Two Practical Questions About the Amazons' Murderous Villainy

[brettc1]

I did scan though some Superman titles of the time of the second series run and while you do see a few non-action shots its significately lower. I know it was a silly exercise that doesn't take into account that female characters are more likely to have posed covers and that landmark issues are more likely to have 'inspirational' covers as opposed to some type of action shot. But it supported my push back on the idea that Wonder Woman has been ruined in the current run given that she had basically become a symbol and treated as such in her second run which was far more ruining of the character for me. I went back to the first run because her status quo was similiar to what the second run went with but she was a more dynamic character then. Just compare the imagery of issue #1 deflecting a shower of arrows (or my favorite #8 with her dropping down firing the pistols of Eros) to her original first issue of her on a horse jumping into a cluster of Nazis. Then look at Perez's first issue. That's the disconnect of what the character was. Woman of action versus a symbol. She not only became just a slogan but her second run also pushed her status of super-hero behind her status of missionary. There was a real dislike it seems of her having the full range of emotions that didn't exist in the first run. Its not like I don't understand her as a symbol of feminism but the idea that cost us the actual character in the process. We need to keep repeating that she became that symbol back when she wasn't trying to be a symbol.

I think Perez cover is beautiful, and besides he was telling the whole history of the Amazons.

And as far as the first run goes, while it may have had some great covers it also scenes like Diana sobbing becuase she didn't know how to cook Steve dinner, or apologizing to him for having to tell the truth in a court of law about him threatening someone while he treats her like an ass from his jail cell.

If you look at the Jimenez run, it has lots of Adam Hughes "pose" covers,



but the content of the book is actually much more action oriented. What we have not seen as much in recent years is covers like this...

[Fate's Faith]

I think Perez cover is beautiful, and besides he was telling the whole history of the Amazons.

And as far as the first run goes, while it may have had some great covers it also scenes like Diana sobbing becuase she didn't know how to cook Steve dinner, or apologizing to him for having to tell the truth in a court of law about him threatening someone while he treats her like an ass from his jail cell.

If you look at the Jimenez run, it has lots of Adam Hughes "pose" covers,



but the content of the book is actually much more action oriented. What we have not seen as much in recent years is covers like this...

But you overlook what I was saying. Sure, its silly that she would be sobbing over dinner but she had a date! She was a woman. Perhaps a little too much of the times in things like that but like I said, she displayed a complete range of emotion during that run. Anger, frustration, defeat, terror, love, defiance, victory, hostility, greed, etc etc. She was complete. I miss that and don't think what they added was worth losing it.

[americanwonder]

So know we're judging books by their covers as long as it fits with our predetermined conclusions? SWEET! I knew mom was wrong.

[carabas]

but the content of the book is actually much more action oriented. What we have not seen as much in recent years is covers like this...

That's hardly a Wonder Woman thing, is it? When was the last time Action Comics had a Superdickery cover?

[Fate's Faith]

So know we're judging books by their covers as long as it fits with our predetermined conclusions? SWEET! I knew mom was wrong.

But you can do just that with comics. While the actual events may not happen the message they mean to convey usually does. Like I've been saying, the second run of her series was very much pushing the idea of Diana as a messenger or symbol and so do the covers. The first series was showing her as pure super-hero and occasionally woman. Again, I have to remind people she became a feminist icon during that first run. And like we always do with our symbols or idols, we put them in a nice little cage and get mad if they don't fit our idea of what we think an icon should be. It happened to Superman. He becomes the Symbol instead of the man. So even though he was threatening and heavy handed when he became that icon, people get up in arms if he's ever threatening or heavy handed with the usual comment, "That's not Superman" yet that was exactly who he was before he was shackled by becoming an icon. Just like Wonder Woman had become shackled by that status.

[Maximum Impact]

But you can do just that with comics. While the actual events may not happen the message they mean to convey usually does. Like I've been saying, the second run of her series was very much pushing the idea of Diana as a messenger or symbol and so do the covers. The first series was showing her as pure super-hero and occasionally woman. Again, I have to remind people she became a feminist icon during that first run. And like we always do with our symbols or idols, we put them in a nice little cage and get mad if they don't fit our idea of what we think an icon should be. It happened to Superman. He becomes the Symbol instead of the man. So even though he was threatening and heavy handed when he became that icon, people get up in arms if he's ever threatening or heavy handed with the usual comment, "That's not Superman" yet that was exactly who he was before he was shackled by becoming an icon. Just like Wonder Woman had become shackled by that status.

Well I like a pretty AH! cover.