I’d say I need to update rhetorics bingo but I don’t see a square for outright calling people assholes and telling them to go fuck themselves.
I like how he has to go and actually repeat points from that rhetorics despite how bad they are. I mean, he even went back to the old “she chooses to dress that way” argument with “Women like Laura do what they fucking feel like”.
I would lose all desire of supporting Laura’s new book after this if it wasn’t for the fact that I know Marvel will learn nothing from its eventual failure. They will claim they were totally right to force her back into a skimpy outfit because “sex sells” and to undo her character development and force her back to a codename she rejected (and that stands for dehumanization and abuse did to her more than anything else) because “X-23 is an established brand” and will simply blame Mariko Tamaki for not being able to stop a boat they blew dozen of holes in from sinking. I will still give serious thought if I actually will support that book because it feels to me Marvel is hell-bent on making it fail and I could use my time helping other titles stay afloat.
I guess Choi is at least honest about all the spite he’s stewing in.
~Ozzie
Posted on
Tidy Up Tuesday #78
A couple things to tidy up this week!
A reader asked whether we can announce subjects our redesign streams beforehand. Sometimes the notification post hints at it, but usually not, considering we tend to pick the theme last minute…
…but this particular week we’re doing special #50 stream, in which we’ll be sexifying dudes from some particularly popular game. Hope that helps!
Because fictional characters do not have the capacity to make choices. Because they are not REAL people.
Power Girl and Starfire did not CHOOSE to fight evil in skimpy, revealing outfits. It is not their PERSONAL CHOICE to wear those clothes. They are fictional characters and their wardrobes are under the control of the author and artist.
Dumbledore did not CHOOSE to stay in the closet as a personal and professional choice because that was his right as a person. He is a fictional character. The fact that his sexuality was left at only vague subtext and only revealed through word of god was a deliberate decision made by the author.
Fictional characters are fictional characters. They do not make their own choices.
Addendum to the rule: for the same reasons, you can not argue that criticism “shames” a character for their appearance or behavior.
And just for the record, seeing what kind of responses this post received before we got to reblog it: NO, the fact that fictional characters tend to grow and take a life of their own still does not mean they have agency.
No matter how developed a fictional person is, they’re still written by a real person (or people) who have their own biases and rationalizations. Just because some “choices” feel natural to the author doesn’t mean they’re objectively plausible “choices” for a character to make within the given narrative.
Sometimes the choice, like (in case of what our blog critiques) decision to wear a sexualized costume to battle, can be explained by specific circumstances. But in most circumstances or with other explanations, the same choice can be plain silly and inconsistent with the rest of established story/worldbuilding.
This week’s throwback: a timely reminder that yes, we still live in a world where fiction doesn’t merge with the reality, so no, fictional characters do not possess free will that lets them personally decide what to wear and how to behave.
Each and every “choice” a character makes is 100% responsibility of their real, living creator(s). Thus criticizing how fictional people are designed or written isn’t the same as personally attacking them. To cite @foldablehuman‘s Thermian Argument video:
Criticism of a creative work is, ultimately, criticism of the decisions that people made when they were putting it together.
Essentially, there’s no point in getting offended on behalf of a person who doesn’t exist, especially in response to valid critique.
Time to bring back this awesome article, its amusingly ignorant backlash and A+
responses
to detractors from @garrettauthor (the OP), as the saga of snark continues… This time against some dude who “doesn’t care” about sexuality of fantasy book characters. Who indeed cares so little that he needs to openly inform a publisher how they shouldn’t advertise their books for having LGBTQ+ themes.
[more context and excepts from that Facebook thread under this link]
Also, if you’re interested in getting the first novel in Garret Robinson’s Underrealm series as a free e-book, here’s the link!
~Ozzie
Posted on
Rainbow Mika and the draftiest of wrestler outfits!
Another redesign I did solo was Street Fighter’s Rainbow Mika, a “wrestling” costume made approximately 80% out of holes.
Biggest challenge was figuring out how the hell those breasts are supposed to look when actually contained by fabric – nothing about how they interacted with it in the original made any sort of sense, so the chest area got basically repainted from scratch, with an attempt to recreate white pattern concealed under the balloon boobs as a sort of chest emblem shape.
While there’s nothing wrong with the costume having some tasteful cutouts, the original’s were so awkwardly placed, massive and physics-defying that I decided it was easier to change them to white fabric, while leaving in some smaller holes oh her shoulders and elbows. I’d probably leave something on her legs, if the image shown Mika from another angle.
A small, but significant touch was making the shapes on her sides rounder, so they’re not pointing at her crotch anymore. Also got rid of the pantyline frills, which made her look as if fancy lingerie was peaking from beneath her leotard. Left the frills on her collar and wrists be. Also didn’t do anything to the boots, as they’re perfectly nice and likely the only legitimate wrestling element in her original attire.
Final touches was giving Rainbow more secure hairstyle for a fighter (while stylized Sailor Moon-like hair isn’t much of an issue to me, it just didn’t match the more practical costume anymore) and a knocked-out tooth, to communicate the inherent danger of being a wrestler/fighting game heroine. Also, sometime after finishing the stream, I made her facial features slightly bit less generically pretty, following many watchers’ advice.
Surprisingly enough, criticizing R. Mika is one of the most “controversial” things we ever did on this blog. To this day, our bingo of her outfit from Street Fighter V tends to periodically resurface among the Status Quo Warriors enraged at us for talking smack about that costume. Their “arguments”?
1. This is totally very legitimate female professional wrestler outfit! OF COURSE that’s exactly how women in that field of sport and entertainment dress, just look:
True, those wrestlers, due to double standards imposed by the industry, tend to show off their cleavages and bellies… which sooo definitely is the same as a video game character’s suit denying all laws of physics and geometry for the sake of showing maximum flesh surface! </sarcasm>
According to them, occasional low-cut v-neck or belly window = giant hole where the back, each breast, thigh and buttcheek is.
It’s funny that when a video game or video has an attractive female that guys gush over, it’s oppression but if there’s a video game or video with an attractive male that girls gush over, it’s just fan-girling. For example- Guys gushing over Bayonetta= Oppression!! MEN ARE SO DISGUSTING! AUGH! They only want BOOBs n crap! Girls gushing over a freaking cartoon skeleton man in a single video and making an entire fan-base because his hair overnight = Just having fun. I propose that both of those situations are just people having fun.
Ok, but ONE of those types of fun involves sexual objectification that makes many women uncomfortable.
The other involves a skeleton with cool hair who is not being sexually objectified.
There’s a difference.
Also skeletons are not frequently objectified and devalued in the real world. Skeletons are not the victims of violent crimes, sexual or otherwise, due to the dehumanization of that objectification.
While objectification by itself is a problem, its informed by its real world existence; no media exists in a vacuum, and the real world treatment of women is largely what makes objectification through media such a touchy subject.
Agreed. When skeletons with cool hair are routinely subjected to institutional discrimination, maybe we’ll care more about “girls gushing over them” on the internet.
Meanwhile, the sexual objectification of women has been tied to real world issues facing real actual women.
“Tumblr hipocrisy”? OP, you keep using that word, I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Bolding mine.
~Ozzie
After I read this I went desperately searching for this awesome skeleton with cool hair that women were apparently gushing over. I looked and looked. I asked friends… nobody seems to know about Skelonetta.
Now I have to live the rest of my life knowing that somewhere out there there’s video of a skeleton that has hair so cool that’s it’s apparently comparable to the super spectacle that is Bayonetta… and I may never see it.
Thanks OP.
– wincenworks
Edit: So I’ve been told by many of our beloved followers and one of my loveable geek friends that they know who the Skeleton with cool hair is. Brace yourselves for the pandering-on-par-with-Bayonetta:
So, as we close on the first third of the year and the insistence continues that people who would like something other than the same “hot chick with ….” design are just too easily upset/offended/whatever – it’s worth reminding people that the opposition includes people who are upset by a skeleton with spectral hair.
This is, of course, ridiculous since now more than ever there is plenty of media to go around. There really is no reason for everything to be about appeasing one demographic who are already drowned in choices.
It’s funny that when a video game or video has an attractive female that guys gush over, it’s oppression but if there’s a video game or video with an attractive male that girls gush over, it’s just fan-girling. For example- Guys gushing over Bayonetta= Oppression!! MEN ARE SO DISGUSTING! AUGH! They only want BOOBs n crap! Girls gushing over a freaking cartoon skeleton man in a single video and making an entire fan-base because his hair overnight = Just having fun. I propose that both of those situations are just people having fun.
Ok, but ONE of those types of fun involves sexual objectification that makes many women uncomfortable.
The other involves a skeleton with cool hair who is not being sexually objectified.
There’s a difference.
Also skeletons are not frequently objectified and devalued in the real world. Skeletons are not the victims of violent crimes, sexual or otherwise, due to the dehumanization of that objectification.
While objectification by itself is a problem, its informed by its real world existence; no media exists in a vacuum, and the real world treatment of women is largely what makes objectification through media such a touchy subject.
Agreed. When skeletons with cool hair are routinely subjected to institutional discrimination, maybe we’ll care more about “girls gushing over them” on the internet.
Meanwhile, the sexual objectification of women has been tied to real world issues facing real actual women.
“Tumblr hipocrisy”? OP, you keep using that word, I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Bolding mine.
~Ozzie
After I read this I went desperately searching for this awesome skeleton with cool hair that women were apparently gushing over. I looked and looked. I asked friends… nobody seems to know about Skelonetta.
Now I have to live the rest of my life knowing that somewhere out there there’s video of a skeleton that has hair so cool that’s it’s apparently comparable to the super spectacle that is Bayonetta… and I may never see it.
Thanks OP.
– wincenworks
Edit: So I’ve been told by many of our beloved followers and one of my loveable geek friends that they know who the Skeleton with cool hair is. Brace yourselves for the pandering-on-par-with-Bayonetta:
So, as we close on the first third of the year and the insistence continues that people who would like something other than the same “hot chick with ….” design are just too easily upset/offended/whatever – it’s worth reminding people that the opposition includes people who are upset by a skeleton with spectral hair.
This is, of course, ridiculous since now more than ever there is plenty of media to go around. There really is no reason for everything to be about appeasing one demographic who are already drowned in choices.
So, Mike Choi’s redesign of Laura Kinney’s costume for new X-23 series is controversial. To put it mildly. I decided that the best way to express what the flying boar in a submarine is wrong with this outfit would be to borrow the amazing Female Armor Bingo from @bikiniarmorbattledamage . Thankfully he had enough decency to not add a thong or it would score a full row.
Now, people have been telling me to go read Choi’s thread on Twitter, where he goes through his previous designs. Supposedly, it will change my mind about the costume. We’ll see about that.
He put his points in several threads, let’s start with the very first.
They wanted the outfit be different from her Wolverine outfit AND based on the X-Force one. This is bizarre. Her final Wolverine suit carries clear X-Force inspirations. It’s inspired by Logan’s X-Force costume. It just feels like they’re trying to bring back nostalgia to that specific time in Laura’s history. Which is funny, when you remember that the most of online fandom hated X-Force when she was on it (Kyle and Yost’s run). Despite the critical acclaim. It was seen as the epitome of why making comics darker and edgier is the worst thing you can ever do. I know, I got into arguments with these guys. But now the same people go online wanting it back if that means Laura will be showing off her midriff again. Go figure.
Now, if you pardon me breaking chronology a bit I want to address the second and sixth point on his thread together.
So let me get this straight – he was told by everyone (and agreed!) how pantless leotard is out of character for Laura, and then gave her equally skimpy short shorts on another try? All while completely aware that her outfit will be drawn by other artists who will likely make the shorts smaller and sexualize her further? He needed two separate attempts and two different arguments to understand Laura needs long pants?
Now back to the chronological order of these tweets. Third part.
Where do I even begin? If he accepts the blame for her having an exposed midriff, why not use an opportunity to fix it and give her an outfit that does not have one? What not being Wolverine has to do with practical costume design? Why cannot she still wear non-revealing outfit under new or old codename? How can he talk about respecting her agency and personality considering what book he is making these designs for? A series that, for all that we know so far, will force her back into a codename that she outgrew? Laura had a whole arc about it, with her proclaiming she is not X-23. To speak of respecting her character when such a big regression is done to her is just a sad joke.
As a side note – the top picture? These words? They’re out of context. They directly quote a speech Laura makes in issue #19 of All-New Wolverine. A speech that starts with ‘I’m not X-23″ and ends with “I’m Wolverine”. They cherry-picked lines from that monologue and slammed them on a cover for a book that goes against the entire point. It takes away from her both Wolverine title and outfit and forces her back into codename and costume she left behind. In that context talking about respecting her character is just a piece of impudence.
And this argument about her taste of clothes comes as asinine for a number of reasons. One is that she is a fictional character, she doesn’t really make a choice to dress like this – the artist does. Giving her a midriff always undermines her as a competent fighter. You end up saying she decided to expose herself in the fight, putting herself at risk for fashion.
These outfits would be okay as everyday clothes, I could tolerate them if she wasn’t wearing a costume but was just one of those superheroes who fight in whatever they are wearing at the moment like Luke Cage or Jessica Jones. But she is not, she goes and dresses for a mission, why should fashion sense or taste of clothes have anything to do with it?
And finally…. if he cares about staying true to her character, why did he try to put her in shorts after being told bare legs are ooc for her?
I agree that talking about fictional character’s agency is an oxymoron. Which is why comparing Laura to real life women, who can choose their own wardrobe, makes no sense. While Choi acknowledges Laura as a fictional person, he still frames it as if he wasn’t the one in control of her looks. This is what trying to call the critics “narrow-minded orthodoxies” and claiming they accuse HER of being some sort of temptress boils down to. It is the artist we have a problem with, the artist who made a choice to dress her like that and now tries to say it’s liberating. He asked his students what they would wear as superheroes. They told him they wanted to express their independence. And somehow this shit is the only way to convey that he could think of?
And finally the fifth part. While he speaks about the boots, I need to bring attention to what he says about practicality and realism
Again with false equivalences. Superhero costumes can look cool while still being practical, many male outfits prove that. Hell, Snake-Eyes is a good example. And I’m pretty sure “that thing” on his face is eyes protection if a stylized, properly stylized, one. To say you cannot make a character look practical without losing the cool factor is an admission of a failure as an artist.
His points I spotted are in green. I also put in purple arguments I’ve seen from people trying to defend his designs and the fans. Arguments that were always thrown in defense of sexualized outfits for Laura, by the way. The “Great story makes up for these ridiculous designs” is one I especially need to highlight. People are coming to me saying that I should not judge Mariko Tamaki’s story before it appears. And I need to underline that I’m sure she can write a great story with Laura. In fact, I hope she does. But that will in no way change the fact this outfit is horrible.
Just like is the case with Mike Choi’s designs – they suck, all of them, be it unused ones or the final one. And while I can understand some parts of his thought process in working on them, they do not justify what he created and cannot serve as a good defense for the outfit he went with.
– Admin
So not only all those new outfit ideas for Laura were the generic “must. show. female. skin!” shit and the one approved in the end is no better than the rest… The designer also walked us through his “creative” process and didn’t manage to give a single satisfactory explanation to why he landed on any of those!
It’s pretty amazing how so many completely valid points, like consulting actual women, considering how other artists will draw it and referencing the character’s history were supposedly taken into consideration… and nothing about those boring rags informs us of that.
~Ozzie
Why does it feel like every time Mike Choi talks about the “research” and “introspection” he did with regards to women, he’s actually trying to blame them?
Also, I really love that this veteran of the comics industry apparently assumes that, if anything has even one impractical element, then it is 100% impractical. If that’s the case, Laura’s outfit is immediately impractical, due to the fact that I don’t see any bra straps under that see-through fabric! And wearing a strapless bra into the kind of acrobatic fights that Laura gets into is a bad idea. Too bad he didn’t ask any of his students about that, though he probably would have ignored them anyway.
