web stats

CSBG Archive

That Infamous Batwoman Portfolio Review

In case you missed it, the great website Escher Girls has a post up with a firsthand account of an artist who had her portfolio reviewed at SDCC.

Here is one of her sketches:

Now obviously, I am sure that there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of the above sketch. However, here is what she said she received as feedback from one company (which she chose not to name – and yes, it is definitely worth noting that we only have her word that this critique actually took place):

I was given a full critique on the anatomical incorrections as the following.

“Her breasts are much too small and do not have the lift that superhero women should have. Her jawline is fat and her neck much too long. The style of her hair is clunky and does not flow in a sense that a super human would. Her hips, waist and thighs are too big and she honestly looks fat. No one is going to want to read a comic with a fat female protagonist. I honestly recommend looking at issues of Sport’s Illustrated to get the right anatomy. Those women are the peak of human perfection, and that is what we want in this industry.”


It almost reminds me of the “Kate Upton is fat” debate.


Who was doing the critiques, Andrew “Dice” Clay?

Evidence that what she said is actually true? Or is anything posted by a woman that either draws or writes automatically taken as gospel?

@Steve Broome: LOL u mad? Given how most women are drawn in superhero comics, you think it’s entirely impossible that an artist–of any gender–would be given such “advice”?

Look, I love JHWIII’s art on Batwoman, but even he draws her with bigger, perkier breasts than this, with much smaller curves and no creases in her skin.

Steve is correct that it is probably worth noting that it is, in fact, just her word that the critique actually happened (I thought it was evident, but fair enough, I will edit in a more explicit note on the point).

Travis Pelkie

July 17, 2012 at 4:49 pm

Like…female bodybuilders in Sports Illustrated, or gymnasts? Cuz those are 2 different “peaks of human perfection”.

Or do they mean those scrawny anorexics that are in the swimsuit issue that couldn’t take me in a fight?

I’d say there are some iffy things with this pic, but overall, it’s pretty decent.

Looks kinda like how she was first depicted in 52, to me….

I like it. I don’t see anything majorly glaringly wrong with the drawing.

I think most of it is fine, but I do agree with the neck.

Yeah, the neck is the only thing that I agree with. Other than that, it’s a nice drawing.

Travis Pelkie

July 17, 2012 at 4:59 pm

Couple other things:

No one wants to read a comic with a fat female protagonist — except for those of us who love Xaime’s Maggie stories.

As to the neck, maybe Gotham is cold and she wants her turtleneck on?

It’s amazing that anyone would be dumb enough to say that to someone, given that it might get on the internet. However, unless names are named, there won’t be enough changes in the industry. Tell who it is, and then we’ll see that person defend themselves.

And “inaccuracies”, not “incorrections”. My inner pedant would not let that one go.

If this is true, I can see the critiques that the neck is a bit long and that the perspective on the mask and waist seem a bit off unless the image is intentionally asymmetrical for some reason (which weren’t even mentioned, despite being the only things to jump out at me), but, holy crap, those are forgivable when compared to some actual Marvel and DC covers I’ve seen. (I’m not even talking about the gratuitous cheesecake stuff, just anatomy and perspective on actual covers, particularly during the “EXTREEM!!1!!” era of the 90s, that was so sloppy that it made me wonder how someone got paid for it.) There’s some real potential here, and it’s sad that (again, if it’s true) she was shot down in such an offensively sexist manner.

“: LOL u mad? Given how most women are drawn in superhero comics, you think it’s entirely impossible that an artist–of any gender–would be given such “advice”?”

Good example of the kind of laughable confirmation bias that I’m talking about. If you WANT to believe this was said “by an unnamed person from an unnamed company” then you will, with less evidence that you’d probably require for a story that drastically disagreed with your worldview. It’s the job of journalism to ignore all that and speak objectively. Otherwise I can put up a drawing of anything, attach a famous name or stereotyped criticism (“I drew this black superhero and Marvel said they wouldn’t publish it because he wasn’t drinking malt liquor!”) and get tons of publicity for something that nobody can confirm actually happened.

Try thinking more critically next time.

Re: the drawing, her nose covering should be way lower on her face unless she’s odd looking. Her body looks like an assembly of pieces rather than one united figure, and the lighting makes zero sense considering she’s enveloped in a cape. The neck is also very poorly rendered.

Laurence J Sinclair

July 17, 2012 at 5:06 pm

The neck only looks too long because of its darkness; really, when one realises that there’s a shoulder under that cape, it’s not too bad.

The real irony?

That drawing is by Rob Granito.

No, Steve, dig up.

No, the neck is a bit long. Look at how the hair falls on her right-hand side. Also, the cape looks as if it attaches in the front where the neck meets the collarbone, confirming the length of the neck relative to the rest of her body.

That said, I still maintain it’s better than some stuff I’ve seen commercially released by the Big Two.

@Steve, I was thinking critically.

See, the difference is that female characters are almost always depicted as airbrushed models in mainstream comics. Black characters, on the other hand, are almost never depicted with such blatant and harmful stereotypes. In the case of the former, the criticism she (allegedly) received is consistent with the majority of the output of the publishers she likely encountered at SDCC. Your hypothetical fake criticism, on the other hand, bears no resemblance to the output of any publisher I’ve come across since the Golden Age.

It is circumstantial evidence, admittedly, but it’s not as easy to brush off as you’re trying to make out. You’re not merely expressing doubt, you are flat out trying to suggest it didn’t happen. And I’m saying that’s just as pig-headed as accepting her words at face value.

Oh no they didn’t. I like this piece

“It is circumstantial evidence, admittedly”

No. It’s not. Please learn what that means.

Hoenstly, looking at this drawing other things popped out at me other than “small breasts” or “big waist”. I can see where the editor is coming from, in the sense that in basically every superhero comic the females look like porn stars and the males looks like bodybuilders.

But speaking as an artist, it is a pain when you try and draw a superhero with a body that makes sense for what they do, and you’re told they’re not buff or sexy enough. For example, whenever I sketch the Flash I make him lean, since runners tend to be lean. It’s much harder to run if you’re big and bulky. Likewise, a character like Batwoman would probably not be able to do a lot of her hand-to-hand fighting or acrobatics if she had giant breasts in the way. In real life she’d probably be very strong physically and not as curvy.

On the other hand, you’ll get similar critiques of the male physique. They have to have bulging muscles, a 6-pack, and be at least 8 heads tall, always standing like they’re about to kick someone’s ass. While it’s not as sexualized as the typical female superhero, they’re both depictions of idealized forms, which is a shorthand way of showing strength in a visual medium. When the women have brokeback syndrome, though…..That’s another issue.

I can’t say one way or another that an editor said the things this woman says an editor said, but I will say that the artist isn’t just some random person who’s putting drawings online just to cause havoc. She was at the convention; she had a portfolio she was showing around; this drawing was in it.

I met this artist at a Writers/Artists meet-up panel on Thursday, and we talked (briefly) about this picture and how she was trying to make Batwoman look like a ‘real’ person (I personally think the picture’s pretty good — certainly not “fat” looking). It’s not hard for me to imagine this story is basically true, given that she was at the con specifically to shop her portfolio around…


So the only issue you have with Alexa’s last post is that she used circumstantial wrong?

Dude, sounds like you know you’ve been beaten but won’t admit it. Pretty lame. No matter how you slice it, you’re in the wrong on this one. Take your lumps and move on.


@Steve, I have a law degree. I used “circumstantial evidence” correctly, at least inasmuch as one can when not talking about an actual legal situation.

Yeah, I’ll buy that this was the SENTIMENT behind what some editors told her, since certainly it is a prevalent mentality, but I’m pretty sure no employee of a major company would break it down in so many words, certainly not anyone with regard for the security of his job.


I understand the nonsensical chivalry of the internet, but it doesn’t interest me anymore than any other sort of pandering. This is a group of people saying something with zero supporting evidence is “probably” true “just because”. There’s nothing to be beaten by. I realize that for your ilk this represents armchair freedom fighting though so this is all probably a waste of time.

Errrr, I shouldn’t say “pretty sure,” because of course it could have happened. I just mean, anecdotally, I’ve known more people who would exaggerate a bad experience in this way than would actually talk to a stranger the way the editor is supposed to have done.

I am in no way commenting on the validity of the artist’s claim (which seems at least partially valid as several people here know of her and met her at the con).

I’m saying that in the interaction/discussion/argument/tete-a-tete between you and Alexa , you came out on the losing end. But instead of admitting it, your comeback was a weak ‘use circumstantial properly’. And that’s lame. And THEN Alexa whipped out her law degree and you lost again.

There’s no armchair activism on my part. Just a healthy appreciation that a smarmy, self-righteous ass got -his comeuppance. TWICE!


Tom Fitzpatrick

July 17, 2012 at 6:43 pm

Wouldn’t be surprised if Ms. Thompson breaks the internet about this one day.

Wonder if she heard about this yet?

@Steve: Regardless of whether or not the story actually happened, it “feels” true, for want of a better word, to a lot of people. The sexualized exaggeration of women in comic books — male characters might be similarly exaggerated but not sexually so — makes the artist’s story at least believable.

Your knee-jerk and, frankly, rather arrogant responses do the opposite — you more or less reject the story with no reason, or at least nothing beyond your dislike for the drawing. In effect, your response reinforces those who feel her story to be true because it seems as motivated by sexism (“is anything drawn or written by a woman…” “nonsensical chivalry,” “your ilk”) as anything.

One way to counter this would be to give an actual reason as to why you don’t believe the story to be true.

Here’s a question worth considering: What, exactly, is the purpose of a portfolio review? Presumably it’s a way for an artist to get some feedback and tips that’ll help him/her produce sample pages that might result in a paid professional gig. By that standard, the “advice” was pretty much spot on. Whether you like/agree with/accept/hate/curse/whatever the standard “ideal” of female beauty that’s propagated in superhero comics, the fact remains that it is the standard. It’s what companies sell and it’s what fans buy. And if someone wants to draw superhero comics with female characters (which, presumably, someone who takes Batwoman drawings to a portfolio review does) then they need to know how to produce the kind of material the company wants. To tell the artist anything else would be doing her a disservice in her pursuit of a career. Now, once she gets in the door, gains some footing and stature in the industry, then maybe she can try to change the system from the inside. But in order to do that, you first gotta get inside. And you don’t do that by producing art that doesn’t fall in line with what the company actually publishes.

On a related note, while the above is certainly a nice drawing of a woman in a Batwoman costume, it’s really not a very good drawing of Batwoman. As drawn by JH Williams, Kate Kane, when dressed in street clothes, is (by comic book standards) a bit on the small size in terms of her bosom. But in costume she has what appears to be the top third of two traffic cones stuck to her chest. She’s quite clearly and conspicuously carrying some shaped padding under her costume (most likely filled with kevlar, perhaps in a variation on Frank Miller’s DKR explanation for why Bruce Wayne wears a giant bat-shaped target on his chest). There’s such a glaring obvious discrepancy between her in- and out-of-costume cup size that one really has to conclude that it was a very deliberate choice by Williams and that her more “robust” look in costume is an intentional part of the character’s design (as opposed to being the default setting for all of his women). By deemphasizing that so clearly in the above drawing, the artist has basically ignored the on-model design of the character. Aesthetically, there’s nothing really wrong with the drawing, but it’s not an accurate reflection of how the character that stars in the comics DC publishes under the title Batwoman is supposed to look. The “advice” offered by the reviewer would have pushed it closer in that direction which, like it or not, is the direction the artist needs to go in if she expects to get her stuff published by DC.

@deron. “It feels true”? That’s our standard now?

I mean, Steve’s being a jerk here, but there’s plenty of reason to be skeptical about the veracity of the statement. I buy the sexism, but the statement itself seems a little too on the nose, I guess.

You know, if I was in that situation the artist was in, and got that critique, I’d outwit the critic like so (start the vid at 1:24, and stop it at 1:31):

A bit of cleaning up and I honestly would have thought that was a JH Williams III drawing. Good job.

That girl is not fat. Madness.


” Regardless of whether or not the story actually happened, it “feels” true, for want of a better word, to a lot of people.”

I hope you realize this confirms everything I already said.

“you more or less reject the story with no reason, or at least nothing beyond your dislike for the drawing.”
“One way to counter this would be to give an actual reason as to why you don’t believe the story to be true.”

I don’t believe it’s been confirmed as something that actually happened. I believe that on the internet anyone can say anything has happened, and people should not react as if it was fact until it’s confirmed. I believe stories to be true when they’re filled with actual information and corroborated, not when they “feel” true. For want of a better word indeed.

@DanLarkin: I made no claims about the story’s truth — “regardless of whether or not the story actually happened” — and certainly didn’t say anything about the statement per se. It does sound spot-on, but it could be a paraphrase of a longer discussion. My point was why the story sounds like something that could have happened, that it feels right because of the state of the art in the industry.

@Steve: I also hope that you see that your most recent response demonstrates my point: that you respond in a knee-jerk, arrogant fashion. You aren’t withholding judgment on the story’s veracity because you don’t have more evidence, you assume it’s not true. The sexism of your earlier posts (which you’ve either thankfully abandoned or are hoping we’ll forget) also suggests that this story might not meet your standards because of who is telling it.

As someone with a ridiculously long neck, I am terribly offended.

“I honestly recommend looking at issues of Sport’s Illustrated to get the right anatomy. Those women are the peak of human perfection, and that is what we want in this industry.”

That editor must be the one constantly hiring Greg Land. Just substitute Sports Illustrated with Swank in that quote.

And that Batwoman is more anatomically accurate than any woman Rob Liefeld has drawn in his entire career.

Why is an artist showing a pin-up when seeking advice in how to get work in sequential storytelling? Weird. Even as a pin-up it doesn’t particularly work; far too static for an ‘action’ hero, and there’s a lot of doodlin’ to cover up problem areas.

Not to say I haven’t seen work of a similar standard by professionals.

I’m glad I decided to read the comments. Usually when I get to something with this many comments I skip reading them.

Anyway, I wouldn’t doubt this lady got the advice she said she did. There is a certain look that publishers want for their superheroes and this drawing doesn’t fit it. I do like the drawing, though. I hope this lady continues drawing and creates something of her own. Damn the man!

kalorama is right.

Regardless of how you feel about the standards evident within the critique, it does sound like a fitting critique for the circumstances. If you take a drawing of Batwoman to a portfolio critique at a comics convention, then you presumably want your art to be judged against the expectations and desires of the industry. You then choose whether to try to change to further approach those standards, or choose to ignore those factors. You can complain about those standards, but you don’t blame the critique itself for drawing attention to those standards.

kalorama is also right that while it is a nice drawing of a woman in a Batwoman costume, it is not on-model for Batwoman herself. An established artist can get away with that; Frank Quitely would never see mainstream comic book work otherwise. But, again, if you are asking for an evaluation of an image of a character, presumably you want to be compared to “professional” or accepted versions of that character. (And the look for the current Batwoman is fairly well established, not like the wide variations you can get with someone like Wolverine.)

Now, complain about the standards all you want…

Brian! Get that heifer off the front page! Gross!

Who’s Batwoman?

It’s shocking when horrible “standards” are stated explicitly. “You mean you aren’t just aware of these awfu “ideals”, you actually enforce them?”

Michael Howey

July 18, 2012 at 1:11 am

Can we get some more pedantic sniping because that’s what we all come here for.

Quite like that piece myself. Sick of women looking like porn actresses.

Also, the first thing I check out with an artist is how well they drew the face and hands, and it’s hard to judge this artist from this one image. Would like to see more.

Shows definite potential, though.

It’s funny how this thread, for the most part civil and with well organized thoughts expressed by reasonable people can be ruined by just a couple of self-styled crusaders who live in their own fantasy land and wish to drag everyone else along with them. One refuses to believe that any kind of discrimination exists and attacks anyone who disputes this. No evidence is good evidence, just liberal whining or whatever cultural tough guys are calling it these days.

On the other side we have someone wanting to turn it into a Rodney King moment with minimal evidence. For some reason they drag African-Americans in to support their argument(using a race of people as a blunt instrument, nice), even though it has nothing to do with race. Like their foil, there is only one right interpretation of the story, and anyone that disagrees is a primitive, woman-hating cave man.

Personally I have no problem believing that someone working for a major company thought these things while rejecting the artist’s work, but writing them down seems stupid even for a misogynist wazbag, especially with the already well-earned perception of a boys club at the major comic publishers. I don’t see anything wrong with the pic, but I’m a whining liberal caveman, so what do I know.

Comparing it to the depiction in Batwoman 10 (artist trevor hairsine) to see what is actually published I can see some stuff wrong with it.
firstly the neckline looking long is more a consequence of the crumpled nature of the costume (it looks skin tight in the real thing) and the fact that her hair flows around her neckline to disguise its length whereas in the above drawing the hair just sits there.
The mask isn’t quite big enough, the one in the drawing looks like a carnival mask, also the cape is actually black on the outside rather than red or any other light colour, and it is connected by small buttons at the shoulder so the costume itself is slightly wrong.
To me the breasts seemed to be pushed to the side for some reason as opposed to being in the front, in te published artwork the symbol is pressed between them making them seem larger than normal.
The waist is too pinched in one side giving the impression of fat hips on a woman who has a really intense workout every night and relies for survival on being combat flexible.
The main problem is that it looks like a cosplayer rather than a superhero, the facial expression doesn’t match the arm gestures and looks like a direct copy from other artists, and has she ever actually seen a bat.

feel free to troll me

I don’t see anything wrong with the critique.

In all honesty if that had been a picture of Batman with similar proportions (jawline, long neck, wide hips, small chest) she’d have been given the exact same (male equivalent) critique and told to look at body building magazines. Superhero comics require the characters to have a certain physique.
As kalorama said you have to play the game to get in, get established and then you can write your own ticket.

This is portfolio building 101: know who you’re applying to and tailor your portfolio accordingly. If you wanna be a superhero comic book artist and work for the big 2 you need to match their standards.
If you disagree with their standards and feel that you don’t want to adapt your style then you should be submitting instead to one of the many other companies out there.

I’d say she’s in good shape assuming this critique is actually from an editor at Marvel or DC given how difficult it can actually be to get a 1 on 1 review at a convention nowadays. Last I checked they had a blind submission method in place wherein they only choose the artists who are developed enough to actually benefit from a crit in the first place.

What is important to remember about this is that we have no idea whether or not any such critique was given to the young lady or if she is simply trying to make a point.

@Tristan “No evidence is good evidence, just liberal whining or whatever cultural tough guys are calling it these days.”

I’m left of Nader but this story reeks of bullshit.

If it really did happen, I would think that someone who wants to change how women are depicted in comics would blast this douche’s name and the publisher he works for from the highest mountain on the internets.

The “critique” also references the subject’s thighs, which aren’t even visible in the drawing.

To me it looks like another mediocre creator who thinks they can break into the industry by tearing it down and blaming it for all of society’s ills.

If you don’t like Michael Turner or whoever, don’t buy his shit. If you think you could do better, good for you. Self-publishing has never been easier, and if you’re truly talented, no boys’ club can keep you from reaching an audience.

Comic books are art. If someone wants to draw sexy ladies, that’s a perfectly legitimate expression of their creativity, First Amendment rights, and I would even say human rights. And if someone want to buy those drawings, that’s fine too. Who would want to regulate art and suppress creative voices? Well, the United States Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency for one. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.

Recently, someone on this very site told me that cartoon boobies lead to rape, violence, and Republican legislation. All but the last accusation could be lifted straight from the mouths of distinguished Sens. Robert Hendrickson and Estes Kefauver. They had no more evidence back then than the slanderers do now, but they at least had a modicum of credibility because they weren’t begging to be hired to replace Johnny Craig at the same time they were calling for his head.

Art is not a zero sum game. There’s room for everybody. You don’t have to tear down other artists to get noticed (50 Cent’s career notwithstanding). You may not like what they produce, but you should respect their right to produce it and stop fabricating links to rape, harassment, and violence in order to censor them.

Would this be “infamous” if it has been a male artist who’d been told these things and not a female one?

“Would this be ‘infamous’ if it has been a male artist who’d been told these things and not a female one?”

Most likely. I’m struck by the lack of diversity assumed to exist among superhumans. They would all have the same hair and build? Blah. No wonder Amanda Waller got such crappy treatment in the New 52.

I guess, the big question is this, and if someone’s said it already, sorry. I skimmed and didn’t see it:

Was the person honestly helping this artist get a job in the comics industry? If so, is his advice helpful in her getting a job drawing superhero comics. If she made the changes he suggested, would she be more likely to be hired?

And to me, the answer is probably. But I wouldn’t fault the critique as much as the entire environment, personally.

Though maybe he could have been more tactful about it. Y’know.

But I wouldn’t fault the critique as much as the entire environment, personally.

Agreed. I think that’s the point of the whole thing, really. That industry standards are bad, not that this one person was bad (although, yes, the critique might have lacked some tact).

Agreed. I think that’s the point of the whole thing, really. That industry standards are bad, not that this one person was bad (although, yes, the critique might have lacked some tact).

Well, if that’s the point I’m not sure there really is much of a point. It’s certainly not new or startling info that superhero comics present unrealistic body images of both women and men, and this anecdote doesn’t really shed any light on the subject or give it a unique spin. She says her goal in telling the story was to “inform the community of just what their artistic standards are.” Well, it’s pretty likely most of the people reading it already know what they are.

And I didn’t see any lack of tact in what was sad. A lack of sugarcoating and handholding, maybe, but anyone who’s had or witnessed a portfolio review (not just at a comic convention, but in a job interview or an art class) knows that they’re rarely subtle or delicate. They’re generally brutally honest and no-hold’s barred by design. I’ve heard much, much worse than anything that was relayed above.

Lacked some tact?

If you are serious about a critique, then you should want some hard truths. Glossing over issues or dodging industry truths is a disservice in a serious critique.

Travis Pelkie

July 19, 2012 at 1:02 am

This has been interesting — in looking at this young girl’s posts (from the link from your link above), she’s gotten Gail Simone in her corner, saying she’d work with her. She also says she got much of the same criticisms from several different people, which might indicate to some that it’s not necessarily that the industry standards are poor, but perhaps this girl’s art isn’t quite as great as she thinks it is. She also says that it was NOT one of the big 2 that gave her this critique.

Honestly, it doesn’t even sound like SHE knows who gave the critique.

Which brings up a couple things.

A portfolio critique is a mini job interview. And everything I read about job interviews says that you should research the company you’re interviewing with, so you know what they do, who they are, etc. She acts as if she doesn’t even know NOW who it was.

Another thing I read about portfolio reviews is that unless you’re trying to be a pinup/cover artist, you should really be putting panel to panel continuity in your portfolio. They want to see that you can actually do the job, which is tell a story in pictures. Maybe there were more in the rest of the portfolio.

The other thing about portfolio reviews that I read about without fail: they’re basically worthless. I’m sure, Brian, you could come up with a dozen names of creators in the industry who broke in because of a portfolio review, but for the most part, they don’t find people through this. If you surveyed all the editors from the big 2, DH, Image, and a few other bigger companies, I would be amazed if you found, on average, 1 person per editor that was working in comics after being found through a portfolio review. The editors are wasting their time during the con because they could be doing things that might be more productive, and the artists are wasting their time because they could be spending it doing productive things at the con.

So my point, and I think I have one, is that as portfolio reviews are already a waste of time, and this editor (or whoever) was getting their time wasted by this girl who doesn’t know who gave this critique and was apparently attempting to get work from a superhero publisher, of which this person was not representing, perhaps they decided to “mess around” and give this “advice”, thinking nothing would come of it.

I’m not surprised that it turns out that it’s some no name from a no name company, as any reputable comics company, despite what we think of the images they’re putting out, is not telling artists to get anatomy lessons from Sports Illustrated.

So if this girl had named names from the start, it would have stopped a hell of a lot of speculation. Because no one is going to pick up on the story “no name company gives no name artist lousy artistic advice”.

Travis Pelkie

July 19, 2012 at 2:39 am

And in re-reading my last post here, I think I came off as a bit too harsh towards the young lady who got the critique. While I do think she probably went into the portfolio review process expecting too much, I will agree that the critique above is not the kind of thing that we should be promoting in comics.

I do stand by the substance of what my last post said, but I think the tone was probably overall too harsh. I certainly wish this artist well in her future, as she seems to have some potential, and the critique above is a poor reflection of the industry, but I do think that anyone wishing to break into the business should be knowledgable of what they face in trying to break in.


Have you read many comics lately? Most of the current “pros” don’t know how to do sequential storytelling anymore. They rely on splashes and shots that look like pasted-together stills

The thing I get from all this back and forth is….what is the purpose of not naming who it was who said it? To protect the person who said it? Why? To protect the artist from reprisal? Well, it’s not like her ID is that well protected, the the person she’s talking about knows what he said, so it’s not like she’s getting future work from him. And other editors already know to be wary of her. The only reason to not name names seems to be if you’re worried you’re not quoting him accurately, or it was never said, and you’re worried that if there’s a name to it then someone can counter you.

I’m still waiting for my out of shape drawings of Batman to get me a job. Because heroes with guts are serious threats and archtypes, and not just in there for laughs like Blue Beetle was, or impotent like Nite Owl. I guess Superman could get fat. He’s still going to be stronger than everybody no matter if he works out or not.

Just because it’s true dosen’t mean you should say it.

Hi everyone! This is SelkieSiun, the original creator of this whole hullabaloo, which honestly, still overwhelms me whenever I think about it (to be frank I stayed off the internet for a couple days during the peak of this whole debate due to just not knowing how to react to all the attention.)

So I was totting around CBR a little bit and found this post and wanted to clear up a few issues you guys have brought up about it.


“This piece was not drawn by this girl.”

No. This is an original piece that I in fact sat down and drew. I made several friends at SDCC who would be more than willing to vouch for me that I was there, I had a portfolio and this page was in it. I even met Bizenghast creator M Alice Legrow who was also showing off her portfolio there. If I need to take photographs of the original drawing and post them on my DeviantART or Tumblr I’d be more than happy to do so.

“She made up the whole story.”

Once again, no I did not. I understand that because the only evidence that this happened or that these words were said to me can not be validated by a tape recording, video recording, etc (which is illegal to do without the other persons permission, and I’m sure no editor would want their advice taped) So is there a chance that I never said this? Yes. Would I rather cut off my left hand than say that this did not happen, when in fact saying so would be lying? Yes. (I’m extremely sensitive about people calling me a liar when I am not. But I understand that without proof there is doubt.)

“She is just exaggerated what was said.”

No, I did not exaggerate the critique, but this is not syllable for syllable, word for word what was said. The quote I posted was a condensed version of all the major points that editor made to me during the review. Not to mention I was reviewed on Thursday morning and I did not post this until Sunday night, so unless I have a tape recorder for a brain, of course there were bits of the conversation that were missing or confused. That mixed with my Dyslexia and the fact that I was tired, cranky, hungry and sore did end up with a weird sounding quote. But every sentence in the quote was at some point said to me, just not back-to-back as to quote suggests. However, the editor was very rude to me in tone, which is something I should have emphasized in the post that my exhausted brain at 11:45 pm just wasn’t willing to do. And yes, the editor did emphasis that he was talking about the Sports Illustrated MODELS, not the ATHLETES.

“She did this all for attention”

Once again, no. Despite having been in theater for 10 years, copious amounts of attention actually intimidates me. The only reason I posted this was because I thought a few of the followers of Escher Girls would be interested to hear my story. Nothing more. Nothing less.

So I think those are all the major points I hit. I appreciate and love the critiques everyone has given me (and to be frank, I’m in no way proud of this piece. I can produce much better quality stuff than this and I only spent a couple hours on it. It’s not good in terms of technique, it’s the fact the editor was criticizing the content was what upset me. But now that I’ve stepped back from the whole situation and analyzed both the state of the comic book industry and what most comic book buyers consume, it’s to be expected. I’m going to be going back again this year and will again be doing the reviews (more so to see what they say about the new artwork I am bringing this time)

Feel free to message me on my DA http://selkiesiun.deviantart.com/ or Tumblr http://selkiesiun.tumblr.com/ if you have further questions. I’m more than happy to respond!


[…] This artist received a critique from a company she chose not to name. Here is her Batwoman via Escher Girls and goodcomics.comicbookresources.com […]

Leave a Comment



Review Copies

Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.

Browse the Archives