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

[slvn]

Given the depiction we have thus far, I have a hard time seeing how this can go well.

I assume it wouldn't go well, at first--the guys would think the Amazons had no aesthetic appreciation (and would probably have some hurt feelings over the whole child abandonment thing), and the Amazons would think the Hephaestoi (or whatever) were wimps. Hence the dramatic (and comic) conflict. In the long run--and not necessarily in Azz's run--I'd like to see them become a model of gender equality, with the men and women learning form each other. Of course, by the time that would happen, it would probably be about time for the next reboot...:)

[SteveGus]

I use the word "perfect" because that's the word Azzarello used to describe what he didn't like about the female Amazons, saying they needed more dirt. But there's no dirt here for the men. They're craftsmen happily working for a god. They care about Hephaestus and he saved them. It's too clean, especially given Azzarello's statements. And it stands in dark contrast to just how much dirt he's thrown on the female Amazons. Men are all noble craftsmen and women are all backwards butchers? Blech! It's a terrible depiction in it's hyper-simplicity.

Somehow, I doubt that Azzarello did this intentionally. Working in some kind of metal shop in a volcano might be dirty or unpleasant enough as it is, or at least not qualify as a utopia or paradise. He seems to like to leave loose plot points lying around anyways. The Amazons seem already forgotten; I don't think anybody has mentioned the recovery of their humanity as a goal, and the actual purpose of the Hephaestus narrative is to sell the removal of Paradise Island from the DC universe. The Amazon brothers will likely be neglected after the plot moves past Hephaestus as well.

[americanwonder]

--I'd like to see them become a model of gender equality, with the men and women learning form each other...

That may sound good on the surface, but I think the foundation, as established so far, is too weak to build it well. "All these good-hearted men, all victims of women, all just wanting to build and live in peace, teaching these backwards, barbaric women that they don't need to kill men to be happy." That's a really terrible message.

Somehow, I doubt that Azzarello did this intentionally...

Intentional or not, it's glaring enough that I don't see how they could not see it.

Sadly, sometimes it seems like all DC can do with the Amazons is trash them and kill them. Lots of creative thought going on there.

[Auguste Dupin]

Well, if you would just agree with me more often...



Yeah, the male Amazons fit with Haphaestus, both outcasts, apparently not wanted by their mothers.



I use the word "perfect" because that's the word Azzarello used to describe what he didn't like about the female Amazons, saying they needed more dirt. But there's no dirt here for the men. They're craftsmen happily working for a god. They care about Hephaestus and he saved them. It's too clean, especially given Azzarello's statements. And it stands in dark contrast to just how much dirt he's thrown on the female Amazons. Men are all noble craftsmen and women are all backwards butchers? Blech! It's a terrible depiction in it's hyper-simplicity.



Given the depiction we have thus far, I have a hard time seeing how this can go well.

This book has become far too male-centric (so far?).

-But where would be the fun in that?

-That seems to be the idea.

-Seriously, you're over reading it. Because, again, we don't have nearly enough screen time for them to consider them as such (even Azzarelo's own Amazons had more time on panel than these guys), and because being a craftman is nothing near "perfect". They are submissive and passive, which are nowhere near what is considered "perfect" for men. The Amazons were "perfect" because they were these female role models that lived in a paradise and that were meant to inspire. They were an island of wonder women. These guys live in a forge where death awaits them for every wrong step, and no one sane would ever consider them as role models. They're no supermen. They're just the product of their environement. Amazons are raised as warriors, so they act as such. These guys are raised as craftmen, so they act as such. Amazons are far from representing all women, even in this book. And these guys are far from representing all men, even in this book (where you have nice guys such as Appolo, Hades, Poseidon....). How much dirt you want to see on guys who had less than 6 speaking lines, honestly?
This hyper simplicity you're talking about? You're bringing it in your reading of the story.

[americanwonder]

This hyper simplicity you're talking about? You're bringing it in your reading of the story.

The hyper-simplicity here is Azzarello's writing*. Not mine.

I never said the female Amazons represented all women. Nor did I say the male Amazons represented all men. I also didn't say we have the whole story or could draw final conclusions or any such thing.

What we do have is the first impression Azzarello wanted to give us of two societies, one all female and the other all male. And both societies as depicted in the first 8 issues of story are hyper-simplistic. Is the simplistic depiction thus far really debatable?

But page count, you say? I didn't choose their depiction, or how many pages they would appear, or how heartwarming (or not) they would appear. Those are all choices made by Azzarello; choices he easily could have made differently. He could have given us more pages, or one lone man in the back saying, "I hate it here, it's hot and stinks and I really want to play basketball and meet women." We have the screen time of each that Azzarello wanted us to have at this point, no?

"Submissive" and "passive" (if we can even call them that) is hardly the same level of dirt as killing innocent men and selling the boy babies for weapons for no good reason that we know of. I don't see how anyone can say those two are equally bad. Moreover, are they even "passive"? They jump right in to defend Hephaestus, do they not?

Azzarello said he wanted dirt, but only one of these two societies, as depicted, is grounded into the dirt as the first impresion given.


*Note: I'm not saying all of Azzarello's writing is simplistic. The general plot, and especially the atmosphere, are strong. The depiction given of the two Amazon groups, that's what I'm saying is simplistic.

[slvn]

double post

[slvn]

If I may use a slightly exaggerated analogy...saying the Amazon men are depicted simplistically strikes me as a little like saying that Italy is depicted simplistically in Earth Two, where we only see it from an airplane, in (I think) one panel. Is there nothing more to Italy than smoldering craters? Well, maybe not--but we don't know yet. There could be a very complex fledgling society struggling to rebuild from the ashes. There could be a thriving urban centers or two outside the reach of he catastrophe. We don't know. But most people wouldn't say that Robinson depicts Italy simplistically; they'd say he doesn't really depict it at all, but only gives us the tiniest glimpse of it. Azz certainly isn't locked into depicting the sons of Amazons as perfect; he hasn't done anything to suggest that they are perfect--he just hasn't gotten around to showing whether they have imperfections, other than perhaps the passivity August sees.

As for the sons of the Amazons, their "depiction," although very slight and barely enough to really be called a depiction of their society, is enough to have some thinking "loving submission" while others are thinking "Stockholm Syndrome." This is not a "weak foundation," or any kind of foundation at all--rather, its a strong tease.

[americanwonder]

If I may use a slightly exaggerated analogy...saying the Amazon men are depicted simplistically strikes me as a little like saying that Italy is depicted simplistically in Earth Two, where we only see it from an airplane, in (I think) one panel...

Slightly exaggerated? Please. This is a terrible comparison, and you know it.

... As for the sons of the Amazons, their "depiction," although very slight and barely enough to really be called a depiction of their society, is enough to have some thinking "loving submission" while others are thinking "Stockholm Syndrome." This is not a "weak foundation," or any kind of foundation at all--rather, its a strong tease.

We have exactly the depiction Azzarello chose to give us thus far. And yes, as depicited, it is simplistic. Call it a tease if it makes you feel better, it's still simplistic.

He could have given us a different depiction, right? He could have given us more, no? He chose not to, or am I wrong on that assumption? He chose this simplistic "tease." Why? What point does it serve the story thus far? It's not there for no reason, right? Wouldn't you say this is a very deliberate "tease"?

[Auguste Dupin]

The hyper-simplicity here is Azzarello's writing*. Not mine.

I never said the female Amazons represented all women. Nor did I say the male Amazons represented all men. I also didn't say we have the whole story or could draw final conclusions or any such thing.

What we do have is the first impression Azzarello wanted to give us of two societies, one all female and the other all male. And both societies as depicted in the first 8 issues of story are hyper-simplistic. Is the simplistic depiction thus far really debatable?

But page count, you say? I didn't choose their depiction, or how many pages they would appear, or how heartwarming (or not) they would appear. Those are all choices made by Azzarello; choices he easily could have made differently. He could have given us more pages, or one lone man in the back saying, "I hate it here, it's hot and stinks and I really want to play basketball and meet women." We have the screen time of each that Azzarello wanted us to have at this point, no?

"Submissive" and "passive" (if we can even call them that) is hardly the same level of dirt as killing innocent men and selling the boy babies for weapons for no good reason that we know of. I don't see how anyone can say those two are equally bad. Moreover, are they even "passive"? They jump right in to defend Hephaestus, do they not?

Azzarello said he wanted dirt, but only one of these two societies, as depicted, is grounded into the dirt as the first impresion given.


*Note: I'm not saying all of Azzarello's writing is simplistic. The general plot, and especially the atmosphere, are strong. The depiction given of the two Amazon groups, that's what I'm saying is simplistic.

Come on, it's like saying Coulson in Iron man 2 is "perfect" because he isn't depicted with the drinking problems Tony Stark has. You're comparing a recurring supporting cast who personnaly knows Diana with a big cameo, a minor character.And I completely disagree with the Amazons's supposed hyper simplistic portrayal: on one hand, they're a bunch of barbaric men killers, on the other, they are brave warriors ready to face a god to protect their Queen. Strong negative trait (man killing) + strong positive quality ( will of sacrificing themselves for others) = not hyper simplistic. You can't see it because you're still too schocked to have them depicted as men killers, but that doesn't mean all we see about them is bad. You may not have chosen the men's depiction, but you definitively choose (conscienciously or not) to overplay their relevance to suit your argument and turn this into a sex war thing.
And they're not jumping to defend Hephaesteus, they are asking Diana to release him. They're not saying "realease him at once or face us", they 're saying "Please, release the master". Even to defend their own dad, all they can do is beg the aggressor to let him go. That's passivity.

[slvn]

Why? What point does it serve the story thus far? It's not there for no reason, right? Wouldn't you say this is a very deliberate "tease"?

Sure it's deliberate, and effective. It makes us wonder. It pushes your buttons, it raises my hopes. It gets me and Becca arguing about Stockholm syndrome vs. loving submission. It sets up hope to anticipate delayed gratification.

This is one of the ways serial fiction is different from newspaper writing, right? In newspaper writing, you try to deliver all the most important information first, as efficiently as you can. In serial fiction, you often tease; you provoke the imagination; you leave people wondering and wanting more. I get that it doesn't seems to be leaving you wanting more--at least in respect to the male and (Azzarello's version of the) female Amazons-- but it's sure working on me.

Also, about the gender politics of it--would you agree that passive men and aggressive women might be a better start (not conclusion, but start) than passive women and aggressive men? It seems to me that if the Amazon women were the quiet artists and the men were the belligerent warriors, that would tend to confirm some of the more common and pernicious stereotypes.

[americanwonder]

Come on, it's like saying Coulson in Iron man 2 is "perfect" because he isn't depicted with the drinking problems Tony Stark has. You're comparing a recurring supporting cast who personnaly knows Diana with a big cameo, a minor character...

You still seem to be misusing my use of the word "perfect." I'm using "perfect" as in the abscence of dirt, because Azzarello said he wanted dirt. As depicted thus far, I only see lots of dirt for one of these two groups. That's Azzarello's choice in what he has chosen to show us thus far, is it not?

... And I completely disagree with the Amazons's supposed hyper simplistic portrayal: on one hand, they're a bunch of barbaric men killers, on the other, they are brave warriors ready to face a god to protect their Queen. Strong negative trait (man killing) + strong positive quality ( will of sacrificing themselves for others) = not hyper simplistic...

It's all fighting for their own. That's it. There's no real complexity there. There's no real individuality. Amazon women are fighters. And as shown thus far, it's only fighting for the survival of they own society. They have sex and they fight. Very simplistic in my book.

... You can't see it because you're still too schocked to have them depicted as men killers, but that doesn't mean all we see about them is bad. You may not have chosen the men's depiction, but you definitively choose (conscienciously or not) to overplay their relevance to suit your argument and turn this into a sex war thing...

Disagreeing is not the same as "you can't see." That's a very simplistic argument, btw. And by saying the depicition of the Amazon women is simplist is not the same as saying I think everything about them is bad. For instance, fighting can be good, fighting can be bad.

... You may not have chosen the men's depiction, but you definitively choose (conscienciously or not) to overplay their relevance to suit your argument and turn this into a sex war thing...

Please. Azzarello chose to write about two single-sex societies. He chose to hightlight that in his WW story and juxtapose the two in issue #7. He chose to depict them very differently. He made it an issue. Not me. I had no input. Those are the facts, are they not? I'm only commenting on what he(they) has given us thus far. I can think of a lot of ways to tell a good WW story without all that. He didn't ask me. It's his story.

And they're not jumping to defend Hephaesteus, they are asking Diana to release him. They're not saying "realease him at once or face us", they 're saying "Please, release the master". Even to defend their own dad, all they can do is beg the aggressor to let him go. That's passivity.

Just because they aren't fighting doesn't mean they are passive. Big difference.

[americanwonder]

Sure it's deliberate, and effective...

In serial fiction, you often tease; you provoke the imagination; you leave people wondering and wanting more.

Glad we agree that it's deliberate. I don't agree that it's has been all that effective (not as effective as I would like to see). Sure, it can get some people talking (good in my book) and wanting more; but he's also lost close to 50% of the orders from #1 to #7 (not uncommon, but hardly great either). Drag out the "teases" too long, many readers tend to walk away.

eta: Here, WW has been pretty darn successful in DC's relaunch, and rightfully so, imo. I'm glad many are paying attention to WW and enjoying the ride. But I don't think it's perfect. It seems like the relaunch, as a whole, hasn't done a great job of bringing in new readers, just done a good job of getting readers to switch chairs somewhat and try a few new titles for a time.

Also, about the gender politics of it--would you agree that passive men and aggressive women might be a better start (not conclusion, but start) than passive women and aggressive men?

I'd say both are simplistic. I'd also say "passive women and aggressive men" are more realistic, as those are what we see more of in our world. There's the argument that inverting them is more unique and different, but if we're going to address gender politics, isn't it also disengenuous because it avoids a more realistic picture of the real world? If we're going to include gender politics, I expect much more than simplistic writing of it (I'm looking at you animated WW movie).

... It seems to me that if the Amazon women were the quiet artists and the men were the belligerent warriors, that would tend to confirm some of the more common and pernicious stereotypes.

Which stereotypes are you referring to?

And if these stereotypes are "pernicious," is it really a good idea to just place them on another group (ie, invert them)?

[slvn]

Sure, it can get some people talking (good in my book) and wanting more

Yep, agreed, and this seems to have been one of the creative team's biggest goals. It's one of the things they sound most excited about in interviews:

": Be patient. And if we're surprising you, enjoy it. It's great to get outraged. I'm loving the reaction. Some of the name-calling, though, I could do without.....[Sales are good,] but for me, the cool thing is that we've got people talking about her! People actually care what's going on in Wonder Woman." (http://www.newsarama.com/comics/bria...der-woman.html)

I think "it's great to get outraged" is a great and honest point. Being outraged is different from being alienated, or at least from being disengaged; outraged people like SteveGus (and critical readers like you) feed the buzz. If everyone was as sanguine about the run as I am, there'd be less to talk about and the buzz about the series would die down, to some degree.

but he's also lost close to 50% of the orders from #1 to #7 (not uncommon, but hardly great either). Drag out the "teases" too long, many readers tend to walk away.

Sure, that could happen--but is it happening? Most of that 50% was lost in the first few months, when there had hardly been time to drag the teases out. The loss of a few thousand in the last couple of months is, as you say, "hardly uncommon, but not great"--but it's easily withing the normal attrition in the industry, so it provides no evidence that "drag" is hurting sales.

But most of that loss was from the fist few months, when you could hardly say taht the teases had been dragged out too long.

eta: Here, WW has been pretty darn successful in DC's relaunch, and rightfully so, imo. I'm glad many are paying attention to WW and enjoying the ride. But I don't think it's perfect.

Sure, nothing's perfect. I may be focusing more on the positive, because I'm enjoying the run a lot and just not feeling an urge to finding fault; but I'm glad there are people to argue with!

I'd also say "passive women and aggressive men" are more realistic, as those are what we see more of in our world. There's the argument that inverting them is more unique and different, but if we're going to address gender politics, isn't it also disengenuous because it avoids a more realistic picture of the real world?

Marston didn't seem to think it was disingenuous to depict women who broke with prevailing stereotypes of weakness and passivity (even though he did believe that, in reality, many if not most women still complied with those stereotypes because that's how they had been taught). His depiction of a strong woman like Diana, and an appreciative man like Steve, wasn't a disingenuous representation of the actual behavior of women and men in a sexist society; it was a true presentation of an imaginary but possible alternative.

I'd say both are simplistic.

But if writers couldn't start from a relatively "simplistic" place, in which character seem morally "small" or lacking in complexity or depth, then they would be limited in their ability to show people progressing beyond that place. Persoally, I would consider that a loss, because I think showing that kind of growth can be interesting. And if he wants to foreground the Amazons' limitations at the beginning so that he (or the next writer) can eventually highlight their growth, it's just as well that the particualr limitations he's foregrounding don't, in the meantime, confirm the traditional stereotypes of passive women and masculine men. Later, I'd like to see both he male and female amazons grow and demonstrate more complexity; that's why I'd like to see them living side by side, clashing with and learning from each other.

And if these stereotypes are "pernicious," is it really a good idea to just place them on another group (ie, invert them)?

Towards the beginning of the story? Yeah, could be, it really could be a good idea, at that point--because then you're not confirming the most established, culturally powerful stereotypes (e.g., belligerent men and weak, deferential women) but you're leaving lots of room for the characters to grow.

If there is no growth, no development, I can start judging that later, as the run turns towards a conclusion. For now, I can say that there is good set-up for development. We can say "good start or "bad start," but I won't fault the beginning, or even the middle, for not being a good conclusion.

[Rob_Olivera]

Yep, agreed, and this seems to have been one of the creative team's biggest goals. It's one of the things they sound most excited about in interviews:

": Be patient. And if we're surprising you, enjoy it. It's great to get outraged. I'm loving the reaction. Some of the name-calling, though, I could do without.....[Sales are good,] but for me, the cool thing is that we've got people talking about her! People actually care what's going on in Wonder Woman." (http://www.newsarama.com/comics/bria...der-woman.html)

I think "it's great to get outraged" is a great and honest point. Being outraged is different from being alienated, or at least from being disengaged; outraged people like SteveGus (and critical readers like you) feed the buzz. If everyone was as sanguine about the run as I am, there'd be less to talk about and the buzz about the series would die down, to some degree.



Sure, that could happen--but is it happening? Most of that 50% was lost in the first few months, when there had hardly been time to drag the teases out. The loss of a few thousand in the last couple of months is, as you say, "hardly uncommon, but not great"--but it's easily withing the normal attrition in the industry, so it provides no evidence that "drag" is hurting sales.

But most of that loss was from the fist few months, when you could hardly say taht the teases had been dragged out too long.



Sure, nothing's perfect. I may be focusing more on the positive, because I'm enjoying the run a lot and just not feeling an urge to finding fault; but I'm glad there are people to argue with!



Marston didn't seem to think it was disingenuous to depict women who broke with prevailing stereotypes of weakness and passivity (even though he did believe that, in reality, many if not most women still complied with those stereotypes because that's how they had been taught). His depiction of a strong woman like Diana, and an appreciative man like Steve, wasn't a disingenuous representation of the actual behavior of women and men in a sexist society; it was a true presentation of an imaginary but possible alternative.



But if writers couldn't start from a relatively "simplistic" place, in which character seem morally "small" or lacking in complexity or depth, then they would be limited in their ability to show people progressing beyond that place. Persoally, I would consider that a loss, because I think showing that kind of growth can be interesting. And if he wants to foreground the Amazons' limitations at the beginning so that he (or the next writer) can eventually highlight their growth, it's just as well that the particualr limitations he's foregrounding don't, in the meantime, confirm the traditional stereotypes of passive women and masculine men. Later, I'd like to see both he male and female amazons grow and demonstrate more complexity; that's why I'd like to see them living side by side, clashing with and learning from each other.



Towards the beginning of the story? Yeah, could be, it really could be a good idea, at that point--because then you're not confirming the most established, culturally powerful stereotypes (e.g., belligerent men and weak, deferential women) but you're leaving lots of room for the characters to grow.

If there is no growth, no development, I can start judging that later, as the run turns towards a conclusion. For now, I can say that there is good set-up for development. We can say "good start or "bad start," but I won't fault the beginning, or even the middle, for not being a good conclusion.

Personally, I think that for the immediate future there are bad news coming, and I don't mean the plot line!!

It's no secret that there appears to be some alleged good chemistry being produced by the current creative team. The Azzarello/Chiang team seems to be greatly responsible for the book's success. There was a drop in sales recently which could possibly be linked to Chiang's absence in 5 and 6. Chiang will be gone for 9 and 10 again. This means we'll get to witness the entire outcome of last issue's "cliff"hanger under the pencils of Akins once more (of whom I'm not too thrilled.. less even than Chiang who is admittedly not my favorite artist either). I'm sure Chiang is busy, but really.. give other artists a chance! A little variety. Akins (in an interview) admitted that this is not his genre, but they're using him again. I would think that with her new-found popularity and success there are a great many artists out there chomping at the bits to get in on this.

I'm also HOPING that some loose ends get taken care of farily soon. There are too many bombs being dropped without addressing beyond the originating scenes! (Hera -- where is she?, Apollo -- Where is he?, Attack of the Killer Amazons -- where's the other half of the story?, The Manazons -- will more panel time be dedicated?... etc....) I realize it's a vastly huge arc that is only half way over but ironically enough, with Azzarello's minimalist attitude and dialogue it's dragging quite SLOWWWWWWWWW.

The next bomb: Who is the traitor?!?!?!

that's right! I'm looking at you, Hermes, Mercury, or whatever you call yourself!!!

[SteveGus]

": Be patient. And if we're surprising you, enjoy it. It's great to get outraged. I'm loving the reaction. Some of the name-calling, though, I could do without.....[Sales are good,] but for me, the cool thing is that we've got people talking about her! People actually care what's going on in Wonder Woman." (http://www.newsarama.com/comics/bria...der-woman.html)

I think "it's great to get outraged" is a great and honest point. Being outraged is different from being alienated, or at least from being disengaged; outraged people like SteveGus (and critical readers like you) feed the buzz. If everyone was as sanguine about the run as I am, there'd be less to talk about and the buzz about the series would die down, to some degree.

Wonder Woman has always been one of my core obsessions and fandoms (her only equals are 1960s Italian sword and sandal films, 19th century French poetry, and foreign languages; and those fandoms aren't as subject to writerly or corporate whims and generally don't come up here all that often.) She is fairly central to my comics reading experience; the less entertaining I find Wonder Woman's presentation in the DC universe, the less interested I am in comics in general.

So yes, when I perceive that a writer is trying to "modernize" and "update" the character by erasing the one consistent presence through her seventy year history, destroying the Amazons and destroying Paradise Island, or turning them into villains, I guess I'm going to be outraged. You can trivialize this if you want ("only a comic book", "First World problems".....) but it remains the case that a grown man is indeed emotionally invested in the wellbeing of a fictional character. Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise.

Wonder Woman does not need modernizing or updating. There's one simple thing that's wrong with DC comics, and that I think the reboot has made worse instead of better:



Too serious. And no, Wonder Woman will never thrive in a DC universe where gore and darkness reign, and where the writers take their stories and themselves so very seriously. I've said before that a writer who thinks that magic lassos, invisible planes, and purple healing rays are silly or dated has no business writing Wonder Woman. That's true, and only part of the truth; if DC editorial thinks they are silly and dated, then any version of Wonder Woman greenlit by DC is not going to be very good. Look at Simone's run: she was great when writing short and light hearted stories, and not nearly as good when she tried to turn up the angst and drama. A good Wonder Woman story approaches superheroics in an essentially playful way, and if it involves gender politics, that too will be approached in a playful way. This to me is what makes the character. I don't even think Azzarello's a bad writer; while way too slow for my tastes, his writing shows great technical skill. What I do believe is that Azzarello takes himself and his subjects too seriously to write a good Wonder Woman story.

I don't see any worldbuilding at all in what Azzarello has done so far, and that concerns me. His Paradise Island is hardly any more compelling a fantasy than previous versions. His London is a collection of clichés. Only his Hades stands out, but how often are we going to be visiting there? (Quite a bit, I fear.) Same with the supporting cast: Zola I could like, but she's the McGuffin in this story. Lennox is a cipher. This leaves us the Amazons and Hippolyta (gone, perhaps permanently); and the evil gods, who are the antagonists of this story, but who hardly make a supporting cast. Eventually, maybe, another arc will begin, and for the love of God I hope it isn't an extended Grandpa Simpson story full of vague hints and dropped details, and that it involves fighting superpowered threats in the mortal world.

The book may be selling somewhat better than previous runs did (though IIRC Simone was about at the same level eight books in, and Rucka was higher). I do want Wonder Woman to have a second book, cut a bigger profile in the wider DC universe, and to have her powers and abilities respected when she guest stars in other books, and generally considered an equal of Superman and Batman. This run has deprived her of a corner of the DC universe to call her own. I don't want her to have to cut out the heart of whimsical fun that's the core of the character to have that kind of sales or recognition.