How ordinary is ordinary enough?

[DrDelirium]

I'm posting this in Authors even though it involves some graphic art decisions because, well, people visit this forum and I might actually get some feedback. The principle applies to purely text descriptions too, in a way, but there are some issues regarding the honesty of the narrator there that take it to a different place.
The basic issue is this- I am contemplating a story- illustrated, part comic strip, something- but not purely text. The main character is a very ordinary girl, not a vogue model or playboy bunny. Her perception, and indeed, everyone else's, is that she's pretty homely, but she's also pretty well hidden in big glasses, too much unruly hair, and several layers of oversized sweaters, so who really knows?
And the 'who really knows' part is important because she becomes internally transformed over the course of the story, in ways which cause people to regard her differently, although objectively she's never going to be a classic beauty, and maybe not even pretty.
In doing some preliminary thinking and sketching on this idea, I ran up against issues about this transformation. It's something that could easily be worked in a movie, because we know the actress is in fact the same person throughout and the transformation of impact comes from things like demeanor, grooming, and so on. Whatever the wardrobe department, hair and make up, and the actress herself do, it's just assumed to be real, because we know the same human being is there. This knowledge is not present when we look at a series of hand-drawn pictures, so the transformation has to contain some core elements of consistency to make us feel the character is actually the same character.
So the question is- how plain, or ugly, or unattractive should those core elements be? At what point does it stop being sexy to the majority of the audience? I am not trying to write the Great American Novel with an emphasis on feminist discourse, deconstructionism and participation prizes. Porn, ladies and gentlemen. I'm trying to write porn.

 

[sr71plt]

Not sure what is entailed by the post, but my first impression is to note that successful models don't have to be classically beautiful. They first need to wear the clothes well and walk the walk. After that they can have features that are distinctive and not initially beautiful. As they become more confident--and more successful in the profession--they'll start becoming a standard in their own right and something like a Barbra Streisand nose with slightly cross eyes will be taken as a distinctive mark of an intriguing woman rather than something you'd find only on a hawk. And, although part of this transformation needs to come in the carriage and cosmetics of the model, most of it comes in the changes in attitude toward her of the other characters.

In porn she can (and has done so in a thousand movies) go from being an unnoticed script girl to something that the hunky men are fighting each other for the right to fuck her. She can still have a hawk nose and slightly crossed eyes at this end of the transformation. They just now have become a distinction of a sexy woman.

 

[DrDelirium]

Not sure what is entailed by the post, but my first impression is to note that successful models don't have to be classically beautiful. They first need to wear the clothes well and walk the walk. After that they can have features that are distinctive and not initially beautiful. As they become more confident--and more successful in the profession--they'll start becoming a standard in their own right and something like a Barbra Streisand nose with slightly cross eyes will be taken as a distinctive mark of an intriguing woman rather than something you'd find only on a hawk. And, although part of this transformation needs to come in the carriage and cosmetics of the model, most of it comes in the changes in attitude toward her of the other characters.

In porn she can (and has done so in a thousand movies) go from being an unnoticed script girl to something that the hunky men are fighting each other for the right to fuck her. She can still have a hawk nose and slightly crossed eyes at this end of the transformation. They just now have become a distinction of a sexy woman.

That's kind of what I'm working with, but with real bodies and faces, we know it's authentically the same person undergoing this process. With pure text, there's a challenge, at least in 3rd person, because the description at the beginning still has to make sense at the end, without giving away the farm at the beginning. With illustration, the hand of the artist is immediately suspect if there isn't a strong consistency in portraying the underlying features of the character.

Maybe I need to get an actual model to render from to keep it consistent. It's very difficult not to 'cheat' when you're inventing the entire visage from the get-go. Meh.

 

[DrDelirium]

The ad is going to be challenging: "Wanted: Unattractive, yet sexy, young woman for character stock photos. Porn experience a plus."

 

[sr71plt]

Last time I check, Barbra Streisand was a real person (and went through such a transformation--of course she had plastic surgery too, but she was being put into sexy roles in movies before she did that).

 

[DrDelirium]

Last time I check, Barbra Streisand was a real person (and went through such a transformation--of course she had plastic surgery too, but she was being put into sexy roles in movies before she did that).

Yeah. My point here is that with real people there is an automatic level of credibility that illustrators are not granted.

 

[legerdemer]

Does the French term jolie laide apply to what you're trying to describe? The page has links to some examples of women who supposedly fit the category.

 

[DrDelirium]

Does the French term jolie laide apply to what you're trying to describe? The page has links to some examples of women who supposedly fit the category.

Yes and no. In essence she is transformed from someone who is just ugly (at least, unattractive) into someone who might be described as jolie laide. The difficulty I am facing is making both ends of this process credible without a real human being photographically portrayed, magic tricks, or ooky feel-good nonsense. Is it enough to dress badly and have a crappy haircut to be 'plain enough' for the transformation to be meaningful? The evidence of the makeover reality shows I've seen is that it takes quite a bit more than a new dress and a hairdo to actually make someone dumpy attractive, to get to 'jolie laide' instead of just 'somewhat more tolerable.' All of the examples in the article, btw, are of people who, were they not famous, would be hard to render as attractive in simplified form. They would look like errors in drawing if you didn't know they were portraits. In which case, the point is lost.

 

[NotWise]

Does the French term jolie laide apply to what you're trying to describe? The page has links to some examples of women who supposedly fit the category.

Having raised three daughters and watched countless ballerinas grow up, I decided that "beauty" is a learned trait. We have standards for what constitutes a beautiful woman, but someone who meets those standards could be unattractive, while someone who doesn't meet those standards could be ravishing, depending on how she sees herself and presents herself.

I think that partly reproduces what others have said.

I wonder though about the balance of novel and graphics. You had another thread on the subject where I did not respond.

Graphic illustrations of stories usually require far more time commitment than writing the story itself. I have two illustrators in my family and considered offering them "The Third Ring" if they would be interested in illustrating it.

That story comes with some strong images. Then I realized that if the story itself produces strong images then graphics were superfluous--for some people anyway. Personally I'd really like to see the way my son-in-law illustrated the climactic scene, or how my daughter illustrates other parts, but I'm not sure it really advances the story.

In combination, it seems to me like the graphics would have to cover details and/or actions that are not captured in the text. The transformation from ugly duckling to fashion icon could be summarized in graphics, but isn't the real transformation something that you need to capture in text?

Incidentally, I loved Pilot's reference to Barbara Streisand.

 

[DrDelirium]

Having raised three daughters and watched countless ballerinas grow up, I decided that "beauty" is a learned trait. We have standards for what constitutes a beautiful woman, but someone who meets those standards could be unattractive, while someone who doesn't meet those standards could be ravishing, depending on how she sees herself and presents herself.

I think that partly reproduces what others have said.

I wonder though about the balance of novel and graphics. You had another thread on the subject where I did not respond.

Graphic illustrations of stories usually require far more time commitment than writing the story itself. I have two illustrators in my family and considered offering them "The Third Ring" if they would be interested in illustrating it.

That story comes with some strong images. Then I realized that if the story itself produces strong images then graphics were superfluous--for some people anyway. Personally I'd really like to see the way my son-in-law illustrated the climactic scene, or how my daughter illustrates other parts, but I'm not sure it really advances the story.

In combination, it seems to me like the graphics would have to cover details and/or actions that are not captured in the text. The transformation from ugly duckling to fashion icon could be summarized in graphics, but isn't the real transformation something that you need to capture it text?

Incidentally, I loved Pilot's reference to Barbara Streisand.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I hope it's clear that I agree with the first paragraph.

Regarding the paragraph I bolded, you're talking about a story that was written to be sufficient unto itself entirely in text, and I am talking about something that is designed from the beginning to have different formats play different roles, rather than simply duplicate each others' efforts. Text certainly plays a critical role in describing the process of transformation, but it can only assert the result, ultimately. The role of graphics in this story is supposed to be to reveal the result as it is unfolding. Most of the text is her own self-talk, most of which is, of necessity, utter malarkey. She is not a credible source, and while a story in which we are left wondering if she has become a Strong Independent Woman whose magnetic personality turns heads, or has simply succumbed to a delusional fugue would no doubt be better than the one I'm thinking of writing, it isn't the one I'm thinking of writing.

 

[NotWise]

Most of the text is her own self-talk, most of which is, of necessity, utter malarkey. She is not a credible source, and while a story in which we are left wondering if she has become a Strong Independent Woman whose magnetic personality turns heads, or has simply succumbed to a delusional fugue would no doubt be better than the one I'm thinking of writing, it isn't the one I'm thinking of writing.

Well, that's confusing. Your main character's views of herself, and what she does isn't important? Is everything done, done to her and not by her?

 

[DrDelirium]

Well, that's confusing. Your main character's views of herself, and what she does isn't important? Is everything done, done to her and not by her?

Her views of herself are critical to the whole concept of the story, but they are still malarkey. She, like most people, is very light on self-knowledge, so what she has to say about herself or anything that concerns her own interests is unreliable. Since she is obviously not a good source on the objective world at the beginning, there's no reason the reader should think she's a good source at the end, either. The graphic thread provides a kind 'objective' standard to check at least a few things against. In a movie this would be relatively straightforward, but when people get drawn by hand it's problematic.

 

[NotWise]

In a movie this would be relatively straightforward, but when people get drawn by hand it's problematic.

I'm sorry, but drawing it seems like the least of your problems. You need a character. And maybe a story.

 

[CyranoJ]

I think as long as you preserve certain basic identifying details -- freckles, say, the shape of nose and lips, basic bodily proportions -- then barring serious deformity, if the character is likeable it should be possible to sell them as being with or without appeal just with simple changes in their posture and overall attitude, not to mention the other stuff like wardrobe and grooming. (Jaime Hernandez is pretty amazing at bringing out the connection between attitude and allure with minimal fuss. Maggie from Love & Rockets is a good example.)

I do feel like the Visual Arts forum could offer more informed guidance than AH, though? What I say above is tentative. I could comment more confidently about the text aspect of things.

 

[Iamsubmissive]

*chuckles at the difficulty of getting your question understood*

I think you over explained your mission. Is your question simply, "How to you draw the progression of a character's transformation from ugly to semi-attractive while retaining some recognizable features?"

If so, then the answer is simple. It's a progression, right? As long as you keep the 'unchangeable' features the same (shape of her face, eyes, neck, hands, height...although posture can change, etc) you shouldn't have a problem. If she goes from messy, long, brown hair to short, styled, red hair in one frame...then glasses to no glasses, even makeup...then shabby clothes to sexy outfit...add a boob job even or just reveal cleavage...high heel shoes...next frame better posture, a sexy stance. By the end she has a smile on her glossy lips, a twinkle in her eye, new hairstyle, sexy clothes, and a confident pose. As long as you carry over each new change into the next drawing people will be able to follow along and see what happened...even if she looks completely different at the end.

Does that help?

 

[DrDelirium]

I think as long as you preserve certain basic identifying details -- freckles, say, the shape of nose and lips, basic bodily proportions -- then barring serious deformity, if the character is likeable it should be possible to sell them as being with or without appeal just with simple changes in their posture and overall attitude, not to mention the other stuff like wardrobe and grooming. (Jaime Hernandez is pretty amazing at bringing out the connection between attitude and allure with minimal fuss. Maggie from Love & Rockets is a good example.)

I do feel like the Visual Arts forum could offer more informed guidance than AH, though? What I say above is tentative. I could comment more confidently about the text aspect of things.

Yes, it may be just a matter of art technique, and mine is admittedly rusty. I will post on the topic in Visual Artists- it's just that hardly anyone seems to go there. In Author's Hangout, there's a lot of response, even though it does seem difficult to get the point I'm after across here. My character begins as not really likable, btw- not that she's a bad person, she's just kind of mildly repellent.
I appreciate all the responses- they help me identify the kinds of filters other people view things through, and that's always useful. So thanks, everyone!

 

[DrDelirium]

*chuckles at the difficulty of getting your question understood*

I think you over explained your mission. Is your question simply, "How to you draw the progression of a character's transformation from ugly to semi-attractive while retaining some recognizable features?"

If so, then the answer is simple. It's a progression, right? As long as you keep the 'unchangeable' features the same (shape of her face, eyes, neck, hands, height...although posture can change, etc) you shouldn't have a problem. If she goes from messy, long, brown hair to short, styled, red hair in one frame...then glasses to no glasses, even makeup...then shabby clothes to sexy outfit...add a boob job even or just reveal cleavage...high heel shoes...next frame better posture, a sexy stance. By the end she has a smile on her glossy lips, a twinkle in her eye, new hairstyle, sexy clothes, and a confident pose. As long as you carry over each new change into the next drawing people will be able to follow along and see what happened...even if she looks completely different at the end.

Does that help?

Ah, the deep and uncommon pleasure of being understood! Yes, this is basically the issue, and the phrase I have put in red is where I have some trouble. My instinct, honed by years of vicious commentary on my work, is that in order for most people to believe a woman is attractive, they must be attracted to her (although women sometimes invert this). I don't think the story will work if she looks like Queen Elizabeth. On the other hand, I'm trying to avoid the notion that she was physically beautiful all along.
Perhaps the real problem is with my current skill set.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

All of the above explains why I'm blind. blah blah blah blah blah

Bottom line: The clothes are the focal point NOT the model. The model should be pleasant NOT interesting.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

When Hollywood tries things like this, they cheat. The plainish Jane undergoes her entirely emotional transformation but they always seem to apply the makeup and lighting to the transformed character, pad the bra, fluff out the hair, etc..

This isn't as shallow a move as it appears, however tacky it might be. There's something deep in the gestalt of human perception that equates physical (and sexual) beauty with power, and especially in the male perception of females. I could go into why, but eh. Look at comic books or google artwork of goddesses for evidence. When the art is drawn by males, the powerful/supernatural/transformed characters are invariably hot, Atropos not withstanding. (Even some of them are hot. Sheesh.)

In artwork you can do a lot with body poses. If she's going from withdrawn to outgoing, she'd be drawn as with inward angles and small and hidden before, but with outward angles - hands pointing outward, toes pointed, etc - and tall and unafraid afterwards. Eyes looking downward before, out or up afterwards. The weak character doesn't smile; the strong ones do (even to themselves when alone.) I'm not an artist and I'm sure there's a lot of tricks I've never picked up on, but you get the idea. The same visual clues that say "I'm well integrated, powerful, and in control of myself" also signal sexual attractiveness.

In writing... yeah. All you really need to do to signal a "weak" character is let others interrupt her when she's speaking and have her be outwardly ok with that. Post-transformation. no one wants to interrupt her and if anyone does she calls them on it. She might talk less, post-transformation. She'll hold eye contact, and her anger will be nearer the surface, but tears much less so. Be careful with this - it's probably obvious that the characteristics I'm referring to are considered male characteristics, and when females take them on they can become perceived as less attractive. Something deep down says "that behavior is testosterone in action, so is she really female at all?" That perception causes females problems in real life, and it's going to come across that way even more so in writing, where the impact of everything is amplified.

I did something like what you're proposing in my Angelwatch - but fair warning if you look at it, the main character's transformation goes abruptly wrong, and it's quite some time before she comes to terms with things. It's close enough to what you're taking about that you may want to give it a look. Note that the main character isn't unattractive, but that's mostly to support backstory and rarely matters. It's also not porn (and the one sex scene isn't intended to be hot).

 

[LeandraNyx]

Deleted

 

[jburton042]

The important thing I would want to know is: why? Why does this woman dress the way she does in the first place? Why doesn't she bother keeping her hair neat or care about her appearance? Perhaps if you start with the reasons for it the rest will fill itself in.

 

[DrDelirium]

Well, this thread is trending south...

But address what's worth addressing:

I think a lot of beauty is hidden in posture - stand up straight, shoulders back, chest out, head up, show a face that was first hidden behind her hair...

Make someone look and act proud and confident, and he/she radiates beauty. Easier to write than to draw, I guess...

Ruben, yes, yes, and yes. It's not so much that it's difficult to draw once, it's that it's difficult to maintain a consistent set of elements in a constantly changing 'bigger picture' over a series of dozens of illustrations. Having a live model available who is capable of going through the transformation, or the outward signs of it, in question available would certainly help, but I don't have one at the moment. The story is also focused on the lag between being essentially forced to make outward changes and their impact on inner changes, and vice versa, which complicates matters because there is a deliberate mismatch between inner and outer going on- but they aren't unrelated.

LeandraNyx: Certainly. Just as the solution to all problems literary is to be good at writing.

HandsintheDark: Yes, Hollywood tends to cheat, in all possible ways, and they get away with it because the fact that there's really a person in the middle of all the cheating gives the whole thing a kind of credibility. Making a movie, though, is not in my budget, and if it was I would probably take the money and run off to the Bahamas or something.
I do appreciate that you grasp the basic problems that stem from deep cultural expectations in this regard. Yes, there are lots of reasons, some of them very good reasons, for these patterns of expectations and interpretations. Messing with them is dangerous.
You're quite right about body language, etc- see my remarks to Ruben, though. Also, she is not exactly a 'strong' character at the end of the story, not in the usual sense. She's certainly not assertive. The story is not so much about becoming other people's idea of a strong person, but about becoming aware of, and comfortable with, the core elements of who she is, and embracing them. These don't involve becoming a Senator, an astronaut, or a CEO.


jburton: Although not having read the story, you don't know the answers to these questions, I do, and I assure you that this knowledge does not solve my technical issues.

 

[rutger5]

Well Hollywood would handle this by having her start out with glasses, a pony tail, and unflattering clothing. Then Freddie Prinze Jr. could take off the glasses, remove the hair scrunchy so her hair flows free and have her bare her midriff. Instant bombshell, though this probably isn't what you wanted. Never mind.

 

[DrDelirium]

Well Hollywood would handle this by having her start out with glasses, a pony tail, and unflattering clothing. Then Freddie Prinze Jr. could take off the glasses, remove the hair scrunchy so her hair flows free and have her bare her midriff. Instant bombshell, though this probably isn't what you wanted. Never mind.

I was hoping to be slightly more subtle.
But perhaps I'm over-reaching.

 

[CyranoJ]

I was hoping to be slightly more subtle.
But perhaps I'm over-reaching.

Hey, man, positive thinking. Don't let AH pysche you out.

https://media.tenor.co/images/c6dd9f45dc3acd1e77444f00a0ce6569/tenor.gif