'The marquis. Well, you know, to be honest, he seems a little bit dodgy to me.'
'Mm,' she agreed. 'He's a little bit dodgy in the same way that rats are a little bit covered in fur."
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.
However it's going to happen, it's probably not going to be for a couple of years at least.
"Yes, but only as a post-Kantian idealized fractal holographic semantic construct whose reality depends on the degree of your solipsistic convictions."
-- Roquefort Raider on 'God' .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?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.
First, bad writing is bad writing, whether it's about sexuality or about buying apples from the market.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....
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.
No, it was not meant as a personal argument, though I can see now that I should have phrased it better. My apologies.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.
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.
Well, I think that any honest assessment of Morrison's work would dispel that notion. OK, there's the Filth. But still ... :)