Diana Prince

[scratchie]

I just saw the article on the "Diana Prince" issues of Wonder Woman and I love it. I just discovered this period in WW's history recently and have been picking up cheap copies from this run whenever I find them. I love the sixties design elements, the stories aren't half-bad, and let's face it, Diana looks great in a white pantsuit (and the other "mod" outfits she picked up).

I'm surprised you didn't include the covers to #199 and #200, though, which are two of the all-time classics.

http://www.agitators.com/foto/qomix/ww199.jpg

http://www.agitators.com/foto/qomix/ww200.jpg


Mmmm.... Women's lib....

[Agentum]

And she was still chained on every cover?:)

How long did they use the non powered WW in the comics before she got her powers back?

[Cei-U!]

How long did they use the non powered WW in the comics before she got her powers back?

Around four-and-a-half years, from Wonder Woman #178 (Sept.-Oct. 1968) through #204 (Jan.-Feb. 1973).

Cei-U!
I summon the noble experiment!

[Shellhead]

The wackiest part of that run was when Catwoman, Fafhrd, and the Gray Mouser teamed up with Diana. I'm serious.

http://www.monitorduty.com/images/imgs37/fafhrd400x226.jpg

[Agentum]

cool, i hope they put those books in trades some day even if they are not that proud of that period of WW.

[Brian Cronin]

I didn't include those covers mainly because the chains thing. Also, because I was mostly trying to show her different outfits in that cover montage.

But yeah, #199 and #200 were drawn quite well!

-Brian

[DubipR]

That run needs to be traded up.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

What was the storyline in the 'Special Women's Lib Issue'?

[matt levin]

WW has never been written so that I've been a steady fan; I have maybe two or three dozen WW issues, after all these years, and after all the years of her many series; but-- the Diana Prince issues are all among those I've kept 'all these years'; so okay, I'm an Emma Peel fan, and here's Wonder Woman as Emma Peel. I liked'm; I like'm still.

Matt

[tangentman]

What was the storyline in the 'Special Women's Lib Issue'?

Here's the story: Diana begins the issue strolling down a sidewalk. A crowd of men ogle Diana and taunt her with unwanted come-ons. When Diana confronts the men, her occasional teen sidekick Cathy attacks the guys. See, Cathy has taken a few karate lessons and feels like she's ready to patrol the streets of NYC preying on loud-mouthed sexists who harass women. Unfortunately, the men smack Cathy around, but Diana socks it to 'em all.

Diana chides Cathy for her impulsiveness, but goes along to meet the various empowered women in Cathy's life, including a dog-trainer and a karate instructor. Along the way, Cathy reveals that a local department store is basically screwing female employees over with abyssmal pay and conditions. A "women's encounter" group plans on picketing the store; Cathy petitions Diana for help, but Diana isn't interested. In one of the most jaw-dropping misinterpretations of a character in comic book history, Diana tells Cathy that she doesn't get the need for "Women's Lib" and that she doesn't even like women! Cathy chews Diana out, then they cry and make up.

Cathy is kidnapped by the corrupt store owner, and Diana leads a posse of liberated women to...well, liberate Cathy. Diana gives the guy and his thugs (the hecklers from the first scene, btw) "what for" and the shop is closed because Diana notices that the building doesn't meet safety standards. Sadly, Diana's good deed goes unappreciated when she's confronted by a mob of angry women who are now unemployed.

A truly bizarre issue with a major misread of Diana's character, plenty of heavy-handed sloganeering, and an embarrassing presentation of feminism. It's a misguided attempt at "relevance" in DC's era of "Relevant Stories". This issue deserves mention in the "Pretentious Moments" thread for Cathy's speech about women's lib.

[Shellhead]

A truly bizarre issue with a major misread of Diana's character, plenty of heavy-handed sloganeering, and an embarrassing presentation of feminism. It's a misguided attempt at "relevance" in DC's era of "Relevant Stories". This issue deserves mention in the "Pretentious Moments" thread for Cathy's speech about women's lib.

I doubt that this was really a misguided attempt at relevance. It sounds more like the writer was openly mocking women's lib.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

http://www.superdickery.com/images/other/277_4_205.jpg


Even on such a liberal posting board as this is, I would get banned if I said anything about it.

[lonewolf23k]

http://www.superdickery.com/images/other/277_4_205.jpg


Even on such a liberal posting board as this is, I would get banned if I said anything about it.


Fortunetly, the cover speaks for itself.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

Fortunately, the cover speaks for itself.


That's awfully true.

I liked it when comics used to do that.

[tangentman]

I doubt that this was really a misguided attempt at relevance. It sounds more like the writer was openly mocking women's lib.

I don't think so. There didn't seem to be any irony in the story. Relevance stories were the hot trend of early 70's DC and Women's Lib was a timely topic. The story seemed too earnest to be satire.

[Marionette]

I don't think so. There didn't seem to be any irony in the story. Relevance stories were the hot trend of early 70's DC and Women's Lib was a timely topic. The story seemed too earnest to be satire.

It's not nearly as bad as it is made to sound here, especially if you consider it in the context of the time. I mean it predates even the big Green lantern/Green Arrow 'relevent' period, and was one of the first stumbling attempts to tackle an issue. So the result is far from perfect, but at least they were trying.

Disparaging the comic for poor characterisation is particularly disingenuous given the way only a few issues earlier Mike Sekowsky couldn't even keep track of continuity he had himself created, and as for the issue that follows it...

[tangentman]

It's not nearly as bad as it is made to sound here, especially if you consider it in the context of the time. I mean it predates even the big Green lantern/Green Arrow 'relevent' period, and was one of the first stumbling attempts to tackle an issue. So the result is far from perfect, but at least they were trying.

Disparaging the comic for poor characterisation is particularly disingenuous given the way only a few issues earlier Mike Sekowsky couldn't even keep track of continuity he had himself created, and as for the issue that follows it...

There's nothing disingenuous about pointing out when a writer is out of touch with a character. I could overlook painfully earnest relevance stories and bad dialogue. However, a glaring inconsistency of a character's personality (Diana's "I don't even like women") is a gross error.

That would be like Matt Murdock refusing to represent a client because that person doesn't have as much money as the corporate giant defendant. Matt typically chooses principle over cash. Wonder Woman not only "likes" women, she firmly champions them in a world that still often treats women as property or second-class citizens.

The real Wonder Woman would never have blown off the plight of mistreated female employees, and certainly would never say she "doesn't even like other women".

[K'Nort]

The wackiest part of that run was when Catwoman, Fafhrd, and the Gray Mouser teamed up with Diana. I'm serious.

http://www.monitorduty.com/images/imgs37/fafhrd400x226.jpg

I absolutely need those.