Grant Morrisson has some more thoughts on Wonder Woman

[DarkKnghtJared]

He talks about WW as if Superman and Batman have no baggage. One comes across as repressed and asexual no matter they say about him and Lois and the other a man who has homosexual overtones with his young protege.

...

The only reason I brought up Cry for Justice is that it was marketed as all-ages fare and was po-faced idiotic attempts to be mature and challenging and gratuitous as could be. Neither truly adult or remotely all-ages.

Uh...when the hell was Cry for Justice EVER considered all-ages fare? As I recall, they were up-front about it being "the grim and gritty Justice League."

Well, to be fair, FC really was pretty awful with the character, and it's not difficult to see how fans would react negatively to it. If anyone but Morrison had written that, even the most 'I hate Wonder Woman fans and all their stupid nonsense because they're apparently more awful than any other fanbase' people would have probably went after them in varying degrees, or at least not defended it as vehemently as they did (and some still do, strangely). Though, I will agree, no one should ignore his words after that, which to a large degree, was essentially a large apology to the "her fans" (his exact words) because of that.

I don't get what was so wrong about Diana's role in Final Crisis. If it's just about her "Female Furies" thing, I would also note that Diana did kick a LOT of ass when she got out of it, and I would also note that he's written the other two Furies, Catwoman and Batwoman pretty recently and they came off very strong, competent, and entertaining.

I'm not opposed to exploring sexuality in WW. But, from what I've read, it always seems to be the first thing out of his mouth and the main focus of his statements, as if it's the only thing, and not just a part of life. Sorry, but "strange sexuality" doesn't fill me with hope that he really "gets" WW. It feels like he may be over-focusing on just one aspect, and I'm not convinced he even gets that one right. Just my impression thus far. I'm waiting to see what he actually does with it.

I think Morrison calls it "strange sexuality" because other people find it strange, not him. Remember, this is the man who made Negative Man into a hermaphrodite and created a character that was a transvestite street corner; I don't think alt-sexuality really phases him.

Also, he's probably over-focusing on that in his interviews because that part has been more or less absent in the books.

I don't know what that's a reference to. Has Morrison referred to Batman that way? Assuming he has, I doubt that he normally refers to Batman that way.

Like they said, "Hairy Chested Love God." Granted, it was part of a bigger discussion when he first started on the book on how he wanted to take Batman back to the more O'Neil/Adams era of Batman, where he was more of a suave, James Bond-esque figure, and the sex aspect was only a part of it, but...a phrase like that just locks into your brain, don't it?

I love All-Star Superman; haven't read 1234. Love and hate his X-Men (his Magneto was terrible, and don't care for his Jean either, except the end). JLA is fun to read, though WW always got the sideshow and never the spotlight.

Didn't she lead the entire planet to help save Superman when all of humanity gained super-powers?

Which two times?

If Final Crisis is one of those times, well, "great" is not how I would describe it. Really enjoy the story. But WW was far from great.

FC was probably one of them--and outside of the Female Furies thing, I think she came off pretty well, especially when she freed all of humanity from the Anti-Life equation with her Lasso of Truth.

The other time was Return of Bruce Wayne, where she was instrumental in getting Bruce to be able to stay in the present without blowing a hole in the timestream.

[Wulfmir]

Not a Grant Morrison fan, not even buying a title written by him at the moment, but I got to start reading his interviews.

[Death by Mime]

Oh wow everyone, stop the presses, Grant Morrison said a Thing.

We're not going to be seeing anything of this big Wonder Woman story for years, if ever. I mean, he's supposedly writing Batman right now, and when's the last time anyone even saw that?

[Wulfmir]

We're not going to be seeing anything of this big Wonder Woman story for years, if ever. I mean, he's supposedly writing Batman right now, and when's the last time anyone even saw that?

Which asks he question, is that good or bad?

No author could write Wonder Woman without stepping on someones toes here. Thats a fact.

[carabas]

Wow, he literally said that dozens of times? That's kinda gross, actually.

It was in reference to an element of the Batman mythos that had fallen by the wayside...

[Castel]

Oh wow everyone, stop the presses, Grant Morrison said a Thing.

Haha, my thought exactly.

[Death by Mime]

What's particularly ridiculous is that it's pretty much the same thing he said a year or two ago, following Final Crisis. That he'd like to explore the Marston bondage elements. And then the board freaked out over that offhand comment to the point that people were speculating that he might've replaced Simone on the main title. And I thought finally that had died out. But Morrison mentions it again in an interview, and suddenly everything old is new again!

[CarolStrick]

I remember a commentary from Christopher Priest, about an aborted storyline he pitched for DC, it involved a European despot engaging in military aggression, the JLA gets involved and the villain promised that he would end the conflict if only Wonder Woman would sleep with him, "indecent proposal" style.. Priest ended up getting stonewalled by editorial and had to change the story drastically, even though in the original pitch, WW chose not to give in to the villain..

There were several things that made that particular story a giant "fail" in my eyes. First and foremost: though the villain promised he would end the atrocities going on if Diana would sleep with him, it was clearly shown that he could not accomplish this. He did not have that level of control over his people.

Therefore, if he couldn't uphold his end of the bargain, there was no reason why Diana should bargain with him. Hello?

Next, Diana goes around to all her male superfriends to get their advice. IIrc (and it's been a long time since I read this) there were no women other than her mother that she went to. To me this reads as completely unreal, just a gimmick to get cameos into the story.

Then we get into all that "make Fury insane because of her unrequited love for a man" crap...

[dupersuper]

"the grim and gritty Justice League."

2 terms that really don't belong together...

Didn't she lead the entire planet to help save Superman when all of humanity gained super-powers?

Plus take down a few angels and a Heavenly Chariot, boss Aquaman around, beat Primaid...all while giving pithy 1-liners on par with the rest of the cast.

[benicio127]

Actually, Sue of DCWomenKickingAss did an amazing post on why Morrison SHOULD write Wondy here.

I really encourage you to read it, she makes some incredible points and it's really well done. It's even in her New Year's Resolutions for DC. Her final words: Yes, the man whose work I have taken and thrown across the room in frustration because of its metatext and footnotiness.

He knows the character. He knows how to evolve a character but keep them recognizable. He’s said he wants to write her. And if you believe Rich Johnson, he’s prepared a treatment.

DC has said they want Wonder Woman to be a peer of Batman and Superman in sales success. This is what will make it happen. They rolled the dice with JMS and came up with snake eyes. It’s time to bring in the loaded dice.

[Mayowa]

My God, this board loves talking about Grant Morrison so. Morrison doing an "All-Star" treatment of Wonder Woman would be right up my alley, perhaps as much as an Adam Hughes "All-Star" treatment of Wonder Woman. If nothing else, it's intriguing. What is there to say about his views on Wonder Woman? He wants to explore psycho-sexual elements he sees in her original stories. Neil Gaiman seems to share similar views regarding Wonder Woman, and it's not as if there isn't evidence to support this. I think there is a lot more nuance to it than the idea of reducing Wonder Woman into some sort of salacious porn.

Morrison takes hokey stuff and spins it into gold, it's what he does. I know for my part, it's something I would jump on. It's different and wonderfully gauche. I would also be fairly disappointed if it were in-continuity. Continuity is poison.

And for the love of the Internet, can we stop it with this nonsense of who "gets" Wonder Woman?! Such a patently ridiculous idea, and of all characters! Certain writers "get" Wonder Woman for you, i.e., they write Wonder Woman the way you would like - nothing more, nothing less.

[Adam C]

The emphasis on this aspect in Morrison's comments about Wonder Woman, while other aspects (which I think are much more important to the character) are de-emphasized, kind of makes me worry that a Morrison Wonder Woman story might wind up being borderline soft porn.

I'm not sure why since DC probably wouldn't allow that...and he's not Chris Claremont who's splashed it around his work. But to elaborate...

...when Morrison talks about her sexuality he's talking about how he understands the character as a symbol and the underlying psychological dynamics that form the subtext of the story. Hence the "Thing was an angry castrated baby" because in a sense Benajim Grimm the character is metaphorically castrated. His rocky form cuts him off from normal human contact and interaction, and has been a source of frustration that keeps him from acting on his desires. You also see it in All-Star Superman. Tonally it recalls the bizarreness of the stories of the fifties and sixties. He even mentioned the Mort Weisinger era and recognizes there was some disturbed psychology going on in those stories. (And having seen some of them I have to wonder if 60s sexism aside, there also wasn't a fear of women bubbling under the surface.)

Yet in All-Star Superman he reverses that to present Superman who very obviously has a sexually healthy adult relationship with both Lois Lane and Jimmy Olson. No bizarre tricks, adoption, stories, etc....well except for the reference to all the tricks Superman used to hide his secret identity, but that's party of him opening up to Lois to consummate their relationship instead of playing games. Morrison has said that much of his writing is a metaphor for what's happening in his own life and his writing is very metaphoric about the struggles we face in our own lives. And usually his big bads are just metaphors for the unhealthy or darker aspects of our psychology that come up through repression and not facing them down. The Invisibles just make it very obvious with the Lovecraftian horrors that attack the characters with their personal failings.

When Morrison talks about the character's psychology he's referring to what T Hedge Coke pointed out here. He's not talking about writing a porn comic, but the underlying psychological dynamics that writers impress on the Wonder Woman character whether consciously or not. Similarly, based on my reading of his work, Morrison feels that he needs to grapple with Wonder Woman's past portrayals, including Marston's weird sexuality. Namely to resolve it because Morrison's remarks indicate that it's merely been buried and ignored rather than actually worked through to the point where the character can naturally move on.

Whether this is necessary or not is up for debate, but any sexuality he presents is likely going to be sublimated into what will be a very colourful superhero story, much as he sublimated his commentary on the way that woman in superhero comics are vehicles for people's unhealthy sexual fantasies into a standard supervillain mind control trope in Final Crisis. (And we can debate the success of that too, but the point still stands.)

[gwangung]

If Morrison ever did write Wonder Woman, he'll introduce one or two elements that every one will pick up on, one that every one will run screaming in horror from and seven or eight that everyone SHOULD pick up on but will, instead, be politely ignored for eternity. (e.g., I'd bet he'd do a bit where WW carouses a bit [like, say, at a friend's wedding], taking off her boots and leading a dance---something you could plausibly draw from GA influences, but would skeeve off a lot of fans....]

[Fused]

I'm not sure why since DC probably wouldn't allow that...and he's not Chris Claremont who's splashed it around his work. But to elaborate...

...when Morrison talks about her sexuality he's talking about how he understands the character as a symbol and the underlying psychological dynamics that form the subtext of the story. Hence the "Thing was an angry castrated baby" because in a sense Benajim Grimm the character is metaphorically castrated. His rocky form cuts him off from normal human contact and interaction, and has been a source of frustration that keeps him from acting on his desires. You also see it in All-Star Superman. Tonally it recalls the bizarreness of the stories of the fifties and sixties. He even mentioned the Mort Weisinger era and recognizes there was some disturbed psychology going on in those stories. (And having seen some of them I have to wonder if 60s sexism aside, there also wasn't a fear of women bubbling under the surface.)

Yet in All-Star Superman he reverses that to present Superman who very obviously has a sexually healthy adult relationship with both Lois Lane and Jimmy Olson. No bizarre tricks, adoption, stories, etc....well except for the reference to all the tricks Superman used to hide his secret identity, but that's party of him opening up to Lois to consummate their relationship instead of playing games. Morrison has said that much of his writing is a metaphor for what's happening in his own life and his writing is very metaphoric about the struggles we face in our own lives. And usually his big bads are just metaphors for the unhealthy or darker aspects of our psychology that come up through repression and not facing them down. The Invisibles just make it very obvious with the Lovecraftian horrors that attack the characters with their personal failings.

When Morrison talks about the character's psychology he's referring to what T Hedge Coke pointed out here. He's not talking about writing a porn comic, but the underlying psychological dynamics that writers impress on the Wonder Woman character whether consciously or not. Similarly, based on my reading of his work, Morrison feels that he needs to grapple with Wonder Woman's past portrayals, including Marston's weird sexuality. Namely to resolve it because Morrison's remarks indicate that it's merely been buried and ignored rather than actually worked through to the point where the character can naturally move on.

Whether this is necessary or not is up for debate, but any sexuality he presents is likely going to be sublimated into what will be a very colourful superhero story, much as he sublimated his commentary on the way that woman in superhero comics are vehicles for people's unhealthy sexual fantasies into a standard supervillain mind control trope in Final Crisis. (And we can debate the success of that too, but the point still stands.)

Great post, Adam. You've got me sold on a Morrison-penned Wonder Woman for sure.

[bulldog_milt]

What's particularly ridiculous is that it's pretty much the same thing he said a year or two ago, following Final Crisis. That he'd like to explore the Marston bondage elements. And then the board freaked out over that offhand comment to the point that people were speculating that he might've replaced Simone on the main title. And I thought finally that had died out. But Morrison mentions it again in an interview, and suddenly everything old is new again!

Here is the point though... GM does nothing small... so his proposal to DC for his version of Wonder Woman might have taken several years to sculpt... I'd heard rumors that DC didn't like what he'd turned into them, but thought it might make a group graphic novel... so who knows...