Grant Morrisson has some more thoughts on Wonder Woman

[carabas]

Here is the point though... GM does nothing small...

Depends what you mean by "small". All Star Superman was a 12 issue series that's not even continuity.

As far as I know DC hasn't really had the chance to reject anything because Morrison's busy with other stuff like Multiversity and Batman (and probably Seaguy 3).

[Groovie Mann]

Depends what you mean by "small". All Star Superman was a 12 issue series that's not even continuity.

As far as I know DC hasn't really had the chance to reject anything because Morrison's busy with other stuff like Multiversity and Batman (and probably Seaguy 3).

I'm pretty sure I read in an interview somewhere that he's writing a novel

Oh, and All Star Superman spun out of his and Mark Waids rejected Superman Now pitch years earlier. So he had years to to redevelop his ideas. Morrison always keeps books of pitches and ideas. You should see his documentary where he actually shows some of them.

[DarkKnghtJared]

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.)

Other than making it sound like Superman's had sexual history with Jimmy Olsen--which I wouldn't even be mad at, but more shocked on how the hell I never noticed it--totally agreed.

Depends what you mean by "small". All Star Superman was a 12 issue series that's not even continuity.

As far as I know DC hasn't really had the chance to reject anything because Morrison's busy with other stuff like Multiversity and Batman (and probably Seaguy 3).

There's definitely finishing up Batman and Multiversity, probably Joe the Barbarian, and he's also been writing a screenplay for an indie movie called Sinatoro--not to mention any other little creator-owned ideas he has spiraling down that fascinating dome of his.

However it's going to happen, it's probably not going to be for a couple of years at least.

[Adam C]

Other than making it sound like Superman's had sexual history with Jimmy Olsen--which I wouldn't even be mad at, but more shocked on how the hell I never noticed it--totally agreed.

Actually I think that was me not properly editing my brain spew while hacking out all the loose nonsense that came from brainstorming in my original draft. I did have an idea that All-Star Superman portrays his relationship with Superman as one seems like peers on more equal footing with each other compared to other portrayals I've experienced, but I honestly can't back that one up with good examples right how.

[DarkKnghtJared]

Actually I think that was me not properly editing my brain spew while hacking out all the loose nonsense that came from brainstorming in my original draft. I did have an idea that All-Star Superman portrays his relationship with Superman as one seems like peers on more equal footing with each other compared to other portrayals I've experienced, but I honestly can't back that one up with good examples right how.

Fair enough--I know Morrison made Jimmy a little bit more...dandy might be an okay way of putting it, but really, considering just how often "dressing in drag as a disguise" was used by Jimmy, it makes sense that he had an Eddie Izzard-esque relationship with women's clothing.

Anyway, something along what I was thinking wouldn't terribly surprise me--wouldn't be the first time that I've read a Morrison book and miss out on an obvious detail.

[Retro315]

Actually, he's got a Moses thing going on (baby ferried away to a lesser place where he will become great). The one with the most Christ-like allusions is Wonder Woman: a divine virgin birth who leaves Paradise to change our hearts and make us better than we were. Etc.

I doubt Morrisson can handle the material. He would emphasize the sexy kink of Marston but I doubt he would link it to the philosophy of Marston.

Well I mean ... the original Greek Mythology was doing sexy kink LOOOOOONG before Marston ever came into the picture. Her original patron goddess is a woman born from castrated genitals in seafoam, who cheated on her husband with his own brother (amongst others, I'm sure). The switchover to Athena is kind of ironic, since Athena is like the polar opposite of Aphrodite ... repressed, frigid, asexual.

I think Gail really captured a bit of the sexiness, though. In a "fun" kind of way. I mean ... girl's night team-up with Black Canary that ends in a chick-cage fight and visits a Manga store full of winks and nods. A steady boyfriend with a well-timed flirtation leading into it. (Not to mention the animated movie).

I mean, strip that kind of silly, sexy fun out of it and you get what J.M.S. has been giving us.

[Retro315]

Fair enough--I know Morrison made Jimmy a little bit more...dandy might be an okay way of putting it, but really, considering just how often "dressing in drag as a disguise" was used by Jimmy, it makes sense that he had an Eddie Izzard-esque relationship with women's clothing.

Anyway, something along what I was thinking wouldn't terribly surprise me--wouldn't be the first time that I've read a Morrison book and miss out on an obvious detail.

Metro-sexual is big in Metro-polis.

[Seant]

I think Gail really captured a bit of the sexiness, though. In a "fun" kind of way. I mean ... girl's night team-up with Black Canary that ends in a chick-cage fight and visits a Manga store full of winks and nods. A steady boyfriend with a well-timed flirtation leading into it. (Not to mention the animated movie).

Too bad Diana was left out of the sexiness. Unless she was with her albino apes, Diana acted like she was from outer space. Acting so strange and stiff with all her human companions-- Etta, Dinah, especially Nemesis.

I'm all for Diana's sexiness, but Gail clearly did not want to go there.

As for the animated movie, it seems like it was more Jelenic's script. He better got that balance of Diana's feelings of distrust/ feelings of attraction. The male versus female aspects of the animated movie is enough to tell us it wasn't Gail's script.

[OldSchoolfan]

It sounds to me like Morrison is reading into the series what he wants to see and not what is really there.

Wonder Woman, as I understand it, was meant to be a role model for younger readers because there needed to be a female super hero to stand with Superman.

I have always seen her as a positive example....whatever Morrison is talking about, it doesn't sound at all like the character that's been around for all these years.

I hope he doesn't get a shot at this book....it sounds to me like he would ruin it.

[OldSchoolfan]

I'm all for Diana's sexiness, but Gail clearly did not want to go there.

Maybe because Ms. Simone saw something greater there than what sounds to me like silly fan boy fantasies.....

Read WW(vol 3) #25....Diana is a powerful person. I read that as Diana being an influential individual who happens to be attractive but doesn't need to rely on that attractiveness to get her way!

I actually find that refreshing in a female comics character.

[AaronJ]

Maybe because Ms. Simone saw something greater there than what sounds to me like silly fan boy fantasies.....

That argument is not logically sound. It's a false dichotomy. It's not an all or nothing situation.

Sexuality can be dealt with in ways that is intelligent and has to do with more than "silly fan boy fantasies." The fact that you draw up as some sort of "fanboy fantasies" vs. "something greater [then dealing with Diana's sexuality]" is telling, in of itself.

[OldSchoolfan]

That argument is not logically sound. It's a false dichotomy. It's not an all or nothing situation.

Sexuality can be dealt with in ways that is intelligent and has to do with more than "silly fan boy fantasies." The fact that you draw up as some sort of "fanboy fantasies" vs. "something greater [then dealing with Diana's sexuality]" is telling, in of itself.

The way you are presenting your argument makes sense.....you are right its not a dichotomy. And you are correct sexuality can be dealt with in ways that are intelligent and have to do with more than silly fanboy fantasies.

But, one of my points is that there are greater qualities of Diana to emphasize...ones that deserve more attention than others. And thats what I think Gail Simone did when she was writing the book.

My next point is that in the world of comics, especially as they are written by some authors, the whole topic does devolve into what I describe. To me, looking for 'subtexts of bondage' does not sound like emancipation, or honest treatment, it sounds like exactly what I described it as....

I guess your last sentence was meant to be a reflection on me? An insult perhaps? I am disappointed that you wouldn't just consider my arguments. I think I have brought up some good points.

[T Hedge Coke]

Sexuality can be dealt with in ways that is intelligent and has to do with more than "silly fan boy fantasies." The fact that you draw up as some sort of "fanboy fantasies" vs. "something greater [then dealing with Diana's sexuality]" is telling, in of itself.

I really don't want to read the anti responses in that way, the people who are sure this is going to be pornocomix 101 or something, but...

[americanwonder]

The way you are presenting your argument makes sense.....you are right its not a dichotomy. And you are correct sexuality can be dealt with in ways that are intelligent and have to do with more than silly fanboy fantasies.

But, one of my points is that there are greater qualities of Diana to emphasize...ones that deserve more attention than others. And thats what I think Gail Simone did when she was writing the book.

My next point is that in the world of comics, especially as they are written by some authors, the whole topic does devolve into what I describe. To me, looking for 'subtexts of bondage' does not sound like emancipation, or honest treatment, it sounds like exactly what I described it as....

I guess your last sentence was meant to be a reflection on me? An insult perhaps? I am disappointed that you wouldn't just consider my arguments. I think I have brought up some good points.

I share the same basic concerns as you. And totally agree that WW, as a character, has so much more to offer than just sexuality. So much more.

Nevertheless, as others have pointed out here, if we step back for a moment, put Morrison's comments aside, and just look at his work itself. What do we see?

He talks a crazy game in interviews (I can't help but think he just loves to toy with us). But when he delievers, do we get simplistic, immature sex fantacies just for kicks? I don't think so.

Even when I disagree with some of his decisions (eg, Magneto, Scott cheating on Jean, WW in FC), I can see he has a point (when I let my own red lantern rage cool down ). And All-Star Superman is just gold.

I don't think this will be sensationalistic. I do think Morrison is sincere when he says that's not what he wants. I also think that he puts a lot of thought into his work, and he truly loves these heroes.

I still have concerns, but I think this can be great, too.

[AaronJ]

The way you are presenting your argument makes sense.....you are right its not a dichotomy. And you are correct sexuality can be dealt with in ways that are intelligent and have to do with more than silly fanboy fantasies.

On this we agree.

But, one of my points is that there are greater qualities of Diana to emphasize...ones that deserve more attention than others. And thats what I think Gail Simone did when she was writing the book.

But if there are other (I would debate the "greater" part, but it's not really the point I'm trying to make) qualities to investigate, why does that somehow magically disqualify sexuality? Why can't sexuality be one of the qualities that is investigated?

My next point is that in the world of comics, especially as they are written by some authors, the whole topic does devolve into what I describe. To me, looking for 'subtexts of bondage' does not sound like emancipation, or honest treatment, it sounds like exactly what I described it as....

First, bad writing is bad writing, whether it's about sexuality or about buying apples from the market.

Second, to deny that there is a dense history of bondage subtext (or, to quote BtVS: "The subtext here is rapidly becoming text") is, I believe, to deny not only whole swaths of the character's history, but certainly her original origin as well.

I guess your last sentence was meant to be a reflection on me? An insult perhaps? I am disappointed that you wouldn't just consider my arguments. I think I have brought up some good points.

No, it was not meant as a personal argument, though I can see now that I should have phrased it better. My apologies.

What I meant was that it is telling as far as so many of these discussions go. There seem to be people who are willing to see these subjects dissected, and those who are completely opposed to it, because they feel the book will suddenly be Wonder-Tarot. There often seems to be little middle ground.

That's all I was trying to get at. And again, I apologize. I really should have been more clear.

I really don't want to read the anti responses in that way, the people who are sure this is going to be pornocomix 101 or something, but...

Heh.

Well, I think that any honest assessment of Morrison's work would dispel that notion. OK, there's the Filth. But still ... :)