Thoughts on Comics, Disability and Idiosyncratic Numbering Systems
Very excited about Ruby's World.
You comment that your image of Ruby in a cowgirl's outfit will be the only fanservice we get. To my prudish mind, fanservice can actually be better when it's more restrained and done more tastefully. By not overly sexualizing the character, it actually heightens the appeal to a guy like me. Compare the way Mary Jane Watson was depicted in the 1970s and 1980s, when everyone continued to draw her like John Romita Sr. Tight jeans and form-fitting sweaters worked just fine, and made her look sexy without being sleazy. Fast-forward to the godawful Todd McFarlane era, when MJ is a big-haired lingerie model in a teddy. Now everyone starts depicting her like that, and it's...bleh. Mary Jane is just the example I'm most familiar with, as X-Men fans like Nitz will be all too painfully aware of what I mean. See, while I enjoy the odd bit of fanservice, a little of that goes a long way for a guy like me. Aside from how those types of depictions objectify women (and other critics have made the point far better than I), it also reflects badly on us as readers, reinforcing the various unpleasant stereotypes that we're all familiar with. Hence why one of the biggest artistic treats about BND Spider-Man has been to see Mary Jane depicted once again as the way John Romita Sr. drew her. She's still very well-dressed (most of the time-there have been one or two covers I could have done without) but she doesn't have Peg Bundy's* hair and she's not too undressed, which is how McFarlane always drew her. Seeing her in an agreeable T-shirt and jeans, or a tasteful gown on TV, is the best way to go. But then, I'm a guy who thinks sexual restraint and chastity are in fact a good thing, so what the hell do I know, right? * Don't get me wrong, I love Peggy Bundy as much as the next guy, but Mary Jane Watson is not Peg Bundy.