Azzarello and Chiang at Chicago Con-- Spoilers--?

[PauloIapetus]

And this is where I come in and mention that WML wrote into the mythos that Diana grew up functionally powerless in comparison to her sisters because Hippolyta didn't want her growing up feeling above and beyond her sisters. So whenever her feet touched Paradise sand or soil she was back to being an exceptional Amazon and not a planet mover.

And here is where we must repeat an information already posted elsewhere for clarity's sake: these changes added by WML were also, subsequently, disregarded by John Byrne and Phil Jimenez that, IMO, have given better explanations to the apparent equal levels of power shown by the Amazons vis a vis with Diana's capabilities.

Below is an elucidative reply made by the sorely missing from the Fandom, Joana Sandsmark:

Wonder Woman powerless on Paradise Island?

When John Byrne took over the title he basically had a choice. Go with
continuity from the Perez era (which was consistent and all the stories
made sense) or from the Loebs era (which had constant inconsistencies).
Unfortunately, the two really can't both be observed as they directly
contradict each other in many ways. After studying both, John decided
that Perez continuity just made a heck of a lot more sense. And he
realized that most of the fans of Wonder Woman were upset by Loebs'
ignoring continuity. So he decided, no offense to Mr. Loebs, that when
there was a question or a conflict, to go with Perez continuity.

[americanwonder]

I've said in the past that i've read Simone's, Rucka's, and JMS' runs, as well as various single issues here and there. I've also watched the animated movie...

This one cracked me up. No offense, Dr. Hurt, but the Simone's and Rucka's WW was years into her superhero career. She was a well-established vet by then, I'd certainly hope she didn't feel noobish at that point just as I don't want Capt. America to feel like he belongs in the Young Avengers. Even "The Dark Knight" Batman feels less noobish that "Batman Begins" Batman, no? To me, Rucka's WW is Perez WW grown up.

I, too, would like to see some grand adventures in her early years. But, I really don't want her to stay that way for a long period of time. Having her be just out for youthful adventure seems a little too generic (not saying it can't be done well, obviously).

[americanwonder]

Hi Auguste, lots of good stuff to think about in this post. :)

- Interinstingly enough, I never considered this moment as a "Wonder Woman" moment. I mean yes, it would have worked for Wonder Woman as well, but to me this just screams "Superman in a nutshell". Because I always interpreted this scene more as being about "hope" than "empowerement". "It's never as bad as it seems": things are going to get better.
Sure, you also have "You're stronger than you think you are", but it's more about inner strengh (the strengh to live happily) than empowerement, at least to me...

First, I totally agree that it is Superman in that moment (Waid's summary on this was very good), esp. the "hope." To me, it's the second line, the "inner strength" that is the empowerment moment of it, and that, to me, is very WW. She was created to be that light, the example, for little girls to say, "I'm stronger than I think I am, I can be a superhero, too." And I don't think it's a message specific to girls; I think it's a message for all of us.

I don't really want to take it away from Superman, but I do wish WW had more wonderful moments like this. This one is simply beautiful. A really busy (and dying) Superman goes out of his way for one person on the edge, that's good stuff. Very well done by the creative team.

-Well, I don't think his perception is that distortionned, or at least, I see where he is coming from. I was reading the Batman/WW team up by Jimenez (the one where gods posess Batman villains) yesterday and, well, Wonder Woman was acting exactly as he said. I dunno, things happened in that story , but all I can remember is her preaching people: she was preaching the 3 gods, she was preaching Ares, she was preaching Batman...Sure, a big part was probably Jimenez' fault (because, let's be honest, she wasn't the only one preaching people in that story), but it's that kind of story that gives the impression that Wonder Woman is kind of obnoxious. I prefered her when written by Simone in the Circle, when she had gorilla pals (which, by the way, was a good way to showwase her compassion without being preachy) and was was making jokes at Nemesis.

I'm all in favor of toning down the preachy. Wasn't all that well written much of the time. And gorilla pals > preachy every day.

-I think I prefer thinking of her as someone who can speak like a princess than as someone who does. I mean, for what I understand of it, the point of the Amazons are that, although they are a monarchy, they are sort of equal. Diana was considered as every one's daughter, not every one's future leader. So, to me, it would be more logical to have her as a very casual type of person, someone almost overly familiar with people she never met before, than having "Princess Thor".

I'd love to see her so friendly she almost seems familiar to everyone she's just met. I love when she says, "Call me Diana." But, at the same time, I don't want her overly casual. And I just don't see an island of 3,000 mothers letting her get away with being overly casual either. Her 'formality' (if that's even the right word), imo, is less that of a monarch thinking she's above everyone, and more kung fu movie monestary, if you will. It's "proper." ;) She has the grace and charm of the Duchess Kate with the fighting skills of Red Sonja; she's the Dalai Lama and Bruce Lee in one.

[americanwonder]

It is a nice moment. I have to say, though, that I like that Wonder Woman doesn't tell Zola "it's never as bad as it seems." I'm an optimist, but I think that, in reality, occasionally it's worse than it seems. Wonder Woman is honest with Zola about that; in #1, when Zola says "I'm scared," Wonder Woman says "you probably should be." ...

Good point. Like you, I don't think the line from All-Star Superman would have worked as well in the scene with Zola. Sometimes, harsh realities need to be said, and she does treat Zola like a respected adult by not sugar-coating it. Unlike you, I didn't care for the lasso-butt-dump she gave Zola. Sadly, it's one of the few times she's even used the lasso in action, though the real action was already running away.

... What I think is probably most empowering of all, though, is that Wonder Woman is willing and able to listen to Zola. Just think how empowering it would be, if you were being protected by a world-famous hero, to have her take your advice on family matters. Near the end of the #4, when Wonder Woman is about to go back to Paradise Island, I think Zola is smiling not just with happiness for Diana, but with pride. I'm not saying that Wonder Woman has empowering Zola on her agenda at that moment, but she did it anyway by having the wisdom and humility to learn form her junior.

Interesting point. I do think just listening, letting someone feel heard, can go a long way.

But, I wouldn't really use Zola as an example of empowerment (yet?). I know she's in way over her head, but both Zola and Diana treat Zola as a if she's dependent. And dependent, even if treated with respect, is a far cry from empowerment.

[Dr. Hurt]

This one cracked me up. No offense, Dr. Hurt, but the Simone's and Rucka's WW was years into her superhero career. She was a well-established vet by then, I'd certainly hope she didn't feel noobish at that point just as I don't want Capt. America to feel like he belongs in the Young Avengers. Even "The Dark Knight" Batman feels less noobish that "Batman Begins" Batman, no? To me, Rucka's WW is Perez WW grown up.

I, too, would like to see some grand adventures in her early years. But, I really don't want her to stay that way for a long period of time. Having her be just out for youthful adventure seems a little too generic (not saying it can't be done well, obviously).

I never said that she should behave like a noob in those runs. I said that from all the stories i've seen about young Diana, she never seemed to need to do a lot of soul searching, improving her skills or anything. She acted pretty maturely from the start.

[slvn]

I never said that she should behave like a noob in those runs. I said that from all the stories i've seen about young Diana, she never seemed to need to do a lot of soul searching, improving her skills or anything. She acted pretty maturely from the start.

What I'm about to say may be a little beside the point, but I think it's interesting anyway: If we compare Batman's, Superman's and Wonder Woman's first appearances, in the Golden Age, I think it's true that one Wonder Woman is the one who was already herself from the beginning, or already had her act together--especially ethically. Superman was an arrogant, if progressive, brawler, and Batman used a gun; if these stories were in continuity (and I suppose approximations of some of them are, due to Morrison), we'd say that the characters hadn't yet arrived at their mature personalities. But Wonder Woman knew what she stood for from the beginning (which is to say that Marston knew what he wanted her to stand for).

[SteveGus]

I never said that she should behave like a noob in those runs. I said that from all the stories i've seen about young Diana, she never seemed to need to do a lot of soul searching, improving her skills or anything. She acted pretty maturely from the start.

The Contest origin pretty much guaranteed that she was in full command of her abilities by the time she left Paradise Island. There were a number of stories depicting a younger Diana who was being trained, but most of these were in flashbacks and appeared in annuals or Secret Files issues. In Perez's first issues, she is in complete control of her abilities but clueless about features of US life like journalists and advertising.

[Zagreus]

Even if you take Azzarello's statement about Diana having been previously portrayed as "perfect" as a truism, it does not make his statement that you cannot tell compelling stories with perfect characters true.

Why? Because these "perfect" character's stories are being told in an imperfect world. The idea that in order to make WW "work" he had to mess with her backstory is just wrong on the face of it. There is no reason that ANY writer needs to ever show us a single Amazon or explain their motivations.

One of the most "perfect" characters ever created was Lancelot. His very perfection is one of the things that makes the story of Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot compelling and tragic. Would it be more compelling if we discovered that he had been abused by the Lady of the Lake as a child? No.

The thing is, if Azzarello has given even one, just one, interview where he said something positive about the WW character (let alone any of her previous creative teams), many of her fans would probably cut him a little more slack.

To that end, I would propose this. Would Mr. Azzarello's supporters please be so kind as to post the top 3 statements that the writer has made about the character herself? Not the Amazons. Not his reinterpretation of the Greek pantheon. But Diana herself.

Thanks in advance.

Sorry Javier, I'm not very interested in the writer's statements, so I can't be bothered to find them, I'm interested in the writer's work, and for me, it speaks for itself. Further, I'd disagree with the notion that Lancelot was a perfect character. Galahad was the perfect person, only he was worthy of the grail. Lancelot may have been nearly perfect, and the best knight, but he committed adulterty a pretty big character flaw, which certainly makes for compelling storytelling. Galahad I'm not sure how many stories you could tell with him other than "he gets the grail". He's already perfect. He's the perfect all around person. He's not going to make any mistakes. I don't think there were many legends written about him. Gawain, sure, tons. He had character flaws out the wazoo. Arthur, of course. Merlin, sure, wise, fool for a pretty face... etc. Galahad, where do you go with him? So, I'll have to respectfully disagree.

[SteveGus]

Sorry Javier, I'm not very interested in the writer's statements, so I can't be bothered to find them, I'm interested in the writer's work, and for me, it speaks for itself. Further, I'd disagree with the notion that Lancelot was a perfect character. Galahad was the perfect person, only he was worthy of the grail. Lancelot may have been nearly perfect, and the best knight, but he committed adulterty a pretty big character flaw, which certainly makes for compelling storytelling. Galahad I'm not sure how many stories you could tell with him other than "he gets the grail". He's already perfect. He's the perfect all around person. He's not going to make any mistakes. I don't think there were many legends written about him. Gawain, sure, tons. He had character flaws out the wazoo. Arthur, of course. Merlin, sure, wise, fool for a pretty face... etc. Galahad, where do you go with him? So, I'll have to respectfully disagree.

Actually, it is possible to tell stories about perfect characters; the story of Sir Galahad is essentiallythe story of Parsifal, the perfect knight of Wolfram von Eschenbach and Wagner. These stories show the hero extending compassion, resisting temptations, and working miracles through divine favors. There isn't much to make superheroics out of, is all. I will admit that the fall of Camelot, Lancelot and Guinevere, have a lot more potential; mostly because the story of the perfect knight must always end with his transfiguration, which pretty much makes a sequel impossible.

[Javier Velasco]

Zagreus,
Its fine if you aren't interested in statements from the writer. But then it makes it rather difficult to discuss things on a thread titled "Azzarello and Chiang at Chicago Comic Con." as the thread is pretty much about their statements. :)

As for Lancelot/Galahad etc. One could argue that it was the perfect character's interaction with the non-perfect world that created the drama. After all if Lancelot had been just any old knight, the twist of him having an adulterous affair wouldn't have been as dramatic.

But lets take Lancelot out of the discussion...

Tarzan is a "perfect" character. Somehow he still lends himself to dramatic action packed stories.
Jesus is a "perfect" figure. I don't recall anyone saying that the New Testament is dull reading because the central character (and his family for that matter) is too perfect.

[Zagreus]

Zagreus,
Its fine if you aren't interested in statements from the writer. But then it makes it rather difficult to discuss things on a thread titled "Azzarello and Chiang at Chicago Comic Con." as the thread is pretty much about their statements. :)

As for Lancelot/Galahad etc. One could argue that it was the perfect character's interaction with the non-perfect world that created the drama. After all if Lancelot had been just any old knight, the twist of him having an adulterous affair wouldn't have been as dramatic.

But lets take Lancelot out of the discussion...

Tarzan is a "perfect" character. Somehow he still lends himself to dramatic action packed stories.
Jesus is a "perfect" figure. I don't recall anyone saying that the New Testament is dull reading because the central character (and his family for that matter) is too perfect.

Well those are some good points. :)

[Zagreus]

As far as Azz not saying much about WW, I don't think he's said much about her, because he has kept her essentially the the same. He's said as much IIRC. Good hearted, brave, kind, forthright, etc. So the bulk of his work as a writer has been in developing her world in an interesting way. Wonder Woman aint broke, so there is no need to fix her. Her world (imo, and seemingly in Azz's opinion) was broke, so that was where the tinkering and work was done and the interest in his run was, and the bulk of the discussion in interviews would naturally lead. Of course there's not going to be many quotes... that's my best guess, I don't memorize the man's statements, and can't be bothered to research past interviews.

[slvn]

As for Lancelot/Galahad etc. One could argue that it was the perfect character's interaction with the non-perfect world that created the drama. After all if Lancelot had been just any old knight, the twist of him having an adulterous affair wouldn't have been as dramatic.

True, it wouldn't it have as dramatic if he had been just any old knight; but if he had been perfect, would it even have been possible? Would a perfect knight have succumbed to the temptation of an imperfect world, to the point of romancing the wife of his liege lord? I don't think so--not according to the orthodox morality of Medieval Christendom, anyway. Maybe Lancelot had to be something between "perfect" and "just any old knight"--someone exemplary, yet human, therefore flawed or inwardly conflicted, therefore vulnerable to extraordinary temptation.

Tarzan is a "perfect" character. Somehow he still lends himself to dramatic action packed stories.

Is Tarzan "perfect"? He doesn't even have good table manners! Seriously, I guiess there was potential for inner conflict in Tarzan, because he was a little bit torn between wanting to be part of Jane's world and wanting to stay a noble savage.

But it's true that being flawed is not necessary to a story being "action-packed." You can even have stories that rely only on external conflict. They just don't usually offer as much depth, I think, and a lot of readers want something to think about and something to feel, not just action. (If there are readers who want just action from their comics, I don't mean to put them down; they may prefer to look only to other kinds of art and fiction for complexity.)

As for Jesus--and also SteveGus's example of Parsifal--well, I'm definitely calling those stories superficial. I dunno; maybe religious stories are a bit of a different animal. The drama of these stories might have more to do with the salvation of humanity than with the development of the hero's character.

I'll admit, though, that I find the passage on the "temptation" of Jesus a bit lacking in suspense. If we read that passage knowing that Jesus is perfect and probably not really vulnerable to temptation, then trying to tempt him seems like a bit of pointless exercise.

[SteveGus]

But it's true that being flawed is not necessary to a story being "action-packed." You can even have stories that rely only on external conflict. They just don't usually offer as much depth, I think, and a lot of readers want something to think about and something to feel, not just action. (If there are readers who want just action from their comics, I don't mean to put them down; they may prefer to look only to other kinds of art and fiction for complexity.)

More like, there are other kinds of complexity besides plot and character development. I prefer my superhero comics to be more like pulp fiction than like soap operas.

The interplay between art and imagination strikes me as being more of a focus of interest than 'character development'. Character development can go on in a wide variety of different kinds of fiction, but comics still outperform even Hollywood CGI at depicting the realm of Nighmare, of Hades, of floating islands in the sky. I don't find these things particularly simple minded.

I don't understand how character development got to be so important that it trumps other forms of interest and needs to be inserted into media and genres that were created to tell other sorts of stories and ideas. Which isn't to say that it should never figure in superhero comics, either. Only that it isn't really necessary, and its absence is not a flaw.

As for Jesus--and also SteveGus's example of Parsifal--well, I'm definitely calling those stories superficial. I dunno; maybe religious stories are a bit of a different animal. The drama of these stories might have more to do with the salvation of humanity than with the development of the hero's character.

I'll admit, though, that I find the passage on the "temptation" of Jesus a bit lacking in suspense. If we read that passage knowing that Jesus is perfect and probably not really vulnerable to temptation, then trying to tempt him seems like a bit of pointless exercise.

That's because the ending has been spoiled for you.

But again, the problem is with expecting the hero to be changed somehow by the adventure, or the belief that without this a story is somehow "superficial". For Christians, at least, the story of Jesus is about how the world reacted to the presence of a sinless man. No, Jesus isn't really going to change -- that isn't the point; the point is to examine the bureaucratic spinelessness and crowd-pleasing, the pious hypocrisy, and the mob groupthink that put the one perfect person who ever lived to death. And that's anything but superficial, even if you see no change in the Jesus character. If it helps with the narrative, think of Jesus as a plot device rather than a character.

With superhero comics, what we want is to see characters with relatively defined sets of abilities, and see how they use those abilities cleverly to overcome a villain or disaster. There's nothing unsophisticated about a clever yarn being told here, even if the hero remains the hero and the day is simply saved, end of story.

[slvn]

More like, there are other kinds of complexity besides plot and character development.

Fair enough.

I prefer my superhero comics to be more like pulp fiction than like soap operas.

Are you using soap operas as an example of character development? Have they gotten more interesting since I used to watch them? I thought they were heavy on plot twists but light on any but a superficial kind of plot development.

The interplay between art and imagination strikes me as being more of a focus of interest than 'character development'. Character development can go on in a wide variety of different kinds of fiction, but comics still outperform even Hollywood CGI at depicting the realm of Nighmare, of Hades, of floating islands in the sky. I don't find these things particularly simple minded.

I'm greedy; I want the interplay between art and the imagination AND character development, not one or the other. For me, the depiction of Hades in Wonder Woman 8 would be sadly diminished if it didn't tie into character development. Wonder Woman's is instinctive outraged on behalf of the dead of which Hades is made, and she is reminded again that the world is not that simple. And Hermes is wistfully envious of mortality. The fantastic setting is made all the more interesting because it is used as a backdrop against which the characters reveal themselves.

I don't understand how character development got to be so important that it trumps other forms of interest and needs to be inserted into media and genres that were created to tell other sorts of stories and ideas. Which isn't to say that it should never figure in superhero comics, either. Only that it isn't really necessary, and its absence is not a flaw.

Whether it's a flaw or not is largely in the eye of the beholder. Character development may not be integral to traditional superhero comics, but traditional superhero comics aren't what everyone wants to read.

That's because the ending has been spoiled for you.

More than that, it's because I've been taught that Jesus was perfect. If not for for that doctrine, I could read the temptations as real temptations, and I could even get to the end of the gospels and still feel that Jesus had been seriously tempted but had overcome temptation.That idea has appeal, which is why the film version of The Last Temptation of Christ drew some interest.

But again, the problem is with expecting the hero to be changed somehow by the adventure, or the belief that without this a story is somehow "superficial". For Christians, at least, the story of Jesus is about how the world reacted to the presence of a sinless man. No, Jesus isn't really going to change -- that isn't the point; the point is to examine the bureaucratic spinelessness and crowd-pleasing, the pious hypocrisy, and the mob groupthink that put the one perfect person who ever lived to death. And that's anything but superficial, even if you see no change in the Jesus character. If it helps with the narrative, think of Jesus as a plot device rather than a character.

Thanks for the advice, but I get that; as I said, the drama in that religious redemption narrative has more to do with the salvation of humanity than with the development of the hero's character. That's not really what I'm after in Wonder Woman stories, though; I would rather have her be a character than a plot device.

With superhero comics, what we want is to see characters with relatively defined sets of abilities, and see how they use those abilities cleverly to overcome a villain or disaster. There's nothing unsophisticated about a clever yarn being told here, even if the hero remains the hero and the day is simply saved, end of story.

Well, that's what you want to see, and that's what superhero fans traditionally wanted to see, but some of us have gotten a little bored of that and are interested in seeing superheroes in different contexts. I don't care if the traditional superhero story is unsophisticated or not; I'm just not that into it anymore. (Emphasis on "a little" and "not THAT into it"; I'm not saying that I'm completely over superheroics, just that different takes on and hyrbidizations of the genre are somewhat more interesting to me.)