Booster Gold #8 Adds a Wrinkle to Wonder Woman's "Sacrifice"

[4PointOh]

When retcons are annoying.

Well, apparently Geoff Johns has established that Maxwell Lord didn't have the power to make Superman kill anyone, despite everything we were told in Sacrifice, so Wonder Woman jumped the gun and killed a man for no good reason.

http://dcboards.warnerbros.com:80/web/thread.jspa?threadID=2000149545&tstart=0

[K-DoG7p7]

so?

Max has still been using him to hunt down metas.. wonder woman still stopped millions of metas from being killed

[ShaunN]

Dear 4PointOh,

I scanned through the replies on the board, and I think that a lot of people made the obvious points: if Johns is writing this in Booster Gold, it makes no sense.

1) Supes put Batman into intensive care and may well have killed him if not for the purple ray. It may have been that the fact that Supes did not turn Batman into paste in a millisecond is proof that he was holding back, but he surely had the ability to kill and only avoided doing so because he was stopped (by Diana, if my memory serves).

2) Max surely believed that the only way he could be stopped from making Superman kill was if Diana killed him. He said so when he was lassoed. So, he surely believed in Supe's ability to kill and his ability to make Superman kill.

3) Superman's battle with Diana was brutal and there were several times when he could have, possibly, killed her. She certainly felt that he was not holding anything back. Moreover, he thought that he was fighting his most dangerous and invulnerable enemy,i.e., Doomsday - if he believed that, he could not have held anything back.

I will have to look at this BG issue, but it certainly sounds - on the face of it - as though Mr. Johns is ignoring a lot of problems with this reinterpretation of events.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[TCJohnson]

When retcons are annoying.

Well, apparently Geoff Johns has established that Maxwell Lord didn't have the power to make Superman kill anyone, despite everything we were told in Sacrifice, so Wonder Woman jumped the gun and killed a man for no good reason.

http://dcboards.warnerbros.com:80/web/thread.jspa?threadID=2000149545&tstart=0

As somebody pointed out, not necessarily a retcon. Max never succeeded in getting Superman to kill...maybe he believed he could but did not learn until later he was wrong.

[titanfan]

This does not mean that Diana killed Max for no good reason though. If some stranger had a knife to one of my loved ones and told me point blank, "If you don't shoot me, I'll kill your loved one." I wouldn't hesitate to shoot pull the trigger. If I found out he was lying at the end, "oh well".

Max believed he could do it (according to the lasso), and I trust Diana's assessment of the situation.

[Kevinroc]

Sacrifice was a rather poor storyline anyways. How exactly do you weaken an already weak story?

[Charles RB]

It does seem rather daft to say now that he couldn't have made Superman kill (which undercuts the entire point of the damn story whenever you say that) - a few years late, surely.

[ShaunN]

I realize I'm on shaky ground here, given that I have not read the BG issue, but I do think that it really strains credibility to argue that Superman would not have killed. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that he did not turn Batman into paste in a millisecond may indicate that he was fighting himself, but he still hurt Bats badly enough that the man could have died. There is also no indication that he was holding back in his attack on Diana. Let's remember that he burned her face - an injury that could have been far worse if she had not managed to close his eyes (if my memory serves) and he broke her wrist. One could argue that he attacked her with this level of viciousness because he knew, at some level, that she could survive, but that's pushing things. His willingness to injure and maim his friends means that he could, easily, have killed someone - maybe fighting it all the way, but still could have done so.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Chris Hansbrough]

I realize I'm on shaky ground here, given that I have not read the BG issue, but I do think that it really strains credibility to argue that Superman would not have killed. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that he did not turn Batman into paste in a millisecond may indicate that he was fighting himself, but he still hurt Bats badly enough that the man could have died. There is also no indication that he was holding back in his attack on Diana. Let's remember that he burned her face - an injury that could have been far worse if she had not managed to close his eyes (if my memory serves) and he broke her wrist. One could argue that he attacked her with this level of viciousness because he knew, at some level, that she could survive, but that's pushing things. His willingness to injure and maim his friends means that he could, easily, have killed someone - maybe fighting it all the way, but still could have done so.

Sincerely,

Shaunto quote someone on another forum......When superman thinks you killed his wife......all bets are off

[Jack Zodiac]

to quote someone on another forum......When superman thinks you killed his wife......all bets are off

Unless you're Manchester Black, then it's cool.

As for this debacle, is it really that big of a fuckin' deal? It's an alternate timeline, and it's a plot device to keep Superman from turning Booster and Beetle into blue and gold paste. It doesn't diminish anything from Wonder Woman's actions (which would be hard to diminish more from anyway) in actual, factual continuity. Much ado about you all being a buncha fuckin' geeks.

[Ryan Day]

The whole "Max Lord has always been an evil supervillain" thing was such a horrible and illogical idea that everything about it it deserves to be retconned over and over again until it is eventually revealed that it wasn't Max at all, but a large squirrel in a clever disguise, and Wonder Woman thwarted its plans with a walnut and some peanut butter.

[kingdom2000]

Groan not this argument again where a warrior (ie soldier) shouldn't kill. Amazans are warriors, always been that way and just because one becomes a superhero doesn't change it. Warriors kill when necessary. WW is a warrior, it happens. If anything my only complain is why hasn't it happened before because frankly it should have. Otherwise they need to dump the whole warrior angle entirely (don't really know why they didn't long ago - oh wait its the only thing that makes her not Superwoman).

[PatrickG]

Unless you're Manchester Black, then it's cool.

As for this debacle, is it really that big of a fuckin' deal? It's an alternate timeline, and it's a plot device to keep Superman from turning Booster and Beetle into blue and gold paste. It doesn't diminish anything from Wonder Woman's actions (which would be hard to diminish more from anyway) in actual, factual continuity. Much ado about you all being a buncha fuckin' geeks.

Or the Joker.

Seriously, Superman's big reactions to Lois' death or threatened death in most stories have been:

1) He WILL NOT avenge her death by killing and he WOULD NOT kill to save her life. Didn't do it in Kingdom Come. Didn't do it when he thought the Joker had poisoned her and that killing him would save Lois. He didn't kill for a thousand years in Valhalla when he thought she was long dead and lost to him. He didn't kill Intergang in the Armageddon 2001 stories where she died.

2) Celibacy. Isolation.... maybe even on a profound cosmic level where he rips the gates off the doors of Heaven in search of her as he did in the DC1M timeline.

3) Loveless marriage. (See Lana and Maxima in Armageddon 2001 -- and I believe WW in an Elseworld or two.)

But the whole POINT of Kingdom Come was that he didn't kill to avenge her. And Elseworld or not, that's a DEFINITIVE work. He didn't do it in Armageddon 2001. He didn't do it in the Roger Stern Joker story. He didn't do it in Ending Battle.

The scenario itself is a pretty flawed one.

You want Superman to kill? You pretty much have to mentally reprogram him from birth or wipe his identity. (Saturn Queen and Darkseid have done this.)

[John Hays]

I see no problem. At the time of the WW story, Max thought he could make Supes kill. Later on in the alternate timeline, he found out that he couldn't quite control him enough to do that.

Where's the issue?

[Chris Hansbrough]

I see no problem. At the time of the WW story, Max thought he could make Supes kill. Later on in the alternate timeline, he found out that he couldn't quite control him enough to do that.

Where's the issue?

obviously that max should have known the future......because he should always know what he discovers in the future in the present....

[BnL]

obviously that max should have known the future......because he should always know what he discovers in the future in the present....

Ugh. The needlessly sarcastic comments going around lately are really uncalled for.

Anyway, I think what's at issue is that it diminishes Wonder Woman for the sake of raising up Superman. Now, Wonder Woman's sacrifice means nothing, because there was nothing at stake. She killed someone for no reason. Superman's innate virtuousness prevents him from killing, somehow, even under mind control. The fallout from the Sacrifice storyline has had a lasting, negative effect on Wonder Woman's existence, and now we're told that she wasn't even accomplishing anything for all her troubles.

Also at issue are some of the logical fallacies this retcon raises. During her fight with Superman, Wonder Woman's narration indicates that Superman wasn't holding anything back, and she would know. So if he wasn't holding anything back, and was attacking her with everything he had, how could he simultaneously be holding back the goal to kill? And for that matter, how is he able to 1) distinguish his more human, vulnerable opponents from the ones with higher degrees of invulnerability while under Max's influence, and 2) dole out a non-lethal level of force and to those specific individuals?

[John Hays]

Ugh. The needlessly sarcastic comments going around lately are really uncalled for.

Anyway, I think what's at issue is that it diminishes Wonder Woman for the sake of raising up Superman. Now, Wonder Woman's sacrifice means nothing, because there was nothing at stake. She killed someone for no reason. Superman's innate virtuousness prevents him from killing, somehow, even under mind control. The fallout from the Sacrifice storyline has had a lasting, negative effect on Wonder Woman's existence, and now we're told that she wasn't even accomplishing anything for all her troubles.

Also at issue are some of the logical fallacies this retcon raises. During her fight with Superman, Wonder Woman's narration indicates that Superman wasn't holding anything back, and she would know. So if he wasn't holding anything back, and was attacking her with everything he had, how could he simultaneously be holding back the goal to kill? And for that matter, how is he able to 1) distinguish his more human, vulnerable opponents from the ones with higher degrees of invulnerability while under Max's influence, and 2) dole out a non-lethal level of force and to those specific individuals?

Please go back and read my last post and then tell me how it's a retcon, diminishes WW, etc...

[Chris Hansbrough]

my post had sarcasm yes but it was also the truth. in his mind max knew he could use supermanto kill....he hadn't yet tested his superman kill command but for him the truth was that superman was his killer......the lasso brings out the truth you know. not the truth you are going to find out a few months later. Max knew what he knew. Diana had what Max told her which was the truth. superman was his weapon and the only way you can stop me is to kill me......

and anyway.....even so...he still used superman as a weapon along with the omacs to tae over the future and kill most superheroes......or did I misread something

[Jack Zodiac]

Ugh. The needlessly sarcastic comments going around lately are really uncalled for.

Anyway, I think what's at issue is that it diminishes Wonder Woman for the sake of raising up Superman. Now, Wonder Woman's sacrifice means nothing, because there was nothing at stake. She killed someone for no reason.

Still not seein' it. Like I said, if anything, it's just a plot device for this C-list book to keep the two C-list heroes from getting ripped apart by the strongest being on the planet. It's an alternate future, it shouldn't have any bearing on the story that's already been published, the one where Superman does almost kill Batman, and Wonder Woman, where Max promises that he'll only use him even more, with the possibility of not only killing superheroes, but civilians caught in his rampage. In her mind, Wonder Woman still made the right call to kill him.

Objectively, though, I still don't agree with it. But subjectively, within the context of the story, I don't see how this one diminishes the former at all.

[ShaunN]

To be honest, I don't think that this does really "diminish" Diana. She did what she did on the basis of what she knew (and, apparently, what Max believed) and her actions were perfectly justifiable and necessary. As someone else noted earlier, Diana is a warrior. For myself, I like the idea of someone who is responsible enough with her power and mature enough in her decision-making to recognize that there are times when lethal force may be necessary. She is not a maniac like the Punisher, after all.

My bigger problem with this is that I just find it incredibly implausible. As someone pointed out earlier, how does Superman guage his reactions - at a subconsious level - to be just enough to really, really badly hurt his target but not kill? That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I can buy that Supes could not be told to just outright kill someone, but he could be "convinced" that he was in a life or death battle and act accordingly. In other cases, he could be using a level of force against a foe which would not kill that foe but could kill the person he was actually fighting. So, when he was fighting Diana but thought he was fighting Doomsday, it is possible that he did not plan to kill Doomsday, but could have accidentally killed Diana. As I said, the idea introduced in the BG story seems to have a lot of holes.

Re: the Superman doesn't kill idea: I generally agree with this as a principle, but Supes has killed, deliberately, in the past. The whole "Three Kryptonians" plotline aside, he fought Doomsday to the death in their first battle. There, he had to be fighting all out, knowing that the only way he could protect the people he cared about was to kill Doomsday - and he did.

In other alternative universe storylines, Clark has recovered from Lois' death. In "Kingdom Come" he ends up with Diana, as he does in some other alternate future stories I've read, and they usually are pretty happy.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[PatrickG]

To be honest, I don't think that this does really "diminish" Diana. She did what she did on the basis of what she knew (and, apparently, what Max believed) and her actions were perfectly justifiable and necessary. As someone else noted earlier, Diana is a warrior. For myself, I like the idea of someone who is responsible enough with her power and mature enough in her decision-making to recognize that there are times when lethal force may be necessary. She is not a maniac like the Punisher, after all.

My bigger problem with this is that I just find it incredibly implausible. As someone pointed out earlier, how does Superman guage his reactions - at a subconsious level - to be just enough to really, really badly hurt his target but not kill? That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I can buy that Supes could not be told to just outright kill someone, but he could be "convinced" that he was in a life or death battle and act accordingly. In other cases, he could be using a level of force against a foe which would not kill that foe but could kill the person he was actually fighting. So, when he was fighting Diana but thought he was fighting Doomsday, it is possible that he did not plan to kill Doomsday, but could have accidentally killed Diana. As I said, the idea introduced in the BG story seems to have a lot of holes.

Re: the Superman doesn't kill idea: I generally agree with this as a principle, but Supes has killed, deliberately, in the past. The whole "Three Kryptonians" plotline aside, he fought Doomsday to the death in their first battle. There, he had to be fighting all out, knowing that the only way he could protect the people he cared about was to kill Doomsday - and he did.

In other alternative universe storylines, Clark has recovered from Lois' death. In "Kingdom Come" he ends up with Diana, as he does in some other alternate future stories I've read, and they usually are pretty happy.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Superman doesn't kill. I think a lot of people back when the story came out thought Diana's assessment was wrong at the time regarding whether Superman would kill.

And we know that Superman's conditioning was, specifically, to make him think he was fighting an enemy or enemies who killed Lois.

There's plenty of precedent to establish that Superman might get angry or talk big but that he won't kill to avenge Lois. He'll stop short.

Max's brainwashing scenario (Lois' death) was faulty.

Which isn't to say that WW's actions didn't actually improve things. I think they did. But it wasn't as clear cut as her strongest supporters seemed to think, something a LOT of people said at the time.

If somebody points a gun at you and you shoot them, it doesn't diminish your stance after the fact if the gun wasn't loaded. Personally, I don't think it impugns WW's character at all to find out that Superman wouldn't have killed. I DO think it raises the question of how well she knows Superman, however, since Batman's standard MO with a brainwashed Superman is to take him down because he knows you can't conventionally brainwash Superman to kill.

You'd have to strip away everything from Superman back to his arrival on earth. We've seen before that Superman does not kill, even to avenge a loved one (or save the universe, see: Emperor Joker), UNLESS you strip away his entire set of memories and personality (ala Darkseid or Saturn Queen).

As for HOW he is capable of showing restraint?

He does ALL THE TIME, in literally ANY mental state.

This goes back to the Niven essay a bit but I don't think Superman's default "mode" is super-strength. His reflexes don't respond at strength greater than human levels. IMHO, he has to consciously exert his strength.

I think he gets just as fatigued and exerts the same energy lifting a twenty pound bag as a human of his build would. He's just capable of pushing farther.

For that matter, I'd also add on a tangent that Kryptonian skin, despite being almost unbreakable, shouldn't be any less flabby or responsive to pressure as human skin is or else everyone would know Clark's secret if they gave him a handshake.

[Red Jack]

Superman doesn't kill. I think a lot of people back when the story came out thought Diana's assessment was wrong at the time regarding whether Superman would kill.

And we know that Superman's conditioning was, specifically, to make him think he was fighting an enemy or enemies who killed Lois.

There's plenty of precedent to establish that Superman might get angry or talk big but that he won't kill to avenge Lois. He'll stop short.

Max's brainwashing scenario (Lois' death) was faulty.

Which isn't to say that WW's actions didn't actually improve things. I think they did. But it wasn't as clear cut as her strongest supporters seemed to think, something a LOT of people said at the time.

If somebody points a gun at you and you shoot them, it doesn't diminish your stance after the fact if the gun wasn't loaded. Personally, I don't think it impugns WW's character at all to find out that Superman wouldn't have killed. I DO think it raises the question of how well she knows Superman, however, since Batman's standard MO with a brainwashed Superman is to take him down because he knows you can't conventionally brainwash Superman to kill.

You'd have to strip away everything from Superman back to his arrival on earth. We've seen before that Superman does not kill, even to avenge a loved one (or save the universe, see: Emperor Joker), UNLESS you strip away his entire set of memories and personality (ala Darkseid or Saturn Queen).

As for HOW he is capable of showing restraint?

He does ALL THE TIME, in literally ANY mental state.

This goes back to the Niven essay a bit but I don't think Superman's default "mode" is super-strength. His reflexes don't respond at strength greater than human levels. IMHO, he has to consciously exert his strength.

I think he gets just as fatigued and exerts the same energy lifting a twenty pound bag as a human of his build would. He's just capable of pushing farther.

For that matter, I'd also add on a tangent that Kryptonian skin, despite being almost unbreakable, shouldn't be any less flabby or responsive to pressure as human skin is or else everyone would know Clark's secret if they gave him a handshake.

Superman's strength is not a "power" any more than mine is. He does get fatigued but at a kryptonian rate which means, by our standards, almost never.

The reason he doesn't kill is that he was raised right. He doesn't need to keep thinking about it. He's wired for decency by good parenting. The way he shows restraint is the same way everyone does. I know the difference between picking up an egg or an anvil and so does he.

If, god forbid, I ever had to swat a child on the butt, I certainly would know the difference between that and knocking an adult's lights out. Superman is ALWAYS super strong. He doesn't turn it on and off.

The best lines I ever heard about Superman's existence were in the JLU toon.

He says the world he lives in is made of cardboard. So, he knows, even when he's angry, that it's pretty easy to smash, tear or otherwise damage cardboad.

Diana comes from a different upbringing. However you see the Amazons- Classic , Multon, Current, whatever- you have to concede that a significant portion of their culture involves martial training. They don't teach the girls to box, IOW. They teach them about guns, swords, spears, knives, and all sorts of other lethal devices. Amazons are at home with death when it's necessary. Whether you think of them as Athenians or Spartans, that fact is constant.

I don't read Booster Gold. I didn't care when Ted Kord took the headshot and I don't care if he comes back. Given the circs as they were presented, Diana had no choice but to do what she did to Max.

he wasn't hypnotizing Superman. There was no place for Kal's subconscious to exert control and prevent him from killing. Max was rewriting his mind, dominating it, controlling it. Ten seconds of Lethal Superman is ten seconds the human race could not stand.

If someone is presenting the idea that max COULDN'T have forced Superman to kill, then someone is an idiot.

Moreover, despite being on record as hating the whole Pocket Universe execution plotline as completely out of character, it is part of the current canon. Superman has killed. Soberly. Coldly. With intent. So the idea that now Max couldn't make him do it again is just plain ridiculous.

But then, we are talking about Booster Gold so what do I expect?

[Evan Waters]

The whole "Max Lord has always been an evil supervillain" thing was such a horrible and illogical idea that everything about it it deserves to be retconned over and over again until it is eventually revealed that it wasn't Max at all, but a large squirrel in a clever disguise, and Wonder Woman thwarted its plans with a walnut and some peanut butter.

Because it needs to be repeated.

I am so sick of this going totally unacknowledged in the books.

[titanfan]

Still not seein' it. Like I said, if anything, it's just a plot device for this C-list book to keep the two C-list heroes from getting ripped apart by the strongest being on the planet.

*cough* C-List hero that is selling as well as Superman and Simone-Wonder Woman.

Anyway, unless there's a twist to this story--and there might be--the whole point of the storyline is to show the ramifications of what happened if Diana didn't kill Max right there and then. (And Beetle lived) The world went to hell. So Diana definitely did not kill Max for nothing.

[TCJohnson]

Because it needs to be repeated.

I am so sick of this going totally unacknowledged in the books.

Not only that, but they made it that he was always a bad guy, going way back. No chance of Despero taking him over or somethng.

[titanfan]

Not only that, but they made it that he was always a bad guy, going way back. No chance of Despero taking him over or somethng.

Actually, I thought they Superboy-punched him evil. Still an awful retcon, but at least I can still imagine that he was still "good" in the stories that I read growing up.

[JKCarrier]

Diana comes from a different upbringing. However you see the Amazons- Classic , Multon, Current, whatever- you have to concede that a significant portion of their culture involves martial training.

Perez's Amazons, certainly. Moulton's, not so much:

And so, after sailing the seas many days and many nights, we found Paradise Island and settled here to build a new world... here there is no want, no illness, no hatreds, no wars...And it is through the knowledge that I have gained from this Magic Sphere that I have taught you, my daughter, all the arts and sciences and languages of modern as well as ancient times!
Nothing in there about teaching her to kill people.

[Red Jack]

Perez's Amazons, certainly. Moulton's, not so much:

Nothing in there about teaching her to kill people.

I think any culture that uses guns with live ammo in a sporting event where a human being is the target and missing leads to severe injury or, possibly, death, is fairly comfy with the concept of killing.

Bullets and Bracelets is a deadly game. I don't think Patriarch's World has anything similar. Certainly nothing legal or culturally accepted/promoted.

[PatrickG]

If someone is presenting the idea that max COULDN'T have forced Superman to kill, then someone is an idiot.

Moreover, despite being on record as hating the whole Pocket Universe execution plotline as completely out of character, it is part of the current canon. Superman has killed. Soberly. Coldly. With intent. So the idea that now Max couldn't make him do it again is just plain ridiculous.

But then, we are talking about Booster Gold so what do I expect?

Actually, the Pocket Universe thing isn't part of the current canon.

And while I agree that someone COULD condition Superman to kill, I think it stands that Max's method (making him think he was fighting Lois' killer) would not fall under that list.

Clearly, Max thought it was enough and Diana thought it was enough (though I don't think she knew Max's exact methods).

But it has been the point of a NUMBER of stories that neither an order from Jor-El (Max's method) or Lois' death would be enough of a trigger.

You could rewrite his personality or erase his upbringing. But that wasn't Max's approach.

Diana thought she was justified. Whether or not she was is irrelevant to her character or her portrayal.

But I think Max's MO was faulty... and it's entirely possible that his powers just weren't strong enough either. We are talking about somebody with GL-level willpower.

[PatrickG]

Actually, I thought they Superboy-punched him evil. Still an awful retcon, but at least I can still imagine that he was still "good" in the stories that I read growing up.

Worth noting, I believe we did see Maxwell Lord and his time in the robot body in one of the Superboy Prime punches.

[JKCarrier]

I think any culture that uses guns with live ammo in a sporting event where a human being is the target and missing leads to severe injury or, possibly, death, is fairly comfy with the concept of killing.

The point of "Bullets and Bracelets", of course, is to be able to defend against guns. If the Amazons were sending Diana out into the world with the intent to use lethal force, don't you think they'd have armed her with something more suitable than a rope?

Obviously, you prefer Diana as a trained killer. That's swell, and more power to you. But to claim that Marston wrote her that way is just silly. Have you read the golden age stuff at all?

[Charles RB]

You want Superman to kill? You pretty much have to mentally reprogram him from birth or wipe his identity. (Saturn Queen and Darkseid have done this.)

He killed the Pocket Universe Zod and his allies.

(There are five different Zods post-Crisis, four of which seem to have appeared within the last seven years or less. What's going on there?)

[PatrickG]

He killed the Pocket Universe Zod and his allies.

(There are five different Zods post-Crisis, four of which seem to have appeared within the last seven years or less. What's going on there?)

Well, hey. The Pocket Universe is gone now and this Superman isn't the Superman who did that.

As for the five Zods...

I'm counting:
1. PU Zod
2. Pokolistan Zod (I took to calling him Zed since that was his Russian assigned codename)
3. Return to Krypton Zod
4. For Tomorrow Zod
5. Donner/Johns Zod

Now... A lot is made of this. But look at the Brainiacs we got in the same timeframe:

- Circus Mentalist Milton Fine
- Robot Brainiac
- Svengali Brainiac
- Hulking Robot Brainiac (Doomsday Wars)
- Animated series-style Brainiac (Jurgens/Epting run)
- Brainiac 2.0
- Brainiac 13
- Brainiac 12
- Silver Age-style Brainiac (The Silver Age: Justice League)
- Brainiac 8 (Teen Titans)
- Anti-Brainiac (JLA: EARTH 2 and Joe Kelly's ADVENTURES run)
- Techno-Organic Brainiac (Verheiden/Benes)
- Hunchback Brainiac (in the new Johns run, apparently bringing 51 of his favorite Brainiacs to the party)

[BnL]

Please go back and read my last post and then tell me how it's a retcon, diminishes WW, etc...

Ohhh, you mean...this post?


I see no problem. At the time of the WW story, Max thought he could make Supes kill. Later on in the alternate timeline, he found out that he couldn't quite control him enough to do that.

Where's the issue?

Wow. You are so right. WHAT a revelation! How could I have overlooked this shrewd insight??

No, but seriously. If you're going to be condescending to someone, at least have something to be condescending about.

So really the question is, did YOU read MY post? Because I already explained why I felt it diminished Wonder Woman, even if she didn't know that Max couldn't make Superman kill.

The thing that made Diana killing Max justifiable, to me, was that there was an IMMINENT threat of death if she didn't. Superman was standing 20 feet away, and Max told Diana that he was about to take control over Superman again and make him kill her, and then kill everyone else in the world who stood in his way. I've seen the "cop shooting a man pointing a gun that wasn't loaded" comparison in relation to this topic. In that case, the cop would be justified, of course. But I just think superheroes (particularly one like Wonder Woman) should be held to a higher standard. I mean, obviously, someone thinks that Superman should be held to that higher-than-normal-person standard, since he's been given the retroactive superpower of being able to resist killing even when he's under the impression that he's fighting someone like Darkseid when it's really a soft, mushy, breakable human. That's a seriously bend over backwards retcon meant to make Superman look good, with Wonder Woman's competence being the collateral damage. Anyway, that's just my opinion on the matter.

(Alright, I apologize for the snark in this post. Not enough to erase it, mind you, because it's some pretty quality snark, and I think it was somewhat deserved. But yeah, I can't help but feel a little bad about it. :wink: )

[Red Jack]

The point of "Bullets and Bracelets", of course, is to be able to defend against guns. If the Amazons were sending Diana out into the world with the intent to use lethal force, don't you think they'd have armed her with something more suitable than a rope?

Obviously, you prefer Diana as a trained killer. That's swell, and more power to you. But to claim that Marston wrote her that way is just silly. Have you read the golden age stuff at all?


Yeah. Yawn. Glad they're gone. Perez's are the only ones worth mentioning. But, even though I have pretty much Zero affection for the golden age Amazons, the point I made about their martial culture is sound.

Here are the facts of paradise island as originally presented in WW.

Lots of waify babes wandering around in greco-roman shifts. They sport the occasional sheild, the occasional spear, the occassional sword, etc. There are at least four guns on the island and somewhere an Amazon smith knows how to forge bullets. Presumable they have a foundry, extremely advanced metallurgy and electronics capability or they couldn't have build that invisible plane.

Diana's weapon is a lot more than "a piece of rope." Once again, they SHOOT LIVE ROUNDS at each other as a game/training exercise. The Bullets & bracelets test leaves one Amazon wounded in that first story IIRC. With blood and everything. I don't recall much shock at that being depicted. The big shock was Princess Diana being the victor.

As light and flitty as they were, Moulton's Amazon's are still presented as being the Amazons of myth. Whatever softcore bondage fantasy Moulton was working out through WW, he can't have known of the Amazon myth, used it to his own ends and then excised the thing that makes them interesting. The entire purpose of Amazons is that they are a nation of women who do what the men traditionally did up to and including being incredibly skilled at warfare. You don't get skilled at warfare by being squeamish about having to occasionally kill an opponent.

More to the point, Diana didn't leave the island to help clean u rime in American cities. She left to help fight a war. You don't do that by licking folks up. You do that by killing them a lot. At that same "golden" time I believe Batman carried a gun and Superman used lethal force as a matter of SOP.

It's not like Diana's first choice is lethal force. Nor was it her first choice in the killing of Max Lord. He backed her into that corner and she took the only logical course available.

Bruce couldn't have done it. Kal wouldn't have done it. Which is why, in that situation, the distinction between warrior and murderer is Very. I would say the distinction between warrior and Hero is often Very.

No one said she was sent into the world with a mandate to kill her opponents, only that, coming from a warrior culture, HOWEVER AESTHETICALLY THEY WERE PRESENTED, her aversion to killing would simply not be as ingrained as Kal's. Last resort doesn't mean never. It just means you've exhausted everything else.

If Diana went around murdering every one of her opponents there would be a case for character assassination but she doesn't. She had killed before and I'm sure she'll kill again if it's warranted.

And I'm neither happy nor sad about it. I think it is the proper execution of a character that hasn't been treated with the same thought and respect as her male counterparts for most of her existence.

EDIT: BNL is right. Exactly right.

EDIT: Patrick, how do you figure tis Superman isn't the one who killed the Pocket Universe villains? That was Post Crisis. This is the same guy.

[John Hays]

Ohhh, you mean...this post?



Wow. You are so right. WHAT a revelation! How could I have overlooked this shrewd insight??

No, but seriously. If you're going to be condescending to someone, at least have something to be condescending about.

So really the question is, did YOU read MY post? Because I already explained why I felt it diminished Wonder Woman, even if she didn't know that Max couldn't make Superman kill.

The thing that made Diana killing Max justifiable, to me, was that there was an IMMINENT threat of death if she didn't. Superman was standing 20 feet away, and Max told Diana that he was about to take control over Superman again and make him kill her, and then kill everyone else in the world who stood in his way. I've seen the "cop shooting a man pointing a gun that wasn't loaded" comparison in relation to this topic. In that case, the cop would be justified, of course. But I just think superheroes (particularly one like Wonder Woman) should be held to a higher standard. I mean, obviously, someone thinks that Superman should be held to that higher-than-normal-person standard, since he's been given the retroactive superpower of being able to resist killing even when he's under the impression that he's fighting someone like Darkseid when it's really a soft, mushy, breakable human. That's a seriously bend over backwards retcon meant to make Superman look good, with Wonder Woman's competence being the collateral damage. Anyway, that's just my opinion on the matter.

(Alright, I apologize for the snark in this post. Not enough to erase it, mind you, because it's some pretty quality snark, and I think it was somewhat deserved. But yeah, I can't help but feel a little bad about it. :wink: )

Hahaha, that's fine and dandy, but MY post directly refuted the opening post, so anything else is just waxing philosophic for the heck of it, which is fine, it's a message board, but just seems to me to be redundant. ;)

And that's NOT because mine is great and everyone else's isn't or anything as egocentric as that, but merely because the opening post has been refuted. I just don't see the logic in giving further reasons when the most obvious one has been given, but again it's a message board and everyone is free to offer their own opinions regardless. :)

(weird, my smilies aren't workin!)

[JKCarrier]

Diana's weapon is a lot more than "a piece of rope."

Indeed, but not very useful as a tool for killing. As you point out, if they wanted to equip Diana with guns and other lethal weapons, they could've. And yet they didn't. And she never bothers to pick any up after she gets to America. Why do you suppose that is?


Once again, they SHOOT LIVE ROUNDS at each other as a game/training exercise.

Yes, to show how incredibly skilled they are. See also: The X-Men in the Danger Room.


Whatever softcore bondage fantasy Moulton was working out through WW, he can't have known of the Amazon myth, used it to his own ends and then excised the thing that makes them interesting.

Of course he could. He's the author, he gets to do stuff like that. Obviously what is interesting to you is not the same as what interested him.


The entire purpose of Amazons is that they are a nation of women who do what the men traditionally did up to and including being incredibly skilled at warfare

The entire point of Marston's Amazons is that women are morally superior to men because of their peaceful and loving nature, and therefore would be better at running things. His Amazons renounce their former violent ways and go on to create a utopian society.


She left to help fight a war. You don't do that by licking folks up. You do that by killing them a lot.

Except, of course, that she never does any such thing.


At that same "golden" time I believe Batman carried a gun and Superman used lethal force as a matter of SOP.

And this is relevant to Wonder Woman how...?


It's not like Diana's first choice is lethal force. Nor was it her first choice in the killing of Max Lord. He backed her into that corner and she took the only logical course available.

The question isn't, can a writer make up some contrived, convoluted scenario in which Diana is force to kill someone. Of course they can; as mentioned above, the author gets to set the rules. The question is, why did he want to do that? Beats the heck out of me.


Bruce couldn't have done it. Kal wouldn't have done it.

They could if the writer wanted them to badly enough, as John Byrne did with Superman and the Phantom Zone prisoners.


No one said she was sent into the world with a mandate to kill her opponents, only that, coming from a warrior culture, HOWEVER AESTHETICALLY THEY WERE PRESENTED, her aversion to killing would simply not be as ingrained as Kal's.

And again, Marston's Amazons are not a "warrior culture", and they would have no reason to train Diana in the art of war, because they never fight anyone. She's an athlete and a scholar, not a soldier.


She had killed before and I'm sure she'll kill again if it's warranted.

No doubt, just as soon as they need something shocking to boost sales.


I think it is the proper execution of a character that hasn't been treated with the same thought and respect as her male counterparts for most of her existence.

"Execution". Heh. :smile:

You think it's "proper" because you like it. Again, swell and dandy, you're perfectly entitled. But for some reason, you feel the need to add some bogus moral authority to your personal taste by claiming that Marston's work backs it up. Sorry, it doesn't. Not even remotely. Jeez, you've already got Perez, Rucka, and DC editorial in your corner, relax and enjoy your Killer Di and leave poor Bill Marston to rotate in his grave in peace.

[Red Jack]

Indeed, but not very useful as a tool for killing. As you point out, if they wanted to equip Diana with guns and other lethal weapons, they could've. And yet they didn't. And she never bothers to pick any up after she gets to America. Why do you suppose that is?

I think a magic, unbreakable rope is plenty when sending the greatest Amazon warrior of all time out into Patriarch's World. You don't want to scare the men too much after all. They don't react well to that.

I mean she could knock out an elephant. What does she need a gun for?


You think it's "proper" because you like it. Again, swell and dandy, you're perfectly entitled. But for some reason, you feel the need to add some bogus moral authority to your personal taste by claiming that Marston's work backs it up. Sorry, it doesn't. Not even remotely. Jeez, you've already got Perez, Rucka, and DC editorial in your corner, relax and enjoy your Killer Di and leave poor Bill Marston to rotate in his grave in peace.

I'm indifferent to Diana-as-killer. It's not something I advocated. No more than I advocated the changes to Nova or Swamp Thing. In both of the latter cases the changes were supported by the source material and, most important, both improved and cemented what makes the characters unique and interesting.

There are a lot of characters who, if they had been forced to kill Max, I would consider it the death of the character. Beast Boy. Dove. Ambush Bug. Star Girl.

What I advocate is characters being treated with equal respect. More often than not women in comics are depicted as sex objects with some sprinkling of heroism thrown in for spice. As comics have traditionally been (primarily) hetero male power fantasies, it's small wonder.

I always liked Diana's back story. I mostly didn't like the way she's been treated over the decades even, I'm sorry to say, by her original creators. Fetishists should not be the ones defining what makes a female hero.

Diana's meta story is one lifted from multiple greco-roman myths. Even at the beginning.

The Golden Age WW was just on the acceptable side of a softcore bondage fantasy. I mean the woman lost her powers when she was chained (which was a lot). That's cool as far as it goes (not very with me) and there's no reason to put that version down as long as there's somebody out there who likes it.

but to compare that version to the current as a means of determining which is superior is quixotic at best. That was then. This is now. Women have come a long way and so should have the depictions of female heroes.

The point was, and remains, the elements of the current Diana ARE to be found in all the previous iterations. legitimately.

Clearly the original DC Amazon "utopia" was modeled after somebody's misunderstanding of Athenian culture vs, say, Spartan. But, as is clear in the art and in the writing of those original pieces, Diana's mission was to aid the war effort.

Times being what they were, I dout there would have been mcuh call for her tossing opponents into explodig turbines or off cliffs or whatever, as her male counterparts did from time to time, but, again, even in that pink angora version of Themiscyra, it was abundantly clear that these women were not playing battle games. They had martial training as an integral part of their culture. Every Amazon could do the Bullets & Bracelets thing to some degree. Diana didn't solve math problems or win philosophical debates to become WW. She didn't play the lyre. She kicked her sister's asses leaving at least one of them bloody.

Utopia is a tricky word. It means a lot of things to a lot of people. And, as I recall, we saw not so much of Themiscyra in those early tales. Just a lot of barely dressed ladies wandering around.

I'm not saying that the current version is the ONLY version of WW that works, just that it is a legit interpretation based upon all the pre-existing material.

I think it fits with her established history and, despite your claims to the contrary, the B & B competition has one major distinction from the Danger Room that makes it purely martial: There are no safety protocols with the B & B game. You miss, you flinch, you're too slow, you get hurt, maybe killed.

That says martial culture to me. You don't catch kryptonians playing those games. Maybe the Thanagarians.

[Ian Boothby]

When retcons are annoying.

Well, apparently Geoff Johns has established that Maxwell Lord didn't have the power to make Superman kill anyone, despite everything we were told in Sacrifice, so Wonder Woman jumped the gun and killed a man for no good reason.

http://dcboards.warnerbros.com:80/web/thread.jspa?threadID=2000149545&tstart=0

It was a wrongheaded storyline and the sooner forgotten the better. The Booster series is a fun one and a nice salve on some crossover burns.

[Ian Boothby]

I think any culture that uses guns with live ammo in a sporting event where a human being is the target and missing leads to severe injury or, possibly, death, is fairly comfy with the concept of killing.

Bullets and Bracelets is a deadly game. I don't think Patriarch's World has anything similar. Certainly nothing legal or culturally accepted/promoted.

It's not deadly if you have a Purple Cure All Ray in your first aid kit.

[Red Jack]

It's not deadly if you have a Purple Cure All Ray in your first aid kit.

LOL.

Touche.

But I don't think the purple ray was introduced until the Silver Age. Along with those idiotic kangas.

[Ian Boothby]

LOL.

Touche.

But I don't think the purple ray was introduced until the Silver Age. Along with those idiotic kangas.

Really? I thought that's how they saved Steve Trevor. I mean it's not like they could have had women doctors.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

LOL.

Touche.

But I don't think the purple ray was introduced until the Silver Age. Along with those idiotic kangas.

Kangas were Golden Age..... Marston to the core.

Also.... they're fun. Whimsey should have a place in comics.

[Red Jack]

Wow. The purple ray is that old. Or i am. the memory is terrible for these things.

Purple ray as part of origin, rehabilitative approach to crime fighting. Hm. Still don't love the kangas. Still, the amazons were clearly a martial culture in some respects. I maintain it's legit to interpret them that way from the original material.

[d newton]

It was a wrongheaded storyline and the sooner forgotten the better.
I hope you're referring to the current Booster arc because Sacrifice wasn't.

[PatrickG]

I hope you're referring to the current Booster arc because Sacrifice wasn't.

Dude.

Superman puts Batman into a coma (with no consequences) -- after three issues of pointless dream sequence fighting (Gail's was the best) -- and then Wonder Woman snaps a guy's neck?

That's NOT wrongheaded in your book?

[JKCarrier]

Eh, I was going to go another round, but it's clear Red Jack hasn't read Marston's work very closely, and nobody but me cares anyway. So I'll just sit over here and quietly snicker at his attempts at doing the Superboy-Retcon-Punch on comics history. :tongue: Carry on.

[Red Jack]

Eh, I was going to go another round, but it's clear Red Jack hasn't read Marston's work very closely, and nobody but me cares anyway. So I'll just sit over here and quietly snicker at his attempts at doing the Superboy-Retcon-Punch on comics history. :tongue: Carry on.

No need to snicker. It's been a long time since I even looked at that stuff and, after a quick google, I realized some of my errors. While there are some clearly progressive elements to Golden Age WW, they are wildly overshadowed by the bondage motifs.

I'm not trying to retcon anything. I'm simply saying the current version is not an illegitimate distillation of the source material. In fact the super science of the Amazons had to have been entirely self-created due to their isolation. So, given that everything they had was invented by them independent of Patriarch's World, it follows that their tradition of shooting at each other for fun (purple ray notwithstanding, a bullet between the eyes is not something to look forward to) must also have been internally generated. Also, Diana invented the ray to save Steve Trevor so, until then, we can assume playing bloodsports was both fun and potentially lethal for the ladies of Paradise Island.

It also means they invented handguns on their own. A LOOOOOOONG time before anybody off island did or they wouldn't have incorporated the game into their cultural behavior.

Why would Amazons invent handguns? They have no practical use beyond killing human beings and if this was a utopian culture devoted to peace, there is no logical reason for anyone to construct such a thing. Unless, in addition to all their other amazing attributes, they are devotees of the arts of War.

Regardless of Hippolyta's arguments with Mars these facts remain: While they may not have been aggressive or expansionist, the Amazons were absolutely comfy with the idea of what actual battle entails, sending their greatest warrior out into the world to inspire and to fight.

There's a difference between bloodthirsty savage, cold-blooded murderer and killing in battle when necessary.

Just Warriors know the difference and act accordingly. This, I believe, is how Diana was depicted and it is one of the things that sets her apart from the others in the so-called trinity. And she needs to be set apart in order not to be seen as Superman-lite.

The truth is those original stories where pretty wacky.

sufferin' sapho.

[JKCarrier]

In fact the super science of the Amazons had to have been entirely self-created due to their isolation.


It is through this Magic Sphere that I have been able to know what has gone on and is going on in the other world, and even, at times, forecast the future! That is why we Amazons have been able to far surpass the inventions of the so-called man-made civilization!

(insert snickering here)

[Red Jack]

(insert snickering here)

You're silly.

While you're focused on minutia, you avoid the actual point.

Why would amazons invent handguns? Why would they copy them? Why would they use such a weapon at all? Even more than Bruce Wayne's aversion to guns(due to trauma) an entire society built on reason and peace would find such devices abhorrent. And yet...

What about being able to observe the world outside precludes them developing their own super science? Diana built the purple ray herself. As far as I know no one else has one. So BEFORE the ray, B & B was a dangerous, potentially lethal exercise. I mean, how do you practice? It's live ammo or nothing. Not really a game for philosophers and athletes. More of a wargame, no?

In fact, being able to observe the world outside would sort of preclude them building firearms if they were the pacifistic utopian society you prefer.

And, really, snickering? How old are you again?

[Ian Boothby]

I hope you're referring to the current Booster arc because Sacrifice wasn't.


Ther Booster story is fun, everyone acts in character, there's a lot of imagination and to me that's a good comic book.

Sacrifice only worked if you ignored what Max's character had been in the past (I don't think he was lying in all his thought balloons) and it makes Wonder Woman into a killer during a time when DC was on a "we're going to shock you" rampage. Lots of heads being punched off, arms being torn and rapes in the space clubhouse. It was cheap shock and to me not a good Wonder Woman story. Let me put it this way, Gail's WW would have found a smarter way out of that situation. Moulton Marston's would too but then there would have been more spanking at the end.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Moulton Marston's would too but then there would have been more spanking at the end.

*snicker*

At the.... 'end'?

**fit of schoolgirl giggles**

[JKCarrier]

Round and round we go. Well, nobody's complained yet, so I'll abuse that poor deceased equine a little more.


Why would amazons invent handguns?

In order to learn how to defend against them, perhaps? The only time we see guns in use is in a competition to see who's better at neutralizing them. If guns are so ubiquitous and integral to their culture, why doesn't Diana carry one?


And, really, snickering?

You're making sweeping claims about the themes and subtext in Marston's work, based on 2 or 3 panels that you kinda-sorta remember. Every time you try to cite specifics to back up your claims, you get them wrong. It's like you slept through the movie, and now you're trying to write a review based on what you remember from the trailer. I guess I'm easily amused. :biggrin:

[Astonishing X-Fan]

It's not a retcon. It's an alternate timeline. For whatever reason, Max can't get Superman to kill in the alternate timeline.

There you go.

[Red Jack]

In order to learn how to defend against [guns], perhaps?

That seems a bit paranoid considering no one knew of their existence and no one had set foot on the island the whole time the Amazons were there. Steve was first.


The only time we see guns in use is in a competition to see who's better at neutralizing them.

That's spin. We see a woman shooting at another woman with live ammo. We see one woman get hit when she misses a block. We see the blood. This, presumably, was one of the possible outcomes of "playing" that was totally acceptable to the Amazons. it is also a "game" that predates the invention of the purple ray so, again, they had to assume injury or death as a possible outcome of the game.


If guns are so ubiquitous and integral to their culture, why doesn't Diana carry one?

Because it was the 30's? How many female heroes of the day went around toting firearms? Honestly? I don't know. Were there bunches? Somehow I doubt it.

As I said, she already overmatches her opponents. Superman doesn't carry one either. And I never said they were integral to their culture in the way you imply. I said they were an example of that culture's martial nature. our own culture is a martial culture despite all the other stuff we do and think. It is very much a part of who we are.

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/wonder-woman/2-1.jpghttp://www.coverbrowser.com/image/wonder-woman/1-1.jpg


You're making sweeping claims about the themes and subtext in Marston's work, based on 2 or 3 panels that you kinda-sorta remember.

Yes. Because NOBODY ever found or finds those very same themes in that iteration of the character. I'm the ONLY person who sees the very clear bondage and sexual inuendoes that are pretty much constant. No one ever wrote books or articles describing the pattern of images.

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/wonder-woman/12-1.jpg
Sometimes a bomb is just a bomb, I guess.


Every time you try to cite specifics to back up your claims, you get them wrong.

Purple ray. Wrong. Admitted. incorporated.
Kangas? Who cares?

What else?

Does she not lose her powers when her wrists are shackled? Doe she not spend a certain amount of time shackled in nearly every Golden Age appearance? Does her mother not have debates with Mars about the outside world? Are they not isolated from that outside world in every meaningful way? Do the Amazons not engage in martial activities as part of their culture? Did the Amazons create their own technology or crib it from Man's World?

Being able to observe an A bomb in use, for instance, teaches you absolutely nothing about making one. The same with guns, for that matter.


It's like you slept through the movie, and now you're trying to write a review based on what you remember from the trailer. I guess I'm easily amused. :biggrin:

It's more like I saw the movie a long time ago, hated it, blocked it out and am dredging it up again for purposes of this discussion.

[Ian Boothby]

I'm trying to remember (and too lazy to dig out the books). Could the Amazons see man's world from Paradise Island through some kind of viewing screen or some such? It is odd they'd have a gun that looks just like the kind we started making unless one washed up on shore or they had some way of seeing what was going on off Island.

[BnL]

I'm trying to remember (and too lazy to dig out the books). Could the Amazons see man's world from Paradise Island through some kind of viewing screen or some such? It is odd they'd have a gun that looks just like the kind we started making unless one washed up on shore or they had some way of seeing what was going on off Island.

Pre-Crisis they did. Post-Crisis, they had a gun because a female air force pilot (Steve Trevor's mother) had crash landed on the island years earlier, and they used her gun for the bullets and bracelets test.

[d newton]

Superman puts Batman into a coma (with no consequences) -- after three issues of pointless dream sequence fighting (Gail's was the best) -- and then Wonder Woman snaps a guy's neck?
At the time, no JLA member knew who was controlling Superman. And how was Diana supposed to free Superman if she didn't kill Max?


Sacrifice only worked if you ignored what Max's character had been in the past (I don't think he was lying in all his thought balloons) and it makes Wonder Woman into a killer during a time when DC was on a "we're going to shock you" rampage.
It got rid of the "Max Lord is a cyborg" plotline. You could drive a ship through the plotholes of that story. :biggrin:

[Ian Boothby]

At the time, no JLA member knew who was controlling Superman. And how was Diana supposed to free Superman if she didn't kill Max?

The same way superheroes have been doing it for years. Figure out a clever way to do it. That's why Superman hasn't killed Luthor.

[Evan Waters]

No need to snicker. It's been a long time since I even looked at that stuff and, after a quick google, I realized some of my errors. While there are some clearly progressive elements to Golden Age WW, they are wildly overshadowed by the bondage motifs.

And why do you see bondage as inimical to progressivism?

[Ryan Day]

And how was Diana supposed to free Superman if she didn't kill Max?


With all the superhumans, aliens, wizards, robots, and scientific geniuses running around the DCU, you'd think there might be one or two other solutions.

[d newton]

The same way superheroes have been doing it for years. Figure out a clever way to do it.


With all the superhumans, aliens, wizards, robots, and scientific geniuses running around the DCU, you'd think there might be one or two other solutions.
I guess you haven't read Adventures 642 yet - the JLA couldn't think of a way to reverse what Max had done to Superman.

[PatrickG]

I guess you haven't read Adventures 642 yet - the JLA couldn't think of a way to reverse what Max had done to Superman.

That's still pretty weak IMHO.

The whole story was designed to reach an outcome.

[Red Jack]

And why do you see bondage as inimical to progressivism?

I think, in RL, whatever rings your bells is perfectly fine. There are a lot of humans and nearly as many ways for them to get their thrills. But, as a large-scale social operating system promoted by superheroes, sexual power exchange is not a value I associate with heroism. It is a deviation. A sometimes pleasurable deviation but a deviation nonetheless. Mainstream superheroes are, well, mainstream.

While a hero may be "into" that (Midnighter/Apollo), as a theme of not-so-subtle promotion from the creator of the early WW comics, I find it antithetical to the heroic ideal that was supposedly being expressed. And undermining to the notion of women with power on the whole.

The Amazons of Myth (and their RL inspiration) did not wear chains. Not bracelets, not nothing. They were a society driven and run by women with males in the traditionally "female" position of the day.

By replacing those people with his fantasy chicklets, Marston undermines the supposed thesis of his creation by turning her into a sex object rather than letting her be a hero like the boys. I'm sure we can all point to current examples of the same phenomenon. It's not hard to spot.

Titillating softcore bondage imagery coupled with pre-feminist dogma, at absolute best, muddies both. If the book is ostensibly about empowered women and getting boys to see them as capable equal beings, depicting them as waify sex dolls, however softly, is counterintuitive.

So, yeah, I don't have much positive feeling for Golden Age WW. I find her about as appealing and quaint as Ebony or Whitewash. It wasn't until Potter, Perez, Wein and Newell got to reboot her that she came into her own, IMO. And not because they allowed her to kill.

For the record: it disgusts me that characters like Wolverine and the Punisher are considered heroes. They are just psychos we like. I'm not a fan of superheroes killing. But I'm a bigger proponent of superheroes being as differentiated from one another as possible.

I've never been a proponent of heroes killing for killing's sake. Sure, after all the deaths and mayhem the Joker has caused, Batman should just toss him off a roof and have done. But the thing is Batman doesn't DO that so having him do it undercuts what the character is. Max using Superman as an instrument of murder would have destoryed Superman. not from an audience POV but from Superman's own. Once he snapped out of it he would have gone nuts with grief.

And that's why saying that Max couldn't have compelled him to kill under any circumstances undercuts the story that made it necessary for Diana to kill him. Certainly Max could. And he said that he would at the first opportunity. Ten seconds of Lethal Kryptonian pointed at whoever or whatever he chose. Sorry, that's too big a risk to take chances with and, barring killing Superman himself, there was only one other option and only one person present willing to take the necessary step.

Superman is the modern day Demigod, our Hercules. Batman is our Odysseus, our apex (modern) human. Wonder Woman, IMO, must be different than both in order to merit a position in the so-called trinity.

So. She's the apex warrior, Atalanta or Skadi. That doesn't make her a killer, though she has killed and will again if necessary. But her ability to do those things the boys can't or won't is part of what makes her special.

And, despite m antipathy for the original incarnation of the character, there is enough in those original stories of Amazon warrior culture to support the current iteration of the Wonder Woman myth.

[Ian Boothby]

I guess you haven't read Adventures 642 yet - the JLA couldn't think of a way to reverse what Max had done to Superman.

A situation they've been in dozens of times before. Heroes find a way. Except when they're in a shock value sweeps style story. Then people die, get raped, get maimed, get married and it's all explained by magic, aliens and super punching.

[Linkara]

The problem is one of simple comic book continuity. They could've worked over time to remove Max's programming. As for buying time to stop Maxwell Lord, it has been shown on numerous occasions in the past that there is technology that can inhbit metahuman abilities, including psychic abilities on Max's scale. As soon as his powers are dampened, he's just another ordinary man. Slap some duct tape over his mouth and he can't give verbal commands to Brother Eye, who at that point still only had partial autonomy. Simply put, Max's little "you have to kill me to stop me!" doesn't match up with what we know of the DCU.

[PatrickG]

Just a random thought but couldn't they have just used Gold Kryptonite (or any other color) on Superman to subdue him until Max could be incapacitated, then figure out how to restore Superman?

[Grazzt]

Just a random thought but couldn't they have just used Gold Kryptonite (or any other color) on Superman to subdue him until Max could be incapacitated, then figure out how to restore Superman?

I thought Gold was permanent. Red wouldn't be useful, and is there any amount of Green that won't eventually just kill him?

On the other hand, I guess Superman never having powers again (or dying) is worth saving the life of Max Lord. How dare Wonder Woman not depower or kill Earth's greatest hero rather than kill a man threatening mass murder!

[JKCarrier]

That seems a bit paranoid considering no one knew of their existence and no one had set foot on the island the whole time the Amazons were there. Steve was first.

How is that any more paranoid than your vision of the Amazons as a standing army, constantly training for war?


That's spin. We see a woman shooting at another woman with live ammo. We see one woman get hit when she misses a block. We see the blood.

I take it you've never been to a boxing match. Or a hockey game.


Because it was the 30's? How many female heroes of the day went around toting firearms? Honestly? I don't know. Were there bunches? Somehow I doubt it.

So one sequence where the Amazons are shown with guns is proof positive that they're a "martial" culture, while the hundreds of panels where Diana eschews the use of guns, or any lethal weapon, are irrelevant.


I said they were an example of that culture's martial nature.

So do you have any other examples? Or is your whole theory hung on that one sequence?


I'm the ONLY person who sees the very clear bondage and sexual inuendoes that are pretty much constant. No one ever wrote books or articles describing the pattern of images.

Wha? I think you just set the land speed record for moving the goalposts. When did I ever say anything about bondage and sexual themes, and what on earth does that have to do with whether or not Wonder Woman is a soldier with no qualms about killing?


Does she not lose her powers when her wrists are shackled? Doe she not spend a certain amount of time shackled in nearly every Golden Age appearance?

Again, I have no idea what this has to do with anything.


Does her mother not have debates with Mars about the outside world?

No.


Do the Amazons not engage in martial activities as part of their culture?

No.


Did the Amazons create their own technology or crib it from Man's World?

Both. You insisted that the Amazons had no exposure to the outside world, and then drew conclusions based on that wrong information.


Being able to observe an A bomb in use, for instance, teaches you absolutely nothing about making one. The same with guns, for that matter.

"It is through the knowledge I have gained from this Magic Sphere that I have taught you, my daughter, all the arts and sciences and languages of the modern as well as ancient times!" The Amazons know all the science of the outside world. From there, they were able to push even further and come up with super-genius stuff like the invisible plane and the purple ray.

And as Ian points out, isn't it interesting that the only gun the Amazons have is a plain old 20th century revolver? And not even a particularly high-caliber one, judging by Mala's expression of mild annoyance after Diana wings her. If the Amazons were all about war, you'd think they'd have invented laser pistols or something by now. Unless, of course, the point of the exercise was to learn how to defend against the weapons of the outside world.


It's more like I saw the movie a long time ago, hated it, blocked it out and am dredging it up again for purposes of this discussion.

Which makes me wonder why you're bothering. If Marston was such a shitty writer, why are you so eager to get his posthumous seal of approval for the current series? I would think you'd be happy that modern Diana has nothing to do with anything that disgusting old pervert came up with.

[Ryan Day]

I guess you haven't read Adventures 642 yet - the JLA couldn't think of a way to reverse what Max had done to Superman.

The problem isn't that the JLA couldn't think of another way. It's that the writers couldn't, or wouldn't.

[Red Jack]

How is that any more paranoid than your vision of the Amazons as a standing army, constantly training for war?



I take it you've never been to a boxing match. Or a hockey game.



So one sequence where the Amazons are shown with guns is proof positive that they're a "martial" culture, while the hundreds of panels where Diana eschews the use of guns, or any lethal weapon, are irrelevant.



So do you have any other examples? Or is your whole theory hung on that one sequence?



Wha? I think you just set the land speed record for moving the goalposts. When did I ever say anything about bondage and sexual themes, and what on earth does that have to do with whether or not Wonder Woman is a soldier with no qualms about killing?



Again, I have no idea what this has to do with anything.



No.



No.



Both. You insisted that the Amazons had no exposure to the outside world, and then drew conclusions based on that wrong information.



"It is through the knowledge I have gained from this Magic Sphere that I have taught you, my daughter, all the arts and sciences and languages of the modern as well as ancient times!" The Amazons know all the science of the outside world. From there, they were able to push even further and come up with super-genius stuff like the invisible plane and the purple ray.

And as Ian points out, isn't it interesting that the only gun the Amazons have is a plain old 20th century revolver? And not even a particularly high-caliber one, judging by Mala's expression of mild annoyance after Diana wings her. If the Amazons were all about war, you'd think they'd have invented laser pistols or something by now. Unless, of course, the point of the exercise was to learn how to defend against the weapons of the outside world.



Which makes me wonder why you're bothering. If Marston was such a shitty writer, why are you so eager to get his posthumous seal of approval for the current series? I would think you'd be happy that modern Diana has nothing to do with anything that disgusting old pervert came up with.

I never said or implied that he was disgusting or a pervert. I've said the opposite in fact. Only that his two (apparent) driving concerns worked against each other in his writing of Wonder Woman and that I didn't like it as a result. His "seal of approval" isn't required. What he wrote is sufficient to draw the conclusions I have about Amazon culture. You don't have to agree with the interpretation but you must accept that it is legit.

This doesn't make my position right. This is fiction, therefore open to wide interpretation. What it does mean is that my original statement, the one that bugged you so much, is legit. The source material supports it which is all it has to do.

As for the gun...

You're being intentionally obtuse here. All you know about the Golden Age gun is that it looks like a 20th century revolver and fires bullets. It could also fire little diamond spikes or sun beams. It's Amazon technology not Smith and Wesson.

Bullets and Bracelets may only have been seen in a few panels but it is clear that this is something the Amazons do on a fairly regular basis. As I said: you can't practice the "game" without live ammo. And the several hundred- to several thousand women on the island couldn't practice it with just the one gun shown. There must be an armory somewhere on the island with enough guns for everyone to practice the "game" who wants to.

I never said they were a "standing army." I said they had a martial culture, that is to say one that includes the arts of war and combat along with the pursuits of art, science and literature. Are they depicted as more Athenian than Spartan? Sure. But the Athenians were WARRIORS. They just weren't nuts about it like the spartans. They BOTH had martial cultures.

Viewing the outside world was something, presumably, only the queen could do so, again, the mass of Amazon technology was necessarily self-created regardless of Hippolyta's personal knowledge. (Unless you envision her working closely with every smith, engineer, doctor, or physicist on the island in addition to running the place.) Hence their massively superior tech and the ability of one random Amazon to whip up a ray that could bring the dead back to life in fairly short order.

The "look of annoyance" on Maia's face would indicate that, unlike most human beings who get shot, she's either used to it, unconcerned about the damage to her body, has an incredibly high pain tolerance or all of the above. Another clue that these women are prefectly comfortable with the concepts of death and severe injury as a result of combat.

Yeah. I've been to hockey games. I've played football. In neither of those sports is the POINT to fire a lethal weapon at the opponent in hopes he or she will be able to block or dodge. We play dodgeball, not doge grenade.

Any culture that includes this practice as a part of its sporting or religious life must necessarily be martial in nature. And it must take a fairly light view of the importance of death and injury. Even after being forcibly disarmed and "guided" into democracy, Japan remained a martial culture.

You can't get around it.

[Charles RB]

Side note - "I'm the ONLY person who sees the very clear bondage and sexual inuendoes that are pretty much constant". Did I really just see someone say that about Wonder Woman? That gets noticed about her - especially Golden Age Wonder Woman - loads of times. People have brought it up repeatedly on this very forum over the years. Superdickery has whole sections for scans of it.



On the other hand, I guess Superman never having powers again (or dying) is worth saving the life of Max Lord. How dare Wonder Woman not depower or kill Earth's greatest hero rather than kill a man threatening mass murder!

This is worth comparing to JLA/Hitman, where Tommy Monaghan kills the alien enemy and the human hosts they're possessing as it's all he can do to save the day and everyone else. Superman forgives him for this - all the superheroes were out of action, and the only decision that could be done is one Superman could not have judged and cannot do.

Diana, another superhero, doesn't get this from him.

[Grazzt]

Side note - "I'm the ONLY person who sees the very clear bondage and sexual inuendoes that are pretty much constant". Did I really just see someone say that about Wonder Woman? That gets noticed about her - especially Golden Age Wonder Woman - loads of times. People have brought it up repeatedly on this very forum over the years. Superdickery has whole sections for scans of it.

Let's not forgot that the writer admitted to inserting said innuendo and his editor admits that he had to cut out a whole lot more than what actually made it to print.


Diana, another superhero, doesn't get this from him.

Then why didn't anyone make a fuss over her chopping off Medusa's head? Still killing, Medusa's still a sapient being, and she's more sympathetic than Max Lord (at least to me).

[Charles RB]

Then why didn't anyone make a fuss over her chopping off Medusa's head?

Medusa's not a human and AFAIK doesn't look human.

It's the same reason why, in Doctor Who, they can have our heroes wipe out monsters en masse but killing the Master? That'd be wrong!

[Grazzt]

Medusa's not a human and AFAIK doesn't look human.

Okay, I can understand that for the man in the street. But Superman? He's not human either. And he's friends with the Martian Manhunter, another non-human (this one more obviously so). And the only way Medusa doesn't look human (at least in the DCU) is because she has snakes instead of hair. And wings. Starfire looks more alien than Medusa does.

Here's Medusa vs. Wonder Woman (http://community.livejournal.com/scans_daily/5312661.html) so you can see Medusa for yourself.

[Evan Waters]

I think, in RL, whatever rings your bells is perfectly fine. There are a lot of humans and nearly as many ways for them to get their thrills. But, as a large-scale social operating system promoted by superheroes, sexual power exchange is not a value I associate with heroism. It is a deviation. A sometimes pleasurable deviation but a deviation nonetheless. Mainstream superheroes are, well, mainstream.

While a hero may be "into" that (Midnighter/Apollo), as a theme of not-so-subtle promotion from the creator of the early WW comics, I find it antithetical to the heroic ideal that was supposedly being expressed. And undermining to the notion of women with power on the whole.

The Amazons of Myth (and their RL inspiration) did not wear chains. Not bracelets, not nothing. They were a society driven and run by women with males in the traditionally "female" position of the day.

By replacing those people with his fantasy chicklets, Marston undermines the supposed thesis of his creation by turning her into a sex object rather than letting her be a hero like the boys. I'm sure we can all point to current examples of the same phenomenon. It's not hard to spot.

Titillating softcore bondage imagery coupled with pre-feminist dogma, at absolute best, muddies both. If the book is ostensibly about empowered women and getting boys to see them as capable equal beings, depicting them as waify sex dolls, however softly, is counterintuitive.

Now I think you're conflating all bondage with a male-dominant model. By nature the Amazons' games tended to be female dominating female, because, well, that's what they were. In terms of men, it was, well, ambiguous:

http://pics.livejournal.com/wasabi/pic/0008gcbr

From this we can clearly deduce that Wondy goes both ways. And there's an entire story where she and Hippolyta look into the future and see that women rule the world come the year 3000, and it's not so bad. Even when villains managed to bind her, she took it in stride.

Next you'll be saying that Emma Peel's a poor role model because of all that leather she wore.

[Red Jack]

Side note - "I'm the ONLY person who sees the very clear bondage and sexual inuendoes that are pretty much constant". Did I really just see someone say that about Wonder Woman? That gets noticed about her - especially Golden Age Wonder Woman - loads of times. People have brought it up repeatedly on this very forum over the years. Superdickery has whole sections for scans of it.

I was being sarcastic. Of course lots of people noticed it. it was part of the creator's intent.



This is worth comparing to JLA/Hitman, where Tommy Monaghan kills the alien enemy and the human hosts they're possessing as it's all he can do to save the day and everyone else. Superman forgives him for this - all the superheroes were out of action, and the only decision that could be done is one Superman could not have judged and cannot do.

Diana, another superhero, doesn't get this from him.

Well. She's a chick. She shouldn't expect the same treatment.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

And there's an entire story where she and Hippolyta look into the future and see that women rule the world come the year 3000, and it's not so bad. Even when villains managed to bind her, she took it in stride.

And here's (http://www.prismcomics.org/display.php?id=1229) where it all starts.

(Okay, they were off by 964 years. Whatcha gonna do?)

[Chris Hansbrough]

Okay, I can understand that for the man in the street. But Superman? He's not human either. And he's friends with the Martian Manhunter, another non-human (this one more obviously so). And the only way Medusa doesn't look human (at least in the DCU) is because she has snakes instead of hair. And wings. Starfire looks more alien than Medusa does.

Here's Medusa vs. Wonder Woman (http://community.livejournal.com/scans_daily/5312661.html) so you can see Medusa for yourself.

because she had to kill medusa to save the lives of a lot of people. if medusa had won thousands...maybe even millions would have been turned to stone. She killed Medua to save lives...this is obviously totally different than the Max Lord situation because all he was doing was threatening to take lives.....totally different situation...

[Charles RB]

Here's Medusa vs. Wonder Woman (http://community.livejournal.com/scans_daily/5312661.html) so you can see Medusa for yourself.

Sod knows then. Maybe killing's fine when it's a mythological entity.


because she had to kill medusa to save the lives of a lot of people. if medusa had won thousands...maybe even millions would have been turned to stone. She killed Medua to save lives...this is obviously totally different than the Max Lord situation because all he was doing was threatening to take lives.....totally different situation...

She killed Medusa because Medusa was going to kill loads of people and said so, and that's different to''' Lord going to kill people and saying so? :confused:

[Red Jack]

Now I think you're conflating all bondage with a male-dominant model. By nature the Amazons' games tended to be female dominating female, because, well, that's what they were. In terms of men, it was, well, ambiguous:

http://pics.livejournal.com/wasabi/pic/0008gcbr

From this we can clearly deduce that Wondy goes both ways. And there's an entire story where she and Hippolyta look into the future and see that women rule the world come the year 3000, and it's not so bad. Even when villains managed to bind her, she took it in stride.

Next you'll be saying that Emma Peel's a poor role model because of all that leather she wore.

Not at all. My views aren't extreme. I'm coming at this primarily as a writer and as an audience member. I think Marston's politics -pre-feminist leanings, real life polyamory relationship and a clear fetish for B/D- muddied his ability to present his agenda of female empowerment.

It's not just the stated things in the text of the comic (muddy) but the sexual imagery (which is clear). It's a comic book; the words and text are supposed to synch up. In this case they are in conflict with one another, expressing multiple concepts that are often in conflict.

It's the reverse of guys now who see women as more traditional sex objects but pretend to be writing/drawing them as heroes. The latter is more "mainstream," certainly, but just as much of a problem.

My feeling is there are lots of aspects of Diana's story that can be legitimately used as story fodder, including the bondage stuff and the lesbian overtones. It is, for instance, ridiculous to think there are no married Amazons or that ALL of them would be gay. I think some of the more whimsical stuff would also be fun to see in a modern context. Who says comics can't be fun?

I think the current version, certainly Gail's version, is in keeping with everything that's gone before (with the exception of the God Awful Amazons Attack, which is not supported). I think Diana's choice to put an end to Max Lord was equally supported and perfectly reasonable and even heroic in the circumstances. Making it impossible for Max to have compelled Kal to kill people means Diana made a snap, rash and ultimately wrong decision which in turn makes her lesser.

She didn't. She was absolutely right. She's not lesser.

[Chris Hansbrough]

Sod knows then. Maybe killing's fine when it's a mythological entity.



She killed Medusa because Medusa was going to kill loads of people and said so, and that's different to''' Lord going to kill people and saying so? :confused:

I battle with the use of sarcasm.

[Charles RB]

Ahhh, gotcha.

[Evan Waters]

Not at all. My views aren't extreme. I'm coming at this primarily as a writer and as an audience member. I think Marston's politics -pre-feminist leanings, real life polyamory relationship and a clear fetish for B/D- muddied his ability to present his agenda of female empowerment.

But strictly speaking, how do polyamory and B/D inherently detract from female empowerment? And how does the latter really work its way into the comic at all?

[Grazzt]

Sod knows then. Maybe killing's fine when it's a mythological entity.

It's just such an unfair double standard. Wonder Woman kills Medusa on national TV. No complaints. Not even from Batman, Mr. "Even the Joker deserves to live". The only thing they care about is whether she can function as a Justice League member while blind. And the average people don't care either. Hell, one guy was crying over what Wonder Woman did to herself.

But snap Max Lord's neck and all of a sudden it's "Wonder Woman is a murderer".

[Red Jack]

But strictly speaking, how do polyamory and B/D inherently detract from female empowerment? And how does the latter really work its way into the comic at all?

I think any strictly sexual (as opposed to gender) politics injected into this sort of material, especially non-mainstream sexual kinks, is counterproductive when trying to effect change in that mainstream.

These are too many concepts to accept at once in a four-color monthly venue that focuses on superheroes and, as I said, the complexities of "normal" sex are hard enough without adding the fringes. I don't need to know that Cheshire's perfect hummer is the thing that keeps Roy obsessed with her. It's not necessary and including it makes me consider things that don't enhance my enjoyment of the heroic story.

There's nothing automatically problematic, IOW, only that the particular delivery system doesn't allow for the necessary complexity to have a real conversation about it. So injecting all those things, at once, in the 1930s and 40s, kills all of them. Too much at once, too soon.

IMO, of course.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

So injecting all those things, at once, in the 1930s and 40s, kills all of them. Too much at once, too soon.

IMO, of course.

Just as a point of correction, Wonder Woman first appeared in 1941. She didn't exist in the 1930's.

Not that that has anything to do with the germ of your argument, and shouldn't be taken that way.

[Chris Hansbrough]

It's just such an unfair double standard. Wonder Woman kills Medusa on national TV. No complaints. Not even from Batman, Mr. "Even the Joker deserves to live". The only thing they care about is whether she can function as a Justice League member while blind. And the average people don't care either. Hell, one guy was crying over what Wonder Woman did to herself.

But snap Max Lord's neck and all of a sudden it's "Wonder Woman is a murderer".

Well he hadn't yes killed thousands and enslaved the rest at that point. just because in the future almost all heroes villains and metas were killed makes it so obviously,.......diana was wrong in killing him. because he only promised to kill and conquer the world....he hadn't done it yet........can't you see why it was so bad of her. if he had already started his campaign to murder everyone with powers and OMACify the rest of the world then it would be fine but at that point he still wasn't a murderer......ted kord obviously doesn't count since ma lord obviously couldn't kill anyone......he just said he could.....didn't shoot anyone in the face or anything...

[Charles RB]

But snap Max Lord's neck and all of a sudden it's "Wonder Woman is a murderer".

Max Lord looks like a regular person and isn't ugly, so he has greater right to live.

See also: Tenth Doctor - killer of the entire Racnoss swarm, the Haemovore, thousands of Cybermen etc - not wanting anyone to kill the Master (who once wiped out a third of the universe) because it'd be Wrong.

IE it's a load of wank.

[Evan Waters]

I think any strictly sexual (as opposed to gender) politics injected into this sort of material, especially non-mainstream sexual kinks, is counterproductive when trying to effect change in that mainstream.

Maybe so, but in terms of just plain good comics, I like the complexity of Marston's vision as opposed to the more straightforward and sensible approaches we've seen since. It's the mad dream of an artist, and those are always more interesting.

[JKCarrier]

What it does mean is that my original statement, the one that bugged you so much, is legit. The source material supports it which is all it has to do.

The material absolutely does not support it. You've taken an extremely skewed view of one scene, and completely ignored the countless scenes where Marston lays out his beliefs that women's peaceful, loving nature is morally superior to men's brutal, warlike ways. The Amazons represent his hope for an ideal society where wise, confident women use their intelligence and charm to keep men (and wayward women) in line. He's not even remotely subtle about it, I'm not sure how you could miss it. Diana: "The only way you can rule anybody, Steve, is the way we women do it -- by inspiring affection!"

You're letting yourself be distracted by the traditional connotations of the term "amazon". Marston took the myths about women warriors and inverted them -- his Amazons are not women who act/fight like men, but women with their femininity (as he saw it) amped up to the nth degree. Marston once wrote:" What woman lacks is the dominance or self assertive power to put over and enforce her love desires. I have given Wonder Woman this dominant force but have kept her loving, tender, maternal and feminine in every other way. Her bracelets...represent the Amazon Princess' submission to Aphrodite, Goddess of Love and Beauty. Her magic lasso...represents woman's love charm and allure by which she compels men to do her bidding." They didn't send Diana to win the war by killing enemy soldiers, they sent her to end the war by being so gorgeous and impressive and awesome (and teaching other women to be gorgeous and impressive and awesome) that the men will lay down their arms and do what she says. Turn to any random page in a Marston comic, and the phrase "submission to loving authority" is bound to pop up. Weapons and killing ain't got nothing to do with it.

In his book "Wonder Woman: The Complete History", Les Daniels called Marston's philosophy "simultaneously daring and touchingly naive", which I think about sums it up.

[Grazzt]

Maybe so, but in terms of just plain good comics, I like the complexity of Marston's vision as opposed to the more straightforward and sensible approaches we've seen since. It's the mad dream of an artist, and those are always more interesting.

Oh yes. I was hoping that All-Star Wonder Woman would be a sort of tribute to Marston, the way All-Star Superman was a tribute to the Silver Age. Wonder Woman, ready to bring the matriarchy to man's world through equal parts affection and strength.

[Charles RB]

See, that's where the recent reboot went wrong (aside from the horrific late-shipping) - not enough bondage and sex kinks!

Seriously, it'd have sold like hot cakes.

[Grazzt]

See, that's where the recent reboot went wrong (aside from the horrific late-shipping) - not enough bondage and sex kinks!

Seriously, it'd have sold like hot cakes.

They just need to get Adam Warren on the title once Gail's done. :tongue:

Just a note: I like modern Wonder Woman a lot. Rucka's run was great and Gail's is shaping up to be terrific, too. I prefer modern Wonder Woman to Marston Wonder Woman. I just thought it would have been interesting to see Marston's ideas done in a modern light.

[Red Jack]

Maybe so, but in terms of just plain good comics, I like the complexity of Marston's vision as opposed to the more straightforward and sensible approaches we've seen since. It's the mad dream of an artist, and those are always more interesting.

Well. That's one POV. Certainly legit.

I found it profoundly unsatisfying and muddy in this case.

[Ian Boothby]

It's just such an unfair double standard. Wonder Woman kills Medusa on national TV. No complaints. Not even from Batman, Mr. "Even the Joker deserves to live". The only thing they care about is whether she can function as a Justice League member while blind. And the average people don't care either. Hell, one guy was crying over what Wonder Woman did to herself.

But snap Max Lord's neck and all of a sudden it's "Wonder Woman is a murderer".


She is a murderer by super hero standards. Pretty much every issue of the JLA is going to have a bad guy that has a good chance of killing people, lots of people if not everyone in the world. If it's okay to kill Max then it's okay to kill that person because you can't think of another way. There's almost always that moment in the story where it looks like all is lost. But superheroes don't kill the bad guy even though the world is in danger because once they do they have to keep doing it or now they're being irresponsible for not killing Brainiac, Dr. Psycho or Mongul. If you justify killing this one time you can't justify not killing the rest of the time.

[Red Jack]

The material absolutely does not support it. You've taken an extremely skewed view of one scene, and completely ignored the countless scenes where Marston lays out his beliefs that women's peaceful, loving nature is morally superior to men's brutal, warlike ways. The Amazons represent his hope for an ideal society where wise, confident women use their intelligence and charm to keep men (and wayward women) in line. He's not even remotely subtle about it, I'm not sure how you could miss it. Diana: "The only way you can rule anybody, Steve, is the way we women do it -- by inspiring affection!"

You're letting yourself be distracted by the traditional connotations of the term "amazon". Marston took the myths about women warriors and inverted them -- his Amazons are not women who act/fight like men, but women with their femininity (as he saw it) amped up to the nth degree. Marston once wrote:" What woman lacks is the dominance or self assertive power to put over and enforce her love desires. I have given Wonder Woman this dominant force but have kept her loving, tender, maternal and feminine in every other way. Her bracelets...represent the Amazon Princess' submission to Aphrodite, Goddess of Love and Beauty. Her magic lasso...represents woman's love charm and allure by which she compels men to do her bidding." They didn't send Diana to win the war by killing enemy soldiers, they sent her to end the war by being so gorgeous and impressive and awesome (and teaching other women to be gorgeous and impressive and awesome) that the men will lay down their arms and do what she says.

I think that's a stretch. Even in the old days she does a pretty good job of smacking people around. It's not like she shows up, strikes a pose and the boys go gooey.


Turn to any random page in a Marston comic, and the phrase "submission to loving authority" is bound to pop up. Weapons and killing ain't got nothing to do with it.

In his book "Wonder Woman: The Complete History", Les Daniels called Marston's philosophy "simultaneously daring and touchingly naive", which I think about sums it up.


I don't dispute most of that but where Mr. D says "daring" and "naive" I say muddy.

[Grazzt]

She is a murderer by super hero standards. Pretty much every issue of the JLA is going to have a bad guy that has a good chance of killing people, lots of people if not everyone in the world. If it's okay to kill Max then it's okay to kill that person because you can't think of another way. There's almost always that moment in the story where it looks like all is lost. But superheroes don't kill the bad guy even though the world is in danger because once they do they have to keep doing it or now they're being irresponsible for not killing Brainiac, Dr. Psycho or Mongul. If you justify killing this one time you can't justify not killing the rest of the time.

Then they should have come down on her when she killed Medusa, not waited until she killed Max Lord. I mean, I could see some of the members of the Justice League not caring (for the reasons that Charles has pointed out), but Batman (at the very least) and the other various "take no life no matter what" heroes should have censured her. And it actually follows from your argument: they saw her kill Medusa, they must have known that it was only a matter of time before she killed again.

In fact, why didn't they just delay the whole Medusa arc until Infinite Crisis? You could have had Wonder Woman killing, a better reason for the entire public to see her killing, Max Lord would have been spared, and her killing would have made more sense. Plus her being blinded in the process adds more pathos.

[PatrickG]

I thought Gold was permanent. Red wouldn't be useful, and is there any amount of Green that won't eventually just kill him?

On the other hand, I guess Superman never having powers again (or dying) is worth saving the life of Max Lord. How dare Wonder Woman not depower or kill Earth's greatest hero rather than kill a man threatening mass murder!

You gotta take the victim's wishes into account.

Which would Superman prefer?

And it would have been interesting to have Superman powerless in Infinite Crisis.

[Ian Boothby]

Then they should have come down on her when she killed Medusa, not waited until she killed Max Lord. I mean, I could see some of the members of the Justice League not caring (for the reasons that Charles has pointed out), but Batman (at the very least) and the other various "take no life no matter what" heroes should have censured her. And it actually follows from your argument: they saw her kill Medusa, they must have known that it was only a matter of time before she killed again.

In fact, why didn't they just delay the whole Medusa arc until Infinite Crisis? You could have had Wonder Woman killing, a better reason for the entire public to see her killing, Max Lord would have been spared, and her killing would have made more sense. Plus her being blinded in the process adds more pathos.

Medusa is a mythological creature and it just doesn't come across the same way. It's like if you had an Avengers story where Hercules slays a Minotaur and one where he beats a rapist to death.

[Grazzt]

Medusa is a mythological creature and it just doesn't come across the same way. It's like if you had an Avengers story where Hercules slays a Minotaur and one where he beats a rapist to death.

It only doesn't come across the same way if you don't let it. Medusa is a rape victim, who was PUNISHED FOR IT. She's clearly outside the Uncanny Valley (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UncannyValley), unlike your example of the Minotaur. If you can't make that sympathetic, or more sympathetic than Max "Kill all metahumans" Lord, you're a hack.