The only one in the shop ('Foyles' in Westfield Stratford) had the below diagrams in it. I won't name the book nor the author/artist but just take a look:
On the left, we see a pretty reasonable representation of a 'male' body. Perfect for learning basic proportions and anatomy. Over the page however, we see what is mostly a reasonable sketch of a 'female' body. That is, until you get to the chest...
What on earth are these two ridiculous, perfectly circular and painfully pointy little plastic boobs?
This post isn't even about the ridiculous body standards women are held to (nor the likelihood that these breasts more accurately reflect the surgical enhancement the artist has most likely seen in Hollywood - or porn) but just the level of care and attention to detail given to women's bodies.
This is a published, standardised reference guide. Thousands of people will have learned from this book. So how could the artist have (clearly) cared so little about accurately drawing one of the two figures presented on this spread in the opening pages? How many editors and reviewers did this go through that accepted this drawing as being a good representation? Was there reference used from real life models or even biological diagrams?
I think this quite clearly dovetails with the lack of thought that goes into writing female characters. More diverse writing staffs will lead to writing better women characters and I believe the same is true for drawing women characters. Editors, directors, producers, everyone needs to do better.
