![]()
"They're Breasts Jim, But Not As We Know Them" If you read my review of Interzone #199, you will have noted that I gently upbraided the use of a cover illustration of a splendidly buxom young woman (and I wasn't the only one so to do). So that perhaps makes my reviewing a collection of similar pictures by the same artist, Jim Burns, with the same cover illustration, somewhat incongruous. But it struck me that in the early days of my SF reading, as a teenage boy in the 1970s, the visual attraction of SF magazines and books certainly played a role in my burgeoning interest in SF, so I thought I'd have a retro-review of some SF imagery as part of looking at the book in hand, despite my wife gently upbraiding me for looking at a book of drawings of scantily clad women young enough to be my daughter (doh!) and my 15-year old son opining (and he is the type to opine) that the book was 'pervy'.
As you can see from the covers, scantily clad women featured quite strongly, in poses to bring out the protective male genes in even a spotty 13year old.
The cover of 'Warlord of Mars' was somewhat sub-standard (not lets not mince words, it was crap). And that ugly old bloke on the cover of Llana of Gathol was enough to put you off your stroke.
In pulling off (no, don't titter) the copies of these books from the shelves just now, I was surprised just how stilted the writing style was. That I made my way through all the books, was probably an indication of just what little fiction there was to hand, and explains why my aforementioned son turned his nose up at them when I suggested he read them.
Clearly the reading of series has passed down a generation as the eldest son also tends to tick to series : Harry Potter (doh!), Terry Pratchett, and a couple of other series by the likes of Philip Reeve, Ian Stewart & Chris Riddell, White Dwarf magazine, PC Gamer, and now (doh!!) Dan bloody Brown.
When I see Roger Dean artwork I can't help but having flashbacks to spotty adolescents in tight jeans with perms holding Yes albums!
At least Frazetta had the decency to populate his paintings with similarly ridiculous stereotypes of men - huge, muscled men with mighty swords and axes.
At that point though, for me, the visual side of SF was primarily served through the cinema. Star Wars, Alien, Blade Runner etc came close on each other's heels - certainly considering that prior to this a truly excellent SF film was as rare as a hen's tooth. I suppose I could have got in the comic (whoops, graphic novel) side of things. My brother got into Heavy Metal/Metal Hurlant in a big way, but my preference remained for the printed word. I read the odd SF novel during the 80s, and then began reading the short form of SF through Dozois' annual anthologies, and in the 2000s began reading magazines.
However, starting to read the monthly magazines in 2000 started to re-attune me to SF as a visual form, especially as I was seeing the whole range of art - the good, the bad, and the downright ugly. The three main American SF mags are fairly conservative in their covers, with very few giving any inkling of a heaving bosom. Spaceships, planets, alien landscapes and so forth are their staple, which is fine by me. The only quibble I have is that occasionally one slips by which is just plain bad. F&SF covers feature people more regularly, and the quality of their artwork edges the other two for the most part.
Having already indicated my penchant for series of books, I would single out the Gollancz 'Masterworks of SF' series, now numbering 60 numbered volumes (and having them numbered is -very- important for us anal retentives), which have a very high standard of cover illustration. They are now re-issuing some of the early volumes, but with different covers. I have yet to work out how to purchase these and slip them past my wife. As a fellow librarian there's not pulling the wool over her eyes in that respect. ![]() And one of the artists regularly adorning those books is Jim Burns (all of the above, and more). The covers he has produced for these books are exquisite, and a couple of resources on the web, such as http://www.ofearna.us/art/burns.html and Artists UK and the Official Peter F Hamilton website give an indication of the broad range, and huge volume of high quality artwork Jim Burns has produced (albeit over 30 years).
![]()
The handsome, full colour book "..showcases the sensual exploration of women trapped in their alien environments, content to play muse to their master fantasist.." and contains purely illustrations of the female form (apart from the odd rodent and occasional bloke). The Titan Books website does use the somewhat more honest phrases 'pin-ups' and 'erotic fantasy'. The book is large format, and has 70+ pages showcasing 'the sensual exploration of women trapped blah blah'/'pin-ups' (delete as preferred), on high-quality (probably wipeable) paper. There are background notes to the illustrations, although they are sparser than I would like. More interesting are the preliminary sketches which are included. These pencil drafts show, to my mind, the artistic talent off better than a lot of the photo-realistic work included. These sketches tend not to have the sfnal trimming, and do actually enable you to see the person who has been drawn, whereas the glossy pictures tend to have an anonymity behind the eyes (or maybe the attention is drawn to the unfeasibly large breasts?!) I'm probably going to hunt down the previous two volumes of Burns' work, as this volume, as a singleton, gives just a view of one facet to his work, which for my money, doesn't do him justice. It's back to the beginning of this review - for me SF is about the blackness of space, alien landscapes, and humanity moving forward. I do hope that the future holds more for women than being squeezed into fetishistic outfits!
review copyright Mark Watson 2005 |