Sci-Fi - Fantasy Women (Split from John Carter of Mars thread) by Bytemite

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Sci-Fi - Fantasy Women (Split from John Carter of Mars thread)

POSTED BY: BYTEMITE
UPDATED: Saturday, May 8, 2010 20:52
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10233
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, May 6, 2010 1:04 PM

BYTEMITE

*self troll*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 1:13 PM

BYTEMITE

*self troll*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 1:18 PM

BYTEMITE

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 1:34 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Exactly - you're good at this! How about here?

There's always a bigger phallus.
-OR-
An ancient Abu-Ghraib.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 4:05 PM

BYTEMITE

...Where are his hands? o.o

Okay, a little disturbed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 4:10 PM

CHRISISALL

It can work both ways...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 4:12 PM

BYTEMITE

Yeah, never said it couldn't.

But... Are his hands amputated? Are there hooks in his bloody wrists attaching the gigantic chains? Because, holy hells. o.o

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 6, 2010 4:18 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Are his hands amputated? Are there hooks in his bloody wrists attaching the gigantic chains?

Bloody wrists? Yeah, but he's making fists.
He's just waiting to make his move here.
Not a Conan reader, I take it?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2010 8:21 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Myself, I didn't see rape or a slave collar - she has a knife for one which makes the other two less likely, but honestly, I don't know enough to make presumptions about the context from the image.

Okay, here's a thing: the immediate context of the story is kinda secondary to a reading of the painting. The two are related, but there's rarely a one to one correspondence in these cases. I think it highly significant to this discussion that the Tarzan picture actually found its way into a thread about John Carter of Mars. It was posted quite as if it were illustrating that story and not Tarzan. This reflects the sort of interchangeability of the Tarzan/John Carter/Conan narratives in folk's imagination. And that is much more to the point, than what the particular story says is happening in the picture.

It definitely reflects the kind of art that we associate with these stories. Anyone familiar with illustrated fiction oughta know that the pictures often diverge from the written text, often embellish, often go for a feeling rather than a precise representation of what the story actually says (man, that used to annoy the crap out of me as a little kid).

We might think of the text as a battle plan and the painting as a depiction of the reality on the ground, or perhaps the painting is more like the report of a gushy embedded journalist caught up in the excitement of it all. In either case, what's often most interesting is how it DIVERGES from the intended mission.

The locus classicus of the phenomenon I'm talking about here would have to be the chain mail bikini. I've read a fair amount of Robert E. Howard's stuff (and perhaps Geezer or Chrisisall can correct me) but I don't recall EVER reading an actual description of a chain mail bikini. And yet, that's what we see, time and again, in these kinds of illustrations. Why do you think that is? Seriously, why do you think that is???

Now, y'all might say, aw, come on! It's just fun, it's just teh sexxay or it's just to sell paperbacks, but that's kinda the point. Or you, pizmo, might say exactly what you said:

Quote:
Seriously, breasts in various forms of cover have become so ubiquitous that the only thing noteworthy about these are that they are drawn and they are really out there. Minimal clothing is pretty standard for science fiction, but that is really minimal.

I kinda doubt it's indifference like yours that motivates these artists to paint these pictures as they do, time and time again. The nudity for them is NOT just de rigueur, but rather the raison d'être, if you will. N'est-ce pas? (Sorry, couldn't help myself--hadda go there.)

An artist is said to "immortalize" his subject. And I find it very interesting what this artist chose to immortalize. Such illustrations are first and foremost a celebration of what a certain audience, well, wants to celebrate. Another audience finds it kinda laughable. Another takes it all for granted. And yet another finds it reflective of a regressive desire, principally among men, to escape our complicated modern political landscape (cf.: sexual equality) and live in a "simpler" world for a time, free from all the "p.c. bullshit" (cf.: respect for women) of the modern age.

The crucial point here is that these pictures are indeed a kind of "throw back," reflective of a kind of "nostalgia," but as we all know perfectly well, it is not a literal past which fans of this genre long for--no one ever wore a chain mail bikini into battle in our world's actual history, f'rinstance--but an emotional past, an idealized past even.

Y'know, I've been a tiny bit in shock over the turn this discussion has taken, a touch flabbergasted. I feel a little like I'm being called upon to explain how a Playboy centerfold objectifies the woman with the staples through her torso. "What? Conan sexist? Tarzan demeaning to women? Say it ain't so!"

Quote:
I honestly saw her tears and her breasts at about the same time.

Me too. But I also took in the iconography of the bodies--the camera angle shows the man towering over the woman. The woman is on the ground, in tears, grabbing for a dagger. But her inexpert grasp of the hilt and Tarzan's impossible physique tell me she doesn't have a chance. The picture tells us these things quite vividly. And the man just looks at her. There are an infinite number of ways this scene could have been shot, so to speak. But you'd be hard pressed to find an angle that contrasts her defeat and his triumph more vividly--celebrates it. Glorifies it.

Quote:
No one finds the fact that Tarzan can't see La's tears interesting?

Are you seriously suggesting that Tarzan doesn't know she's crying? I know he's often depicted as a simpleton in movies and such, but that's really pushing it! If she were wearing a burqa you might have a point but she's basically naked here. Her naked back is not gonna hide the fact that she's crying. She's turned away, sure, but that's a natural action of someone ashamed of her feelings. Maybe I misunderstand your question entirely--where were you going with this?

Quote:
I see Tarzan's look to be one of anger and disappointment, that he has been betrayed by someone he once trusted. Defiant but defensive, not aggressive at all (fists are not clenched). By her body La has turned away from him, she is hiding her emotions, she has failed at whatever he initial task was and is saddened by the turn of events. By being on the ground she is shown as the defeated and with Tarzan standing he is triumphant. But at an emotional price. Her look is one of finality, what could have been is gone, "no turning back." Clearly, this was chosen because it is a pivotal scene, the two main characters' resolution. Maybe you guys dismissed the potential in this scene because it's "just a Tarzan comic?" and saw instead the things that validate your negative perceptions of this world.

Ouch. Weird. Ironic. From where I sit, seems to me that you're ignoring the obvious overtones of the painting because it's "just a Tarzan comic," some bit of harmless fluff that I'm reading all manner o' nastiness into. And the "negative perceptions of the world" part kinda slays me, given that FFF is a veritable viper's nest of negative perceptions of the world! lol I count myself among the more forgiving and pro-humanity elements on this board (maybe I just spend too much of my time reading the RWED).

One thing to which I am particularly sensitized these days, and surely colors my immediate response to the painting in question, is America's long legacy of unequal warfare. We've done so much of it over the past few centuries, simply rolled over whole peoples with our vastly superior destructive force, that folk just don't seem to notice anymore. It's the only way we'll go to war nowadays. Somebody has a nuclear arsenal, well, well, well, let's see if we can come to some sort of agreement. Bunch o' fools with borrowed kalashnikovs? Shock & awe, bay-bee!

So I see its spectre hovering over this Conan/Tarzan nonsense as well. These huge, unimaginably strong men pit themselves against these positively dainty, domesticated and voluptuous females (you can tell me that the women in the stories are powerful warriors in their own right, but the artists give their female subjects next to no muscle tone) and I'm supposed to think the woman ever had a chance?

And that's a big part of the problem. It's really entirely up to the men in these scenarios as to how the women fare. Nice guy? Woman okay. Not so nice guy? Woman royally screwed. This Priestess La feels sufficiently threatened to clutch after that dagger on the floor. As far as she's concerned, she needs that dagger. Yeah, maybe she's crazy, maybe she wants to revenge herself on this wholly decent fellow who simply rejected her advances. But the picture doesn't show that! An artist can show a woman in the midst of such fury. He can paint contempt, disdain, homicidal rage--but it's not there. So what we're left with is a kinda he said/she said scenario of "Who do you empathize with in this picture?" Do you side with the man who looks indifferently upon the crying, despairing woman, wondering what's the matter with her? Or do you see her suffering and wonder, what the heck is his problem?

Y'know, I'm sorta kinda sick of this picture by now. And y'know, it may just be an incoherent jumble of imagery. Incompetent. The more I look at it, the more I just can't fathom how detached and disinterested Tarzan looks. I look at the woman and I think something pretty intense has just gone down between these two folks. Pretty physical. Her pain is written all over her body. But I look at Tarzan and he could be glancing down at the spot he missed when he was painting the kitchen.

And yeah, I see a LOT of indifference from TPTB toward the folk suffering in this world, a lot of the ultra powerful claiming innocence when the weak show the temerity to challenge them or hold them accountable in any way for their suffering.

Quote:
So what do you see here?

Don't get me started! But okay, I'll just say, he's holding that sword awwwwwfully close--not so much like a man with a weapon guarding his body, as a man guarding the weapon itself. I better stop right there if I know what's good for me!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2010 8:50 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
So I see its spectre hovering over this Conan/Tarzan nonsense as well. These huge, unimaginably strong men pit themselves against these positively dainty, domesticated and voluptuous females (you can tell me that the women in the stories are powerful warriors in their own right, but the artists give their female subjects next to no muscle tone) and I'm supposed to think the woman ever had a chance?

Ok, now I have to laugh at this, have to.

Any DeeVee in that position would wind up wearing his skull for a helmet, bulk and muscle counts, especially in a contest of leverage, cause it don't matter how strong you are if you can't apply leverage cause you're too damn puny, I should know...

But it don't count for much against someone who has the skill and the will to do harm to ya.

The first part of dealing with that sense of helplessness most abuse victims suffer from is to empower them by teaching self defense, and considering they're often younglings, and mostly female - most of them know a modernized and streamlined version of escrima/kali, based around speed and agility instead of raw force, intent being that by the time you figure out what the hell just hit you they're long gone.

I know I'm gettin old, but I ain't THAT damn old, and yet some of these kids can indeed hand me my ass on a plate, so every time I hear someone call a mismatch, I just have to laugh at it, you know ?

I mean, around here it's common knowledge that if I am in the company of a femme who is not my official "girlfriend", she's there as muscle, no matter WHAT she looks like - something we've played on to inspire confidence in a couple of them now, bloody hilarious to watch some of the looks they get, Wendy likes playin it to, doing that mafia-heavy knuckle cracking thing...
(Bear in mind she's 4'10" and puny)

I do try to discourage her, mind you, but it's proven fact she can trounce me, so she's got a right to a bit of strut, I think - heaven help the jerk who ever lays hand to her.

"mere slip of a girl" my ass....

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2010 8:58 AM

HKCAVALIER

It's funny how in martial arts, skill and speed are vastly more determining than strength and size. And woe to the big man who doesn't know this. And it's always amusing to me how often in video games the "speed build" is the one that wins the day, time and time again.

Hey, Frem: you read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo yet?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2010 2:45 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Not yet, but imma put it on the list now - although I've always been more partial to Vachss's Burke, but the premise sounds interesting.

Also reading through Perrys new book, but really it doesn't contain anythin I don't already know.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2010 4:33 PM

OPERATIVE1

Broads are people too. Amen to that. We broads need to stick together.

Operative1

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2010 8:52 PM

HKCAVALIER

Oh, well then, Frem, I know for an incontrovertible fact that you will love that book and its sequel.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE