Welcome to the second post in our series on applying Trinny & Susannah’s twelve body shapes from the Body Shape Bible to sewing and sewing pattern selection. In this post, I’ll review the actual book itself that provides the source material the shape analyses to come in later posts. This book review should help to provide background information and context for the upcoming posts in the series.
Book Format
After the intro, the bulk of the book is 12 chapters, each one devoted to a body shape. (There are sections at the end for recycling/revamping your wardrobe plus a few UK-specific shopping guides.) Each chapter follows the same format. There is a page that introduces the shape with basic info, followed immediately by more exposition on the shape with a photo clearly labeling the features of the shape.
Sample Page: Shape Intro (Goblet)
Sample Page: Your Shape
Next, Trinny and Susannah cover the shape’s “biggest mistakes” with a photo of a bad fashion choice. This section includes a list of “Never Wear” items, which I don’t care for. I find it limiting, and it seems like fashion advice masquerading the inherent size-ism and body shame that permeates the book, and really, the vast majority of fashion/style guides.
Sample Page: Your Biggest Mistakes
Next are “Key Shapes” with explanations of features that will work for the shape and photos of some exemplar pieces. Here’s a sample page:
Sample Page: Key Shapes
Then they have 3 Best Looks: casual, smart (business, professional), and party. Each has the woman who models the shape wearing an ideal outfit and a discussion of features to look for. Here are 2 sample pages, one casual and one smart:
Sample Page: Best Look – Casual
Sample Page: Best Look – Smart
Then there is general advice and commentary about the shape called “What it means to be a (Shape).
Sample Page: What It Means to Be a …
The chapter concludes with “(Shapes) to inspire you,” a segment that includes famous women of that shape. They have photos of the woman making a good style choice and a bad one with short explanations for both.
Sample Page: To Inspire You
The good
Their body shape schema has 12 types, which is far more comprehensive and detailed than the usual 4 shapes of most systems.
This is the system that Trinny and Susannah use:
12 Shapes of the Body Shape Bible
Note how the shapes relate to each other and vary based on weight distribution and proportions on the body. For example, a woman who has been less than pleased with the advice she gets for having a Pear-like body may be a Skittle (US—think bowling pin). Both shapes have full thighs, but a Skittle has a flatter, smaller bum. A Pear has a greater tendency to “saddlebags” and has fuller hips. Both have chunky calves, but the Skittle’s calves are a bit slimmer and shapelier than the Pear’s.
In general, by using a more extensive set of shapes, they can customize the advice more thoroughly than the typical 4 shapes systems can. There are many suggestions here for each body type for design features and proportions to look for.
Hourglass – Key Shapes
With one exception, Trinny and Susannah provide three example celebrities to illustrate each shape, and those famous women vary in age, size, and race, ranging from Meryl Streep to Shakira, from Angelina Jolie to Oprah, from Hillary Clinton to Serena Williams. The variety– in ages, sizes, skin tones/ colors, and occupations– is impressive. They also use regular women to illustrate each shape, and likewise, they include women of various ages, sizes, and races. I was happy to see that they didn’t just default to young, white women. YEAH! Diverse women! Young, white women are great, but they aren’t the only women in the world, so I loved to see such a variety included.
Yay, diversity!
OMG, y’all! A woman of color! An older woman! They exist! They really do!
(An aside here: Halters may be great for balancing shoulders, but they will be murder on your neck if you use neck straps as bust support with large breasts. Just sayin’.)
The bad
As I’ll discuss, some (much?) of the language is problematic. It tends to be demoralizing and objectifying. For example, the powerful shoulders and back of a Brick are nice, but only for an Olympic swimmer (p.184). They call some body types “all female” or “all woman.” If a woman inhabits a body type, that type is all woman. Just because a body type or shape less approximates some stereotypical or ideal form doesn’t mean that body is less female. Saying that types are more masculine, harder to make sexy or sensual just makes it harder for those women to feel feminine or sexy (if they want to).
They also tend to go over the top with the idea that how a woman dresses (and thus how she looks) is the most important thing in her life. Each body shape section contains “Your Biggest Mistake” to discuss styles that they believe are less flattering on that body shape. I certainly love good hyperbole, but calling a bad style choice “your biggest mistake” is just silly. I get it. This is a guide to picking clothes. But let’s have a little perspective! A poorly fit sweater is a “biggest mistake”? Oh. Schmitch. Please. Hillary Clinton will be thrilled to know her biggest mistake was her black bell-shaped ball gown and not anything to do with her email! And as I said above, I don’t like the “never wear” admonishment.
Hilary Clinton’s biggest mistake?
Also, the “deep thoughts” advice section in each chapter, “What It Means to be a (Shape)”…. (I trail off when I think about this title.) Well, something about the phrasing of what it means to be a particular body type that has advice about grooming, finding style role models, and what you should like and/or enjoy about your body smacks of telling women to see ourselves– our very identities—as our bodies. Frankly, we get that message far, FAR too often. And some of the advice contained is weird, objectifying, and sexualizing. It also reinforces a specific type of femininity and heterosexuality. Let’s see an example, shall we? Here, the hourglass.
What it means to be an hourglass?
There’s a contradiction in the message to cover breasts or use jewelry to distract other’s eyes away from them and then to instruct women not to fear “thrusting your breasts forward.” And let’s not ignore the fat shaming message that shoving one’s breasts out there is preferable to being “hunched over with boobs pressing downwards, creating extra belly rolls.” (p. 70) Ugh. They also use this section to hammer down the idea that the Hourglass (or shapes more like it that are curvy) are IDEAL and more inherently female and feminine than other shapes. Reinforcing the notion that some women are lesser women because their body shapes are less stereotypically feminine is damaging. It can contribute to self-loathing and feelings of shame about one’s body and even one’s gender identity and sexuality. That Trinny and Susannah mention so frequently that some women are masculine for having broader shoulders and/or more square, muscular bodies just shows how limited their (and to some extent, a general broad cultural) view is of what women are supposed to look like.
Also, it is impractical to discourage women from dressing for the weather because high necks are less attractive on certain body types, like they do here. If I have to walk 10 minutes from my parking lot to my class when it is 10 below 0 Fahrenheit, you can bet your arse I’m buttoning up and not artfully draping scarves where I’ve opened my coat buttons. And please. There are tons of casual styles that an Hourglass can work and look great in. Not every woman has a lifestyle well suited for “smart” tailored fashions, even if her body shape is. Telling women not to fear standing out by going against the tide for casual styles and dressing up fails to acknowledge that women lead different lives with different needs. The Hourglass or Vase with small children and a job as a pharmacist probably doesn’t have much need for a closet packed with pencil skirts, the style they most strongly suggest for these two shapes.
(Also, a general comment. They use the words boobs, tits, and bosom far more extensively than breasts. I have no problems with such slang terms for body parts, and I’ll use them here, but when usage of them eclipses real terms it seems like a pandering to an adolescent mentality.)
The Ugly
The book is dated (2007). This is not a big deal from the perspective that some fashions have changed or that some stores in their directory may have moved or closed, but it is ugly when it comes to disparaging language, especially about marginalized groups. They tend to use “transsexual” as a particularly derogatory term for bad styles choices. In 2007, there was much less attention to the challenges the trans-community faced, and few people thought about the implications of using “trans” as an insult. Reading it 2015 (or even 2010, when I first did so), to see Susannah use “transsexual” to joke about her hairstyle, it was jarring. (Please note: my edition was published in 2007. If the book has re-issued subsequently, the editors or authors may have changed some of the dated aspects of the book.)
Conclusion
The book has good advice and an applaudable level of diverse women depicted. But immensely problematic language that sexualizes, shames, and objectifies women’s bodies and contributes to a sizist, sexist, and heterosexist worldview.
I used to love T&S on TV. Working with one woman, they were tough but committed to getting her out of a rut of self loathing. The one episode where some friends nominated a sensational hairdresser who had a Tina Turner thing going on and was pretty upset that her friends thought she needed T&S, was quite different. They are no good with alpha women! I did feel that the real value add was the getting out of a rut, not the shape advice. I have never been comfortable about that – it’s more of the same thing – trying to look thinner or younger. However as a stage performer I am learning that I am still automatically trying to hide behind loose shapes, and getting into more fitting clothes looks and performs better on stage. Even at my size. I am not sure T&S would have advocated for that.
As a reader, I guess what I’d like to know more about is how useful the book is for its intended purpose: analyzing women’s shapes and helping them to choose clothing that is flattering. I don’t need or expect a book on learning to dress for one’s shape to accomplish
anything else. From your description so far, I can’t honestly tell if I should buy this book or not. This is a planned series. Are you going to keep on criticizing their language or are you going go on and review how well the book succeeds in what it was supposed to do? I
don’t find their use of “boobs” and “tits” instead of breasts to be a problem. I think they were going for a “just between us” girls vibe. I do agree that the use of “trans” as a pejorative was objectionable even then and completely offensive now. The culture is so permeated with negative messages about women who have any shape other than that of a teen-aged boy, it’s hard to get riled about a book from 2007 telling women with large breasts that it’s okay to stand up straight. I won’t be taking Susannah and Trinny as feminist role models but your criticism of the language, “biggest mistake,” seems completely out of line. We all know they are referring to a fashion misstep, not a catastrophic, life-changing mistake. Maybe I’m just too old and too tired (and too cranky) but I have a hard time believing that this book is going to affect any adult woman’s self-esteem, one way or the other. Yes. I am indeed a feminist. In case you were wondering. Okay, I’m shutting up now.
Interesting. I must say that I don’t find words like “boobs” and “tits” to be adolescent in this context – rather it’s the language of a certain type of upper-class UK woman. I don’t know if this makes it any more acceptable! Without having read the book it sounds like it’s very much of its time: back in those days we watched What Not To Wear and then moved onto Tracey Cox for dating/sex tips. Rather like Tracey Cox, T&S seemed to assume that their viewers/readers lived in London, did an office job and had no children. (Disclaimer: I recently bought a Tracey Cox book for my kindle. It comes across as very, very 90s – and is pretty much useless for my current life.) The comment about cold weather should be seen in that context: it never really gets that cold in London, and if you’re commuting from one bit of London to another bit of London on the tube you’re not going to be out in the weather all that much anyway. It’s interesting that you used the Jo Brand page to illustrate the celeb bits. I think that page perfectly illustrates the point that T&S have missed: her comedy persona was/is a real tubthumping, doc-martened feminist and the “bad” outfit is totally right for that. I believe the “good” outfit is what T&S put her in for a red carpet do, and it’s totally right for that. Some of us might want to look like T&S have dressed us some of the time, but I don’t think that anyone wants to look like that all of the time, not even T&S 🙂
In my longer comments on the format, one thing I note is their best/worst inspiration pics are problematic. Not just because they often ignore the woman’s personality or stage/performance persona, but they compare clearly disparate events. No woman is going to wear the same style of outfit or have the same goals for how she looks when she’s at an outdoor benefit as to when she’s at the Oscars.
I have no problem with boobs, tits, or even outright profanity. I swear like a stevedore on a daily basis. But I do think when using slang terms for body parts, especially those associated with sexytimes, overwhelmingly outnumbers non-slang words that it can come across as a “tee hee giggle dirty” mentality. This is one of those things that may be related to my experiences teaching college students (especially freshmen), many of whom will giggle when they hear “penis” or “vagina” in a lecture about anatomy. And G-d forbid they use “breast” or “pubic mound” in a paper if those parts are relevant to it. I mean, really, in formal writing “ta-tas” doesn’t do the author any favors for looking credible.
As far as how T&S want to look, I’m not sure they come across in the book at all as thinking they have latitude to not dress to the standards they present. If S can describe a skirt that doesn’t adequately show off her bum and a top that denies the world her gorgeous cleavage as “diabolical,” then I’m not sure she’d say she can go out dressed in anything less than an outfit that shows her shape to its absolute optimum advantage.
Holy god I’m glad you’re reading this book and not me. I’m really enjoying your feminist critique but I would have composted the book after reading that I should strategically place brooches to discourage the male gaze on my breasts (as if I’m at fault if I don’t protect myself against assholes) or any jokes about trans people. And I don’t think my droopy breasts are less attractive than if I perked them up with a super supporting bra. I don’t want a giant shelf below my chin.
I HATE this rules-for-shapes language used in so many sewing books and blogs. I wish instead of “you should always wear this style so you don’t emphasize your hips!” they would say “if you want to de-emphisize your hips, do this. If rather you would like to de-emphisize your shoulders do this” etc. Simple cause and effect language would be effective without commenting on how my shape is crappy because it’s not “ideal”.
Yes, the book is old but it would be crazy not to give some context (aka a warning) if you’re going to spend a bunch of time utilizing their shape schema to talk about choosing sewing patterns. People might be tempted to buy the book and I for one would be extremely disappointed if I bought the book based on an interesting discussion of their shape system without a warning about their nonsense.
The line that left me totally gobsmacked was the one directed to the Goblet about her breasts. They acknowledge that really large breasts can be difficult to dress and uncomfortable, but love those tits of yours because “men will always prefer talking to a set of tits” than 6 pack abs. The lines like these are why I think that how we talk about bodies is important.
As far as the age of the book, I’ve seen a lot of people commenting on that. But aren’t there lots of books that are fairly old that people still read and even use? A lot of people still use old cookbooks. We still read the Federalist Papers. So age isn’t an issue to me regarding this book, especially since it still it still comes up as the first choice in various searches of phrases like “books on body shape” or “understanding body shape.” So if it remains that common in a search, it really isn’t outmoded even if it isn’t that recent.
Oh yeah, I agree. I was trying to say “yes, the age of the book doesn’t matter and I want to know what I’m getting into so thanks for the warning”
I may have read your comment about the age of the book in light of all the other comments I’ve gotten that, to sum, say that it is too old so who cares. I guess noting in my bio that I’m an historian wasn’t enough of a tip off that old/older texts don’t really bother me, haha! 😉
Great review. I think that these books can have their uses, if you can filter out the harmful, body-shaming language; it’s good to have an idea going in if you’ll need to do that. I also appreciate the social justice perspective you use when analyzing it. It can be easy to forget about other groups’ marginalization when focusing on our own beefs.
Great review. I still don’t want to read the book but I am looking forward to the rest of the series where you digest the good bits for us.
That’s what the rest of the series will be, Dee. The principles of the various shapes will be applied to current sewing patterns–I’m expecting it to be a fun (and lively) series.
I am too. Especially seeing what all the various shapes are since the graphic is too small for me to read. It seems silly to lump all body types into categories, but 12 is a whole lot better than 4.
I have to admit to loathing all that ‘you are a this shape, or a that shape, or the other shape’, you should wear this style or that style… What suits you is much more subjective and about so much more than what shape category someone wants to squeeze you into! The things that make something look great on you are a) correct fit and b) if wearing it makes you feel happy. Imo at least!
X
I’m slightly confused by this review. It appears that this is the first in a series of posts based on this book. Why give it so much time if it is so bad? Trinny and susannah are bitchy and pretty irreverent. On tv, they were known for being mean and on occasion reducing guests to tears. So i think most people would know what to expect. So why not move on to a better book?
So, we had a kick-off post last week. The main focus of the series will be about the actual body shapes and matching sewing patterns to the recommendations. We included this book review to help give some context to the source material. HTH.
In my first post, I talked about there being a lot of good stuff to work with. So upcoming shape posts feature a lot of patterns and general style features/ design details that they argue can help create proportion. Overall, the whole series has much less criticism and more about patterns and details.
Thanks so much for this review — I really liked your thoughtful analysis of the book’s content, tone, and bias. One of the reasons that I really liked Collette’s Wardrobe Architect series was that it was focused on “finding the shapes and silhouettes that make you feel awesome” rather than telling us what awesome should feel like (feminine, sexy, skinny, etc.).
I must confess that even with 12 body shape options, I still don’t feel like I’ve found my option. And I think that’s part of the beauty of sewing — it forces us to recognize that we are each a unique assortment of shapes and angles and curves — and that no two bodies will fit into the same box the same way.
Agreed Jennifer! After looking at that chart of the 12 types in the first post I didn’t seem to fit into any either. Also, agreed, Colette’s “wear what makes you feel awesome” advice is refreshingly body positive and non-specific.
That’s one of my critiques of the book– 12 shapes is far better than the usual 4-6 shape systems used, but there are still limits. Plenty of bodies more closely resemble 2 shapes rather than strictly fitting one. Lots of people are pretty close to one shape, but can tend to another during their periods or when bloated. I’m a cello with apple tendencies.
And I what I find problematic is that the BSB isn’t telling what awesome should feel like, but what awesome looks like and knowing that I we come closer to looking like a specific shape that is what gives us the ability to feel awesome and confidant. It is limiting to find style guides tell us what we are supposed to feel to feel fabulous and confidant (that sexy = fabulous, stereotypical feminine = fabulous, etc.), but I find it even more superficial and limiting to be told that our feelings come from how we look, not that we dress to reflect how we feel. I hope that made sense.
Hmm reading this I find myself agreeing with some of what you say and some of what people in comments have said. On the one hand, one of the things I have always found problematic about T&S is their derogatory approach to women’s bodies and their assumption that fashion and appearance is the most important thing. I found them shallow and bitchy even as I was using their tips on dressing well. I too prefer Gok Wan for this reason. However, as people have said, anyone who buys this book is looking to ‘make the most of their shape’ ie make it to conform to societal stereotypes For this reason frankly I feel your political point – and such an extended political point it is to be, apparently, several blog posts! – is going to fall on deaf ears. And yes, this is a forum for curvy sewists, and some of the points are relevant, and there’s a hill to be climbed, but come on – slating a nine year old book for its lack of political correctness smacks of picking a fight for the sake of it. Especially if this is going to be many posts. T&S haven’t been on UK tv for years, probably because Gok’s more positive approach is more popular. Things have already moved on. I have been a feminist all my life, and I certainly walk the walk, but this is shooting fish in a barrel, dead fish forsooth, and with a very big shotgun too.
I’m done with the csc. I thought this was about sewing for curvy bodies, not yammering about made-up social justice crap!
Now I have to go looking again for sewing for my body from people who leave politics and SJW stuff out of it. I do my best to generally leave my political and religious beliefs out of sewing discussions and was hoping this would be the same. Apparently not.
I’m not ready to be done with the csc because I do think there is some good info here that’s hard to find anywhere else. But I agree that I’m tired of reading things on here and filtering out all the agenda messaging. This post was probably the worst I’ve seen about that and it makes me sick. I get enough BS about what I should think and not think elsewhere that I really don’t want it in my sewing communities too.
I’m noting that T&S are telling their readers what to think and feel about their bodies. THey tell women that confidence comes from knowing they’ve played up their best features and covered what they loathe about their bodies. Not me. They tell one shape to take pleasure in their bodies because it reminds people of delicious fruits that others want to eat. Not me. They tell one of the busty shapes to enjoy their breasts because men will always prefer talking to a pair of tits (their words) over flat abs. Not me. If anything, I’m saying we should question those messages that reduce women to appearance and especially to their parts. I think a woman should be able to find her confidence in her body and looks– if that’s what SHE wants. Or in being a great mother. Or a great cook. Or a kick ass translator. Why do they repeatedly frame strength and muscularity as masculine, “bloke-ish,” and unattractive? I think if a woman enjoys her strength as powerful, that’s awesome! Likewise, the slim woman enjoying her lithe shape, which they frame as “laddish.” I think women should have the space to think about clothes and shapes without demeaning language and body shaming masked as style.
But this book is 8 years old and I never even heard about it or would have cared about it. To me it seems like this article was written to simply bash these fashion ladies for not agreeing with how you think they should be discussing women’s bodies. Personally, I find their idea of an ideal body accurate, even if their approach and language is a little coarse. I find that when I see woman (no matter how big/small) that has a very defined “hourglass” shape I find her attractive and I envy her shape. Just because I strive to look like I have a defined waistline to mimic that body type doesn’t mean that I hate my own body or anyone else’s who doesn’t fit that look. Not everyone thinks that just because someone prefers one thing that they find everything else inherently bad.
If someone is buying one of the Trinny & Susannah books, then it is likely that they want advice on how to look “best.” It’s not really possible to talk about that and affirm “curves” at the same time. Fashion is essentially about an ideal, and if we are trying to dress best for our shape, then we are trying to look like that ideal. There’s no way around it. I’m not a huge fan of T & S, but some degree of negativity is a part of this genre and it doesn’t make much sense (to me) to criticize it on that basis. My view may not be popular on this website, but I don’t think looking for affirmation for fatness is a mentally healthy thing. I’m a bit chubby, I accept that. Though it would be healthier if there was a little less – and this becomes more obvious as one gets older. I don’t need the world to say I’m beautiful or even okay. I’m not offended by a recommendation to wear a good bra and not slouch because it looks like extra fat rolls. If I am buying this book I’m trying to avoid looking like I have fat rolls. (So, I don’t get that criticism of the book). Nevermind though, I don’t clearly fit into any of T & S shapes, and it just shows that such categories do not really reflect the 3-dimensionality of the body. (Anyone who had done life sculpture will get this). Bodies are more complex than “shapes.” It also seems odd for one person to buy a book illustrating all of these shapes when they will probably only be one, but it would be helpful to someone who does not have a clear sense of proportion and scale. I have one of the older books and T & S did help in pointing out necklines that work better for me. (No more turtlenecks! T&S was right about that one.) I do think they are off about HC’s ball gown – she looks just fine. It’s good to take these types of books with a grain of salt. T & S have some good points despite the limitations of this type of categorization.
The thing is that no stylist needs to repeat the general social-cultural view of what is coded as unattractive, at least in the ideals and standards that dominate the US/ Western World. Turn on the TV and see the latest ad for fat burning pills guaranteed to blast unsightly and embarrassing body fat. Flip through a mag and see the latest fitness gadget or program that will slim the body and melt flab. And if it is largely marketed to women, it will also promise to create lean, sexy muscles with no bulk! We get the message time and again of what is considered attractive and what is not. T&S hardly need to continually remind us that “saddle bags,” belly rolls, back fat, “love handles,” “cankles,” and “thunder thighs” are considered unattractive. We know that already. We are bombarded with images and rhetoric that remind us of this every single day in countless and varied ways. A resource that promises to inform and inspire readers to take charge of their lives by using their clothes hardly needs to constantly remind those readers what has been deemed ugly in Western culture. WE KNOW.
Thanks for your review which was very fair and meets my own view of their ideas of womens shapes. I Don’t care for their use of the words boobs and tits as I find it adolescent and completely turns me off from any practical advice they may have. I much prefer Gok Wan who has done a lot to raise the self esteem of women whatever size or shape they are.
Thank you for this, it is indeed a very balanced review. It’s such a shame to see potentially good advice tucked in between this loaded language. This is, in many ways, why I prefer Gok Wan to T&S, at least he tells everyone he helps that they are beautiful and helps them to understand what it is they like and dislike and how to either embrace it by dressing better or draw attention away if you really want to hide it. It should be about each individual person, encouraging them to feel that they are beautiful, and how to emphasize the bits that make them feel empowered and beautiful. I dislike categorisation and the idea that women should dress for anyone other than themselves or to fit into any kind of ideal. Not a book I’ll be looking to get, but I was interested to see the different body shapes and types they suggest. Nicer names would help though!
Your review is incredible: thorough, critical, and fair. I had such a great time reading it. Thanks.
I really loved reading this review – you’ve been thorough and I think fair. Women and their bodies is such a complex topic. Every woman wants to look her best and has gone through periods when they really really TRY not to let how she looks be the deciding factor on whether she considers herself lovable. But the fact is we do live in a world where a woman’s appearance does decide way too much. Look at some of the actresses or even true heroines for example whose value is completely determined by how they look but that doesn’t mean that as feminists we have to support it without critique. Thank you for doing the heavy lifting here!