Geoduck42, why did you use the display text "Madwa Kovel" for "Madwa Korel" in the link in your latest update to this page? Is it an oversight on your part, or was there a misspelling of "Korel" as "Kovel" in the comic that I missed? -- William Ansley (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Monahan's State of Dress/Undress[]
I undid Arisano's addition to this page which stated that Monahan's portrayal in The Works (2001) "implies she only wears the mask and the gloves, while in the comic proper she's stuffed into a full body-suit without any skin exposed." There is no hint of any "exposed skin" in Monahan's protrayal on any of the three cards featuring her in The Works (2001) that I can see. She is wearing an apron made of some shiny material which clings to her body in an improbable way, but she is definitely shown wearing a blouse and trousers under it on the "Dr. Monahan" card, and there is no sign of any exposed skin in her portrayal on the other two cards that feature her.
- (I'm afraid I forgot to sign my message above when I added it to the page originally. My apologies to all. -- 🔧William Ansley (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC))
Not the one who made that addition you undid, but I always understood that "exposed skin" line not as of Monahan displaying bare skin for us to see, but as "The Works" depicting her wearing mask and gloves as sole protective gear PLUS her regular clothing (a shirt, at least, is prominently displayed) but the comic proper displaying a full protective body suit UNDER her regular clothing, with no skin being exposed to chemical / fire / explosive damage (not a bad precaution for a mad scientist). IF that was the original intent of the adition, I would strongly suggest restoring it - with a small edition to make that clearer for those inclined to, uh interpret it as a risquè choice in laboratory attire on her part...
- I wish you would register for an Fandom account, especially if you are going "strongly suggest" things. I dislike talking to an IP#. 🔧
- First of all, the phrase "exposed skin" has a specific meaning: bare, uncovered skin. It does not mean a lack of appropriate protective gear. I may have a dirty mind, but I don't think that interpreting "exposed skin" to mean what it is intended to mean is evidence of that, especially given that we are talking about the artwork of Phil Foglio, who is rather well known for drawing characters with exposed skin, in its generally accepted meaning. 🔧
- Secondly, since there is almost no exposed skin (as such) at all in any of Phil's drawings of Monahan, I think it is a stretch to say that she is wearing a protective full-body suit under her clothes as she is portrayed in the comic, but not wearing one as she is portrayed in The Works. I happen to have a set of cards from the original The Works game and looking closely at the "Dr. Monahan" card, I have to admit that her neck does appear to be exposed on that card (that is, you can see the bare skin of her neck), while it certainly is not when she is drawn in the comic. Before she changed masks, ✣ I assumed that the neck covering was part of Monahan's original "flat" mask, but when she removed her "plague doctor" mask ✣ , it became clear that my assumption was wrong. I won't deny that one possible explanation for Monahan's neck being covered in the comic is that she is wearing a "full-body condom" (made of some really tough protective material) under her clothing, but I don't think it is the only one. It could be a coloring error on Cheyenne Wright's part. It could be that she is wearing a turtleneck-style garment of some kind under her vest. And there is no reason to suppose that in The Works, Monhan isn't wearing a protective full-body suit (one that starts at her collar bone, rather than just under her lower jaw, like a standard set of long johns or a union suit) under her clothes. 🔧
- Thirdly, Monahan is wearing protective gear other than her mask and gloves in her portrayal in The Works, a lab apron, which seems to include attached boots or overshoes (as shown on the "Dr. Monahan's Diabolical Rat Stretching Engine" card). It does leave her shoulders and the parts of her arms not covered by her gloves unprotected (except by blouse sleeves). The apron also doesn't cover parts of her hips and the sides of her legs, revealing her trousers. In the comic, she wears a white lab coat instead of the apron, but she always leaves it open in the front. (She finally removes it just after she takes off her mask.) So neither the lab apron in The Works nor the lab coat in the comic are offering an appropriate level of protection. (Of course, if Monahan does have on asbestos underwear, or whatever, in the comic, then the lab coat is merely decorative.) 🔧
- I will consider restoring some form of the deleted passage, but in my opinion it will need substantial revision, rather than a "small addition" to make it into a useful addition to the Monahan article. If you or Arisano want to restore it, making sufficient changes to make it clear that "exposed skin" means a lack of protective gear (if that was the original intent of the passage), and preferentially (from my point of view) avoiding the phrase "exposed skin" altogether, by all means go ahead. -- 🔧William Ansley (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I see you feel strongly enough about the whole "exposed skin" thing to write four full paragraphs about it, with numbered points, so the only thing I'll tell you about that is that MAYBE where you live "exposed skin" means always "visible skin", but in chemical laboratory contexts (where I have been for 30 years) it means "skin exposed to danger", including skin behind flammable / permeable / acid-soluble clothing. With that knowledge, feel free to do whatever you feel like. Have a nice day.
- Thank you for responding. It would have been nice if you provided a reference to a use of the phrase "exposed skin" meaning "skin exposed to danger" in the context of a chemical lab. Certainly, outside of that context, that phrase has the meaning I stated, making its use in the article at best ambiguous and in need of explanation. You also don't acknowledge the other points I make at all. You are also free to do whatever you like, however. And have a nice day, as well. -- 🔧William Ansley (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)