Grant Morrison on Wonder Woman

[4PointOh]

Well, Diana_Fan....

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/010928-Grant-Final-Crisis.html

NRAMA: Regarding the big legends of the DCU: Superman got his mini-event, Batman took on Darkseid, Flash tries to outrun death, Green Lantern overcomes granny . . . but Wonder Woman turns out to be Anti-Life Patient Zero (http://blog.newsarama.com/2009/01/26/final-crisis-wondering-about-wonder-woman/) and spends the bulk of the series as a disfigured thrall. Why does Wonder Woman not have a comparable moment in that context?

GM: I wondered about that myself. I love what Gail Simone (especially) and other writers have done to empower the Wonder Woman concept but I must admit I’ve always sensed something slightly bogus and troubling at its heart. When I dug into the roots of the character I found an uneasy melange of girl power, bondage and disturbed sexuality that has never been adequately dealt with or fully processed out to my mind. I’ve always felt there was something oddly artificial about Wonder Woman, something not like a woman at all.

Having said that, I became quite fascinated by these contradictions and problems and tried to resolve them for what turned into a different project entirely. Partly because I didn’t want to use any of that new material in Final Crisis, I relegated Wonder Woman to a role that best summed up my original negative feelings about the character. My apologies to her fans and I promise to be a little more constructive next time around.

Wonder Woman gets a ‘moment’ in Final Crisis #7 but by that time, Mandrakk has sucked all the life out of the story!


I'm glad he actually admitted what all of us (mostly) knew all along.

[spark627]

Well, Diana_Fan....

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/010928-Grant-Final-Crisis.html

NRAMA: Regarding the big legends of the DCU: Superman got his mini-event, Batman took on Darkseid, Flash tries to outrun death, Green Lantern overcomes granny . . . but Wonder Woman turns out to be Anti-Life Patient Zero (http://blog.newsarama.com/2009/01/26/final-crisis-wondering-about-wonder-woman/) and spends the bulk of the series as a disfigured thrall. Why does Wonder Woman not have a comparable moment in that context?

GM: I wondered about that myself. I love what Gail Simone (especially) and other writers have done to empower the Wonder Woman concept but I must admit I’ve always sensed something slightly bogus and troubling at its heart. When I dug into the roots of the character I found an uneasy melange of girl power, bondage and disturbed sexuality that has never been adequately dealt with or fully processed out to my mind. I’ve always felt there was something oddly artificial about Wonder Woman, something not like a woman at all.

Having said that, I became quite fascinated by these contradictions and problems and tried to resolve them for what turned into a different project entirely. Partly because I didn’t want to use any of that new material in Final Crisis, I relegated Wonder Woman to a role that best summed up my original negative feelings about the character. My apologies to her fans and I promise to be a little more constructive next time around.

Wonder Woman gets a ‘moment’ in Final Crisis #7 but by that time, Mandrakk has sucked all the life out of the story!

Great, someone else who doesn't get Wonder Woman. I honestly blame Didio (more than Morrison) for not including WW in FC.

[DanCMH]

I read the interview on Newsarama and like I said there...Wow he thinks a lot of himself...

Considering his attitude about Wonder Woman Im now actually glad he didnt try to give her any kind of definition moment. Her plague carrier victim role speaks volumes about his attitude toward the character.

Diana is best left to professionals like Gail.

...as far as his promise to try to do better next time, personally Id prefer he didnt bother. He strikes me as the kind of ego that would force her into a refrigerator first to break down the character before building her back up into Superman with hooters...

[4thHorseman]

Diana has never been an interesting character in my eyes. The closest she's come is actually during Grant's run on JLA. Otherwise, I have always found her pretty boring.

[spark627]

I read the interview on Newsarama and like I said there...Wow he thinks a lot of himself...

Considering his attitude about Wonder Woman Im now actually glad he didnt try to give her any kind of definition moment. His plague carrier role speaks volumes about his attitude toward the character.

Diana is best left to professionals like Gail.

Yep, if it wasn't for Gail writing WW... life would be a hell of a lot more boring.

[Gail Simone]

Grant is a brilliant writer and a compliment from him is lovely to hear.

But we ALL have characters that aren't our favorites. I am not an Iron Man fan. I used to really loathe J'onn J'onzz. I still can't stand Metamorpho or the Elongated Man. It happens.

But I disagree with him mightily about the contradictions. It's the contradictions that MAKE Wonder Woman fascinating, in my opinion. It's odd, because Batman and Superman have always been pure escapist fantasies and not very complicated at their point of origin, while Wonder Woman was CREATED to be subversive and dangerous and mind-blowing. Yes, there were long periods of boring adventures, but she was a Grant Morrison-style character before Grant Morrison was born. It's surprising to me to hear he doesn't care for her.

ESPECIALLY since two moments she had in his JLA run were arguably her best moments that entire decade, and a real inspiration for myself, regarding how other people see her.

Love Grant, a little surprised by this, but it's no big deal. I've had long conversations with Waid where he tries to tell me all the fascinating stuff in Metamorpho, and it doesn't work. Either a character clicks for you or it doesn't.

But the contradictions rock. If my run is remembered for anything, I would love it to be that I attempted to reconcile the millions of different versions of Diana into one cohesive whole, a complete entity that is made up of all those bits of brilliance from all the great writers who have worked on the character before she was handed to me.

[DanCMH]

ESPECIALLY since two moments she had in his JLA run were arguably her best moments that entire decade, and a real inspiration for myself, regarding how other people see her.



Im so glad you said that because that's EXACTLY what I was thinking. Diana had some big kick ass moments in his JLA run...didnt the lasso actually encircle the moon once...so I just dont get why he had to victimize her so much in FC. Its really disappointing. Its not "Peter Parker sells his marriage to Satan" disappointing but its up there on the list.

[MacQuarrie]

But we ALL have characters that aren't our favorites. I am not an Iron Man fan. I used to really loathe J'onn J'onzz. I still can't stand Metamorpho or the Elongated Man. It happens.
That brings to mind an interesting question... suppose you were handed an editorial mandate to use Metamorpho in a Wonder Woman story, say as part of a big crossover event; what do you do?

Do you sideline the character into a peripheral presence, showing him only as much as is absolutely necessary to meet the editorial demand?

Do you vent your spleen on the guy, summing up your negative feelings about him?

Do you reinvent the guy as much as possible and turn him into somebody you want to write about?

Do you write about some vaguely similar but much more interesting character and just call him Metamorpho?

How would you deal with Metamorpho if you absolutely had to?

[Major Comma]

Grant says he will try to do a better job writing her next time,
But he doesnt see that her contradictions are her STRENGTH.
But still if the Grant who delivered those two moments from JLA that Gail referenced shows up next time ,
It might turn out OK .
Since he has admitted he could have done better I will give him a chance to do so .

[suedenim]

But I disagree with him mightily about the contradictions. It's the contradictions that MAKE Wonder Woman fascinating, in my opinion. It's odd, because Batman and Superman have always been pure escapist fantasies and not very complicated at their point of origin, while Wonder Woman was CREATED to be subversive and dangerous and mind-blowing. Yes, there were long periods of boring adventures, but she was a Grant Morrison-style character before Grant Morrison was born.


This is really true! Reading the Golden Age Wonder Woman, it's really mind-blowing that DC published it! And not just in the strange bondage/submission stuff - though that's certainly there, and obvious today, I think a lot of modern commentators overstress it. There's also tons of weird and wonderful stuff that doesn't have anything to do with sexual quirks! I'm not sure there's ever been anything else quite like it.

[Joe Rice]

I actually get where he's coming from. I've never really "gotten" Wonder Woman, though I know many people who have. The bondage history, in particular, makes me and, it seems, Morrison, queasy overall.

[Corrina]

Know what would be awesome in Wonder Woman?

Smart warrior gorillas riding space-Kangas!!

[4PointOh]

No one sees the irony in Grant Morrison saying Wonder Woman is possessed of a "disturbed sexuality"?

[Joe Rice]

No one sees the irony in Grant Morrison saying Wonder Woman is possessed of a "disturbed sexuality"?

Uh, I definitely don't. Her origins squick some people out. Her creator got off on women being powerful . . .feminist end, but not exactly feminist reasoning. It's a weird combo . . .it works for some, and that's cool.

[Stanlos]

Diana has never been an interesting character in my eyes. The closest she's come is actually during Grant's run on JLA. Otherwise, I have always found her pretty boring.

I always hear this about her JLA stint under Grant's run. What made her interesting during that time to you?

[MartinRedmond]

I think it's A DAMN CRIME Chris Claremont hasn't had a run on Wonder Woman yet.

[Tom]

I think he's to be admired for admitting to it. He clearly has no ill will toward the character.

That's not to say I agree with him. I'm a little surprised to hear that he seems freaked out by the sexual aspects of the character since a)it hasn't really been part of her character for at least 40 years and b) he never seemed to have a problem dealing with sexual aspects in his other superhero work. If there's anything that sums up his problem it's this:


I’ve always felt there was something oddly artificial about Wonder Woman, something not like a woman at all.

This has always been a problem with how people perceive the character. Superman does not represent all men, nor does Batman, nor Spider-Man, The Hulk, or any of the other top-tier male superheroes. But for some reason, writers (and a LOT of fans) think that Wonder Woman is supposed to represent ALL women everywhere, which is clearly ludicrous, given her origins.

[Joe Rice]

I think it's A DAMN CRIME Chris Claremont hasn't had a run on Wonder Woman yet.

Oh, man, she'd be tying up dudes left and right. Claremont would pass out at this opportunity. It's like all his other weird fetish projects ULTIMATIZED

[Joe Rice]

I think he's to be admired for admitting to it. He clearly has no ill will toward the character.

That's not to say I agree with him. I'm a little surprised to hear that he seems freaked out by the sexual aspects of the character since a)it hasn't really been part of her character for at least 40 years and b) he never seemed to have a problem dealing with sexual aspects in his other superhero work. If there's anything that sums up his problem it's this:



This has always been a problem with how people perceive the character. Superman does not represent all men, nor does Batman, nor Spider-Man, The Hulk, or any of the other top-tier male superheroes. But for some reason, writers (and a LOT of fans) think that Wonder Woman is supposed to represent ALL women everywhere, which is clearly ludicrous, given her origins.


Hmmm, interesting. I see what you're saying. But is he saying "ALL women" or "a woman." Because she rarely feels like A woman to me, if that makes sense.

[Tom]

Because she rarely feels like A woman to me, if that makes sense.

In what sense?

[Joe Rice]

In what sense?

When I read Superman or Spider-man or Batman, I can generally say, "No, that's not all men, but I know guys like that in some way." I never feel that way with Wonder Woman. She tends to be "What men think a strong woman is/should be" and it rings false most times. Not all times, mind you, but I think she's really tricky to write.

[4PointOh]

Uh, I definitely don't. Her origins squick some people out. Her creator got off on women being powerful . . .feminist end, but not exactly feminist reasoning. It's a weird combo . . .it works for some, and that's cool.

http://www.wackyjac.com/boudoir/gallery/gallery.html

[Tom]

When I read Superman or Spider-man or Batman, I can generally say, "No, that's not all men, but I know guys like that in some way." I never feel that way with Wonder Woman. She tends to be "What men think a strong woman is/should be" and it rings false most times. Not all times, mind you, but I think she's really tricky to write.

I guess that makes sense. I think that's a consequence of her being the vessel of a LOT of really bad writing over the years. I just don't think it's something inherent to the character. It surprises me a little that he can't seem to get past that but all writers have their blind spots.

[Matt Algren]

http://www.wackyjac.com/boudoir/gallery/gallery.html
A little warning next time, eh?

[Tom]

http://www.wackyjac.com/boudoir/gallery/gallery.html

That doesn't make any sense. Just because Grant posed in some sexy underwear doesn't mean he automatically feels comfortable writing a bondage character.

[suedenim]

Oh, man, she'd be tying up dudes left and right. Claremont would pass out at this opportunity. It's like all his other weird fetish projects ULTIMATIZED

He *has* written this project, actually. It's Superman/Wonder Woman: Whom Gods Destroy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whom_Gods_Destroy_(comics)).

One of the worst comic books I've ever read. I'd never been a particular fan of Claremont, but always figured he'd, at a minimum, contribute reasonably professional work. But this thing is shockingly incoherent , unreadable gibberish.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I think it's A DAMN CRIME Chris Claremont hasn't had a run on Wonder Woman yet.

I think he's stuck working at Marvel , ruining characters and shit there for now. I'd hate to see him at DC ruin some characters. Maybe the Claremont of 20 years ago was a good writer. The Claremont of today pretty much blows.




I can see what Grant Morrison is saying in a way. We all have characters we'll never get. And for now he doesn't get Diana much at the moment. The last run of Wonder Woman I loved was the Rucka one ...where he had made her a Warrior for Peace . I miss that.

[Karl O'Neill]

I like that grant was honest about his feelings about the character,

I love Gail's work on ww BUT i find the Flash and Green Lantern mythoes to be ten times cooler, with supes and bats at 1 and 2. that leaves wonder woman out at 5.

for me, not everybody else.

I'm basing this on the stories and arc's i have read on all the above, and Green lantern and Flash deserve higher status.

[Karl O'Neill]

I like that grant was honest about his feelings about the character,

I love Gail's work on ww BUT i find the Flash and Green Lantern mythoes to be ten times cooler, with supes and bats at 1 and 2. that leaves wonder woman out at 5.

for me, not everybody else.

I'm basing this on the stories and arc's i have read on all the above, and Green lantern and Flash deserve higher status.

[Gail Simone]

That brings to mind an interesting question... suppose you were handed an editorial mandate to use Metamorpho in a Wonder Woman story, say as part of a big crossover event; what do you do?

Do you sideline the character into a peripheral presence, showing him only as much as is absolutely necessary to meet the editorial demand?

Do you vent your spleen on the guy, summing up your negative feelings about him?

Do you reinvent the guy as much as possible and turn him into somebody you want to write about?

Do you write about some vaguely similar but much more interesting character and just call him Metamorpho?

How would you deal with Metamorpho if you absolutely had to?



Oh, no, this happens all the time. I LOVE it. Seriously, I freaking LOVE it.

LOTS of characters have been handed to me to 'spruce up,' for one reason or another. I have, fortunately or unfortunately, gotten a bit of a rep at DC for having a good way with characters that have been allowed to rust a little bit.

Lots of times, a character would be suggested to me that I didn't have much affinity for...Big Barda made no sense to put into Birds of Prey to me and I actively resisted that at first. Bane hasn't been a favorite of mine since his first appearance. On and on.

What happens, and this is one of the fun parts of writing in a shared serial format, you have to go mining for what was cool about the character in the first place. Now I LOVE writing Barda and Bane and J'onn. I simply adore them to pieces.

It's easy to care about a character you already love. It's more rewarding when you find the hidden gold and see what the creators had in mind before the characters got diluted somewhat.

[Indigo Al]

That doesn't make any sense. Just because Grant posed in some sexy underwear doesn't mean he automatically feels comfortable writing a bondage character.

Not only is there bondage all over the Invisibles, you have Marvel Boy Noh-Varr with an dominatrix GF, never mind what Cassandra Nova forced the Beast to do. And that's just the start.

Confronting excessive shame and guilt to "cure" yourself of it is a strong theme in all of his works. The Marquis DeSade Invisibles issue alone should be enough to demonstrate that he's got absolutely no problem with bondage characters, or even more out there fetishes.

I can accept him not connecting with Wonder Woman, but not because he's got a problem with bondage.

EDIT: That's not speaking to your point about the pic, just about Grant being "uncomfortable" with S&M or whatever

[Gail Simone]

Yep, if it wasn't for Gail writing WW... life would be a hell of a lot more boring.

Awwwwwwwwww!

[Gail Simone]

I think Joe is right that no one expects Batman or Superman to represent all men, but that burden often falls on WW with women.

I don't think of her like that...she has to be a character, not an agenda. Let the message be her actions, not her sole reason for being.

[Michael P]

I think Joe is right that no one expects Batman or Superman to represent all men, but that burden often falls on WW with women.

I don't think of her like that...she has to be a character, not an agenda. Let the message be her actions, not her sole reason for being.

And this attitude is one of the reasons why I enjoy your Wonder Woman so much.

[Black Atom]

It seems like some are jumping to conclusions.


I think he's to be admired for admitting to it. He clearly has no ill will toward the character.

That's not to say I agree with him. I'm a little surprised to hear that he seems freaked out by the sexual aspects of the character since a)it hasn't really been part of her character for at least 40 years and b) he never seemed to have a problem dealing with sexual aspects in his other superhero work. If there's anything that sums up his problem it's this:



This has always been a problem with how people perceive the character. Superman does not represent all men, nor does Batman, nor Spider-Man, The Hulk, or any of the other top-tier male superheroes. But for some reason, writers (and a LOT of fans) think that Wonder Woman is supposed to represent ALL women everywhere, which is clearly ludicrous, given her origins.

Where did it say he was freaked out by it? It sounded to me like his biggest problem was not being able to get a bead on the character because of several elements he saw as contradictory that he couldn't reconcile at the time. I'm psyched to see his take on WW for the new project he alluded to, though.

[4PointOh]

The part that sticks me, hurts me, is this:

I’ve always sensed something slightly bogus and troubling at its heart. When I dug into the roots of the character I found an uneasy melange of girl power, bondage and disturbed sexuality that has never been adequately dealt with or fully processed out to my mind. I’ve always felt there was something oddly artificial about Wonder Woman, something not like a woman at all.

I don't know why, but that bothers me profoundly. And I don't know why it hurts me to hear this about a fictional character, but it does. Like someone said something untoward about my sister.

[Arrogantcur]

I actually get where he's coming from. I've never really "gotten" Wonder Woman, though I know many people who have. The bondage history, in particular, makes me and, it seems, Morrison, queasy overall.

But that's all it is, right? History. Plus, is there really all that much difference between subduing a bad guy with WW's lasso and using a GL power ring to render her or him immobile? Or the Crimson Bands of Cyttorak, for that matter?

[4PointOh]

That doesn't make any sense. Just because Grant posed in some sexy underwear doesn't mean he automatically feels comfortable writing a bondage character.

No, but it does evoke a pot calling the kettle black, at least for me. regarding "disturbing sexuality."

And those are just the tame pics. He also posted pics of his shaved genitals on the net.

Though, I really don't find anything Marston or Morrison have done to be disturbing. I just find it odd that Morrison would throw stones in the glass house.

Invisibles anyone?

Anyway, I applaud Morrison for being honest. I called him on this years ago, but his defenders said I didn't know what I was talking about. I had a similar conversation with Geoff Johns who has very similar feelings about Wonder Woman. As does Alan Moore.

[Tom]

It seems like some are jumping to conclusions.



Where did it say he was freaked out by it? It sounded to me like his biggest problem was not being able to get a bead on the character because of several elements he saw as contradictory that he couldn't reconcile at the time. I'm psyched to see his take on WW for the new project he alluded to, though.

Speaking of jumping to conclusions...

I didn't claim that he said he was freaked out by it; I claimed it seemed that he was. And frankly, I don't think I'm off base:


When I dug into the roots of the character I found an uneasy melange of girl power, bondage and disturbed sexuality

[jesse_custer]

You can overanalyze a comic book character's history. If Morrison didn't do this, he came close.

[4PointOh]

I tell you, it's a TESTAMENT to her character, and to Marston's mind, that 70 years after her creation, Wonder Woman still frightens (and at core, I believe that's what it is) the bejeezus out of men.

Wonder Woman is brilliant.

[Bombshell]

I think a lot of writers' issues with Diana stems from the fact that they try - sometimes too hard - to fit her into the mold of a "typical superhero", and she's not a "typical superhero". The reason that she does what she does, her reason for being, are completely different from Batman or Superman, and a lot of writers don't seem to get that.

[Black Atom]

Speaking of jumping to conclusions...

I didn't claim that he said he was freaked out by it; I claimed it seemed that he was. And frankly, I don't think I'm off base:

I got what you were saying the first time, but there's really nothing to indicate that he was freaked out. He probably only used the word "disturbing" because bondage/S&M is sex behavior most people find deviant or disturbing. Also, he uses "uneasy" to describe the relationship between the various traits associated with the character over the years, not his relationship to those traits.

It's possible he does harbor those feelings, but there's not really much in the statement to suggest that. And to your earlier point, it seems out of character for him as a writer considering his handled similar themes before.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

No, but it does evoke a pot calling the kettle black, at least for me. regarding "disturbing sexuality."

And those are just the tame pics. He also posted pics of his shaved genitals on the net.

Though, I really don't find anything Marston or Morrison have done to be disturbing. I just find it odd that Morrison would throw stones in the glass house.

Invisibles anyone?

Anyway, I applaud Morrison for being honest. I called him on this years ago, but his defenders said I didn't know what I was talking about. I had a similar conversation with Geoff Johns who has very similar feelings about Wonder Woman. As does Alan Moore.

Strange, I always thought Alan Moore would have a blast writing Wonder Woman.
I´ve never seen a female character he wrote I didn´t like.

[4PointOh]

Strange, I always thought Alan Moore would have a blast writing Wonder Woman.
I´ve never seen a female character he wrote I didn´t like.

In his America's Best portfolio, he said something very similiar to what Morrison said.

[Indigo Al]

Strange, I always thought Alan Moore would have a blast writing Wonder Woman.
I´ve never seen a female character he wrote I didn´t like.

Alan Moore explored his approach to Wonder Woman in his Image/Awesome/Avatar stories for the character Glory --- and then sort of transmuted it all into Promethea.

Well, there was also "For the Man Who Has Everything", where Wonder Woman just basically got beat down by Mongul.

[Mercurialblonde]

Yeah I'm suprised Moore would have problems with Wonder Woman. His Promethea always seemed to me like an Ultimate Wonder Woman.

As for Grant, I think the larger story here is that he's come across something he likes about the character, and apparently wants to use in the future. Which sounds a lot like what Gail is saying with regards to Barda and Bane.

And to be fair, WW does end up getting her moment in FC. Though I commend Morrison for not just standing behind that one moment and saying he did the character great justice.

It's very interesting to hear his thought process on all of these characters. Just as it is to hear from Gail. It's a really interesting struggle with history and continuity.

I definitely want to like Wonder Woman.

[Grazzt]

Well, there was also "For the Man Who Has Everything", where Wonder Woman just basically got beat down by Mongul.

To be fair, even Batman came off badly in that story. I mean, even Jason Todd was able to remove the Black Mercy without getting caught by it.

[4PointOh]

Yeah I'm suprised Moore would have problems with Wonder Woman. His Promethea always seemed to me like an Ultimate Wonder Woman.

I think Promethea is the most boring thing I've ever read.

[Indigo Al]

To be fair, even Batman came off badly in that story. I mean, even Jason Todd was able to remove the Black Mercy without getting caught by it.

That story was an odd tension of Silver Age tropes/nostalgia and dystopian obsession. I loved it though.

[Arrogantcur]

He probably only used the word "disturbing" because bondage/S&M is sex behavior most people find deviant or disturbing.

Hopefully this isn't terribly off-topic...

The assumption is probably that anybody who's into it on the dom side takes pleasure in other people's suffering and is a cruel and nasty individual. Which ain't necessarily the case. There are people like that in the BDSM lifestyle, unfortunately, but there are more who are perfectly nice people, who don't have ego problems, who wouldn't enjoy seeing somebody suffer if that person wasn't enjoying it, and who respect and care about their partners rather than looking down on them. As usual, ignorance creates uneasiness and possibly even fear. Knowledge dispels it.

[Paul McEnery]

I think it's obvious that what Grant's saying is that he couldn't find his way inside the character to find its mythic heart, the same way he got inside Superman and Batman. Which is to say, that the character wasn't yet revealing itself to him.

It may be that, with FC, ASS and RIP off his plate, he's got the bandwidth to let that happen.

Another thing that's interesting about FC is that it's a series in the key of Desire. The spiral dynamics wraparound starts with the Gods of War (mode 3 in spiral dynamics) and goes up through the top and back around to mode 1 with the rebuilding. Which leaves mode 2, which is Desire, which is addressed both throughout the series, but also in the side project of Superman Beyond.

Which leads me to think that Wonder Woman was concealed to him because Lois was occupying her spot; and that Desire is ultimately what Wonder Woman is about.

[scout1279]

The part that sticks me, hurts me, is this:

I’ve always sensed something slightly bogus and troubling at its heart. When I dug into the roots of the character I found an uneasy melange of girl power, bondage and disturbed sexuality that has never been adequately dealt with or fully processed out to my mind. I’ve always felt there was something oddly artificial about Wonder Woman, something not like a woman at all.

I don't know why, but that bothers me profoundly. And I don't know why it hurts me to hear this about a fictional character, but it does. Like someone said something untoward about my sister.

I think it's a bothersome comment because it sounds suspiciously like a judgment on what a woman is supposed to be like. I'm not saying that's what he intended at all, just that it's easy to interpret that way.

[Tom]

I got what you were saying the first time, but there's really nothing to indicate that he was freaked out. He probably only used the word "disturbing" because bondage/S&M is sex behavior most people find deviant or disturbing. Also, he uses "uneasy" to describe the relationship between the various traits associated with the character over the years, not his relationship to those traits.

I think you're splitting hairs here.

[MartinRedmond]

Oh, man, she'd be tying up dudes left and right. Claremont would pass out at this opportunity. It's like all his other weird fetish projects ULTIMATIZED

More like her female sidekicks.

[PatrickG]

I think it's a bothersome comment because it sounds suspiciously like a judgment on what a woman is supposed to be like. I'm not saying that's what he intended at all, just that it's easy to interpret that way.

I think you could substitute that with "not like a human at all".

[Arrogantcur]

More like her female sidekicks.

Okay, you know what? Not taking anything away from Gail, and I've kind of lost faith in CC's ability to consistently write good stories over the last couple years...but still, I'd now actually like to see him write the book for at least one issue. Just to see what he'd do, regardless of how excellent or disastrous the final product ended up. :tongue:


I think you could substitute that with "not like a human at all".

Yeah, I was thinking that it might have something to do with her connection to the gods 'n' stuff.

[scout1279]

I think you could substitute that with "not like a human at all".

And I agree that that's probably what he meant. I think it's a fair criticism. It's not what he said though. He said "woman" and that's why it seemed a bit off to me at first.

I'm not someone who is going to argue that there's something wrong with not getting Wonder Woman. I was never much interested in WW comics before the latest reboot. I prefer characters with secret identities (unless I am strictly reading them as part of a team), and she was always a bit too perfect for me. I agree that some writers try to make her represent "all women" and that it's a problem.

Personally, what I think is kind of bullshit about his comments about not wanting to use his WW ideas on Final Crisis. It seems a bit half-assed that he couldn't at least use those ideas to inform how he wrote her in Final Crisis. Don't really care though, since I didn't have any intention of reading the comic.

[Tobias March]

I find it interesting that this Wonder Woman as Apokolips Furies (hey wait a minute...wasn't Earth 2's daughter called Fury? coin-ki-dink) is portrayed in such a disturbing way. Bloodthirsty, animalistic, unstoppable. Under the influence of the ALE she is less than human, broken. The 'contradictions', Morrison feels are present become warped and twisted in a schizoid fashion, which makes her all the more terrifying.

Also not the first time she's been flipped (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTUJiyDXiMc&feature=related) by Darkseid....:wink:

[Bombshell]

I prefer characters with secret identities (unless I am strictly reading them as part of a team), and she was always a bit too perfect for me.

See, that's a huge chunk of why I liked Wonder Woman in the first place. [Keep in mind that I'm twenty-five and that I grew up with a Wonder Woman who never had a secret identity.] Diana was different in that aspect from Superman and Batman. And unlike either of them, I never saw the need for her to have one. I mean, and this is hard for me to put into words even though the thoughts are totally coherent in my mind, but she came from Themyscira to spread a message of peace and stuff. She didn't come out to be a superhero. She didn't have people to protect, or a life that she needed to keep separate because she'd left all of that on Themyscira.

Diana, simply put, was just herself, and because the media didn't understand that, they gave her the title of Wonder Woman, to turn her into something that was more familiar to them.

A superhero.

And she's been kinda on a downward spiral with writers and some readers ever since.

[cedardryad]

I agree with Grant when it comes to the artificial thing. I love Gail's WW and that is how I like to see WW.

Before I saw the character as artificial and almost like they were trying to hard to enforce girl power. I hated that. It's like they were forcing the whole girl power thing down my throat and it just made her seem like a tool.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what Morrison is saying about the contradictions, but maybe he just doesn't like the whole character starts off with bondage overtones, but they still want to keep her virginal. Almost like they are indecisive with what they want from Diana; although that difference or irony makes the character interesting in a way.

[scout1279]

See, that's a huge chunk of why I liked Wonder Woman in the first place. [Keep in mind that I'm twenty-five and that I grew up with a Wonder Woman who never had a secret identity.] Diana was different in that aspect from Superman and Batman. And unlike either of them, I never saw the need for her to have one. I mean, and this is hard for me to put into words even though the thoughts are totally coherent in my mind, but she came from Themyscira to spread a message of peace and stuff. She didn't come out to be a superhero. She didn't have people to protect, or a life that she needed to keep separate because she'd left all of that on Themyscira.

Diana, simply put, was just herself, and because the media didn't understand that, they gave her the title of Wonder Woman, to turn her into something that was more familiar to them.

A superhero.

And she's been kinda on a downward spiral with writers and some readers ever since.
I completely understand what you are saying. The reason you state for why she didn't need a secret identity is pretty much why I prefer characters with them though. It's just a preference, not a judgment on the merits of secret identities. And, of course, there are always exceptions. Personally, I think Diana's secret identity works in "walk a mile in their shoes" sort of way.

[Tobias March]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what Morrison is saying about the contradictions, but maybe he just doesn't like the whole character starts off with bondage overtones, but they still want to keep her virginal. Almost like they are indecisive with what they want from Diana; although that difference or irony makes the character interesting in a way.

I'd agree with this too. There's this confusion as to her being sexual and maternal all at once (http://community.livejournal.com/scans_daily/7083506.html).

Jean Grey suffered the same fate. Emma Frost not so much....if she is a mommy, she's a bad mommy :tongue:

[scout1279]

I'd agree with this too. There's this confusion as to her being sexual and maternal all at once (http://community.livejournal.com/scans_daily/7083506.html).

Jean Grey suffered the same fate. Emma Frost not so much....if she is a mommy, she's a bad mommy :tongue:
So Wonder Woman can't get a decent role in a summer event comic because Grant Morrison has a Madonna-whore complex?

[4PointOh]

So Wonder Woman can't get a decent role in a summer event comic because Grant Morrison has a Madonna-whore complex?

Yes. Yes, indeed.

[Tobias March]

So Wonder Woman can't get a decent role in a summer event comic because Grant Morrison has a Madonna-whore complex?

Um.....no. We're seeing the result of the Madonna-whore complex.

[scout1279]

Um.....no. We're seeing the result of the Madonna-whore complex.

You're the one that said Grant Morrison had a problem with Wonder Woman being sexual and maternal. The fact that she is both those things is a subversion of the Madonna-whore complex, and it's the most real, womanly thing about her on the most basic, biological level.

[Bombshell]

You're the one that said Grant Morrison had a problem with Wonder Woman being sexual and maternal. The fact that she is both those things is a subversion of the Madonna-whore complex, and it's the most real, womanly thing about her on the most basic, biological level.

I like that a lot.

[Tobias March]

You're the one that said Grant Morrison had a problem with Wonder Woman being sexual and maternal. The fact that she is both those things is a subversion of the Madonna-whore complex, and it's the most real, womanly thing about her on the most basic, biological level.

No that is not what I said. The notion of the Madonna is unsexual - biology does not have anything to do with it. Immaculate conception, a sex free maternal figure for all those sexually repressed Christians to accept.

Whore - sexually available, not a person. The disjunct is evidently present.

So we have a scene with Wonder Woman discussing her philosophy of 'peace with a sword', for example, while enjoying a gratuitous ass-shot.

I assume that is what Grant Morrison is referring to. He mentions a 'melange', of aspects to the character, some of which are mutually exclusive.

My issue with the character is that her portrayal in the past has been schizophrenically 'female'.

[cedardryad]

So we have a scene with Wonder Woman discussing her philosophy of 'peace with a sword', for example, while enjoying a gratuitous ass-shot.

I assume that is what Grant Morrison is referring to. He mentions a 'melange', of aspects to the character, some of which are mutually exclusive.

My issue with the character is that her portrayal in the past has been schizophrenically 'female'.

The great Nobunaga had a similar quote. "One nation under one sowrd." I don't know if there was a gratuitous ass-shot though.:biggrin:

The Goddess Venus, the actual one, is mostly seen as a sexual goddess of love. Many people don't see the maternal side of her as well. The softer side, the more protective side. There is no reason a woman can't be both sexually empowered, yet maternal. Although I can see why people can be weirded out by it. It's like seeing your mom being seen as a sex symbol. But to have her being sexually empowered and pure is odd to me.

[scout1279]

No that is not what I said. The notion of the Madonna is unsexual - biology does not have anything to do with it. Immaculate conception, a sex free maternal figure for all those sexually repressed Christians to accept.

Whore - sexually available, not a person. The disjunct is evidently present.

So we have a scene with Wonder Woman discussing her philosophy of 'peace with a sword', for example, while enjoying a gratuitous ass-shot.

I assume that is what Grant Morrison is referring to. He mentions a 'melange', of aspects to the character, some of which are mutually exclusive.

My issue with the character is that her portrayal in the past has been schizophrenically 'female'.
I think we have a bit of confusion over what the "Madonna-whore complex" is, rather than the two words individually.

[scout1279]

The great Nobunaga had a similar quote. "One nation under one sowrd." I don't know if there was a gratuitous ass-shot though.:biggrin:

The Goddess Venus, the actual one, is mostly seen as a sexual goddess of love. Many people don't see the maternal side of her as well. The softer side, the more protective side. There is no reason a woman can't be both sexually empowered, yet maternal. Although I can see why people can be weirded out by it. It's like seeing your mom being seen as a sex symbol. But to have her being sexually empowered and pure is odd to me.

By "pure" do you mean virginal, or specifically a virgin? Because from what I understand of her creation, I sincerely doubt that was Marston's intention at all.

[king mob]

So we have a scene with Wonder Woman discussing her philosophy of 'peace with a sword', for example, while enjoying a gratuitous ass-shot.


This is the problem I've had with the character for years, certainly since the Perez revamp which was fine until this above image quickly became a tiresome cliche.
We're supposed to accept WW as this warrior woman but she's really a woman of peace, but she's drawn like a Page 3 Stunna which is where the 'Madonna-whore' thing comes from.

I'm not one who cares about WW, it feels that she's been shoehorned into the 21st century in a way that's uncomfortable, plus there's a lot about the character that's just a bit naff. Though I did love that Trina Robbins series from some time back, that seemed like a fantastic approach for what is an incredibly hard character to make work, plus it avoided all this 'warrior woman' cliche (yes, I know it pre-dated much of this) that's followed the character over the last 15 or so years.

[king mob]

By "pure" do you mean virginal, or specifically a virgin? Because from what I understand of her creation, I sincerely doubt that was Marston's intention at all.


Probably not, it was clearly a wank-fantasy for him and male readers and still is, but that's much the same of most female superero characters.

[Tobias March]

The great Nobunaga had a similar quote. "One nation under one sowrd." I don't know if there was a gratuitous ass-shot though.:biggrin:

The Goddess Venus, the actual one, is mostly seen as a sexual goddess of love. Many people don't see the maternal side of her as well. The softer side, the more protective side. There is no reason a woman can't be both sexually empowered, yet maternal. Although I can see why people can be weirded out by it. It's like seeing your mom being seen as a sex symbol. But to have her being sexually empowered and pure is odd to me.

Its completely natural. It's depiction in comic books is skewed. Somehow a female character becoming pregnant is a threat to the male franchised character. Its bizarre.

See Reed brainwashing his son. Spidey and Mary Jane's child getting retconned. Cyclops and Jean losing their child to the future due to some odd disease (although in fairness it wasn't Jean's kid, but her clone's - yet she had assumed a maternal role nevertheless).

One of the great 80's movies is The Grifters, because the mother character is so sexual. No disjunct there.

With Wonder Woman I admire the initial conception of her by Marston, but feel it has become greatly confused. Leaving aside her sexuality and character - her aesthetic has become strictly greco-roman, whereas while mythical Amazonians date from that era, they do not come from that culture.

Scout I addressed the Madonna-Whore disjunct in my terms. My correction of you referred to you stating I had addressed that to Morrison. I did not. This is my perception of a 'problem', with the character.

Also I would add I feel Gail is addressing many of the lingering issues with conflicting depictions of Wonder Woman in her book. I feel confident that she will resolve many of them.

[cedardryad]

By "pure" do you mean virginal, or specifically a virgin? Because from what I understand of her creation, I sincerely doubt that was Marston's intention at all.

I don't think it was Marston's intention either, but other people decided to make her a virgin and stay that way. And I guess that is where the oddness lies. Obviously not all writers see her as still a virgin.

[Tom]

So Wonder Woman can't get a decent role in a summer event comic because Grant Morrison has a Madonna-whore complex?

I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. He gave an open and honest answer about why he's had problems getting a handle on the character.

[Tobias March]

Probably not, it was clearly a wank-fantasy for him and male readers and still is, but that's much the same of most female superero characters.

This is another issue. However, the loving submission notion of WW as a domineering female could address it if spelled out more often, however, that has been neglected. When that is the case, she becomes just another 'strong woman', scantily clothed.

That being said in The Circle trade I loved the scene with Captain Nazi. To me that scene alone redressed a lot of the problems with depictions of Wonder Woman in recent years. Not only does he become childlike under the power of the lasso - Diana wounds him with her understanding of why he became the monster he did, and how it related to his feelings towards his mother.

Brilliant scene.

[Kevinroc]

Casca has played a bigger role in the battles (actually fighting, not getting kidnapped) in Berserk (post-Eclipse) than Wonder Woman played throughout all of Final Crisis. There's something wrong with that.

(Poor Casca.)

[Black Atom]

I don't think it was Marston's intention either, but other people decided to make her a virgin and stay that way. And I guess that is where the oddness lies. Obviously not all writers see her as still a virgin.

Marston was rather progressive for his time and clearly was not bound by contemporary notions about sex and virtue--namely the idea of them as exclusive concepts. Like Superman, WW became pretty asexual after Marston left the book to give the character a sense of inherent goodness.

[DanCMH]

Great, someone else who doesn't get Wonder Woman. I honestly blame Didio (more than Morrison) for not including WW in FC.


I have a hard time criticizing Didio because....um...well...and some people out there might find this disturbing...I find him just hot as hell.

Shut up.

Lets face it...gay men are the same as straight men when it comes to the overwhelming power of their chosen eyecandy to distract one from other potential flaws...

I dont find Morrison to be even 1:55am and 2 six packs doable so I blame him and I'm ok with that.

[Bat-Reader]

But I disagree with him mightily about the contradictions. It's the contradictions that MAKE Wonder Woman fascinating, in my opinion. It's odd, because Batman and Superman have always been pure escapist fantasies and not very complicated at their point of origin

O_o

They are all escapist fantasies. Batman and Superman's orgins are the best origins among all tights. Hmm... Green Arrow is up there too with Green Arrow Year One.

[Joe Rice]

http://www.wackyjac.com/boudoir/gallery/gallery.html


That doesn't make any sense. Just because Grant posed in some sexy underwear doesn't mean he automatically feels comfortable writing a bondage character.

Yeah, I don't get how that's so shocking or weird.

[Chris Hansbrough]

Probably not, it was clearly a wank-fantasy for him and male readers and still is, but that's much the same of most female superero characters.

I hardly ever copy and paste but I don't feel like writing it again but that's utter bull shit. Wonder Woman was not a wank fantasy. it was a wonderfully piece of subversime material. but instead of typing the same thing all over again I'll just paste what I said elsewhere when someone made a similar comment about the bondage being all about fetish....

Marston wasn't necesarily a bondage fetishist. he held the belief that The only way to true peace was through a "Submission to loving authority"

Bondage wasn't necesarily how he got his rocks off. It's part of The idea of Loving Authority. His Wonder Woman was subversive not because of bondage. it was subversive because the bondage was a greater message he was trying to send. His stories were wierd. but there were so many wonderful things in them. Etta was a hugely overweight woman. at the same time though, she was beautiful. Wonder Woman went to planets ruled by women where ones whole goal was to spend life in prison before being released into society and they never wanted to leave the constraints and peace of the prison that epitomized the idea of the submission to a loving authority. going so far as to send the woman because she refused to leave the prison to help rule society to the prison run by men where it was a prison represented by those that we have here with hard labor and mistreatment to teach a lesson. Wonder Woman has this wonderful history, and a beautiful piece. But there was a lot more to the bondage stuff than fetishism.

There is so much more to Marstons Wonder Woman and there is an amazing level of depth that not many people actually realize. at this point from actually researching the guy and what he believed it made the book even better. It seems creepy if you take everything at face value but the level of depth to his stories is actually quite amazing.

That's one of the things I love about the golden age. Especially the early golden age. Superman and Wonder Woman were easily the most subversive pieces of literature to ever be produced. Yes....Superman and Wonder WOman, not Batman. Batman can be a universal story but Superman and Wonder WOman were actually brought in to expand on viewpoints. Superman to show the immigrant lifestyle yes but he wasn't a crusader for justice. He didn't fight supervillains for a good while....He fought for Social Justice and Change. He fought crooked businessmen and corruption. Wonder Woman also had the belief that the true piece is acheived through that submission to loving authority.

God I love the Golden age for those reasons It's also one of the reasons I'm loving Gails Wonder Woman. Especially that secnd arc with the Khund planet and solving the problem not with violence but in the end with love. the gorilla fight and more....it's bringing that feeling back of the book trying to actually mean something along with having a great character

[Christopher Cross Is God]

GM: I wondered about that myself. I love what Gail Simone (especially) and other writers have done to empower the Wonder Woman concept but I must admit I’ve always sensed something slightly bogus and troubling at its heart. When I dug into the roots of the character I found an uneasy melange of girl power, bondage and disturbed sexuality that has never been adequately dealt with or fully processed out to my mind. I’ve always felt there was something oddly artificial about Wonder Woman, something not like a woman at all.

I can see why he has that perspective. It's an interesting outlook on the character, and I wouldn't necessarily say it's wrong.

But, I don't see his perspective rightfully giving him free-reign to treat the character like he did. I saw it as a complete waste. To each their own, though.



...as far as his promise to try to do better next time, personally Id prefer he didnt bother.

Agreed.

[berk]

I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. He gave an open and honest answer about why he's had problems getting a handle on the character.This can't be repeated enough, as far as I'm concerned. Morrison's willingness to be up-front about this kind of thing is something we need more of.

Most of us, as comics readers, have some ideas regarding how certain characters or story-concepts, special perhaps to no one but ourselves, should be treated by writers and artists. Most of the time you can't even get people to acknowledge that there's an issue to be discussed. Morrison's honesty is exactly what's needed before any such discussion can ever take place in a meaningful way.

To take myself as an example, I'm always on about Kirby's New Gods and Eternals: Morrison's about the only writer I've come across who, in his comments and interviews, has ever opened up even the possibility of a discussion about what makes at least one of those concepts work. He came right out and said what he thought about Kirby's Fourth World, etc, and not in any sort of vague, meaningless way, but in a manner that made it clear to any fan that he'd really spent some time reading an thinking about this stuff.

I respect that. Particularly because it's so very rare to see. And I say that even though I don't think his Final Crisis, after readin this last issue, really worked very well as a Kirby/NG story.

But that's just my thing. Morrison's WW comments ideally should generate a discussion, not of how good or bad a WW writer he is, but of the issues he raises, which I think most people would say come pretty close to the very core of that character. I only wish some writer would do as much for any of MY favourite characters or ideas, then I might be able to get across why I think they're bein presented wrongly.

[Constantine Drakon]

I think Grant has inadvertently written something that highlights one of the biggest problems facing mainstream comics today.

Grant is a clever, creative, and often funny and charming man. He is not a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or anything like that.

But like many in the industry, fans and creators alike, he worships at the altar of nostalgia. Much of Final Crisis is built on allusions and homages to older stories, and the "cool bits" are generally exclusively reserved for those characters that he felt were cool in the Golden and Silver Ages.

Do you begin to see the problem? In the Golden and Silver Ages, almost every hero was a straight white male. So if you're just concerned with the characters that you thought were cool in the past, that means you're just concerned with a small number of straight white males.

Flip through Final Crisis. I'm not the first to notice that the gals in Final Crisis didn't do as well as the guys. (http://blog.newsarama.com/2009/01/26/final-crisis-wondering-about-wonder-woman/) Not by a long shot! But the interview really drives home the why of it. Grant tries to do something clever by researching the characters' pasts, looking for "classic" imagery he can use in his stories, for old stories he can allude to. Fair enough. The thing is though, in Wonder Woman (and likely the older stories of many other female characters) he's not going to find much that he likes. Rather than correct the problem by doing good things with the characters now, he gets so hung up on the way things used to be that he perpetuates the problem. The characters continue to get used poorly because he's not comfortable with the older material.

And so we've got another generation reading the biggest Big Event Book in years, and they don't see any of the girls doing anything cool or impressive (and the only non-whites doing much are essentially alternate-reality repaints of white characters). And it's very likely that when the people reading this get a little older and go to write something, they'll ask themselves "who should be the one to save the day?" and the answer will be "the ones that saved the day when I was younger." You know, those young good-looking straight white men.

Vicious cycle.

[berk]

I think Grant has inadvertently written something that highlights one of the biggest problems facing mainstream comics today.

Grant is a clever, creative, and often funny and charming man. He is not a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or anything like that.

But like many in the industry, fans and creators alike, he worships at the altar of nostalgia. Much of Final Crisis is built on allusions and homages to older stories, and the "cool bits" are generally exclusively reserved for those characters that he felt were cool in the Golden and Silver Ages.

Do you begin to see the problem? In the Golden and Silver Ages, almost every hero was a straight white male. So if you're just concerned with the characters that you thought were cool in the past, that means you're just concerned with a small number of straight white males.

Flip through Final Crisis. I'm not the first to notice that the gals in Final Crisis didn't do as well as the guys. (http://blog.newsarama.com/2009/01/26/final-crisis-wondering-about-wonder-woman/) Not by a long shot! But the interview really drives home the why of it. Grant tries to do something clever by researching the characters' pasts, looking for "classic" imagery he can use in his stories, for old stories he can allude to. Fair enough. The thing is though, in Wonder Woman (and likely the older stories of many other female characters) he's not going to find much that he likes. Rather than correct the problem by doing good things with the characters now, he gets so hung up on the way things used to be that he perpetuates the problem. The characters continue to get used poorly because he's not comfortable with the older material.

And so we've got another generation reading the biggest Big Event Book in years, and they don't see any of the girls doing anything cool or impressive (and the only non-whites doing much are essentially alternate-reality repaints of white characters). And it's very likely that when the people reading this get a little older and go to write something, they'll ask themselves "who should be the one to save the day?" and the answer will be "the ones that saved the day when I was younger." You know, those young good-looking straight white men.

Vicious cycle.I think you're on the right track in one sense: Morrison's definitely in love with the DCU and especially with the iconic characters of Batman and Superman.

This is a love I do not share, and probably one of the main reasons Final Crisis hasn't really fulfilled my hopes.

But I think you're totally off track in another sense: Morrison's seems to have wanted to make not only Mister Miracle, but all the New New Gods "black" , so I think he was making a conscious effort there to swim against the "Direct Current."

I think his desire to write a definitive DCU epic pretty much saddled him with a lot of these problems, just by virtue of what the DCU is. Not, I hasten to add, that Marvel is any better.

[Tobias March]

Do you begin to see the problem? In the Golden and Silver Ages, almost every hero was a straight white male. So if you're just concerned with the characters that you thought were cool in the past, that means you're just concerned with a small number of straight white males.

Flip through Final Crisis. I'm not the first to notice that the gals in Final Crisis didn't do as well as the guys. (http://blog.newsarama.com/2009/01/26/final-crisis-wondering-about-wonder-woman/) Not by a long shot! But the interview really drives home the why of it. Grant tries to do something clever by researching the characters' pasts, looking for "classic" imagery he can use in his stories, for old stories he can allude to. Fair enough. The thing is though, in Wonder Woman (and likely the older stories of many other female characters) he's not going to find much that he likes. Rather than correct the problem by doing good things with the characters now, he gets so hung up on the way things used to be that he perpetuates the problem. The characters continue to get used poorly because he's not comfortable with the older material.

Yet in the face of Mary Marvel running rampant the only person who could withstand her was Supergirl. Billy depowered her, but that was after he and the macho Black Adam got punched into the ground (just see her leather boot on Adam's face and the upward shot....Venus in Furs by the Velvet Underground just came on randomly. Awesome).

See also the Question recruiting the vast army of Supermen.

Or Black Canary slapping Ollie silly (hurrah)

[Lester C.]

I think Joe is right that no one expects Batman or Superman to represent all men, but that burden often falls on WW with women.

I don't think of her like that...she has to be a character, not an agenda. Let the message be her actions, not her sole reason for being.

If a black man is the first at something the spotlight on him or her to represent all black people and if they fail it's seen as a failure of all black people.Wonder Woman is the only female character to support her own book on a consistent basis year in year out so the spotlight and preasure is on her.

[Paul McEnery]

I think Grant has inadvertently written something that highlights one of the biggest problems facing mainstream comics today.

Grant is a clever, creative, and often funny and charming man. He is not a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or anything like that.

But like many in the industry, fans and creators alike, he worships at the altar of nostalgia. Much of Final Crisis is built on allusions and homages to older stories, and the "cool bits" are generally exclusively reserved for those characters that he felt were cool in the Golden and Silver Ages.

Do you begin to see the problem? In the Golden and Silver Ages, almost every hero was a straight white male. So if you're just concerned with the characters that you thought were cool in the past, that means you're just concerned with a small number of straight white males.

Flip through Final Crisis. I'm not the first to notice that the gals in Final Crisis didn't do as well as the guys. (http://blog.newsarama.com/2009/01/26/final-crisis-wondering-about-wonder-woman/) Not by a long shot! But the interview really drives home the why of it. Grant tries to do something clever by researching the characters' pasts, looking for "classic" imagery he can use in his stories, for old stories he can allude to. Fair enough. The thing is though, in Wonder Woman (and likely the older stories of many other female characters) he's not going to find much that he likes. Rather than correct the problem by doing good things with the characters now, he gets so hung up on the way things used to be that he perpetuates the problem. The characters continue to get used poorly because he's not comfortable with the older material.

And so we've got another generation reading the biggest Big Event Book in years, and they don't see any of the girls doing anything cool or impressive (and the only non-whites doing much are essentially alternate-reality repaints of white characters). And it's very likely that when the people reading this get a little older and go to write something, they'll ask themselves "who should be the one to save the day?" and the answer will be "the ones that saved the day when I was younger." You know, those young good-looking straight white men.

Vicious cycle.

That dog won't hunt.

If there's one person who's bent over backwards to diversify the characters, it's been Grant. But the point of this was to work with the DC universe as it is, not as it might be.

I mean, dear God. Start a comic off with a black superman in the White House and people still give you stick. For that matter, your entire complaint was already noted and voiced:

"I don't fucking believe it. A whole fucking multiverse, and they all look like you guys."

Said to two black characters. By a Latina.

[Paul McEnery]

I hardly ever copy and paste but I don't feel like writing it again but that's utter bull shit. Wonder Woman was not a wank fantasy. it was a wonderfully piece of subversime material. but instead of typing the same thing all over again I'll just paste what I said elsewhere when someone made a similar comment about the bondage being all about fetish....

Marston wasn't necesarily a bondage fetishist. he held the belief that The only way to true peace was through a "Submission to loving authority"

Bondage wasn't necesarily how he got his rocks off. It's part of The idea of Loving Authority. His Wonder Woman was subversive not because of bondage. it was subversive because the bondage was a greater message he was trying to send. His stories were wierd. but there were so many wonderful things in them. Etta was a hugely overweight woman. at the same time though, she was beautiful. Wonder Woman went to planets ruled by women where ones whole goal was to spend life in prison before being released into society and they never wanted to leave the constraints and peace of the prison that epitomized the idea of the submission to a loving authority. going so far as to send the woman because she refused to leave the prison to help rule society to the prison run by men where it was a prison represented by those that we have here with hard labor and mistreatment to teach a lesson. Wonder Woman has this wonderful history, and a beautiful piece. But there was a lot more to the bondage stuff than fetishism.


I doubt I'm the only one who thinks you've just described a wank-fantasy.

[Spiffy]

I actually get where he's coming from. I've never really "gotten" Wonder Woman, though I know many people who have. The bondage history, in particular, makes me and, it seems, Morrison, queasy overall.

This is a guy who just went MAJORLY fetishistic in this last work. So I don't think his problem is queasiness over a past where WW liked tying people up.

I think he just doesn't get the contrast between her being a hard core warrior and yet also at times very soft. Being a peacemaker and a killer all in one. A warm presence and yet also stone cold.

And remember, he's all hung up on archetypes and "core mythos" as a way to convey his characters. He doesn't really get that this character's mythos is MORE than the hokey yet kinky early stuff.

[Paul McEnery]

This is a guy who just went MAJORLY fetishistic in this last work. So I don't think his problem is queasiness over a past where WW liked tying people up.

I think he just doesn't get the contrast between her being a hard core warrior and yet also at times very soft. Being a peacemaker and a killer all in one. A warm presence and yet also stone cold.

And remember, he's all hung up on archetypes and "core mythos" as a way to convey his characters. He doesn't really get that this character's mythos is MORE than the hokey yet kinky early stuff.

I think there's a bigger thing there, something to do with Marston's own psychology as a goddess-worshiping guy with issues surrounding his own masculinity. I think Alan Moore caught some of it in Promethea by making his Marston-analogue secretly transgender -- and I feel there's something there about Marston being the inventor of the polygraph. Freud senses tingling!

So the success of Marston's creation has a lot to do with the projection of the hidden (suppressed) femininity of fifties American man. We might also ask ourselves similar questions about the success of, say, Warren Ellis's female characters. There's certain men -- myself included -- who'd love the world to be populated with Sarah Connor and Ripley analogues; but as plausible as that may be, I still recognize that as Cameron's projection.

Plus, I think the business with Mary Marvel being possessed by a dirty old man of a god speaks volumes.

[Constantine Drakon]

But I think you're totally off track in another sense: Morrison's seems to have wanted to make not only Mister Miracle, but all the New New Gods "black" , so I think he was making a conscious effort there to swim against the "Direct Current."

A laudable goal, but I'm not sure about that execution. Of the New Gods, the attention was largely on Darkseid (possessing a white man in this, after giving up his black body in the first issue) Desaad in Mary Marvel, Kalibak the tigerman, and yes, Shiloh... but mostly Darkseid in Turpin, really. Shiloh's the best of the lot for trying to include some diversity in the DCU, but when it came time to do the really cool things that saved the day, Shiloh was nowhere to be seen.


Yet in the face of Mary Marvel running rampant the only person who could withstand her was Supergirl.

"Supergirl held her own against a possessed Mary Marvel, until Captain Marvel figured out how to save Mary, and cures her by grabbing her and yelling SHAZAM" is about the best accomplishment any female character achieves in this Event. Compare that to destroying the god of evil, or finishing off the ultimate-enemy parasite sucking the multiverse dry, or destroying an experimental army of evil supersoldiers (that last one was done through sheer personality and bad-assness).


Or Black Canary slapping Ollie silly (hurrah)

Make the same comparison. Seriously, Tawky Tawny tears apart Darkseid's son, and Black Canary gets to "slap Ollie silly"?




See also the Question recruiting the vast army of Supermen.

I'm still not sure if Captain Marvel was the one in charge, or if they were partners, but it certainly wasn't all up to her. And note that it was the SUPERMEN that were important. No need for, say, alternate reality Wonder Women. The guys can handle this.


That dog won't hunt.

I reckon that dog hunted just fine.



If there's one person who's bent over backwards to diversify the characters, it's been Grant.

Oh, and fair dues to the man for that! Don't get me wrong! I'm not saying that Morrison's whole career is an example of the problems you get when you only care about characters that were important in the past. I said: "I think Grant has inadvertently written something that highlights one of the biggest problems facing mainstream comics today." And while he's written plenty of other books working to add diversity, this is the one that's going to be seen by the most people. And the same old small number of iconic heroes were the ones that played the key roles (as oppossed to "blink and you miss them" cameos of questionable importance) at the end of this... minus, notably, Wonder Woman (because her origins didn't set well with Grant, I suppose).

[Tobias March]

http://www.robertjpetersen.com/invisibles/one/v1_19.jpg

Nostalgia!

Wait....you wanted Canary to gut Ollie! But then we'll be denied more badly written marital angst!

[oddballuk]

I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. He gave an open and honest answer about why he's had problems getting a handle on the character.

Agreed. I don't totally agree with his original assessment of the character but I understand where he was coming from in that assessment and respect that he was honest about it.

Also, when Morrison says:


Grant Morrison: I relegated Wonder Woman to a role that best summed up my original negative feelings about the character. My apologies to her fans and I promise to be a little more constructive next time around.

Am I the only one that got, from this interview (and the line above) and from Final Crisis itself (especially the scene in FC #7 where Diana crushes her mask after being freed) as Morrison taking those negative feelings he had, identifying as negative in the story (Darkseid's influence) and then doing away with them and moving beyond them (the crushing of the mask).

Morrison still might not get the character if he feels he can resolve her contradictions rather than embrace them like Gail Simone has been doing, but at least he's honest that his feelings were "negative", that he has thought about it and the character and will try to be better next time. And maybe Morrison will succeed.


Make the same comparison. Seriously, Tawky Tawny tears apart Darkseid's son, and Black Canary gets to "slap Ollie silly"?

I'm still not sure if Captain Marvel was the one in charge, or if they were partners, but it certainly wasn't all up to her. And note that it was the SUPERMEN that were important. No need for, say, alternate reality Wonder Women. The guys can handle this.

The Talky Tawny scene was Morrison focusing on the Marvel family, addressing the links he'd seen between Talky Tawny and Kirby's Tiger Men and delivering a kick ass action sequence. Yes, it was a male character getting a big moment but I don't see a gender bias in giving that particular character a bigger scene than Black Canary.

Regarding the army of Supermen. I don't see that as a put down to Wonder Woman (any of them) at all. Superman is an icon. His iconography has power. Morrison was addressing this in Superman Beyond and using it as a weapon against Mandrakk just as he uses the army against Mandrakk in FC #7. That they were all men seems because the iconography identifies the Superman archetype as a man.

[thehod]

The problem I've always had with Wonder Woman has little to do with the origins of her character or her presentation over the years, but more to do with the fact that I struggle to see her as little more than a female Superman.

I know she's not, but thats how I've always felt about her, hence my abivilance to the character.

I have the same problem with Captain Marvel and his band. All Superman knock-offs and as such I've never been overly enamoured by them.

[Constantine Drakon]

The Talky Tawny scene was Morrison focusing on the Marvel family, addressing the links he'd seen between Talky Tawny and Kirby's Tiger Men and delivering a kick ass action sequence. Yes, it was a male character getting a big moment but I see a gender bias in giving that particular character a bigger scene than Black Canary.




In that one comparison alone, no, but there's a trend overall. And I don't believe it's so much a "gender bias" so much as a bias in favor of characters Grant thinks were cool in older comics... which, of course, pretty much means a bunch of guys, since in those older comics women tended to get the short end of the stick. And since many writers (and fans) are only concerned with those characters that stood out when they were growing up... I've said "vicious cycle" already, haven't I?



Regarding the army of Supermen. I don't see that as a put down to Wonder Woman (any of them) at all. Superman is an icon. His iconography has power. Morrison was addressing this in Superman Beyond and using it as a weapon against Mandrakk just as he uses the army against Mandrakk in FC #7. That they were all men seems because the iconography identifies the Superman archetype as a man.

I totally agree with you that his intent was not to insult Wonder Woman or anything like that. His intent was to pay homage to what he feels are the great icons of DC comics. The trouble being that DC comics has tended to be very homogeneous in the past, and with his decision to play up the importance of the iconography he particularly likes, he just reinforces the imbalance. When you're too concerned with referencing old comics and trumpeting their symbolism, you run the risk of perpetuating the problems of old.

And again, while I understand the meta-textual symbolism of it all, I do think it's extremely insulting to say that on every damn one of the 52 worlds the greatest hero has ended up being some variation on Superman. No world where Ray Terrill ended up being most important? Or Firestorm? Dr. Light (male or female)? Not even Wonder Woman? No, every single world's best hero is some version of Superman? Yes, I understand the symbolism of it, I understand that he's DC's first hero, the first comic book superhero, and all the other reasons Grant has for doing it, I just think it's a bad call and more than a little insulting to all the other characters out there. Oh, and it's one other thing too... boring.

[Tobias March]

And again, while I understand the meta-textual symbolism of it all, I do think it's extremely insulting to say that on every damn one of the 52 worlds the greatest hero has ended up being some variation on Superman. No world where Kimoyo Hoshi ended up being most important? Or Firestorm? Or even Wonder Woman? No, every single world's best hero is some version of Superman? Yes, I understand the symbolism of it, I understand that he's DC's first hero, the first comic book superhero, and all the other reasons Grant has for doing it, I just think it's a bad call and more than a little insulting to all the other characters out there.

Why are they all Superman? As the Question remarks ".....heroes? I don't %#$@?$# believe this. A whole %#$@?$# Multiverse and they all look like you guys?

Apollo. The Sentry. And Captain Marvel. They all are in line behind Superman, because Superman is DC's most popular character and that will always be that way - because he's a commercial property. He is not a free story, to grow and develop organically. Neither are any of the other 'stories'. They must all be secondary to Kal El.

This is not evident of gender bias on the part of Morrison, even an unacknowledged one on the part of DC. It's a commercial concern. Given that Crisis on Infinite Earths resulted in Clark become the 'Last Son of Krypton'. Final Crisis makes him one among a multitude.

That ad in the middle of the book 'The only thing greater than a Supergirl...is a Superwoman'. If that were to convince everyone to run out and buy Supergirl and leave Superman in its dust (and wouldn't it be great if it did), maybe we'd see a gender reversed version of this -

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a73/walkie20/7.jpg

[Cam63]

Kal cries like a wee gurl !

[oddballuk]

In that one comparison alone, no, but there's a trend overall. And I don't believe it's so much a "gender bias" so much as a bias in favor of characters Grant thinks were cool in older comics... which, of course, pretty much means a bunch of guys, since in those older comics women tended to get the short end of the stick. And since many writers (and fans) are only concerned with those characters that stood out when they were growing up... I've said "vicious cycle" already, haven't I?

I totally agree with you that his intent was not to insult Wonder Woman or anything like that. His intent was to pay homage to what he feels are the great icons of DC comics. The trouble being that DC comics has tended to be very homogeneous in the past, and with his decision to play up the importance of the iconography he particularly likes, he just reinforces the imbalance. When you're too concerned with referencing old comics and trumpeting their symbolism, you run the risk of perpetuating the problems of old.

And again, while I understand the meta-textual symbolism of it all, I do think it's extremely insulting to say that on every damn one of the 52 worlds the greatest hero has ended up being some variation on Superman. No world where Ray Terrill ended up being most important? Or Firestorm? Dr. Light (male or female)? Not even Wonder Woman? No, every single world's best hero is some version of Superman? Yes, I understand the symbolism of it, I understand that he's DC's first hero, the first comic book superhero, and all the other reasons Grant has for doing it, I just think it's a bad call and more than a little insulting to all the other characters out there. Oh, and it's one other thing too... boring.

That's fair enough on both counts and I can certainly see how Morrison can, and does, sometimes ignore the, sometimes, obvious logic fr something like all the greatest heroes being men if it does favor his approach to the iconography he's aiming for.

I do think part of his desire to look into the icongraphy and history of these heroes to provoke discussions such as those we're having here. I don't think we'll always come away seeing them the way Morrison does but I think we always come away with a deeper understanding than we might have had before.

[OzBat!]

I think it's obvious that what Grant's saying is that he couldn't find his way inside the character to find its mythic heart, the same way he got inside Superman and Batman. Which is to say, that the character wasn't yet revealing itself to him.
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. Mercurialblonde was the only other person I've seen in this thread who actually addressed what he actually said:


Having said that, I became quite fascinated by these contradictions and problems and tried to resolve them for what turned into a different project entirely. Partly because I didn’t want to use any of that new material in Final Crisis, I relegated Wonder Woman to a role that best summed up my original negative feelings about the character. My apologies to her fans and I promise to be a little more constructive next time around.
(see the bolded bit)

As for Grant, I think the larger story here is that he's come across something he likes about the character, and apparently wants to use in the future. Which sounds a lot like what Gail is saying with regards to Barda and Bane.
The big question is, is that "different project entirely" still a Wonder Woman story, or is it something unrelated that he's stumbled across, a non-WW story idea generated while attempting to resolve the contradictions?

Only Grant knows for sure. He didn't want to use this new material in Final Crisis because it would have dragged things in other directions that the story didn't need to go in. But in the process of deliberately leaving this stuff out, he didn't have anything else WW-related that could do her justice, so all we've got for her in Final Crisis is a cypher used by the bad guys, until the very end. That's not Grant being negative by design, that's being negative by omission, and there's a difference. Everything else that's been ascribed to Grant in this thread is just us, filling the hole with our own presuppositions about how he really feels about Diana, when he's flat out said that the stuff he's thought about Diana, he couldn't put in the story.

[Indigo Al]

Honestly, I'm struggling to find a Morrison female character that ever truly shone...? Emma Frost, maybe? Lady Edith in Invisibles? Crazy Jane? I liked the thought he put into Supergirl for Final Crisis though.

But regardless...


I think there's a bigger thing there, something to do with Marston's own psychology as a goddess-worshiping guy with issues surrounding his own masculinity. I think Alan Moore caught some of it in Promethea by making his Marston-analogue secretly transgender -- and I feel there's something there about Marston being the inventor of the polygraph. Freud senses tingling!

So the success of Marston's creation has a lot to do with the projection of the hidden (suppressed) femininity of fifties American man. We might also ask ourselves similar questions about the success of, say, Warren Ellis's female characters. There's certain men -- myself included -- who'd love the world to be populated with Sarah Connor and Ripley analogues; but as plausible as that may be, I still recognize that as Cameron's projection.

Plus, I think the business with Mary Marvel being possessed by a dirty old man of a god speaks volumes.

You're onto something here.

Me, I think that her "problem" (ie the fan's problem) is that she's not just a sexy headlights heroine, a cute innocent, or a Bad Girl. She's all and none of those things at once. And when she doesn't reflect a simple sexual persona that an average male fanboy gets, they get kinda angry about it...

[4PointOh]

That's not Grant being negative by design, that's being negative by omission, and there's a difference.

Not when the result is the same: a negative portrayal.

[4PointOh]

Me, I think that her "problem" (ie the fan's problem) is that she's not just a sexy headlights heroine, a cute innocent, or a Bad Girl. She's all and none of those things at once. And when she doesn't reflect a simple sexual persona that an average male fanboy gets, they get kinda angry about it...

And they also get angry, I think, because even when she's the "sexy headlights heroine," it's for HER pleasure. That THEY find it pleasurable is besides the point. So how to reconcile the wet dream that refuses to be merely your wet dream?

[Agent Helix]

Wow, the projecting in here could put any IMAX theater to shame.

[Joe Rice]

And they also get angry, I think, because even when she's the "sexy headlights heroine," it's for HER pleasure. That THEY find it pleasurable is besides the point. So how to reconcile the wet dream that refuses to be merely your wet dream?

Wow, way to fail and telepathy! I mean, really, trying to speculate on others' thoughts is pretty difficult and not a good debate technique.

I don't like Wonder Woman because she is usually boring, has not definite characteristics over time, and she was born out of creepy fantasy. Doesn't mean I don't like any story she's in, but she's not a character I connect with.

[Joe Rice]

Wow, the projecting in here could put any IMAX theater to shame.

Dang, I owe you a Coke, and a more-succinct one at that.

[Corrina]

The Talky Tawny scene was Morrison focusing on the Marvel family, addressing the links he'd seen between Talky Tawny and Kirby's Tiger Men and delivering a kick ass action sequence. Yes, it was a male character getting a big moment but I don't see a gender bias in giving that particular character a bigger scene than Black Canary.

Regarding the army of Supermen. I don't see that as a put down to Wonder Woman (any of them) at all. Superman is an icon. His iconography has power. Morrison was addressing this in Superman Beyond and using it as a weapon against Mandrakk just as he uses the army against Mandrakk in FC #7. That they were all men seems because the iconography identifies the Superman archetype as a man.

See, I don't think that's the point of what was said, that there was a specific 'gender bias' or an intention to avoid WW---the point was that because the archetypes were created years ago, when white males were seen as the only real heroes, using those archetypes today perpetuates that stereotype.

There was no 'Black Canary is a girl and therefore I will give her a less big moment.' There was only "MARVEL FAMILY COOL!" or "Superman is the iconic hero."

But by focusing the main thrust of the story on those older icons, new ones more diverse in gender or race aren't created as icons---they still end up as supporting cast, whatever the intentions.

[4PointOh]

Wow, way to fail and telepathy! I mean, really, trying to speculate on others' thoughts is pretty difficult and not a good debate technique.

I don't like Wonder Woman because she is usually boring, has not definite characteristics over time, and she was born out of creepy fantasy. Doesn't mean I don't like any story she's in, but she's not a character I connect with.

It's my opinion, dude. Not a debate tactic, just a thought. That's why I said, "I think."

Slow your roll, duke.

[4PointOh]

Wow, the projecting in here could put any IMAX theater to shame.

I'm gay. Wonder Woman isn't a sexual fantasy for me.

[oddballuk]

See, I don't think that's the point of what was said, that there was a specific 'gender bias' or an intention to avoid WW---the point was that because the archetypes were created years ago, when white males were seen as the only real heroes, using those archetypes today perpetuates that stereotype.

There was no 'Black Canary is a girl and therefore I will give her a less big moment.' There was only "MARVEL FAMILY COOL!" or "Superman is the iconic hero."

But by focusing the main thrust of the story on those older icons, new ones more diverse in gender or race aren't created as icons---they still end up as supporting cast, whatever the intentions.

Yeah, Constantine Drakon explained that to me too and I agreed. No worries.

[Solaris]

When I read Superman or Spider-man or Batman, I can generally say, "No, that's not all men, but I know guys like that in some way." I never feel that way with Wonder Woman. She tends to be "What men think a strong woman is/should be" and it rings false most times. Not all times, mind you, but I think she's really tricky to write.

I've read through to this point in your discussion with Tom, and in particular, I found this statement fascinating.

The question that came to my mind was, "And is it that you really *don't* know any women like this---or is it that the way you see those women is something that you simply don't *notice* their heroism, or their strength, or courage, or honesty, or any number of other qualities people associate with Wonder Woman?"

I'm not being accusatory with that question---but it's something I think of, with any man who thinks "I don't know a single woman who is, in some way, like Wonder Woman." I say that because I know several women who are like her "in some way"---so I have to wonder, do you just have piss-poor luck in the women you know... or is it that you aren't recognizing their similarities to WW when you see them?

I hope you (and maybe others who feel the way you do) will go off and think about it for a little bit, then come back with what you find---because I'm intensely curious as to what your answer will be. And, no fault if, after doing so, you decide that your original statement still stands, btw. I just want to know, and hope you'll take the time to think about it.

:smile:

***

For my part, I have to say that there are many women out there who have something in common with WW, including several women right here on this forum.

Gail is one: she doesn't hesitate to take on someone she thinks is wrong; she is willing to admit to her own foibles and errors, and takes responsibility for them; she strongly champions causes she believes in (whether it's something far-reaching, or trying to get help for an individual she believes deserves it). She also "plays with the Big Boys as a Big Girl"---in her work, she doesn't shy away from doing it her way, nor does she get intimidated by the guys in the profession.

There are many other women here who champion causes, who seek to expand understanding and education and compassion, who live and act as honestly as they can, who expect those things from others, who are strong in themselves and serve as a role model for other women and men alike.

And for you purists about her origin... there are even a few of us who don't mind a little light bondage, to go with it all! :wink: :biggrin:

There are various facets of Wonder Woman being exemplified in living, breathing, women all around us. So, to those of you who say you've never seen it, ask yourself: am I really seeing what's there? Or is there something in me that's making me not notice it, or maybe to relegate it to a "lesser" status of importance when I *do* see it?

There are many women out there like Diana. There are many women out there like Oracle. I could go on, but you get the idea. The point is, do you, both men and women, *notice* the resemblance? Do you make the connection? And if not... why not?

[oddballuk]

Not when the result is the same: a negative portrayal.

Only the result is the same, the intentions do make a difference.

I don't agree with Morrison's original thoughts of the character either, and i'm a big Morrison fan, but I at least credit him with identifying that those thoughts he had were negative and is putting thought into why and also into perhaps changing those negative thoughts.

In the comic it seems he's clearly marked those thoughts as negative, wrapped them up as such (the evil of Darkseid's influence in this context) then had Diana freed of them, crushing the mask she was wearing. I see that as Morrison putting those thoughts to rest and moving on towards understanding Diana in a more in depth and positive manner. He just, and he admitted as such, didn't have room or time to fit them into Final Crisis and will explore them later.

I feel this makes him much braver then many other creators who don't understand the character but aren't willing to acknowledge it or examine why.

I'm not confident he can come to better understanding of Diana is he wants to resolve her contradictions rather than embrace them as Gail has but when he apologises to fans and says he will be more constructive in future then I believe him.

[4PointOh]

Only the result is the same, the intentions do make a difference.

I don't agree with Morrison's original thoughts of the character either, and i'm a big Morrison fan, but I at least credit him with identifying that those thoughts he had were negative and is putting thought into why and also into perhaps changing those negative thoughts.

In the comic it seems he's clearly marked those thoughts as negative, wrapped them up as such (the evil of Darkseid's influence in this context) then had Diana freed of them, crushing the mask she was wearing. I see that as Morrison putting those thoughts to rest and moving on towards understanding Diana in a more in depth and positive manner. He just, and he admitted as such, didn't have room or time to fit them into Final Crisis and will explore them later.

I feel this makes him much braver then many other creators who don't understand the character but aren't willing to acknowledge it or examine why.

I'm not confident he can come to better understanding of Diana is he wants to resolve her contradictions rather than embrace them as Gail has but when he apologises to fans and says he will be more constructive in future then I believe him.

I admire Morrison for being honest, too. But as a friend of mine stated:

...he deliberately writes a story that is based on his negative feelings about her, knowing that his feelings changed, instead of just not doing anything at all or at least making her neutral? i'm not sure i like that. it doesn't seem right. and telling us that he'll do better next time, when he could have simply modified the existing story seems like a cop out. i understand him not wanting to use the new elements, but that doesn't mean he has to stick with the old ones. by doing what he did, he established wonder woman in this story as being the representation of his negative thoughts about her. if this played into how the story changed her (as the anti-life equation does) then at least it plays into the story. instead, it's his version of wonder woman based on his negative feelings and nothing more. nothing redeeming, nothing of value, nothing wonder woman.

[Joe Rice]

I've read through to this point in your discussion with Tom, and in particular, I found this statement fascinating.

The question that came to my mind was, "And is it that you really *don't* know any women like this---or is it that the way you see those women is something that you simply don't *notice* their heroism, or their strength, or courage, or honesty, or any number of other qualities people associate with Wonder Woman?"

I'm not being accusatory with that question---but it's something I think of, with any man who thinks "I don't know a single woman who is, in some way, like Wonder Woman." I say that because I know several women who are like her "in some way"---so I have to wonder, do you just have piss-poor luck in the women you know... or is it that you aren't recognizing their similarities to WW when you see them?


The problem is not that I don't know women like what you describe. The problem is that's rarely how I see Wonder Woman. I'm surrounded by beautiful, heroic, strong, honest women. But that's not how I see Wonder Woman. She more often seems a blank slate upon which men's ideas of women are projected; whether it be Marston's fetishism, Rucka's tough-chickism, Jimenez' mother goddess, etc. She's not consistent, there's not a through-line to her other than "heroine."

If she were more like the actual women I knew, heroic, strong, brave, tough, beautiful . . .then I'd "get" her more.

[Solaris]

Wow, way to fail and telepathy! I mean, really, trying to speculate on others' thoughts is pretty difficult and not a good debate technique.

I don't like Wonder Woman because she is usually boring, has not definite characteristics over time, and she was born out of creepy fantasy. Doesn't mean I don't like any story she's in, but she's not a character I connect with.


Granted, I've not read every WW ever written from the first issue onward... but I disagree that she's not got defining characteristics:

Compassion in the Present
Hope for the Future
Defense of those who are often victims, both physically and in speaking up for their rights
Upholding the virtue of Honesty
Attempting to live up to her values, and to convey them to the world as do-able
Taking responsibility for her actions
Revering Life
Working for Women's Rights, and presenting a strong female role model

If the presentation of Wonder Woman has been such that these definite characteristics didn't always shine through... perhaps it's because at times she's had writers who simply didn't want to portray her that way, or who didn't know how to do it, or who wanted to try to turn her into something else, for whatever reason.

If "inconsistency in how she's been portrayed" = no defining characteristics, you could say the same about Batman, for someone turning him into a drug addict for a while... or Superman, when someone has had him "snap with rage and wage vast destruction," whether it was a plot device, or because he was "under a villain's influence," etc.

So... if you're going to hold the opinion that "she's got no defining characteristics, because no one has shown her with such, or because the 'showing' has been inconsistent"... is that the *character's* fault---or is it the fault of some of the writers either not knowing what to do with her, or not being *willing* to work with those "defining characteristics"?

[Solaris]

The problem is not that I don't know women like what you describe. The problem is that's rarely how I see Wonder Woman. I'm surrounded by beautiful, heroic, strong, honest women. But that's not how I see Wonder Woman. She more often seems a blank slate upon which men's ideas of women are projected; whether it be Marston's fetishism, Rucka's tough-chickism, Jimenez' mother goddess, etc. She's not consistent, there's not a through-line to her other than "heroine."

If she were more like the actual women I knew, heroic, strong, brave, tough, beautiful . . .then I'd "get" her more.

I like that answer. And, to reinterate what I said in the post I just did... I think that's the writers' fault.

Maybe some of these guys need to look to the real life women in their lives, and let that educate them on how to write a strong female heroic character. :biggrin: LOL.

EDITED TO ADD: And let's not totally leave the editors out of the equation---because, as I understand how it works, there's gotta be times where an editor is dictating that she be drawn away from her characteristics.

[Joe Rice]

Granted, I've not read every WW ever written from the first issue onward... but I disagree that she's not got defining characteristics:

Compassion in the Present
Hope for the Future
Defense of those who are often victims, both physically and in speaking up for their rights
Upholding the virtue of Honesty
Attempting to live up to her values, and to convey them to the world as do-able
Taking responsibility for her actions
Revering Life
Working for Women's Rights, and presenting a strong female role model


Oh, it's definitely a writer issue. I mean, any character can be good. I'm just saying I VERY rarely find her compelling on her own. These things you say up there? Pretty vague, really, and aside from the Women's Rights (which I don't really see come up all that often) don't differentiate her from Superman, Batman, or any other superhero.

I'll put it this way: I can guess how Peter Parker would react to certain jokes, situations, troubles, etc. What he'd be like at a party. I feel I know Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent that way too. Diana? I have a vague sense of standoffishness and compassion in a weird mix. That's it. I don't "know" her, and I think that's because writers haven't ever had much of a hold on her. She's been a homunculus literarily as well as in her origin. She's more of a vessel for a series of failed male takes on femininity than an engine of herself.

[Gothos]

I doubt I'm the only one who thinks you've just described a wank-fantasy.

What Chris H described-- very accurately, I thought-- was a philosophical outlook that *might* have *partial* origins in Marston's individual erotic quirks.

Quirks are quirks because they're not statistically dominant. But they're not necessarily the result of what your next post calls "issues," Doctor Freud.

At least not more so than anyone's sexual nature...

[PatrickG]

IMHO, the issue with Wonder Woman is that she has no normal life and she isn't a American/Brit/Canadian.

If you haven't noticed, 90% of the industry isn't really interested in international heroes or magic without a tech/sci-fi edge.

Grant writes fine female characters. But they're from Anglo cultures. They're debutantes or waitresses or mental patients or politicians. But those are women.

Royalty from a mythic culture isn't human. And non-Anglo characters always have hurdles in Anglo markets and with Anglo creators. Minority characters have trouble as well but even Black Panther, an African King, is more relatable than Diana to a Euromerican audience.

If I could write comics and had to pick five major characters to exclude that I'd never be allowed to write, it would probably be Thor, Namor, Wonder Woman, Spectre and Darkseid.

If I did have to do them or other "mythic" types, I'd rather treat them the way Grant did Atlas and Samson in ALL-STAR SUPERMAN as time traveling, cape-wearing super-heroes who use science to scare superstitious people into believing they're magical.

Magic IS science and science IS magic and the occult shouldn't have a mystique to it. No god should seem intimidating when compared to a human. Pagan divinity is all smoke and mirrors. Zeus should be quaking in his sandals over so much as Robin and the average Teen Titan.

Getting powers from the Greek Gods means about as much as buying a jetpack out of the back of a truck from a sleazy conman. It may work but it really shouldn't be because the person who gave it to you was all that impressive.

[Chris Hansbrough]

What Chris H described-- very accurately, I thought-- was a philosophical outlook that *might* have *partial* origins in Marston's individual erotic quirks.

Quirks are quirks because they're not statistically dominant. But they're not necessarily the result of what your next post calls "issues," Doctor Freud.

At least not more so than anyone's sexual nature...

they weren't just quirks. he wrote multiple pieces about that very thing. it wasn't just fetishism...it was part of his actual belief system. that's what makes those old books so fascinating. on the surface it's wierd creepy bondage fantasy but only the surface reads as wierd fetishism. there is a hell of a lot more depth and meaning to the stories than poeple give credit for.

[Gothos]

And on the question of Morrison's characters, I'd say his Crazy Jane is one of the best out there, quite distinct from whatever wank-fantasy aspects many superheroines may have (not that *I* think there's anything wrong with that, but one can have too much of a good thing).

I'm not sure most of his other female characters are as good as CJ, though, but I've not read everything he's done.

[Spiffy]

Morrison still might not get the character if he feels he can resolve her contradictions rather than embrace them like Gail Simone has been doing, but at least he's honest that his feelings were "negative", that he has thought about it and the character and will try to be better next time. And maybe Morrison will succeed.
I agree that this is key. Her contradictions don't have to be "resolved". I mean, if you try too hard to do that you get a mess like Heinberg's "Who is Wonder Woman?" You just have to understand that one woman can be all of these contrasting things. Given the realities of the female half of our race, that shouldn't be that hard to fathom. :rolleyes: Sit Morrison down and play him Leiber and Stoller's "I'm A Woman" over and over again if he needs to reduce the idea down to stone age concepts like sock darning and using skillets, right? Then inform him it applies to other things not mentioned in the song too!



The Talky Tawny scene was Morrison focusing on the Marvel family, addressing the links he'd seen between Talky Tawny and Kirby's Tiger Men and delivering a kick ass action sequence. Yes, it was a male character getting a big moment but I don't see a gender bias in giving that particular character a bigger scene than Black Canary.

Plus Talky is a kitty kat! Chicks did kitty kats, right? :biggrin:


Regarding the army of Supermen. I don't see that as a put down to Wonder Woman (any of them) at all. Superman is an icon. His iconography has power. Morrison was addressing this in Superman Beyond and using it as a weapon against Mandrakk just as he uses the army against Mandrakk in FC #7. That they were all men seems because the iconography identifies the Superman archetype as a man.
Yeah, that section was pretty clearly JUST about Superman, I agree. There were enough other instances of female marginalization that I think this can be safely ignored. As for the presence of The Question there? My main reaction was more of a big "why?" rather than any feeling that she was being slotted as some kind of "assistant" character. In other words, as was typical for this series, I was wondering more about what wasn't explained.

[Gothos]

they weren't just quirks. he wrote multiple pieces about that very thing. it wasn't just fetishism...it was part of his actual belief system. that's what makes those old books so fascinating. on the surface it's wierd creepy bondage fantasy but only the surface reads as wierd fetishism. there is a hell of a lot more depth and meaning to the stories than poeple give credit for.

I agree that the extra meaning is there; that's why I said *might.* We know next to nothing about the etiology of M's beliefs, so while it's fair to speculate on an erotic source for those beliefs, it's foolish to declare it to be a fact.

[oddballuk]

I admire Morrison for being honest, too. But as a friend of mine stated:

...he deliberately writes a story that is based on his negative feelings about her, knowing that his feelings changed, instead of just not doing anything at all or at least making her neutral? i'm not sure i like that. it doesn't seem right. and telling us that he'll do better next time, when he could have simply modified the existing story seems like a cop out. i understand him not wanting to use the new elements, but that doesn't mean he has to stick with the old ones. by doing what he did, he established wonder woman in this story as being the representation of his negative thoughts about her. if this played into how the story changed her (as the anti-life equation does) then at least it plays into the story. instead, it's his version of wonder woman based on his negative feelings and nothing more. nothing redeeming, nothing of value, nothing wonder woman.

I can understand where your friend is coming from but I think Morrison might also have used these negative feelings in Final Crisis not only to exorcise himself of those feelings but perhaps trying to exorcise the feelings of the readership that shared them.

Given that Morrison is always adding meta-textual commentary to his work it felt as if he was saying in those scenes:

"Look! See these negative thoughts you have of bondage and sexuality you have about the character? Well they are negative and she is greater than them. She breaks free of your negative feelings and moves on. You should break free too."

I didn't see anything in Morrison's comments that implied he still held these negative thoughts on the character that he once had. He refers to them as his original thoughts, implying he has different thoughts now. His discussion of the roots he saw seem almost totally in the past tense.

I'm not happy with Wonder Woman's treatment in Final Crisis but I think, after reading this interview, that he was trying to do something positive by highlighting the thoughts people have had of Diana that were negative.

That said, I could be entirely wrong and should he ever get to explore the character further in the other project he speaks of and come away with no greater understanding then I might be more critical of his interpretation.

[Spiffy]

IMHO, the issue with Wonder Woman is that she has no normal life
Well, define "normal". And really, does Batman have a normal life? Or really... despite the meek all-too-human seeming Clark Kent side, does Superman? I mean REALLY?

Wonder Woman has often been written with a civilian side. Maybe it doesn't get noticed as much, but "Diana Prince" is pretty much all about her attempt at a facade..

Perhaps some writer might delve a bit deeper into showing Diana Prince as having characteristics that are distinct from Wonder Woman, I guess. But Diana Prince has never really been a "schizo" kind of thing, like Bruce Wayne often is compared to Batman. Perhaps there's room to be explored with Diana beginning to find herself being a bit less integrated in her disguise. At present, with Gorillas hanging around her in all guises, Etta and Tom dealing with her as both personas without missing a beat, and the DMA job merely being an extension of Wonder Woman's plots, that's not happening. But perhaps at some future point it could.

[Agent Helix]

It just occured to me that Wonder Woman might finally be interesting if somebody just flat-out makes her the first outright BDSM superhero.

[Indigo Al]

Well, define "normal". And really, does Batman have a normal life? Or really... despite the meek all-too-human seeming Clark Kent side, does Superman? I mean REALLY?

Wonder Woman has often been written with a civilian side. Maybe it doesn't get noticed as much, but "Diana Prince" is pretty much all about her attempt at a facade..

Others have interpreted Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne as the "facade" before. Maybe the Diana Prince facade wasn't easy to connect with either?

Forget the anti-life equation. I think what Wonder Woman needs is for her romance with Tom Tresser not to be so akward and stilted.

[PatrickG]

Well, define "normal". And really, does Batman have a normal life? Or really... despite the meek all-too-human seeming Clark Kent side, does Superman? I mean REALLY?

Wonder Woman has often been written with a civilian side. Maybe it doesn't get noticed as much, but "Diana Prince" is pretty much all about her attempt at a facade..

Perhaps some writer might delve a bit deeper into showing Diana Prince as having characteristics that are distinct from Wonder Woman, I guess. But Diana Prince has never really been a "schizo" kind of thing, like Bruce Wayne often is compared to Batman. Perhaps there's room to be explored with Diana beginning to find herself being a bit less integrated in her disguise. At present, with Gorillas hanging around her in all guises, Etta and Tom dealing with her as both personas without missing a beat, and the DMA job merely being an extension of Wonder Woman's plots, that's not happening. But perhaps at some future point it could.

I think they do.

Bruce perhaps a bit less but he's a lifelong resident of a metropolitan city. He's a businessman. He grew up watching TV. There are no gods or demons essential to his life.

Clark was raised in America's heartland. He went to public school. He attended college and works in an office. None of that is an act. Heck, I even prefer the bumbling, awkward Clark Kent and I don't think that's fake. I think Superman really is awkward and that when he's in costume, he's just operating on a heightened level of certainty because he has a job to do.

EDIT: Also, most hardcore WW fans seem to reject any attempts to make her more modern, to make her a post-Enlightenment, post-Industrial human being. They reject her having a normal life, using slang, getting a normal job, having a romantic relationship with anything approaching a normal human. You don't have these issues even with Batman; if a writer tried to play him romantically opposite a single mother working two jobs, that writer would probably be lauded. Whereas WW dating anyone remotely human is seen as an invitation for flames. Bruce Wayne can (and does) walk the streets of Gotham and interacts with a cast of fairly normal people. He gets and makes pop culture references and nods to modern English language thinkers.

[4PointOh]

I can understand where your friend is coming from but I think Morrison might also have used these negative feelings in Final Crisis not only to exorcise himself of those feelings but perhaps trying to exorcise the feelings of the readership that shared them.

Given that Morrison is always adding meta-textual commentary to his work it felt as if he was saying in those scenes:

"Look! See these negative thoughts you have of bondage and sexuality you have about the character? Well they are negative and she is greater than them. She breaks free of your negative feelings and moves on. You should break free too."

I didn't see anything in Morrison's comments that implied he still held these negative thoughts on the character that he once had. He refers to them as his original thoughts, implying he has different thoughts now. His discussion of the roots he saw seem almost totally in the past tense.

I'm not happy with Wonder Woman's treatment in Final Crisis but I think, after reading this interview, that he was trying to do something positive by highlighting the thoughts people have had of Diana that were negative.

That said, I could be entirely wrong and should he ever get to explore the character further in the other project he speaks of and come away with no greater understanding then I might be more critical of his interpretation.

You know, oddballuk, I hadn't considered it from that perspective. That's a thrilling observation. And when dealing with someone as smart as Morrison, probably the most astute observation to which I've been exposed.

However, the danger in Morrison's "experiement" (for lack of a better term) is that most of his readers may not get the point of the exercise or of his comments regarding it. Instead, they may simply pick up on the hostility and the negative aspects, and run with them. For some readers, he may simply be articulating why they hate/dislike/fear/dismiss the character without the requisite self-questioning/transformative aspects of the process.

But I suppose that is always the danger.

[Matt Algren]

I'm gay. Wonder Woman isn't a sexual fantasy for me.
Honey, so am I. Wonder Woman is EVERY gay boy's fantasy. I don't know why, but it's not just because of Lyle Waggoner.


Unrelated, and I'm seriously not pointing this directly at you (though if the shoe fits...), but I've never understood why it is that every single time Morrison is brought up on a message board battle lines have to be drawn. Why can't it be "I don't cotton to his work"? Why does it HAVE to be "He's the embodiment of evil and I must gather the forces against his reign"?

[Spiffy]

Others have interpreted Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne as the "facade" before.
There will always be different interpretations to dig through with characters as old as these, but one of the more universal things, I think, is that more often than not Superman is portrayed as the facade and Clark as the real person. It's supposed to highlight his humanity over his alienness.

Going back to the earlier discussion, does that make Clark "normal"? I don't think so. He still has superhearing and carries on his Clark life while listening to 5 million conversations at once worldwide. He still is constantly on the verge of having to ditch any activity at any moment to slip away. So... that's not normal. But the meekness, the feet on the coffee table while watching football aspect, the "Ma always told me" aspect? That's the core versus the impenetrable "symbol" of perfection that is Superman. Superman isn't quite a disguise... but he IS a projection of only certain aspects of Clark.

Bruce/Batman is a lot harder to dig through. Interpretations of this have been all over the place, but my personal one is that Bruce Wayne pretty much died as a person the night his parents were killed. He's Batman no matter how he's dressed, because what people see as Bruce is only an illusion. So... not normal.

And Diana? As with Bruce/Batman, her civilian persona is just an act. Underneath, she's always the same person at all times putting on a performance when in civvie garb. But unlike Bruce/Batman, there's no "root" to ground her civilian side (I mean "Bruce Wayne IS a real person even if he's essentially a performance now). And from a readers perspective, there's a lot less to grab you about Diana Prince than Bruce Wayne. Bruce has distinct characteristics, even if they are an illusion (although frankly they are somewhat "romantic" and larger than life -- "billionaire bachelor with a party lifestyle and a past filled with tragedy and pain"). Diana Prince has somewhat generic characteristics. That's kind of a problem inherently, I guess.

[oddballuk]

You know, oddballuk, I hadn't considered it from that perspective. That's a thrilling observation. And when dealing with someone as smart as Morrison, probably the most astute observation to which I've been exposed.

However, the danger in Morrison's "experiement" (for lack of a better term) is that most of his readers may not get the point of the exercise or of his comments regarding it. Instead, they may simply pick up on the hostility and the negative aspects, and run with them. For some readers, he may simply be articulating why they hate/dislike/fear/dismiss the character without the requisite self-questioning/transformative aspects of the process.

But I suppose that is always the danger.

This is true. There is a danger if this is what Morrison is doing and if it truly is what he's doing (and I hope it is as i'd prefer not to consider the alternative as that would upset me as it had yourself), then I hope it does not backfire.

As much as I love all the layers, all the thought Morrison puts into everything he does, I do agree that sometimes he can be too clever for his own good and I think this is the main reason his work is so polarizing amongst fans.

[scout1279]

The problem is not that I don't know women like what you describe. The problem is that's rarely how I see Wonder Woman. I'm surrounded by beautiful, heroic, strong, honest women. But that's not how I see Wonder Woman. She more often seems a blank slate upon which men's ideas of women are projected; whether it be Marston's fetishism, Rucka's tough-chickism, Jimenez' mother goddess, etc. She's not consistent, there's not a through-line to her other than "heroine."

If she were more like the actual women I knew, heroic, strong, brave, tough, beautiful . . .then I'd "get" her more.

I don't disagree with you, but do you really think Superman and Batman don't suffer from the same thing? Because this is a problem I have consistently had with all of DC's "Trinity."

[Joe Rice]

I don't disagree with you, but do you really think Superman and Batman don't suffer from the same thing? Because this is a problem I have consistently had with all of DC's "Trinity."

I don't really think so. Superman is the nice guy, big brother, inspiring guy we all know. Batman is the protector that makes his own family. I know those guys.

[scout1279]

Honey, so am I. Wonder Woman is EVERY gay boy's fantasy. I don't know why, but it's not just because of Lyle Waggoner.


Unrelated, and I'm seriously not pointing this directly at you (though if the shoe fits...), but I've never understood why it is that every single time Morrison is brought up on a message board battle lines have to be drawn. Why can't it be "I don't cotton to his work"? Why does it HAVE to be "He's the embodiment of evil and I must gather the forces against his reign"?
As someone who likes some of Morrison's stuff and doesn't like some of his other stuff, and is just not interested in some of his stuff, I have to say that the pro-Morrison side is no less vehement. It can be off-putting and I admit to sometimes just taking an opposite stance (without even really realizing it) just because I'm annoyed at the argument and not necessarily the work itself.

This isn't just a Morrison problem. I'm a huge Whedon fan, for example, but he has a lot of off-putting fans too.

[suedenim]

This isn't just a Morrison problem. I'm a huge Whedon fan, for example, but he has a lot of off-putting fans too.

"Off-putting fans" has always been a barrier for me. I really hate cults of personality, and I've ended up loving the work of Neil Gaiman, Joss Whedon, and Grant Morrison more despite their rabid fan advocates than because of them.

[Agent Helix]

Meanwhile, I think Wonder Woman's rabid fans have turned me off to the character pretty much for good at this point.

[scout1279]

I don't really think so. Superman is the nice guy, big brother, inspiring guy we all know. Batman is the protector that makes his own family. I know those guys.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that, because I've certainly read versions of those characters that don't fit into that mold, or when they do, they take them in radically different directions with different motivations. I don't see this a a negative thing. While I enjoy certain interpretations more than others, I think the malleability of the characters is why they have endured for so long. It's what makes them icons, if not necessarily characters.

If Batman and Superman seem to have more consistency, I think it's probably because so much more has been said about those characters, allowing them to be more fully explored. Perhaps if WW appeared in 6 books a month with same editorial care, you would feel differently.

[4PointOh]

Honey, so am I. Wonder Woman is EVERY gay boy's fantasy. I don't know why, but it's not just because of Lyle Waggoner.


Unrelated, and I'm seriously not pointing this directly at you (though if the shoe fits...), but I've never understood why it is that every single time Morrison is brought up on a message board battle lines have to be drawn. Why can't it be "I don't cotton to his work"? Why does it HAVE to be "He's the embodiment of evil and I must gather the forces against his reign"?

Wonder Woman respresents, for me, an ideal. But she was never a sexual fantasy for me. If I wanted to be Wonder Woman as a kid, or even as an adult, it wasn't because of the sexual power she wields or because she was desirable; it was because I believed her deeds and her work to be representative of the ultimate human optimism and that appealed to me very strongly.

[Corrina]

We had a thread already on whether a creator's behavior turns on off to their work.

So I'll ask, is it fair to let nasty fans of a work turn you off to that work?

[4PointOh]

Meanwhile, I think Wonder Woman's rabid fans have turned me off to the character pretty much for good at this point.

I don't have rabies.

Have hal Jordan's fans turned you off to him? Or have Batman's? Or the Legion of Super-Heroes'? Or the Teen Titans'?

[Agent Helix]

Those fans haven't tried to tell me I hate vaginas because I find those characters boring.

[scout1279]

"Off-putting fans" has always been a barrier for me. I really hate cults of personality, and I've ended up loving the work of Neil Gaiman, Joss Whedon, and Grant Morrison more despite their rabid fan advocates than because of them.
I've only really had the problem with Morrison, because I came to his work long after the "cult of personality" developed. Gaiman's work I'm just not all that familiar with and have little or no reason to converse with his more rabid fans. I've read his blog and interviews and like him quite a bit though, so it helps.


Meanwhile, I think Wonder Woman's rabid fans have turned me off to the character pretty much for good at this point.
I sometimes have that problem too.

[Spiffy]

As someone who likes some of Morrison's stuff and doesn't like some of his other stuff, and is just not interested in some of his stuff, I have to say that the pro-Morrison side is no less vehement. It can be off-putting and I admit to sometimes just taking an opposite stance (without even really realizing it) just because I'm annoyed at the argument and not necessarily the work itself.

This isn't just a Morrison problem. I'm a huge Whedon fan, for example, but he has a lot of off-putting fans too.

The primary issue is constantly being informed that "you don't get it" if you don't like Morrison. There never seems to be any compromise on your intellectual inferiority if you say you don't like his writing style.

Also, very few of the vehement seem willing to admit that Morrison makes ANY mistakes. I love the work of Ed Brubaker, for example, but even as a big fan I can see plenty of things he could have done differently, or better. I love his work around that, not by denying them and I doubt I've ever lost my temper reading someone criticizing his work on an internet board. Morrison fans, overall, seem to take it all much more personally.

[Tom]

We had a thread already on whether a creator's behavior turns on off to their work.

So I'll ask, is it fair to let nasty fans of a work turn you off to that work?

Fair to whom?

[jesse_custer]

Meanwhile, I think Wonder Woman's rabid fans have turned me off to the character pretty much for good at this point.

Only something a pig would say.

Commence hating women.

[4PointOh]

Those fans haven't tried to tell me I hate vaginas because I find those characters boring.

So the issue isn't the rabid fans, it's the accusations of sexism or misogny?

[Joe Rice]

The primary issue is constantly being informed that "you don't get it" if you don't like Morrison. There never seems to be any compromise on your intellectual inferiority if you say you don't like his writing style.

Also, very few of the vehement seem willing to admit that Morrison makes ANY mistakes. I love the work of Ed Brubaker, for example, but even as a big fan I can see plenty of things he could have done differently, or better. I love his work around that, not by denying them and I doubt I've ever lost my temper reading someone criticizing his work on an internet board. Morrison fans, overall, seem to take it all much more personally.

Who are these people that admit no faults? Perhaps they just don't see fault where you do. I don't know anyone who finds Morrison flawless. Skrull Kill Krew was terrible. He had some bad issues on Batman from time to time and Arkham Asylum is virtually unreadable.

[Agent Helix]

Look, you've spent half this thread basically saying anyone that doesn't love Wonder Woman like you love Wonder Woman is afraid of women or hates them. It's completely insulting, hilariously off base, and I'm amazed that you can do this and then complain about Morrison fans without sensing any irony whatsoever in those posts.

[Tom]

So the issue isn't the rabid fans, it's the accusations of sexism or misogny?

I think the point is the accusations of sexism and misogyny are what make them rabid fans.

[jesse_custer]

I'm surprised you can't see the strong logic in his reasoning. Wonder Woman represents ALL women. If you don't like her, you don't like women. Period.

[4PointOh]

I think the point is the accusations of sexism and misogyny are what make them rabid fans.

That's assuming that the fans are always wrong or that those are always the accusations from them. Neither of which are the case.

[Agent Helix]

Seriously, you see absolutely nothing wrong at all with assuming someone hates or fears women just because they're not a fan of Wonder Woman?

[jesse_custer]

I don't know if you're talking to me, but I'm just taking the proverbial piss.

[suedenim]

I've only really had the problem with Morrison, because I came to his work long after the "cult of personality" developed. Gaiman's work I'm just not all that familiar with and have little or no reason to converse with his more rabid fans. I've read his blog and interviews and like him quite a bit though, so it helps.


With me, it's kind of a "first impressions" sort of thing. I tend to be turned off by people who are really fervent about anything, and (even in half-jest) elevating mortals to godhood. I had to figuratively be dragged kicking and screaming into sampling Sandman back in the day, and even the trappings of the comic were a turnoff (the covers always screamed "WARNING: Pretentious claptrap within!" to me, the letters pages full of bad poetry and terrifying acolytes of another "god," Tori Amos, etc.)

But when I settled down and read the actual work, I loved it, and realized that the work was both brilliant and unpretentious.

(But *that* being said, I by no means think he's infallible, and firmly believe that no regularly-working creator in any medium can avoid creating crap every once in a while.)

[Tom]

That's assuming that the fans are always wrong or that those are always the accusations from them. Neither of which are the case.

I'd say those accusations are accurate about 1 out of every 100 times they're thrown around. Look at this thread. A writer gives an honest answer that amounts to "I have a hard time getting a handle on this character. Sorry about that. I'll try better next time." What happens?

"Oh, so Grant Morrison has a MADONNA/WHORE complex?!"

Absurd.

[Agent Helix]

I don't know if you're talking to me, but I'm just taking the proverbial piss.

Oh no, I know you are.

I've always found that there's this very weird stigma that some fans attach to not liking Wonder Woman that's not there with other female superheroes. I've never quite understood it, especially when the most obvious reasons to dislike her character for most people is that, well, we just sort of find her boring. I just don't find her interesting, at all. Oracle is interesting, Huntress is pretty interesting, so are a lot of other heroines, DC or Marvel. Thorn from Bone is one of my favorite comic book characters PERIOD. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any imaginary fear of women, or fear of strong women. It's just that there's lots of people that plain don't find her to be a compelling character. The armchair psychology here is pretty weird and insulting.

[suedenim]

We had a thread already on whether a creator's behavior turns on off to their work.

So I'll ask, is it fair to let nasty fans of a work turn you off to that work?

No, but who says life's fair? We all make decisions based on gut feelings, first impressions, lack of research, etc. There just aren't enough hours in the day to make careful, rational decisions about *everything*.

But in my experience, if the work's good enough, it'll eventually break down my mental barriers and let me enjoy it....

[4PointOh]

Seriously, you see absolutely nothing wrong at all with assuming someone hates or fears women just because they're not a fan of Wonder Woman?

I see something wrong with applying that theory blanketly, without any evidence whatsoever.

I don't have an issue with it when it's backed-up, or when it's true.

Part of the problem with the criticism is that a sexist or misogynist (or racist or homophobe) will never willingly admit to being one---even when they hold opinions, thoughts and feelings that are the epitome of those things. They will always rationalize their behavior as something other than what it is, give it a more palpable spin. Like when members of the KKK refer to themselves "Protectors of the White Race" rather than racists. They seem to the think the former is somehow different (and more positive) than the latter, when, in reality, there's no difference. So they feel better about their behavior because they've given it a new name.

I am a huge supporter of Wonder Woman. She is the reason why I collect any comics at all. I don't think everyone who is indifferent to her or doesn't get her is a sexist or misogynist. I reserve that opinion for people who express a very specific hatred of the character.

[Agent Helix]

And I was more being glib about Wonder Woman fans turning me off to the character forever, that was just regarding some very unpleasant posts in this thread. I like Wonder Woman fine as an ensemble character, where the broader aspects of her can be used to effect and played against with other characters, but in solo situations, I just couldn't care less about her. There's nothing that draws me to the character or resonates with me, but I have that problem with a lot of DC's old guard.

[Agent Helix]

Okay, now you're basically attempting to frame the argument in some imaginary fashion that makes your accusations impossible to refute. "A misogynist will never admit he hates women!" Thanks for playing, you lose.

[Tom]

I am a huge supporter of Wonder Woman. She is the reason why I collect any comics at all. I don't think everyone who is indifferent to her or doesn't get her is a sexist or misogynist. I reserve that opinion for people who express a very specific hatred of the character.

Just so we're clear here: are you saying that if someone hates the character, then that means they're a misogynist?

[DoctorDoom]

Just so we're clear here: are you saying that if someone hates the character, then that means they're a misogynist?
Obviously this means I'm sexist. Against myself.

[4PointOh]

Okay, now you're basically attempting to frame the argument in some imaginary fashion that makes your accusations impossible to refute. "A misogynist will never admit he hates women!" Thanks for playing, you lose.

Actually, Agent Helix, I was saying that problem lay with the criticism because you can't simply call a person a sexist or misogynist without specific evidence. You have to be able to point to a thought, an opinion or action. You can't say someone is automatically a sexist or misogynist SIMPLY because they're not a Wonder Woman fan.

As for playing and losing, you may regard this as a game, but I was under the impression that it was a discussion. Perhaps, I was mistaken.

[TCJohnson]

We had a thread already on whether a creator's behavior turns on off to their work.

So I'll ask, is it fair to let nasty fans of a work turn you off to that work?

I don't let it affect my opinoin of the work, but it does mean that there are some books I really like, and some I don't that I don't feel comfortable giving my honest opinoin about because I know it will start an argument that will get personal...YABS being no exception.

[4PointOh]

Just so we're clear here: are you saying that if someone hates the character, then that means they're a misogynist?

I would like you to read that sentence again, because I'm sure that it said "a very specific hatred" and that it also said, "I reserve that opinion."

Someone hating Wonder Woman will lead me on an inquiry into the motives, but the result won't always be that the person is a sexist or misogynist.

[scout1279]

I'd say those accusations are accurate about 1 out of every 100 times they're thrown around. Look at this thread. A writer gives an honest answer that amounts to "I have a hard time getting a handle on this character. Sorry about that. I'll try better next time." What happens?

"Oh, so Grant Morrison has a MADONNA/WHORE complex?!"

Absurd.

Oh please. I was not actually accusing Grant Morrison of having a Madonna-whore complex. That was how I read the post I was commenting on though, and I thought it was being offered up as a legitimate interpretation of, frankly, very vague comments that Mr. Morrison made regarding Wonder Woman. All people have been doing in this thread have been interpreting his comments, with very little information to go on, and I don't actually attribute anybody's suppositions, on either side, to Morrison himself.

I suppose I could have been less glib, but it's highly unlikely that I'll stop, so I won't bother apologizing.

[Tom]

Oh please. I was not actually accusing Grant Morrison of having a Madonna-whore complex. That was how I read the post I was commenting on though, and I thought it was being offered up as a legitimate interpretation of, frankly, very vague comments that Mr. Morrison made regarding Wonder Woman. All people have been doing in this thread have been interpreting his comments, with very little information to go on, and I don't actually attribute anybody's suppositions, on either side, to Morrison himself.

I suppose I could have been less glib, but it's highly unlikely that I'll stop, so I won't bother apologizing.

I apologize for assuming that you actually meant the words you wrote.

[stealthwise]

I don't let it affect my opinoin of the work, but it does mean that there are some books I really like, and some I don't that I don't feel comfortable giving my honest opinoin about because I know it will start an argument that will get personal...YABS being no exception.

All it does for me is make me distrust the opinion of those types of people.

Example: (this is a mildly unfair generalization that I've found to be pretty true) If there's any Marvel/DC superhero title that's even above-mediocre, I find that the Marvel/DC fans I know of speak about it like it's the nectar of the Gods. I've picked up and dropped so many books because of what people have recommended, and found many of them not really worth my time nor money.

That's one of the main reasons I haven't picked up Incredible Hercules, among others.

[Tom]

I would like you to read that sentence again, because I'm sure that it said "a very specific hatred" and that it also said, "I reserve that opinion."Yes, I'm sure it said those things too. I'm not sure what pointing that out is supposed to mean.


Someone hating Wonder Woman will lead me on an inquiry into the motives, but the result won't always be that the person is a sexist or misogynist.

I realize you'll never see it this way, but that right there? That would be what people are talking about when they talk about rabid fan reactions to the character.

[Kid Omega]

I would like you to read that sentence again, because I'm sure that it said "a very specific hatred" and that it also said, "I reserve that opinion."

Someone hating Wonder Woman will lead me on an inquiry into the motives, but the result won't always be that the person is a sexist or misogynist.

I agree.

If someone doesn't like something that I like, I too suspect their motives.

"Why on earth would Joe not like THE BIG LEBOWSKI? What is wrong, in his heart, to make him feel this way?"

[4PointOh]

Yes, I'm sure it said those things too. I'm not sure what pointing that out is supposed to mean.



I realize you'll never see it this way, but that right there? That would be what people are talking about when they talk about rabid fan reactions to the character.

My curiosity? Really? Okay. Wow. That IS enlightening.

Because, honestly, when people say they love/like Wonder Woman, I'm JUST as curious to their motives. And I start asking all sorts of questions about why they like her, when they liked her, what makes them like her, which version they like, etc. Debating her features and qualities. I hope I'm not turning them off, too.

YIKES!

[Tom]

My curiosity? Really? Okay. Wow. That IS enlightening.I'm not so sure it is.


Because, honestly, when people say they love/like Wonder Woman, I'm JUST as curious to their motives. And I start asking all sorts of questions about why they like her, when they liked her, what makes them like her, which version they like, etc. Debating her features and qualities. I hope I'm not turning them off, too.

YIKES!

As I said, I don't expect you to see it this way, but any talk of "motives" when it comes to a person's likes or dislikes is somewhat creepy.

[Slam_Bradley]

I agree.

If someone doesn't like something that I like, I too suspect their motives.

"Why on earth would Joe not like THE BIG LEBOWSKI? What is wrong, in his heart, to make him feel this way?"


It's always clear that whenever someone doesn't like what I like there is something inherently wrong with them.


YOU WILL CONFORM!

[4PointOh]

I agree.

If someone doesn't like something that I like, I too suspect their motives.

"Why on earth would Joe not like THE BIG LEBOWSKI? What is wrong, in his heart, to make him feel this way?"

Ah, okay. I see what Agent Helix is saying now. The idea that I "suspect" their motives, meaning that there's the perception that if I'm inquiring, I think there's something automatically deficient with their point of view. Which is a complete misreading of my genuine curiosity and of my "motives."

[Kid Omega]

It's always clear that whenever someone doesn't like what I like there is something inherently wrong with them.



they have motives

[Agent Helix]

Where were you on the night of January 5th, Slam?

Were you not reading Wonder Woman?

MAYBE YOU WERE NOT READING HER TO THE GIRL YOU HAVE IN A PIT IN YOUR BASEMENT, HMMMMMMMMM?

[4PointOh]

I'm not so sure it is.

Why would you say that? I'm trying to have a genuine, open and honest conversation about my motives and the subject matter at hand here and I just keep getting dismissed as a rabid fan with ulterior motives.

It's kind of bothersome because you are doing what you're accusing rabid fans of doing: you're ignoring where I am making an effort to understand, to be concillitory and actually LEANR and you're focusing on what offends you and judging me and what I say through that lens.

[Tom]

Why would you say that? I'm trying to have a genuine and honest conversation about my motives here and I just keep getting dismissed.

It's kind of bothersome.

I said that because I don't think you get what I'm saying. I'm not dismissing you at all.

And since we're speaking of bothersome:


I would like you to read that sentence again

[Kid Omega]

Why would you say that? I'm trying to have a genuine, open and honest conversation about my motives and the subject matter at hand here and I just keep getting dismissed as a rabid fan with ulterior motives.

It's kind of bothersome.

Maybe, when several people "misread" you, you should go back, see what you have been writing t o make people see your points in a certain way, and try to be clearer in your posts in the future.

I have done this in the past, and found that often it's not people "misreading", but me being "unclear".

[Tom]

Bobby, let's be clear here. You agreed with the assessment that Morrison has a Madonna/Whore complex, you posited that the character scares the hell out of men, and you admitted that Morrison's admission that he doesn't have a grasp of the character hurt you as if someone had insulted your sister. On top of all that, you admit that when someone hates the character, you suspect they have "motives." I'm not "offended" by any of that, but from where I'm sitting, those are the reactions of a somewhat rabid fan. There's no crime in that and I don't expect you to agree with me or even change your mind about it, but that's where I'm coming from.

[4PointOh]

I said that because I don't think you get what I'm saying. I'm not dismissing you at all.

I do believe I understand what you meant, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I stated in a post above: Ah, okay. I see what Agent Helix is saying now. The idea that I "suspect" their motives, meaning that there's the perception that if I'm inquiring, I think there's something automatically deficient with their point of view. Which is a complete misreading of my genuine curiosity and of my "motives."


And speaking of bothersome:

See, stuff like that isn't really necessary. It's just tit for tat. The whole, "I'm not wrong. YOU are" thing.

To explain, I said that because I wasn't sure that you read closely what I wrote previously. And I wasn't sure because I didn't see how what you asked remotely related to what I said. So I pointed out what I thought specifically countered such a reading.

I'm not above being wrong or unclear in expressing myself as Kid Omega has suggested. I just don't think it fair to ignore where I'm being genuine and curious and understanding so that you can criticize me freely, round robin-style, where we disagree.

[TCJohnson]

Ah, okay. I see what Agent Helix is saying now. The idea that I "suspect" their motives, meaning that there's the perception that if I'm inquiring, I think there's something automatically deficient with their point of view. Which is a complete misreading of my genuine curiosity and of my "motives."
But you also said you are going to make personal judgements on people based on their answers, that you are looking for "people who express a very specific hatred of the character" so you can say they are a misogynist.

That makes it sound very much like you are looking for what is wrong with people who do not like Wonder Woman.

[Tom]

I do believe I understand what you meant, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I stated in a post above: Ah, okay. I see what Agent Helix is saying now. The idea that I "suspect" their motives, meaning that there's the perception that if I'm inquiring, I think there's something automatically deficient with their point of view. Which is a complete misreading of my genuine curiosity and of my "motives."

No, that's not it. That you think a dislike of a character is rooted in motives at all is what makes it strange to me.


See, stuff like that isn't really necessary. It's just tit for tat. The whole, "I'm not wrong. YOU are" thing.

To explain, I said that because I wasn't sure that you read closely what I wrote previously. And I wasn't sure because I didn't see how what you asked remotely related to what I said. So I pointed out what I thought specifically countered such a reading.

I'm not above being wrong or unclear in expressing myself as Kid Omega has suggested. I just don't think it fair to ignore where I'm being genuine and curious and understanding so that you can criticize me freely, round robin-style, where we disagree.

I haven't ignored one thing you've said, nor have I dismissed anything you said. I disagree with some of what you said and the other parts I find a little strange. That's it.

[Michael P]

Speaking only for myself, I know that I couldn't be persuaded to give two shits about Wonder Woman prior to seeing what Gail was able to do with her.

And I forget if it was Joe or Tom who said it, but he was dead fucking on about previous (male) writers projecting their personal ideal woman onto the character.

[Slam_Bradley]

And I forget if it was Joe or Tom who said it, but he was dead fucking on about previous (male) writers projecting their personal ideal woman onto the character.

That would certainly explain all the bondage early on.

[4PointOh]

Bobby, let's be clear here. You agreed with the assessment that Morrison has a Madonna/Whore complex, you posited that the character scares the hell out of men, and you admitted that Morrison's admission that he doesn't have a grasp of the character hurt you as if someone had insulted your sister. On top of all that, you admit that when someone hates the character, you suspect they have "motives." I'm not "offended" by any of that, but from where I'm sitting, those are the reactions of a somewhat rabid fan. There's no crime in that and I don't expect you to agree with me or even change your mind about it, but that's where I'm coming from.

Tom,

Please go through this thread and tell me where I said I agreed with Morrison having a Madonna/Whore complex. Honestly, I'm not even sure how that applies to Morrison. I'm concerned only with Morrison's statements as they refer to Wonder Woman.

I did say the character scares the hell our of men and I was first introduced to that idea by Martson himself in an interview/conversation with one of his very close friends. He said that he believe this would be true of Wonder Woman and in some cases, I agree with him. I don't think that's a crime.

And I don't "suspect" people of motives, I promise. I'm just genuinely interested for purposes of curiosity and for reasons of discussion and debate. I think what you're saying is that I "suspect motives" as a way to gather evidence for my preconceived notions about sexism and misogyny as it relates to Wonder Woman and comic fans, but that is simply not true--and it's not true because I know so many men and women who don't like Wonder Woman for no other reason than they find her to be "corny." I'm just interested in knowing because I love Wonder Woman and I want to know, and because I thought these message boards a good place to have these sorts of discussions.

Additionally, I did say that one quote from Morrison, in particular, was personally hurtful. I was just being honest. As I said in that post, I don't know why I had that reaction. I just know that I did. That makes me rabid in your eyes. I accept that. But I'm also trying to dialogue with you and with others, and you didn't seem, until this most recent post, interested in that. Maybe you weren't trying to be personally insulting or condescending or patronizing, but that's what it felt like. Maybe I'm too sensitive, though.

[Tom]

Tom,

Please go through this thread and tell me where I said I agreed with Morrison having a Madonna/Whore complex.

Okay:



Originally Posted by scout1279
So Wonder Woman can't get a decent role in a summer event comic because Grant Morrison has a Madonna-whore complex?
Yes. Yes, indeed.

As for the rest of this, I need to back out. Despite the fact that I too am having a conversation with you and responding to all your points, you are determined to characterize my responses as dismissive and insulting when I have been quite clear that I expect us to disagree and feel that there's nothing particularly wrong with that.

[4PointOh]

But you also said you are going to make personal judgements on people based on their answers, that you are looking for "people who express a very specific hatred of the character" so you can say they are a misogynist.

That makes it sound very much like you are looking for what is wrong with people who do not like Wonder Woman.

But what about when they give another answer and they aren't misogynists and just think Wonder Woman is corny? Then I have another debate with them about the character that has nothing to do with sexism or misogyny.

The idea that I'm solely looking to make the argument that people who hate Wonder Woman are misogynists is just patently false. At the base of it, it really is that I want to understand why they don't (or why they do) like Wonder Woman. Not so I can have the self-satisfaction of "Ah ha! I was right! Anyone who dislikes Wonder Woman is a misogynist!" I just like the dialogue and the differing of opinions and the coming to an understanding.

It just so happens that some of what Morrison said strikes me as rather close to those conversations he's had with a friend of mine where he told my friend (who also works in the industry) that he thought men would be frightened and angered by Wonder Woman, not inspired by her. He reiterated those sentiment in a WIZARD JLA Special.

[4PointOh]

Okay:

Yikes. I totally forgot I co-signed on that shit. I made myself look like a complete ass. Especially since I don't really believe that and that I agreed because I was so pissed off at Morrison's comments.

I'm sorry.


As for the rest of this, I need to back out. Despite the fact that I too am having a conversation with you and responding to all your points, you are determined to characterize my responses as dismissive and insulting when I have been quite clear that I expect us to disagree and feel that there's nothing particularly wrong with that.

Actually, you said that my reactions made me a rabid fan. How should I take that?

[Tom]

Back in for one more:



Actually, you said that my reactions made me a rabid fan. How should I take that?

Any way you like. As accusations go, it's a fairly mild one. Certainly a lot milder than accusations of misogyny.

[4PointOh]

Back in for one more:

Any way you like. As accusations go, it's a fairly mild one. Certainly a lot milder than accusations of misogyny.

What frustrates me about our dialogue, Tom, is that you're coming from a point of view that something is bad when I do it, but harmless when you do it and I'm not sure how to get past that so that we can have an actual discussion rather than masked name-calling.

[Joe Rice]

What frustrates me about our dialogue, Tom, is that you're coming from a point of view that something is bad when I do it, but harmless when you do it and I'm not sure how to get past that so that we can have an actual discussion rather than masked name-calling.

A rabid fan isn't quite the same level of negativity as a misogynist when it comes to accusations. Some people wouldn't mind being a rabid fan.

[Kid Omega]

A rabid fan isn't quite the same level of negativity as a misogynist when it comes to accusations. Some people wouldn't mind being a rabid fan.

I am a rabid fan of my cats.

Who are rabid

[4PointOh]

A rabid fan isn't quite the same level of negativity as a misogynist when it comes to accusations. Some people wouldn't mind being a rabid fan.

Rabid: irrationally extreme in opinion or practice

Fan: a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

So, people should be able to insult me as long as it's not as "severe" an insult as misogynist?

[Tom]

Okay, back in for ANOTHER one:


What frustrates me about our dialogue, Tom, is that you're coming from a point of view that something is bad when I do it, but harmless when you do it and I'm not sure how to get past that so that we can have an actual discussion rather than masked name-calling.

"There's no crime in that and I don't expect you to agree with me or even change your mind about it, but that's where I'm coming from."

"I have been quite clear that I expect us to disagree and feel that there's nothing particularly wrong with that. "

You are determined to have your feelings hurt on this. This is why I'm backing out.

[Joe Rice]

Rabid: irrationally extreme in opinion or practice

Fan: a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

So, people should be able to insult me as long as it's not as "severe" an insult as misogynist?

Nobody's insulting you. Tom repeatedly said there's nothing wrong with being a rabid fan of something. I know I'm a rabid fan about some things. You don't need a dictionary to tell you that isn't being insulting.

Accusing someone of misogyny IS.

[4PointOh]

Okay, back in for ANOTHER one:



"There's no crime in that and I don't expect you to agree with me or even change your mind about it, but that's where I'm coming from."

"I have been quite clear that I expect us to disagree and feel that there's nothing particularly wrong with that. "

You are determined to have your feelings hurt on this. This is why I'm backing out.

I don't mind that. I don't even mind that you've been backing out of this conversation for three posts now.

What I mind is your avoidance. You insult me, though, as you and your supporters have stated, not as severe an insult as being called a misogynist. So you ignore the fact that you insulted me and advise me to take it as I will because it wasn't like you called me a misogynist, so it's not really an insult at all. Then you say, that you HAVE been trying to have a discussion with me, but I'm too focused on the insult to notice.

All I want to do is debate Morrison's comments regarding Wonder Woman. But if you are indeed, honestly this time, backing out once more, I guess that's not possible.

[MartinRedmond]

Overall, even when I was a big fan, I never got the impression he really enjoyed writing women, aside from Lord Fanny and Emma Frost, who both have a wiener, making it null. I guess there was Edith and Crazy Jane. I can't think of any other. Didn't Huntress get the short end of the stick too?

[Joe Rice]

Jesus. I'm out, too.

[Black Atom]

I think Grant has inadvertently written something that highlights one of the biggest problems facing mainstream comics today.

Grant is a clever, creative, and often funny and charming man. He is not a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or anything like that.

But like many in the industry, fans and creators alike, he worships at the altar of nostalgia. Much of Final Crisis is built on allusions and homages to older stories, and the "cool bits" are generally exclusively reserved for those characters that he felt were cool in the Golden and Silver Ages.

Do you begin to see the problem? In the Golden and Silver Ages, almost every hero was a straight white male. So if you're just concerned with the characters that you thought were cool in the past, that means you're just concerned with a small number of straight white males.

Flip through Final Crisis. I'm not the first to notice that the gals in Final Crisis didn't do as well as the guys. (http://blog.newsarama.com/2009/01/26/final-crisis-wondering-about-wonder-woman/) Not by a long shot! But the interview really drives home the why of it. Grant tries to do something clever by researching the characters' pasts, looking for "classic" imagery he can use in his stories, for old stories he can allude to. Fair enough. The thing is though, in Wonder Woman (and likely the older stories of many other female characters) he's not going to find much that he likes. Rather than correct the problem by doing good things with the characters now, he gets so hung up on the way things used to be that he perpetuates the problem. The characters continue to get used poorly because he's not comfortable with the older material.

And so we've got another generation reading the biggest Big Event Book in years, and they don't see any of the girls doing anything cool or impressive (and the only non-whites doing much are essentially alternate-reality repaints of white characters). And it's very likely that when the people reading this get a little older and go to write something, they'll ask themselves "who should be the one to save the day?" and the answer will be "the ones that saved the day when I was younger." You know, those young good-looking straight white men.

Vicious cycle.

I don't think that's accurate at all, actually.

I think Grant looks at all the elements of the character's history for something to hold onto. Some core element that speaks to him that he can seize on and weave into a resonant character conflict or arc. That's the way any sane writer who's working with characters made up decades before they were born should approach the work. He didn't say he looked into Diana's past and didn't like it--he said he found the varying elements of her mythology contradictory. That's not really hard to understand. Marston's hero, originally conceived as an alternative to guys like Superman who solved problems with punches is today being realized as the DCU's apex warrior. It's not evident in Grant's statement (and certainly not in his work) that he's "hung up" on the silver age or more comfortable with bygone era of comics.

The guy's first responsibility is to write good stories, not to be politically correct and make sure male, female and various ethnic groups of heroes get the same amount of cool moments. It sucks he couldn't do more with WW (I am a WW fan, after all) but he obviously wasn't that inspired to do more than he did in this particular project.

[MartinRedmond]

The guy's first responsibility is to write good stories, not to be politically correct.

Sure, writing Batman and Superman stories is the pinnacle of human intellectual achievement.

[Indigo Al]

Overall, even when I was a big fan, I never got the impression he really enjoyed writing women, aside from Lord Fanny and Emma Frost, who both have a wiener, making it null. I guess there was Edith and Crazy Jane. I can't think of any other. Didn't Huntress get the short end of the stick too?

I think Edith was better because we got to see her in her old age, and had richer character than just being a fabulous flapper f***bot for King Mob (which was my sense, erroneous or not, of Ragged Robin - minus the flapper).

He did just fine with the women of Seven Soldiers, too.

[Corrina]

You guys need to stop....

with these suggestive subject headings, especially when there are photos of one of the person in the subject heading posing in underwear and the other wears a thong and a gold bra.

Jeez.

[Spiffy]

I don't think that's accurate at all, actually.

I think Grant looks at all the elements of the character's history for something to hold onto. Some core element that speaks to him that he can seize on and weave into a resonant character conflict or arc. That's the way any sane writer who's working with characters made up decades before they were born should approach the work. He didn't say he looked into Diana's past and didn't like it--he said he found the varying elements of her mythology contradictory.
Is she really any more contradictory than Superman? An infallible uberman who secretly hides the heart of an ordinary Joe Schmoe? Or Batman? Who's many different interpretations are so wildly contradictory at times that Morrison basically built RIP around that very concept?

[PatrickG]

Sure, writing Batman and Superman stories is the pinnacle of human intellectual achievement.

You really don't think it can be, huh?

Either you have an inflated view of humanity in comparison to mine or we're bound to disagree that those two figures, Sherlock Holmes, Elvis, Mickey Mouse, JFK, Lincoln and Hitler aside, there are probably no iconic personalities in the Western psyche in the last 200 years.

Superman and Batman are the only enduring mythological action heroes that really matter as anything other than obscure folk stories or footnotes or commentaries on a trend since the Enlightenment, possibly since Shakespeare.

[Constantine Drakon]

Personally, I think 4PointOh was as clear as crystal, and I'm genuinely baffled at the reaction going on here.

If someone says they hate a character, I don't think it's peculiar for other people to idly wonder what the reasons are. Hate is a strong emotion. If you're saying "I hate her" when you should be saying "I just don't like her", that's one thing, but if it's genuine hate that's a different kettle of fish.

And the person's reasons may turn out to be sexist, racist, homophobic, or what have you. But you 1. can't assume they are (it might be something as simple as "that damn costume!"), and 2. can't dismiss the possibility entirely either. I've met a few fans that said they "hate" Wonder Woman, and a minority of those people did have at least slightly misogynistic reasons for it (and there were a couple that seemed to be projecting their highly negative feelings about women in general on the character. Those people do exist, sadly).

[Gail Simone]

You know what I hate, is when a meaningful and interesting thread gets derailed by little snippy personal comments.

Can we stay on track, please, everyone?

[Tom]

Personally, I think 4PointOh was as clear as crystal, and I'm genuinely baffled at the reaction going on here.

If someone says they hate a character, I don't think it's peculiar for other people to idly wonder what the reasons are.

I don't either. I think it's peculiar to wonder what their motives are.

[Constantine Drakon]

Wonder Woman has often been written with a civilian side. Maybe it doesn't get noticed as much, but "Diana Prince" is pretty much all about her attempt at a facade..

Perhaps some writer might delve a bit deeper into showing Diana Prince as having characteristics that are distinct from Wonder Woman, I guess. But Diana Prince has never really been a "schizo" kind of thing, like Bruce Wayne often is compared to Batman. Perhaps there's room to be explored with Diana beginning to find herself being a bit less integrated in her disguise. At present, with Gorillas hanging around her in all guises, Etta and Tom dealing with her as both personas without missing a beat, and the DMA job merely being an extension of Wonder Woman's plots, that's not happening. But perhaps at some future point it could.

Oh please no. The sooner "Diana Prince" is dead, the better.

Marston and Perez gave her a childhood, and we've seen flashbacks and echoes since then. She comes from a society that taught her to embrace and seek peace, but also taught her how to defend herself and those she cares about. This really isn't as bizarre an idea as many people make it out to be... I've heard more than one martial arts instructor (some even in real life...) give a variation on the old “We train so we won’t have to fight” speech.

Then she left that home (visiting on occasion), and spent years as a hero to the world. And yes, most of the writers have struggled with what to have her do when not fighting giant monsters. Jimenez and Rucka gave her something that really sets her apart. She's always Diana of Themyscira, and when she wasn't fighting Lex Luthor or something she was her country's ambassador to the world. Her pre-Crisis secret identity was never as good as Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne, but having an utterly open public identity set her apart from them in interesting ways. You had her flying home to the embassy, changing into more comfortable clothing, and freely talking about her day with her close friends - including a single father struggling to raise two sons.

And that was all torn down in a surge of wrongheaded nostalgia, so we could get back "Diana Prince" (which had never been a good "secret identity"). Now, when not in her costume, she's pretending to be a "normal human". The sort of "normal human" that puts on skin-tight costumes to go fight superpowered nazis. The sort of "normal human" that flies invisible jets, has her own jetpack, dates the world's greatest master of disguise (who has holographic emitters in his clothing), and so on and so on. And why does she do it? In the books we're told it's so that she can better understand "normal humans" (oh, my head), in the real world we're told it's to humanize her (anyone got an Aspirin?), but the real truth of the matter is that it's an attempt to set the clock back to "the good old days", pushed forward by people that I highly suspect wouldn't be able to name any good "Diana Prince" stories from "the good old days". It must be good, because it's old, right? It's iconic and stuff. The real "good old days" for Wonder Woman are Rucka and Perez's runs, which were mercifully free of the worst secret identity in all of comics.

[Arrogantcur]

I doubt I'm the only one who thinks you've just described a wank-fantasy.

Same here. I mean, he might have truly believed in the idea described there about "loving authority" being necessary and women being the only ones capable of providing that, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also an idea that aroused him.


The problem is not that I don't know women like what you describe. The problem is that's rarely how I see Wonder Woman. I'm surrounded by beautiful, heroic, strong, honest women. But that's not how I see Wonder Woman. She more often seems a blank slate upon which men's ideas of women are projected; whether it be Marston's fetishism, Rucka's tough-chickism, Jimenez' mother goddess, etc. She's not consistent, there's not a through-line to her other than "heroine."

If she were more like the actual women I knew, heroic, strong, brave, tough, beautiful . . .then I'd "get" her more.

I'm only basing this on the Justice League cartoon and the 3 issues of Gail's WW run I've read, but...these days? She does seem like a real person.


they weren't just quirks. he wrote multiple pieces about that very thing. it wasn't just fetishism...it was part of his actual belief system.

Which is one I don't share, and that's part of the reason why I'm guessing--although I can't be sure of this--that reading the Golden Age stories would make me uncomfortable. That's because based on how it was described to me in another thread here, the message back then was that men shouldn't be in charge of anything and living in a matriarchy would be the best thing for all of us.

So if I were reading a story written by Marston, and if that was the message in it, I would feel like the dude was telling me "you are inferior because you are male." I'd be kind of insulted, to tell the truth.

Plus, let's say for the sake of argument that a greater percentage of women than men in this world are good and decent people. Even if that's true, we know that there are still plenty of women who aren't good people at all. Consider that Mohandas Gandhi used non-violence to free his country from British rule, and Indira Gandhi (no relation) declared war on Pakistan. Peace-loving male, war-making female. I'm also gonna go out on a limb and say I'm more about peace and love and non-violence than Michelle Bachman is.


Meanwhile, I think Wonder Woman's rabid fans have turned me off to the character pretty much for good at this point.

I let mountains of snow prevent me from visiting my LCS yesterday to buy the latest issue of WW right when it came out. I hope the rabid fans don't find out!

Oops, I guess they just did. I hope none of them have axes, because then I will be all like this: http://www.gangsterbb.net/emoticons/hatchet.gif


I am a rabid fan of my cats.

Who are rabid

Are they also WW fans?

[4PointOh]

Personally, I think 4PointOh was as clear as crystal, and I'm genuinely baffled at the reaction going on here.

If someone says they hate a character, I don't think it's peculiar for other people to idly wonder what the reasons are. Hate is a strong emotion. If you're saying "I hate her" when you should be saying "I just don't like her", that's one thing, but if it's genuine hate that's a different kettle of fish.

And the person's reasons may turn out to be sexist, racist, homophobic, or what have you. But you 1. can't assume they are (it might be something as simple as "that damn costume!"), and 2. can't dismiss the possibility entirely either. I've met a few fans that said they "hate" Wonder Woman, and a minority of those people did have at least slightly misogynistic reasons for it (and there were a couple that seemed to be projecting their highly negative feelings about women in general on the character. Those people do exist, sadly).

Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Chris Hansbrough]

We had a thread already on whether a creator's behavior turns on off to their work.

So I'll ask, is it fair to let nasty fans of a work turn you off to that work?

I'm avoiding Flash Rebirth because of that reason. actually more because of the lack of direction and incompetence of the franchise (I was really liking peyers run). The inane fanboy ranting just made it easier. The same reason I actually tried Green Lantern Rebirth even though I never liked Hal Jordan. I shared a shop with the guys that actually started HEAT and they were/are good people who actually didn't treat me like an idiot because I liked Kyle and Killowog, John and Mogo a hell of a lot more than I ever liked Hal. that actually got me to pick the book up.....I didn't really like the book but I gave it a try because of the behavior of the fans that were around me.

[Paul McEnery]

Removed...

[Paul McEnery]

Personally, I think 4PointOh was as clear as crystal, and I'm genuinely baffled at the reaction going on here.

If someone says they hate a character, I don't think it's peculiar for other people to idly wonder what the reasons are. Hate is a strong emotion. If you're saying "I hate her" when you should be saying "I just don't like her", that's one thing, but if it's genuine hate that's a different kettle of fish.

And the person's reasons may turn out to be sexist, racist, homophobic, or what have you. But you 1. can't assume they are (it might be something as simple as "that damn costume!"), and 2. can't dismiss the possibility entirely either. I've met a few fans that said they "hate" Wonder Woman, and a minority of those people did have at least slightly misogynistic reasons for it (and there were a couple that seemed to be projecting their highly negative feelings about women in general on the character. Those people do exist, sadly).

However, it's damn peculiar to project those motives on somebody who clearly doesn't have them.

The whole of Doom Patrol can be read as the attempt to unify the contradictions within the character of Crazy Jane. Took 40 some issues about it, too. Or Zatanna, done in four, but same deal.

Morrison's clearly saying: I get the contradictions, I don't have the bandwidth to deal with it at this moment and do justice to the character.

[Constantine Drakon]

The guy's first responsibility is to write good stories, not to be politically correct and make sure male, female and various ethnic groups of heroes get the same amount of cool moments.


It's something I struggle with myself. Yes, his first responsibility should be just to write a good story.

But let's look at this fandom we're in. It's a fandom that seems to almost be allergic to anything too new. If you want a comic to last more than a couple of years at DC, your character better be a couple of decades old, or at the very least be named after a well-established hero (Blue Beetle, Manhunter).

We are reluctant to let go of our favorite heroes to make room for new ones. The majority of the most popular characters at DC were created (in one form or another) back in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. Marvel's top dogs are pretty old too. With rare exceptions (usually in the form of Team Books, and usually from Marvel), any attempts to add some diversity seem to crash and burn. Can you imagine if Hollywood's focus was on a small number of decades-old characters, looking almost exactly like they always have? Or television? Comics are pretty unusual in that respect.

So yes, Grant just set out to tell a good story. But this is probably DC's biggest event in years (I don't know the sales numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's outselling Infinite Crisis, simply with its star power). It's all well and good to say the writers should just focus on telling a good story, and shouldn't feel the need to be politically correct.

But it's not like the old icons are going to die off and make room for new characters "that will become popular based on the strength of the characters, not their gender, orientation, or the color of their skin". The old guard aren't going anywhere.

I'm not sure if there's a good solution. I certainly wouldn't have gone to Grant and told him "you should have Vixen in this scene, saving the day." That's no way to write a story.

But I do think Grant has inadvertently written something that highlights one of the biggest problems facing mainstream comics today. It's not racist, misogynistic, homophobic or anything, but it is the sort of thing you get when a company puts ever-increasing focus on honoring characters and stories from eras when diversity in comics was almost unheard of.




I think Grant looks at all the elements of the character's history for something to hold onto. Some core element that speaks to him that he can seize on and weave into a resonant character conflict or arc. That's the way any sane writer who's working with characters made up decades before they were born should approach the work.


Agreed. The trouble is he's looking into the histories of a small number of characters who are important now because they were important decades ago. And the fact that the focus is so much on them now means they will likely continue to be the core group of important characters in the future.

And something about the one major female in the group bugged him, made him feel there was something "bogus" going on. So in the biggest DC event in years, he gave DC's biggest female character a pretty lousy role. And that's likely to just cement the view in the eyes of many that she's not a very important character. And incidentally, since she's basically the only really old and iconic female, that means that basically no women get to do anything as cool s what the guys are doing in the Biggest DC Event in years.

I understand his reasons, I see where he's coming from, I just think it's a problem.

[suedenim]

And that was all torn down in a surge of wrongheaded nostalgia, so we could get back "Diana Prince" (which had never been a good "secret identity").

While I admit to have had a bit of nostalgia (well, of the "cool idea from before I could read" type of nostalgia) for "Diana Prince, Wonder Woman," it's probably better left as a cool element of the past (available in convenient TPB form!) and nicely homaged by Walt Simonson.

But, yeah, reading Golden Age Wonder Woman, I often get the feeling that she has a secret identity solely because a secret identity was seen as part of the "superhero formula," and deviating from that formula was to court disaster in the eyes of publishers. (I've noticed this with other characters too - Silver Age Captain America and Iron Man, for instance, often seem at odds with their perceived "must-have" secret IDs.)

But Diana should be (mostly) quite comfortable with "normal people," because that's just how she is; it's her nature. To go off on a slight tangent, there's a tiny little bit I loved in one of the stories in Wonder Woman Archives, vol. 2. Diana (in Diana Prince clothes, but this isn't terribly important for the larger point) is out horseback riding by herself outside Washington on a wintry Saturday. No particular reason given, but we get the impression she does this fairly often, just for the fun of it. And that's one of the things that's neat about GA Wonder Woman - she's probably the most fun-loving superhero of her time. She comes across some young boys sledding down a hill, something she'd never experienced on Paradise Island, and wants to try it, so she takes a turn herself!

It's not part of an investigation or anything, just Diana spontaneously making friends with some kids, having fun, doing something new. Which does lead - rather improbably - to a collision with the main Wonder Woman storyline, but I love this little look into Diana's "private" life.

[Spiffy]

While I admit to have had a bit of nostalgia (well, of the "cool idea from before I could read" type of nostalgia) for "Diana Prince, Wonder Woman," it's probably better left as a cool element of the past (available in convenient TPB form!) and nicely homaged by Walt Simonson.

But, yeah, reading Golden Age Wonder Woman, I often get the feeling that she has a secret identity solely because a secret identity was seen as part of the "superhero formula," and deviating from that formula was to court disaster in the eyes of publishers. (I've noticed this with other characters too - Silver Age Captain America and Iron Man, for instance, often seem at odds with their perceived "must-have" secret IDs.)

But Diana should be (mostly) quite comfortable with "normal people," because that's just how she is; it's her nature. To go off on a slight tangent, there's a tiny little bit I loved in one of the stories in Wonder Woman Archives, vol. 2. Diana (in Diana Prince clothes, but this isn't terribly important for the larger point) is out horseback riding by herself outside Washington on a wintry Saturday. No particular reason given, but we get the impression she does this fairly often, just for the fun of it. And that's one of the things that's neat about GA Wonder Woman - she's probably the most fun-loving superhero of her time. She comes across some young boys sledding down a hill, something she'd never experienced on Paradise Island, and wants to try it, so she takes a turn herself!

It's not part of an investigation or anything, just Diana spontaneously making friends with some kids, having fun, doing something new. Which does lead - rather improbably - to a collision with the main Wonder Woman storyline, but I love this little look into Diana's "private" life.
See, I think this is actually a very compelling argument that even if Diana Prince doesn't need to exist Princess Diana DOES.

Here's the difference.

Princess Diana, like Diana Prince, is Wonder Woman dressed down. Her inherent qualities still exist, but "off duty"--relaxing out of uniform so to speak.

Why is this necessary? It shows her in relaxation mode--something suedenim has correctly identified as an interesting facet of her. Superman too can relax, sort of, as Clark Kent, and Batman can give the appearance (a false one) of relaxing as Bruce Wayne, but in both of those cases its not recognizably the hero in that state. Diana, the Princess, can have a mode where she's more approachable to people and yet still be herself. Well, at least as much as any royalty can.

Basically, you can have Diana walk down a street with a girlfriend holding a shopping bag. People can walk up to her in amazement that they've run into her on the street. You know... like that time you ran into Paul Sorvino at some Italina restaurant, and were scared to walk up and talk to him, but you DID and he turned out to be a nice guy. Like that.

That may not seem like a big thing... but in some ways it is. Celebrities are recognizable reflections of ourselves, so we kind of accept them both more than human and yet kind of like us all at once. Superheroes, on the other hand, are too far into the "other" for that to work. Diana, in her Princess guise, bridged that gap better than some of her contemporaries--who had no recognizable public life outside of punching bad guys.

[4PointOh]

However, it's damn peculiar to project those motives on somebody who clearly doesn't have them.

The whole of Doom Patrol can be read as the attempt to unify the contradictions within the character of Crazy Jane. Took 40 some issues about it, too. Or Zatanna, done in four, but same deal.

Morrison's clearly saying: I get the contradictions, I don't have the bandwidth to deal with it at this moment and do justice to the character.

No. Actually, what Morrison said was that what he gave us in FINAL CRISIS was the sum of his NEGATIVE feelings about the character and then apologized for not being constructive in his handling of her, offering that he will give a stab at handling her in a more constructive manner elsewhere.

[Michael P]

I must admit, I'm fuzzy on what bylaws entitled readers to any portrayal of Wonder Woman (or anyone else) in Final Crisis beyond what served the story.

[Paul McEnery]

See, I think this is actually a very compelling argument that even if Diana Prince doesn't need to exist Princess Diana DOES.

Here's the difference.

Princess Diana, like Diana Prince, is Wonder Woman dressed down. Her inherent qualities still exist, but "off duty"--relaxing out of uniform so to speak.

Why is this necessary? It shows her in relaxation mode--something suedenim has correctly identified as an interesting facet of her. Superman too can relax, sort of, as Clark Kent, and Batman can give the appearance (a false one) of relaxing as Bruce Wayne, but in both of those cases its not recognizably the hero in that state. Diana, the Princess, can have a mode where she's more approachable to people and yet still be herself. Well, at least as much as any royalty can.

Basically, you can have Diana walk down a street with a girlfriend holding a shopping bag. People can walk up to her in amazement that they've run into her on the street. You know... like that time you ran into Paul Sorvino at some Italina restaurant, and were scared to walk up and talk to him, but you DID and he turned out to be a nice guy. Like that.

That may not seem like a big thing... but in some ways it is. Celebrities are recognizable reflections of ourselves, so we kind of accept them both more than human and yet kind of like us all at once. Superheroes, on the other hand, are too far into the "other" for that to work. Diana, in her Princess guise, bridged that gap better than some of her contemporaries--who had no recognizable public life outside of punching bad guys.

That's a nice angle, actually: the approachable celebrity (because she doesn't have to worry about Mark Chapman).

[Tobias March]

I must admit, I'm fuzzy on what bylaws entitled readers to any portrayal of Wonder Woman (or anyone else) in Final Crisis beyond what served the story.

Where the hell was the Creeper!!

[bfrank]

I'm avoiding Flash Rebirth because of that reason.

I'm avoiding it because of the artist.......

[4PointOh]

I must admit, I'm fuzzy on what bylaws entitled readers to any portrayal of Wonder Woman (or anyone else) in Final Crisis beyond what served the story.

The issue isn't whether Morrison gave me or any Wonder Woman reader what they wanted in the character. The issue is that he gave readers a Wonder Woman comprised of all of his negative feelings about the character, a portrayal that he knew did the character a disservice because he felt it necessary to apologize for it.

I wonder if the disappointment and anger would be better appreciated if he had done and admitted to the same about Superman or Batman. Because there seems to be a sentiment present that it was "just Wonder Woman" so "Why should anyone care?"

[bfrank]

I realize you'll never see it this way, but that right there? That would be what people are talking about when they talk about rabid fan reactions to the character.
:confused:
Wha? Because he'll ask why someone doesn't like the character? That'd make me a rabid Wolverine/Lobo/Quicksilver/Booster Gold/Spider Man/Captain America/Dazzler/Hulk/Emma Frost fan.... Which is odd, in that I don't give a fuck about any of those characters......

[Michael P]

The issue isn't whether Morrison gave me or any Wonder Woman reader what they wanted in the character.

It seems to me that's exactly the issue. In fact, it seems it's always the issue, no matter which creator or character is being discussed.


The issue is that he gave readers a Wonder Woman comprised of all of his negative feelings about the character, a portrayal that he knew did the character a disservice because he felt it necessary to apologize for it.

And yet, the world spins on. And it's not like it would be the first time. She's a big girl; she'll get over it. It's not like it was personal, towards her or anyone else.


I wonder if the disappointment and anger would be better appreciated if he had done and admitted to the same about Superman or Batman. Because there seems to be a sentiment present that it was "just Wonder Woman" so "Why should anyone care?"

Not from me. Hell, you can just go ahead and slot that response into any future discussions of this nature, about anyone.

[Constantine Drakon]

Morrison's clearly saying: I get the contradictions, I don't have the bandwidth to deal with it at this moment and do justice to the character.


Yeah... I'm sorry, but his reply is frankly Bizarro to me. Now I agree that the the goal of every writer should be to have a firm grasp on everyone in the cast, and you should aim for highly nuanced characterization, and you should try to do some character-defining stuff that makes fans jump up and go "yes, yes, that's the character I love". Commendable.

But I think there has to be something in between doing that, and, for example... turning a character into a walking plague-maiden that's got an ugly mask, wanders around not doing much for most of the series, and is ultimately cured by one of the writer's obscure pet characters in a rushed and very poorly explained way, before being shuffled off to the side and having very little to do with mythic Final Battle Against Evil. I'm sorry, but Grant gets asked why Wonder Woman fared so poorly in comparison to the Flashes, Green Lantern, and so on, and he replies that he had some problems getting the character... and I find myself wondering just how much of a grasp he needed on the Flashes to have them racing death, or how much he needed to study the Green Lanterns to have Hal and the others help kill the ultimate vampire with a green glowy stake.

[bfrank]

Yeah... I'm sorry, but his reply is frankly Bizarro to me. Now I agree that the the goal of every writer should be to have a firm grasp on everyone in the cast, and you should aim for highly nuanced characterization, and you should try to do some character-defining stuff that makes fans jump up and go "yes, yes, that's the character I love". Commendable.

But I think there has to be something in between doing that, and, for example... turning a character into a walking plague-maiden that's got an ugly mask, wanders around not doing much for most of the series, and is ultimately cured by one of the writer's obscure pet characters in a rushed and very poorly explained way, before being shuffled off to the side and having very little to do with mythic Final Battle Against Evil. I'm sorry, but Grant gets asked why Wonder Woman fared so poorly in comparison to the Flashes, Green Lantern, and so on, and he replies that he had some problems getting the character... and I find myself wondering just how much of a grasp he needed on the Flashes to have them racing death, or how much he needed to study the Green Lanterns to have Hal and the others help kill the ultimate vampire with a green glowy stake.
There's not a lot to "get" abut Flash or the GL's......

[4PointOh]

It seems to me that's exactly the issue. In fact, it seems it's always the issue, no matter which creator or character is being discussed.

Not for me. For me the issue is that he chose the negative and for what I consider suspect reasoning. And I LOVE when Gail writes the character. And when Phil Jimenez writes the character. And when Greg Rucka writes the character. And when Eric Luke writes the character. And when John Byrne writes the character. And when George Perez writes the character. And when William Messner-Loebs writes the character. And when Dwayne McDuffie writes the character. So, kinda no to your supposition.


And yet, the world spins on. And it's not like it would be the first time. She's a big girl; she'll get over it.

So my concerns shouldn't be expressed because tomorrow is another day? If that's the case, shut down any and every discussion because no discussion is worth being had because tomorrow things might be different and the world goes on.

I think this is your kind way of telling me to shut up. Well, you're going to be disappointed.


Not from me. Hell, you can just go ahead and slot that response into any future discussions of this nature, about anyone.

You're right. Point taken.

[Tom]

Once again for the cheap seats....


:confused:
Wha? Because he'll ask why someone doesn't like the character?

No, because he assumes they have motives for not liking the character.

[bfrank]

Once again for the cheap seats....

:rolleyes:
Miss me with the crankypants, k?



No, because he assumes they have motives for not liking the character.

Again, you tell me you don't like Emms, I'm gonna ask you why....Big Fuckin Deal......

[4PointOh]

Once again for the cheap seats....



No, because he assumes they have motives for not liking the character.

You're assigning a negative intent to the word motive. Like my use of it is to signify that I think there's something sinister behind the opposing opinion. That's not how I view the word at all, nor how I mean to use it in this instance. I view it as synonomous with "the reason why."

I'm sorry that I miscommunicated and misled and will try to be more careful with my word choices, what I say, and what I share on these boards in the future.

[Tom]

:rolleyes:
Miss me with the crankypants, k?
Hunh?


Again, you tell me you don't like Emms, I'm gonna ask you why....Big Fuckin Deal......

There is a difference between reasons and motives.

[Tom]

You're assigning a negative intent to the word motive. Like my use of it is to signify that I think there's something sinister behind the opposing opinion. That's not how I view the word at all, nor how I mean to use it in this instance. I view it as synonomous with "the reason why." Okay, but that's not what the word means. A motive has an intent to it. A reason doesn't necessarily imply such a thing.


I'm sorry that I miscommunicated and misled and will try to be more careful with my word choices, what I say, and what I share on these boards in the future.

You don't have to apologize.

[4PointOh]

Okay, but that's not what the word means. A motive has an intent to it. A reason doesn't necessarily imply such a thing.

Thesaurus.com says motive and reason are synonyms and lists "reason, purpose" as the definition of motive. And that's honestly how I meant it.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/motive



You don't have to apologize.

But I wanted to because I want to be clear that there are no ill feelings and that I understand your point of view even if I disagree with it.

[Paul McEnery]

No. Actually, what Morrison said was that what he gave us in FINAL CRISIS was the sum of his NEGATIVE feelings about the character and then apologized for not being constructive in his handling of her, offering that he will give a stab at handling her in a more constructive manner elsewhere.

Which, as Michael says, served the story. She, like Batwoman and Catwoman and Mary Marvel, wound up playing parasitic evil's roles for women.

That was kind of the point of the book, yes?

Also, people are kind of missing the Scots sarcasm here. He's talking directly to the fanboys who want to beat him up because he was mean to their imaginary girlfriend.

But what the metacommentary in the book was directly addressing was the way women are treated by fanboy/corporate culture. These characters ARE fetish objects and have ALWAYS been fetish objects for the ACTUAL readership of superhero comics, which is boys and man-boys in the main.

What we see in the Furies (and Mary Marvel) is exactly the fantasy of control made flesh -- topping from below, if you like. The male fantasy wants these characters to be strict nanny.

Mandrakk wants to feed off the stories until there's nothing left alive in them but the fetish object. Darkseid wants them to be agents of his anti-life control. That's the story! You're supposed not to like it!

This is the big difference between the approaches of Ellis, Ennis and Morrison.

Ellis sees superheroes as symbols for post-humanity, so he creates the strong role models he wants us to be.

Ennis sees superheroes as symbols for arrested development, and specifically for America's arrested development in how it deals with the world.

Morrison sees them as genuine archetypes and memetic organism struggling to achieve life. And in their inception, as innocent children's comics, that's what they were. But Moore and Miller brought us into a difficult transition period analagous to adolescence, and that's where they've been stuck. And Grant wants them -- like the New Gods in Mister Miracle -- set free to do their job.

And that's the point of that final scene where Diana crushes the mask, that's a symbolic -- and hopeful -- gesture that things should now change so that the characters can fulfill their own organic imperatives.

So yes, there's more to explore in Diana's internal contradictions, but for the purposes of this story, it was necessary to let evil have it's way with her so as to demonstrate the nature of the beast, to defeat the parasitic fanboy/corporate union, and transform the nature of the role.

We hope and trust.

[Matt Algren]

Thesaurus.com says motive and reason are synonyms and lists "reason, purpose" as the definition of motive. And that's honestly how I meant it.
Connotation is important.

[4PointOh]

Which, as Michael says, served the story. She, like Batwoman and Catwoman and Mary Marvel, wound up playing parasitic evil's roles for women.

That was kind of the point of the book, yes?

Also, people are kind of missing the Scots sarcasm here. He's talking directly to the fanboys who want to beat him up because he was mean to their imaginary girlfriend.

But what the metacommentary in the book was directly addressing was the way women are treated by fanboy/corporate culture. These characters ARE fetish objects and have ALWAYS been fetish objects for the ACTUAL readership of superhero comics, which is boys and man-boys in the main.

What we see in the Furies (and Mary Marvel) is exactly the fantasy of control made flesh -- topping from below, if you like. The male fantasy wants these characters to be strict nanny.

Mandrakk wants to feed off the stories until there's nothing left alive in them but the fetish object. Darkseid wants them to be agents of his anti-life control. That's the story! You're supposed not to like it!

This is the big difference between the approaches of Ellis, Ennis and Morrison.

Ellis sees superheroes as symbols for post-humanity, so he creates the strong role models he wants us to be.

Ennis sees superheroes as symbols for arrested development, and specifically for America's arrested development in how it deals with the world.

Morrison sees them as genuine archetypes and memetic organism struggling to achieve life. And in their inception, as innocent children's comics, that's what they were. But Moore and Miller brought us into a difficult transition period analagous to adolescence, and that's where they've been stuck. And Grant wants them -- like the New Gods in Mister Miracle -- set free to do their job.

And that's the point of that final scene where Diana crushes the mask, that's a symbolic -- and hopeful -- gesture that things should now change so that the characters can fulfill their own organic imperatives.

So yes, there's more to explore in Diana's internal contradictions, but for the purposes of this story, it was necessary to let evil have it's way with her so as to demonstrate the nature of the beast, to defeat the parasitic fanboy/corporate union, and transform the nature of the role.

We hope and trust.

That's a great interpretation. I like it because it goes below the surface to try to seek the "lesson" so to speak. I don't necessarily agree that all of those things are at work in Morrison's comments, but I like your explication nonetheless.

The danger, again, is that most people won't get it (because Morrison didn't really make your assessment clear) and that Morrison's intentions will actually have the opposite effect--to the detriment of the character.

Also, his tactics as described by you seem arbitrary: why do Black Canary and Supergirl avoid the so-called metatexual fanboy fetishizing? If there is some commentary about the industry, why is Superman still the savior? Why is there no reconcilliation there?

[Black Atom]

Sure, writing Batman and Superman stories is the pinnacle of human intellectual achievement.

I don't think it's a really lofty idea to expect a writer--even for crummy ol' funny books--to put story first.

[Constantine Drakon]

I must admit, I'm fuzzy on what bylaws entitled readers to any portrayal of Wonder Woman (or anyone else) in Final Crisis beyond what served the story.

"Bylaws"? It's certainly not written down anywhere. It is, however, the nature of the medium that when there's one of these "Big Events" going on, most of the best known characters get rolled out to do their things. And, again, it's not written down anywhere... but it is something of an unwritten rule that you try to do right by the characters and their fans.

I'm not sure how the Flashes' race against death "served the story," to be honest. I'm certainly not sure how Wonder Woman's role "served the story". You could have eliminated either one's role without drastic rewrites, they seem to be mostly there because they're important characters and this is a "Crisis", so the important characters are meant to show up.

Again, I think that when there's a Big Event, writers should do their best to do right by the characters they're using. If nothing else, it's just polite, and respectful to your colleagues. Gail's writing Wonder Woman right now, and it would have been nice if Wonder Woman was written as a real hero in Final Crisis, in a way that might encourage readers to give her book a second glance. Certainly he wasn't required to do so. But when the cast of your story is largely made up of the main characters of books other people are writing, making their living off of, it's just good manners to treat those characters with some respect.

[Tony Bang]

Sure, writing Batman and Superman stories is the pinnacle of human intellectual achievement.

The post you quoted said good stories, not the pinnacle of intellectual achievement. So I don't understand your point.

[PatrickG]

"Bylaws"? It's certainly not written down anywhere. It is, however, the nature of the medium that when there's one of these "Big Events" going on, most of the best known characters get rolled out to do their things. And, again, it's not written down anywhere... but it is something of an unwritten rule that you try to do right by the characters and their fans.

What has Wonder Woman done of importance in ANY crossover event, WAR OF THE GODS aside? I seem to recall quite a few she didn't play a part in at all and she was a victim whenever she did appear.

I'm not even sure why she's #3 at DC, nostalgia aside.

I don't think it would be that hard to create a female character who could serve the role of #3 DC character if they dropped Wonder Woman like a cold turkey, put this new character in the JLA and "The Trinity" unironically. In fact, I think any new character who got all the love and dedication applied to WW would exceed WW in terms of popularity.

As-is, I think Batgirl (Barbara Gordon) and Supergirl are bigger icons in every sense BUT the "Mickey Mouse Factor" and I bet if you started rummaging through longboxes, I bet you'd find that the average comic geek is more likely to have a She-Hulk or a Batgirl or a Supergirl comic (or maybe even Ms. Marvel or Rogue) than a WW comic.

And a part of the problem is that any attempts to make her a super-hero get soundly rejected by her core fans, who want a more literate "Conan in New York" or "Tarzan by Way of Greek Mythology" instead of a super-hero, while also maintaining some kind of bragging rights that she is a top super-hero, while also rejecting virtually every super-hero element except for fight scenes.

[Black Atom]

Is she really any more contradictory than Superman? An infallible uberman who secretly hides the heart of an ordinary Joe Schmoe? Or Batman? Who's many different interpretations are so wildly contradictory at times that Morrison basically built RIP around that very concept?

I'd say yes, easily. For starters, Superman being a farmboy at heart (which is only true half the time) isn't really a contradiction at all.

That doesn't mean the character's ruined or anything. But I could see how a writer or reader could struggle with "getting" the character more with WW than Batman or Superman taking in the totality of their portrayals.

[Paul McEnery]

Yeah... I'm sorry, but his reply is frankly Bizarro to me. Now I agree that the the goal of every writer should be to have a firm grasp on everyone in the cast, and you should aim for highly nuanced characterization, and you should try to do some character-defining stuff that makes fans jump up and go "yes, yes, that's the character I love". Commendable.

Why? Because otherwise they'll whine?



But I think there has to be something in between doing that, and, for example... turning a character into a walking plague-maiden that's got an ugly mask, wanders around not doing much for most of the series, and is ultimately cured by one of the writer's obscure pet characters in a rushed and very poorly explained way, before being shuffled off to the side and having very little to do with mythic Final Battle Against Evil. I'm sorry, but Grant gets asked why Wonder Woman fared so poorly in comparison to the Flashes, Green Lantern, and so on, and he replies that he had some problems getting the character... and I find myself wondering just how much of a grasp he needed on the Flashes to have them racing death, or how much he needed to study the Green Lanterns to have Hal and the others help kill the ultimate vampire with a green glowy stake.

Um...This much of a grasp.

The Flashes are the Shekinah -- avatars of the "life force" of the Universe, the revivifying principle that rescues the lower world from the evil control of its demiurge. The point of them is that life is faster than death, and love is stronger than hatred. Also, as a generational character, The Flash signifies the principle of generativity. Plus, the Flashes are Hermes -- the wings on the hat kind of give it away -- which is why they're all about the science.

The Green Lanterns are Will in the generative mode of Imagination (which is why there's so damn many of them). They also signify fearlessness in the face of Death. Somewhere in there there's the sense that the Green Plasma is the substance of God -- but that's just the apotheosis of creative imagination. Which is the opposite of selfish vampirism.

Wonder Woman, however, is Will in the mode of Desire. Her origin story is Pygmalion -- the womb envy story of male creativity. She embodies Marston's inner conflicts about sexuality, and his wish-fulfillment fantasy about naughty mommy. After the latency period of the post Marston years, we get her reinvented as Emma Peel -- whose name was short for man appeal, yeah?

OTOH, she's also this warrior type, so we've got a mash-up of Diana and Aphrodite. Which is the Sarah Connor archetype we know and love. But she's also the embodiment of blind justice -- the Desire for Truth. And then there's the avaricious nature of corporate DC -- eat Captain Marvel, eat Wildstorm, eat Charlton, eat Wonder Woman (shouldn't there be a 52 Marstonworld, then?).

So there's all this mess. But worse than that, the deconstruction of it all has already been done by Alan Moore somewhere else. So whaddya gonna do?

In Grant's case, fix on the negative aspects vital to this particular story that exemplify one ugly side of the DCU under parastism.

[Paul McEnery]

What has Wonder Woman done of importance in ANY crossover event, WAR OF THE GODS aside? I seem to recall quite a few she didn't play a part in at all and she was a victim whenever she did appear.

I'm not even sure why she's #3 at DC, nostalgia aside..

Linda Carter's boobs.

[CaptainCanada]

But, yeah, reading Golden Age Wonder Woman, I often get the feeling that she has a secret identity solely because a secret identity was seen as part of the "superhero formula," and deviating from that formula was to court disaster in the eyes of publishers. (I've noticed this with other characters too - Silver Age Captain America and Iron Man, for instance, often seem at odds with their perceived "must-have" secret IDs.)
Yeah, that's the case with a lot of characters (it's notable that both of those characters you've cited since discarded their secret identities and became public heroes). Diana was one of the first major characters (and, until the X-Men went public, the most notable one) to really broaden the superhero concept; if her job is to represent her people, it makes no sense to hide. And, in this day and age, the "celebrity" metaphor strikes me as having a lot more interesting story possibilities, given how much of our society revolves around fascination with celebrity. Diana's been a princess from birth, so she should be totally accustomed to "being super all the time" (as Mr. Incredible put it).

But then you have people like Geoff Johns, who are stuck on formula and insist that if she doesn't have a secret ID she isn't a proper hero (see also: Wally West, Hal Jordan), and this whole idea that not pretending to be a commoner makes her arrogant, something not supported by any actual comics, just by Johns' own biasses; and hence, Infinite Crisis. The post-Crisis Diana was a thoughtful, grounded person who interacted with a broad range of people, living with multiple normal American families, conversing with her staff in casual attire, etc.

[Paul McEnery]

That's a great interpretation. I like it because it goes below the surface to try to seek the "lesson" so to speak. I don't necessarily agree that all of those things are at work in Morrison's comments, but I like your explication nonetheless.

The danger, again, is that most people won't get it (because Morrison didn't really make your assessment clear) and that Morrison's intentions will actually have the opposite effect--to the detriment of the character.

Well, there's no helping some people, is there.


Also, his tactics as described by you seem arbitrary: why do Black Canary and Supergirl avoid the so-called metatexual fanboy fetishizing? If there is some commentary about the industry, why is Superman still the savior? Why is there no reconcilliation there?
Dunno.

A few sides to it, I think. One is that obviously he wanted there to be some key women players in the game. Another is that the Furies are the explicitly fetishy characters (and oh yes is there a strict mommy giantess genre in porn). A third would be that I'd guess he went for the best analogues to Barda's crew, but I haven't double-checked that yet. And Mary Marvel has of course already had that done to her in Justice League -- the schoolgirl fetish!

But mostly I think Wonder Woman's there because it's the most powerful image. Same as with all the other big guns being taken off the board. If even she can be corrupted by anti-life, we're all in trouble.