# Book covers and female body



## Rayne Book Covers (Sep 11, 2011)

I came across this article which some of you might have already read, and found it to be quite thought provoking.

http://www.stackedbooks.org/2012/04/cover-trends-female-body.html

Although the blogger ends up mentioning pretty much all new age book covers, I do agree with her on some points, esp the headless ones. Personally, this puts me in a difficult place as I'm sure some of my work could be on that list too. I really hope stock photographers consider this and add more variety to their work so the trend can change to a more positive one.


----------



## MsTee (Jul 30, 2012)

Thank you for posting this link. I agree with so much of what she says, as well as another blogger she links to called 'Ellen Oh.' I've taken their advice and message to heart.


----------



## Raquel Lyon (Mar 3, 2012)

I have to say that I found the article be a load of feminist hogwash, and the author of it is reading far too much into the supposed meaning of the covers. People will have their opinion, and we can choose to agree or not. Personally I'm in the 'Not' camp on this one.

This quote _'We sell the female body on book covers in a way we don't on male book covers.'_ was particularly offensive to me. When have you seen anything other than a good looking boy with (if displayed) a perfectly toned torso on a YA book?


----------



## olefish (Jan 24, 2012)

I agree with most of her points. I'm tired of the weak white girls in flowing dress covers.  But hey, limp white girls in pretty clothes are pretty to look at.  So what can we do? At the very least, if the covers tried to show women engaging their environment, that's a positive step.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Agreed with Rlyon. (the second paragraph. Can't agree or disagree with the first since I didn't read the article.)


----------



## Rayne Book Covers (Sep 11, 2011)

Rlyon said:


> This quote _'We sell the female body on book covers in a way we don't on male book covers.'_ was particularly offensive to me. When have you seen anything other than a good looking boy with (if displayed) a perfectly toned torso on a YA book?


Have to agree with you on this one. Too many covers that show shirtless guys with tight abs.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Limp girls and purple swirls.

The problem is not the books. 

Ironically, all these limp girls are on books about the fantasy of the female having value. Whether it's value as a bag of delicious blood or as whatever, it's value that's the fantasy being sold.

Just as saying you want "the money to buy an elephant" is about having the money, not the elephant, the fantasy of being desired by a BDSM billionaire is about being just that desirable. Not about getting spanked.*

*Except sometimes it is about the spankings. People are complicated.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

I see where she's coming from, but...

1. Can't show anything less than a woman's whole body.
1a. Unless she has short hair, apparently.
1b. Or unless you show the face and the author of the blog likes the model's expression.

2. Can't show a woman from the back and show her butt.
2a. Unless you cover the butt with text, I guess.
2b. Or unless you can see her face.
2c. And the author of that blog likes the model's expression.

3. Can't show anyone in a dress.
3a. Unless the author of that blog likes the model's expression.

4. Can't show just a head/face.
4a. Unless the author of that blog likes the model's expression.

5. Can't use attractive models.
5a. Unless they're doing something that isn't particularly feminine on the cover.
5b. And the author of that blog likes the model's expression.

...really?

She implies the cover of _Katana_ is an epic fail because the model is depicted from the back, drawing needless attention to her butt, draws extra special attention to her butt by having a prop on the general vicinity of, y'know, her butt, has long flowy hair, has her face obscured, and is "closing herself off" from the world, by her body language.

That's a woman wearing jeans and a t-shirt, and _holding a sword_.

A few paragraphs later, _The Miseducation of Cameron Post_ is made of win, because, apparently, the cover model is "engaging her world" in some sort of positive fashion.

That's a woman in a dress just laying there on a hay bale in a field with _her face obscured by her hair_ and _her butt in the air_.

Huh? 

I do also love how three of her five "taking things in the right direction" covers don't seem to fit her own standards - headless bodies, just body parts...


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

I have to admit I found the "girls are made of parts" one a bit of a stretch. Regardless of how legitimate the author's points are though, I can't find myself blaming writers for going with a cover that's going to sell. I've never had a problem with using cheap or overused hooks to get people interested in something (ahem, *glances at own signature* ), provided the actual content of their work doesn't provide a vapid or damaging message to the reader. Covers are essentially just another marketing tool after all, and once a reader's invested in your book it really doesn't matter that much what you've wrapped the pages up in.
I suppose yes, in an ideal world we'd have more diverse cover art, but I find it very hard to blame an author for going with what works to bring in more readers. It's one of those cases where I feel the practicalities outweigh the potential concern.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

This is one of the reasons I dislike using models on book covers. They are invariably too same-y and too pouty. It is very hard to find pictures of people who are not visibly acting for the camera. 

The girls are always way too pretty and too glammed-up to pass for any of my characters.

ETA on the feminst thing, I agree with most of you that I don't see this as a feminist issue, and did find that the article was pushing that agenda. But the "girls in photographs must be really pretty" thing is a live and well.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

The Dark Rayne said:


> I came across this article which some of you might have already read, and found it to be quite thought provoking.
> 
> http://www.stackedbooks.org/2012/04/cover-trends-female-body.html
> 
> Although the blogger ends up mentioning pretty much all new age book covers, I do agree with her on some points, esp the headless ones. Personally, this puts me in a difficult place as I'm sure some of my work could be on that list too. I really hope stock photographers consider this and add more variety to their work so the trend can change to a more positive one.


Rayne - I absolutely agree that we need more VARIETY in stock photos. I try to look for photos of teen girls and mostly find either images that look like they were made for toothpaste commercials or images in which the girl is trying to look sultry. We need greater variety with ethnic and racial backgrounds. I currently need a girl with a Latino background who doesn't look cheesy or vacant/sultry - SOOO hard to find!

I support the author of that article in her basic message. Yes, the messages being sent to girls are harmful.
(George Berger is right though, her choices of 'positive' and 'negative' images seem inconsistent and a little picky.)

BUT changing photos on covers is going to do diddly squat. If we want change, we have to track right back to the Barbie dolls and princess outfits that little girls are growing up with. We have to stop telling little girls they are pretty whilst telling little boys they are good at sport. We have to stop sending little girls to school in dresses - making them too embarrassed to play because they'll show their underwear. We have to stop with all the female singers who think it's a good idea to wear outfits that look like underwear in their music videos - what happened to all the rock chicks  There are way too many 'your value is in how sexy you look' messages being thrown at young girls.

(And I won't apologise for having a skinny, disappearing, gown-wearing girl on my cover lol. She's a ghost for goodness sake. Two-thirds of the novel has girls dressed exclusively in ball gowns - so it would be disingenuous to have them in jeans. If I have girls on my next two covers, they will be slim as well, as it would make no sense to depict solid girls who have been starved of food, as my characters have.)


----------



## quiet chick writes (Oct 19, 2012)

Some of this is valid (especially the first point about weak/submissive girls, and that about the flowing dresses and hair), but I'm not sure I buy a lot of it. The reason a lot of us prefer headless bodies, or just body parts, or back to the camera, is that we like to imagine the character's faces when we're reading. And if there's a specific or detailed face on the book cover, it takes that opportunity away from us. 

Also, just a theory, but perhaps the reason there are almost always just girls on the covers (besides romance, when there's usually a boy too) is because most of the YA book audience are young girls who want to read girl characters, and most of the authors are women who write about girls. What percentage of YA books do you think feature male main characters? 

That said, I think we could stand to have more body variety, ethnicities, less angel wings and flowing hair. 

Also, now having been through the cover design process myself, knowing how hard it is to find stock photos where the model is not grinning at the camera like a goober, I completely understand why many cover artists end up chopping off their heads.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I'd like to chime in on the 'submissive woman' concept.

Submissive women are put on covers because they sell books, and women are buying most of the books.  It's not a coincidence that 50 Shades of Grey is so popular.   As a guy who was raised in the feminist-conscious 60s and 70s, it was a struggle for me to comprehend this seeming incongruous trait in the opposite sex.   As a typical 'nice guy', I would watch beautiful girl after girl fall for the 'bad boy' - who would treat them like sh*t but they would always return for more.

Finally, I realized that, despite the claims of feminism, a key component of the feminine psyche wants to be submissive - they want the man to take control (at least in certain situations.)  Their key fantasies revolve around this concept, whether it's being whisked away to the castle by Prince Charming when they're little girls, or being dominated by Christian Grey when they're woman.

This isn't to say that women want to be dominated in all aspects of their lives.  But even a female corporate CEO who lords over men in her daily life, may have secret desires to be tied up at night.  Also, I'm obviously speaking in generalities here, and don't mean to offend any woman who doesn't share these traits with her fellow females.   But the trend is so obvious, it takes a complete ignoring of reality to deny it. 

I even see it in emails and reviews of my own writing.   Woman say they love stories where the hero is protective of the heroine, or where the heroine is disciplined by the man.   Even in Outlander, a novel by Diana Gabaldon and a favorite among women, the heroine is physically beaten by the male lead, Jamie, as punishment for a perceived wrong, and nary a feminine eyebrow is raised.  Quite the opposite in fact, and Jamie is held up as the prototype for desired male behavior by the readers.

So, back to the covers.  Books covers try to sell fantasy, and submissive women depict a fantasy that is very strong among many people.  And I'm willing to bet that many, if not most, of those covers are for books written by females.

But it's completely understandable why feminists would be upset with this.  It goes against the image that they're trying to make everyone believe what a 'real' woman is.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

swolf said:


> I'd like to chime in on the 'submissive woman' concept.
> 
> Submissive women are put on covers because they sell books, and women are buying most of the books. It's not a coincidence that 50 Shades of Grey is so popular. As a guy who was raised in the feminist-conscious 60s and 70s, it was a struggle for me to comprehend this seeming incongruous trait in the opposite sex. As a typical 'nice guy', I would watch beautiful girl after girl fall for the 'bad boy' - who would treat them like sh*t but they would always return for more.
> 
> ...


Okay, I have to say nah to this: _"a key component of the feminine psyche wants to be submissive."_

We can't judge the female psyche by the book-buying public. The trends in books don't speak for all females or men. I have loads of female friends who bought 50 Shades 'because everyone else is' and thought it was a load of tripe. I haven't read it because the book holds no interest for me.

I find it weird though that so many men look at the rush of women liking that book and immediately imagine that all those women want to be tied and submissive in the bedroom. Isn't it also true that a large proportion of women have been told that 'good girls don't enjoy sex' and suddenly you have this book where a young, handsome billionaire is concentrating all his efforts on ensuring that a woman enjoys sex. The woman finally has permission to let go and enjoy because she's tied up by this amazing guy etc and can't do anything about it - so um, yeah. 'Nuff said.

Yes, there would have to be _some_ carryover in the female psyche from the days in which women depended on men for their survival (the strongest men could beat off other men and protect the woman & children from wild animals etc) but not enough to say that women (as a general group) basically want to be submissive.
Yes it's true lots of young women like and choose bad boys - and often these types of women will continue to make the same mistakes with men their whole lives.
Yes it's true that women and men have different mindsets - and I don't believe any feminist would try to claim otherwise. There are definite differences.

But look at little girls, who, at the same ages as little boys, are often more dominant than the boys - not as energetic or impulsive - but often more dominant and mature.
This dominance gets socialised out of little girls as they grow older. Girls learn their bodies are both a source of shame and sex objects. They learn that liking or having sex makes them sluts. They learn that what they look like is more important than what they achieve in life. They learn submission by all these external pressures.


----------



## Zoe Cannon (Sep 2, 2012)

swolf said:


> This isn't to say that women want to be dominated in all aspects of their lives. But even a female corporate CEO who lords over men in her daily life, may have secret desires to be tied up at night.


So do plenty of male CEOs. Just saying.

As for the article, I think it makes a good point but takes it too far. It seems like in a lot of the example covers, the author of the article approached the covers from a certain perspective, and her perceptions of the covers were shaped by that perspective.

I think it would be a lot easier to tell how much merit these arguments have if there were a lot of covers with male characters on them to compare to. It's hard to tell how much you can classify under troubling perceptions of women and how much is just general cover trends, and so it would be interesting to see what kind of male-character cover trends existed. But as far as I've seen, they don't seem to be as common.

From a purely personal perspective, I don't like covers where the models are highly sexualized, if only because it gives me a distinct "I am not the target audience" feeling. And I'm tired of the standard YA paranormal-romance girl-in-a-dress (although I still see one of these every so often that I like the look of enough to forgive the repetition). But I know a lot of people like them. I often like the partial-body-only covers, even though I know a lot of people hate them.


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2012)

George Berger said:


> She implies the cover of _Katana_ is an epic fail because the model is depicted from the back, drawing needless attention to her butt, draws extra special attention to her butt by having a prop on the general vicinity of, y'know, her butt, has long flowy hair, has her face obscured, and is "closing herself off" from the world, by her body language.
> 
> That's a woman wearing jeans and a t-shirt, and _holding a sword_.


The cover is epic fail because the girl holding the swords would end up slicing her wrists the way she is holding them. It's a stupid pose of what appears to be a mundane white young adult blond holding a pair of swords in a way no person who doesn't want to kill themselves would hold them. What IS that? Some YA fan fiction based off an anime?

Sorry. Sore spot. lol


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Anya said:


> Okay, I have to say nah to this: _"a key component of the feminine psyche wants to be submissive."_
> 
> We can't judge the female psyche by the book-buying public. The trends in books don't speak for all females or men. I have loads of female friends who bought 50 Shades 'because everyone else is' and thought it was a load of tripe. I haven't read it because the book holds no interest for me.


I hear that a lot about that book (that it's tripe), but it's sold millions and is going to be made into a movie. Someone's liking it.



Anya said:


> I find it weird though that so many men look at the rush of women liking that book and immediately imagine that all those women want to be tied and submissive in the bedroom. Isn't it also true that a large proportion of women have been told that 'good girls don't enjoy sex' and suddenly you have this book where a young, handsome billionaire is concentrating all his efforts on ensuring that a woman enjoys sex. The woman finally has permission to let go and enjoy because she's tied up by this amazing guy etc and can't do anything about it - so um, yeah. 'Nuff said.


I think that's part of the allure. Being forced to do something allows one to enjoy it while not feeling guilty about choosing to do it.



Anya said:


> Yes, there would have to be _some_ carryover in the female psyche from the days in which women depended on men for their survival (the strongest men could beat off other men and protect the woman & children from wild animals etc) but not enough to say that women (as a general group) basically want to be submissive.
> Yes it's true lots of young women like and choose bad boys - and often these types of women will continue to make the same mistakes with men their whole lives.
> Yes it's true that women and men have different mindsets - and I don't believe any feminist would try to claim otherwise. There are definite differences.


I think that carryover is stronger than you're crediting it, in both women and men.

Look at the standards of desirability that each sex looks for in the other. Men, in general, like woman who are beautiful with shapely bodies and large breasts. Back in the early days of the human species, those qualities translated into a better survival rate for human offspring. Beauty can be translated to healthfulness which would be passed onto their offspring, and women with shapely bodies and large breasts were more likely to bear children without complications and be able to feed them once the were born. So, the male genes that were attracted to these qualities were more likely to be passed on to future generations, which includes us.

Females, in general, are attracted to handsome, physically fit men who are wealthy. The same principles were at work in the early days, with those qualities in a man more likely to result in, as you pointed out, them being protectors and providers, resulting in the survival of their offspring and those female genes that caused that attraction more likely to be passed on to future generations.

To put it another way, men aren't pigs because they like supermodels and big t*ts, and women aren't shallow because they like doctors and shiny cars - we're just hardwired that way through genetics. And again, it's all generalities.

And I don't think 40 years of feminism is going to overcome thousands of years of evolution.



Anya said:


> But look at little girls, who, at the same ages as little boys, are often more dominant than the boys - not as energetic or impulsive - but often more dominant and mature.
> This dominance gets socialised out of little girls as they grow older. Girls learn their bodies are both a source of shame and sex objects. They learn that liking or having sex makes them sluts. They learn that what they look like is more important than what they achieve in life. They learn submission by all these external pressures.


Girls do mature before boys, but that seems like evolution at work also, where in a time when lifespans were as short as thirty years, a faster-maturing girl would have more opportunity to pass her genes on.

And yeah, there is a nature vs nurture argument to be made. But there also seems to be a lot of social pressure these days for women to deny any submissive tendencies they have, both to themselves and others.


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2012)

I'll say this: as a female gamer and RPG publisher who has been dealing with the problems of female warriors in chainmail bikinis and reptilian humanoids with boobs (because apparently artists have one helluva time depicting the females of non-mammalian species without giving them flowing hair and mammary glands), I can appreciate what the author of the article is trying to say. But her examples don't actually prove anything. The woman apparently has never seen the hundred of romance and erotica covers with naked male torsos. With one or two exceptions, her examples are fairly mundane.

She has a point in theory, but her illustrations make her point appear petty. There is a tendency to hyper-sexualize women in the media. And yes, this hyper-sexualization IS actually directed at women, not men. Why? Because women are conditioned to want to be desired. Even in 2012, we're still suppose to be the ones who are pursued, not the other way around. We don't WANT to see depictions of real women because we already see that in the mirror and have internalized that what we see in the mirror is undesirable and ugly. So we fantasize about being desired, and therefore become drawn to those images. The very worst offenders of such sexualization are not the men's magazines (which are more often than not just...silly. Really. Just very silly). It is _Vogue_ and _Marie Claire_ and all of those magazines that are suppose to condition us to focus on being sexy. Guys look at skin mags and never actually expect their girlfriends or wives to look like those women. But women look at "women's magazines" and internalize these images of what we are suppose to look like.

So if she really wanted to take someone to task, she should have hit the women's magazine market.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The cover is epic fail because the girl holding the swords would end up slicing her wrists the way she is holding them. It's a stupid pose of what appears to be a mundane white young adult blond holding a pair of swords in a way no person who doesn't want to kill themselves would hold them.


Oh, I don't disagree about that at all. But she didn't say _any_ of that, just tried to argue a bunch of things you really, really, really have to want to see, to see. IMO.



> What IS that? Some YA fan fiction based off an anime?


No, worse:

_Kill Bill meets Buffy in this supernatural samurai tale
Rileigh Martin would love to believe that adrenaline gave her the uncanny courage and strength to fend off three muggers. But it doesn't explain her dreams of fifteenth century Japan, the incredible fighting skills she suddenly possesses, or the strange voice giving her battle tips and danger warnings. While worrying that she's going crazy (always a reputation ruiner), Rileigh gets a visit from Kim, a handsome martial arts instructor, who tells Rileigh she's harboring the spirit of a five-hundred-year-old samurai warrior.
Relentlessly attacked by ninjas, Rileigh has no choice but to master the katana--a deadly Japanese sword that's also the key to her past. As the spirit grows stronger and her feelings for Kim intensify, Rileigh is torn between continuing as the girl she's always been and embracing the warrior inside her._


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Yeah, I don't think there's a good answer for this, because of the vicious circle: the covers hint at 'dangerous' notions for YA girls (thin, pretty, submissive, etc.), and yet... YA girls are the ones who _want_ those covers, and apparently buy them in droves. So what's a cover artist or author to do? Create what sells, or stick with a more 'body-image friendly' cover that your target audience won't even glance at?

Also, to be honest, I didn't see all that much difference between the "bad" covers and the "good ones." So I guess George has a point, that if the blogger _likes_ the cover, it goes in the "good" category, but a very similar cover is "bad" for no very specific reason.

In any case, just in case I need it, I'll make a list of these recommendations for future reference:
- no girls lying down
- no girls without heads
- no girls from the back
- no girls in fancy dresses ... and ...
- no "body parts"


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

I am for showing girls in any situation the author and artist feel meets the requirement s of the story and the market. Period.

As for the subliminal messages on these covers, you can't please everyone. I'm sure many readers have a problem with a girl holding a weapon on the cover a book, yet the author of this article lauds that depiction because the girl is "strong" and she "owns" that weapon.

Guess what, not all girls are strong.

Some girls actually do get the shit beat out of them by all sorts of sadistic and evil people on a regular basis. Some girls actually do lead a fairytale life. Some girls have a pretty average life and want to learn about how other girls experience things, whether it be good or bad.

Some of the characters in these books overcome that bad place, stop curling up in the fetal position, and learn to fight back. Some actually do get rescued. Life, thank God, is filled with infinite possibilities. I think this author needs to go volunteer at a woman's shelter and get a grip, because these covers depict reality and sometimes reality just _sucks_.

If authors want to explore that part of society, they have every right to do so and they have every right to get the best possible depiction of that girl, whether she wins or loses, on the front of their book.

And on that note - I agree that photographers should definitely keep pushing the limits and doing whatever they feel is necessary to make good art so authors and artists have more variety.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> She has a point in theory, but her illustrations make her point appear petty. There is a tendency to hyper-sexualize women in the media. And yes, this hyper-sexualization IS actually directed at women, not men. Why? Because women are conditioned to want to be desired. Even in 2012, we're still suppose to be the ones who are pursued, not the other way around. We don't WANT to see depictions of real women because we already see that in the mirror and have internalized that what we see in the mirror is undesirable and ugly. So we fantasize about being desired, and therefore become drawn to those images. The very worst offenders of such sexualization are not the men's magazines (which are more often than not just...silly. Really. Just very silly). It is _Vogue_ and _Marie Claire_ and all of those magazines that are suppose to condition us to focus on being sexy. Guys look at skin mags and never actually expect their girlfriends or wives to look like those women. But women look at "women's magazines" and internalize these images of what we are suppose to look like.
> 
> So if she really wanted to take someone to task, she should have hit the women's magazine market.


That's more or less how I felt reading the article. The way young women are presented on book covers is just a very minor symptom of a broader societal problem, one which _is_ worth talking about. I can think of plenty of places in the media where women are portrayed in an unhealthy light that are far more deserving of criticism than book covers.
And I think the general point about "what women want" and the feminist viewpoint on it is that, even if these female traits that we get shoved down our throats are true for a majority of women, they still shouldn't be generalised in such a widespread manner. Even assuming 60% of women are all demure, submissive, image-conscious individuals, having the mass media present that as the "typical woman" is the most surefire way to tell anyone who falls within the other 40% that there's something wrong about them (and I'm sure we all realise how damaging something like that can be, particularly for younger women).

That's why I'd disagree with S. Wolf a little on the whole generalising thing; I'd agree that a lot of the "in general" points do apply to a significant portion of women, but the problem lies in those generalisations existing in the first place. The point of most feminism (the non-silly feminism, at least) isn't to promote the idea that all women are these tough no-nonsense empowered individuals, but rather to challenge generalisations about what women "should" and "shouldn't" be in the first place. Society shouldn't look at a person and assume "Oh, that must mean they're probably like this and this and this..." just based on their gender or race or social status, even if those assumptions are going to be true for a majority.

So I do see where this article was coming from, I just think it got too fixated on the tip of the iceberg. Ubiquitous representations of diverse groups of people are rarely ever a good thing.



George Berger said:


> Relentlessly attacked by ninjas, Rileigh has no choice but to master the katana--a deadly Japanese sword that's also the key to her past. As the spirit grows stronger and her feelings for Kim intensify, Rileigh is torn between continuing as the girl she's always been and embracing the warrior inside her.[/i]


It's a challenge all young girls have to face at some point in their lives. o.o


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The cover is epic fail because the girl holding the swords would end up slicing her wrists the way she is holding them. It's a stupid pose of what appears to be a mundane white young adult blond holding a pair of swords in a way no person who doesn't want to kill themselves would hold them. What IS that? Some YA fan fiction based off an anime?
> 
> Sorry. Sore spot. lol


I am so glad that I wasn't the only one that noticed. Katanas are razor sharp. Her left radial and/or ulnar arteries would be opened lengthwise. Julie, as a reward, here is some functional female armor.

http://www.geek.com/articles/games/epic-full-body-halo-armor-took-10-months-to-create-20121116/

B.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I'll say this: as a female gamer and RPG publisher who has been dealing with the problems of female warriors in chainmail bikinis and reptilian humanoids with boobs (because apparently artists have one helluva time depicting the females of non-mammalian species without giving them flowing hair and mammary glands)


The two kobolds on the cover of my fantasy WIP are female. 

I think it's a bit of a problem though. If you look at my four covers who have females on the front, at least one has drawn the comment, "Who's that dude with the gun?"

Happy to eat that, though. Military uniforms make one look boy-ish, can't avoid that. Especially when it's shot from behind.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

swolf said:


> Even in Outlander, a novel by Diana Gabaldon and a favorite among women, the heroine is physically beaten by the male lead, Jamie, as punishment for a perceived wrong, and nary a feminine eyebrow is raised. Quite the opposite in fact, and Jamie is held up as the prototype for desired male behavior by the readers.


I'm not going to argue that there aren't a lot of readers who fall in this group, but if you read discussions of Outlander and think about how the main readers attracted to those discussions are fans of the book, you will always find some readers piping up who hate it because of that beating. I'm not the only woman who had that book pushed on her by a friend "sure" she'd like it and abandoned it in disgust over the beating.

My guess is a majority of romance readers do go for the domineering alpha jerk guy and submissive woman, but many claim it's a nice fantasy not what they want in real life, and some of us reject it entirely.

When it comes to book covers, though, how about all the romances with the headless, naked torsos of men on the covers? All those covers show guys with the kind of 6-packs that make you think they must spend every free moment in the gym. I admit to liking to see some of them, thinking some are overdone and repellent, and wondering what your average guy in decent shape thinks about the depictions. The difference, I suppose, is in the one case you're talking about a mature male and in the other an immature female who is already bombarded with unhealthy messages about what her body and relationships should be like.

As to you nice guys who shake your heads over women going for the bad boys time and time again, maybe you ought to regard it as a good filtering system.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

We used to laugh about the faceless/headless girls on book covers when I worked in a bookstore. It was every other book, it seemed! My theory was less complex than the bloggers. Most of those books are wish fulfillment, and putting a face on the cover meant you couldn't inject yourself into the character (or visualize her the way you want). I think it's as simple as that.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

swolf said:


> I even see it in emails and reviews of my own writing. Woman say they love stories where the hero is protective of the heroine, or where the heroine is disciplined by the man. Even in Outlander, a novel by Diana Gabaldon and a favorite among women, the heroine is physically beaten by the male lead, Jamie, as punishment for a perceived wrong, and nary a feminine eyebrow is raised. Quite the opposite in fact, and Jamie is held up as the prototype for desired male behavior by the readers.


I'm going to disagree with you here. I don't think you'll find very many women who love that beating scene. But let's put this into context. Claire had done something that put all the men's lives in danger and this was the 1700s. Jamie did what he was raised to believe was the right thing to do. And Claire, a woman from 200 years in the future, hardly just let him do it. She wasn't submissive in the least. It wasn't out of the norm for a husband to punish a wife during that time period (at least in context of this story). You might also note that Jamie evolved past his peers and never raised a hand to Claire ever again. Perhaps the reason so many woman love Jamie is in part because of this ability to evolve, among many other desirable traits.

As for the book covers? I think the author of the blog is reaching. I particularly enjoyed George's breakdown on her conclusions.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Rlyon said:


> I have to say that I found the article be a load of feminist hogwash, and the author of it is reading far too much into the supposed meaning of the covers. People will have their opinion, and we can choose to agree or not. Personally I'm in the 'Not' camp on this one.
> 
> This quote _'We sell the female body on book covers in a way we don't on male book covers.'_ was particularly offensive to me. When have you seen anything other than a good looking boy with (if displayed) a perfectly toned torso on a YA book?


The men may be toned but darn few of them are shown headless and a male is never shown in a supine, submissive, powerless position. Frankly, I'd rate the comparison as hogwash.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> The men may be toned but darn few of them are shown headless and a male is never shown in a supine, submissive, powerless position. Frankly, I'd rate the comparison as hogwash.


I'll give you the "not supine" part, but I've seen plenty of romance novels with men (many shirtless) whose faces are either hidden or not shown at all. However, rlyon's comment was directed at the YA market, and it's true, there are very few covers featuring boys.


----------



## jasonzc (Dec 23, 2011)

I want to use a female picture, but my cover artist only uses drawn images...


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

This thread makes me want to borrow a mate's DSLR to shoot myself in those same weird poses just so that there's at least some variation.  I mean, what if someone wants to write a billionaire BDSM short about the quiet, submissive guy who meets the super dominating, ultra rich billionaire CEO and enjoys getting spanked by her?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Here are some boys on YA novels:









































Definitely some of the young, attractive, and at least partially decapitated going on.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

David Adams said:


> This thread makes me want to borrow a mate's DSLR to shoot myself in those same weird poses just so that there's at least some variation.  I mean, what if someone wants to write a billionaire BDSM short about the quiet, submissive guy who meets the super dominating, ultra rich billionaire CEO and enjoys getting spanked by her?


I'd read that


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

ellenoc said:


> I'm not going to argue that there aren't a lot of readers who fall in this group, but if you read discussions of Outlander and think about how the main readers attracted to those discussions are fans of the book, you will always find some readers piping up who hate it because of that beating. I'm not the only woman who had that book pushed on her by a friend "sure" she'd like it and abandoned it in disgust over the beating.


I'm another of those readers who did not care for _Outlander_ and the beating scene is a big reason why. I did manage to finish the book, but the beating had made me dislike Jamie so much that I was not particularly sorry about what happened to him at the end. And I never bothered with the sequels, though I do like the _Lord John_ books.

Meanwhile, I don't care for _Fifty Shades of Grey_ at all, nor for any of the better written examples of the domineering billionaire trend. Dominant men and submissive women don't work for me and while I can read some examples of the Cinderella fantasy with non-abusive men, it's not a fantasy I have ever shared. That's probably why I was never successful when I tried to write romance.

So I agree with Ellen. Many women, particularly in the US, like that sort of thing. Many like myself hate it.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

David Adams said:


> I mean, what if someone wants to write a billionaire BDSM short about the quiet, submissive guy who meets the super dominating, ultra rich billionaire CEO and enjoys getting spanked by her?


I swear to God there's almost certainly a manga about that. If not more than one. I'd go search one of the manga sites, but I try to avoid H-manga, lest I see things that can never be unseen. Or CP.

Oh, wait, there's the anime MM!...


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

swolf said:


> I hear that a lot about that book (that it's tripe), but it's sold millions and is going to be made into a movie. Someone's liking it.
> 
> I think that's part of the allure. Being forced to do something allows one to enjoy it while not feeling guilty about choosing to do it.
> 
> ...


Of course millions of people enjoyed 50 shades. A lot of people also bought it just because everyone else seemed to be. Just sayin'

Of course neither men nor women are pigs for liking attractive members of the opposite sex (or of the same sex as the case may be)
I agree that in an evolutionary sense, the healthiest-looking people attract us for a number of reasons.
Pretty much all people like breasts - breasts were our first experience of food, warmth and nurturing in this life, and looked _big_ to us as babies. And it doesn't make men pigs at all to like them.
(In native societies, breasts are exposed all the time and are not as big a deal. And in societies where most women have comparatively small breasts, I'm sure that men find them attractive.)
Yes, more women than men seek a partner who has wealth. But much less so than in the past - and this will continue to decrease into the future as women gain in independence and their own means of creating wealth.

Many women do enjoy submission or see it as their natural role - and that's fine. More women than men are submissive because that's the way society has operated over the ages.
But it's not true to say that submission is hard-wired in the female psyche. It isn't.


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

David Adams said:


> This thread makes me want to borrow a mate's DSLR to shoot myself in those same weird poses just so that there's at least some variation.  I mean, what if someone wants to write a billionaire BDSM short about the quiet, submissive guy who meets the super dominating, ultra rich billionaire CEO and enjoys getting spanked by her?


Already done by Jim!

When are men - YA or not, ever depicted like this? Even the Fabio romance covers have them in strong, domineering, I'm-going-to-protect-you roles.

*All images below belong to Fantasy Author Jim C. Hines*








[/url]








[/url]


----------



## MalloryMoutinho (Aug 24, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> We used to laugh about the faceless/headless girls on book covers when I worked in a bookstore. It was every other book, it seemed! My theory was less complex than the bloggers. Most of those books are wish fulfillment, and putting a face on the cover meant you couldn't inject yourself into the character (or visualize her the way you want). I think it's as simple as that.


^^^This is always how I have felt.

So I didn't finish reading the entire article. I couldn't take it seriously after a while. I got a sudden urge to analyze every one of her examples to come to the exact opposite conclusion.

I'll pay five dollars to the first person to successfully do this.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

I agree with the blogger on one thing: there should be more variance in the body types of the girls pictured. A fuller figured girl can still be young and pretty and appealing to the eye, so it's not an either-or situation. If curvy models were put in the same flowing dresses the blogger hates and given the same beautiful windblown hair and dramatic poses, I don't think sales for the book would drop off a cliff simply because the heroine is depicted at 140 lbs instead of 95. If anything, sales might go up just for the novelty. So yeah, I'm all in favor of variety. If only someone would tell stock photographers that. I spend a lot of time looking for models who aren't unrealistically thin and they're just not to be found. I've occasionally used pregnant models and cropped out their bellies just to get fuller face, neck, and boobs.  

But I also felt the blogger was really reaching in other areas. According to her, it's degrading for a woman to be pictured lying down, curled up, with her face turned away, her hair windblown, her clothing pretty or feminine, her expression worried or sad, her back to the viewer, her face cropped out, not engaged in some activity... The problem is, that leaves us with zero poses the blogger finds acceptable, because the handful she says are headed in the right direction seem to break her own rules. 

I also disagreed with her suggestion males aren't pictured in provocative ways on YA covers. The teen boys I'm seeing on books (at least books marketed to girls) are all angelically beautiful, any mild imperfections smoothed from their skin, the ideal of attractiveness, just like the girls.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Jena H said:


> Yeah, I don't think there's a good answer for this, because of the vicious circle: the covers hint at 'dangerous' notions for YA girls (thin, pretty, submissive, etc.), and yet... YA girls are the ones who _want_ those covers, and apparently buy them in droves. So what's a cover artist or author to do? Create what sells, or stick with a more 'body-image friendly' cover that your target audience won't even glance at?
> 
> Also, to be honest, I didn't see all that much difference between the "bad" covers and the "good ones." So I guess George has a point, that if the blogger _likes_ the cover, it goes in the "good" category, but a very similar cover is "bad" for no very specific reason.
> 
> ...


Funny how Vogue and its stablemates can get away with all of these things on their covers. I am looking right now at a couple of women's magazines my wife and daughters have left lying around. One has a close-up of a Bikinied woman's torso with the tag "Get your bikini body in time for Christmas". Another has a woman's cleavage with a tag for "Finding the right Bra." Does the feminism movement sell dispensations - like the Popes of old?


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

A few more guy covers.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Wow Dara, the Crush, Shadows and Iron Knight covers are good! I'll predict far more boys cropping up on YA books in the future - maybe even taking over.

(DarkScribe, what in tarnation has feminism got to do with Vogue or women's magazines?)


----------



## DLMedley (Oct 6, 2012)

While reading the article, I kept wondering what the authors of the examples noted had in mind when they chose the direction of the covers. I then wondered if it was anywhere near what the author of the article was getting from the covers. 

I'm thinking that, for the most part, they were probably miles apart. 

DLM


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

They're all tradpubbed books. The authors did not choose the covers. The marketing departments of the publishers did. That's why they're all so similar.


----------



## Rayne Book Covers (Sep 11, 2011)

I was happy to see when my work named 'Beauty' made the cover of the book with same name. The cover got mostly positive reviews and a few of the reviewers said that they bought the book for the cover. So I don't think showing shape and color in women will do anything bad to the sales if the character is like that. As Dara said, sales might go up just for the novelty.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Wansit said:


> Already done by Jim!
> 
> When are men - YA or not, ever depicted like this? Even the Fabio romance covers have them in strong, domineering, I'm-going-to-protect-you roles.
> 
> ...


OMG, move over Fabio, here's the male model of the 21st century!


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2012)

Oh Jim you look so steamy in those pics, and I'm a straight guy...

Personally I want to see more covers with bulky or broad shouldered women who are scarred to hell, but still pretty facially. And it would be cool if they were lying down covered in wounds and blood, but get back up and overcome in that situation in-story.


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2012)

DDark said:


> I've tried to find the right stock models that fit my character


I find many of the female 'warrior' stock models don't look quite strong enough for what I'm going for. Although I guess photomanipulation of their arm sizes etc. could do the job.


----------



## Ian Fraser (Mar 8, 2011)

People forget that in the end analysis, there is no 'norm.' No norm IS the norm. But the idea of this chaotic state being reality doesn't sit well with the folks who like to pigeonhole everything.

Humans are complex, contradictory creatures. Some are tops, some are bottoms, some are both - to use BDSM terms. 

There's no 'one size fits all' deconstruction that'll fit easily into a blog post, although it should be said that economic propaganda (ie: 'marketing') plays a big role in how the genders generally develop, and what they aspire toward. 

For a supposedly individualistic nation, its interesting (in a face-palm kind of way) how widespread certain sophomoric imagery has become - primarily because of its effect on the buying patterns of readers. Form has come to rule over content.


----------



## yomamma (Feb 10, 2011)

But what if she's lying down...WITH A SWORD?

In all seriousness, I am a big fan of chopping people's heads off on covers. Why? Because the cover model frequently has a goofy expression on their face, or their hair is weird, or the forehead goes to eleven. It ruins the mood of the cover, so off it goes. One friend had a cover where the hero's head was chopped off more or less at the nose, and they sent her the full art so she could use it to work on bookmarks. It was seriously FUG. The dude had hair like Fonzi and hollow eyes that would make a crack addict proud. He did not look like a romance hero. The chopping was a GOOD call.

I also admit that I chop heads because I don't want people to realize how many times I've used Jimmy Thomas's stock. Lol. I figured publishers were doing pretty much the same as me. I don't think there was an ulterior motive to it to 'show women as soft and fragile because that will sell books'.


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2012)

jillmyles said:


> But what if she's lying down...WITH A SWORD?


Lying down with a sword covered in wounds with her fingers clenched around the hilt in a determined death (not actually dead though) grip?


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

On a related note, I actually prefer women in armour to wear armour that actually protects them.


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2012)

David Adams said:


> On a related note, I actually prefer women in armour to wear armour that actually protects them.


That's cool. The second one is very interesting, is it from your art?


----------



## Rayne Book Covers (Sep 11, 2011)

David Adams said:


> On a related note, I actually prefer women in armour to wear armour that actually protects them.


Unlike







or


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2012)

That second one doesn't even look appealing, just really goofy and awkward.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

I think I remember reading an article about how the typical fantasy armour "boob-plate" would crack a person's sternum if they fell over while wearing it.


----------



## Zoe Cannon (Sep 2, 2012)

David Adams said:


> On a related note, I actually prefer women in armour to wear armour that actually protects them.


Have you seen this site?

Women Fighters in Reasonable Armor


----------



## Rayne Book Covers (Sep 11, 2011)

Zoe Cannon said:


> Have you seen this site?
> 
> Women Fighters in Reasonable Armor


That's very good!


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Zoe Cannon said:


> Have you seen this site?
> 
> Women Fighters in Reasonable Armor


I like the one doing chemistry with safety goggles on!


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

An oldie but a goodie...

Female Armor Sucks


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Anya said:


> Wow Dara, the Crush, Shadows and Iron Knight covers are good! I'll predict far more boys cropping up on YA books in the future - maybe even taking over.
> 
> (DarkScribe, what in tarnation has feminism got to do with Vogue or women's magazines?)


You feel that they might be purchasing dispensations? They always seem to have an article or two on "Feminine Empowerment" or something equally puerile. Are you suggesting that doesn't that buy them some Kudos with feminists? 

The problem is that there is feminism and there is feminism. Some are hairy, some wear lipstick. I am never sure which direction to curtsy in.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Feminists are people who believe women are people. Apart from that, there's a huge variety of beliefs in people who term themselves feminists.

I don't know much about women's magazines, as I don't read them. You obviously read them a lot (seeing as you know that they always seem to have articles on feminine empowerment) so I bow down to your knowledge of them.  
They may be buying dispensations, indulgences, absolutions and truckloads of lipstick and body wax for all I know....


----------



## Allen_Dusk (Oct 3, 2012)

My novel Shady Palms simply has a storm brewing beyond a cluster of Palm Trees, and I don't see any girls on the cover of Twilight or Hunger Games...or the cover of the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo for that matter. The article seems like a piece of opinionated banter in my opinion. I do tend to use female models on the front of my erotic works, but then again I am deliberately trying to sell sex to people. If I ever write a story about a BBW fetish, I'll be sure to include a more portly model on the front to help my sales.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

glutton said:


> That's cool. The second one is very interesting, is it from your art?


Sadly no, but it's a style I like.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Zoe Cannon said:


> Have you seen this site?
> 
> Women Fighters in Reasonable Armor


That's awesome! 

I noticed a lot of the art was from Paizo's stuff. Paizo tend to go out of their way to dress their women appropriately (with a few exceptions, usually on the barbarian-types with bare midriffs etc, but nobody's perfect). It's important to note that worshippers of Zon-Kuthon, the god of pain, actually go out of their way to wear all kinds of crazy stuff -- spiked armour, corsets, girdles, etc. Yes, even (especially?) the guys.

And the goddess Urgathoa is basically "Ms. Fan Disservice."

Seen here: (not hotlinking for obvious reasons) http://alharadnd.wikidot.com/local--files/urgathoa/PZO9202-Urgathoa.jpg


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Anya said:


> Feminists are people who believe women are people. Apart from that, there's a huge variety of beliefs in people who term themselves feminists.
> 
> I don't know much about women's magazines, as I don't read them. You obviously read them a lot (seeing as you know that they always seem to have articles on feminine empowerment) so I bow down to your knowledge of them.
> They may be buying dispensations, indulgences, absolutions and truckloads of lipstick and body wax for all I know....


Of course I read women's magazines - over the years I have edited a lot of the articles in them. Also, how else would I be able to feel smug and superior around the feminists in our organisation?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Anya said:


> An oldie but a goodie...
> 
> Female Armor Sucks


I always loved that! Really worth watching.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jena H said:


> I'll give you the "not supine" part, but I've seen plenty of romance novels with men (many shirtless) whose faces are either hidden or not shown at all. However, rlyon's comment was directed at the YA market, and it's true, there are very few covers featuring boys.


I said few not none on the headless men. It does happen but with much less frequency than women and men in the submissive pose-- Never. I don't love the headless people thing (male or female although I also realize there are reasons for doing it as Jill pointed out) but the supine, submissive, helpless poses make me puke.

And Jill, you don't lie down with a sword. Not if you are going to use it as something as than a (stupid) phallic symbol.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> And Jill, you don't lie down with a sword. Not if you are going to use it as something as than a (stupid) phallic symbol.


You might if you're too wounded to stand up for the moment! Or dead, but that's morbid...


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> I said few not none on the headless men. It does happen but with much less frequency than women and men in the submissive pose-- Never. I don't love the headless people thing (male or female although I also realize there are reasons for doing it as Jill pointed out) but the supine, submissive, helpless poses make me puke.
> 
> And Jill, you don't lie down with a sword. Not if you are going to use it as something as than a (stupid) phallic symbol.


What's wrong with phallic symbols? I love my 1972 Ferrari Dino 246 GT.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

glutton said:


> You might if you're too wounded to stand up for the moment! Or dead, but that's morbid...


True. And in that case showing a female lying down is pretty well justified.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

DarkScribe said:


> What's wrong with phallic symbols? I love my 1972 Ferrari Dino 246 GT.


I tend not to be terrifically impressed by phallic symbols but I'd at least prefer something less cringe inducing than a woman lying down caressing a sword. (And I have seen that on a few covers)


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> I tend not to be terrifically impressed by phallic symbols but I'd at least prefer something less cringe inducing than a woman lying down caressing a sword. (And I have seen that on a few covers)


Oh well, I guess that if I paid more attention to books with half naked women (not that I have anything against feminine nakedness) I might have seen a few myself. As it is I tend to ignore any books with female "warriors", men without shirts, or those with zombies or dragons on them. I stopped reading comic books when I was about eight.

Maybe she is thinking about shaving her legs or those other areas that women seem to think should not have hair. Possibly she isn't caressing the sword, she is checking to see whether it needs sharpening. You, know, so that she doesn't get razor rash. Maybe they used swords in the pre-"Lady-Shaver" days. Just a thought.


----------



## Jeroen Steenbeeke (Feb 3, 2012)

I genuinely wonder what the blogger would make of my covers.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> True. And in that case showing a female lying down is pretty well justified.


I actually think something like this would make an interesting cover scene if it was from a different angle, and not a copyrighted video game screenshot...








Her arm's still holding the sword up like she has some fighting spirit left, but the rest of her looks pretty flattened... can she get up (or otherwise fight back)?

Or even something like this








The monster's got her hurt bad... oh, the suspense! Especially with some blood added...


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

DarkScribe said:


> Oh well, I guess that if I paid more attention to books with half naked women (not that I have anything against feminine nakedness) I might have seen a few myself. As it is I tend to ignore any books with female "warriors", men without shirts, or those with zombies or dragons on them. I stopped reading comic books when I was about eight.
> 
> Maybe she is thinking about shaving her legs or those other areas that women seem to think should not have hair. Possibly she isn't caressing the sword, she is checking to see whether it needs sharpening. You, know, so that she doesn't get razor rash. Maybe they used swords in the pre-"Lady-Shaver" days. Just a thought.


Well, I am sure you are terribly superior to not have read authors like Elizabeth Moon since any book with a female fighter as a protagonist must be a comic book.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

No zombies, lady warriors, men without shirts, or dragons? That nixes pretty much most romance, horror, and fantasy.  How sad for you.  

I'm pretty sure the blogger of the original post wouldn't like some of my covers either. Oh well.


----------



## Rayne Book Covers (Sep 11, 2011)

Jeroen Steenbeeke said:


> I genuinely wonder what the blogger would make of my covers.


I think your covers are awesome and I don't see why the blogger won't agree with me.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> I'm pretty sure the blogger of the original post wouldn't like some of my covers either. Oh well.












_George Berger's latest cover hops on the idealized-feminine-body-part bandwagon, using an unsubtly sexist title and yet another interchangeable perfect-looking size-zero model to reinforce society's ever-present messages about appearance and identity and objectification. The model - demure and quiet, with closed body language hinting at low self-esteem and stereotypically feminine submissive lack of assertiveness - merely stands there, not interacting with her environment - or the viewer - in any way. Her coy, hesitant smile only reinforces her status as a weak and helpless object. Wearing a skimpy tank top to accentuate the vulnerable sensuality of her prominent collarbone, her sole piece of adornment, a large earring, serves little purpose other than to draw attention to the nape of her neck, long one of the most sexualized human body parts. To add insult to injury, some retouching has clearly been done to make her an even more idealized object, extending her eyelashes and reducing slightly her nose. The only redeeming quality I can find is that she at least doesn't have long flowing hair..._


----------



## Zoe Cannon (Sep 2, 2012)

George Berger said:


> _George Berger's latest cover hops on the idealized-feminine-body-part bandwagon, using an unsubtly sexist title and yet another interchangeable perfect-looking size-zero model to reinforce society's ever-present messages about appearance and identity and objectification. The model - demure and quiet, with closed body language hinting at low self-esteem and stereotypically feminine submissive lack of assertiveness - merely stands there, not interacting with her environment - or the viewer - in any way. Her coy, hesitant smile only reinforces her status as a weak and helpless object. Wearing a skimpy tank top to accentuate the vulnerable sensuality of her prominent collarbone, her sole piece of adornment, a large earring, serves little purpose other than to draw attention to the nape of her neck, long one of the most sexualized human body parts. To add insult to injury, some retouching has clearly been done to make her an even more idealized object, extending her eyelashes and reducing slightly her nose. The only redeeming quality I can find is that she at least doesn't have long flowing hair..._


It was the "reducing her nose" part that made me laugh out loud. Thanks.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Doomed Muse said:


> No zombies, lady warriors, men without shirts, or dragons? That nixes pretty much most romance, horror, and fantasy. How sad for you.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the blogger of the original post wouldn't like some of my covers either. Oh well.


Yep, I am sad. I cannot subdue my intellect sufficiently to suspend disbelief of some of the more outlandish plot bases. It breaks my heart that I have never been able to enjoy a Superman, Batman, Green whatchamacallit etc. 

With regard to female warriors, I not only can't suspend disbelief, I have trouble suspending laughter. I do like strong female _realistic _leads. I prefer them. (Even if they do have Dragon tattoos.) Those who use their intellect (and weapons when needed) rather than resort to ludicrous antics like throwing 250lb experienced male fighters around as though they were nothing more threatening or difficult to throw than throw Paris Hilton's handbag. (I suppose the doggy poo might add to the weight.)

Perhaps it is because I started in martial arts at fourteen, and continued until my mid thirties. The reason that all forms of martial arts are in weight categories is because fighting above those categories cannot be successful. A featherweight (which is well above the weight of most women depicted) cannot successfully fight a heavyweight. Can you image a fourteen year old boy giving Mike Tyson a thrashing? Most fourteen year old boys are stronger and larger than the sort of women depicted in these stories. No martial skill can compensate for sheer size, not if the opponent is fit and muscled. The concept of a 115lb woman throwing a 250lb man across a room is ludicrous. I couldn't stop laughing when I was dragged to see "Charlie's Angels".

Swords. Have you ever handled a two handed battle sword? A real one from the Middle Ages? I have. They are not something you can effectively fight with unless you have a lot of muscle *and *a lot of body weight to support it. Yet every female warrior is waving a two handed sword (ofen one that is nearly as tall as she is) around as though it was made of plastic.

Moving on to Dragons and Unicorns etc. It is probably to do with the fact that I am an atheist. I know that the Bible insists that Dragons and Unicorns exist, but as I don't believe in a God, I can't believe in his imaginary creations. The Bible insisted that witches existed, yet none of those unfortunate women managed to cast a spell on their captors, or fly away on a broomstick (that should have given the misogynist little priests a clue) so I guess that they fall into the same category as Dragons etc.

When it comes to the occult, to paranormal themes, I can suspend disbelief sufficiently to enjoy some of them. The rest is simply not something that I can or that I want to add to my preferred genres. For those who can enjoy these things, who are not troubled by fits of uncontrollable laughter when reading, good luck. My wife and daughters love many of them. Anne McCaffrey is a favourite of my second oldest daughter. My wife like David Eddings. My favourite genre is psychological thriller.

It is the beautiful thing about books - there is something for everyone. One man's comic is another man's classic.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

DarkScribe said:


> Yep, I am sad. I cannot subdue my intellect sufficiently to suspend disbelief of some of the more outlandish plot bases. It breaks my heart that I have never been able to enjoy a Superman, Batman, Green whatchamacallit etc.
> 
> With regard to female warriors, I not only can't suspend disbelief, I have trouble suspending laughter. I do like strong female _realistic _leads. I prefer them. (Even if they do have Dragon tattoos.) Those who use their intellect (and weapons when needed) rather than resort to ludicrous antics like throwing 250lb experienced male fighters around as though they were nothing more threatening or difficult to throw than throw Paris Hilton's handbag. (I suppose the doggy poo might add to the weight.)
> 
> ...


Thank you for assuring us that anyone who doesn't share your taste has no intellect. We do appreciate it.

By the way, would you please post those biblical verses about unicorns. I'd be most interested in reading them since the word unicorn did not exist in any language in which the bible was written.

ETA: By the way, very little fighting in the middle ages was done with a "two handed battle sword" (although I am not sure what a non-battle sword is). And of course having never read any of the books you so despise makes you an expert about what "every one of them" does.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2012)

DarkScribe said:


> With regard to female warriors, I not only can't suspend disbelief, I have trouble suspending laughter. I do like strong female _realistic _leads. I prefer them. (Even if they do have Dragon tattoos.) Those who use their intellect (and weapons when needed) rather than resort to ludicrous antics like throwing 250lb experienced male fighters around as though they were nothing more threatening or difficult to throw than throw Paris Hilton's handbag. (I suppose the doggy poo might add to the weight.)
> 
> Perhaps it is because I started in martial arts at fourteen, and continued until my mid thirties. The reason that all forms of martial arts are in weight categories is because fighting above those categories cannot be successful. A featherweight (which is well above the weight of most women depicted) cannot successfully fight a heavyweight. Can you image a fourteen year old boy giving Mike Tyson a thrashing? Most fourteen year old boys are stronger and larger than the sort of women depicted in these stories. No martial skill can compensate for sheer size, not if the opponent is fit and muscled. The concept of a 115lb woman throwing a 250lb man across a room is ludicrous. I couldn't stop laughing when I was dragged to see "Charlie's Angels".
> 
> Swords. Have you ever handled a two handed battle sword? A real one from the Middle Ages? I have. They are not something you can effectively fight with unless you have a lot of muscle *and *a lot of body weight to support it. Yet every female warrior is waving a two handed sword (ofen one that is nearly as tall as she is) around as though it was made of plastic.


I have to ask... what if the woman is a 6' 240 lb war machine, a 6'2 190 lb war machine, or a 6'2 280 lb war machine? I have some of those types in my stories...

Not that I'm claiming my stuff to be realistic, I also have 5'4 140 lb war machines who can rip bears' jaws apart, cleave vertically through plate armored men and such. Since I specialize in writing girl Conans, Beowulfs and Achilleses.

Heck in my current WIP I have a normal sized goth girl in a modern day setting who starts a massive fistfight with the Mike Tyson-like (since you mention it) MC in a bar and comes out on top... because in her own words, _she's a gothic warrior._ 

...I think my books actually are textualized comic books.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I wouldn't call MMA or Boxing or any of those other sports "fighting", personally.  If you really want to, I guess, you could, but you should go watch the first couple UFC rounds, the ones where there were less rules and Gracie at like 160lbs ended up beating everyone, including 250lb+ fighters. 

In a real fight, I'll bet on the person with speed, training, and a better weapon.  I could kill a 6'4, 250lb guy pretty easily as long as I was smart about it and not trying to fight "fair" or with silly "rules".    And swords really aren't that heavy. Even big ones.  Sure, you'd get nice muscle swinging one around as your job, but it isn't anything a woman couldn't handle with training.

Clearly fantasy isn't your cup of tea 

Sorry. Getting off-topic here, I know.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Thank you for assuring us that anyone who doesn't share your taste has no intellect. We do appreciate it.
> 
> By the way, would you please post those biblical verses about unicorns. I'd be most interested in reading them since the word unicorn did not exist in any language in which the bible was written.
> 
> ETA: By the way, very little fighting in the middle ages was done with a "two handed battle sword" (although I am not sure what a non-battle sword is). And of course having never read any of the books you so despise makes you an expert about what "every one of them" does.


As I have a very intelligent wife and five smart daughters who don't all share my taste, I would hardly be likely to regard anyone who doesn't share my taste as lacking in intellect. My wife, myself, and two of my daughters are MENSA members. Hardly lacking intellectually. I did not say that, nor did I suggest it. You managed to arrive there on your own.

Just about every castle in England, Scotland and Germany that I have visited displayed armour and two handed swords. Not sabres, "gentlemen's dueling swords", epees, foils etc., but large, two handed battle swords and battle axes. Mounted soldiers didn't use them, foot soldiers did. Every artistic depiction of major battles that I have seen in those castles also shows such swords in use.

As for not reading books that I don't enjoy (again, despise is your word. I despise very little in life) I have read many. I have no choice when editing.

Dragons. Biblical:
Neh_2:13 And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire. 
Psa_91:13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet. 
Isa_27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. 
Isa_51:9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon? 
Jer_51:34 Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon hath devoured me, he hath crushed me, he hath made me an empty vessel, he hath swallowed me up like a dragon, he hath filled his belly with my delicates, he hath cast me out. 
Eze_29:3 Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself. 
Rev_12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 
Rev_12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 
Rev_12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 
Rev_12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 
Rev_12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. 
Rev_12:16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 
Rev_12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. 
Rev_13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. 
Rev_13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? 
Rev_13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 
Rev_16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 
Rev_20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Unicorns: 
Num_23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn. 
Num_24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows. 
Job_39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 
Job_39:10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? 
Psa_29:6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn. 
Psa_92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Addendum:

Both Dragon and Unicorn existed in Ancient Hebrew and Modern Greek - the two languages of the Bible.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

glutton said:


> I have to ask... what if the woman is a 6' 240 lb war machine, a 6'2 190 lb war machine, or a 6'2 280 lb war machine? I have some of those types in my stories...
> 
> Not that I'm claiming my stuff to be realistic, I also have 5'4 140 lb war machines who can rip bears' jaws apart, cleave vertically through plate armored men and such. Since I specialize in writing girl Conans, Beowulfs and Achilleses.
> 
> ...


In your books you can have them do as you wish. I simply cannot suspend disbelief sufficiently to enjoy them. I have a strong imagination, but it is very literal, I still have to have things that are feasible, even if imagined.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2012)

DarkScribe said:


> In your books you can have them do as you wish. I simply cannot suspend disbelief sufficiently to enjoy them. I have a strong imagination, but it is very literal, I still have to have things that are feasible, even if imagined.


Well I wasn't saying you have to enjoy my books, the last few paragraphs were (even more of) a tangent... but the main idea I started that post with was, do you think you'd find a gigantic female warrior more believable than the typical lithe beauties?


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

glutton said:


> Well I wasn't saying you have to enjoy my books, the last few paragraphs were (even more of) a tangent... but the main idea I started that post with was, do you think you'd find a gigantic female warrior more believable than the typical lithe beauties?


I hopefully wouldn't find a gigantic female warrior (and hopefully she would not find me.)

Yes, an Amazon in the true sense, not a Lucy Lawless sense, would possibly be believable.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

DarkScribe said:


> In your books you can have them do as you wish. I simply cannot suspend disbelief sufficiently to enjoy them. I have a strong imagination, but it is very literal, I still have to have things that are feasible, even if imagined.


So strong women are not feasible. I see. They are not even imaginable. That is what I was waiting to hear. *slow nod*


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

DarkScribe said:


> As I have a very intelligent wife and five smart daughters who don't all share my taste, I would hardly be likely to regard anyone who doesn't share my taste as lacking in intellect. My wife, myself, and two of my daughters are MENSA members. Hardly lacking intellectually. I did not say that, nor did I suggest it. You managed to arrive there on your own.


Oh, really? Let me quote you: "Yep, I am sad. I cannot subdue my intellect sufficiently to suspend disbelief..."



> Just about every castle in England, Scotland and Germany that I have visited displayed armour and two handed swords. Not sabres, "gentlemen's dueling swords", epees, foils etc., but large, two handed battle swords and battle axes. Mounted soldiers didn't use them, foot soldiers did. Every artistic depiction of major battles that I have seen in those castles also shows such swords in use.


I have no idea what pictures you have been looking at that "informed" you that "mounted soldiers" (an anachronism) did not use swords. They most certainly did. As far as swords, I suggest better research. Looking at a few pictures doesn't cut it. Most used hand and a half swords and a shield, largely because they weren't stupid. They also used lances and war axes as main weapons. In fact, "foot soldiers" more often than not used pole weapons such as pikes, glaives, poleaxes, and halberds.

By the way, none of the above are beyond the strength of a strong and fit woman and they have in fact at times been used by women. A woman who could spend the day toiling in the fields as medieval women often did would certainly not find it beyond her strength. In a more modern context, few women find it beyond their strength to pull a trigger.



> As for not reading books that I don't enjoy (again, despise is your word. I despise very little in life) I have read many. I have no choice when editing.
> 
> Dragons. Biblical:
> Neh_2:13 And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.
> ...


No they Bible did not mention the unicorn. Unicorn is an English word. There was something that was translated in the King James Bible as "unicorn". In fact the Hebrew (mentioned 5 times in the Old Testament) is generally translated as the word re'em. It was described as an animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horn or horns. It is impossible to be certain but the description closely matches the aurochs. (ETA: That translators in 17th century England translated the word as "unicorn" isn't terrifically significant and certainly unrelated to modern fantasy.)

ETA: The translation of dragon is varied (many obviously metaphorical) and too complex to get into here.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> No they Bible did not mention the unicorn. There was something that was translated in the King James Bible as "unicorn". In fact the Hebrew (mentioned 5 times in the Old Testiment is generally translated to English by more accurate translators as the re'em. It was described as an animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horn or horns. It is impossible to be certain but the description closely matches the aurochs.
> 
> As far as swords, I suggest better research. Looking at a few pictures doesn't cut it. Most used hand and a half swords and a shield, largely because they weren't stupid.


No, I have looked at the real armour used in real battles in real history. I have seen paintings dating back centuries that depict those weapons and that armour in use. That is more than sufficient as far as research goes. The only troops that I am aware of who used short swords were the Romans. I have looked at some of their original equipment too. I still have a sword that belonged to one of Cromwell's soldiers. It isn't a two handed sword, it was a cavalryman's weapon, but it is in pretty good shape.

Amazing. A little while ago you were asking for specific Biblical references to these mythical animals - now you are expert on those references?

I don't - as I stated earlier - believe in any form of religion. I am an atheist, but if you really want to get into it, you do some research, maybe starting with the work of some recognised Biblical scholars like Professors R. Tasker, D. Wiseman, J. Packer, and F.F Bruce. They are top of their fields (were, they are all dead now) at Oxford and Cambridge and have discussed this at length. Wiseman is not a Biblical Scholar really, he is/was a language scholar specialising in Biblical languages.

I don't believe in Dragons other than those in my back yard and they are just very big lizards. (My cat still thinks that he could beat them in a fight, even though they are four times his size.)

Hey, would you like to argue with my cat? He's got real attitude. He is a Bombay Black - a little panther. He will tell you that there are dragons. If you could convince him that they are just big lizards I would be very grateful.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> So strong women are not feasible. I see. They are not even imaginable. That is what I was waiting to hear. *slow nod*


Slightly built woman who are stronger than heavily built men are not believable. Strong woman are delightful - I married one.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

DarkScribe said:


> No, I have looked at the real armour used in real battles in real history. I have seen paintings dating back centuries that depict those weapons and that armour in use. That is more than sufficient as far as research goes. The only troops that I am aware of who used short swords were the Romans. I have looked at some of their original equipment too. I still have a sword that belonged to one of Cromwell's soldiers. It isn't a two handed sword, it was a cavalryman's weapon, but it is in pretty good shape.
> 
> Amazing. A little while ago you were asking for specific Biblical references to these mythical animals - now you are expert on those references?
> 
> ...


No, looking at some paintings is not "research". You have looked at "real armor". How nice, but that isn't research either and darn little of the real stuff is left since the real armor took a huge amount of abuse. Your response shows that you don't even know what a hand-and-a-half sword is since it wasn't a short sword.

As for the mythical animals, if you look at my question, it strongly hinted at some knowledge of the subject. Did it not occur to you that when I said there was no such word as unicorn in the Biblical language, I knew what I was talking about?

Anyway, I am doing actual research (not confined to looking at a few paintings) for a book that I am writing and this is pure procrastination so I leave you so you can entertain your cat.



DarkScribe said:


> Slightly built woman who are stronger than heavily built men are not believable. Strong woman are delightful - I married one.


And yet you just said a woman strong enough to use a weapon was unimaginable. *shrug*


----------



## Matt Ryan (Nov 16, 2012)

DarkScribe said:


> My wife, myself, and two of my daughters are MENSA members. Hardly lacking intellectually.


The MENSA card was pulled!

Bible quotes

Armor arguments

Cat fighting Dragons

Dudes posing on couches

I just joined and membership is already paying off.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Chiming in with my own personal experience...

One of the highly-belted members of the ANU Jujitsu club has dwarfism, so is certainly a lot shorter and physically less strong than most women. He's also bloody brilliant at what he does; he flings people around, trips, throws, locks, pins, everything. The guy's a wonder to see work, and woe betide anyone in the street who mocks him for being little.

One of the best non-instructor practitioners at the ANU Kendo club, although they may be an instructor now, was this little, short, skinny looking asian woman who had a disarming smile and a quiet, humble demeanour. This, I think, gave her opponents a sense of overconfidence because she was also one of the best fighters in the whole club. If you gave her half an inch, she would strike you before you had any idea what the hell had happened. This is all done using traditional armour and weapons, the same stuff the guys used.

Depends on your fighting style. For kendo, the strength of the blow matters a lot less than the speed of the blow, since they're dealing with extremely sharp blades against armour that was usually not made of metal. A fast, accurate strike would kill, irrespective of the gender of the wielder.

This article is very illuminating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_warrior

Particularly when it says things like: About 20% of Scythian-Sarmatian "warrior graves" on the lower Don and lower Volga contained females dressed for battle in the same manner as men.

Also, in _The Sands of Karathi_, there's a section Liao talks about Phung Thi Chinh. She was a Vietnamese noblewoman who fought under the banner of the Trung sisters, generals who lead an army to fight the Chinese. She was pregnant at the time but didn't let that stop her; she went into labour in the middle of a pitched battle, gave birth on the battlefield, strapped the newborn to her back and despite the blood loss, shock to her body and all that, *successfully fought her way to safety*.

I'm fairly sure she would disagree about women wielding swords.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Well, I am sure you are terribly superior to not have read authors like Elizabeth Moon since any book with a female fighter as a protagonist must be a comic book.


*laugh* Or, you know, things written by me


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> *laugh* Or, you know, things written by me


That too. 



David Adams said:


> Chiming in with my own personal experience...
> 
> One of the highly-belted members of the ANU Jujitsu club has dwarfism, so is certainly a lot shorter and physically less strong than most women. He's also bloody brilliant at what he does; he flings people around, trips, throws, locks, pins, everything. The guy's a wonder to see work, and woe betide anyone in the street who mocks him for being little.
> 
> ...


All excellent points. People who are expert fighters are exceptions in most societies, whether male or female. Being an expert fighter is something that takes dedication and a lot of time, something women have not often been able to devote to it, and many don't want to. But that doesn't mean that some haven't or that some can't.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

Matt Ryan said:


> The MENSA card was pulled!
> 
> Bible quotes
> 
> ...


On the other end of the spectrum, the same amount of passion is being spent in another thread on...

The Em Dash. Should It Have Spaces Before And After.

I'm really impressed that the conversation is still going, I'd have thought there was a limit to how much one can say on the topic.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Masha du Toit said:


> On the other end of the spectrum, the same amount of passion is being spent in another thread on...
> 
> The Em Dash. Should It Have Spaces Before And After.
> 
> I'm really impressed that the conversation is still going, I'd have thought there was a limit to how much one can say on the topic.


Some years ago on a certain writers' forum which shall remain nameless, I took part in a very heated (as in virtual blood did flow) discussion regarding the best weight paper to use in making story submissions.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Some years ago on a certain writers' forum which shall remain nameless, I took part in a very heated (as in virtual blood did flow) discussion regarding the best weight paper to use in making story submissions.


Back in the day, at uni we used to joke that assignments would be graded based on their weight, by means of tossing them all in the air. First to hit the ground got the HD, then the Ds, then Cs, etc.

As a joke, we investigated including several lead sheets in an assignment for the lolsies, but it turns out when you're a poor university student that much lead is kind of expensive.

If I ever get drunk enough to think anything I ever write will be good enough to submit to a publisher, though, I'm totally slipping in a few lead sheets with the story, then adding a little note explaining that the heaviest stories usually get published. Then call an ambulance because I'm about to die of alcohol poisoning.

At least it'll stand out...


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2012)

I don't know, I love my female warriors but I think DarkScribe kind of has a point at least regarding the slender women in a realistic setting... sure you could buy one beating a man in an individual fight with weapons using skill, but a small woman keeping up with fit men on an extended campaign, carrying the same type of armor and gear might be a little harder depending on the setting (this would matter less in a hot climate where all warriors wear very little, as opposed to a traditional medieval Europe-style world). I  mean, there's a reason the military has lower physical standards for female soldiers, and women also tend to require more hygienic care than men... at least, the skinny women should develop some muscles from doing this stuff and become less skinny and model-y. That and they'd probably have to work harder to keep up with the men unless they're allowed to carry less.

I write wildly unrealistic fantasy so this isn't as much of a concern for me, but the smallest of my seriously badass female warriors in the novels is 5'2 130+ pounds which is still pretty stocky for that height, I'm curious as to what kind of builds female warriors in you guys' fiction usually have?


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Liao's short and stocky, too, and although she's technically modestly proficient with a pistol or rifle most of her fighting is done by having her ship nuke the crap out of whatever the problem is. It's worked so far.


Spoiler



Until the most recent book...


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Oh good grief.  Let's all get off our high horses....  swords or no swords.  Different strokes, people.  Very intelligent people (yes, even members of genius groups) read comic books, or fantasy books, or "trashy" beach books.  Similarly, some people who never attended college don't like to read anything with angels, or vampires, or wizards.  Big whoop.

BTW, I'm currently reading The Hobbit (in advance of the movie coming out) and thoroughly enjoying the dwarves, wizards, elves, and huge flying eagles.  Such a classic, and written by such a learned scholar.  After that I may read a novelization of one of my fave sci-fi shows.

Vive la différence!!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

glutton said:


> I don't know, I love my female warriors but I think DarkScribe kind of has a point at least regarding the slender women in a realistic setting... sure you could buy one beating a man in an individual fight with weapons using skill, but a small woman keeping up with fit men on an extended campaign, carrying the same type of armor and gear might be a little harder depending on the setting (this would matter less in a hot climate where all warriors wear very little, as opposed to a traditional medieval Europe-style world). I mean, there's a reason the military has lower physical standards for female soldiers, and women also tend to require more hygienic care than men... at least, the skinny women should develop some muscles from doing this stuff and become less skinny and model-y. That and they'd probably have to work harder to keep up with the men unless they're allowed to carry less.
> 
> I write wildly unrealistic fantasy so this isn't as much of a concern for me, but the smallest of my seriously bad*ss female warriors in the novels is 5'2 130+ pounds which is still pretty stocky for that height, I'm curious as to what kind of builds female warriors in you guys' fiction usually have?


They are neither short nor particularly slender and they WORK at being warriors, spending their lives training. And armies don't depend on one person's strength. I recommended Elizabeth Moon earlier for realistic women warriors. The hygiene thing is really a non-issue. Women routinely traveled with medieval armies, you know. Shooting or nuking the crap out of the enemy works too.

Are there unrealistic ones out there? Of course. I don't like those and don't read them but say Moon's_ The Deed of Paksenarrion_ or my own Blood Duty are about warriors who you could believe meeting on a battlefield.

ETA: I am really looking forward to _The Hobbit_ movie. I have to re-read the novel which I haven't read in a long time.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

David Adams said:


> Back in the day, at uni we used to joke that assignments would be graded based on their weight, by means of tossing them all in the air. First to hit the ground got the HD, then the Ds, then Cs, etc.
> 
> As a joke, we investigated including several lead sheets in an assignment for the lolsies, but it turns out when you're a poor university student that much lead is kind of expensive.


I once handed in an assignment in a creative-writing class that had been carved into a clay tablet. The teacher was not amused.


----------



## amiblackwelder (Mar 19, 2010)

The Dark Rayne said:


> I came across this article which some of you might have already read, and found it to be quite thought provoking.
> 
> http://www.stackedbooks.org/2012/04/cover-trends-female-body.html
> 
> Although the blogger ends up mentioning pretty much all new age book covers, I do agree with her on some points, esp the headless ones. Personally, this puts me in a difficult place as I'm sure some of my work could be on that list too. I really hope stock photographers consider this and add more variety to their work so the trend can change to a more positive one.


very good post.


----------



## amiblackwelder (Mar 19, 2010)

swolf said:


> I'd like to chime in on the 'submissive woman' concept.
> 
> Submissive women are put on covers because they sell books, and women are buying most of the books. It's not a coincidence that 50 Shades of Grey is so popular. As a guy who was raised in the feminist-conscious 60s and 70s, it was a struggle for me to comprehend this seeming incongruous trait in the opposite sex. As a typical 'nice guy', I would watch beautiful girl after girl fall for the 'bad boy' - who would treat them like sh*t but they would always return for more.
> 
> ...


I only want to say that the covers don't depict "real women"...they depict archetypes. Same as TV and most movies. We think they are real women...but when you break it down it is an archetype feeding usually into a man's desire or for a women's belief that that is what a man wants.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> They are neither short nor particularly slender and they WORK at being warriors, spending their lives training. And armies don't depend on one person's strength. I recommended Elizabeth Moon earlier for realistic women warriors. The hygiene thing is really a non-issue. Women routinely traveled with medieval armies, you know. Shooting or nuking the crap out of the enemy works too.
> 
> Are there unrealistic ones out there? Of course. I don't like those and don't read them but say Moon's_ The Deed of Paksenarrion_ or my own Blood Duty are about warriors who you could believe meeting on a battlefield.
> 
> ETA: I am really looking forward to _The Hobbit_ movie. I have to re-read the novel which I haven't read in a long time.


On a related topic I don't know if I'm 'right' or not but I personally tend to have an easier time believing works with one or a few good female warriors than ones with fully integrated male/female armies for some reason. I guess the issue brought up about the military having lower physical standards and restricted roles for female soldiers even in this age of modern weaponry comes into play here as well... if it's only one or a couple of elite female warriors, it's easier for me to accept that they might be just 'peak' females, as far above the average woman as the typical male epic hero is above the average man and physically on par with or even above most males... when there are as many female as male soldiers in a pre-modern setting, it seems more questionable (except in special situations like when the culture is in danger of extinction at the hands of enemies and needs every able-bodied fighter they can field).


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

glutton said:


> On a related topic I don't know if I'm 'right' or not but I personally tend to have an easier time believing works with one or a few good female warriors than ones with fully integrated male/female armies for some reason. I guess the issue brought up about the military having lower physical standards and restricted roles for female soldiers even in this age of modern weaponry comes into play here as well... if it's only one or a couple of elite female warriors, it's easier for me to accept that they might be just 'peak' females, as far above the average woman as the typical male epic hero is above the average man and physically on par with or even above most males... when there are as many female as male soldiers in a pre-modern setting, it seems more questionable (except in special situations like when the culture is in danger of extinction at the hands of enemies and needs every able-bodied fighter they can field).


While I find integrated women much easier to believe. There aren't super-people to be some elite, either male or female. Armies work as teams and do not depend on someone being the strongest imaginable. Most men who were in medieval armies were not super-strong. An army depends on working together. In a shield wall or schiltrom, it depends on everyone doing their job as a unit, not on anyone being super-strength.

Then again, my "epic" male heroes aren't supermen either. They are men willing to make a sacrifice for what they consider worth fighting for -- just like the women. 

ETA: Which isn't to say your taste is "wrong". I prefer realistic armies in my stories and can't stand Conan, et al. Not everyone does which is fine, of course.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

What? Only the Romans used short swords? *Snort. Chortle.*  Next you are going to tell me that no one took baths or could read or write in the "dark ages", right? I mean, I think I read a children's book years ago that said something like that, and it had pictures, so it must be enough research.  

JR- I don't know, there are modern examples (like Israel) where integrated armies seem to work just fine, necessitated by the idea that every able person serves a minimum time in the army once they come of age.  So a culture in a fantasy novel with something like this and integrated army would work just fine for me.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> What? Only the Romans used short swords? *Snort. Chortle.* Next you are going to tell me that no one took baths or could read or write in the "dark ages", right? I mean, I think I read a children's book years ago that said something like that, and it had pictures, so it must be enough research.
> 
> JR- I don't know, there are modern examples (like Israel) where integrated armies seem to work just fine, necessitated by the idea that every able person serves a minimum time in the army once they come of age. So a culture in a fantasy novel with something like this and integrated army would work just fine for me.


Well, short swords were not typical in the middle ages, but that doesn't mean they weren't used. The idea that everyone used a two-handed sword or that they were better is a myth perpetrated by movies such as _Braveheart_. (ETA: A longsword (often called a bastard sword) or hand-and-a-half sword was probably most typical medieval sword. It was called "long" because of the longer hilt rather than that the blade was usually long and they could be used either with one hand or two. They typically weighed about 2 to 2 1/2 pounds, not a weight that a fit person of average strength couldn't wield but in battle a lot of weapons were used and a sword was by any means the first choice)

I didn't argue otherwise than that integrated army works, (quite the opposite) so I'm not quite sure of your point.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> While I find integrated women much easier to believe. There aren't super-people to be some elite, either male or female. Armies work as teams and do not depend on someone being the strongest imaginable. Most men who were in medieval armies were not super-strong. An army depends on working together. In a shield wall or schiltrom, it depends on everyone doing their job as a unit, not on anyone being super-strength.
> 
> Then again, my "epic" male heroes aren't supermen either. They are men willing to make a sacrifice for what they consider worth fighting for -- just like the women.


Well I'm not saying every guy in the army needs be super strong, but I'd think the lower average strength of women would make it less likely that 'most' women would be viewed as being reliable soldiers esp. in melee compared to men... hence the rarity of integrated armies in RL pre-modern civilizations. So if the rules of biology are the same as ours and there isn't a lack of able-bodied men, it seems to make more sense to stick with mostly male pre-modern armies.

An exception might be made if there were standards that women in the army need be physically compared to an average male, but that would still imply the numbers to be relatively small barring different biology.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

glutton said:


> Well I'm not saying every guy in the army needs be super strong, but I'd think the lower average strength of women would make it less likely that 'most' women would be viewed as being reliable soldiers esp. in melee compared to men... hence the rarity of integrated armies in RL pre-modern civilizations. So if the rules of biology are the same as ours and there isn't a lack of able-bodied men, it seems to make more sense to stick with mostly male pre-modern armies.
> 
> An exception might be made if there were standards that women in the army need be physically compared to an average male, but that would still imply the numbers to be relatively small barring different biology.


Probably "most" women wouldn't want to either. But there are always some women who aren't "most". 

Actually "sticking" with a male army doesn't make a lot of sense. Medieval armies were as large as they could manage not selective. The statistics of the Sythian gravesites that showed 20% women is probably realistic. It is about the percentage that Moon used. I used a lower percentage.

ETA: European medieval armies were also rarely "professional" armies although there were mercenaries who served as such.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Probably "most" women wouldn't want to either. But there are always some women who aren't "most".
> 
> The statistics of the Sythian gravesites that showed 20% women is probably realistic. It is about the percentage that Moon used. I used a lower percentage.


Okay that does make sense... if 1 or 2 out of every 10 soldiers was a woman I wouldn't have a problem seeing as I would just assume they're more strong/fit/tough than the average. On the other hand if every other soldier we see is female, I'd think either something is odd or their world must have different rules of biology than us.

The latter is fine with me if it's made obvious BTW, heck my stories go by that rule (the strength relationship between the average woman and the average man is about the same, but the top female physical potential is, unlike in our world, probably 95-100% of the top men).


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

You seem to forget that men's strength varies, too, as does their size. Further, women who worked domestic service or on farms were plenty strong. I'd argue they'd be in better shape and have more endurance than some fluffy-bloused noble's son who joins the military.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

David Adams said:


> One of the best non-instructor practitioners at the ANU Kendo club, although they may be an instructor now, was this little, short, skinny looking asian woman who had a disarming smile and a quiet, humble demeanour. This, I think, gave her opponents a sense of overconfidence because she was also one of the best fighters in the whole club. If you gave her half an inch, she would strike you before you had any idea what the hell had happened. This is all done using traditional armour and weapons, the same stuff the guys used.


Used to play Kendo in college. There was a Japanese graduate student that like to practice with us every once and a while. She was just under five feet tall, bowed more times than she spoke, and, in the immortal words of Muhammad Ali, beat me so badly that I needed a shoehorn to put my hat on.

And just to put something out there, the average male height for Gurkhas is 5'4'' (used to be 5'2''). They still manage.










B.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Training, attitude, endurance, and pain threshold can never, ever be underestimated


----------



## Rayne Book Covers (Sep 11, 2011)

humblenations said:


> Seconded.
> 
> The fact that she equated not showing faces on covers with just showing bodies that women are just their body, without saying - Look, you don't show a face on a cover so that people can make up their own mind what the lead character looks like - made the whole thing feel totally unobjective (no pun intended) as a point.


Speaking for my own self, if I have to avoid showing a person's face so the readers can imagine characters themselves, I would use some other method than to crop people's heads off. To me, the first thing it reminds me of is beheading. It also seems a bit disrespectful to show human beings as just bodies, whether it be males or females. If at all I have to go with not showing someone's face, I'd use their back, or a part of the body like in Twilight or an object, even a landscape.

When I see a character's face on the cover, I try to imagine that face doing different things, showing different emotions basing on the story. It gives me a more definitive peak in the writer's mind & being places that he has been. Doing that is a lot of fun. If at all I don't agree with the image of character on the cover, i disregard it and imagine a different face and treat the cover as another pretty cover.

For people who think they are being robbed of their imaginations for seeing a face on the cover, a movie based on some book must be an abomination.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

The Dark Rayne said:


> Speaking for my own self, if I have to avoid showing a person's face so the readers can imagine characters themselves, I would use some other method than to crop people's heads off. To me, the first thing it reminds me of is beheading. It also seems a bit disrespectful to show human beings as just bodies, whether it be males or females. If at all I have to go with not showing someone's face, I'd use their back, or a part of the body like in Twilight or an object, even a landscape.
> 
> When I see a character's face on the cover, I try to imagine that face doing different things, showing different emotions basing on the story. It gives me a more definitive peak in the writer's mind & being places that he has been. Doing that is a lot of fun. If at all I don't agree with the image of character on the cover, i disregard it and imagine a different face and treat the cover as another pretty cover.
> 
> For people who think they are being robbed of their imaginations for seeing a face on the cover, a movie based on some book must be an abomination.


I agree that it is dehumanizing whether done to male or female images. I suspect a lot of people who do it just have seen it done and they repeat it. Sometimes they have access to a limited number of images and the one they want to use has a face they don't like. But whatever the reason, it does not impel me to buy a book since I tend to make an unpleasant assumption about the attitudes the book will show.

ETA: I have to say I'm much more bothered by the whole "submissive pose" issue, and this IS an issue with me. Put one on a cover and you can bet I won't buy it, but I'm probably also not the target market.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> Used to play Kendo in college. There was a Japanese graduate student that like to practice with us every once and a while. She was just under five feet tall, bowed more times than she spoke, and, in the immortal words of Muhammad Ali, beat me so badly that I needed a shoehorn to put my hat on.
> 
> And just to put something out there, the average male height for Gurkhas is 5'4'' (used to be 5'2''). They still manage.
> 
> ...


Gurkhas are tough. No doubt about it. Size isn't everything. Sometimes it comes down to determination.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Training, attitude, endurance, and pain threshold can never, ever be underestimated


Absolutely. Weight and size are not always decisive.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

I think the best depiction of a female warrior I've ever seen was Keira Knightly in that King Arthur movie.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Steve Silkin said:


> Absolutely. Weight and size are not always decisive.


anybody who watches MMA knows that among highly trained fighters, 99 times out of 100 the bigger, stronger fighter will win (which is why they now have weight classes). But a highly trained smaller fighter will defeat an untrained larger opponent 99% of the time.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Oh, really? Let me quote you: "Yep, I am sad. I cannot subdue my intellect sufficiently to suspend disbelief..."


If you are going to quote me, then quote me. Do not "edit" my words to distort them.



JRTomlin said:


> I have no idea what pictures you have been looking at that "informed" you that "mounted soldiers" (an anachronism) did not use swords.


None. I did not say that. I did not suggest that. I did not hint at that. Yet another distortion on your part.

Do you read before responding? Ever?

You have been putting so many words in my mouth that I am beginning to wonder whether you are going to offer to chew my food for me.

Please, please read what a person actually says before responding. Stop attributing your own words to others.

While you are at it, stop trying to paint me as a misogynist. I love women - as women - not in a carnal sense. I have a wife and five daughters all of whom I adore. They are strong, smart, genuinely nice people and I consider myself blessed to have them. I have more female friends than male, partly because I have more respect for "most" women that I have for most men. The fact that I find the concept of slightly built female warriors - who have never existed in history - to be capable of throwing large muscular men around to be beyond belief has nothing to do with my attitude to women.



JRTomlin said:


> In a more modern context, few women find it beyond their strength to pull a trigger.


Exactly - as I have already noted, that is believable.



JRTomlin said:


> ETA: The translation of dragon is varied (many obviously metaphorical) and too complex to get into here.


Aw, shucks, my cat likes Dragons, (he probably thinks that they will taste good) he will be disappointed.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> anybody who watches MMA knows that among highly trained fighters, 99 times out of 100 the bigger, stronger fighter will win (which is why they now have weight classes). But a highly trained smaller fighter will defeat an untrained larger opponent 99% of the time.


Armies are rarely about one on one fighting though although it is an interesting point.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> No, looking at some paintings is not "research". You have looked at "real armor". How nice, but that isn't research either and darn little of the real stuff is left since the real armor took a huge amount of abuse. Your response shows that you don't even know what a hand-and-a-half sword is since it wasn't a short sword.


You are absolutely correct. I am not a European sword expert, I do not claim to be. I am only truly familiar with Asian swords, my experience is in Kendo. If you had referred to it as a long sword or a Claymore I would know what you meant. What I claim is that I have handled medieval swords, and by comparison to Asian swords or European sabres they are heavy, extremely heavy. You clearly have NEVER picked up a genuine two handed medieval sword. Maybe you have handled some of the modern replica swords made from cast metal and alloys and consider them to be the same as a heavy sword made from steel and iron. Try picking up an ordinary crowbar and swinging it like a sword. It will give you some idea.



JRTomlin said:


> As for the mythical animals, if you look at my question, it strongly hinted at some knowledge of the subject. Did it not occur to you that when I said there was no such word as unicorn in the Biblical language, I knew what I was talking about?


No. I did not think that you knew what you were talking about as it has been a subject of debate among language and biblical scholars for centuries.

To be clear, I do not for one instant think that unicorns exist, but to deny that there is no such word in Hebrew or Greek (where the original mythology arose) is rather silly. In Hebrew it is "בעל קרן אחד", and in Greek it is "μονόκερος".



JRTomlin said:


> Anyway, I am doing actual research (not confined to looking at a few paintings) for a book that I am writing and this is pure procrastination so I leave you so you can entertain your cat.


The cat thanks you.

You do not consider traveling to ancient battlefields, actually handling the weapons and armour, looking at sketches and paintings associated with them and kept in the same halls as the relics to be research? How about reading accounts of battles, accounts written at the time of the battles - is that research?



JRTomlin said:


> And yet you just said a woman strong enough to use a weapon was unimaginable. *shrug*


No, I did not say that - with or without a shrug.

I said that a slightly built woman - as commonly depicted on many book covers would not be able to use a large, heavy, two handed battle sword. Sure, they could pick one up, but not fight effectively against a man who was more than twice their weight. For some reason they always seem to depict women warriors holding these huge swords, never a weapon more appropriate to their physical size.

Interestingly, in no castles or museums did I see armour for women. Not once. Did such "warriors" really fight int the skimpy "lingerie" style armour depicted on so many covers? They must have as no armour remains. Not even Boudica had such armour. Joan of Arc did, but she was more about politics and propaganda, leading men, not actually fighting men on the battlefield.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Armies are rarely about one on one fighting though although it is an interesting point.


Until relatively recent times one on one fighting was the only kind there was. Archers and catapults existed, but the war was effectively won or lost in hand to hand combat. Not much point carrying a sword if you could not use it.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

The history of the woman warrior is that they have been few though not far between.  Women have fought in pre-modern armies from ancient times, even in Muslim armies, usually to take the place of their fallen husband.  No major power in history has decided that women were generally superior in combat compared with men.  Mostly women have served as inspired leaders, none more so than Joan of Arc.

So, some women can beat some men, and that's pretty much it.  The Great Patriotic War probably produced more genuine women warriors than any other army in the 20th Century--some top aces and snipers, for example.  That was from an army of millions of men and thousands of women fighting against the Nazi war machine on their home soil.  Those who are satisfied by automatic role reversal--women routinely beating men at their historical games--will always be disappointed by real women and real men.  Just as America was disappointed in Pfc. Jessica Lynch, who it was first thought to have fought like Davey Crockett when her humvee was hit in the Gulf War, and it turned out she was saved by the kindness of an Iraqi surgeon.

Personally, as a romantic poet on Planet Earth, I'm tired of the super Amazon.  My task, if you will, is to love a woman not fight her with swords, bows, sniper rifles, you name it.  I liked Kipness in The Hunger Games.  She was almost believable as a warrior.  She was certainly believable as a young woman who suddenly faced terrible choices in the game of life and death.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

DarkScribe said:


> Until relatively recent times one on one fighting was the only kind there was. Archers and catapults existed, but the war was effectively won or lost in hand to hand combat. Not much point carrying a sword if you could not use it.


Absolutely wrong. Most fighting was done in groups such as schiltroms and shield walls.



Hudson Owen said:


> The history of the woman warrior is that they have been few though not far between. Women have fought in pre-modern armies from ancient times, even in Muslim armies, usually to take the place of their fallen husband. No major power in history has decided that women were generally superior in combat compared with men. Mostly women have served as inspired leaders, none more so than Joan of Arc.
> 
> So, some women can beat some men, and that's pretty much it. The Great Patriotic War probably produced more genuine women warriors than any other army in the 20th Century--some top aces and snipers, for example. That was from an army of millions of men and thousands of women fighting against the Nazi war machine on their home soil. Those who are satisfied by automatic role reversal--women routinely beating men at their historical games--will always be disappointed by real women and real men. Just as America was disappointed in Pfc. Jessica Lynch, who it was first thought to have fought like Davey Crockett when her humvee was hit in the Gulf War, and it turned out she was saved by the kindness of an Iraqi surgeon.
> 
> Personally, as a romantic poet on Planet Earth, I'm tired of the super Amazon. My task, if you will, is to love a woman not fight her with swords, bows, sniper rifles, you name it. I liked Kipness in The Hunger Games. She was almost believable as a warrior. She was certainly believable as a young woman who suddenly faced terrible choices in the game of life and death.


Being superior is rarely the point. Being THERE and willing and able to do your duty is what counts. Did Pfc. Jessica Lynch do her duty? That was all she was required to do, not be Davy Crockett who was, incidentally, no super-hero, just a man doing what he thought he had to do the best that he could.

ETA: Knights might fight as individuals in jousting (although melees were normally groups) but in battle they were more effective in line or wedge formations using lances, not swords, rather than one-on-one. Individual fights to the death did happen of course such as Robert the Bruce killing Henry de Bohun before the Battle of Bannockburn but except for affecting morale it had no influence on the battle. That battle like most was fought not in one-on-one fights but in huge formations. Super strength from one person simply didn't matter.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

NathanWrann said:


> anybody who watches MMA knows that among highly trained fighters, 99 times out of 100 the bigger, stronger fighter will win (which is why they now have weight classes). But a highly trained smaller fighter will defeat an untrained larger opponent 99% of the time.


That wasn't why I posted that link. But even if: I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that you could train me all you wanted and I still wouldn't last any longer than Ryan did. Temperament and talent play a role in determining the best fighter. Let's go back to the point I was addressing in agreement with Krista and disagreement with someone else: That a featherweight could never beat a heavyweight. There was no mention of how much talent or how much training in that discussion.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Absolutely wrong. Most fighting was done in groups such as schiltroms and shield walls.


Gee, you really are good at it. Being wrong I mean.

How do you suppose a "Schiltron" worked? Do you think that they just stood there until one side or the other decided to capitulate? Did they have a staring contest? It was still hand to hand combat. No magic spells, no death rays, no firearms; it was men fighting men using hand-held weapons.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

DarkScribe said:


> Gee, you really are good at it. Being wrong I mean.
> 
> How do you suppose a "Schiltron" worked? Do you think that they just stood there until one side or the other decided to capitulate? Did they have a staring contest? It was still hand to hand combat. No magic spells, no death rays, no firearms; it was men fighting men using hand-held weapons.


You have a real problem, don't you?

I'll say this. I do understand the concept of one-on-one combat. It doesn't take place in a schiltrom or a shield wall. Beyond that, I won't respond to your personal attacks or for that matter anything you have to say.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> You have a real problem, don't you?
> 
> I'll say this. I do understand the concept of one-on-one combat. It doesn't take place in a schiltrom or a shield wall. Beyond that, I won't respond to your personal attacks or for that matter anything you have to say.


Personal attack? You announced that I was wrong, with nothing to support it, as a schiltron does NOT remove hand to hand combat from the scenario. When I respond in the same manner pointing out that your current claim is incorrect - and that you have been wrong so far on a number of your claims - it becomes a personal attack? It is NOT a personal attack. I am disputing your claims, many of them, not attacking you personally.

OK, how does a schiltron prevent hand to hand combat? How is a battle won or lost without contact? All a schiltron does is offer a greater from of protection - from hand to hand combat. It gives an advantage - in hand to hand combat. All wars fought using hand held weapons involve hand to hand combat. You are saying that I am wrong - with no explanation. How are troops using hand held weapons able to engage other troops using hand held weapons without engaging in hand to hand combat. Tell me, I am fascinated.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Claymores? In use from about 1400s and up. So later medieval and not really used in pitched battles as much as one might think from the movies.  Also, weight? No more than about five and a half lbs, usually less. Heavy to swing around over and over? Sure. But really not that heavy.  And swords like that would custom built for their wielder, so if you did have a shorter person (which a lot of people were on average shorter than they are on average today), their sword would be smaller. 

But hey, I'm sure you have more knowledge and experience than someone with a Medieval Studies degree who has traveled in Europe extensively and been a medieval re-enactor since she was 12 and has a step-sister who is an archaeologist currently working on early medieval digs in the UK.   


Sorry, JR. I misunderstood what you meant about integrated armies and read your post backward. Ha.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> Claymores? In use from about 1400s and up. So later medieval and not really used in pitched battles as much as one might think from the movies. Also, weight? No more than about five and a half lbs, usually less. Heavy to swing around over and over? Sure. But really not that heavy. And swords like that would custom built for their wielder, so if you did have a shorter person (which a lot of people were on average shorter than they are on average today), their sword would be smaller.
> 
> But hey, I'm sure you have more knowledge and experience than someone with a Medieval Studies degree who has traveled in Europe extensively and been a medieval re-enactor since she was 12 and has a step-sister who is an archaeologist currently working on early medieval digs in the UK.
> 
> Sorry, JR. I misunderstood what you meant about integrated armies and read your post backward. Ha.


No worries. It happens.

Anyway as for this argument, we all know that watching _Braveheart_ and looking at a few pictures is all that's required to become an expert.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Steve Silkin said:


> That wasn't why I posted that link. But even if: I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that you could train me all you wanted and I still wouldn't last any longer than Ryan did. Temperament and talent play a role in determining the best fighter. Let's go back to the point I was addressing in agreement with Krista and disagreement with someone else: That a featherweight could never beat a heavyweight. There was no mention of how much talent or how much training in that discussion.


That is also *not* a gender issue. That's a physics issue. That doesn't mean people can't be quick, smart, and cunning to win the one-on-one fight. Rarely does the battle fight resemble a cage match.

re: the crowbar comment.

Um, I've worked manual labour and I've swung a crowbar repeatedly to tear things down a few times. When I was in shape and doing it a lot, it was tiring, sure, but I could do it without feeling like I was about to die or anything  I also grew up helping to chop firewood (we have a wood furnace for heat). My 90lb teenage self probably could have out-chopped grown men who'd never chopped a day in their lives since their hands, arms, and backs would eventually give way, whereas I was used to doing it.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Ok, one more point before I shut my mouth  

Re: female armour

In terms of mail, well, mail is mail. It doesn't need a built-in bra. It's unisex. For me, the issue is that it's often made for men, so it's always too long in the length and shelves for me. If I ever get one made, as opposed to borrowing mine, I'd have the length shorter and the arms narrower and shorter. Even with padding and a jacket, it's still always way too big for me (and I'm not a small gal). Since I'm borrowing, I can't take a pair of pliers to it to custom length it. If I was taking my dead husband's suit to go off into battle, you get your bones I'd be taking pliers to that sucker to make it shorter. 

But it would probably still look like generic "male" armour.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> No worries. It happens.
> 
> Anyway as for this argument, we all know that watching _Braveheart_ and looking at a few pictures is all that's required to become an expert.


All is explained. Braveheart eh?

I have never seen the movie, not my sort of movie. The last movie I saw was the "Best Exotic Marigold Hotel". Great movie.

Still, Braveheart or not, try actually going to some of the areas where the bigger battles took place. Look at the weapons and armour that was actually used in those battles. Read the reports that were written by those who took part in or witnessed those battles. That is the only type of research that counts.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Ok, one more point before I shut my mouth
> 
> Re: female armour
> 
> ...


Until you had to pee.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)




----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

DarkScribe said:


> Until you had to pee.


...um, I have peed while wearing mail. It isn't that hard. Ya just squat in the bushes.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> That is also *not* a gender issue. That's a physics issue. That doesn't mean people can't be quick, smart, and cunning to win the one-on-one fight. Rarely does the battle fight resemble a cage match.
> 
> re: the crowbar comment.
> 
> Um, I've worked manual labour and I've swung a crowbar repeatedly to tear things down a few times. When I was in shape and doing it a lot, it was tiring, sure, but I could do it without feeling like I was about to die or anything  I also grew up helping to chop firewood (we have a wood furnace for heat). My 90lb teenage self probably could have out-chopped grown men who'd never chopped a day in their lives since their hands, arms, and backs would eventually give way, whereas I was used to doing it.


I use a crowbar regularly - in soft sandstone. I have a permaculture garden and am slowing extending it. Using it as it was meant to be used is not quite like using it as a sword. Try swatting flies with a crowbar - you'll soon get the idea. Those big swords are heavy. If you look at the armour you can see that those soldiers had a very wide chest, broad shoulders and big arms. Not quite like the armour that Knights wore, much bulkier. Those troops were far from puny, though most were short by modern standards.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

DarkScribe said:


> All is explained. Braveheart eh?
> 
> I have never seen the movie, not my sort of movie. The last movie I saw was the "Best Exotic Marigold Hotel". Great movie.
> 
> Still, Braveheart or not, try actually going to some of the areas where the bigger battles took place. Look at the weapons and armour that was actually used in those battles. Read the reports that were written by those who took part in or witnessed those battles. That is the only type of research that counts.


Uh. Did you miss the part where I've done exactly that? Also the whole UNIVERSITY DEGREE IN THIS SH*T part? I may have even written papers on Anglo-Saxon warfare, weaponry, and forensic anthropology on things like battle wounds etc. I've read a lot of primary source material in the original languages (how's your Medieval Welsh? Or your Anglo-Saxon? Or your Medieval French? Or your Latin? Or your Dutch? Old Norse?  )

Anyway, this discussion has wandered far away from covers. Sorry to the original poster. 

(Is that you, Krista? You are adorable! In a scary way  )


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


>


Love it. Feminine splendor. Though that is not a two handed sword. Those swords were two handed because the guys who used them, strong as they were, needed both hands.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> ...um, I have peed while wearing mail. It isn't that hard. Ya just squat in the bushes.


Rust not a problem?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

DarkScribe said:


> Try swatting flies with a crowbar - you'll soon get the idea.


Kinda like, try swatting a small structure that needs to be taken down and has a screw every 2 inches because it was built by someone with OCD, so we're swinging crowbars and mallets because the cutters can't even get through it? Yeah, I've done that. It's made me hate small structures in yards.

I also LARP, whereby I carry a 2-3lb sword and a 15lb shield. I really do have a general idea of what it's like to be on the run for 3 days straight with no sleep, no food, and in full gear. I really, really do have a general, basic idea. It's not battle reenactment nor real battle, but I have a general idea of how my body feels.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

DarkScribe said:


> Rust not a problem?


...seriously?

Pull up the mail tunic, pull down your leather pants. It's not really that hard.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

DarkScribe said:


> Rust not a problem?


Why would rust be a problem? As Krista said.
Maybe this is DarkScribe's mental image?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> (Is that you, Krista? You are adorable! In a scary way  )


That's just me at L'ance aux Meadows, at the Viking site. That's not me prepping for LARP.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> ...seriously?
> 
> Pull up the mail tunic, pull down your leather pants. It's not really that hard.


Aw, I was hoping for chain mail knickers. You know, like all those cover images.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> Uh. Did you miss the part where I've done exactly that? Also the whole UNIVERSITY DEGREE IN THIS SH*T part? I may have even written papers on Anglo-Saxon warfare, weaponry, and forensic anthropology on things like battle wounds etc. I've read a lot of primary source material in the original languages (how's your Medieval Welsh? Or your Anglo-Saxon? Or your Medieval French? Or your Latin? Or your Dutch? Old Norse?  )
> 
> Anyway, this discussion has wandered far away from covers. Sorry to the original poster.
> 
> (Is that you, Krista? You are adorable! In a scary way  )


Although I am sure you are well acquainted with them, for anyone who has a serious interest in the subject (short of acquiring a degree) I always recommend _Vrayes Chroniques_ by Jean le Bel and _Froissart's Chronicles_ both of which are available in rather good translations. You find a lot about what warfare in that period was actually like by reading the works of people who did it.

You're right that the subject has wandered very far afield. 

ETA: There are a lot of others if one really wants to study in depth such as _Scalacronica_ by Sir Thomas Gray as well as chronicles kept by monks such as _The Chronicles of Lanercost_, but I think those two I mentioned are particularly useful for learning what High Medieval warfare was like.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Kinda like, try swatting a small structure that needs to be taken down and has a screw every 2 inches because it was built by someone with OCD, so we're swinging crowbars and mallets because the cutters can't even get through it? Yeah, I've done that. It's made me hate small structures in yards.
> 
> I also LARP, whereby I carry a 2-3lb sword and a 15lb shield. I really do have a general idea of what it's like to be on the run for 3 days straight with no sleep, no food, and in full gear. I really, really do have a general, basic idea. It's not battle reenactment nor real battle, but I have a general idea of how my body feels.


I wasn't able to weigh the two handed swords that I handled, but the brochures attached to the displays claimed weights between eight and fourteen pounds for most of the long two handed swords and much more for the broad swords. (That is the two handed armour slashing sword, not the later closed hilt style)


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

It's really hard to carry a 2 handed weapon when a gal is also carrying a shield...


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

DarkScribe said:


> I wasn't able to weigh the two handed swords that I handled, but the brochures attached to the displays claimed weights between eight and fourteen pounds for most of the long two handed swords and much more for the broad swords. (That is the two handed armour slashing sword, not the later closed hilt style)


Ahahahahaha. Sorry. Have to catch my breath. Those brochures? Lied. Or were written by people who had no idea what they were talking about, sorry. 

Here, I found this with about a second of searching: http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm They have actual sources sited, too. Swords were not that heavy. Seriously. Give up the precious myth you have formed and move on. It'll be easier than continuing to be wrong on the internet.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> It's really hard to carry a 2 handed weapon when a gal is also carrying a shield...


WHAT? You don't like being stuck by sharp, pointy objects and want to carry a shield? Like they actually did? But that much too--too--too _sensible_.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> Ahahahahaha. Sorry. Have to catch my breath. Those brochures? Lied. Or were written by people who had no idea what they were talking about, sorry.
> 
> Here, I found this with about a second of searching: http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm They have actual sources sited, too. Swords were not that heavy. Seriously. Give up the precious myth you have formed and move on. It'll be easier than continuing to be wrong on the internet.


That link is a good source. I've recommended it in the past for people who wanted information without doing heavy research but I'd lost the link. Thanks.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

People come in all sizes. Likewise, swords.

Haven't we had this argument before on KB?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> People come in all sizes. Likewise, swords.
> 
> Haven't we had this argument before on KB?


Probably. I've had this argument so many times in my life. Sigh.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> People come in all sizes. Likewise, swords.
> 
> Haven't we had this argument before on KB?


Several times.

But the myth that swords were so heavy that a normal woman could barely even lift one is persistant (and pernicious). A typical medieval sword weighed under 3 pounds, but try convincing most people of that. *sigh*

No one seems to wonder in these discussions how you would ride a horse carrying a sword of the size that people imagine swords to have been. Mind you there were a few ceremonial swords (particularly some German ones) that were huge but they were never intended for practical use.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

I've never been a "normal" woman.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Doomed Muse said:


> Ahahahahaha. Sorry. Have to catch my breath. Those brochures? Lied. Or were written by people who had no idea what they were talking about, sorry.
> 
> Here, I found this with about a second of searching: http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm They have actual sources sited, too. Swords were not that heavy. Seriously. Give up the precious myth you have formed and move on. It'll be easier than continuing to be wrong on the internet.


Nonsense. I held some of those swords and although I cannot state an exact weight, I can compare them to something like a dumbbell or an axe or sledge with a known weight.

I suggest that you read through the link you gave - possibly a little more carefully. It lists swords from eight to fourteen pounds.

BTW, if a museum or historical display was to lie, what would it achieve? Very easy to disprove. As for being wrong, it seems that I am the only one who has actually seen and handled the original medieval weapons and not relied on hearsay, written or otherwise.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Several times.
> 
> But the myth that swords were so heavy that a normal woman could barely even lift one is persistant (and pernicious). A typical medieval sword weighed under 3 pounds, but try convincing most people of that. *sigh*
> 
> No one seems to wonder in these discussions how you would ride a horse carrying a sword of the size that people imagine swords to have been. Mind you there were a few ceremonial swords (particularly some German ones) that were huge but they were never intended for practical use.


No one is saying that a woman can't lift one, my wife can. What she couldn't do is use one to win a fight against a trained man who is two or three times her weight.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

DarkScribe said:


> No one is saying that a woman can't lift one, my wife can. What she couldn't do is use one to win a fight against a trained man who is two or three times her weight.


You probably wouldn't either.

Also, why would she be fighting cage-match style with him? Just run him into circles until he's exhausted. At 300lbs, dude's going to get tired.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2012)

Isn't the 2 or 3 times thing a little exaggerated? The average man is probably more like 30-50% heavier than the average woman... not that many guys are 400 pound super hulks.

Back from writing 11 pages of goth girl manhandling a 380 lb fatty and putting a 6' 220 lb former pro boxer in awe, BTW.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

DarkScribe said:


> Nonsense. I held some of those swords and although I cannot state an exact weight, I can compare them to something like a dumbbell or an axe or sledge with a known weight.
> 
> I suggest that you read through the link you gave - possibly a little more carefully. It lists swords from eight to fourteen pounds.
> 
> BTW, if a museum or historical display was to lie, what would it achieve? Very easy to disprove. As for being wrong, it seems that I am the only one who has actually seen and handled the original medieval weapons and not relied on hearsay, written or otherwise.


Read it more carefully. Those heavy swords? Parade swords. Not used in battle.

Krista posted a picture of herself holding a medieval sword... And I've held multiple ones (not just reproductions). Also, you were the one who said to go read primary sources, which I then pointed out that I have. In the original languages. So, to sum up: I have read primary sources. I have handled actual weapons. I have a freakin degree in this stuff and spent more years than I want to think about studying it. I've written multiple papers on Anglo-Saxon warfare, wounds, and weaponry.

Dude. Seriously. Do some research. Give it up. 98% of actual used swords in the Middle Ages in Europe were pretty freaking light. That's our point. Any able-bodied human who trained with a sword wouldn't have any problems using one, male or female. 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled dismembered cover art:


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I've never been a "normal" woman.


Heh. Krista, you've got me there. But I still propose you could handle a 3 pound sword without too much difficulty. 

Of course, in battle you'd probably be in a shield wall and if you didn't get your weapon under the other guy's shield the one on your right or your left would. It's why it wasn't one-on-one combat. Medieval battles were not a bunch of people all in single combat side by side. That just wasn't how it worked then any more than how it works now.

Seriously.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> No one seems to wonder in these discussions how you would ride a horse carrying a sword of the size that people imagine swords to have been. Mind you there were a few ceremonial swords (particularly some German ones) that were huge but they were never intended for practical use.


I guess a lot of people see the huge ceremonial swords and executioner's swords in museums and mistakenly assume that all swords were like that. Of course, ceremonial swords usually wind up in museums just because they were never intended for practical use and thus survived the centuries better than many of the swords that were.

Regarding women in combat, there are several documented cases of women who dressed as men and took part in warfare even in times of male only armies. One example is Anna Lühring from my hometown of Bremen, who at the age of 18 dressed up as a man and joined the Prussian army to fight against Napoleon. She was one of several disguised female soldiers who took part in the Napoleonic wars. Indeed, Anna had been inspired by the story of Eleonore Prochaska, another woman who had joined the Prussian army dressed as a man and was only discovered when she was wounded in battle and the medic trying to save her life realised she was a woman. Unlike many others, Anna got lucky and survived. When she returned home, she was feted as a heroine and was given a pension for her service by the city of Bremen until her death. There is still a street named after her today.

The Bremen city museum has a display devoted to Anna Lühring which includes a portrait and some mementos of her, including her uniform coat and boots. Turns out that Anna was tiny, about the size of a modern 12-year-old kid. Didn't stop her from fighting Napoleon's troops.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Heh. Krista, you've got me there. But I still propose you could handle a 3 pound sword without too much difficulty.
> 
> Of course, in battle you'd probably be in a shield wall and if you didn't get your weapon under the other guy's shield the one on your right or your left would. It's why it wasn't one-on-one combat. Medieval battles were not a bunch of people all in single combat side by side. That just wasn't how it worked then any more than how it works now.
> 
> Seriously.


Would this discussion go differently if we were talking about writing about women warriors in tribal (eg. Roman era British Isles) cultures where proper formation fighting weren't common yet?


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> You probably wouldn't either.
> 
> Also, why would she be fighting cage-match style with him? Just run him into circles until he's exhausted. At 300lbs, dude's going to get tired.


I make no claims to be able to beat anyone in a sword fight using a two handed sword. I doubt that I would fare very well with the swords that I am used to - it has been some years since I was in training. As for running in circles, sounds like a good idea. For me as well as her.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> I guess a lot of people see the huge ceremonial swords and executioner's swords in museums and mistakenly assume that all swords were like that. Of course, ceremonial swords usually wind up in museums just because they were never intended for practical use and thus survived the centuries better than many of the swords that were.


That is true of both weapons and armor. Most of what remains was ceremonial because what was used in battle simply took too much of a beating to survive although there are bits and pieces. And there is a lot of misinformation in museums, etc. I assure you that what is labeled as the "Wallace Sword" is not.


> Regarding women in combat, there are several documented cases of women who dressed as men and took part in warfare even in times of male only armies. One example is Anna Lühring from my hometown of Bremen, who at the age of 18 dressed up as a man and joined the Prussian army to fight against Napoleon. She was one of several disguised female soldiers who took part in the Napoleonic wars. Indeed, Anna had been inspired by the story of Eleonore Prochaska, another woman who had joined the Prussian army dressed as a man and was only discovered when she was wounded in battle and the medic trying to save her life realised she was a woman. Unlike many others, Anna got lucky and survived. When she returned home, she was feted as a heroine and was given a pension for her service by the city of Bremen until her death. There is still a street named after her today.
> 
> The Bremen city museum has a display devoted to Anna Lühring which includes a portrait and some mementos of her, including her uniform coat and boots. Turns out that Anna was tiny, about the size of a modern 12-year-old kid. Didn't stop her from fighting Napoleon's troops.


Since women mostly did so secretly, there is no way of knowing how often it happened, but there is no doubt that it did.



glutton said:


> Would this discussion go differently if we were talking about writing about women warriors in tribal (eg. Roman era British Isles) cultures where proper formation fighting weren't common yet?


One difference would be that I wouldn't take part since I know little about warfare in that period. 

I don't know whether they used formations or not. The fact that they were tribes didn't mean they were stupid (ETA: you didn't say they were; just making the point) and the Romans were particularly not fond of fighting the Caledonian tribes. That much I do know.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Heh. Krista, you've got me there. But I still propose you could handle a 3 pound sword without too much difficulty.
> 
> Of course, in battle you'd probably be in a shield wall and if you didn't get your weapon under the other guy's shield the one on your right or your left would. It's why it wasn't one-on-one combat. Medieval battles were not a bunch of people all in single combat side by side. That just wasn't how it worked then any more than how it works now.
> 
> Seriously.


I wasn't allowed in the shield wall. They said I was too short


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I wasn't allowed in the shield wall. They said I was too short


Huh. Being short would be an advantage for getting under the other guy's shield although you need to be tall enough for your shield to overlap.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Huh. Being short would be an advantage for getting under the other guy's shield although you need to be tall enough for your shield to overlap.


True, except that they were all 6' and just as wide. And then there was me...at 5'5.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

CoraBuhlert said:


> I guess a lot of people see the huge ceremonial swords and executioner's swords in museums and mistakenly assume that all swords were like that. Of course, ceremonial swords usually wind up in museums just because they were never intended for practical use and thus survived the centuries better than many of the swords that were.
> 
> Regarding women in combat, there are several documented cases of women who dressed as men and took part in warfare even in times of male only armies. One example is Anna Lühring from my hometown of Bremen, who at the age of 18 dressed up as a man and joined the Prussian army to fight against Napoleon. She was one of several disguised female soldiers who took part in the Napoleonic wars. Indeed, Anna had been inspired by the story of Eleonore Prochaska, another woman who had joined the Prussian army dressed as a man and was only discovered when she was wounded in battle and the medic trying to save her life realised she was a woman. Unlike many others, Anna got lucky and survived. When she returned home, she was feted as a heroine and was given a pension for her service by the city of Bremen until her death. There is still a street named after her today.
> 
> The Bremen city museum has a display devoted to Anna Lühring which includes a portrait and some mementos of her, including her uniform coat and boots. Turns out that Anna was tiny, about the size of a modern 12-year-old kid. Didn't stop her from fighting Napoleon's troops.


Everyone has heard about Joan of Arc and is aware that she was burned at the stake for heresy. What many don't know is the form that heresy took. She had dispensation to allow her to wear men's attire (armour) in battle, but is was considered heresy for a woman in those days to wear "clothing pertaining to a man" in everyday life. Her heresy, and the reason she was burned - although political in motivation - was for cutting her hair short and dressing like a man. Yet another problem for woman in an era when the Church was the final authority. Hard to dress in your husband's clothing when the Church would execute you for doing so.

Hey, maybe that's why so many female warriors are depicted in metal lingerie? Nothing masculine there.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Well, from what we can tell by looking at the wounds left on bones from Anglo-Saxon battles, I don't think it would change the discussion much.  The word I use to describe what actual battle was like is "butchery", not the elegant one-on-one you see in movies. Most of the remains I saw followed a pretty similar pattern. Broken arms and/or legs, a bunch of hack wounds to the back, and a massive head injury (the finishing blow).  Some had just head wounds.  I don't think you'd have to be that big or even that skilled to smash a guy's sword arm, mash up his back a bit, and then deliver a blow or two to the head.  The armor of the time might stop (or at least slow down) slashing, but it didn't really help prevent broken bones.

I just amused my husband, btw, by walking into the living room, picking up my falcata, and swinging it around a few times. I could break some bones with that. Especially if I were on horseback.   (it's 3.1lbs btw, one-handed. I am extremely out of shape these days, and had no problem doing some practice swings.  Compared to the 35lb kettlebells I was working out with yesterday, that sword is nothing.  And I'm 5'5 on a tall day.)


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> Well, from what we can tell by looking at the wounds left on bones from Anglo-Saxon battles, I don't think it would change the discussion much. The word I use to describe what actual battle was like is "butchery", not the elegant one-on-one you see in movies. Most of the remains I saw followed a pretty similar pattern. Broken arms and/or legs, a bunch of hack wounds to the back, and a massive head injury (the finishing blow). Some had just head wounds. I don't think you'd have to be that big or even that skilled to smash a guy's sword arm, mash up his back a bit, and then deliver a blow or two to the head. The armor of the time might stop (or at least slow down) slashing, but it didn't really help prevent broken bones.


Probably lots of internal bleeding, too.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> Well, from what we can tell by looking at the wounds left on bones from Anglo-Saxon battles, I don't think it would change the discussion much. The word I use to describe what actual battle was like is "butchery", not the elegant one-on-one you see in movies. Most of the remains I saw followed a pretty similar pattern. Broken arms and/or legs, a bunch of hack wounds to the back, and a massive head injury (the finishing blow). Some had just head wounds. I don't think you'd have to be that big or even that skilled to smash a guy's sword arm, mash up his back a bit, and then deliver a blow or two to the head. The armor of the time might stop (or at least slow down) slashing, but it didn't really help prevent broken bones.
> 
> I just amused my husband, btw, by walking into the living room, picking up my falcata, and swinging it around a few times. I could break some bones with that. Especially if I were on horseback.  (it's 3.1lbs btw, one-handed. I am extremely out of shape these days, and had no problem doing some practice swings. Compared to the 35lb kettlebells I was working out with yesterday, that sword is nothing. And I'm 5'5 on a tall day.)


There were a number of practical reasons for going to the leg since you could reach it under the shield and sever both arteries and muscles and sometimes bones, thus putting your enemies relatively out of action while they bled out. Of course, if you had time, finishing them off with a slam to the head never hurt (you anyway).

There was little pretty or elegant about medieval warfare.

ETA: My family prefers that I put my swords away. They say I'm scary working out fight scenes.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Doomed Muse said:


> Read it more carefully. Those heavy swords? Parade swords. Not used in battle.
> 
> Krista posted a picture of herself holding a medieval sword... And I've held multiple ones (not just reproductions). Also, you were the one who said to go read primary sources, which I then pointed out that I have. In the original languages. So, to sum up: I have read primary sources. I have handled actual weapons. I have a freakin degree in this stuff and spent more years than I want to think about studying it. I've written multiple papers on Anglo-Saxon warfare, wounds, and weaponry.
> 
> Dude. Seriously. Do some research. Give it up. 98% of actual used swords in the Middle Ages in Europe were pretty freaking light. That's our point. Any able-bodied human who trained with a sword wouldn't have any problems using one, male or female.


Nonsense. I don't a have "freakin" degree, but I have several degrees that are not freakin. What does a "freakin" degree qualify you for? A discount for tickets to sideshow alley stalls?

I have also handled these weapons, not from one source, but in castles and museums in all manner of places and over several decades. The first was in a castle in the north of England when I was eight years age. I was challenged to lift it with one hand. Since that time I have seen many more. They are NOT ceremonial, they are very ordinary, battered, non fancy hilts, smith marks apparent. I have three ceremonial swords, all Navy Dress Swords - one silver plated, the others chrome/nickel plated. They have never been sharpened - I doubt that they would take an edge.

The weapons that I am talking about were the original martial weapons of the times. Been in the possession of the curators for hundreds of years. No "freakin" degree is going to remove actual experiences from my life.

While there are many light swords, this whole issue is not just about swords, it is about the cover pictures of slender young lasses posing with two handed swords that are in many cases bigger than they are. I own several swords that weigh in at four or five pounds, plus some duelling swords that would not go much over three lbs. I have epees that are lighter still. None of them are two handed swords that are over five feet long as depicted with many of these "warrior" women. It isn't a matter of simply managing to hold such swords, it is a matter of having the strength and endurance to use them in combat. Even a three or four lb sword can drag after an hour or so of dueling.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> There was little pretty or elegant about medieval warfare.


There is little pretty or elegant about any warfare.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

DarkScribe said:


> Everyone has heard about Joan of Arc and is aware that she was burned at the stake for heresy. What many don't know is the form that heresy took. She had dispensation to allow her to wear men's attire (armour) in battle, but is was considered heresy for a woman in those days to wear "clothing pertaining to a man" in everyday life. Her heresy, and the reason she was burned - although political in motivation - was for cutting her hair short and dressing like a man.


That was a very minor part of her heresy trial. The main charges of heresy centered on her claim that she acted on orders from God and the saints; that was the central contention of the English-backed trial. There was some discussion of whether the "voices" ordered her to dress in battle garb, and also discussion of her wearing men's clothing while imprisoned -- which she said was to protect herself from rape by the guards. But her attire and coiffure were not the main elements of the trial. It was the best-documented legal case of that era (ironically, since the goal of the trail was to obliterate her from memory and martyrdom) so sources about this are plentiful. The Carl Dreyer film on the trial, with Falconetti and Artaud, is justifiably called one of the best works in cinema history (for those who haven't seen it: you should), and the dialog was taken from trial documents.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Steve Silkin said:


> That was a very minor part of her heresy trial. The main charges of heresy centered on her claim that she acted on orders from God and the saints; that was the central contention of the English-backed trial. There was some discussion of whether the "voices" ordered her to dress in battle garb, and also discussion of her wearing men's clothing while imprisoned -- which she said was to protect herself from rape by the guards. But her attire and coiffure were not the main elements of the trial. It was the best-documented legal case of that era (ironically, since the goal of the trail was to obliterate her from memory and martyrdom) so sources about this are plentiful. The Carl Dreyer film on the trial, with Falconetti and Artaud, is justifiably called one of the best works in cinema history (for those who haven't seen it: you should), and the dialog was taken from trial documents.


Thanks.

There were, incidentally, a several cities which passed laws against women jousting, which would be an interesting law to pass if women never did it.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Steve Silkin said:


> That was a very minor part of her heresy trial. The main charges of heresy centered on her claim that she acted on orders from God and the saints; that was the central contention of the English-backed trial. There was some discussion of whether the "voices" ordered her to dress in battle garb, and also discussion of her wearing men's clothing while imprisoned -- which she said was to protect herself from rape by the guards. But her attire and coiffure were not the main elements of the trial. It was the best-documented legal case of that era (ironically, since the goal of the trail was to obliterate her from memory and martyrdom) so sources about this are plentiful. The Carl Dreyer film on the trial, with Falconetti and Artaud, is justifiably called one of the best works in cinema history (for those who haven't seen it: you should), and the dialog was taken from trial documents.


We will disagree. It was more than minor, and after the Witchcraft charges were put aside, it was the aspect that was most promoted in what was the popular media at the time. Of the twelve charges against her, three related to those particular canonical breaches.

I am very aware of the details of her trial. Few cases have been more thoroughly studied, discussed or written about. While there were many elements, in her subsequent exoneration by the Church - her second trial - it (her dress manner and hairstyle) was shown to be a major factor in the eyes of the Church during her original trial. Her response to the question as to whether she was acting in God's name - under God's Grace - is renowned for its subtle cleverness. Her heresy was supposedly defined by her refusing to abide by her promise to only wear female attire. She had good reason, protection from molestation a primary one, but is wasn't sufficient. Jean Le Maitre and others admitted that the records were later destroyed or altered to reflect well on the Church at the time so much can only be assumed by looking at the Church's later response. (Imagine the fun Dan Brown could have with this.)

Have you read Philppe Alexandre de Charmettes? Makes for some interesting reading and sets the stage with a little more realism.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

I'd like to see more covers and movie posters like this.

(I thought long and hard about an appropriate response to this thread, but posted an image instead!)

Image credit: http://kevinbolk.deviantart.com/art/Avengers-Booty-Ass-emble-270937785?


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Dalya said:


> I'd like to see more covers and movie posters like this.
> 
> (I thought long and hard about an appropriate response to this thread, but posted an image instead!)
> 
> Image credit: http://kevinbolk.deviantart.com/art/Avengers-Booty-*ss-emble-270937785?


That is quite an ASStounding image.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Does anybody else think it's funny the only person who _doesn't _ have a butt in this pic is Scarlett Johanson? 

On the women with armor/weaponry topic, I'll chip in that I own over thirty swords (collector), as well as a few axes, and have no trouble handling any of them. Admittedly some are movie replica weapons and others unrealistic, oversized fantasy swords made for looks not use, so not at all historically accurate. I suspect modern steel is also different in weight. But I can easily imagine a woman with arms and shoulders strengthened by a lifetime of physical labor using a short sword without difficulty.

And I don't see any reason to suppose an unusually strong, experienced woman couldn't defeat a weak, too young, too old, or too slow male with less agility or experience, poorer weapons or armor, ect. I'm not talking about pitting a seasoned male warrior at his physical peak against a comparable woman warrior. Just an exceptional woman against a typical or less than typical man. For example, Joan of Arc against Justin Bieber. Any guesses which would win? 

DarkRain, sorry about drifting off-topic.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Dara England said:


> Does anybody else think it's funny the only person who _doesn't _ have a butt in this pic is Scarlett Johanson?


It's because she was the only one with her butt sticking out on the movie poster.


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

DarkScribe said:


> Her heresy, and the reason she was burned - although political in motivation - was for cutting her hair short and dressing like a man.


OK, so you say that was the reason she was burned ...



DarkScribe said:


> Of the twelve charges against her, three related to those particular canonical breaches.


OK, so you say that three charges were for cross-dressing and so nine others were for ...

No, I haven't read de Charmettes. I claim no deep nor wide reading on Joan of Arc. I don't think it takes any kind of expert to know that she was tried and executed because the church was offended that she claimed to have been guided by the voice of God and the saints. (I did spend a day in Rouen, though, and saw the square where she was burned.) After you said that she was tried and executed for dressing as a man and cutting her hair short I looked at a few texts and confirmed that my lay-person's knowledge of the case was not deficient. So, yes, we will disagree.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> It's because she was the only one with her butt sticking out on the movie poster.


Ah, that's some artistic irony.


----------



## Rayne Book Covers (Sep 11, 2011)

Dalya said:


> I'd like to see more covers and movie posters like this.
> 
> (I thought long and hard about an appropriate response to this thread, but posted an image instead!)
> 
> Image credit: http://kevinbolk.deviantart.com/art/Avengers-Booty-*ss-emble-270937785?


I was waiting for someone to post this.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Steve Silkin said:


> OK, so you say that was the reason she was burned ...
> 
> OK, so you say that three charges were for cross-dressing and so nine others were for ...
> 
> No, I haven't read de Charmettes. I claim no deep nor wide reading on Joan of Arc. I don't think it takes any kind of expert to know that she was tried and executed because the church was offended that she claimed to have been guided by the voice of God and the saints. (I did spend a day in Rouen, though, and saw the square where she was burned.) After you said that she was tried and executed for dressing as a man and cutting her hair short I looked at a few texts and confirmed that my lay-person's knowledge of the case was not deficient. So, yes, we will disagree.


Try reading him - it's worthwhile if you have any interest int Joan of Arc. The other charges didn't carry such a heavy penalty. Things like leading an attack when a religious ceremony honoring the Virgin Mary was being held. She was excommunicated for several of them, not sentenced to death. The witchcraft charges - not carried forward as she proved to be a virgin - were to do with several things, one of which was her sword and how she acquired it. She told others where to dig and they found it - heavily rusted. When they brushed it, the rust fell off leaving it bright and functional. For that they insisted she must be a witch. There are some interesting stories about her swords (she had two) and the supposed "power" attached to the first one - until it broke. In court she claimed that she had never actually used one in combat, though she always carried one.

While under interrogation she claimed that her "voices" told her to wear men's clothing and she also refused to accept and wear women's clothing unless they released her. She later added that it "pleased God" for her to dress as a man. That was considered heresy which carries a much more severe penalty than excommunication. Because she was both wounded and captured and didn't fulfill the prophesy she made to the King, her claim to be acting in God's name was considered heresy. If he was protecting her, she would not have fallen. She also ignored the Biblical admonition against women teaching or preaching when she told her troops that they must obey God's will. More heresy.

Long and short is that if she had acquiesced and worn women's clothing when asked to do so, she would likely have survived - excommunicated and imprisoned, but alive. It was her stubborn refusal that angered the inquisitors. This is the belief of many who have studied her, and one that I support.

They were all trumped up charges, later rescinded by the Church, but too late for her. It is one of the reasons why I am atheist. I couldn't tell the difference between the Church and the Mafia. 

I have always been fascinated by her. I have also been to Rouen but only as a small child. I have French Grandparents and alternated between England and France until I reached High School age.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

It was in the interest of the English invader for Joan of Arc to die, so she was going to die. The charges were trumped up in their benefit. It had pretty much nothing to do with "the church" except as a  vehhicle for England trying to defeat and occupy France.

The English government financed the trial; Bishop Cauchon supported the English government. There is more but there is absolutely no doubt the entire thing was politically motivated. It had nothing to do with what she wore, except as a couple of the charges.


----------

