only *puke*!"

Posted May 9, 2006 8:43 PM by Steve Taylor

Leigh, Greg - while aerogel mammary analogues (mammalogues?) would indeed be excellent protection against fire/freeze attacks (in much the same way that chainmail bikinis are effective protection against large edged weapons), they would indeed collapse - into itty bitty shards - if you punched her in the chest. Or, for that matter, if you embraced her a little too enthusiastically.

Posted May 9, 2006 9:19 PM by debcha

xyz,

Would you rather open up your comics to a bunch of stocky, obese heroes in baggy clothing..?

well, now that you mention it....

Posted May 9, 2006 9:23 PM by miriam beetle

Folks, this 7th-grade quality illustration passing as a comic book cover isn't "objectifying" women like the livejournal article says it does.

Hey, you're right. That Frank Miller cover girl is showing some serious personality there. I'd love to interact with her on a strictly person-to-person level sometime.

This message is brought to you on behalf of the Catholic chiaroscuro conspiracy.

Posted May 9, 2006 9:24 PM by candle

Dave Weingart: I dunno, I think there's a future in "Migrating Tits of the Plains". Or possibly some variation of the Mam-gol Hordes.

Why do I get the impression there are any number of puns on the word "mammoth" lurking on the outskirts of this train of thought, awaiting the slightest excuse to protrude? Er, I mean intrude?

Posted May 9, 2006 9:26 PM by Ross Smith

xyz: stocky, obese heroes in baggy clothing

Didn't Alan Moore do that one already?

Posted May 9, 2006 9:35 PM by TexAnne

There's stylization done well, and then there are people with scarily jutting ribcages, levitating breasts, and legs that bend in ways that violate the physics of human joints. That standard anime girl pose with the knees together and the ankles wide apart? Try it sometime. Owie.

I think artists should learn human anatomy before they go stylizing, just like writers should learn grammar before they start breaking the rules.

(That cover is both disturbing and poorly-drawn.)

Posted May 9, 2006 9:41 PM by Mel

There's a reason that Scans Daily has a frequently used tag "Boobs Don't Work That Way!"

Posted May 9, 2006 10:16 PM by BSD

Scraps addressed Xyz at length. I'll merely note that, being a mammal myself, I find drawings of women who actually look like live women more appealing than drawings that suggest that the artist has never even seen a live woman.

Posted May 9, 2006 10:26 PM by Vicki

Aerogel ... would indeed collapse - into itty bitty shards - if you punched her in the chest.

(sniff) But the aerogel saleman... (sniff) he promised it would make great armor... (sniff) and I gave him all the money from my savings... (sniff) where shall I go? (sniff) What shall I do? (sniff)

Posted May 9, 2006 10:29 PM by Greg London

I'm frequently surprised at how old-fashioned comic culture is. I expected that by now, superwomen's breasts would be made of aerogel.

Posted May 9, 2006 10:38 PM by SFEley

[laughing at Greg's comment]

All your savings indeed - aerogel is pricy stuff. When it finally became commercially available a few months ago, I paid something like thirty bucks for a bitty broken piece, about a centimetre on a side. Even though it's not big enough to do fun demos of its thermal properties, it's still pretty cool to hand around and so far no one has accidentally squished it to dust.

Posted May 9, 2006 10:56 PM by debcha

I forget who it was, but I was reading a "name" comic artist's advice on learning to draw. For learning how to draw women, he advised porno mags. For men, he suggested sports illustrated or a weightlifting mag. It's not about objectifying women's body parts. It's just that they wear too many clothes in all the other magazines to get realistic nipple resources. You don't need to see a naked man to draw a blank, flat area in his crotch.

Posted May 10, 2006 12:09 AM by Mark DF

"In progress."

Posted May 10, 2006 12:14 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Part of what creeps me about this is...

Okay, when I was in my mid to late teens, Frank Miller was doing this astonishing work on Daredevil. Then about the time I hit 20, he did Dark Knight Returns, and a great return run to Daredevil, and like that. I'm 40 now. I don't know how much older he is than me, but it has to be at least a few years - I know he didn't his start like Jim Shooter. For some reason it feels much creepier to have a man coming up on 50 doing this kind of thing than to have it from someone not far out of puberty.

Posted May 10, 2006 12:28 AM by Bruce Baugh

I decided years ago at the San Diego ComicCon that if I were really rotten in this life I'd be reborn as one of the women hired by publishers who wander the convention wearing superhero costumes.

(I remember a panel where the head of the con described how to make best use of costumed babes. Stephen King attended one year but couldn't visit the dealer's booths on the main floor--they were afraid he'd be mobbed. The con head gathered together several of the babes in costume and told them "Stay within 10 feet of this man while he's on the show floor." King got his shopping done in record time.)

I also ended up wondering why the only women around the Dave Stevens booth looked like "Dave Stevens Women" but that's a different topic entirely.

Posted May 10, 2006 12:34 AM by Bruce E. Durocher II

Back during my too-brief stint in comics, I really liked working with Kevin Kobasic. There were a lot of reasons for that -- intelligence, reliability, good communications skills -- but one of them was definitely the way he drew women. They were attractive and obviously much appreciated, but they were also real people. This allowed them to have readable human movements and gestures, instead of just standing around and posing, which was a great help to the storytelling; and since they weren't unthinkingly sexualized all the time, the moments that were intentionally sexual packed a lot more punch.

Posted May 10, 2006 12:58 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Betty (no joke) has a nice collection of Sequential Tart breast articles here:
http://del.icio.us/betty_fic/breasts

Posted May 10, 2006 1:04 AM by Mari

The caption to this one was something like Do we need to have that gravity talk again?"

Posted May 10, 2006 1:07 AM by Greg London

1. Odd looking breasts

Well, in some circles, the technical name is 'anti-gravititties'. It explains the hemispherical shape, and the total lack of sag.

2. Master painters and odd looking breasts

Back in the 20th century, when I was a snarky undergrad, I used to consider women with their breasts in their armpits(not to mention the male torsos carrying those breasts and armpits) as proof that some artists were paying more attention to other men than to women. But in graduate school, I developed a better theory - much of the Renaissance's figure theory derived from classical Greek sculpture which often displayed a similar anatomy - check the Cnidian Venus. Why the Greeks did this, I'm really not sure.

Posted May 10, 2006 1:13 AM by Margaret Organ-Kean

Dave at Dave's Long Box talks about this, er, lofty? phenomenon in terms of the Boob War. And Power Girl is its zenith.

Posted May 10, 2006 1:33 AM by Carl Caputo

A lot of the renaissance breast thing actually comes from a general cultural taboo of the time. It was considered okay to use men as figure models, but not women (as I guess that would be more lewd somehow?)
For example, it's a pretty safe bet that the reason Michaelangelo's women look so beefy
is that he did the original drawings from male models and added breasts later.
Even the masters could have stood to draw from life a little more.

Posted May 10, 2006 1:37 AM by keith k.

I rembember one year being at the San Diego Comicon while a friend was doing portfolio review. It was the umpteenth review, and while she was being polite, she was also being frank and told the artist, "Draw people who look like real people. This man--those shoulders, those hips. People don't have proportions like that."

The artist was baffled, but this was because he was one of those one-in-a-thousand men who actually naturally had the ideal comic book proportions, with unusually broad shoulders, extremely narrow hips, and a strongly defined musculature. But rather than doing the "Draw stylized comic book men" problem, he'd been doing the common young artist's thing of using himself as anatomy reference. When she looked up and realized this, there was a very awkward moment.

Of course, with the breasts, my personal theory is that mutant powers cause them to develop that way. You cand have an author introduce a female character, and no matter how young or small breasted she starts, she goes up a cup size with each successive artist until you end up with breasts like Jean Grey, whose origin story I've never bought--supposedly she had her telekinesis surface in adolescence after a friend was run over by a car, but I think that's just a cover story for her having developed it because of the inability of even the most amazing underwire support to deal with her growing bust.

Her telekinesis also explains how her breasts defy gravity and there's no underwire showing through her costume.

Posted May 10, 2006 1:39 AM by Kevin Andrew Murphy

Jenny Sparks, the only superheroine I've ever seen with A-cups, is my personal heroine.

Posted May 10, 2006 4:13 AM by Luthe

Perhaps Frank Miller's model is related to Nuclia Waste, the triple-nippled Plutonium Princess (and one of Denver's most beloved fundraisers). I have it on good authority that she favors Nerf footballs cut in half for that "oddly firm, pointed, gravity-defying" look.

Oh, and they're not wearing baggy clothing, but... I'm fond of the Seven Deadly Curves as a starting point anyway...

Posted May 10, 2006 4:23 AM by Elusis

Back in the 20th century, when I was a snarky undergrad, I used to consider women with their breasts in their armpits(not to mention the male torsos carrying those breasts and armpits) as proof that some artists were paying more attention to other men than to women. But in graduate school, I developed a better theory - much of the Renaissance's figure theory derived from classical Greek sculpture which often displayed a similar anatomy - check the Cnidian Venus. Why the Greeks did this, I'm really not sure.

I think perhaps you answered that last bit already.

Posted May 10, 2006 4:53 AM by Eve

Xyz, your comment sounds remarkably similar to the usual excuse of the young artist as to why they won't draw from life, usually trotted out after they have been told their drawing skills aren't good enough for something.It doesn't hold water and doesn't fool anyone - weak skills are weak skills, no matter what excuse one tries to fancy them up with.

I'd love to see more stocky comic characters, which is why the last two comic books I've bought were by afore-linked Ross Campbell.

Posted May 10, 2006 5:05 AM by Renatus

If comic-books were real, how would that affect what goes on at the office of a comic-book publisher?

Here's one answer.

Posted May 10, 2006 5:56 AM by Serge

Kevin Andrew Murphy: Your theory on mutant breast development (hereinafter referred to as "mutittions") reminded me why I quit reading Witchblade. The first artist, who drew her as an A cup, was replaced by some idiot who turned her into Witchboob.

Posted May 10, 2006 7:49 AM by TexAnne

I've always been a Bill Reinhold fan myself. He does somewhat comic-book-style females, but all all with huge breasts.

Posted May 10, 2006 8:54 AM by JoshJasper

Greg: Clearly in that last example the superheroine's breasts are held in by her uniform, which must be made of some kind of molded steel. That's why it curves under her breasts so...exactly.

This might also be a good time to bring the term "boob socks" into the conversation.

Posted May 10, 2006 9:17 AM by Ceri

I've noticed that in science-fiction novels of serious intent written by men, women's breasts are frequently specifically described as being small, even if the women don't get much physical description otherwise. To me it comes across as self-conscious reaction to this trope, and perhaps having it both ways: you can go out of your way to describe some breasts as long as you're careful to insist that they're not great big ones, which would be tawdry.

I think I first noticed this in middle-to-late Isaac Asimov and in Greg Bear, though Bear turns out to be not such a good example since he's lovingly described breasts of all different sizes. It seems to come up in space opera a lot.

Maybe I'm just really good at noticing the breast descriptions...

Posted May 10, 2006 9:24 AM by Matt McIrvin

Where did the whole skin-tight costume thing come from, anyway? I mean, obviously Superman was the first, but why did Superman wear it? Is it a wind-resistance thing or what? Or did his creators just like showing off the fact that they knew how to draw human musculature?

Posted May 10, 2006 9:27 AM by ajay

I think the Phantom actually predated Superman. But I'm not sure if his costume was like that from the very beginning. I think it was.

Before them, there were real-world circus acrobats and strongmen and such. I think the basic idea is pretty simple, just showing off the musculature.

Posted May 10, 2006 9:32 AM by Matt McIrvin

And why are these costumes often described as "uniforms"? I can't for the life of me think of anything less uniform.

Posted May 10, 2006 9:33 AM by Dave Luckett

Matt McIrvin: In general, people in serious science fiction and urban fantasy novels are often described as nerdy-lookin'. The A-cup thing seems to be a subset of that, I think. Men are often a little tubby, or graying, or un-muscular, or overly tall or overly short; women are often a little flabby, or small-chested, or gawky, or overly tall or overly short, and there are glasses resting on large noses everywhere you look.

This is self-insertion, but it is also anti-Mary-Sue-ism, and I think it's a fine thing. Since humans are stereotype-making creatures, many who notice that physicality does not conform to surreal 'perfect' stereotypes are liable to then describe physicality in terms of 'lovably imperfect' stereotypes.

Posted May 10, 2006 9:39 AM by A. J. Luxton

On the uniform/un-uniform thing...from dictionary.com:

Uniform:
"A distinctive outfit intended to identify those who wear it as members of a specific group."

I'd say they mostly (loudly) indicate "Superhero!" or at the very least "comic book character!" And "distinctive" is certainly a good word for them.

Though you're right. Costume might be a better term.

Posted May 10, 2006 9:42 AM by Ceri

Actually, my sympathetic reading, when I'm feeling sympathetic, is the opposite: these characters in space operas are usually lean action-heroine types, who logically would tend to have smaller-than-average breasts.

Posted May 10, 2006 9:43 AM by Matt McIrvin

Dave Luckett: The Phantom's certainly is a uniform, since it is only worn by Phantoms, generation after generation.

Posted May 10, 2006 10:09 AM by Fragano Ledgister

Xyz's comment has already been addressed a number of times, but it can't be said enough:

There is a vast gulf between Frank Miller's work in that image, and the work of a long list of comic book artists who draw people ultra-comic-book-attractive AND with realistic proportions (look at almost any image by Greg Land or Butch Guice, both the men and the women).

Posted May 10, 2006 10:53 AM by dotsomething

Gee, this thread appeared just in time! I won't have to be totally random on the Open Thread with a posting my husband found on a friend's website (though it was random there). A certain Guy Gascoigne - Piggford has come up with a lovely parody song, Xena and Sullivan. (Could John M. Ford be haunting an obscure site under an assumed name?)

Posted May 10, 2006 10:58 AM by Faren Miller

I think the iconogrpahy of skintight superhero garb generally follows the example of Superman, who was the forerunner, and whose costume mimicked those of circus acrobats. But a heroic figure in a skintight suit, as Warren Ellis has pointed out ad nauseam, is effectively naked, and heroes have been routinely depicted in the nude before (i.e., on Greek vases).

Posted May 10, 2006 10:58 AM by Rasselas

Matt McIrvin : To me it comes across as self-conscious reaction to this trope, and perhaps having it both ways: you can go out of your way to describe some breasts as long as you're careful to insist that they're not great big ones, which would be tawdry.

I wonder what the new taboo descriptions are? Could you substitute saggy for small? Or floppy?

Posted May 10, 2006 11:01 AM by Michael

The explanation for "underwear on the outside" that I got, and am passing along without research*:

You had a large stock of illustrators around- people who did drawings for advertisements or whatever. And you hired one of these people to do your art- nine panels a page, 22 pages a month [or whatever], however many books it took to feed him at comic-book pay rates.

And so he needed to draw Superman 200 times in a row, and clothes have to drape and wave in the wind and whatnot. So it was a lot faster to do quasi-nudes.

I'm not saying this excuses boob-socks or other totally thoughtless art. There's more money and higher standards in comic art than there used to be. On the other hand, there's fewer other jobs for people who can draw a man in a suit. . .

*I think some of it came from "Kavalier and Clay". There is a lot of history in that fiction, but I can't guarantee which is which.

Posted May 10, 2006 11:02 AM by Sandy B.

ajay:Where did the whole skin-tight costume thing come from, anyway? I mean, obviously Superman was the first, but why did Superman wear it? Is it a wind-resistance thing or what? Or did his creators just like showing off the fact that they knew how to draw human musculature?

Pretty much anyone with anything close to a formal education in art spent a lot more time drawing naked people than fully-clothed ones, so I think there's a natural tendency to feel more comfortable with using less or tighter clothing. There's also a tendency of artists to rush toward what they like to look at, so it reflects some sort of physical ideal in the mind of the artist. Of course, the more mature artists can get over this and draw clothed, less-than-perfect people

Posted May 10, 2006 11:05 AM by keith k.

Not long ago, TCM had Sabrina on. At some point there's a scene where Audrey Hepburn is wearing a tight black outfit. That's when I said to my wife that Audrey was actually curvy, only not up there. My wife immediately said: "My God, she has big feet!"

Posted May 10, 2006 11:15 AM by Serge

I've noticed that in science-fiction novels of serious intent written by men, women's breasts are frequently specifically described as being small, even if the women don't get much physical description otherwise. To me it comes across as self-conscious reaction to this trope, and perhaps having it both ways: you can go out of your way to describe some breasts as long as you're careful to insist that they're not great big ones, which would be tawdry.

I think I first noticed this in middle-to-late Isaac Asimov

Posted May 10, 2006 11:47 AM by Scraps

This reminds me of one of my favorite New Yorker cartoons by Charles Barsotti showing a balding, bearded, bespeckled, overweight man writing at a table while thinking: "'A writer?' she gasped, her perky breasts heaving. 'God, I love writers!'"

Posted May 10, 2006 12:16 PM by AliceB

In case anyone's wondering why I posted that link, here's a brief excerpt (as sung by Xena):

My armory is brazen, but my weapons are ironical;
My sword is rather phallic, but my chakram's rather yonical
(To find out what that means, you'll have to study Indo-Aryan.)
I am the very model of a heroine barbarian!

And did anyone see yesterday's "Bizarro" about Baroque models? (Sorry, don't have a link.) Funny!

Posted May 10, 2006 12:17 PM by Faren Miller

Faren: the "Xena" filk was originally written by Kevin Wald (check the "Literary Endeavors" directory).

Posted May 10, 2006 12:22 PM by Julie L.

OK, I've been appreciating comic book art all night long. My vision is fading and my hands are developing a thin film of palm-fur, but I was willing to take on the tough job. Anyway, due to lack of sleep, I'm a little fuzzy on some things.

what exactly was I looking for? I seem to have developed this secondary voice in the back of my head that insists the answer is boobies, but I don't think that's what I started out looking for. Is it ever OK to look at a totally non-proportional drawing and think "Yeah, I like the look of that?" 12 hours of nonstop comic book art does funny things to the brain... and... other parts... anyway never mind that.

Oh, and someone mentioned something about greek art showing their subjects in the nude and comic book superheroes in spandex were, for all intents and puposes, in the nude as well. So this other voice in my head insists that ancient Greeks also fought in the nude, maybe shoes, a belt to hold their sword, and a helmet, but otherwise, butt-ass naked. The voice then draws rather rough images (yeah, he has a projector in there somewhere and I cant figure out how to unplug it) of, say, 10,000 greeks lined up with shields and spears, stacked 4 to 8 men deep, all of them naked but for their shields. If true, superheroes fighting in spandex isn't totally far-fetched, just drafty.

I don't know if its true. In my hazy state, part of me is thinking, you know, he might be right. And another part of me is thinking, damn on the battlefield and naked? Are you insane? But I thought I'd throw it out there.

Posted May 10, 2006 1:00 PM by Greg London

The series Strangers in Paradise caught my attention years ago
precisely because the artist ( Terry Moore ) drew women
( and men ) with believable proportions.

I see a lot of figure illustration
( particularly on covers ) which seems to look okay 'locally',
but which doesn't hang together taking the figure as a whole;
i.e., the hand looks okay, but the forearm looks too long,
and the arm is positioned awkwardly...

It doesn't help that the art looks a lot 'slicker' nowdays
than it used to look years ago;
a lot more painterly.

This might relate to the 'uncanny valley' phenomenon
which has been discussed with regards to human characters in CGI films:
the closer the characters come to matching our expectation of human appearance,
the more they fail to do so irritates us.

[ An art school maxim: "No matter how much you polish it, you can't make shit shine." ]

Adam Hughes and Alex Ross are a couple of artists who also get it right;
but they also have the luxury of working with models ( AFAIK ).

Poser is an advanced 'mannequin' program;
I see it used ( in conjunction with Photoshop ) for a lot of digital art.
Some recent JLA covers looked like they might have been done using Poser.
And Poser certainly could be used to 'create' models
for those of us who could not afford to hire any.

But all of that might be taking more time and effort
than the job ( producing pages of comic book art ) could afford...

Other artists would argue that literal figure drawing is not the point.

In Manwatching, Desmond Morris uses a Vargas pinup
to illustrate the idea of supernormal stimulus.

In his example, long legs are a sexual signal,
so extra long legs are a super signal.

[ In another aside,
  using the word literal to describe figure drawing...
  what is that? Is it considered a metaphor,
  or is it just totally the wrong word? ]

Posted May 10, 2006 1:11 PM by Rob Rusick

Naw. Greeks wore armor. It was Celts who thought armor (and clothing) was for wimps. They felt that their wode and confidence would protect them.

My dumbass ancestors. 'Fnot for that an' whiskey, we'd rule th' world.

Posted May 10, 2006 1:13 PM by Xopher

Not only did the Greeks wear armor to fight, they put clothes under it, because otherwise, you get not only chafing and blisters but bruising from the various pieces of gear. The Spartans dressed their hoplites (heavy-armored infantry) in red tunics, so the blood wouldn't show and distract them.

There are a fair number of pieces of art showing men who are nude except for armor, but this is apparently because the Greeks liked looking at more-or-less naked people, and not because they went out to fight dressed that way. There was also a race run at the ancient Olympics by men who were in hoplite kit--I don't know if they wore anything else besides the breastplate, helmet, and shield, although the dress for Olympic competitiors was, generally, no dress at all. However, these men were running a race, not fighting, and so their posible lack of additional clothing should not be considered an endorsement of naked fighting by Greeks.

Consider the motivation for staying in shape if you have to work out at the gym naked.

Posted May 10, 2006 1:35 PM by fidelio

Greg London -- Oh, and someone mentioned something about greek art showing their subjects in the nude and comic book superheroes in spandex were, for all intents and puposes, in the nude as well.

Spandex isn't nude. Chiffon, gauze or voile is nude. Spandex, particularly heavier-duty grades, is girdle. Or at least control panty. In any case, it has body, and it deforms what's underneath.

Posted May 10, 2006 1:35 PM by joann

Just an odd thought. Why Styrofoam? Wouldn't that squeak in those leather/tight outfits and leave a visible crumbly white bead trail?

Would you really want the last voice balloon dialog of the criminals to be, "Hey, Tony, do you hear that."

"Sure, sound like mice wrestling."

"Hmm, must be a super-heroine around."

Posted May 10, 2006 1:40 PM by Steve Buchheit

Mark DF -- I forget who it was, but I was reading a "name" comic artist's advice on learning to draw. For learning how to draw women, he advised porno mags. For men, he suggested sports illustrated or a weightlifting mag. It's not about objectifying women's body parts. It's just that they wear too many clothes in all the other magazines to get realistic nipple resources. You don't need to see a naked man to draw a blank, flat area in his crotch.

My Greek sculpture professor in grad school advised us all that if we wanted to see how muscles work, the best resource was the bodybuilding mags. He used this to deal with one really obvious area of cognitive dissonance: the things that look like love handles on the Doryphoros, pointing out, with imported evidence, that a truly well-conditioned male, not an ounce of fat, but w/ abs of steel, will display these.

Posted May 10, 2006 1:44 PM by joann

The series Strangers in Paradise caught my attention years ago precisely because the artist ( Terry Moore ) drew women (and men ) with believable proportions.

Yeah, but on the SiP website the stats he gives make it clear that he has no idea what weights go with the bodies he draws - he's got Francine listed about 50 pounds lighter than she's drawn most of the time.

This doesn't prevent me from really liking SiP.

Posted May 10, 2006 1:49 PM by Susan

This reminds me of one of my favorite New Yorker cartoons by Charles Barsotti showing a balding, bearded, bespeckled, overweight man writing at a table while thinking: "'A writer?' she gasped, her perky breasts heaving. 'God, I love writers!'"

I've done things like that in person a few times (minus the perkiness). The responses are entertaining.

Posted May 10, 2006 1:54 PM by Susan

Hmm. "Hoplitodromos", the web tells me, sprint in full armor with shield.

( http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/consortium/ancientolympics11.html )

Posted May 10, 2006 2:34 PM by Sandy B.

Terry Moore once did a piece in Wizard Magazine's "How to" series about drawing realistic women, which started off with his characters Francine and Katchoo peering at a standard unrealistic superheroine (a foot taller than either, and bulging and waning in the usual places) with equal parts fascination and pity. Great article.

An illustration of Moore's more realistic observation was an early sequence of Francine getting ready for a job interview. She was in her underwear, working her hose up, and her bra and panties did not match. Imagine! A character in a comic book who wears anything besides elegant lingerie from Victoria's Secret. Is that even allowed?

Posted May 10, 2006 2:34 PM by C. A. Bridges

"Imagine! A character in a comic book who wears anything besides elegant lingerie from Victoria's Secret. Is that even allowed?"

I figured they never wore undewear, since there are no panty/bra lines to speak of. And don't the boys wear their skivvies on the outside anyway (cause it won't fit under the spandex)?

Posted May 10, 2006 2:38 PM by AliceB

It was Celts who thought armor (and clothing) was for wimps. They felt that their wode and confidence would protect them.

This is the sort of thing I think of every time I see another children's movie or whatever with the message, "You can do anything as long as you believe in yourself!"

Posted May 10, 2006 3:19 PM by Vito Excalibur

Well, the thing is that stripping naked, painting yourself blue, and rushing joyously into the fray waving a big-ass spear is the kind of tactic that might just work. Unfortunately, the "Don't fuck with us, we're batshit insane" card is one you can probably only usefully play once.

Posted May 10, 2006 3:42 PM by Dan Layman-Kennedy

Actually, I think that, at least for some writers, the 'small breast' analog is 'short hair.' In one of Robert Sawyer's books (can't remember which one), at least three of the female characters were described as having short hair, which I interpreted as being shorthand for serious, intelligent, independent, you know - all those things that you couldn't possibly be if you have long hair. Although it was mostly just annoyingly repetitive.

Posted May 10, 2006 3:50 PM by debcha

Dan, it worked and worked and worked until they tried it against the Romans, who were more afraid of their commanders than (as one of them put it in a Mary Renault book) "a battle-line of insane gods."

Celts also had this competitive thing...they wanted to be the first to get to the enemy. And they'd show off by throwing and catching their swords as they ran. Scared the shit out of most people. The Romans cut them to ribbons.

Posted May 10, 2006 4:12 PM by Xopher

I suppose it would be impolitic to note that the words "Frank Miller" and "realistic" don't belong in the same sentence. Not that I'm too fond of his brand of fantasy, anyway.

This thread reminds me of this picture of an anime-ish sex doll. It's illustrating this article (scroll up) about a doll factory. Interesting article. Both safe for work, by the way.

Posted May 10, 2006 4:20 PM by Sugar

I guess we need to add a new category to the old joke about girls checking their bust lines when they're 16 and deciding if they're going to be brainy or popular or superhero.

Probably the reverse would be true for guys after a package check: jock, brainy, or superhero.

Posted May 10, 2006 4:27 PM by Steve Buchheit

As it happens, I use the program Poser, and fiddle around with 3D art. It's quite good at rendering a CGI image, but it's realism still depends on knowing human anatomy, how joints bend, and working withing the limits of the program.

You can download a similar program for free from www.daz3d.com and they also give away some usable figures.

A guy known as Little_Dragon has produced some very nice figures for free, which can be obtained from http://www.448studios.com/Index2.html

It's been alleged that some Baen covers used Poser-generated images, not for the main characters but for serried ranks of soldiers, who look a little too identical.

Many Poser figures are short of the necessary pose-controls to handle naked breasts. It isn't that good a solution to the ignorant artist problem. And many of the people who user Poser to create porn (at least you don't get any complaints from your models) appear to use the very limited free versions of Poser models--the same face and body, every time.

Age-frayed recollections of real naked women suggest to me that many artists learn from the rather artificial world of pornography. I find myself wondering if the puritan streak in the USA forces this misconception. Would anyone like to comment on whether European artists do that same thing. It's a long time since I saw a copy of Metal Hurlant.

Posted May 10, 2006 4:33 PM by Dave Bell

Quoth Xopher:
My dumbass ancestors. 'Fnot for that an' whiskey, we'd rule th' world.

But then you'd have no appreciation of nudity and no whisky. Speaking as someone who quite likes nudity (of many shapes, thankyouverymuch) and has a glass of Auchentoshan at her elbow right now, let me point out that ruling the world is overrated.

Posted May 10, 2006 4:48 PM by abi

Dave Bell: Age-frayed recollections of real naked women suggest to me that many artists learn from the rather artificial world of pornography.

My age-frayed recollections of being a cartooning major at the School of Visual Arts verify your suggestion.

A few weeks back I saw a post by a cartoonist (I forget who) talking about how much of a boon the Web was for him, since lots of homemade Internet porn shows the typical-looking women he likes to draw rather than toned and skinny professional models.

Posted May 10, 2006 4:50 PM by Avram

Abi comments on Xopher's post:
Quoth Xopher:
My dumbass ancestors. 'Fnot for that an' whiskey, we'd rule th' world.
But then you'd have no appreciation of nudity and no whisky. Speaking as someone who quite likes nudity (of many shapes, thankyouverymuch) and has a glass of Auchentoshan at her elbow right now, let me point out that ruling the world is overrated.

May I note that if you're good at training the rulers of the world to appreciate nudity and whisky (and possibly providing at least some of the supply of same), you can probably rule the ones who do rule the world, which likely to be both a lot less work and a lot more fun.

Posted May 10, 2006 5:03 PM by fidelio

fidelio,

True. And I'd still get the whisky and the nudity. I could even get to the whisky first and siphon off the good stuff, plus previewing the nudity. This begins to sound promising.

It occurs to me that I might need some assistance with the heavy task of dealing out all this firewater and skin. I know Greg's tired out from all his comic book art appreciation, but this seems a good crowd to draw my whisky and nudity fans from.

(Really, it's a shame we're all so scattered, because this sounds like the recipe for a really good party. Or maybe that's the Auchentoshan talking. It really is a good dram.)

Posted May 10, 2006 5:14 PM by abi

I can't believe I just read that entire thread. I always thought of myself as a leg man.

Posted May 10, 2006 5:16 PM by Bill Altreuter

Xopher --

The celts, or at least some subset of same, burned Rome to the ground around 300 BCE. There's this huge lacuna in the history of the Roman Republic in consequence.

Nor were Cesar's campaign's in Gaul thought to be easy; classic example of winning through superior logistics, not superior ferocity.

And, hey, the Celts invented mail armors, long iron swords, casters on furniture, and a bunch of gold working techniques. Hard to do that first if no one ever wore armor in battle.

Posted May 10, 2006 5:47 PM by Graydon

Graydon, I thought the Goths and Vandals were Teutons. Live and learn.

Posted May 10, 2006 6:36 PM by Xopher

Xopher --

The Goths and Vandals were eight hundred years later. (390 BCE to 410 CE)

Posted May 10, 2006 6:54 PM by Graydon

In re: male authors giving their characters A-cups and the like:

I know that when I was writing up Maggie-Sue Percy, I used as many cliches as I thought I could get away with before moving above her neckline. In fact, let me check... yep, I even said her top "struggles to contain her bosom." I'm proud of that one: "bosom" is one of those words that often means the writer had to go to the thesaurus. Hence, it has a nice meta-effect: "Oh, geez, here comes the character the author is fanstasizing about schtupping." (Metaphors generally don't make literal sense, but still-- talk about a weird thing to ascribe volition of purpose to. Is her top also yelling, "Have at thee, savage breasts!"? Perhaps if it fails and tears, her knockers will spring off her chest and bound away to join the migrating herds y'all mentioned...)

Beyond that, I didn't worry about such things. (Somewhat to TNH's dismay, since she had to deal with my mulishness to get me to put in at least SOME description of the other characters.) Yes, Chloe (for example) is a pretty woman, and I think I mentioned that at some point-- but I saw no reason to take a tape measure to her and report the results. (That even though she's a figment of my imagination, she STILL would have taken my arm off if I'd tried has nothing to do with it.)

Posted May 10, 2006 8:14 PM by Stephan Zielinski

Graydon, you said BCE. Damn. Sorry.

Was that before the development of the military techniques with which they conquered the known world?

Posted May 10, 2006 9:06 PM by Xopher

abi, I think I could be persuaded all too easily to take up some of the minion work on whiskey and nudity in exchange for sharing in the partaking of same. I am, after all, of proud fighting-drunk-and-naked (-and-covered-in-woad) stock myself.

Posted May 10, 2006 9:55 PM by Dan Layman-Kennedy

Concerning Naked Gauls, and Goths, Vandals, and Teutons.

The "naked Gaul" is a vivid image in classical sources. It has apparent echoes in medieval accounts of the Irish fighting "naked" -- which in some cases, however, seems to mean men turning up for battle fully dressed *in cloth,* unlike either the Norse and Normans. There is a strong suspicion that the former reflects a ritualized performance (battle magic), or a bid for status (liking "counting coup" in North America), rather than the preferred state for those Celtic fighting men able to afford worthwhile armor.

There is a running dispute (very long-running) over whether the Cimbri and Teutones, who smashed Roman armies (notably at Arausio, 105 BC), were Germanic or Celtic. Given the Greek and Latin versions of the names, either explanation seems to be plausible. (Modern English "Teutonic" takes the "German" side, but is a modern formation.)

They were sequentially defeated by Marius, after a reform of the legions, the Teutones at Aquae Sextiae in 102 BC, and the Cimbri at Campi Raudii near Vercella, in 101 BC. The experience left a long-lasting impression, only partially obscured by the following Civil Wars.

Julius Caesar (politically a Marian) seems to have felt at some point that it was convenient that the Cimbri and Teutones were recognized as "Germani," and not "Galli." He had to explain why he was making war against the very German Ariovistus of the Suebi, an official "Friend of the Roman People," and linking him to the dreaded Teutonic Menace may have been too good a propaganda point to pass up.

Of course, he may have been right about it.

In Caesar's time, the upper-class Gauls were extremely well-armed, although not well-organized, and some of the their technology was better than anything available to the Romans. Better leadership, and less internal bickering, might well have made a difference; especially if they had been fighting against commanders less determined and competent than Caesar. And in his early campaigns he owed a lot to the stubborn discipline of the legions.

I have to agree about the logistics side, although it wasn't just having a good quartermaster corps or something. Caesar also had the advantage that living off the land at the expense of the Gauls actually weakened his actual or potential enemies -- although it seemed to have had a bit part in provoking revolts. Gauls who tried that approach would wind up bringing their neighbors down on their heads, or at a minimum diminish their own overall effectiveness. The Gauls' lack of an effective supply system which didn't antagonize the people they were supposed to be defending may account for some of their difficulties in mustering and fielding large armies.

Posted May 10, 2006 10:12 PM by Ian Myles Slater

Hey, I have nothing against nudity. Woad (which I misspelled above!) and whisky (or even whiskey) are not for me though.

But naked in battle? That I wouldn't do, even if I were going to be in a battle, which is also unlikely.

Posted May 10, 2006 10:17 PM by Xopher

Xopher --

There weren't any Roman military techniques, strictly speaking, superior to those of their opponents. (Sometimes grossly inferior; there's a reason they had terrible problems with the Parthians, frex.)

What the Romans had going for them was social and administrative; a legion could be defeated or destroyed, and another one would show up. It would be in supply; it would be at least decently and often enough excellently equipped. It would have supporting fortifications, good roads, and good communications. This kept going for generations.

That the individual warriors opposing the legion could fight legionaries at better than 1:1 odds and beat them in a straight up fight -- often the case -- stopped mattering all that much, because they could, maybe, do it once. The legion would keep on coming; it wouldn't quit for the harvest, it would be recruited back up to strength, it had written records and written communications and (in effect) communication with its past as a store of experience stretching beyond any individual life, and eventually the population resources of half the known world would get applied to tiny pieces of opposition which did have to quit for the harvest.

This matters way more than our-guys-can-beat-your-guys-with-swords; very often, they couldn't.

Posted May 10, 2006 10:20 PM by Graydon

joann: Yes, I quite agree. I've used muscle mags for reference myself. While being sarcastic, I might have muddled my point, which was the learning suggestion for women was an intentionally sexualized source (porn) while for men it was a source whose first intent is not sexual (i.e., the supposed perfect physique--tho muscle mags have certainly helped a few closet cases thru the night). In fact, if it was just about muscles, women have been appearing in muscle mags for a long long time. No porn necessary if you are just interested in form.

Posted May 10, 2006 10:56 PM by Mark DF

A similar, more subtle, sexualized women/nonsexualized men situation is something I noticed during the last summer Olympics. In almost any event requiring a form fitting outfit, women are shown in full camera shot or from the waist up. Except when they are actually competing, men are shown in head shots, although even some of the running competitions tended to show chest up (no bouncy shorts!). I noticed it most blatantly during swim meets: full shot of women on the platform, head shot of the men. And it's not just the Olympics. Check it out next time your watching most any sports program.

Posted May 10, 2006 11:05 PM by Mark DF

That's so annoying! They should show the men from the neck DOWN.

Posted May 10, 2006 11:11 PM by Xopher

I'm with Xopher- neck down.

I'd also like to be a whiskey (esp. Irish) and nudity judge.

Posted May 10, 2006 11:34 PM by Nancy C

you can go out of your way to describe some breasts as long as you're careful to insist that they're not great big ones, which would be tawdry.

Which - as a large breasted woman - bugs me as much as the styrofoam tits do. Way to go from defining women by their bodies to...defining women by their bodies.

It seems to come up in space opera a lot.

Which partly accounts for my (temporary) dumping of sci-fi/fantasy in favor of romance mid-adolescence. I figured that, if reading "grown-up" books meant reading about sexual fantasies, I might as well read some that were more in line with my own.

Although it was a few too many books by David Eddings and Piers Anthony - not anything as cerebral as Asimov - that caused this epiphany. If I recall correctly, Eddings had a particularly annoying way of making all the whores large breasted and all the heroines adorably petite.

If you really want to read descriptions of a variety of breasts sizes, just thumb through the romance section. Romance novel heroines come in all kinds of shapes and sizes - just like the readers they are meant to be stand-ins for. Of course, the heroi