Games for the Mind

Okay, so there is this neat discussion going on over here at Yud’s Dice.  It’s spread out all over the place, though, so I wanted to come back over here and think things through a little more coherently in my own space. 

This is in part a response to what is happening over there and in part a response to a conversation with my darling wife in regards to what is happening over there (hey Kim;).  For that reason, I’m just going to try and break this down into ideas rather than responses to individuals.

What I like most about the post is the emphasis on the volume of examples of objectification.  It isn’t deeply problematic for an occasional bit of objectification to appear and may even be ‘honest’ in the sense that, like it or not, we are bodies and sometimes it’s nice to just have that pointed out. 

However, for that to become common indicates something problematic.  Like Nietzsche, we ought to find something unhealthy in any thing that seems to be repeated over and over.  I also want to expand a little more on what is problematic about the forms of objectification going on.

Rather than look at the Conan covers, though, I want to look at those Exalted covers, the shift from 1e to 2e.  To zoom in on the Jade Exalted Brand has already highlighted is revealing.  Both versions display attractive, pleasing bodies.  Both even present what look to be idealized and attractive bodies. 

2e, though, reinterprets that body in a profoundly sexual manner.  Her clothing, her curves, all are exaggerated to emphasize sexiness pure and simple.  The sidebar images just drive that home, you see things like sexy elf lady.  Moreover, their bodies are positioned so that their most sexualized features dominate the composition.

Medium and message talk is pretty important here.  These are roleplaying games, and these are all supposed to be exemplars for the sorts of roles players could take.  That the dominant female characters are displayed with hyper-sexualized bodies therefore sends out a certain message about the sort of female characters in the game.  That they are the sexy first and foremost.

The slippage that occurs between 1e and 2e is telling.  Both images are aimed at a viewer, are objects for a viewer.  They are objects, quite literally, meant for visual appreciation.  Both are of attractive and sexy women.  However, in the 2e cover, her appearance is all about her sexuality, whereas in the 1e, her sexuality is a side-effect of her overall idealized body, not her maxed out T&A action. 

The 1e version is also holding out her bow in a manner that suggests she is about to *do* something with it, that she is active and capable.  This is very much in keeping with traditional representations of men in the genre.  To the extent that they are objectified positively, it is as active and capable. 

This is a good point to drive home.  Male figures are exaggerated and objectified in the genre, but so as to emphasize what they are capable of.  Rogues are willowy, suggestive of their grace and sneakiness.  Soldiers are huge or armored or well-armed, suggesting their toughness and power.  Wizards have white beards to show they are old and knowledgeable. 

What does it say when the female character who is supposed to be their equal is exaggerated primarily in a sexual fashion?  Well, if you apply the same tools you applied to the male figures, then it says the female character is really about her sexiness, really about what she has to offer as an object of desire.

It isn’t even a question of whether her body is being offered up to us or not for our fantasied consumption.  It is simply a question of the values that are being instantiated in the presentation of these women.  Why have we zoomed in on these very narrow, sexual elements to define these female characters? 

They aren’t the only beautiful bodies out there, so it can’t be because we just want to appreciate the female form.  Nor is that hyper-clingy clothing the only way to accentuate a beautiful body.  Sure, nothing wrong with some pictures that playfully exaggerate sexy bits, but why so few exaggerating other beautiful parts of the body?  Moreover, why so little variety on the covers, which are the ‘face’ the book presents to its audience?