Well, here we have this week's specimen in the ongoing quest to find out if this is gratuitous or not.
Here are my findings.
She is naked.
She is green.
She looks like she is going to kill the dude in front of her.
Greg Horn did the art.
Conclusion? Oh yeah, this is gratuitous. Fun, but gratuitous.
Thoughts?
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
This is certainly not the most self-indulgent or gratuitously sexual cover Horn has done.
(sigh) More "hornography".
I disagree. This is not a sexually gratuitous cover. Jessica (Snake Woman) has undergone a transformation wherein she has lost all of her inhibitions, become more sexually active, and she actually DOES kill the dude in front of her.
The PLOT of the story is gratuitous, I completely agree, but the cover accurately describes (in a thematic way) the plot of the book. That is what a cover is supposed to do.
Gratuitous is focusing on boobs during a fight to the death, or drawing a tense moment so that you can see up the hero's skirt.
But, if the Comic Book is called "Young and Sexy Naked Hookers on the Moon #1", well . . . while I've got a serious problem with the book, I completely understand why a cover artist would (ungratuitously) draw naked women on the cover.
Not nowing anything about the book, I call gratuitous. That snake lady might be sneaking up on the dude to kill him, but she's specifically posed to display both breasts and rump to the viewer.
I'd sell myself into slavery just to get a green woman to pay attention to me... let alone be murdered by one.
I’m sorry what was the question…?
Jeff has the right of it--she's specifically posed to show off her chest and rump (while o-so-artfully presented to cover up Naughty-Bannable-Bits). Gratuitous. Pretty, but gratuitous. The dangerous green lady could have been shown head and arms behind the guy for cover purposes without displaying the sexy sexy danger publicly to get the horndogs to buy.
She does have the "Horn Porn" face on! While not the worst of all covers, I'd say her facial expression along with the pose, are gratuitous.
While Ragtime makes a good point that it does actually follow the plot, I have to say that doesn't necessitate the naked woman on the cover. As a store owner I have to display these comics so that people buy them - and there could be people who see this cover that do not know that it follows the plot line. All they know is that there is a naked snake-woman on the cover making porn face.
Del- it may not be the most gratuitous cover Horn has ever done, but the fact that she is sticking her rump out and that her breasts are hanging down pendulously give me a pretty good idea that she is up to no good. :-)
Ragtime, I appreciate your opinion on this. I have been reading Snakewoman as well, and I have been watching the transformation of Jessica with great interest. Her inner struggle to come to terms with her true self has been very compelling.
I agree that in the book she is getting more free. Her repressed nature is being replaced with a sexuality that is startling and a bit unsettling. The violence in her actions is tremendous, and her journey is still new, so God only knows where she will ultimately end up.
I do have to disagree about the cover though. I think that the turn of her back, the way she is thrusting out her butt and the perfection of her breasts is gratuitous. While I think it does fit her transformation on the inside, I still think that the focus of the cover is her body rather then the imminent danger of the victim in front of her.
I agree that it isn't the most gratuitous cover I have ever seen. At a con awhile back, I dug through a box that included several "XXX" comics, and there were some seriously gratuitous covers there. I was pretty sure some of the poses where not only physically impossible, but quite possibly painful! :-)
At any rate, I appreciate your feedback. The cover does fit the transformation. It just makes me sigh and shake my head that her assets are more important then her nature.
Mark, I had never heard that description before. It is pretty apt.
Jeff, that is ultimately by point- her assets are the key selling point of the feature, and to be frank, that is where my eyes go first.
Tamora, you said it perfectly. That is exactly why I find the cover to be gratuitous.
If her hands would have been poised to dig into his chest or choke him, it would have been a much better way to imply danger.
You put it very well.
Lisa- OMG, the porn face! I hadn't even thought of it that way, but it is true. The heavy lidded eyes and the pursed lips ring true.
Do your customers ever say anything specific about a cover like this? My retailer wouldn't display it for the nudity factor.
Porn face. Hmmmm...
Heidi - have you never heard of those expressionless pouty-lipped faces Horn draws as porn face? I have heard he uses "stills" to draw from - personally I suspect most of them are from adult materials based on the poses and pouty lips.
We don't get a ton of kids in the store, and these types of covers are kept on the highest shelves, so we don't get too many parents saying anything. But these covers do draw attention. Usually a sarcastic or suggestive comment from a male customer.
Lisa, wow. I could just imagine the care that must go into making sure those covers most certainly go up high! The term porn face is definitely spot-on. Yikes.
Post a Comment