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

[Outside_85]

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.

So John Byrne took over, took a leak on both Perez and Loeb and made a run that was ultimately forgotten by everyone following, great job.

[americanwonder]

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.

Apologies for misconstruing/misrepresting what you were saying, Dr. Hurt.

[SteveGus]

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.

I use soap opera broadly to refer to any open ended serial narrative that focuses on a (sometimes changing) core cast of characters and their changing relationships with each other: their romances, their breakups, their babies, their deaths, their marriages, their affairs, and so forth. Character development --- the changes in the characters and relationships among the cast brought about by these various events --- strikes me as a core focus of soap opera.

Soap opera is in fact one of the great comics genres. Actual soap operas in comics are common, especially in Latin America and Italy. I want Beto Hernandez to make us a soap opera book based on Paradise Island; I think that idea has a lot of potential, and he'd be the obvious right choice to do it. I tend to associate extensive soap opera in comics with the Marvel team books (I quit the Fantastic 4!), but DC not so much. But the Marvel books remember to include superheroics as well, or at least did back when I read them more regularly.

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.

Every time Wonder Woman acts on her values, or tries to act like Wonder Woman, she reaches the wrong conclusion. That's one of the things I find frustrating about this endless arc, one of the reasons why I tend to feel that the whole thing is an extended exercise in Schadenfreude, designed to cut her down rather than build her up. The reader will enjoy a story like this to the extent that the reader disliked Wonder Woman before; those who already liked Wonder Woman will dislike the story. This is one of the things that makes me so suspicious of Azzarello and DC's motives in starting the nu52 universe this way, and all the guff about how the character was "outdated" and needs to be "modernized" doesn't help.

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.

Again, the title is Wonder Woman. Publishing something under that title that isn't a traditional superhero comic borders on consumer fraud.

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.

For what it's worth, gods are the characters that have always been plot devices first and foremost: deus ex machina and all that. A superhero has vast but limited powers: when writers break expectations, fans know and will take them to task for it. Gods, by contrast, can serve whatever purpose a writer gives them. Nobody asks, "How does Hera turn everybody into snakes?" The only answer is, "she's a god", and gods can do whatever the plot requires them to do.

This is why a crime family / soap opera book with a cast of gods might make an interesting arc, in theory, but shouldn't be a permanent premise for the book. I'd hope to see all of this end with the Gods banished and removed from the stage, myself, while the restored Amazons must get on without them for better or for worse. But hope is a scarce commodity in the nu52.

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.)

And I don't see that as a bad thing in itself, or even bad for the Wonder Woman title. But I think the thing that defenders of Azzarello's run don't grasp about the objections of traditionalist Wonder Woman fans is not so much "why this" but "why now?" We want to be assured that key elements of Marston's vision, such as a theme of feminine empowerment embodied in the Amazons of Paradise Island, are being preserved intact in a rebooted universe. We've seen the Amazons turned to stone before; we've seen Paradise Island attacked dozens of times, just not in connection with a company wide reboot. If this were a second story arc I might not be enjoying it any more, but I'd still be buying the book because I always have.

[Zagreus]

Every time Wonder Woman acts on her values, or tries to act like Wonder Woman, she reaches the wrong conclusion. That's one of the things I find frustrating about this endless arc, one of the reasons why I tend to feel that the whole thing is an extended exercise in Schadenfreude, designed to cut her down rather than build her up. The reader will enjoy a story like this to the extent that the reader disliked Wonder Woman before; those who already liked Wonder Woman will dislike the story. This is one of the things that makes me so suspicious of Azzarello and DC's motives in starting the nu52 universe this way, and all the guff about how the character was "outdated" and needs to be "modernized" doesn't help.

Steve, the story isn't finished yet- I've no doubt that Diana will have her victory, and it will be all the more sweet, BECAUSE of the difficulty and trials she had to go through to get there. To pain, no gain. That's how I feel. Of course, I was never invested in her previous mythology and actively disliked most of it, only starting with WW w/ Rucka and looking at other runs with disdain... so the tearing apart of her mythos bothers me not a whit. (Since it's being replaced with a more interesting one imo)

[americanwonder]

... Of course, I was never invested in her previous mythology and actively disliked most of it, only starting with WW w/ Rucka and looking at other runs with disdain... so the tearing apart of her mythos bothers me not a whit. (Since it's being replaced with a more interesting one imo)

Isn't this the real heart of it? It's easy to accept change when you didn't like the old and/or like the new better. I not resistant to change, but change for the worse? Why would I want that?

Of course, everyone's "better" or "worse" is going to be different.

[slvn]

I tend to think that the term "soap opera" still connotes afternoon TV melodrama, at least in the US. Those tv shows focus on relationships, certainly, but they always used to have a reputation for superficial characterization. Sometimes people seem to use the term soap opera" derisively to refer to mindless melodrama; I just think Wonder Woman so far has featured a more interesting, thoughtful kind of drama.

Soap opera is in fact one of the great comics genres.

Indeed, Kanigher's Wonder Woman, in particular, seems to have a somewhat soap-opera-ish focus on relationships, from what I know about it.

Every time Wonder Woman acts on her values, or tries to act like Wonder Woman, she reaches the wrong conclusion.

She was certainly right to protect Zola in issue 1 and thereafter. She was right, though a little late, to attempt to reconcile with her mother. In #8, she frees Zola from Hades, albeit at great cost to herself. The fact that she jumps to conclusions about Hephaestus' apprentices doesn't make her a failure; it helps make her human.

That's one of the things I find frustrating about this endless arc, one of the reasons why I tend to feel that the whole thing is an extended exercise in Schadenfreude, designed to cut her down rather than build her up.

I don't follow your reasoning there. If it were designed, as Azzarello says it is and as he did with Superman, to tear the character down in order to build her up, and if it's less than half done, we'd expect to still be seeing more tearing down than building up. I can understand your feeling impatient, but I see no evidence that would lead one to conclude that the tearing down won't be followed by building up.

The reader will enjoy a story like this to the extent that the reader disliked Wonder Woman before; those who already liked Wonder Woman will dislike the story.

It's just not that simple. There are people who liked Wonder Woman before and like this run. I've liked Wonder Woman since I first read Marston's early stories in an oversized collected edition that someone gave me about 36 years ago. I've come and gone and come back a few times as a comics reader, but I never stopped liking the character.

Again, the title is Wonder Woman. Publishing something under that title that isn't a traditional superhero comic borders on consumer fraud.

If it's fraud, it's either a particularly ingenious or an amazingly stupid kind of fraud, since Azzarello said in his first interview about the comic that it was going to be a horror book and not a superhero book. (I think he was exaggerating, by the way--it's more of a hybrid.)

There's really no law or ethical principle that says that creators can't take a character from one genre and use her in another. I understand that you don't like it--but "bordering on consumer fraud"? No.

Besides, Wonder Woman hasn't always been a "traditional" superhero comic. To whatever degree there was any such thing as a superhero "tradition" when Wonder Woman was first published, she was meant to depart from and change that tradition. With Kanigher, there was a soap opera/romance element. With Perez and others, there was a strong emphasis on the mythological. Is she a superhero? Sure. But has her comic always been a "traditional" example of the superhero genre? Nah.

For what it's worth, gods are the characters that have always been plot devices first and foremost: deus ex machina and all that.

Sure, but demi-gods don't have to be. See the Hercules tragedy,

This is why a crime family / soap opera book with a cast of gods might make an interesting arc, in theory, but shouldn't be a permanent premise for the book. I'd hope to see all of this end with the Gods banished and removed from the stage, myself, while the restored Amazons must get on without them for better or for worse. But hope is a scarce commodity in the nu52.

It's funny--I first wrote that you seem to be building your argument on the premise that "never was"="never should be." But I have to edit that. because you may not be as much of a traditionalist as I thought; you wan the gods out of the book, even though they have traditionally often been part of it. don't see what's wrong with keeping them in the book and letting them be scarier than they were in the past. The Amazons' relationships with the gods could evolve over time.

[Fate's Faith]

Isn't this the real heart of it? It's easy to accept change when you didn't like the old and/or like the new better. I not resistant to change, but change for the worse? Why would I want that?

Of course, everyone's "better" or "worse" is going to be different.

Very true. No one wants worse. I've said before I think the changes Perez made ultimately were bad choices. That doesn't mean I didn't like what I was reading as it was happening. For one thing, things just seemed to mesh together so well and it wasn't for a couple of years before I realized that these changes have actually damaged the vitality of the Amazons and made Diana little more than a salesperson for them. That doesn't mean I think Perez set out to destroy her backstory. It was a valid choice at the time in which the whole package of Wonder Woman was being rewritten. So of course that means what Azzarello is doing today could be just a detrimental in the end. At this point, there's been some big changes and its only going to be once these have set and we are able to see exactly what the foundation looks like. So far, it looks good but its terribly hard to predict the future when we're in the middle of the building process. I do think there are more directions to take the whole book than before. So much could be lost, rebuilt as before or even rebuilt as something better. I think at this point in Perez's run, the future was pretty set and there wasn't as many branches exiting to take.

[SteveGus]

I tend to think that the term "soap opera" still connotes afternoon TV melodrama, at least in the US. Those tv shows focus on relationships, certainly, but they always used to have a reputation for superficial characterization. It sometimes seems to me that any comic that tries to incorporate serious drama is doomed to be accused of "soap opera."

Reject the pretentious canons of taste that define literary fiction! I've always called superhero books a genre of pulp fiction, myself, even though that label has also been used pejoratively. And "serious drama" is again simply not what we came for, either; much less is it a fictional feature that's somehow more edifying or worthwhile than superheroes.

Indeed, Kanigher's Wonder Woman, in particular, seems to have a somewhat soap-opera-ish focus on relationships, from what I know about it.

And that turned the title away from women's empowerment as well. The general consensus is that it wasn't very good; the comic shouldn't focus on Steve Trevor's trying to woo her by trickery.

She was certainly right to protect Zola in issue 1 and thereafter. She was right, though a little late, to attempt to reconcile with her mother. In #8, she frees Zola from Hades, albeit at great cost to herself. The fact that she jumps to conclusions about Hephaestus' apprentices doesn't make her a failure; it helps make her human.

I can't read it that way, myself. To me it read like "here's Wonder Woman making her big Wonder Woman speech. But no...." I thought it was a dig at the way the character had been portrayed by earlier writers, especially Rucka and Jimenez.

I don't follow your reasoning there. If it were designed, as Azzarello says it is and as he did with Superman, to tear the character down in order to build her up, and if its less than half done, we'd expect to still be seeing more tearing down than building up. I can understand your feeling impatient, but I see no evidence that would lead one to conclude that the tearing down won't be followed by building up.

Which is why this would have made a much better second arc than a first arc. We turn to the issues that follow the reboot to find out how a superhero's world and cast have changed. Superman provided some immediately. Even if you assume DC and Azzarello's good faith that they will eventually start building rather than destroying, this is the wrong time for such a story. We shouldn't have to wait more than a year for answers. I personally think they simply want Wonder Woman's seventy year history swept away, and until persuaded otherwise by the printed page I won't support the title.

If it's fraud, it's either a particularly ingenious or an amazingly stupid kind of fraud, since Azzarello said in his first interview about the comic that it was going to be a horror book and not a superhero book. (I think he was exaggerating, by the way--it's more of a hybrid.)

It's simply a matter of reasonable expectations.

Your premise seems to be "never was"="never should be" (at least, not permanently--whatever "permanently" means for an ongoing comic). I'm sorry, but I'm just not that conservative.

I just can't see much future life in these gods, not for a book about a superhero in a shared universe of superheroes. Wonder Woman is the first line of defense against a group of deranged supernaturals who entrap innocents in their family politics. Shouldn't the Magic Justice League assemble and curbstomp Olympus? Batman vs. Dionysus, anybody? (Where is he? Probably improve the mood.) A superhero universe would be aware of these gods and have organized itself against these gods.

I do want to read a Wonder Woman comic book in which superheroic feats against superpowered threats figure prominently in each issue. That's what I came to see.

[SteveGus]

Very true. No one wants worse. I've said before I think the changes Perez made ultimately were bad choices. That doesn't mean I didn't like what I was reading as it was happening. For one thing, things just seemed to mesh together so well and it wasn't for a couple of years before I realized that these changes have actually damaged the vitality of the Amazons and made Diana little more than a salesperson for them. That doesn't mean I think Perez set out to destroy her backstory. It was a valid choice at the time in which the whole package of Wonder Woman was being rewritten. So of course that means what Azzarello is doing today could be just a detrimental in the end. At this point, there's been some big changes and its only going to be once these have set and we are able to see exactly what the foundation looks like. So far, it looks good but its terribly hard to predict the future when we're in the middle of the building process. I do think there are more directions to take the whole book than before. So much could be lost, rebuilt as before or even rebuilt as something better. I think at this point in Perez's run, the future was pretty set and there wasn't as many branches exiting to take.

Perez made a couple of decisions that in retrospect were terrible. Removing Steve Trevor as a love interest was perhaps the worst. Diana's powers being godly gifts rather than training was another. Removing the traditional love interest also gave us the whole 'emissary' business; it would have been better if her motives were more personal, and the heroing came out of what she saw outside.

[americanwonder]

... So of course that means what Azzarello is doing today could be just a detrimental in the end. At this point, there's been some big changes and its only going to be once these have set and we are able to see exactly what the foundation looks like...

I agree with this. It's hard to fully judge a story as it's unfolding (one reason I tend to trade-wait most books these days); our perspective on it is very limited. Azzarello may yet have some wonderful tricks up his sleeve, and it may turn out great in the long-run.

But, I can't see the long-run, so, for now, I'm left just commenting on how I see the story we have thus far.

I don't like all the decisions made as I see them thus far, but I do applaud them for the effort put into creating a well-crafted and pretty exciting story for WW.

[americanwonder]

... I don't follow your reasoning there. If it were designed, as Azzarello says it is and as he did with Superman, to tear the character down in order to build her up, and if it's less than half done, we'd expect to still be seeing more tearing down than building up. I can understand your feeling impatient, but I see no evidence that would lead one to conclude that the tearing down won't be followed by building up....

Well, if his Superman is anything to go by, I'd say the build up didn't live up to the tear down. But, I think his Superman may not be a good comparison because I don't see the tear down in Superman as destructive as I see the tear down in WW. In any case, I do think a story can spend far too much time on the down, dragging it out too long, and not spend enough on the build up.

... don't see what's wrong with keeping them in the book and letting them be scarier than they were in the past...

If I may, do you see these gods as scary?

I kinda do, but I also can't help but feel like the story is so detached from the rest of the world, and the gods don't seem to have much effect/influence on anyone not at the family reunion. So, scary feels a bit empty to me.

[americanwonder]

... I can't read it that way, myself. To me it read like "here's Wonder Woman making her big Wonder Woman speech. But no...." I thought it was a dig at the way the character had been portrayed by earlier writers, especially Rucka and Jimenez...

Yeah, I tend to agree. Don't know if it was intended as a jab at previous WW stories (he apparently doesn't do a lot of reading up on these things), but it did make Diana look a little inept. Big speech just for a moment to highlight that she doesn't know what she's talking about or how the world works.

[Maximum Impact]

That's the thing that makes this run so infuriating. It seems Azz goes out of his way to piss off old fans and give us his middle finger.

[slvn]

Well, if his Superman is anything to go by, I'd say the build up didn't live up to the tear down. But, I think his Superman may not be a good comparison because I don't see the tear down in Superman as destructive as I see the tear down in WW. In any case, I do think a story can spend far too much time on the down, dragging it out too long, and not spend enough on the build up.

See, I think while he's tearing down Wonder Woman's background more, he tore down Superman's character more. He made Superman, due to his personal crisis of confidence, responsible for a worldwide disappearance crisis with Lois Lane among the disappeared.That seems a lot worse than Wonder Woman trying to free people who aren't really slaves and learning her mistake before she does any harm.

If that mistake ironically recalls anything for me, it's not so much Rucka as Marston, who (regarding Paula's former slaves becoming Mala's slaves) says something like "it's fine to choose to be a slave as long as you have the right master." I like the new Wonder Woman's attitude better in this regard; she may be wrong, but she's earnest and passionate and willing to learn. Marston's WW, on the other hand, seems almost too casual in asserting, essentially, "eh--slaves will be slaves."

Granted, I'd like to see the "buildup" for Wonder Woman begin earlier in the run than the buildup for Superman did.

If I may, do you see these gods as scary?

I kinda do, but I also can't help but feel like the story is so detached from the rest of the world, and the gods don't seem to have much effect/influence on anyone not at the family reunion. So, scary feels a bit empty to me.

Well, I can't say they keep me up at night, but as comic-book gods go, they're on the scary side. They are certainly on the strange-and-alien side; Hades' and Poseidon's designs hover around that unsettling ground where the grotesque and the ridiculous meet. (Sorry to put that so pretentiously, but really, I just want to annoy SteveGus, the enemy of literary pretensions. ) Don't forget that Zola wasn't a regular attendee at the family reunions before Zeus decided to "influence" her. I don't her moment of finding out that she's been playing with the gods--a simple "Oh shi...!", with the ""Sh..." getting taking up as the beginning of a sentence from the oracles, was an artful way of show (what appears to be) an ordinary person getting caught up in the webs of the gods. I suspect we may find out that Zola was never as ordinary as she appears;for example she may have been made from earth to serve as a vessel for Zeus' "influence," so to speak. But she thought she was ordinary, and if this "girl from the middle of nowhere" can find out she's wrapped up in the gods plans, can't anyone? Didn't the dead hippogriff in the Thames in #5 suggest that the boundaries between the gods' world and the human world are porous? And how many of the dead who make up Hades were part of the Olympian family reunions?

[slvn]

Reject the pretentious canons of taste that define literary fiction! I've always called superhero books a genre of pulp fiction, myself, even though that label has also been used pejoratively. And "serious drama" is again simply not what we came for, either; much less is it a fictional feature that's somehow more edifying or worthwhile than superheroes.

Did I mention that I used to watch and enjoy some of the much-maligned American afternoon soap operas? I don't mean to sneer at them; people who enjoy them should keep enjoying them (as if they need my permission!) I just found that they get boring over time. Maybe I was watching the wrong soap operas.

But there is a difference between drama and melodrama. What I'm hoping for, and often getting, here is more drama than melodrama. I just think quieter, more nuanced moments like Diana talking to Hippolyta in #2 or to Zola in #4, are more interesting than the big, bombastic moments. And Azz can introduce some nuance even into the bombastic moments (like Hera saying she wishes she could forgive Hippolyta).

Incidentally, by "serious," I just meant not "melo-"; I didn't mean "not funny." This run has had some seriously funny moments for me, like Zola's "firefly" bit in #3. (I also like puns, so, what I can I say? This run is a good fit for me.)

And that turned the title away from women's empowerment as well. The general consensus is that it wasn't very good; the comic shouldn't focus on Steve Trevor's trying to woo her by trickery.

So you agree that--for better or, in Kanigher's case, perhaps for worse--at least since its second run, Wonder Woman has not always been only about traditional superheroics.If you also agree that Marston was explicitly trying to work against the "tradition" of violence that the new genre of superhero comics was already developing, then you'd have to say that Wonder Woman was largely a counter-traditional comic, in one way or another, from the beginning.

I can't read it that way, myself. To me it read like "here's Wonder Woman making her big Wonder Woman speech. But no...." I thought it was a dig at the way the character had been portrayed by earlier writers, especially Rucka and Jimenez.

See my message to Americanwonder on this. I think it's more a respectfully critical response to Marston.

Which is why this would have made a much better second arc than a first arc. We turn to the issues that follow the reboot to find out how a superhero's world and cast have changed. Superman provided some immediately.

Can we be realistic here? DC wanted to entice new readers, and a #1 is the time to do that. If they were ever going to get more Vertigo and Dark readers to give the comic a try, this was the time. (As for Superman, a lot of his fans thought undoing the marriage--and, over in Action, having Superman get pinned by a speeding locomotive--was a major teardown.) They could rely on long-time readers to at least try the first few issues. The time may be coming to do something to earn a "second" chance from long-time readers; I think #0 might be a smart time to do that. Let Gail or someone write that issue and show something noble in the Amazons' past, and begin, or at least presage, the "buildup."

Even if you assume DC and Azzarello's good faith that they will eventually start building rather than destroying, this is the wrong time for such a story. We shouldn't have to wait more than a year for answers.

I think delayed gratification can be a good thing.

I personally think they simply want Wonder Woman's seventy year history swept away, and until persuaded otherwise by the printed page I won't support the title.

That's cool. I'm not trying to talk you into supporting something you don't like. I do think it would be nice if you could understand that some people like Wonder Woman and like this run. But you can only do what you can do.

I just can't see much future life in these gods, not for a book about a superhero in a shared universe of superheroes. Wonder Woman is the first line of defense against a group of deranged supernaturals who entrap innocents in their family politics. Shouldn't the Magic Justice League assemble and curbstomp Olympus? Batman vs. Dionysus, anybody?

Yes, please. That would be awesome. Dionysus vs. Hal Jordan or Roy Harper might be even better.

Do note that the big mystery figure at the end of Flashpoint, the beginning of the New 52, and the much heralded FCBD comic is none other than Pandora. Yes, the "first woman" of Greek mythology is about to get heavily involved in the mythos of the Justice League and the whole DCU. And Captain Marvel, powered largely by or in the names of Greek gods and heroes, is getting started again in a JL backup that is said to have big implications for the main JL title and the whole DCU. And one of Wonder Woman's sisters is adventuring with the medieval Demon Knights, whose doings could have big repercussions for the DCU as a whole. Are these not opportunities to show how ingrained Wonder Woman's families are into the whole DCU?

I do want to read a Wonder Woman comic book in which superheroic feats against superpowered threats figure prominently in each issue. That's what I came to see.

I appreciate your use of "I" rather than "we" in this sentence. Maybe you're starting to acknowledge that we're not all, and do not all need to be, here for all the same things.