what made george perez's ww so good?

[ShaunN]

Dear Friends,

Hello! I'm a new user to this board - indeed, I just found it recently - so I apologize if I am violating any protocols or asking questions that have already been asked/answered.

I recently wrote Gail a long snail-mail letter to express my enjoyment of her work on WW and say how much I was looking forward to the title's future. After I mailed the letter (to DC - I hope you get it eventually, Gail! It's about 5 pages, so I don't think it would have been appropriate for this forum, anyway) I found this forum and decided to sign up.

The topic of this thread, as the title indicates, is "what made George Perez's WW so good?" I am assuming that most people who are fans of Diana agree that Perez's run on the book was exceptional. I note that in the thread discussing (I think) WW#17, Gail says that George is like a "god" to her when it comes to WW. But that leads to the question of what made Mr. Perez's WW so remarkable and, by extension, is it possible (or even desirable) to catch lightning in a bottle twice?

After I wrote Gail my letter - indeed, as I was writing the letter - I realized how much I was holding George's WW issues up as the gold standard for work on the title. I started re-reading my issues of WW vol. 2. A bit of disclosure here: I only have the first 34 issues, then I did not buy WW (or most comics, for that matter) again until around 2002-3 or later. So, I did not have all of George's run as the writer of the book (I'm buying the back issues now) and I've missed a lot of Diana's history through the 1990s (though I've picked up what I can on the net and in TPBs).

As I re-read the early issues, I was struck by a number of things. First, the letters on the letters page clearly indicated the extent to which readers at the time realized and appreciated how special WW was. The book was often compared to Moore's "Swamp Thing" or "Watchmen". The writers and editors were also very aware that they were doing something really good - it was clear that they were pouring their hearts into Diana's adventures.

As I re-read the comics themselves, a number of things stood out. None of my comments here are profound - they are probably the basics of what makes a good story - but here goes. First, the stories were driven by the relationships. Diana was enormously appealing as an innocent, alone in a strange world, but charged with an incredibly important mission and facing it with enormous courage. The extent to which her love of her mother and her Amazon sisters drove her was also strongly apparent. Hippolyta's love for Diana and the extent to which that governed her own actions was also a powerful presence in the book. Indeed, Themyscira, as a place where Diana was raised in a loving environment, was a character in its own right.

Diana's relationships with Julia and Vanessa Kapetelis was also critical to the uniqueness of the book. With Julia and Vanessa, George created the sense that these were ordinary people touched by someone wondrous and drawn into an extraordinary world. One of my favourite scenes in the early stories - I think it's #22 - is where Diana picks up Julia's jeep from the Boston rush-hour freeway and flies Julia and Vanessa back home. This kind of epitomized the way in which their life had changed with the coming of Diana. Julia and Vanessa's later visit to Themyscira (in WW Annual #1) crystallized this entire sense of ordinary people touching the extraordinary.

Another major component, of course, was Diana's unshakable faith in her gods - a faith that, perhaps inevitably, has been enormously shaken since, even to the extent that Diana has now pledged her allegiance to a totally different god. (I'm waiting to see the consequences of that with considerable trepidation).

(George's art, of course, captured all of this amazingly well. When I thought about why I stopped buying the book before George stopped writing it, I think that one of the major reasons was that I just did not like Chris Marrinan's art (this is not a knock at Mr. Marrinan, who, I am sure, tried his best) and I could not make the adjustment. I also was simply giving up comics at the time, so that played a role too.)

I could probably go on in this way for pages, but I won't. Suffice to say that George Perez (in my opinion) did something extraordinary with WW. I think that a lot of the warm feeling I got from the early WW were the result of things more suggested by the art and the writing than by anything explicit, but that's one of the hallmarks of good writing.

All of this being said, can this sense of wonder be recaptured? I don't know. I realize that a lot of what appeals to me about "The Circle", for example, is that it does make a powerful statement about Diana's absolute devotion to her mother and Hippolyta's love of, and faith in, her daughter. That took me right back to the start of the series. But the Amazons are now scattered, Themyscira has been destroyed and depopulated, and (I understand) Julia threw Diana out of her home. And then Vanessa became the Silver Swan, apparently as a result of mind control and the manipulation of her own fears and jealousies revolving around Diana. Indeed, put in these terms, the evolution of Diana's life (and those around her) from the early Perez period on the book is from a world of wonder to an absolute tragedy!

Obviously, the details of what made Perez's run great cannot be repeated - but can the essence of that period be rediscovered and, if so, in what did it lie? I'm not talking here about going back to the past, or trying to recreate something - I think I'm getting at "what makes a good WW story?" and "what did George do so well?" I'm really curious to see what other people think about this.

Anyway, this post has run on too long. Thanks for reading!

Sincerely,

Shaun

[JKCarrier]

I think the biggest thing Perez had going for him was some actual enthusiasm for the project. For a long, long time, it seemed like creators approached the Wonder Woman assignment with all the passion of an assembly-line worker tightening lug nuts. Even George has admitted in interviews that he initially took on the job as a favor to DC, because they were pulling their hair out trying to find someone to do a WW reboot to go along with the Byrne Superman and Miller Batman. But once he dug in, he saw all the potential there and got genuinely excited about it, and I think the fans responded to that.

[Gail Simone]

George had the vision, and he also had the talent and leverage to make it all happen. That combination is hugely rare in mainstream comics.

I am a huge, huge fan.

Gail

[TCJohnson]

Dear Friends,

Hello! I'm a new user to this board - indeed, I just found it recently - so I apologize if I am violating any protocols or asking questions that have already been asked/answered.

ON a side not, there is really no protocol here. Just relax and enjoy.

[JeffreyWKramer]

George had the vision, and he also had the talent and leverage to make it all happen. That combination is hugely rare in mainstream comics.

I am a huge, huge fan.

Gail


I concur with Gail's assessment. The other thing he had going for him was that by the time of his WW relaunch, the WW comic had been - and I think this description is, if anything, pretty charitable - mostly pretty mediocre for a long, long time. The Perez WW run was pretty good on its own merits, but compared to most that had come before in the memory of the readers of the time, it was even more striking.

[tangentman]

I agree that George Perez presented us the modern apotheosis of Wonder Woman. He returned Diana to her mythical roots, in the process imbuing a larger-than-life character with so much humanity. The recent notion that Diana "needs to connect with humans" seems silly in light of Perez' lengthy presentation of Diana doing that very thing! Diana explored "Patriarch's World" with intense curiosity, striving to learn about her new home. Between Mindy Mayer's tour, Julia's tutelage, Vanessa's "coaching", and her costumed experiences, Diana learned about the people she adopted.

Few writers could hope to compete with the gorgeousness and thoughtfulness of George's work. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination saying talented writers didn't follow. William Moessner-Loebs examined Diana through the lens of the mundane world, stripping away Themyscira, the gods, and mythology. Showing Wonder Woman employed at a Taco Bell-knockoff was daring and original. Unfortunately, at times, Loebs' Wonder Woman felt too mundane. His run also began what would be years of character assassination of Hippolyta.

Byrne firmly established Wonder Woman as a powerhouse, but showcased guest stars at the expense of the title character. Luke dug deeper into mythology, but isolated Diana from the very people she sought to help. Jiminez turned in a very fun two years work, but he was also fairly new as a writer at the time, and it showed. Rucka's start was ploddingly slow, and the end ruined (imo) by excessive editorial mandate. Heinberg lacked focus and Picoult's unfamiliarity with the character severely hurt her run.

I honestly believe that Gail will be the writer who truly rises to the bar set by Perez. Her gift for dialogue, presenting relationships, and expanding characters are major strengths to bring to the table. Gail does her homework, which will only aid her in light of Wonder Woman's complex history. We've already seen risky--and thoughtful--innovations on Amazon lore. I look forward to seeing Gail spoken of as a WW writer in the same tones as Perez. :)

[KevinTBrown]

One thing to remember: As great as Perez's depiction of Wonder Woman is (was?), he had help. Greg Potter co-plotted and wrote the first 2 issues. Len Wein took over those duties for issues #3-8. Then it was all Perez. :)

So a little bit of an assist should go to those gentlemen as well.

[tangentman]

While true, that's 8 issues out of a lengthy run. Perez substantially built upon the foundation laid by Potter & Wein, to the degree he made the title his own. "Challenge of The Gods", Circe, "Who Killed Myndi Mayer"--that was all Perez. :)

[Wonder Watcher]

Hi Shaun. I think you caught the points pretty well yourself. For me, the fundamental magic in a book has to come from great characterization and character interaction, which is repeatable.

But apart from George's undoubted genius and vision I think some of the magic of the Perez run came from it's clean sheet approach allowing George to tell the story again from the beginning, bringing people in.

If you think about it Gail has also gone right to the beginnings of Diana's story with her twist on the origin story, something I admit has made me nervous, but it means regular readers and people jumping on are both getting to see Diana from the start in some ways, which can only help.

[The Ray]

What makes George Perez's Wondy so good?

Her perm

[ShaunN]

Dear Wonder Watcher (and everyone else)

Thanks for your replies. Yes, I must acknowledge Mr. Potter's work on WW. In a comment on a letter page early in the series, Karen Berger specifically credits Mr. Potter as being very involved in reconceptualizing Diana and her world, so it is clear that he had a lot to do with making the character what she became.

WW, I agree that Gail has taken us back to the beginning, in a way that is extremely interesting and logical. It makes sense that some Amazons would be jealous and afraid of a situation in which one of them can have a child but the others cannot.

I do think it is important that, in the end, Diana's experience of growing up on Themyscira be the one established by Perez. Diana's childhood - at the risk of sounding like a pop psychologist - is fundamentally important to understanding her as the compassionate and loving person she turned out to be. In WW Annual #1, there is a short story about the reading of Myndi Mayer's will. Her last request of Diana is that her ashes be scattered on the sea off Themyscira, because she recognizes it as a wonderful place where Diana was raised with the love and happiness that she (Myndi) was always seeking but never found. I think that sense of Diana's really being raised in a kind of paradise is important. Not that paradise can't have a few serpents, like the Circle.

Of course, the Circle were just misguided, not evil. What is interesting is to think why were they so misguided? Did they really only represent themselves? Or did many other Amazons have the same doubts, they just were not willing to kill anyone? And did the reality of Diana as a baby simply win them over, just as it almost did the members of the Circle? Hippolyta makes the interesting comment that Diana "saved" the Amazons by her birth, by becoming the daughter of all of them.

A final comment here: my parents were born in a tropical country that, over the past 40 years, has become politically unstable and economically devastated. They (my Mom especially) sometimes look back and mourn all that was lost. I wonder if Diana has done much of this? To grow up in Paradise and then lose everything - it must be incredibly painful to experience that loss of home and family. No wonder Diana is angry at her gods.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Night Swordsman]

George Perez is incredible,in both his art and his writing. I just wished he finished Crimson Plauge. :(

[Wonder Watcher]

Shaun,

I think we'll discover that Perez' 'loving' Themyscira is intact apart from the few misguided souls.

I think what Gail will add is that Diana was actually a catalyst in helping Themyscira become that place that she remembered from her childhood - a kind of glue that held them all together.

And I'm sure she misses her home, mother and sisters as they were a lot. But Themyscira has been down and out a few times already. I'm willing to bet the Amazons will be back home before long.

I could be wrong, but that's my hope for how it plays out.

[Tom]

I've been reading Wonder Woman for about 35 years, give or take, and I'm one of those unheard-of few who thinks that the Perez run is HIGHLY over-rated. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the Wein/Potter/Perez reboot did serious long term damage to the character.

[Wonder Watcher]

I've been reading Wonder Woman for about 35 years, give or take, and I'm one of those unheard-of few who thinks that the Perez run is HIGHLY over-rated. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the Wein/Potter/Perez reboot did serious long term damage to the character.I'd be interested to know why you think that, whether you think it was the mere fact there was a reboot in and of itself that did the damage or the way Perez handled it was to blame and why.

[Tom]

I'd be interested to know why you think that, whether you think it was the mere fact there was a reboot in and of itself that did the damage or the way Perez handled it was to blame and why.

The reboot was a fine idea. The character had collected more barnacles than Superman had at that point and unlike his, hers just weighed her down and made no sense.

It was how the reboot was handled and what decisions were made regarding the character and her backstory that came close to ruining her.

We'll start at the very beginning because I hear it's a very good place to start: The Amazons. In the new story, not only were they victimized by Herakles and his men, but all the souls of every Amazon were once women who died at the hands of men. That's establishing a woman-as-victims trope at an absurd level.

Then, Wein/Potter/Perez (WPP) plopped them down on Themiscyra for 3000 years where they accomplished ... exactly nothing. Three millenia later and they're still walking around in exactly the same buildings wearing exactly the same clothing and as far as we the readers could see, had made not one technological advancement past the Bronze Age. No invisible plane, no purple ray, no mental radio. So they're not just perpetual victims, they're apparently lazy and incurious.

Which brings up another aspect: the gods. They were far too involved in the stories and lives of the characters. Diana is a character based on mythology, not one who lives in it constantly. Too many Angry Gods in her rogues gallery. And besides, constantly showing her and the rest of the Amazons bowing and scraping to the Olympians only made them look weak.

Despite the fact that the Amazons now represented a victimized, backwards, xenophobic culture, somehow they got it into their heads that one of them should go out and teach the world their superior ways.

Enter Diana. Not the smartassed, sexually provocative, even at times, angry version of decades past. No, this version was pure and naive and virginal, constantly depicted with wide eyes and speaking in broken English for the first year (and then in Thor-speak on and off for a good decade and a half after that). Despite having ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE of the outside world (unlike previous versions who grew up with "viewing screens" to monitor it and occassionally pick up a new language), they dress her up in a costume that now has a more complicated origin than the character ever did. You see, it was Steve Trevor's mother's armor, even though she never wore it. Oh, and her name was Diana too. And she was a WAF pilot during WWII, which would make Steve about 65 now, but no one wants to admit that.

Oh, and Steve. For some reason, they decided to take the romance completely out of the origin and just have him crash land on the island, share one or two adventures together and then almost never speak to each other again for 20 years. That's not exactly stirring. It's like saying young Bruce Wayne saw two strangers get gunned down and that's why he became Batman. Or have Superman adopted by a kindly farm couple who we never see again.

Because her origin story had no romance in it and because WPP were bending over backwards to make this as feminist a version of the character as they could, they and subsequent writers were too afraid to ever go the distance and pair her up with a man for over 20 years. Each subsequent year of chastity becoming more and more absurd and unexplained. Was she afraid of men? Did she just not like them? Was she uptight? Is she chaste for religious reasons? Moral ones? Practical ones? We were never told. Like a Victorian novella, the curtains were discreetly pulled on Diana's sexuality.

Having removed any romantic possibilities from her cast, WPP then populated it with a bunch of forgettable characters. No Etta Candy or General Darnell for this girl! Instead she gets the perfect-for-superhero-comics cast of a middle-aged college professor and her teenage daughter. Cue the tears. Perez had one, two or all three of them crying at least a couple times a year as they dealt with After School Special subjects like suicide, mean girls, and eating disorders instead of having Diana go around kicking ass and changing the world like she was told to.

No writer in the modern age with the possible exception of Greg Rucka had any idea what to do with a superhero who tried to pass herself off as a diplomat, so we were treated to 20 years of Diana preaching. Even though her own deeply flawed culture was being torn apart by invasions and even civil wars, Diana went around teaching The Amazon Way to a public that didn't want to hear it.

In short, she came across naive, preachy, sheltered, prudish, full of herself and ineffectual for most of the last 20 years.

[beetlebum]

A final comment here: my parents were born in a tropical country that, over the past 40 years, has become politically unstable and economically devastated. They (my Mom especially) sometimes look back and mourn all that was lost. I wonder if Diana has done much of this? To grow up in Paradise and then lose everything - it must be incredibly painful to experience that loss of home and family. No wonder Diana is angry at her gods.

Sincerely,

Shaun

(((Hugs))) For that bit there. You have my sympathies. I know how you feel. My parents are from a country (Laos) that was once considered a jewel in the crown of the French empire. Laos is now the poorest country in South East Asia, and is run by a bunch of befuddled, backwards, lousy communists. If you don't mind me asking, what country is it? If you don't answer I understand.

As for Wondy, I haven't read enough to make any substantial objective judgments. I did however, like the few issues I read from Phil Jimenez's and Rucka's run. So naturally, at this interval, with the rudimentary knowledge I've acquired; that will be the standard I go by.

[Chiroptera]

To be perfectly honest I've got to agree with Tom here.

I think Perez is a phenominal writer. I do not think he is the gold standard for Wonder Woman. That honor I give to Rucka at the moment, his rendition of Wonder Woman is the one I immediatley think of when I think of her. Gail is quickly coming to be even greater than Rucka in my eyes in terms of defining Wondy as a character. She seems to get Diana like no one ever has before.

Perez revitalized interest in the character, but I do not think he actually improved the character, for the various reasons Tom himself already stated.

[ShaunN]

Dear Tom,

Thanks for your comments and explanations. I think that you raise a lot of valid points which are not easily refuted or answered. To some extent, the response depends on personal tastes and philosophies. I'll get to that in a second. I do certainly understand your perspective, however, based on your long history with the character. If someone came along now and totally erased the WW created by George Perez, I'd certainly be upset. My own experience with WW basically started with Perez. I had bought a few issues of the series before the "Crisis on Infinite Earths" reboot, but not many. It was only after "Crisis" that I started buying DC to any significant degree, so my history with the character is limited. And, as I mentioned, I stopped buying with #35 and only re-started about 3 years ago. So, I've missed a lot. I did catch the tail-end of the Rucka run, which I liked quite a bit, though I was not crazy about the art.

Re: some of your comments: I think that your assertion that the Amazons accomplished "nothing" during their 3000 years on Themyscira is a bit harsh. It seems to make technological/scientific progress the measure of advancement. This is too simplistic. First, we do know that the Amazons had medical science, based on magic and herbology, that is more advanced than "man's world". Also, the "purple ray" does show up later, as it plays a major part in the OMAC storyline. I don't know where it came from, but I assume it was a product of Amazon science. Second, the reasons for technological advancement in the Western world are complex and particular to factors like social inequality, the birth of capitalism, the Western desire for better weapons with which to dominate others, the state's need to consolidate in order to fight wars, and the effects of weather and disease. (Jared Diamond covers all of this in his book "Guns, Germs and Steel"). In short, we are where we are today, in a technological sense, because of the confluence of many different factors - not just because Western scientists were "curious". Many of these factors - such as social inequality, the effects of germs, the desire for better weapons - would not have applied in the case of Themyscira. Moreover, note that rapid technological development is a relatively recent human event. Until a few centuries ago, a very credible case could have been made that the ancient Greeks, Romans or Egyptians were more technically advanced than the Europeans or any other contemporary civilization. Look at Roman aquaducts and roads, Greek architecture, Egyptian mathematics, etc.

Your points about the Amazons as "perpetual victims" is really interesting and one I have wrestled with. I think it is a topic worthy of a long response, one I won't give here. Suffice it to say that my reading of this is that Perez and the people felt it would be wrong to ignore the oppression of women as a significant social force, particularly given that they were trying to make the series relevant and thought-provoking. Placing the Amazons in a position where their ideals would be tested by the need to forgive was a major factor. I also agree that the Amazons were xenophobic - but with good reason, and they overcame that, with time.

I have no problem with the involvement of the gods in the Amazons' world. I think that it created a very rich and resonant historical and mythological grounding for the series. It also introduced the potential (how well realized, I don't know) of discussing religious issues. You note that the Amazons were always bowing and scraping to the gods - I would argue that they had more reason to do this than most religious people, simply because their experience of their gods was so much more intense. However, today, we have an Amazon nation, and Diana in particular, who are alienated from their gods. This presents many new possibilities.

I agree with your comments about the limitations of Diana's teachings and even her hubris in imagining that she could teach the world. Yet, at the same time, she was no different than many other religious proselytizers (except she did not try to force her faith on others) and her ideals certainly embodied the best of our own higher traditions. The question was always how to achieve these things and whether or not the Amazons actually provided an example that others could follow. The verdict on this is, I think, mixed. If the Amazons settled their own differences by applying their ideals, then they may have something of relevance to say.

(I could point out here that the idea of nations putting forth high ideals that they then do not practice is hardly new. The US is a prime example of saying the right thing and then doing something very different. But that kind of hypocrisy would not excuse Diana or her people who supposedly aspire to true enlightenment and self-awareness).

Finally, as I mentioned before, I feel/felt that the relationships in Perez's WW are what made the book work. I really enjoyed Julia and Vanessa, Diana's relationship with her mother, etc. I had nothing invested in Steve Trevor, so I hope I can be pardoned for not missing him. I missed more than a decade of Diana's stories, so I don't know about the whole chastity issue. (Though, like many others, I find Nemesis unbelievably annoying and am rather disheartened by the prospect of Diana having a relationship with him. But I'm going to trust Gail on this). I think that an exploration of Diana's sexuality - if it has not been done - is probably long-overdue. On the other hand, I should point out that none of DC's major superhero characters are exactly promiscuous. Bruce Wayne's "playboy" persona is a cover and Superman has only been involved with two or three women in his life. The fact that Diana may not have had a relationship with a man (or, as seems to me more sensible) a woman may plausibly be defended by the idea that she has simply been too busy and occupied to develop the kind of romantic relationships that she would want. I seem to recall that in Jiminez's run, Diana was interested in someone named Trevor Barnes. I don't know what happened there.

Thanks again,

Shaun

[ShaunN]

Dear Beetlebum,

Sorry, forgot to answer your query. The country my parents are from is called "Guyana" in South America. It used to be "British Guiana". In its case, the problem there was that the US and British colluded to change the voting system in order to prevent a socialist party from being voted into power just before independence. The result was the coming to power of political parties that were both more favourable to Western interests and also willing and able to feed on and promote racial politics and divisions in the country. Not surprisingly, the leader of the governing party was also hopelessly corrupt. The end effect of all this is that the country has gone from being prosperous and politically stable to being almost as poor and decrepit as Haiti.

I, personally, am not particularly affected by this. I was born and raised in Canada, so that's my reference point. But I can understand, to some extent, my parents sense of loss. they left the country in 1965 because they could see what was coming.

I am familiar with Laos, though I have never been there. I hope to go there within the next two years. I am hopeful that countries like Laos will have a comeback over the next few decades.

Take care,

Shaun

[beetlebum]

Dear Beetlebum,

Sorry, forgot to answer your query. The country my parents are from is called "Guyana" in South America. It used to be "British Guiana". In its case, the problem there was that the US and British colluded to change the voting system in order to prevent a socialist party from being voted into power just before independence. The result was the coming to power of political parties that were both more favourable to Western interests and also willing and able to feed on and promote racial politics and divisions in the country. Not surprisingly, the leader of the governing party was also hopelessly corrupt. The end effect of all this is that the country has gone from being prosperous and politically stable to being almost as poor and decrepit as Haiti.

I, personally, am not particularly affected by this. I was born and raised in Canada, so that's my reference point. But I can understand, to some extent, my parents sense of loss. they left the country in 1965 because they could see what was coming.

I am familiar with Laos, though I have never been there. I hope to go there within the next two years. I am hopeful that countries like Laos will have a comeback over the next few decades.

Take care,

Shaun

Well, at least you answered. :) As for Guyana getting screwed over, to be cynical for a moment, I'm not really surprised. I'm just surprised it was both the US and Britain (but then I remember the Suez Canal...)I mean, given our history in Guatemala ( the legacy of which should technically make Eisenhower one of the worst president's in history, given how that coup to oust Jacobo Arbenz was pretty much economic imperialism). And let's not forget about Chile, Argentina, El Salvador.....

That's awful that it even happened. At least your parents left though. My parents did the same when the lousy commies took over. If they had not, there is a good chance I wouldn't be here now. I can also relate to that sense of loss, though my mom has gone back to visit her family. I'm glad the countries improved that much.

As for your familiarity with Laos, that's awesome. I hope you visit the place as well. I hope too. You can pm me with just how familiar you are to Laos if you want. Oh, and getting back on topic, good points made all around. I may have to go out and buy the trades (though I suspect I may have to go without "luxuries" like gas and food for awhile...:p)

[tangentman]

EDIT: Tom, I'm replying point-by-point to your post. However, due to character limits, I couldn't leave your quotes in the text.

Yes, I think the multiple retelling of origins, serial deaths & resurrections of Steve Trevor, the campy rules of Paradise Island, and such were long overdue for discarding.

I think the reboot freshened Diana up, giving her a long-overdue makeover. Granted, the reboot was far from flawless--look at the problems with Wonder Woman's absence from World War II, her removal as JLA founder, and Donna Troy as notable examples. Still, I think more good than harm came of the Perez reboot. Perez approached Diana and the Amazons in a fresh, thoughtful, imaginative, and well-researched way.

The victimization of women has been a longstanding tradition in Wonder Woman's Amazon lore. Marston showed Herakles deceiving Hippolyta to steal her golden girdle. The Amazons were enslaved then, too--Perez simply told the story in a more visceral manner. You left out the redemption theme that tied into the "new" Amazon origin.

Hippolyta led her Amazons to victory over Herakles and his men. However, they forgot Athena's teachings and took after the ways of Ares by seeking revenge. Hippolyta's contingent was left doing penance on Themyscira, while Antiope's followers faced hardship in exile in "Patriarch's World". The Amazons of Paradise Island experienced victimization, but overcame it by accepting personal responsibility for themselves.

Do you think it might be possible that the "Cave of Souls" and the meta-arc with "Doom's Doorway" might be ways the Amazons ultimately transcended victim status? Yes, Amazons were reincarnated souls of murdered women--but they were also reborn in a society of powerful women who built a thriving, loving nation of intellectuals, athletes, visionaries, and artists. Perhaps it's a matter of perception, but I hardly saw the Amazons as "perpetual victims"! If anything, they persevered against staggering hardships, and ultimately overcame them with faith, strength of character, and national solidarity. Under Perez, the Amazons thrived and typically overcame hardship.

Again, you oversimplified the events of the reboot. The Amazons weren't just lazing about Themyscira for 3000 years, eating ambrosia and lotuses. The goddesses charged them with guarding "Doom's Doorway" as penance for forgetting their teachings back in Greece. The Amazons were all that stood between the world and hordes of demons who incessantly tried to escape their other-dimensional prison. They lost many beloved sisters to their solemn duty.

Also, the Amazons rescued children lost at sea. Those children were nursed back to health, before being spiritually imbued with the inspiration of the Amazons and sent back to the world. Julia Kapatellis was one of these "Adopted Amazons". Thus, even from their isolated island, the Amazons influenced the world outside their borders.

Actually, I consider Perez' use of mythology one of the reboot's strongest points. Instead of a bastardized mish-mash of names and myths, Perez actually did the homework and got the material right. He brought the myths to life, imbuing the Amazon world with a vibrance and color not typically seen in the old WW since the early days of Marston's run. Diana's world wasn't just superficially based on a name-dropped god or two. Perez incorporated a wide range of classical characters of myth into Wonder Woman lore: Theseus, Circe, Harmonia, Ariadne, Herakles, Ixion, the Gorgons, the monsters, various gods & demi-gods.

Besides, it's not as if the Amazons gave unthinking obedience to the gods. Hippolyta defied the gods themselves on more than one occasion. She refused to let Zeus rape Diana on a whim. She defied the gods to seek out Diana in the Underworld. Diana herself debated the gods and managed to sway some of the most obnoxious, self-centered deities who ever walked her world to consider newer, better ways of living. To me, the notion that humans could inspire god--one you'd NEVER hear in Judeo-Christian schools of thought--was profoundly moving, as well as a testament to Diana's character.



Yes, certain Amazon factions were xenophobic. Yet many others craved new information from and interaction with the world outside. The Amazons were divided on that very subject. Over the course of several issues, they debated the matter, seeking a mutually agreeable solution. Diana herself wasn't satisfied with living in a static culture. One of the major points of Perez' meta-arc was the Amazons' reconnection with the outer world.

So Diana showing up with a mastery of English language and modern slang would have been more suitable to you? Personally, Diana's arduous effort to overcome language and cultural barriers provided a great deal of compelling reading. I loved seeing her reaction to males, aging, materialism, pop-culture, other religions, etc. IMO, this journey made Diana a far more relatable and believable character than simply seeing her show up as a glib, tomboy dominatrix.

Steve and Diana intereacted over much of Perez' run. I suppose you would have preferred the old model of Steve Trevor as male Lois Lane, constantly nagging Diana for a date, remaining perpetually clueless about Diana Prince, dying and being reborn in ridiculous plot devices, being more burden than helpmeet for Wonder Woman? I preferred the competent, intelligent, rugged Steve Trevor that showed up in '87. He still served as Diana's introduction to the modern world, but without a contrived romance.

How refreshing was it to see a woman and man interact WITHOUT a forced romance? Furthermore, how refreshing was it to see Etta Candy get the man! :D

The questions were pursued in an organic way during the Perez years. Diana grew up without a cultural model of "Boy Meets Girl". According to the stories her extended family told, men were despicable, manipulative, untrustworthy monsters. Diana went step-by-step in her dealings with men: first, seeing that they weren't all pigs. Second, learning about the various relationships to which she'd NEVER been exposed on Paradise Island: fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, nephews.

Diana needed to learn ABOUT the opposite sex before she could even begin relating to it. She needed to learn the language between men and women before she could even attempt consummating a relationship with a man. Diana underwent a lengthy, often awkward process of understanding men. Yes, the journey was long, but I believe that's a point which Gail could naturally pick up.

Wait a minute. You're holding up General Darnell as an unforgettable WW cast member? :) LOL Do you mean the same perpetually clueless Darnell who constantly harassed Diana Prince with unwanted invitations for dates? C'mon, man! I've been around almost as long as you and invested about the same amount of time in Wonder Woman. Let's not rewrite history for bad characters.

Etta Candy played a big role in the reboot and was a major supporting character up until the Byrne era. Perez took a stock, one-note joke character and gave her new facets. His Etta was competent, intelligent, strong, and passionate. She could kick ass in a fight or think her way through a problem. THIS Etta Candy won Steve Trevor's heart! The "fat woman" got the man--how out of the box was THAT?!

I strongly disagree with your take on Julia & Vanessa. Through them, Diana received a support network that helped her care more deeply about the humanity she sought to aid. They grounded her and helped her learn about the new world. I thought the exploration of real-life topics were more mindful than you're saying and helped show the dichotomy between the Amazons and modern humanity. Writers who followed Perez were hard-pressed to create as compelling a supporting cast as the Kapatellis family. If they brought "too much estrogen" for your taste, that's fair, but they were hardly "forgettable" or simply "After School Special" stock.



Diana transformed the people who encountered her. Unlike simply being a cornfed Boy Scout--like Superman--or "the Bad Cop" like Batman, Diana stands out from the "Trinity" as an exemplar. Like Gail said, Diana is the one you call when an army shows up on your doorstep. She's also the hero most likely to make a criminal rethink his/her ways, instead of just punching him/her out and dropping 'em off at the nearest jail. Rucka was hardly the first writer who effectively portrayed Diana as a diplomat. Perez laid the groundwork.

I understand if the Diana that came with the reboot was incompatible with the Wonder Woman of nostalgia. I understand if you preferred "camp" to "discussing issues". Wonder Woman is hardly a monolithic character, and certainly invites debate because of the different perspectives fans hold of her. However, though well-presented, I think many of your points were over-simplified and flawed. I don't think your post told the entire tale of Perez' contribution to Wonder Woman.

[Wonder Watcher]

Thanks for posting that Tangentman, it pretty much says what I'd have liked to, but more eloquently.

To be perfectly honest I've got to agree with Tom here.

I think Perez is a phenominal writer. I do not think he is the gold standard for Wonder Woman. That honor I give to Rucka at the moment, his rendition of Wonder Woman is the one I immediatley think of when I think of her. Gail is quickly coming to be even greater than Rucka in my eyes in terms of defining Wondy as a character. She seems to get Diana like no one ever has before.

Perez revitalized interest in the character, but I do not think he actually improved the character, for the various reasons Tom himself already stated.Rucka's run, great as it was, is unfortunately forever tainted in my eyes by the Max Lord debacle he embroiled Diana in.

[Tom]

I think the reboot freshened Diana up, giving her a long-overdue makeover. Granted, the reboot was far from flawless--look at the problems with Wonder Woman's absence from World War II, her removal as JLA founder, and Donna Troy as notable examples. Oh god. Thanks for reminding me. Add those to the list of bad choices.

Still, I think more good than harm came of the Perez reboot. Perez approached Diana and the Amazons in a fresh, thoughtful, imaginative, and well-researched way.On your latter point, I agree. He breathed a lot of life into the franchise at the time. On the other hand, look at the long term: can the character really have been considered a success as WPP envisioned her? After Perez left, the book's sales plummeted and while there have been a couple sales bumps along the way, for 15 plus years, the Perez version of the character has been stuck at the bottom of the charts.

The victimization of women has been a longstanding tradition in Wonder Woman's Amazon lore. Marston showed Herakles deceiving Hippolyta to steal her golden girdle. The Amazons were enslaved then, too--Perez simply told the story in a more visceral manner. You left out the redemption theme that tied into the "new" Amazon origin.Marston showed a race of women who achieved technological advances far beyond the outside world, who enjoyed camaraderie (and even sexual play) and who loved to compete in athletic tournaments. He revisited these things time and time again. The Amazons were happy under Marston. I can't really say the same thing about the WPP version.

Hippolyta led her Amazons to victory over Herakles and his men. However, they forgot Athena's teachings and took after the ways of Ares by seeking revenge. Hippolyta's contingent was left doing penance on Themyscira, while Antiope's followers faced hardship in exile in "Patriarch's World". The Amazons of Paradise Island experienced victimization, but overcame it by accepting personal responsibility for themselves.

Let's take a step back. The Amazons were imprisoned (and it was implied, raped) by an invading army and they have to do PENANCE for that? That's not overcoming victimization, it's succumbing to it.

Do you think it might be possible that the "Cave of Souls" and the meta-arc with "Doom's Doorway" might be ways the Amazons ultimately transcended victim status? Not really. Supposedly hundreds of Amazons died defending the doorway until the queen's magical daughter came along and wrapped things up for them.

Yes, Amazons were reincarnated souls of murdered women--but they were also reborn in a society of powerful women who built a thriving, loving nation of intellectuals, athletes, visionaries, and artists.That was torn apart by invasions and civil wars more than once.

And it sure would have been nice to SEE some of these visionaries and intellectuals, not to mention have some understanding of what they did that was so visionary and intellectual.

Perhaps it's a matter of perception, but I hardly saw the Amazons as "perpetual victims"! If anything, they persevered against staggering hardships, and ultimately overcame them with faith, strength of character, and national solidarity. Under Perez, the Amazons thrived and typically overcame hardship.

Again, we return to the same point. The "hardship" that they overcame was the exile they assented to after being raped and imprisoned.

Again, you oversimplified the events of the reboot. The Amazons weren't just lazing about Themyscira for 3000 years, eating ambrosia and lotuses. The goddesses charged them with guarding "Doom's Doorway" as penance for forgetting their teachings back in Greece. The Amazons were all that stood between the world and hordes of demons who incessantly tried to escape their other-dimensional prison. They lost many beloved sisters to their solemn duty.

Also, the Amazons rescued children lost at sea. Those children were nursed back to health, before being spiritually imbued with the inspiration of the Amazons and sent back to the world. Julia Kapatellis was one of these "Adopted Amazons". Thus, even from their isolated island, the Amazons influenced the world outside their borders.

How? Any influence they had was told to us but never showed to us. Whatever became of all the other babies? What influence did the Amazons have on them?

As for Doom's Doorway, as I said, it was basically an edict from the gods that they chose to honor: "Guard this door for a couple millennia and sacrifice a couple hundred of yourselves in the process until we give the queen a magic baby to take care of it."

Actually, I consider Perez' use of mythology one of the reboot's strongest points. Instead of a bastardized mish-mash of names and myths, Perez actually did the homework and got the material right. He brought the myths to life, imbuing the Amazon world with a vibrance and color not typically seen in the old WW since the early days of Marston's run. Diana's world wasn't just superficially based on a name-dropped god or two. Perez incorporated a wide range of classical characters of myth into Wonder Woman lore: Theseus, Circe, Harmonia, Ariadne, Herakles, Ixion, the Gorgons, the monsters, various gods & demi-gods.

Thing is, aside from Circe (who became tragically overused) and Ares, NONE of them had any staying power.

Besides, it's not as if the Amazons gave unthinking obedience to the gods. Hippolyta defied the gods themselves on more than one occasion.
She refused to let Zeus rape Diana on a whim. She defied the gods to seek out Diana in the Underworld. Diana herself debated the gods and managed to sway some of the most obnoxious, self-centered deities who ever walked her world to consider newer, better ways of living. To me, the notion that humans could inspire god--one you'd NEVER hear in Judeo-Christian schools of thought--was profoundly moving, as well as a testament to Diana's character.Well, tomato/tomahto. Very few of these (extremely isolated) incidents had that effect on me.

Yes, certain Amazon factions were xenophobic. Yet many others craved new information from and interaction with the world outside.So why didn't some of them over that 3000 year period just GO? Oh, right. Because the gods told them not to.

The Amazons were divided on that very subject. Over the course of several issues, they debated the matter, seeking a mutually agreeable solution.And lemme tellya, a several-issue debate on whether the Amazons should leave their prison? That is superhero comics GOLD. Excitement in the Dynamic DC manner!

Sorry, I'm being flip but you're only solidifying my points for me.

Diana herself wasn't satisfied with living in a static culture. One of the major points of Perez' meta-arc was the Amazons' reconnection with the outer world.Yeah, and I seem to recall Amazons getting slaughtered left and right once they ventured off the island.

So Diana showing up with a mastery of English language and modern slang would have been more suitable to you?I don't recall saying anything about slang, but mastery of the language? Yes.

Personally, Diana's arduous effort to overcome language and cultural barriers provided a great deal of compelling reading. I loved seeing her reaction to males, aging, materialism, pop-culture, other religions, etc. IMO, this journey made Diana a far more relatable and believable character than simply seeing her show up as a glib, tomboy dominatrix.
To each his own, but I cannot imagine how watching someone encounter an elderly or fat or male or infant person for the first time in their life makes them more relatable. To me, it made her very much less so.

Steve and Diana intereacted over much of Perez' run. I suppose you would have preferred the old model of Steve Trevor as male Lois Lane, constantly nagging Diana for a date, remaining perpetually clueless about Diana Prince, dying and being reborn in ridiculous plot devices, being more burden than helpmeet for Wonder Woman? You suppose completely and utterly incorrectly. Don't know where you got that from.

I preferred the competent, intelligent, rugged Steve Trevor that showed up in '87. He still served as Diana's introduction to the modern world, but without a contrived romance.

How refreshing was it to see a woman and man interact WITHOUT a forced romance? Furthermore, how refreshing was it to see Etta Candy get the man! :D
So refreshing that we've barely seen hide or hair of them for about a decade now. Clearly, the readers and the writers didn't find them all that exciting.

The questions were pursued in an organic way during the Perez years. Diana grew up without a cultural model of "Boy Meets Girl". According to the stories her extended family told, men were despicable, manipulative, untrustworthy monsters. Diana went step-by-step in her dealings with men: first, seeing that they weren't all pigs. Second, learning about the various relationships to which she'd NEVER been exposed on Paradise Island: fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, nephews.

Diana needed to learn ABOUT the opposite sex before she could even begin relating to it. She needed to learn the language between men and women before she could even attempt consummating a relationship with a man. Diana underwent a lengthy, often awkward process of understanding men. Yes, the journey was long, but I believe that's a point which Gail could naturally pick up.

Again, this is really only solidifying my points for me. It's been twenty years after her introduction and NOW she's ready for a man.

(tbc)

[Tom]

Wait a minute. You're holding up General Darnell as an unforgettable WW cast member? :) LOL Do you mean the same perpetually clueless Darnell who constantly harassed Diana Prince with unwanted invitations for dates? C'mon, man! I've been around almost as long as you and invested about the same amount of time in Wonder Woman. Let's not rewrite history for bad characters.Let's not rewrite my post either. The fact is, he was a longer-running and more recognizable supporting cast member than the Kapatelises ever were.

Etta Candy played a big role in the reboot and was a major supporting character up until the Byrne era. Perez took a stock, one-note joke character and gave her new facets. His Etta was competent, intelligent, strong, and passionate. She could kick ass in a fight or think her way through a problem. THIS Etta Candy won Steve Trevor's heart! The "fat woman" got the man--how out of the box was THAT?!

Enh. I have no major problems with the reboot Etta but all the joy seemed to go out of the character.

I strongly disagree with your take on Julia & Vanessa. Through them, Diana received a support network that helped her care more deeply about the humanity she sought to aid. They grounded her and helped her learn about the new world. I thought the exploration of real-life topics were more mindful than you're saying and helped show the dichotomy between the Amazons and modern humanity.
Yes, but we're talking about a superhero comic. Clearly, it worked for you and that's great. But Perez took what was and should have remained a kickass superhero and turned her into a therapist.

Writers who followed Perez were hard-pressed to create as compelling a supporting cast as the Kapatellis family. I don't know about that. That Sandsmark gal seems to have had some staying power.

If they brought "too much estrogen" for your taste, that's fair, but they were hardly "forgettable" or simply "After School Special" stock.
Didn't say a thing about estrogen either. And the fact is, they WERE forgettable. Why? Because the subsequent writers and readers for the most part forgot about them.

Diana transformed the people who encountered her. Unlike simply being a cornfed Boy Scout--like Superman--or "the Bad Cop" like Batman, Diana stands out from the "Trinity" as an exemplar. Like Gail said, Diana is the one you call when an army shows up on your doorstep.Quick aside: I love that quote from Gail and I think it's a great take on the character, but for the most part, it's a new one. That's not the Perez version.

She's also the hero most likely to make a criminal rethink his/her ways, instead of just punching him/her out and dropping 'em off at the nearest jail.Name a couple.

Rucka was hardly the first writer who effectively portrayed Diana as a diplomat. Perez laid the groundwork.Right. That was my point. And it was a bad choice because with the exception of Rucka, NONE of the subsequent writers knew what to do with that.

I understand if the Diana that came with the reboot was incompatible with the Wonder Woman of nostalgia. I understand if you preferred "camp" to "discussing issues". Wonder Woman is hardly a monolithic character, and certainly invites debate because of the different perspectives fans hold of her. However, though well-presented, I think many of your points were over-simplified and flawed. I don't think your post told the entire tale of Perez' contribution to Wonder Woman.Again, never said anything about camp or nostalgia.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of the rightness of my points. Clearly, you had a very different take on the reboot than I did. And among WW fans, I'm a rarity, since so many of them seem to love the Perez reboot. But taking away all the personal likes and dislikes either of us may have for the reboot, can you really say that it worked? Can you say that Perez built a foundation that other writers expanded upon and made the character successful in the long term?

[tangentman]

Rucka's run, great as it was, is unfortunately forever tainted in my eyes by the Max Lord debacle he embroiled Diana in.

That, and the little detail of his earliest issues reading like a comic book version of The West Wing. A choice which occasionally made the story plodding and a little boring.

[tangentman]

Oh god. Thanks for reminding me. Add those to the list of bad choices.

On your latter point, I agree. He breathed a lot of life into the franchise at the time. On the other hand, look at the long term: can the character really have been considered a success as WPP envisioned her? After Perez left, the book's sales plummeted and while there have been a couple sales bumps along the way, for 15 plus years, the Perez version of the character has been stuck at the bottom of the charts.

Yes, those were problematic points, but that doesn't negate the good the writer accomplished with the character.

How do you lay that at Perez' feet? Under Perez, the character received interest and the title was held in esteem by fans who compared it with Swamp Thing or Watchmen. I think the slumps can be attributed to subsequent writers who focused too much on "reinventing Wonder Woman". That tactic is the most frequent complaint I've heard about WW over the years. I don't blame Perez for the bad choices of writers who came afterward.

Marston showed a race of women who achieved technological advances far beyond the outside world, who enjoyed camaraderie (and even sexual play) and who loved to compete in athletic tournaments. He revisited these things time and time again. The Amazons were happy under Marston. I can't really say the same thing about the WPP version.

I acknowledged Marston's merits in his early portrayals of Amazons. However, the aspects you described didn't survive him. During the Silver and Bronze Ages, the Amazons maintained the "kookiness" without the fun and certainly without any viable sexuality.

Perez showed Amazons enjoying peace as much as he showed them under duress. Remember the post-"Challenge of The Gods" issue? The Amazons celebrated, made amends with Heracles, made peace with one another (Hippolyta & Phillipus). If anything, I remember Perez showing as many good times on Themyscira as hard ones. That's one of the reasons Diana could feel a sense of refuge on her home island.



Let's take a step back. The Amazons were imprisoned (and it was implied, raped) by an invading army and they have to do PENANCE for that? That's not overcoming victimization, it's succumbing to it.

Again, you're twisting what happened. Athena gave Hippolyta instructions on how to handle their escape. She implicitly stated they were to rise above wanton revenge. Instead, the Amazons did their own thing and succumbed to it, in the process living down to the worst lies "Man's World" believed about them. They had consequences for "losing their way", and Hippolyta's Amazons accepted personal responsibility. If you want to focus solely on the victimization, that's your choice, though it's not an accurate take.


That was torn apart by invasions and civil wars more than once.

AFAIK, most of these "invasions & civil wars" took place LONG after Perez left. Please don't confuse Loebs and Jiminez with Perez' stories. If you insist on trotting out that argument, then please list examples of invasions and civil wars that tore up Paradise Island while Perez was on the series.

And it sure would have been nice to SEE some of these visionaries and intellectuals, not to mention have some understanding of what they did that was so visionary and intellectual.

What about the debates the Amazons held regarding Diana's involvement in the outside world? What about their debates over whether or not to open their island to strangers? What about the back stories that showed the process of building the island, including the memorial for the Amazons who fell to Doom's Doorway? Perez endowed the Amazons with a culture; if you choose to ignore that just to nitpick over perceived flaws, that's up to you.


Again, we return to the same point. The "hardship" that they overcame was the exile they assented to after being raped and imprisoned.

Perez never claimed the gods were infallible. Their imperfection was a long-running story point in matters related to the Amazons. The Amazons were not only a tool to redeem mankind, but also to redeem their very creators.

How? Any influence they had was told to us but never showed to us. Whatever became of all the other babies? What influence did the Amazons have on them?

The writer showed us that influence via Julia Kapatellis--a courageous woman, mother, and scholar who taught at Harvard, frequently traveled the world, raised a daughter alone, mentored Diana when she first showed up in Man's World. She was the most notable example.

As for Doom's Doorway, as I said, it was basically an edict from the gods that they chose to honor: "Guard this door for a couple millennia and sacrifice a couple hundred of yourselves in the process until we give the queen a magic baby to take care of it."

If you want to frivolously reduce that plot to a nutshell, that's one way to look at it. Another is that, in the arduous process, the Amazons substantially impacted the gods by their own example. Through their courage, unwavering faith, and deeds, they made the Greek gods reconsider their own pettiness and reactionary stances. Few WW writers besides Perez ever painted the Amazons in such a complimentary light.

[b]quote]Thing is, aside from Circe (who became tragically overused) and Ares, NONE of them had any staying power.[/quote]

Perez only used Circe about 3 times in his lengthy run. Again, you're laying the laziness and inept choices of subsequent writers at Perez' feet.

Well, tomato/tomahto. Very few of these (extremely isolated) incidents had that effect on me.

Then, more the shame for you, because these incidents were major catalysts in Amazon history. Hippolyta and Diana's defiance spurred the "Challenge of the Gods", which ultimately resulted in the Amazons' liberation.


And lemme tellya, a several-issue debate on whether the Amazons should leave their prison? That is superhero comics GOLD. Excitement in the Dynamic DC manner!

Sorry, I'm being flip but you're only solidifying my points for me.

So--you want to "be shown" Amazon culture, but at the same time, not be bored by being shown Amazon culture? :rolleyes: Yeah, you go right ahead and eat your cake, too, Tom.

Yeah, and I seem to recall Amazons getting slaughtered left and right once they ventured off the island.

Again, that largely happened under later writers who didn't know what to do with the Amazons and mythology.

I don't recall saying anything about slang, but mastery of the language? Yes.

Diana arrived in the modern world a total stranger and managed to master the language in a faster time than most adults manage. I think that approach worked best, rather than Diana arriving with perfect mastery of an unfamiliar language.

To each his own, but I cannot imagine how watching someone encounter an elderly or fat or male or infant person for the first time in their life makes them more relatable. To me, it made her very much less so.

Because these are things which can still confuse people who see them every day. Many of us struggle with aging, scratch our heads over out-of-shape people--or personally struggle with weight. Instead of arriving in our world with all the answers, Diana DIDN'T know everything. She asked questions, she explored, she learned. I think a person who DOESN'T know everything is far more accessible than a paragon who has all the answers.

You suppose completely and utterly incorrectly. Don't know where you got that from.

The overall content and tone of your post. The things I listed accompanied Trevor pre-Crisis. AFAIC, retconning out the romance redeemed the character.

So refreshing that we've barely seen hide or hair of them for about a decade now. Clearly, the readers and the writers didn't find them all that exciting.

We saw these characters used by Loebs, Byrne, Jiminez, and Rucka. Just because YOU don't find them interesting doesn't mean you speak for all WW writers and fans.



Again, this is really only solidifying my points for me. It's been twenty years after her introduction and NOW she's ready for a man.

(tbc)

Because we can't have a heroine who isn't defined by her search for Mr. Right.

[tangentman]

Let's not rewrite my post either. The fact is, he was a longer-running and more recognizable supporting cast member than the Kapatelises ever were.

Oh really? I wonder if we polled current WW readers--or anyone who ISN'T a 40 year old comic book fan--how many would even know Col. Darnell? He was a third-rate Perry White or Commissioner Gordon, and hardly as well-developed or interesting a character as Julia.


Enh. I have no major problems with the reboot Etta but all the joy seemed to go out of the character.

Why, because she didn't run around with a box of Bon-Bons permanently glued to her hand, squealing "Woo-Woo"? Outside of Ambush Bug or the Giffen League, the DCU of 1987 tried for more serious characters. Hence, a re-imagined, mature Etta with an actual purpose for pursuing a military career.


Yes, but we're talking about a superhero comic. Clearly, it worked for you and that's great. But Perez took what was and should have remained a kickass superhero and turned her into a therapist.

Let's not resort to passive-aggressive knocks at people who enjoyed those stories. Perez' Wonder Woman went on epic adventures, fought larger-than-life villains, and saved lives. Saying she was reduced to a four-color therapist seems a little minimizing and dishonest.


I don't know about that. That Sandsmark gal seems to have had some staying power.

Thanks largely to Peter David's efforts. Name characters beyond Cassie who had such staying power. When was the last time we saw Mike Shorr, or any of Rucka's cast?


Didn't say a thing about estrogen either. And the fact is, they WERE forgettable. Why? Because the subsequent writers and readers for the most part forgot about them.

Hmm, funny how Loebs, Byrne, Jiminez, and Rucka didn't forget them.

Quick aside: I love that quote from Gail and I think it's a great take on the character, but for the most part, it's a new one. That's not the Perez version.

That version started with Perez. His Diana was an ambassador and warrior princess, not a conventional superhero. Under his pen, Wonder Woman decapitated immortal villains with her tiara and fought her way through the hordes of the Underworld.

Name a couple.

Silver Swan, Cheetah, Ares, Dickie Loder, Artemis of Bana-Mighdall, Zeus, among others.

Right. That was my point. And it was a bad choice because with the exception of Rucka, NONE of the subsequent writers knew what to do with that.

A failure on their parts, not Perez.



I'm not trying to convince anyone of the rightness of my points. Clearly, you had a very different take on the reboot than I did. And among WW fans, I'm a rarity, since so many of them seem to love the Perez reboot. But taking away all the personal likes and dislikes either of us may have for the reboot, can you really say that it worked? Can you say that Perez built a foundation that other writers expanded upon and made the character successful in the long term?

Are you sure about that first part? ;)

Yes, because I saw where Rucka took the character, and a glimpse of where Gail is going. Both wondrous possibilities that owe largely to Perez. You have the right to own your opinion, but your opinion doesn't automatically negate what the rest of us enjoyed over the years.

[Tom]

How do you lay that at Perez' feet? Under Perez, the character received interest and the title was held in esteem by fans who compared it with Swamp Thing or Watchmen.Wait a minute. Who exactly made these comparisons? Because not only are they complete news to me, but they're absurd on the face of it.

I think the slumps can be attributed to subsequent writers who focused too much on "reinventing Wonder Woman". That tactic is the most frequent complaint I've heard about WW over the years. I don't blame Perez for the bad choices of writers who came afterward.I don't either, but I blame him for inventing a character that none of them wanted to write and very few people wanted to read.

Again, you're twisting what happened. Athena gave Hippolyta instructions on how to handle their escape. She implicitly stated they were to rise above wanton revenge. Instead, the Amazons did their own thing and succumbed to it, in the process living down to the worst lies "Man's World" believed about them. They had consequences for "losing their way", and Hippolyta's Amazons accepted personal responsibility. If you want to focus solely on the victimization, that's your choice, though it's not an accurate take. It is ENTIRELY an accurate take. Amazons get invaded and raped, Amazons fight their way out to freedom, Amazons get exiled by the gods for not fighting like ladies.

AFAIK, most of these "invasions & civil wars" took place LONG after Perez left. Please don't confuse Loebs and Jiminez with Perez' stories. If you insist on trotting out that argument, then please list examples of invasions and civil wars that tore up Paradise Island while Perez was on the series.

Please return to my main point, which was Perez recreated a character that no one knew what to do with for 20 years. All subsequent writers had to work from Perez's original ideas. That doesn't mean everything gets laid at his feet, but from where I'm sitting a lot of it does.

What about the debates the Amazons held regarding Diana's involvement in the outside world? What about their debates over whether or not to open their island to strangers? What about the back stories that showed the process of building the island, including the memorial for the Amazons who fell to Doom's Doorway? Perez endowed the Amazons with a culture; if you choose to ignore that just to nitpick over perceived flaws, that's up to you.I don't mean "show me smart Amazons" I mean "Show me evidence that the Amazons are smart." Show me tech or architectural or even philosophical advances in their culture that would make me believe it was a paradise.

By the way, I don't like the Perez run. Stop taking it personally, mkay?

Perez never claimed the gods were infallible. Their imperfection was a long-running story point in matters related to the Amazons. The Amazons were not only a tool to redeem mankind, but also to redeem their very creators. Ah. The Amazons were a tool in the gods' self-improvement plan. How inspiring.

Sorry. Doesn't work for me.

The writer showed us that influence via Julia Kapatellis--a courageous woman, mother, and scholar who taught at Harvard, frequently traveled the world, raised a daughter alone, mentored Diana when she first showed up in Man's World. She was the most notable example.She was the ONLY example. That's my point.

If you want to frivolously reduce that plot to a nutshell, that's one way to look at it. Another is that, in the arduous process, the Amazons substantially impacted the gods by their own example. Through their courage, unwavering faith, and deeds, they made the Greek gods reconsider their own pettiness and reactionary stances. Few WW writers besides Perez ever painted the Amazons in such a complimentary light.Again though, it's not the most empowering way of looking at them if their role is reduced to opeying the gods and making tremendous personal sacrifices in order to improve the gods. They come across extremely subservient.

Perez only used Circe about 3 times in his lengthy run. Again, you're laying the laziness and inept choices of subsequent writers at Perez' feet. You missed my point. Perez basically created all these god and demi-god characters and almost all of them disappeared into obscurity.

Then, more the shame for you, because these incidents were major catalysts in Amazon history. Hippolyta and Diana's defiance spurred the "Challenge of the Gods", which ultimately resulted in the Amazons' liberation.I'm sorry to have to tell you, but I'm not feeling any shame for having a different opinion about a comic book.

So--you want to "be shown" Amazon culture, but at the same time, not be bored by being shown Amazon culture? :rolleyes: Yeah, you go right ahead and eat your cake, too, Tom.No, I want to be shown Amazon culture, not subjected to several-issue-long debate scenes. I thought that was pretty clear. You must have missed it during your eye-rolling.

Again, that largely happened under later writers who didn't know what to do with the Amazons and mythology.Yes, but weren't there several Amazon deaths when they first ventured off the island?

Diana arrived in the modern world a total stranger and managed to master the language in a faster time than most adults manage. I think that approach worked best, rather than Diana arriving with perfect mastery of an unfamiliar language.Well I didn't want perfect mastery of an unfamiliar language. I wanted perfect mastery of a familiar one. I wanted the Amazons to be aware and well-versed in the outside world rather than Amish in Togas.

Because these are things which can still confuse people who see them every day. Many of us struggle with aging, scratch our heads over out-of-shape people--or personally struggle with weight. Instead of arriving in our world with all the answers, Diana DIDN'T know everything. She asked questions, she explored, she learned. I think a person who DOESN'T know everything is far more accessible than a paragon who has all the answers.I get what you're saying but the things she didn't know ("I've never seen a man/fat person/baby/old person!") are things that literally EVERYONE knows. Like I said, clearly it worked for you, but not for me.

The overall content and tone of your post. The things I listed accompanied Trevor pre-Crisis. AFAIC, retconning out the romance redeemed the character.Well, I'm not asking for a pre-Crisis version of anything.

We saw these characters used by Loebs, Byrne, Jiminez, and Rucka.Barely. Hence, my use of the word "barely" in the sentence "So refreshing that we've barely seen hide or hair of them for about a decade now. "

Just because YOU don't find them interesting doesn't mean you speak for all WW writers and fans.Now, how many times did I use the phrase "tomato/tomahto" or the phrase "clearly, it worked for you" or hey! How about this one: "I'm not trying to convince anyone of the rightness of my points." I don't speak for anyone but myself and I've made that MORE than clear. However, when cast members almost never get used by subsequent writers, then I have to consider them not particularly successful characters.

Because we can't have a heroine who isn't defined by her search for Mr. Right.I'm not arguing for that. Gosh, how many of these responses amount to me responding to a mischaracterization of my points? Lots, I bet!

Anyway, I don't want her defined by that. I want her to live like a normal human being. Normal human beings have sexual and romantic urges.

[Tom]

Oh really? I wonder if we polled current WW readers--or anyone who ISN'T a 40 year old comic book fan--how many would even know Col. Darnell? He was a third-rate Perry White or Commissioner Gordon, and hardly as well-developed or interesting a character as Julia.My head is really spinning here. First off, why would we poll anyone about a character that hasn't been seen in over 20 years? Secondly, I'M NOT ARGUING that he was some fantastic character. The point is, he managed to hang around her cast a hell of a lot longer than Julia did.

Why, because she didn't run around with a box of Bon-Bons permanently glued to her hand, squealing "Woo-Woo"?Another mischaracterization so self-evidently egregious that there's no point in even bothering trying to refute it.

Let's not resort to passive-aggressive knocks at people who enjoyed those stories.This is getting truly a-fucking-mazing. Unlike yourself, I bent over backwards to point out that these are my opinions and more power to anyone who disagrees and THAT'S a "passive-aggressive knock?" That is seriously fucked up.

Perez' Wonder Woman went on epic adventures, fought larger-than-life villains, and saved lives. Saying she was reduced to a four-color therapist seems a little minimizing and dishonest.No, it's an OPINION. It's one you clearly don't share but that doesn't make it "dishonest."

Thanks largely to Peter David's efforts. Name characters beyond Cassie who had such staying power. When was the last time we saw Mike Shorr, or any of Rucka's cast?You've successfully pointed out that post-Crisis, Diana has had revolving supporting casts that went nowhere. I agree. BUT, I tend to lay this at Perez's feet for not establishing a strong enough supporting cast when he rebooted the book.

Hmm, funny how Loebs, Byrne, Jiminez, and Rucka didn't forget them. Hence my use of the phrase "for the most part" in the sentence "Because the subsequent writers and readers for the most part forgot about them." Jimenez and Loebs used them but they barely appeared in any other stories.

That version started with Perez. His Diana was an ambassador and warrior princess, not a conventional superhero. Under his pen, Wonder Woman decapitated immortal villains with her tiara and fought her way through the hordes of the Underworld.Well, Gail's version looks an awful lot more like a conventional superhero to me than Perez's version.

Silver Swan, Cheetah, Ares, Dickie Loder, Artemis of Bana-Mighdall, Zeus, among others. Point. Although Cheetah, Ares, and Zeus didn't always stick and I wouldn't have characterized Artemis as a villain at any point.

A failure on their parts, not Perez.Obviously, I disagree.

Are you sure about that first part? ;)Yep. You don't believe me but ... oh well.

Yes, because I saw where Rucka took the character, and a glimpse of where Gail is going. Both wondrous possibilities that owe largely to Perez. You have the right to own your opinion, but your opinion doesn't automatically negate what the rest of us enjoyed over the years.
Thank you for granting me that right but holy shit on a stick is that bolded part some weird fucked up shit. It's so bizarre and off the wall that I literally have no idea how to respond to it. I have an opinion that differs from your own. It's okay.

[Black Atom]

I agree on just about every single one of Tom's points about Perez's run, but especially those concerning the heavy use of the mythology and Diana's personality. I don't think Perez's run was bad--it was certainly inspired which I think made it enjoyable despite my fundamental disagreements about some of the editorial decisions he made about the direction of the character.

[tangentman]

Wait a minute. Who exactly made these comparisons? Because not only are they complete news to me, but they're absurd on the face of it.

Did you ever read the letter pages in the Perez issues? The readers who enjoyed the series made those comparisons.


I don't either, but I blame him for inventing a character that none of them wanted to write and very few people wanted to read.

Funny, but Phil Jiminez, Greg Rucka, and Gail Simone certainly seem interested in writing about that character. Most WW fans I've ever spoken to preferred reading THAT version, as opposed to say: WW as Emma Peel, WW working at a taco joint, or WW as supporting character in her own series.

It is ENTIRELY an accurate take. Amazons get invaded and raped, Amazons fight their way out to freedom, Amazons get exiled by the gods for not fighting like ladies.

No, it's a reductive take. It ignores the fact that Athena didn't want the Amazons to let Ares have sway over their hearts, rather than forgetting their Emily Post in combat. You read a particular message of victimization into that story, but again, that's perception, not necessarily the absolute truth you're making it out to be.



Please return to my main point, which was Perez recreated a character that no one knew what to do with for 20 years. All subsequent writers had to work from Perez's original ideas. That doesn't mean everything gets laid at his feet, but from where I'm sitting a lot of it does.

Hey, I replied to YOUR particular segue. I asked you for specific examples of your point, so, if you're going to bring up "invasions" and such, please provide examples, rather than attempting to dodge a question.

I don't mean "show me smart Amazons" I mean "Show me evidence that the Amazons are smart." Show me tech or architectural or even philosophical advances in their culture that would make me believe it was a paradise.

How about this one, then--the Amazons knew medicinal treatments to cure Decay's aging effect that couldn't be deduced by modern science.

By the way, I don't like the Perez run. Stop taking it personally, mkay?

I'm not taking your lack of love for Perez personally. Your usual brand of sarcasm, passive-aggressiveness, and overall dismissiveness toward people who DARE disagree with you? That's another matter entirely.

Ah. The Amazons were a tool in the gods' self-improvement plan. How inspiring.


Sorry. Doesn't work for me.

No, the Amazons surprised the gods, held up a mirror for the collective pantheon, and saw their own shortcomings when compared to the Amazons' character.

Whether or not it "works for you" is your business. Personally, I found that story inspiring.

She was the ONLY example. That's my point.

The most prominent and influential example in Diana's life. The only one we were TOLD about.

Again though, it's not the most empowering way of looking at them if their role is reduced to obeying the gods and making tremendous personal sacrifices in order to improve the gods. They come across extremely subservient.

They weren't making a conscious effort to improve the gods. They were simply trying to live their faith, and in the process, moved the hearts of their gods. They didn't ASK for their gods to change, yet, because of their efforts, they gods voluntarily initiated those changes. Instead of Amazons emulating the gods, their gods strove to be worthy of that devotion. Therein lies the empowerment.

You missed my point. Perez basically created all these god and demi-god characters and almost all of them disappeared into obscurity.

The Amazons, Ares, Circe, the pantheon, Gorgons, Echidna, Ariadne, and Ares' children stuck around or returned in one form or another. In other cases--like Ixion or Theseus--they weren't meant to be ongoing characters. Certain mythical characters were set in place to illustrate Amazonian history or play into a specific story. Ixion served his purpose in his one-time appearance, Theseus helped build Antiope's back-story.

I'm sorry to have to tell you, but I'm not feeling any shame for having a different opinion about a comic book.

Nor should you, but glibly dismissing valid points just to shore up a flimsy and incorrect interpretation might be a good start.

No, I want to be shown Amazon culture, not subjected to several-issue-long debate scenes. I thought that was pretty clear. You must have missed it during your eye-rolling.

...or perhaps you missed it in the time you spent formulating your latest catty remark? The debates weren't issue long, they were a handful of panels over a course of issues. The discussions were Amazon culture at work, showing how they handled difficult decisions for their nation, as well as showing their tolerance for respectful dissent. Add the rituals, "downtime" scenes, and historical reminiscings, and you had plenty of Amazon culture. You didn't see a lack of Amazon culture, you just didn't like the way it was presented.

Yes, but weren't there several Amazon deaths when they first ventured off the island?

In the "War of the Gods" crossover? Yes. However, before that "event"--not many, if any. The Amazons ventured off the island without massive loss of life in the 50th issue.

Well I didn't want perfect mastery of an unfamiliar language. I wanted perfect mastery of a familiar one. I wanted the Amazons to be aware and well-versed in the outside world rather than Amish in Togas.

How would English be familiar to a race of women who hadn't seen the outside world for 3000 years? I'm missing the logic there. :confused:

I get what you're saying but the things she didn't know ("I've never seen a man/fat person/baby/old person!") are things that literally EVERYONE knows. Like I said, clearly it worked for you, but not for me.

The point was that SHE didn't know them. Watching her discover realities we took for granted made interesting reading. Clearly not for you, but it worked for the rest of us.

Well, I'm not asking for a pre-Crisis version of anything.

You could've fooled me, with the many comparisons to Pre-Crisis WW--Col. Darnell, the fun-loving take on Amazons which died with Marston, Steve Trevor.

Barely. Hence, my use of the word "barely" in the sentence "So refreshing that we've barely seen hide or hair of them for about a decade now. "

Considering how much Perez used Julia & Vanessa--and the Trevors--maybe the following writers thought they didn't have stories of their own to tell with those characters? Kurt Busiek loves Mantis as a character, but has also said that he thought Steve Englehart told her stories best. It doesn't follow that because a writer chooses to try making his/her own mark on a series, that what came before must have sucked.

Now, how many times did I use the phrase "tomato/tomahto" or the phrase "clearly, it worked for you" or hey! How about this one: "I'm not trying to convince anyone of the rightness of my points." I don't speak for anyone but myself and I've made that MORE than clear. However, when cast members almost never get used by subsequent writers, then I have to consider them not particularly successful characters.

I'm not arguing for that. Gosh, how many of these responses amount to me responding to a mischaracterization of my points? Lots, I bet!

Here's a radical notion, Tom--instead of fretting and obsessing over whether or not you're understood, why don't you try understanding others? Might be a refreshing change of pace. I addressed your points as I saw them, and sorry, but you weren't coming across as "well, this is just my opinion."

You came across as more like "your opinion was absolute truth".

Anyway, I don't want her defined by that. I want her to live like a normal human being. Normal human beings have sexual and romantic urges.

However, there are also plenty of normal people out there who don't pursue romance. They pursue careers, personal interests, volunteer work--not everyone wants to find "The One". Diana came into the modern world with no context for romantic relationships. Does it make sense that she'd fall in love straight off the island, when she doesn't even know what "falling in love" means?

[Tom]

tangentman, this is absurd and like every single conversation I have ever had with you, wound up with the two of us bitching at each other. You don't like me. BELIEVE ME, I get it. I just don't understand why you would want to have a conversation with me. Just ignore me.

We disagree. That's the bottom line. All the eye-rolling in the world isn't going to change what is an opinion about aesthetics. Unlike yourself, I'm fine with that. Why don't we just let this one go and get back to our corners?

[tangentman]

My head is really spinning here. First off, why would we poll anyone about a character that hasn't been seen in over 20 years? Secondly, I'M NOT ARGUING that he was some fantastic character. The point is, he managed to hang around her cast a hell of a lot longer than Julia did.

He was around for about 10 years in the "Golden Age", and made a four or so year comeback in the early 80's. The only head that should be spinning is mine, in light of the way you bring up points, and the apparent speed at which you then try to backpedal or deflect examination of said points.

Another mischaracterization so self-evidently egregious that there's no point in even bothering trying to refute it.

There was nothing "egregious" or "mis-charactering" about that comment. You complained about the "joy" being sucked out of a character, and I addressed it succinctly.

This is getting truly a-fucking-mazing. Unlike yourself, I bent over backwards to point out that these are my opinions and more power to anyone who disagrees and THAT'S a "passive-aggressive knock?" That is seriously fucked up.

Tom, you were getting defensive even before I made that post. From my P.O.V., saying "I guess that works for you, but personally, I want a superheroine, not a therapist" could be taken as a knock to people who liked a series that didn't work for you.

Honestly, Tom--in this post and many others past--I see you give lip-service to people having the right to disagree. If that wasn't accompanied by lots of sarcasm, "snip-and-paste" quibbling, and dismissiveness, it would be more believable.


No, it's an OPINION. It's one you clearly don't share but that doesn't make it "dishonest."

When you deliberately overlook or minimize any points which contradict yours, then, yeah, that seems dishonest.

You've successfully pointed out that post-Crisis, Diana has had revolving supporting casts that went nowhere. I agree. BUT, I tend to lay this at Perez's feet for not establishing a strong enough supporting cast when he rebooted the book.

Tom, that's a little overly simplistic. New writers often want to leave their own mark on a book. That can mean writing out older characters to make way for original creations. Hell, Byrne appropriated the Julia/Vanessa model in creating Helena & Cassie! I also already responded by saying that "Perez wrote many stories, maybe the newcomers didn't feel they could add anything new".

Hence my use of the phrase "for the most part" in the sentence "Because the subsequent writers and readers for the most part forgot about them." Jimenez and Loebs used them but they barely appeared in any other stories.

Byrne attempted to perfect them with his own creations. They didn't fit into Luke's stories. Rucka spent more time inside the Embassy or Olympus than in the burbs, so any appearances wouldn't have worked naturally.

Well, Gail's version looks an awful lot more like a conventional superhero to me than Perez's version.

Oooookay, Tom. That looks like a case of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, but okay.

Point. Although Cheetah, Ares, and Zeus didn't always stick and I wouldn't have characterized Artemis as a villain at any point.

She was an anti-hero and antagonist for Diana.


Obviously, I disagree.

Yeah, we're pretty much at an impasse.

Yep. You don't believe me but ... oh well.

Nope, but I'm not losing sleep over it.


Thank you for granting me that right but holy shit on a stick is that bolded part some weird fucked up shit. It's so bizarre and off the wall that I literally have no idea how to respond to it. I have an opinion that differs from your own. It's okay.

So you normally handle differing opinions with cattiness, over-dramatized responses, and petulant demands for "understanding", which you clearly refuse to extend to others? Again, you sure show tolerance for difference of opinions in a very odd way, Tom.

[tangentman]

tangentman, this is absurd and like every single conversation I have ever had with you, wound up with the two of us bitching at each other. You don't like me. BELIEVE ME, I get it. I just don't understand why you would want to have a conversation with me. Just ignore me.

We disagree. That's the bottom line. All the eye-rolling in the world isn't going to change what is an opinion about aesthetics. Unlike yourself, I'm fine with that. Why don't we just let this one go and get back to our corners?

Tom, you're the one who took it to a personal place first. Surprise, surprise, I didn't just sit back and take that shit. However, my issue was NEVER about you holding a different position, but about the arrogant, insulting manner in which you present it. No fears, though, I'm more than okay with not having further interaction with you.


Bert: I understand how & why you find Tom so exasperating.

[Tom]

Bert: I understand how & why you find Tom so exasperating.

Oh brother. Grow up.

[tangentman]

Oh brother. Grow up.

Apply that to yourself, Tom.

[Michael P]

This is just me, but the first instances I saw of someone getting personal were:

So Diana showing up with a mastery of English language and modern slang would have been more suitable to you?

I suppose you would have preferred the old model of Steve Trevor as male Lois Lane, constantly nagging Diana for a date, remaining perpetually clueless about Diana Prince, dying and being reborn in ridiculous plot devices, being more burden than helpmeet for Wonder Woman?

I understand if you preferred "camp" to "discussing issues".

[tangentman]

This is just me, but the first instances I saw of someone getting personal were:

I understand if you preferred "camp" to "discussing issues".

Yes, that was just you. I'm gay, too, so how would that be a personal remark? I don't see where you got a personal attack out of those, when I was talking about what no longer worked in Pre-Crisis vs. Perez' stuff.

The "Oh yeah, THIS is dynamic comic book gold" crack might have actually been the starting point where mutual respect left the conversation.

[Michael P]

Yes, that was just you. I'm gay, too, so how would that be a personal remark? I don't see where you got a personal attack out of those, when I was talking about what no longer worked in Pre-Crisis vs. Perez' stuff.

You were being condescending and strawmanning Tom's points. If the argument is now about who got defensive and combative first, the answer points to you, not him.

[tangentman]

You were being condescending and strawmanning Tom's points. If the argument is now about who got defensive and combative first, the answer points to you, not him.

Since I opened my first post with the discarding of pre-Crisis aspects of WW that didn't work--including camp--that was NOT condescension or "strawmanning". I mentioned that in connection to opening remark and posed a genuine question. I certainly don't think that was condescending as "oh yeah, THAT was dynamic DC reading, real comic book gold".

Micahel, I think you're just attempting to dogpile and milk a fight.

[Tom]

Yes, that was just you.

No it wasn't.

I said I was out but no one told me were doing a post mortem.

[Tom]

condescending as "oh yeah, THAT was dynamic DC reading, real comic book gold".



Wait a minute, you think THAT was me getting personal? Making a flip remark about a comic book story that you like? Good lord.

[tangentman]

No it wasn't.

I said I was out but no one told me were doing a post mortem.

I can't speak for Michael P, but I'm not picking over the bones with a fine tooth comb. Sorry, Michael, you missed what little fight there was when it happened.

[Michael P]

Michael, I think you're just attempting to dogpile and milk a fight.
That's a disturbing way to mix a metaphor.

In any case, you're wrong about that.

[bfrank]

George Perez made George Perez' Wonder Woman so good....

especially getting rid of Steve Trevor......

[tangentman]

Wait a minute, you think THAT was me getting personal? Making a flip remark about a comic book story that you like? Good lord.

No, I said it was "condescending". Which, yes, it was--by your own admission, you were being snide. In which case, it's not about whether or not you like a comic book story, but about snideness to a fellow member. Again, THAT is what bothered me about your overall content, not whatever opinion you held about WW comics.

Jesus, talk about "setting up a strawman".

[Tom]

No, I said it was "condescending". Which, yes, it was--by your own admission, you were being snide. No, by my own admission I was being flip. In other words, I WAS MAKING A JOKE. ABOUT A STORY IN A COMIC BOOK.

And in the very next sentence, what did I do? That's right. I apologized for being flip. You seem to have forgotten that.

[ShaunN]

Um... boy.

Well, I'm not getting in the middle of this. Tom is entitled to his opinions. I believe that Tangentman responded well to all of Tom's points, and made some points that I would have made, before this discussion kind of went off the rails. But we are dealing here with people's preferences and that is not necessarily the kind of thing that you can really argue about.

Tom, I don't have the history with the character to answer you point by point- as I've said, I really first became acquainted with WW during Perez's run, then was away from comics for the next 14 years, so I lack the reference points. I would like to say that, to me, as someone who was a novice to Diana and her world, Perez's version of the character was deeply compelling and affecting - often, for many of the reasons that you disparage. In other words, I found Perez's WW to be, simply, a very good story with interesting, relatable and sympathetic characters, a powerful sense of history and mythology, and a strong sense that there was an underlying vision. For me, the fact that Diana was much more than a conventional superhero was a fundamentally important part of what Perez was trying to achieve. As I said in my original post, I also found it really interesting that readers at the time were really caught up in what Perez was doing.

I've spent the past couple of days re-reading my Perez WW issues and, for the most part, I believe that they stand the test of time. What was present in the series was enormous potential - I don't know if that potential was realized, but it's never too late. Even 20 years later.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[tangentman]

No, by my own admission I was being flip. In other words, I WAS MAKING A JOKE. ABOUT A STORY IN A COMIC BOOK.

And in the very next sentence, what did I do? That's right. I apologized for being flip. You seem to have forgotten that.

If that apology HADN'T been followed by other snide remarks, defensiveness about "mischaracterization", and other "fun", I wouldn't have thought anything of it. In case it slipped YOUR attention, I was being tongue-in-cheek about the campy, Etta Candy, Steve Trevor-as-Lois Lane stuff, too.

IOW, another way of saying what I said would have been, "Okay, so you thought Perez' WW was too joyless and PC, would you have preferred the campy antics of Pre-Crisis WW?" Nothing wrong or mischaracterizing about saying so. You threw out a pretty opinionated statement earlier in the thread, followed by a lengthy post. I replied to it because I thought they weren't entirely painting an accurate picture.

Which happens with a difference of opinion. I could care less about whether or not you love Perez' WW stories. I disagreed with your supporting points, but no, that wasn't enough to set me off. It was the way you interacted, not the comic book stuff.


Shaun: Essentially, that's what I tried to say. There should NOT have been a fight over all that, but some people simply don't mix well together. And others aren't happy unless they're keeping needless fights stirred up. Hopefully, that stuff won't discourage you from discussing WW or anything else here at YABS. :)

[Tom]

Um... boy.

Well, I'm not getting in the middle of this. Tom is entitled to his opinions. I believe that Tangentman responded well to all of Tom's points, and made some points that I would have made, before this discussion kind of went off the rails. But we are dealing here with people's preferences and that is not necessarily the kind of thing that you can really argue about.I totally agree. On the other hand, this is a comic forum and we're here to talk about comics, so a discussion about opposing points of view certainly isn't out of the question.

Tom, I don't have the history with the character to answer you point by point- as I've said, I really first became acquainted with WW during Perez's run, then was away from comics for the next 14 years, so I lack the reference points. I would like to say that, to me, as someone who was a novice to Diana and her world, Perez's version of the character was deeply compelling and affecting - often, for many of the reasons that you disparage. In other words, I found Perez's WW to be, simply, a very good story with interesting, relatable and sympathetic characters, a powerful sense of history and mythology, and a strong sense that there was an underlying vision. For me, the fact that Diana was much more than a conventional superhero was a fundamentally important part of what Perez was trying to achieve. As I said in my original post, I also found it really interesting that readers at the time were really caught up in what Perez was doing.

I've spent the past couple of days re-reading my Perez WW issues and, for the most part, I believe that they stand the test of time. What was present in the series was enormous potential - I don't know if that potential was realized, but it's never too late. Even 20 years later.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Great. Honestly, I have no problem with that. I think the character would be better served getting away from the Perez model and in my eyes, that's already happened. She's a more conventional superhero with a civilian identity, a supporting cast, and a hint of romance now, PLUS Gail did more to flesh out Amazon culture in 4 issues than other writers did in hundreds of them. I'm happy with the way things are going right now.

[Solaris]

Tom, I'm no expert on the WW comics... but in reading your posts to the point I'm at, I have to ask you,

If someone replaced Joss Whedon on Serenity or Firefly with Dave Sim, would you blame Whedon for "not setting up a proper base for other writers to pick up"?

I'm not pro-Perez, or anti-other writers... but to me, blaming the subsequent writers' not using or building on the reboot Perez generated on *Perez*, is a blade that cuts two ways: was it really that his longterm run was so bad no one wanted to use it---or, was his viewpoint on the character one that other writers simply weren't able to embrace, because they didn't want to see a female superhero in her mode?

In other words, it's often said of many male comic writers that they approach female character with a "fanboy" outlook. If that's the case, and someone stepped outside that box, is it really fair to say that the person failed as a writer for the character, when subsequent writers couldn't, or were unwilling, to step outside that box with him?

[Tom]

If that apology HADN'T been followed by other snide remarks, defensiveness about "mischaracterization", and other "fun", I wouldn't have thought anything of it. In case it slipped YOUR attention, I was being tongue-in-cheek about the campy, Etta Candy, Steve Trevor-as-Lois Lane stuff, too.You just got finished telling Michael that you were posing a genuine question and now you're saying that it was tongue in cheek. In fact, you originally said you "addressed it succinctly."

Regardless, I had less of a problem with that than with the comments that I was nitpicking, and being catty, and dismissive, and petulant, and arrogant, and passive-aggressive, and insulting, and dishonest, and dismissive, and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, and ... what was that other one? Oh yes. I got too personal.

[Tom]

Tom, I'm no expert on the WW comics... but in reading your posts to the point I'm at, I have to ask you,

If someone replaced Joss Whedon on Serenity or Firefly with Dave Sim, would you blame Whedon for "not setting up a proper base for other writers to pick up"?I honestly can't answer that because I'm not familiar with the work.

Here's the thing: Perez was doing a reboot. A big part of that is reconfiguring the character in order for it to have long term success. Regardless of how I personally feel about it, the fact is, the character did NOT have long term success after Perez. Reading over the work that came after him, it appeared pretty obvious to me that subsequent writers were struggling to try and figure out the character he set up.

I'm not pro-Perez, or anti-other writers... but to me, blaming the subsequent writers' not using or building on the reboot Perez generated on *Perez*, is a blade that cuts two ways: was it really that his longterm run was so bad no one wanted to use it---or, was his viewpoint on the character one that other writers simply weren't able to embrace, because they didn't want to see a female superhero in her mode?I think that goes too far in trying to ascribe motives to the writers without evidence.

In other words, it's often said of many male comic writers that they approach female character with a "fanboy" outlook. If that's the case, and someone stepped outside that box, is it really fair to say that the person failed as a writer for the character, when subsequent writers couldn't, or were unwilling, to step outside that box with him?
Well like I said, it seemed to me that subsequent writers were struggling mightily to embrace his concepts, not reject them.

[Sabrinaset]

I have a bunch of WW lots off of eBay, including the run just BEFORE Perez too over after COIE, AND his early run ... and I haveta say, one big reason his run was so good? The art was MUCH better than what I was seeing pre-COIE. I think the last issue was by either Don Heck or Eduardo Barreto (sp?) ... and it was awful. Geez.

[Tom]

I have a bunch of WW lots off of eBay, including the run just BEFORE Perez too over after COIE, AND his early run ... and I haveta say, one big reason his run was so good? The art was MUCH better than what I was seeing pre-COIE. I think the last issue was by either Don Heck or Eduardo Barreto (sp?) ... and it was awful. Geez.

Now THAT I can agree with. Perez was the best artist the character ever had and his WW work was among the best art he ever did.

[tangentman]

Tom, I'm no expert on the WW comics... but in reading your posts to the point I'm at, I have to ask you,

If someone replaced Joss Whedon on Serenity or Firefly with Dave Sim, would you blame Whedon for "not setting up a proper base for other writers to pick up"?

I'm not pro-Perez, or anti-other writers... but to me, blaming the subsequent writers' not using or building on the reboot Perez generated on *Perez*, is a blade that cuts two ways: was it really that his longterm run was so bad no one wanted to use it---or, was his viewpoint on the character one that other writers simply weren't able to embrace, because they didn't want to see a female superhero in her mode?

In other words, it's often said of many male comic writers that they approach female character with a "fanboy" outlook. If that's the case, and someone stepped outside that box, is it really fair to say that the person failed as a writer for the character, when subsequent writers couldn't, or were unwilling, to step outside that box with him?


Solaris, I think you raise a compelling point right there. Blaming overall success of a character on the original writer does indeed cut both ways. The X-Men originally struggled for years and eventually went into reprints, then cancellation in the early 70's. Chris Claremont certainly went outside the original paradigm by making his cast cosmopolitan, older, better experienced with their powers. Does Claremont's choice mean that Stan Lee's X-Men sucked? No. It means that good writers know how to expand a mythos without completely discarding the source material.

The best Wonder Woman writers in recent years incorporated Perez' vision into their interpretation. If you want an example of a mess, look at Loebs (completely discarded the source), or Picoult, who didn't know the material at all. Rucka remembered where the story came from, yet took risks that expanded Diana as a character. I see the same promise in Gail's work.



Sabrina: Don Heck on WW...ugh. That came on the heels of superb work by Gene Colan. It's definitely personal bias, but I always see a Don Heck fill-in as a sign of trouble on a series.

[Solaris]

...Hippolyta led her Amazons to victory over Herakles and his men. However, they forgot Athena's teachings and took after the ways of Ares by seeking revenge. ...

So I take it that you mean the penance required of them was because they abandoned their ideals of justice, and instead embraced revenge?

(I'm seeking clarification here, because it sounds like Tom thinks the penance was for them being victims; and that you think it was because, when they triumphed, they went for vengeance (as Ares espouses), rather than sticking to the ideals of justice that Athene espouses?)

I can understand that. The Amazons embraced Athene's approach to life: justice, equality, reason, wisdom, war for defense, not for enjoyment, etc. If, when they ended up winning a conflict, they descended to Ares's level of pursuing revenge instead of justice, that would tick Athene off.

In other words, it's much like the difference between someone battling and cleanly killing a rapist, versus battling them into submission and then torturing the rapist. No matter how much one may want to seek "suitable revenge" on the rapist, the more you descend into things like torture, the more it makes you like your attacker.

[Tom]

So I take it that you mean the penance required of them was because they abandoned their ideals of justice, and instead embraced revenge?

(I'm seeking clarification here, because it sounds like Tom thinks the penance was for them being victims; and that you think it was because, when they triumphed, they went for vengeance (as Ares espouses), rather than sticking to the ideals of justice that Athene espouses?)
No, that's not what I think. They were raped and imprisoned and then when they fought their way to freedom, they were banished into exile by the gods for not fighting in the manner they would have liked.

[JKCarrier]

and I haveta say, one big reason his run was so good? The art was MUCH better than what I was seeing pre-COIE. I think the last issue was by either Don Heck or Eduardo Barreto (sp?) ... and it was awful. Geez.

That was Heck. Barreto was actually pretty good; I remember he did a number of nice covers (http://milehighcomics.com/cgi-bin/backissue.cgi?action=fullsize&issue=96911632384%20322) during that period, and I kept hoping he would take over the interior art also. Of course, *nobody* looked good with that horrific "flexographic" printing process DC was using at the time. *shudder*

I wasn't the biggest fan of the Perez reboot (I had a letter printed in #13? I think, where I made a lot of the same complaints as Tom), but even I have to admit it was an improvement. Not enough to make me keep reading, but definitely a step up. ;)

[d newton]

How did Diana saying "Pump" turn a good title into a mess?

[Solaris]

Has anyone here ever read John Varley's trilogy of books, Titan, Wizard, and Demon?

I ask, because in a lesser way, Varley took on a similar task to Perez, in the whole "stranger to the culture" thing. In the second book (Wizard), he introduces Robyn of The Coven. Synopsis of the backstory is that the Coven was a group of women who went to live in the Australian outback, to get away from male domination. An asteroid filled with precious metals gets dropped on them, and the surviving half become incredibly rich.

At this point in time, mankind is beginning to colonize the L points (L1-L5) between Earth and the Moon. The Coven builds themselves a space habitat, and moves to one of the L points.

Fast forward a hundred or so years. Robyn becomes the first person to leave the Coven and venture back into "peckish society" since they built their habitat. The culture she's from is all female; homosexuality isn't an alternate concept, it's the way (and only way) of life she knows. (They reproduce via sperm bank purchases, from back on Earth, and make only female children.)

So... she goes to Gaea, an alien environment (sort of a living space station) orbiting Saturn, IIRC. Gaea has its own indigenous (and intelligent) lifeforms, but humans had discovered it in the past century, and by this point there's a small human population there as well.

Robyn comes into this place ill-prepared. All she knows of Earth-type society is what her culture has taught her... and much of that was based on the founders' perceptions of society. They even have myths of how a penis can grow to the size of one's arm, for example.

What's interesting, in watching the volitile and tempermental Robyn move through Earth-human society, is watching how she grows in understanding and changes, or doesn't, in the process.

In this way she reminds me of how it's been said Diana was portrayed by Perez... or for that matter, Michael Valentine in "Stranger in a Strange Land." Someone who is either utterly alien, or so far removed by isolation, from modern culture, is going to start off as virtually a tabula rasa. There are so many details we learn via growing up in a culture, that this person will be approaching from scratch.

Is it surprising, if the Amazons have been isolated for 3000 years, that Diana must learn English? That she's never seen or held an actual infant? (They have none, and as for shipwrecked rescued children, an infant won't survive unless someone swims it to shore---and even then, if it didn't occur during her lifetime, she wouldn't have seen the baby for the short time it *was* a baby). That, if part of Amazonian lifestyle is to stay fit, that she has never seen someone obese? If they are immortal, or able to keep themselves young via medicine, that she's never seen an elderly person? Or, even a male?

Certainly all these types would be in their history literature, and perhaps art or illustrations... but given their isolation, I think portraying her as having to learn about and get used to all this, is dead on.

As for progress, IMO it's a pretty wel