So, How Ugly Is She? (semi-off-topic)

[floweringquince]

This is a Serious Writing Thread, so sit up straight.
(Or else, can I interest you in these naked pictures of my cat?

This may not belong here, but I'm not sure where else to put it, so please ignore this thread at your leisure
I've been working on a (mainstream) story drawn from a semi-historical/semi-legendary incident. (Here's where you boo me off the AH for being way too off-topic

During a medieval clan feud, an heirless Scots laird is imprisoned in the castle with "the ugliest woman on the island." But that failed to stop him from siring a son with her, and that son eventually won back his lands and title.

I want to write the incident into a novel-length story, based on the perspective of that "ugliest woman."
My idea is to explore ugliness (and beauty), what it is and what it does, what it means and doesn't mean, and how it won't keep a man out of your skivvies when he *really, really* needs to get into them (to sire an heir, or for any other reason

I don't want her to be an "ugly duckling" who spends 10 minutes with a comb, changes her dress to one a flattering color, and is suddenly heart-stoppingly beautiful.

And I don't want her to be only ugly by one set of aesthetic standards, but if one simply frees oneself of one pre-conceptions of beauty...

I want her to be just plain ugly, anywhere, anytime. But not truly Quasimodo-grotesque - I need to stop at normal, garden-variety ugly. So far I've given her:

- "A broad face with only a small, sharp point to the end of her chin. That point; in concert with her square brow and small, flattish nose; gave her face a truly unfortunate resemblance to the back of a shovel blade."

- wiry carrot-yellow hair, with more and more strands greying to a wan pale umber.

- all her skin that's visible in "street" clothes (her face & hands) thickly spattered with dark brown freckles.

- almost colorless brows and lashes that to frame her deep-set, watery-gray eyes.

- wrinkles and lines in her face reflecting nearly forty years of a hardscrabble life.

- a stocky figure (built like a fire plug; although in 15th century Scotland, a tree stump might be a more appropriate analogy , with wide hips and a modest bust.

- very short, about 4-1/2 feet tall (1-1/2 yards? 3 cubits? 12 ells? I'll have to check for the correct units of measure).
(People were shorter in general 500 years ago; and the heir she gives birth to was known as "Murdoch Gearr" (Murdoch the Short, or Murdoch the Stunted). Since the Laird is descended from the Norse-originating Lords of the Isles, I'm surmising that the short gene is from her.)

So, is that ugly enough to be dead solid ugly without becoming grotesque? And I'm guessing the population of the island at the time was about 3,000, which would mean about 1,000 adult women - could she easily be the ugliest woman in a thousand?

Thanks for letting me maunder on...

- quince

 

[impressive]

Often considered ugly:

Crooked/missing teeth.

Big nostrils that open/tilt forward instead of downward.

Prominent ears.

Thin/pursed lips.

Whiney voice.

Braying laugh.

Malodorous.

Blemishes/warts.

 

[neonlyte]

This is a Serious Writing Thread, so sit up straight.
(Or else, can I interest you in these naked pictures of my cat?

This may not belong here, but I'm not sure where else to put it, so please ignore this thread at your leisure
I've been working on a (mainstream) story drawn from a semi-historical/semi-legendary incident. (Here's where you boo me off the AH for being way too off-topic

During a medieval clan feud, an heirless Scots laird is imprisoned in the castle with "the ugliest woman on the island." But that failed to stop him from siring a son with her, and that son eventually won back his lands and title.

I want to write the incident into a novel-length story, based on the perspective of that "ugliest woman."
My idea is to explore ugliness (and beauty), what it is and what it does, what it means and doesn't mean, and how it won't keep a man out of your skivvies when he *really, really* needs to get into them (to sire an heir, or for any other reason

I don't want her to be an "ugly duckling" who spends 10 minutes with a comb, changes her dress to one a flattering color, and is suddenly heart-stoppingly beautiful.

And I don't want her to be only ugly by one set of aesthetic standards, but if one simply frees oneself of one pre-conceptions of beauty...

I want her to be just plain ugly, anywhere, anytime. But not truly Quasimodo-grotesque - I need to stop at normal, garden-variety ugly. So far I've given her:

- "A broad face with only a small, sharp point to the end of her chin. That point; in concert with her square brow and small, flattish nose; gave her face a truly unfortunate resemblance to the back of a shovel blade."

- wiry carrot-yellow hair, with more and more strands greying to a wan pale umber.

- all her skin that's visible in "street" clothes (her face & hands) thickly spattered with dark brown freckles.

- almost colorless brows and lashes that to frame her deep-set, watery-gray eyes.

- wrinkles and lines in her face reflecting nearly forty years of a hardscrabble life.

- a stocky figure (built like a fire plug; although in 15th century Scotland, a tree stump might be a more appropriate analogy , with wide hips and a modest bust.

- very short, about 4-1/2 feet tall (1-1/2 yards? 3 cubits? 12 ells? I'll have to check for the correct units of measure).
(People were shorter in general 500 years ago; and the heir she gives birth to was known as "Murdoch Gearr" (Murdoch the Short, or Murdoch the Stunted). Since the Laird is descended from the Norse-originating Lords of the Isles, I'm surmising that the short gene is from her.)

So, is that ugly enough to be dead solid ugly without becoming grotesque? And I'm guessing the population of the island at the time was about 3,000, which would mean about 1,000 adult women - could she easily be the ugliest woman in a thousand?

Thanks for letting me maunder on...

- quince

I like her already
Uglyness falls into classification depending upon comparative notion of beauty - this link http://www.uvm.edu/~hag/sca/15th/ contains 50 female portraits from 15C, many of who resemble your description, but, one can assume since these ladies were painted, they may have been atypical rather than typical.

The scant thin eyebrow seems a common element, as does the drooping eyelid - uglyness in the 15C might have been bushy dark eyebrows and bulging 'fish eyes'. I'd paint ugly through behaviour as much as through physical description, the neglect of personal hygene, the farting and burping resulting from poor diet.

Good luck.

 

[cloudy]

I'd paint ugly through behaviour as much as through physical description, the neglect of personal hygene, the farting and burping resulting from poor diet.

Indeed.

Ugly is as ugly does, and behavior/habits are more telling, to me, than physical attributes.

 

[Grushenka]

I like her already too. You may end up doing too good a job and make her loveable for her ugliness. Actually, based on your opening post I think you're doing a fine job.

We all know beauty's relative (from continent to continent, village to village, one side of a river or street to the other, etc.), so just be consistent. BTW, farting, belching, etc., aren't necessasrily unattractive, depends on who you fart/belch around and how they feel about you.

Now you be nice to the poor girl!

 

[Carnevil9]

show, don't tell

They say it is always better to show something than tell something. Instead of trying to present a physical description of her ugliness, why not demonstrate it through the reactions of the other characters to her. How they look away, or don't notice her at all, or mistake her for a man (or a horse!) or whatever. That way, the reader can fill in the blanks and imagine the appropriately ugly visage that would elicit those reactions.

Just a thought!

 

[pop_54]

Often considered ugly:

Crooked/missing teeth.

Big nostrils that open/tilt forward instead of downward.

Prominent ears.

Thin/pursed lips.

Whiney voice.

Braying laugh.

Malodorous.

Blemishes/warts.

I think you've got it covered already flower... But as Imp suggests, and neon below I believe... maybe a little less physical and a little more mannerism ugliness, the harsh whiney voice... weird cackling chuckle of a laugh... She could pong a bit as well... I'd steer clear of trying to make her too ugly though, don't dwell on it... once described the occasional reference to a cackle, or nasty aroma as the tale unfolds should suffice...

Alternatively you could go the whole hog and describe her appearance Thus... "It appeared as someone had set fire to her face, then put it out with a shovel"

 

[Xelebes]

I like her already
Uglyness falls into classification depending upon comparative notion of beauty - this link http://www.uvm.edu/~hag/sca/15th/ contains 50 female portraits from 15C, many of who resemble your description, but, one can assume since these ladies were painted, they may have been atypical rather than typical.

The scant thin eyebrow seems a common element, as does the drooping eyelid - uglyness in the 15C might have been bushy dark eyebrows and bulging 'fish eyes'. I'd paint ugly through behaviour as much as through physical description, the neglect of personal hygene, the farting and burping resulting from poor diet.

Good luck.

I assume the paintings are of nuns and spinsters.

Of course there are some there that are not the case and would still classify as beautiful by today's standards.

 

[kendo1]

.....

 

[gauchecritic]

And I don't want her to be only ugly by one set of aesthetic standards, but if one simply frees oneself of one pre-conceptions of beauty...

Then much like MiAmico you are looking for an absolute in terms of aesthetics. The problem is that according to dicdotcom:
aesthetic: pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality.

There ain't no such animal.

Beauty, I'm afraid to say isn't actually pre-conceived. It is a learned thing, otherwise few racial types would be attracted to their own racial type

Ugliness simply has to be framed within only one set of aesthetic standards. If, as human beings we find flat noses, high cheekbones and pale skin to be ugly, then fewer and fewer mongolian peoples would be born at all. (yeah simplistic I know but the point is there to be made)

So much for first impressions.

Second impressions are where untoward beauty is found. One of the most good looking women I know is not pleasant to talk to. She never makes eye contact, disappears at whim from the middle of a conversation and is as thick as two short planks. conversely, one of the sexiest women I ever knew made eye contact every two or three seconds, appeared interested in everything you said to her, was charming, wrinkly faced, middle aged/old and wore the thickest lenses in her specs that you have ever seen.

So it looks like you have to go by scottish standards. (Apart from Annie Lennox I can't actually think of any Western ideal scottish beauties, but I'm sure someone will come up with some. NO, not sheena easton.) Not only that but medieval too. tough job, as Neon pointed out beauty is transient.

On the other hand have you ever seen the restored portrait of Nefertiti?

 

[SimonBrooke]

I've given her:

- "A broad face with only a small, sharp point to the end of her chin. That point; in concert with her square brow and small, flattish nose; gave her face a truly unfortunate resemblance to the back of a shovel blade."

- wiry carrot-yellow hair, with more and more strands greying to a wan pale umber.

- all her skin that's visible in "street" clothes (her face & hands) thickly spattered with dark brown freckles.

- almost colorless brows and lashes that to frame her deep-set, watery-gray eyes.

- wrinkles and lines in her face reflecting nearly forty years of a hardscrabble life.

- a stocky figure (built like a fire plug; although in 15th century Scotland, a tree stump might be a more appropriate analogy , with wide hips and a modest bust.

- very short, about 4-1/2 feet tall (1-1/2 yards? 3 cubits? 12 ells? I'll have to check for the correct units of measure).

Asymmetric features are also often seen as ugly - one eye higher than the other, or a different shape, perhaps?

Small eyes?

Beard? Mind you, the only woman I've known who had a beard and had the guts not to shave it was pretty good-looking, but still...

(People were shorter in general 500 years ago; and the heir she gives birth to was known as "Murdoch Gearr" (Murdoch the Short, or Murdoch the Stunted). Since the Laird is descended from the Norse-originating Lords of the Isles, I'm surmising that the short gene is from her.)

Careful! 'People' were shorter but highlanders weren't. Compared with other peasant people of the British Isles, contemporary commentators from the fifteenth century through to the eighteenth commented on how big, strong and healthy the ordinary people of the highlands were. Essentially the highland aristocracy weren't as oppressive as landowners in other places; peasants retained more of their produce and ate better. Height is largely a matter of nutrition in childhood, and the highlanders were not comparatively poor until after the 1745 rebellion.

 

[kendo1]

.....

 

[Stella_Omega]

This is a Serious Writing Thread, so sit up straight.
(Or else, can I interest you in these naked pictures of my cat?

This may not belong here, but I'm not sure where else to put it, so please ignore this thread at your leisure
I've been working on a (mainstream) story drawn from a semi-historical/semi-legendary incident. (Here's where you boo me off the AH for being way too off-topic

During a medieval clan feud, an heirless Scots laird is imprisoned in the castle with "the ugliest woman on the island." But that failed to stop him from siring a son with her, and that son eventually won back his lands and title.

I want to write the incident into a novel-length story, based on the perspective of that "ugliest woman."
My idea is to explore ugliness (and beauty), what it is and what it does, what it means and doesn't mean, and how it won't keep a man out of your skivvies when he *really, really* needs to get into them (to sire an heir, or for any other reason

I don't want her to be an "ugly duckling" who spends 10 minutes with a comb, changes her dress to one a flattering color, and is suddenly heart-stoppingly beautiful.

And I don't want her to be only ugly by one set of aesthetic standards, but if one simply frees oneself of one pre-conceptions of beauty...

I want her to be just plain ugly, anywhere, anytime. But not truly Quasimodo-grotesque - I need to stop at normal, garden-variety ugly. So far I've given her:

- "A broad face with only a small, sharp point to the end of her chin. That point; in concert with her square brow and small, flattish nose; gave her face a truly unfortunate resemblance to the back of a shovel blade."

- wiry carrot-yellow hair, with more and more strands greying to a wan pale umber.

- all her skin that's visible in "street" clothes (her face & hands) thickly spattered with dark brown freckles.

- almost colorless brows and lashes that to frame her deep-set, watery-gray eyes.

- wrinkles and lines in her face reflecting nearly forty years of a hardscrabble life.

- a stocky figure (built like a fire plug; although in 15th century Scotland, a tree stump might be a more appropriate analogy , with wide hips and a modest bust.

- very short, about 4-1/2 feet tall (1-1/2 yards? 3 cubits? 12 ells? I'll have to check for the correct units of measure).
(People were shorter in general 500 years ago; and the heir she gives birth to was known as "Murdoch Gearr" (Murdoch the Short, or Murdoch the Stunted). Since the Laird is descended from the Norse-originating Lords of the Isles, I'm surmising that the short gene is from her.)

So, is that ugly enough to be dead solid ugly without becoming grotesque? And I'm guessing the population of the island at the time was about 3,000, which would mean about 1,000 adult women - could she easily be the ugliest woman in a thousand?

Thanks for letting me maunder on...

- quince

Nice plot!

Perhaps she was a dwarf, or showed some signs of dwarfism?

Re; "change clothing=beauty;"
Some story out of the Mabigonnion (don't have it to hand at the moment) talked about the girl being nothing much, untill the day when everyone noticed how beautiful she was. The reason for this transformation was the fine clothing she wore. The description says nothing abou twhat she herself looked like, only of what she was wearing.

It seemed to me that the word "Beauty" was either used differently in those days, or that the translation might have been better served by the word "glamour"

 

[starrkers]

You may do better not to describe her too closely, but point out one or two obvious downfalls in her appearance. That would let readers fill in the blanks for themselves.
That way you'll get your universal ugliness.

 

[glynndah]

And just to keep up my predilection for picking up the point people are not trying to make, sure, I'll look at your cat.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You may do better not to describe her too closely, but point out one or two obvious downfalls in her appearance. That would let readers fill in the blanks for themselves.
That way you'll get your universal ugliness.

Thta's the best way to denote Universal Beauty as well *nods*

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Thta's the best way to denote Universal Beauty as well *nods*

indeed... give the reader credit... the imagination will fill in the blanks... and will actually be a better "ideal" in their own minds that your description...

just give a tease, glimpses, little hints...

 

[Stella_Omega]

indeed... give the reader credit... the imagination will fill in the blanks... and will actually be a better "ideal" in their own minds that your description...

just give a tease, glimpses, little hints...

You're not doing this on purpose, are you?

 

[EllaRegina]

How they look away, or don't notice her at all, or mistake her for a man (or a horse!) or whatever.

Mistaking her for a horse would convey it all to me!

How about yellow teeth, to add to the roster of details?

 

[only_more_so]

There is more to ugly than the face...

For the body, the wider the waist in relationship to the hips, the less attractive. A woman who's torso basically goes straight down, no waist, would be an extreme example.

Also, if you look at her hands, they would likely be broad, with yellow nails at the ends of short skinny fingers. Short fat fingers actually look better than short skinny ones on a broad hand.

Another thing that looks beautiful is symmetry. So if one eye drooped and her ears weren't level, that would be a turn off.

People have studied what makes a person beautiful. Look up that research and then do the opposite.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

You're not doing this on purpose, are you?

who me?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

And don't forget the sewer stench whe reeks when she walks into a room.

 

[floweringquince]

Thanks to all y'all for such a great response

Nice plot!

Thanks!

I love that it is based on a real incident, that it is so complex, and that it doesn't seem to have been done before.

There is a truly dumbfounding plethora of "Hijinks In The Heather" stories out there; all of which seem to involve a beautiful lassie eventually rescued from distress by some braw & bonny laddie, usually one named Alasdair (the common variation being whether it was Alasdair who got her into her distress in the first place, or The Evil Lord Dubh).
Even if this project winds up falling flat on its face in the end, at least it'll be different from all those

I like her already

I like her already too. You may end up doing too good a job and make her lovable for her ugliness. Actually, based on your opening post I think you're doing a fine job. [...]
Now you be nice to the poor girl!

The "poor girl" is going to make out like a bandit. She starts off as the maid-of-all-scutwork in the busy and crowded castle of the Laird doing the imprisoning, but the story soon send her to the tiny island where the imprisoned Laird is being held in another castle. There she finds less and easier work, more and better food, and a 26-year-old Lairdie (I have yet to find a good reason not to make *him* good-looking who is pitching her his best and most serious woo.

Once she manages to to conceive, give birth, and arrange for the baby to be spirited off to safety; she becomes the mother of the rightful Laird's heir. Of course, that and a day's hard work will get her her dinner; but it beats being the maid in charge of emptying all the chamberpots.

(I haven't decided yet whether she ultimately lives out her days with her still-imprisoned Lairdie, or runs off with one of the imprisoning Laird's less-loyal retainers...)

I'd steer clear of trying to make her too ugly though, don't dwell on it... once described the occasional reference... ...should suffice...

Right, we don't want to beat the readers over the head with it. Her ugliness sets the story in motion, but becomes less important as the story goes on (which itself is an important part of the story

...the word "Beauty" was either used differently in those days, or that the translation might have been better served by the word "glamour"

Interesting thought. I read somewhere once that "glamour" is from an (Old English?) word meaning "enchantment" or "thrall", and at one time (Middle English?) could be defined as "the appearance of beauty where there is none."

My theme might be expressed by the inverse of that: the (existence? presence? realization?) of beauty (of mind & soul, and of actions and relations to others) where there appears to be none.

So it looks like you have to go by scottish standards.... Not only that but medieval too. tough job

Yup. And she has to be a flavor of ugly that both medieval Scots and 21st century readers of English will agree to.

And, as Kendo pointed out, I also need to find units of measure that both groups will understand (or define a term such as "ell" before I use it) (4.5 inches, BTW: a length of 45" of fabric is 10 ells wide).

I'd prefer to use informal units of measure (handspans, armlengths, etc.) but haven't yet come up with one for height better than "needs to duck for all lintels/needs to duck for some lintels/never needs to duck for lintels."

(And even that one really needs a mention that medieval lintels did *not* all conform to a Unified Building Code Standard of 78"; but varied widely from somewhere around 54-60" on up, only sometimes reaching 6-1/2 feet or more.)

(And perhaps a deft-slipping-in of the definition of "lintel" as the top part of a doorframe, which you hit your head on if you're too tall and don't duck.)

They say it is always better to show something than tell something. Instead of trying to present a physical description of her ugliness, why not demonstrate it through the reactions of the other characters to her. How they look away, or don't notice her at all, or mistake her for a man (or a horse!) or whatever. That way, the reader can fill in the blanks and imagine the appropriately ugly visage that would elicit those reactions.

You may do better not to describe her too closely, but... ...let readers fill in the blanks for themselves

Well, yes - but *I* need to have a pretty good what she looks like, so that I know what to have my characters react to, and where to leave the blanks.

For example, I have to know that she's "built like a tree stump" to write some bit about a kid who taunts "I thought I saw Hackit Maisrie in the wood this morning; but it was only a tree stump with two long branches left on, and a badger grooming himself atop!"
(No, I don't know whether badgers groom themselves, or would ever climb tree stumps for that or any other reason; but I will before that line makes the final draft

All my characters for a project of any length have a "dossier," which includes their "police report" description ("4'6", 100 lb., red/gray, freckles") as well as noted on their habits, likes, dislikes, parents & childhood, significant life events, what they like to eat for breakfast, etc.).

None of this may ever make it into the story, or it may just touch the edge of the story ("She shared her dinner without complaint, not least because she really didn't like roast rabbit.") without ever another mention. But it needs to be there so that I can pick and choose among my character's traits as I look for material to build the story with (and so that I don't blow it and have her turning down venison for rabbit in some other part of the story .

Uglyness falls into classification depending upon comparative notion of beauty - this link http://www.uvm.edu/~hag/sca/15th/ contains 50 female portraits from 15C, many of who resemble your description, but, one can assume since these ladies were painted, they may have been atypical rather than typical.

The scant thin eyebrow seems a common element, as does the drooping eyelid - uglyness in the 15C might have been bushy dark eyebrows and bulging 'fish eyes'.

Thanks for link, Neon. I had quite forgotten the aesthetic value placed back then on a clear, white, smooth, unblemished, almost-as-if-featureless face.

Another thing that looks beautiful is symmetry. So if one eye drooped and her ears weren't level, that would be a turn off.

Asymmetric features are also often seen as ugly - one eye higher than the other, or a different shape, perhaps?

Here's where you've helped me to see more clearly the other horn of my dilemma. She needs to be ugly, and flat-out-irredeemably ugly at that; but she can't so ugly as to be grotesque - and she has to be likable.

For that reason, although asymmetry is an excellent idea (thanks!) I don't want to take it too far - maybe just a small bobble to the line of her nose where it was once broken, or -

Blemishes/warts.

- two-or-three facial moles or birthmarks, which would also emphasize her heavy freckling.

Small eyes?

Definitely. I'm thinking deep-set, but protruding could work also.

Crooked/missing teeth.

Crooked teeth, and a between-teeth gap or two. Missing (or black) would be reasonable enough for the time, but might be hard for modern readers to stomach.

There is more to ugly than the face...
For the body, the wider the waist in relationship to the hips, the less attractive. A woman who's torso basically goes straight down, no waist, would be an extreme example.

Definitely, little or no waist.

And either big broad hips if she's short, or almost no hips or butt if she's tall.

I'm figuring her bust should be modest but there, something like a B or C cup (she should have at least one redeeming physical feature, especially if it's one that is only really apparent when she's got her clothes off .

Also, if you look at her hands, they would likely be broad, with yellow nails at the ends of short skinny fingers. Short fat fingers actually look better than short skinny ones on a broad hand.

Excellent, thank you! I was already planning to make her fingers somewhat crooked, and, of course, gnarled and calloused with years of work.

... She could pong a bit as well...

I'd paint ugly through behaviour as much as through physical description, the neglect of personal hygene, the farting and burping resulting from poor diet.

Malodorous.

And don't forget the sewer stench whe reeks when she walks into a room.

Hmmm... Okay, I may actually let her improve in this respect.

If she's the official emptier of chamberpots, and overworked at that, she's liable to pong and then some; and not have very much time to keep after washing herself and her clothes. And if her diet depends on what comes back to the kitchen uneaten, it may be low on protein and high on veggies - especially the cabbage and kale that (I will verify) would have been staple vegetables there.

Once she's in her new job looking after the imprisoned lairdie, there will be fewer chamberpots to empty, more time for looking after herself, and greater opportunities to share the Lairdie's more protein-enabled diet.

(People were shorter in general 500 years ago; and the heir she gives birth to was known as "Murdoch Gearr" (Murdoch the Short, or Murdoch the Stunted). Since the Laird is descended from the Norse-originating Lords of the Isles, I'm surmising that the short gene is from her.)

Careful! 'People' were shorter but highlanders weren't. Compared with other peasant people of the British Isles, contemporary commentators from the fifteenth century through to the eighteenth commented on how big, strong and healthy the ordinary people of the highlands were.

Yep. Six foot was not unusual at that time.

Try waving a five foot, two-handed sword about if you were short.
Though to be fair, the short sword was prefered.

Not unusual for *men* (ye gowk

(Women usually did prefer the short sword to the claigh mohr great sword; but even more often used the sgian dubh small dagger at close range, or poison at an even closer range .
Better yet was to get some man to do the fighting for them: men tended to like fighting better than women did anyway, and often weren't all that hard to convince

According to the last set of statistics I remember reading (not a strictly unimpeachable source , the average American man is 5'9", and the average American woman is 5'4". Making the (admittedly large) assumption that the difference in average heights, and in distribution of height, was similar between the modern US and medieval Scotland; we could infer that:
Five-foot-seven "was not unusual" - for women - "at that time."


So all this leads up to Your Question For The Day: Is "Too Tall" uglier than "Too Short", or vice versa?


If she is tall, we can have her mistaken for a man, or a horse; especially if we give her a big, raw-boned frame without enough meat on it, and big oversized facial features (especially nose & ears). Since at least her initial wardrobe will consist of what everyone else didn't want, the ugly-due-to-clothing aspect would have the feature that everything will be a little, or a lot, too short and too small, making her looking even bigger and rangier.

It would be easy enough to blame her eventual child's short stature on dwarfism caused by some random mutation, especially given that she will be at least a few years past 35.


OTOH, if she is short:

Perhaps she was a dwarf, or showed some signs of dwarfism?

If she is a carrier of an already mutated gene for dwarfism, she could have a thing called "somatic mosaicism" which would cause her to have some dwarf-like characteristics (prominent forehead, enlarged skull, disproportionately short thighs and upper arms, short, stubby fingers, bow-legged or knock-kneed) without having all of them or being quite short enough to be a dwarf herself (which, nowadays, is 4'6" for women, so I'd probably make her 4'8" or so).

(If I understand somatic mosaicism right (which I very well may not , she could in theory have some of the above features and still be quite tall; but it seems vanishingly unlikely.)


So, which is worse: should she be built like a too-short tree stump; or like a too-tall, raw-boned horse?


- Quince


PS:

Height is largely a matter of nutrition in childhood

My best friend; whose childhood was characterized by ballet lessons, summer camps, and the general easy availability of material things; will be pleased to hear that from me; whose childhood was not horribly deprived, but who early on had good reason to be grateful that public libraries are free.

We both had more than adequate childhood nutrition: I'm 5'-9", she's 5'-zilch

(Not that it's relevant or anything, but her parents are 5'6" and 4'10; mine are 5'11 and 5'10"


PPS:

And just to keep up my predilection for picking up the point people are not trying to make, sure, I'll look at your cat.

(I'm terribly sorry, Glynndah, but there aren't actually any naked pictures of my cat. He stubbornly refuses to take off that fur coat of his for *anybody*

 

[matriarch]

.....Here's where you've helped me to see more clearly the other horn of my dilemma. She needs to be ugly, and flat-out-irredeemably ugly at that; but she can't so ugly as to be grotesque - and she has to be likable.

Well, there's your main problem. You'm trying to have your cake and eat it as well.......

As far as my experience leads me, 'ugly' is a very subjective description, and in almost all cases where people agree about the ugliness of a person, it tends to come from their character and personality, rather than their appearance.

There has to be something about her that appeals to him, for the 'relationship' to ever take root.....and if you're going for an unappealing physical appearance, then it has to be her character, her personality, that undefinable something she has, that no other woman has, something about her that resonates with him.

I don't envy you this one.......a very tricky one to write, you have to get it just right, or its going to come off as totally unbelievable.

 

[gauchecritic]

I've just realised how you can easily make her 'ugly' when she arrives and better looking after having lived there a while. Diet.

She could easily be very malnourished which would give poor skin tone, make her features stand out skeletally (like women that refuse to eat enough) giving them a muzzelly (Victoria Beckham) appearance with a prominent nose and obvious brow ridges. Then as her diet improves her features (as well as body) flesh out to transform her facial appearance and also her hips and arse. et voila.