Chief Technical Officer
|
What I Conclude From This
That the depiction of genders in fantasy RPG art, as represented by Dragon magazine covers, remains profoundly unequal and in some areas is getting more unequal.
I think the biggest problem with your argument is that it's all based on the assumption that Dragon magazine covers are representative of gender depiction in fantasy RPG art.
I'd argue that, of all fantasy RPG art, Dragon's covers are, more than any other product, driven by far too many external market influences for that to be a fair statement. Specifically, our covers have to compete with other publications on the newsstand, which means they have to grab one's attention as quickly as possible, and hold it long enough to get you to pick it up. So, necessarily, Dragon's covers have to have an immediate visceral appeal that's driven as much by what the typical newsstand looks like as by what makes "good art." In short, what I'm saying is that if you did a survey of pretty much any successful wide-appeal non-news publication sold on the newsstand, be it Vanity Fair, TV Guide, or Toyfare, you'll likely find "that the depiction of genders" on those covers "remains profoundly unequal" as well.
But our covers have more dragons. :-)
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Despite a lot of comments on your LJ that things "show no sign of improvement," I'm somewhat pleased to report that it looks like the covers from #326 to #350 are trending in the right direction in nearly every one of your graphs. Since those are the issues that best represent the staff in its current roles, I'm glad to see some progress here.
I just mentioned this thread to my art director, and he said "one of the reasons for this is that I never, ever depict females in submissive roles."
Obviously, there's a point of contention on that score, since you listed two submissive females in this period. I'm guessing that you scored #345 and #340 as "submissive," since one woman is kneeling and the other is being chased by a monster. I think both of these are a long way from a miniature woman in a cage, but it only goes to show how subjective the issue is.
Here are two facts that shed some light on the issue.
1) According to our not-too-scientific reader surveys, women account for 4-6% of our readership.
2) Issues featuring scantily clad women on the cover, in general, sell better than issues that do not feature scantily clad women.
It should not be a great surprise to anyone that magazine publishing is a business, and one in which we are forced to compete with companies that have budgets orders of magnitude higher than the average non-Wizards of the Coast game company. In fact, magazine publishers like Conde Nast have budgets orders of magnitude higher than even Wizards of the Coast.
In that environment, we've got to do what we've got to do to sell magazines, and sometimes that involves showing some flesh. Since roughly 95% of our audience are men, that scantily clad flesh often belongs to a female.
We've experimented with a few "beefcake" covers over the years, notably Dragon #294 and Dungeon #126. The sales numbers on these issues were terrible, and while it's impossible to attribute bad sales to a single factor, the cover usually ends up getting most of the blame (and deservedly so).
The 95% male issue could very well be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it's possible that the magazine would attract more women with a different cover strategy. My approach has been to allow for a certain level of laciviousness on the covers, but never let things get too far out of control. It is certainly not our intent to offend any of our readers, male or female.
All in all, this was a very interesting and thought-provoking study. In the end, I am perhaps most grateful that I wasn't drinking the corporate kool aid in the era between issue #250 and issue #275!
Thanks for bringing your posts to our attention.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon Magazine
All I can really add as a woman, a gamer, and a professional game designer (ooooh) is that I've never felt left out or excluded from my favorite hobby because of the artwork (I started about 15 years ago). 3E and other recent games do, however, seem to be making a greater effort to welcome women into the game. Erik and his team in particular have been nothing but helpful and supportive as fellow players/DMs, employers, and just plain friends.
I have posted art objections in the past, but it was more about style than subject (i.e. I don't mind scantily clad women, it just seemed for a while that they all looked the same. I prefer variety). The medusa cover I use as my image is my all-time favorite.
-Amber Scott, the Biased
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Issues 329 and 340, actually. Someone's already commented on the LJ saying they disagree with the 340 assessment; if 329 was shown there might be disagreement with that too. I'm sticking with both assessments, so it seems clear that my definition of 'submissive' extends wider than that of others.
With respect, I think it might extend a touch too wide. The reclining woman on the cover of issue #329 is a medusa, and the man standing behind her is in the act of being turned to stone from having touched her. Not only is she not being submissive, she is actively killing the man standing above her.
Judges?
Thanks very much for engaging with this stuff Erik. Would it be okay if I reproduce this post in full on my LJ (linked to here of course)?
As long as you also refer people to my LJ at lemuriapress.livejournal.com. I could use the traffic.
(And while you're here, can I say that I'm enjoying Dragon more now than I have in pretty much any era since issues 80-100?)
Hey, thanks! Editing the magazine is a real treat for all of us. It's nice to be a part of such a great legacy, saucy covers and all.
--Erik
I love cover discussions ... mainly because they are a peak into the editorial process, which is itself one of those things that can drive the sane mad, not to mention provide circulation managers with many sleepless nights.
Gender aside, I categorized the covers since 323 relaunch by subject matter, which was revealing in its own way. Here's the breakdown, with some overlap, for covers with multiple figures:
Dragons 6
Demons/Powers 5
Undead 4
Elf 4
Aberrations/Monsters 3
Mechanical constructs 2
Lone warriors 2
Giant 1
Rogue 1
Adventuring party 1
Dwarf 1
I think the revealing part was, with the exception of humans and elves, how seldom the other playing races are portrayed.
While they get some love on the Dungeon side of things, over at Dragon, , it's all dragons (understandable), demons and undead.
As a personal aside, I think 334 (giant octopus swamps boat) was one of the strongest covers of 2005 and 345 (Giant menacing female warrior) one of the strongest of 2006 in conveying what Dungeons and Dragons is all about.
Yet, both seem comparatively weak as covers with newsrack presense. Strongly placed forward figures (such as in the infamous 336 "Mummy I'd Like to Flank" in 2005 and 347's "Four-armed Elemental Spellcaster" in 2006) are much more attention grabbing.
I'm just excited about that nude Modron on the new issue.
But seriously: in regards to your study, what do you make of the male figure on the cover of 326, wearing less than the female? Is he more/less suggestive? And is he submissive because he is beind her, shielded from the goblins?
And I'm really surprised to see only a single Dwarf in there. Man, for about a decade there was a group-of-dwarves cover every third issue. It was insane.
And where are the halflings and gnomes? No love to the wee folk?
Generally lately I would say that while amount of cheesecake is considerable in the covers most of the time the characters are indeed active subjects in the covers and not submissive...there are occasional gripes on some things of course and if the covers come off as submissive or not can depend on a looker (I am not particularly fond of that Astrology cover either)...
But still, considering the demands of the market that cheesecake is a good thing in the covers, Dragon and Dungeon have been doing pretty good job at packaging it.
And I'm really surprised to see only a single Dwarf in there. Man, for about a decade there was a group-of-dwarves cover every third issue. It was insane.
To be fair, dwarves have appeared twice. Once with an elf and the adventuring party cover included a dwarf.
In fact that cover of the adventuring party was used in a GameTrade ad by Paizo, which I clipped and still have decorating my office cubicle. It looks very cool.
I think the revealing part was, with the exception of humans and elves, how seldom the other playing races are portrayed.
And on that tangent, how rarely humanoids are portrayed as anything other than Caucasian (with the notable exception of the drow, of course, and ninja/samurai).
-Amber S.
|
Creative Director
|
The little guys don't appear that often because sales trends show that gnomes, halflings, and dwarves don't sell covers as well as elves and humans. Further complicating the issue is the fact that little guys have scaling problems; it's easy to get the art in and lo and behold the halfling's 5 feet tall, or everythng else ends up scaled down or whatever. In short (ha ha ha), they're trouble, and for covers we prefer to avoid things that cause trouble.
I realize that I am very definitely in a minority here, but I don't give a whit about half-naked women, or (surprisingly) half-naked men on Dragon covers. I won't deny that the cover with Apollo was nice (and refreshing), but I don't buy my gaming magazines based on flesh on the cover. There are other magazines for that...
That said, the covers that REALLY grab my attention are the ones that have dragons, constructs, or really nifty looking weapons.
Of course, just the fact that it is "Dragon Magazine" is enough to make me buy it. Which does kind of put me into a bad place, easy to take advantage of me and such.
Okay, at the risk of (in my opinion mistakenly) labeling myself as one of the adolescent social goobers, I like the cheesecake covers. I would be disappointed if they went away. I am willing to admit that I get a small smile when I get a bit of skin or a sexy pose. I don't buy the magazine for the art, but I think a great-looking sorceress or amazon is a nice bonus.
Now I also like a good variety. I don't think every issue has to give me that kind of eye-candy, but that isn't the case. This month's cover is a great example. Only a toaster would think it's sexy, but it looks great to me.
Paizo, keep up the good work. Give me some drool-worthy maidens occasionally. I like them.
Question: Any discussions over the merit of putting gamers — or their PC alter egos — on the cover? Somehow bridging the gap between the game in action and its fantasy creation?
As an example, Gar Blitzhame pointing out errors in his character sheet in the piece that Eva Widermann did for the Wormfood in 335.
I don't know if such a piece would make good cover art or not, but I am wondering whether such a concept was ever discussed as a possibility.
I imagine that rolling dice, thumbing through supplements and erasing characteer sheet errors may not make for an engaging art, but surely the creative ingenuity of some of your artists might bring such an idea to life.
I know that James' Age of Worms character Tyralandi Scrimm has graced her fair share of Dungeon covers ... but we've never seen her as a reflection of gamer himself. Does that make sense?
The little guys don't appear that often because sales trends show that gnomes, halflings, and dwarves don't sell covers as well as elves and humans.
I really shoulda gnome better than to make that observation ...
Actually, I seem to recall from the WOTC tour article in 347 that the folks in the books division discussed the same problem. Novels about demihumans or with the wee folk on the covers just don't sell well.
I remember a Bard's Tale book I really liked (can't remember the title atm) where one character was a fairy. At one point she hides under a human woman's hair to escape notice. On the cover, she's easily three feet tall. The artwork always irked me.
I seem to recall this one book about a halfling that was really popular... or was it a trilogy?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Since roughly 95% of our audience are men, that scantily clad flesh often belongs to a female.
I'd like to point out that putting attractive females on covers has been proven to attract female purchasers as well as males (if you need evidence of this, see Cosmopolitan or just about any other glossy magazine at the checkout counter), while attractive males don't generally have the same appeal (note how you see Angelina Jolie on the cover of People much more frequently than you see Brad Pitt).
Since roughly 95% of our audience are men, that scantily clad flesh often belongs to a female.I'd like to point out that putting attractive females on covers has been proven to attract female purchasers as well as males (if you need evidence of this, see Cosmopolitan or just about any other glossy magazine at the checkout counter), while attractive males don't generally have the same appeal (note how you see Angelina Jolie on the cover of People much more frequently than you see Brad Pitt).
This is a really interesting discussion, and coincidentally I just wrote a post over on the 300 thread mentioning how the ideal of beauty in the modern west is a youthful female. That ideal applies in the eyes of males and females - even heterosexual females will often say that while they are attracted to men, women are more aesthetically beautiful. It's purely a cultural thing. The ancient Greeks for example regarded a youthful athletic male as being the most physically beautiful kind of human.
Morgue, have you ever thought that it may have little to do with the subjugation of women and more to do with the west's fear of male homosexuality? So we get women = sexy, men = ugly yet functional.
Regarding demi-humans, they also are not thought of as being sexy, which is probably why they don't sell too well. They are usually presented as being ugly or at least peculiar-looking by human standards, and their small stature makes them seem less heroic than your Conans and your Aragorns.
I have a Livejournal too, I'll add you guys ;)
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
And I'm really surprised to see only a single Dwarf in there. Man, for about a decade there was a group-of-dwarves cover every third issue. It was insane.
After spending a lot of time with the cover art for our Art of Dragon book (you all bought that, right?), I'd be willing to bet that 90% of those dwarf covers were painted by Daniel Horne or Jim Holloway. The latter artist in particular often painted covers over the weekend when another artist missed a deadline, and I'm guessing he just enjoyed painting dwarves.
Daniel Horne obviously loved dwarves, and even Keith Parkinson was not immune to their stub-fingered charms.
--Erik
After spending a lot of time with the cover art for our Art of Dragon book (you all bought that, right?)
Yup. :D
...even Keith Parkinson was not immune to their stub-fingered charms.
I miss him. :( *sniffles*
It should not be a great surprise to anyone that magazine publishing is a business, and one in which we are forced to compete with companies that have budgets orders of magnitude higher than the average non-Wizards of the Coast game company. In fact, magazine publishers like Conde Nast have budgets orders of magnitude higher than even Wizards of the Coast.
In that environment, we've got to do what we've got to do to sell magazines, and sometimes that involves showing some flesh. Since roughly 95% of our audience are men, that scantily clad flesh often belongs to a female.
I find your comments rather interesting. Are you saying that Dungeon and Dragon are in direct competition with other, "mainstream" magazines?
I'm asking this purely from my own personal perspective - when I buy an issue of Dragon off the newsstand, I'm pretty much only interested in buying Dragon. I usually won't stand their holding a copy of Dragon and, say, "Scientific American" and try to figure out which one I should buy (and certainly not based on the cover). For me, its context - if I want an RPG magazine, I'm going to buy an RPG magazine. And at the newsstands where I buy Dragon, there are no other RPG-related magazines for sale.
I don't doubt your comments at all. It's your business and you know it a heck-of-a-lot better than I do. But it just seems surprising to me that a magazine in this category is competing with other, non-RPG-related materials. As a "nice market" magazine, I guess I just assumed you guys pretty much had the run-of-the-niche. :-)
(But then, I think I'm also on the opposite end of the spectrum from your demographic. A cover featuring a scantily-clad female is more likely to prevent me from purchasing it in deference to my wife and kids rather than encourage me to buy it. Vive la difference!)
Greg
|
Creative Director
|
As magazines, both Dragon and Dungeon are indeed in direct competition with all other magazines. This is mostly just the case in newsstands and at bookstores, of course, where the customer is faced with a wall of different covers all trying to do the same thing, catch your attention with bold cover lines and a cool cover image. Fans and readers of the magazines buy the magazine for its contents, and in most cases the cover won't encourage them to change their spending habits—put another way, covers aren't there to get established customers to buy. They're there purely to get new customers, returning customers (who might have not purchased a copy of the magazine in months or years or decades), and so on.
We track each issue of the magazine, and how it sells in bookstores and on newsstands, and there's plenty of hard evidence that certain covers sell better than others. Covers with scantilly clad women, in almost every case, sell better than ones that feature, say, scantilly clad men, or unrecognizable monsters (the mind flayer, in particular, is the kiss of death for cover sales).
Dragon and Dungeon are pretty much the dominant magazines in hobby stores and the like, but on newsstands, they're just another face in the crowd. So it's very important to make that face as attractive and intriguing as possible.
Damn, I thought this thread was about dragons wearing chainmail bikinis. I Should look more closely next time.
Then again Dragotha looks great in a chain thong!
|
Daniel Horne obviously loved dwarves, and even Keith Parkinson was not immune to their stub-fingered charms.
Stub-fingered charms!? "Yes, that is exactly the most appalling thing you could have said." ;)
Now, gnomes, on the other hand...anyone else remember the gnome chick from the races section of the Ravenloft book, all billowing trenchcoat and action-heroine-looking? She was neat.Most of the covers I don't have a beef with at all. For example, a few years ago there was a cover with a serene red-headed elven sorceress and a warrior woman with a touseled mop of raven hair. I remember two of my friends arguing good-naturedly for several months about which one was hotter, but, honestly, they struck me as both being very plausible female characters, pleasant to look at, each with her own personality, and rather inoffensive, as far as cover babes go.
So, I guess what I'm asking is, is there no way to apply this standard to male characers? Not necessarily muscle-bound and half-clad (I doubt everyone goes for the Chippendale barbarian, anyhow...), but attractive and appealing, without diminishing the coolness? That's this gamer chick's humble request, though I suppose you know the business best.
Black leather is everyone's friend...:)
So, I guess what I'm asking is, is there no way to apply this standard to male characers? Not necessarily muscle-bound and half-clad (I doubt everyone goes for the Chippendale barbarian, anyhow...), but attractive and appealing, without diminishing the coolness? That's this gamer chick's humble request, though I suppose you know the business best.
Black leather is everyone's friend...:)
That's kind of what I was saying above, but I didn't put it very well! Everyone knows sex sells, but many people are uncomfortable with images of men portrayed in a sexy way. I would guess this would especially be the case among young males, a core gamer demographic. So if a fantasy artist is going for sexy(as opposed to heroic, evil, etc) it is almost natural for them to choose an image of a scantily dressed woman. The only way men have been depicted at all sexily in fantasy art in the past has been as oily loincloth-wearing barbarians, which as Courtney! said is not very sexy at all to many women.
We need some more emo goth guy covers. That'd be hot.
-Amber S, the Totally Serious
The last dragon could have provided an opportunity to show some beautiful yet classy male physique, I heard incubi were included. Even though Malcanthet certainly provided a hard competition - does anyone know whether there was a picture included?
Black leather is everyone's friend...:)
Just remember, like spandex, tight leather is a privilege, not a right.
And for some nice man-candy, check this artist out.
There is indeed a picture of an incubus, although he's pretty freaky, what with the sharp teeth and the gazelle horns.
Hey man, teeth, horns a tail and gigantic bat wings never stopped guys thiking succubi are sexy...
Is this where we bust into our big "Super Freak" song and dance number?
Being freaky does not mean one is not sexy. Quite the opposite.There is indeed a picture of an incubus, although he's pretty freaky, what with the sharp teeth and the gazelle horns.Hey man, teeth, horns a tail and gigantic bat wings never stopped guys thiking succubi are sexy...
Nethertheless, Wikipedia states with regard to demographical distribution that due to the public's increased perception of homosexuality as an innate condition the fear of being identified as gay among young people has increased, which makes (the target group being the one it is) not trying to use an upfront cover hero a reasonable decision related to business. I guess this settles the case.
|
|
There is indeed a picture of an incubus, although he's pretty freaky, what with the sharp teeth and the gazelle horns.Hey man, teeth, horns a tail and gigantic bat wings never stopped guys thiking succubi are sexy...
An addition of, oh, I dunno, HAIR might have improved my first impression of him. Also, I'm pretty sure that incubus stopped taking his meds a loooong time ago...I think he probably bites, but not in a sexy way.
Because he's hungry.
|
|
And for some nice man-candy, check this artist out.
Lilith, you are a hero to your people. The bards from the kingdom of female gamers shall sing the praises of this artist, and you, for years to come. :)
That was very much what I was talking about, or trying to. The dude in the forest with a bird was a good example; there was nothing in the picture that really screamed "ZOMG i <3 manluv", nothing (that I could perceive, at least) offensive to a male's sense of self, but it was nice to look at. Substitute a perching pseudodragon for the bird, or equip a nice sturdy longbow or other such very manly weapon, and you've got yourself a cover. Bam.
Lilith, you are a hero to your people.
Why do the guys that girls think are "hot" always look like girls? Just curious.
|
|
Black leather is everyone's friend...:)Just remember, like spandex, tight leather is a privilege, not a right.
And for some nice man-candy, check this artist out.
Weird. I look just like the Envoy of the Forest guy in real life.
Except, no pointy ears. And my hair is brown.And I'm holding a box of KFC instead of a tropical bird.
And my complexion is bad.
And I have a bit of a gut on me.
Lilith, you are a hero to your people. The bards from the kingdom of female gamers shall sing the praises of this artist, and you, for years to come.
I have more man-candy where that came from:
Good villain, yes?And for the guys that aren't into the term "man-candy" - too bad. ;) Eye candy is good for everybody.
Why do the guys that girls think are "hot" always look like girls? Just curious.
I don't know about Courtney, but for me, they don't look like girls. Yeah, some of them are borderline androgynous, but there are certain features that are appealing: strong chin/jawline, strength without being over-the-top, things like that. Strong without being threatening, I guess.
It's hard to define. :D
Why do the guys that girls think are "hot" always look like girls? Just curious.
Why do the girls guys think are "hot" always have DD boobs and blonde hair?
Oh sorry, was that a gender-based stereotype? I guess it was.
-Amber S, the Occasionally Snide
This is a really interesting discussion, and coincidentally I just wrote a post over on the 300 thread mentioning how the ideal of beauty in the modern west is a youthful female. That ideal applies in the eyes of males and females - even heterosexual females will often say that while they are attracted to men, women are more aesthetically beautiful. It's purely a cultural thing. The ancient Greeks for example regarded a youthful athletic male as being the most physically beautiful kind of human.
Morgue, have you ever thought that it may have little to do with the subjugation of women and more to do with the west's fear of male homosexuality? So we get women = sexy, men = ugly yet functional.
Regarding demi-humans, they also are not thought of as being sexy, which is probably why they don't sell too well. They are usually presented as being ugly or at least peculiar-looking by human standards, and their small stature makes them seem less heroic than your Conans and your Aragorns.
I have a Livejournal too, I'll add you guys ;)
I remember once seeing a report on TV, using computer softeware, they polled men and women and constructed a computer model of each person's thoughts on the most attractive person, which generally turned out to be a borderline androgynous person of either gender (um, that may be redundant).