how to draw female comic characters (according to Wizard)...

[ratcreature]

brown_betty asked for examples "to illustrate the exactly how and why female comic characters are illustrated differently than the male." And I thought, really, what's better to illustrate these things than the books teaching the style in the first place?

A while ago I posted some scans from Wizard How To Draw series on drawing female superheroes (here and here), and I thought I'd post a bunch more from the first book of the series on "How To Draw: Heroic Anatomy".


As everything, it starts with the basics, i.e. proportions. First the male superhero


The female example is similar, but slightly different, notice how he stands firm and straight, wheras she stands with her hips cocked a little and the leg thrust forward?


Also notice in the direct torso comparison below, how the male one is ramrod straight, but she curves and leans just a little bit in the same pose?


Now onwards to the chapter "Sultry Women". It even cautions you against overposing! Yes, it's not as if Wizard wasn't aware of the problems! (Their definition and mine of which poses are already overposed might differ slightly though, heh.)





Next, Michael Turner explains "Sex Appeal". (Or what he thinks sex appeal is.) Incidentally it also illustrates the meaning of "overposed" that was brought up in the previous chapter very effectively...





Finally for compare and contrast purpuses the chapters on "Superheroic Men" and "Superheroic Women". For the male superhero it is all about more or less ridiculously enlarged muscles as we learn:





Female superheroes don't have it that easy, they need to worry about tilting their shoulder, nipple and pubic lines attractively at all times, not to mention legs, breast size, eye make-up and hair:

Comments

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

Personally, I found the emphasis on giving women "cat eyes" in Balent's section... seriously weird. And I'm not even going to comment on how he apparently thinks that female characters should be able to arch their backs and torsos even when "running, jumping, or kicking through a brick wall."

Turner's women, on the other hand, struck me as very sexy and pretty (well, except for the contortionist underwear model pose in figure A). This may be because their breasts aren't quite so terrifyingly large, and their poses are only obviously posed and artificial instead of completely imposible for the female body to achieve (alas, bi-sexuality keeps me from ever being completely innocent when it comes to whole "women as objects of the male gaze," thing).

And I can't be the only comics fan who thinks that the ultra-super-muscles are grotesque-looking. Also stupid, and anatomically improbable. Why, why are so many super-heroes given the giant body-builder muscles regardless of whether or not it actually makes sense for the character to have them? Why isn't the Flash built like a distance runner, Nightwing like a gymnist, etc.

I am consistently denied my right to ogle a diverse selection of male bodies. Come on, Wizard! If women in comics exist only to be drooled over by men, surely men in comics ought to be there only to be drooled over by women. I insist that Batman be drawn only in arched-back, provocative, sexy poses from now on! With his shoulders and hips tilted toward each other!

[ratcreature]

Well, I'm a lesbian, so it's not like I dislike looking at women. I just like them to still have room for internal organs and a regular spine. Also Turner's proportions are just off in ways that I don't find attractive. I mean, since superheroes are larger than regular humans their proportions are wrong intentionally, but the way Turner just makes the legs extra long, combined with very slim waists but a larger ass doesn't do anything for me.

Also, since of course they don't assume that women read their comics the men are not for drooling but the power fantasy for identification (though why anyone would fantasize about looking like a the misshapen result of steroid abuse is a mystery) while the women are to be looked at. The intended reactions of the readership are explained to us by Linsner:
http://pics.livejournal.com/ratcreature/pic/0003ff38
http://pics.livejournal.com/ratcreature/pic/0003g190

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

Good to know that we women are defined entirely by our boobs, butts, and legs, the only parts of our bodies redblooded American men are interested in. (With little, leering thumbs-up guys next to each picture just in case we didn't get the message from the text alone).

*headdesk* And he actually admitted to not looking at women's faces. Maybe that's why some comic book artists *cought*FrankQuitely*cough* make every character's face look the same.

[ratcreature]

Well the next two pages (which I didn't bother to scan) he goes on (and on and on) about how hands, lips, eyes and hips are also hot, under the header of "the finer things"... not that that made me feel that much better. Though it explains why sometimes the women look so freaky: it's an assembly of "hot" parts, rather than an holistic approach to draw actual people so the whole fits together nicely.