Grant Morrisson has some more thoughts on Wonder Woman

[Outside_85]

YES!

Give us wonder thongs, cheesecake and endless bacchanalia.

And then sit back and watch WW fandom explode. ^_^

:D

The usual feminist crowd would probably scream sexism...like they always do.

[Ontir]

I think most people are uncomfortable with ANY woman who owns her own sexuality, without apology.
That seems to be the history of Wonder Woman. What Marston created was troublesome for DC & once he was gone they eradicated as much of it as possible. Successive writers have either made her almost sexless, despite the costume, or turned her into the contemporary male ideal of female sexuality. That usually has little to do with women & more of a pubescent idea of what women want, think about or need. I can't say I'd be able to provide a true feminist, female perspective, but I'd try a hell of a lot harder than anything I've seen of late.

[slvn]

I think most people are uncomfortable with ANY woman who owns her own sexuality, without apology.

Like Zola?

[SteveGus]

YES!

Give us wonder thongs, cheesecake and endless bacchanalia.

And then sit back and watch WW fandom explode. ^_^

:D

I'd be happy with it. When I said that I wanted Gilbert Hernandez to do a Tales of Paradise Island miniseries, this is something of what I had in mind.

Like Zola?

No problem with her here.

[kelly_warrior_princess]

Right, Marston most likely put in some of the bondage scenes for kink value; I like to think that he was using the position he had to shake up the puritanical, heterocentric culture in America at the time.

No it was pretty much 100% his personal kink playing through.

But it does tie in (pun intended) with the theme of men submitting willingly to Aphrodite's law of love. Men can fight against it all they want; eventually they'll encounter a more powerful force in Wonder Woman who will graciously usher them along. I don't see it in a sexual way, unless that is the reading I intend to do. In a strictly visual symbolic way, the bondage element translates to feminine power, to me.

An thats statement incaptulates the two primary reasons why this character doesn't work
1. Its internal logic has not kept pace with reality. Between the archaic defunct gender stereotyping, through the concept of love & soul mates as a fundemental force, rather then a biological system of chemical interactions. An the idea of love being pure, but half the population being flawed lower species, didn't help either.
2. The idea of WW as a personification of an ideal, rather then just a character on her own.

I think you're confusing Marston's text and subtext. He IMO put the bondage stuff in because, well, he liked that stuff and lived that lifestyle with his wife and live-in mistress.
"Loving submission" is pretty much code for S&M games and the peaceful ways of Aphrodite is what he used to get it past the censors. Mostly. There were some deeper ideas behind it, but mostly Marstin was a kinky guy who made kinky comics.

Really? Because you say the words "Loving submission" & i hear the words "Feminine surrender as emotional dominance," or as its sometimes called "surrendered wife syndrome." Heck Marstons own precomic spiel on the subject perfectly matches up with the paradigm, but where he was all for it, modern social scientists indentify it as an extreme societal ill, bordering on being a sociopathic tendency in some women.

[shyguy]

This is kind of silly. Nobody thinks Marston was actually right about the optimal form of interaction between the sexes. That's not really the point. Morrison is pointing out that the types of themes that Marston dealt with are something that have been basically abandoned in Wonder Woman stories ever since he stopped writing the book, not that he decided that Marston was right about stuff.

To the extent that I understand what it means that the Wonder Woman character hasn't "kept pace with reality," that's incorrect. Obviously the character can't be a carbon copy of what she was in 1941 anymore than Grant Morrison's Superman is a direct lift of the 1938 version of the character. There's a lot that the character can say about relevant themes.

[kelly_warrior_princess]

This is kind of silly. Nobody thinks Marston was actually right about the optimal form of interaction between the sexes.

I'm pretty sure Marston did.

That's not really the point.

Actually it kind of is. WW is still a veiled analogue for the personification of a ideal. The problem is that that ideal is kind of obsolete, especially in its execution. So until the fandom is willing to accept the character just as a character, that will continue to be exactly the point. Because the only way she can continue on as a personification of an ideal, is in trying to push the archaic world view in question.

To the extent that I understand what it means that the Wonder Woman character hasn't "kept pace with reality," that's incorrect. Obviously the character can't be a carbon copy of what she was in 1941 anymore than Grant Morrison's Superman is a direct lift of the 1938 version of the character. There's a lot that the character can say about relevant themes.

No there isn't. Theres a lot she could say if she were an actual character: But as a barely veiled personification of an obsolete ideal, there is nothing that she can say that isn't equally obsolete. As Superman & Batman aged, there overall message aged & grew up too: For some reason WW has never had that. Essentially WW when she was first released was a petulant teenager (metaphrocially speaking): She had a whole heap of misplaced ideals & frankly assanine theories about how the world should be run. An unlike every other character, she's never had to grow up. She's as much the petulant teenager now as she's ever been, while Superman & Batman are the well respected adults, who got over the being a child aspects of there life span.

time for WW to step down off her sophmore level soap box & get her hands dirty with the rest of her contemporaries. Until that happens WW is always going to be that character in the trinity that no one wants to set a narrative around.

[direction9]

I'm pretty sure Marston did.

you understand that goes without saying, right?

[Bob Fett]

I wish Morrison would take over WW when Azzarello leaves.

[kelly_warrior_princess]

you understand that goes without saying, right?

I would have thought so, but when someone says "Nobody thinks Marston was actually right about the optimal form of interaction between the sexes," then apparently it needs to be clearly stated that marston thought he was right... In fact at that time perioid there were quite a few people who subscribed to his ideal. Heck there are some who still do now.

[Dr. Hurt]

Marston was right? Dude was clearly sexist.

[tasslehoff]

Wonder Woman without the borderline irreverent sexiness is fine ... it really is. But it's like a Superman story that doesn't acknowledge his Apollo/Christ byline ... or a Batman story that doesn't acknowledge the hypocrisy of his decency vs. his night job.

It just feels naive not to acknowledge it. Good stories can be told without including her odd relationship to both men and women alike in "normal" situations. But great Wonder Woman stories need to be told with it.

Superman was written to be Moses not christ. Christian writers after the originals spun him more in a christ mold. look at the whole "i have nothing left to give except this chance you may live" its l ike Prince of Egypt not the Passion of Christ. (thank god :)_)

[direction9]

I would have thought so, but when someone says "Nobody thinks Marston was actually right about the optimal form of interaction between the sexes," then apparently it needs to be clearly stated that marston thought he was right... In fact at that time perioid there were quite a few people who subscribed to his ideal. Heck there are some who still do now.

no, the "else" after the "nobody" is implied.
no.

[kelly_warrior_princess]

no, the "else" after the "nobody" is implied.
no.

No actually its not. Nobody is an absolute statement, without being open to degration. Else is a qualifier, without it, it doesn't exist.

[kelly_warrior_princess]

Superman was written to be Moses not christ. Christian writers after the originals spun him more in a christ mold. look at the whole "i have nothing left to give except this chance you may live" its l ike Prince of Egypt not the Passion of Christ. (thank god :)_)

Superman =/= Jesus, God, Moses or anyone else.

He was a straight up science fiction character, influenced heavily by John Cater of Mars. This idea that Jesus is this archetyple saviour character is a purely bible belt conciet, that is both factually wrong & historically wrong, since Supermans creators were jewish. Its as likely to be a jesus analogue as it is to be a allah analogue.