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

[Auguste Dupin]

So basically:

What you like = bon fillet
What you dont like = crap

Got it.

I think you forgot "Vertigo writers are baaaaaaaaaaaaaddddddd".
Seriously, the guy lost all credibility to me the moment he called Mielville a marxist. As if it had anything to do with anything. Just a random insult.

[slvn]

Me too. No matter how many times I've typed "so far," you sometimes seem to think I'm treating this as a conclusion.

I acknowledge that you often type "so far." But...well, before I go on, let me ask if this is an accurate paraphrase of some of what you're arguing?:

So far, this run is flawed because it leaves many unanswered questions and depicts Wonder Woman's family as acting in ways that are unpleasantly gender-coded. Maybe it can be fixed later.

To me, unanswered questions and flawed characters in the hero's family aren't even flaws at this stage. Diana has just begun her hero's journey. Her world has proved unworthy, and she has departed from it and descended into the underworld. What should follow, according to the monomyth model, is an upward curve towards atonement.



It's not a matter of "fixing," but of turning and progressing as a story will.

I don't think it's a good place for the Amazons to start from. It's a trite set-up, imo.

Judging by how shocked many people seemed to be by the revelations in #7, I don't think that they were "lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition" (the definition of "trite").

It's too much heavy-handed trashing of WW's world.

Heavy-handed? Maybe. The hints of potentially redeeming qualities (such as the weeping Amazon mother) are certainly more subtle than the "thrashing." But if part of the point was to cause shock and bewilderment on the part of Wonder Woman and her readers, would a less heavy-handed approach have been as effective?

Clark doesn't need to be raised by white supremists so there is room for them to grow, right?

No, he doesn't need to be. But I would read that story, if it looked like it was going to be done well.

There are always alternatives. I don't think these changes "needed" to happen to Wonder Woman either. Azz may think so, but that's because as a writer he's committed to his vision.

The growth of the Kents is not Superman's story.

Good point. I don't think making room for growth is the main reason for the way they were represented; the main reason was to deepen the sense that Wonder Woman has been unmoored from the past and can now only progress by first descending. That's how the hero's journey gets going. That the Amazons now have such ample room for growth and redemption is a nice bonus.

Should the Waynes be your stereotypical industrialist, making money through sweatshops and industrial waste? It could bring some conflict and drama and dirt - needs more home-grown dirt? But that's not Batman's story either.

Should they? I don't know. Could they? Yeah, if DC ever feels the Batman franchise is no longer successful enough and needs to be revamped, I could see putting some industrial-strength skeletons in the manor closets.

I mean, let's say this is WW's big movie, is this really the best way to highlight Diana's upbringing for the mass audience? Are mom's going to want to take their daughters to see the princess from the sex pirates? Is that the best DC can produce?

Or, let's say it's a T-rated comic, many of whose readers are over 30. Does it need to always be suitable for young girls and boys?

This isn't really true. DC is asking me, as the customer, to continue to buy each issue. And we judge it as such; 'do I want to continue to read this?' That's the type of judgment we all make when purchasing. And good or bad, I can only judge the story that I have (which is what I'm doing).

Of course. I didn't think that contradicts what I said. I just judge it, this early on, by whether it's raising interesting questions more than by whether it's providing satisfactory answers.

Here, I was referring to your post using Italy as a comparison, a comparison that's very exaggerated and rather weak, imo.

When I said "slightly exagerrated," I meant that to be a little tongue-in-cheek. Sometimes a hyperbolic example can be an entertaining way to make a point. I guess it fell short here.

Haven't read it. Care to elaborate as to how that fits with WW?

I'm not equating the two, so I won't go into a big long plot summary here. I was just using it as an example of something you probably already know: feminist fiction often depicts stereotypical and even misogynist beliefs and behaviors. It depicts them in order to expose them and to show brave men and women departing from and resisting them--as I believe Wonder Woman does by seeking to liberate her brothers. (And as she was just beginning her journey, it's not surprising that that effort wasn't fully successful.)

So you agree that the female Amazons, as portrayed thus far, is using a terrible stereotype of women?

Well, yeah, I think the sex pirate is not an uplifiting image. I don' think it's nearly as dangerous a stereotype, though, as the stereotype of women as weak-willed and deferential, since for a long time powerful institutions and opinion leaders within Western civilization have taught that that's how women should be. No one's going to read Wonder Woman and think, at any level, that women SHOULD be sex pirates. The Amazons' thrice-centennial actions are depicted as monstrous, not normal. The real problem with stereotypes is that they become norms that people are expected (often by themselves) to comply with. That doesn't seem to be happening here.

Sure, there are exceptions on both sides of the sex war (Diana = good; some of the male gods = not so much).

Stereotyping deemphasizes the "exceptions" or depicts them as abnormal or deviant. If the "exception" is the most admirable and heroic woman, then her actions seem more normative than deviant.

I think there are a lot of things that add up here tilting the story far more toward being male-centric. And I don't think that's a coincidence.

What I think they've been tilting towards is sending Diana on her hero's journey by stripping away her most familiar world--which happens to be a world of women.

[Zagreus]

I will lighten up when DC lightens up. Too serious. Too damn serious. And the problem is everywhere.

Step back from Wonder Woman for a minute. This week, DC tried to update the Silver Age character Dial H for Hero. I leafed through it briefly this Wednesday and put it back on the shelf. This is what the original was like:
Attachment 92812
Instead, we get this:


What do we get instead? In an odd reversal of the de-aging general among the DC superheroes, this time the protagonist has been turned from a teenager into a middle aged man. spoilers:

He has heart disease and, apparently, depression. This is the occasion for some standard food moralism and anti-smoking propaganda; "obesity" and cigarettes apparently reflect a deeply troubled protagonist.

end of spoilers The "superheroes" he turns into in the first issue are the smog monster depicted on the cover ("Chimney Boy"), and spoilers:

some kind of emo Superman who exploits the power of sadness

end of spoilers.

Seriously, something is seriously wrong with DC editorial if they believe this is a serious remake of the original concept. I'd sooner accept a clone of Ben 10 than this. Not only the British Marxist writer (China Miéville) but also DC editorial apparently believe that the concept isn't 'updated' enough without 'realistic' references to things like obesity, heart disease, cancer, and depression. I bet Mr. Miéville is fun at parties. But the result is a comic book I don't want to read.

Which brings us back to Paradise Island. It's supposed to be "too perfect". It's an island of beautiful, strong, eternally young women where there's no room for serious stuff like heart disease and cancer. All of my lashing out about "pretension", which I realize isn't quite the word I was looking for, but it is close, the wrongheaded importation of value sets from literary fiction, including the canons of realism,... it all boils down to an eager desire to be taken seriously. An actual paradise on Paradise Island isn't going to be taken seriously. It's too pretty and too perfect: flaws must be added if we hope to take it seriously.

And this, I firmly believe, is CRAP with a capital C. It's why the changes to Wonder Woman are making me realize that I'm mostly tired and bored of DC. There are simply too few books left that are fun to read. Wonder Woman hasn't been fun to read for more than two years now.

I used to find the adult fandom fad for My Little Pony hard to figure. The appeal is beginning to dawn on me.

China Mieville is an award winning novelist with a great fantasy series, and the new concept based on the illustration alone is far more mature and complex. The older illustration appeals to children, with bright primary colors and likely a simplistic tale within, the other appeals to an adult sensibility and yes probably has a darker more horror themed tale just from what I can gather from the picture. I would never pick up the old series, but I might try the modern story.

[SteveGus]

Seriously, the guy lost all credibility to me the moment he called Mielville a marxist. As if it had anything to do with anything. Just a random insult.

I don't think China Miéville would be insulted to be called a Marxist. My understanding is that he calls himself one, and in fact has stood for election as an MP for a Socialist Worker's party. It at least tells us where he's coming from, and might have something to do with why he'd want to make such a bleak version of Dial H for Hero.

[Dr. Hurt]

China Mieville is an award winning novelist with a great fantasy series, and the new concept based on the illustration alone is far more mature and complex. The older illustration appeals to children, with bright primary colors and likely a simplistic tale within, the other appeals to an adult sensibility and yes probably has a darker more horror themed tale just from what I can gather from the picture. I would never pick up the old series, but I might try the modern story.

Wow, i just read his wiki page. The guy has written a lot of literature, academic books, gotten into politics, etc. He sounds like someone who's offered a lot in so many areas of life.

[The Beast Of Yucca Flats]

Why are we still feeding the fun-lover?

[SteveGus]

the new concept based on the illustration alone is far more mature and complex.

How does this make it better? More importantly, how does this not make it worse?

Wow, i just read his wiki page. The guy has written a lot of literature, academic books, gotten into politics, etc. He sounds like someone who's offered a lot in so many areas of life.

His political beliefs seemed to me to be a big part of where he was coming from. He does seem like a gifted fellow. (Beats saying that he's following a trend, anyways....)

[The Man From Room X]

I will lighten up when DC lightens up. Too serious. Too damn serious. And the problem is everywhere.

Step back from Wonder Woman for a minute. This week, DC tried to update the Silver Age character Dial H for Hero. I leafed through it briefly this Wednesday and put it back on the shelf. This is what the original was like:
Attachment 92812
Instead, we get this:


What do we get instead? In an odd reversal of the de-aging general among the DC superheroes, this time the protagonist has been turned from a teenager into a middle aged man. spoilers:

He has heart disease and, apparently, depression. This is the occasion for some standard food moralism and anti-smoking propaganda; "obesity" and cigarettes apparently reflect a deeply troubled protagonist.

end of spoilers The "superheroes" he turns into in the first issue are the smog monster depicted on the cover ("Chimney Boy"), and spoilers:

some kind of emo Superman who exploits the power of sadness

end of spoilers.

Seriously, something is seriously wrong with DC editorial if they believe this is a serious remake of the original concept. I'd sooner accept a clone of Ben 10 than this. Not only the British Marxist writer (China Miéville) but also DC editorial apparently believe that the concept isn't 'updated' enough without 'realistic' references to things like obesity, heart disease, cancer, and depression.

No doubt you'll be thrilled to know that the editor of Dial H is Karen Berger who usually edits for....... wait for it...... Vertigo.

[slvn]

How does this make it better? More importantly, how does this not make it worse?

It depends on the audience. For some, the idea that wonder can come even in middle age, and even in the midst of cancer and depression and smog, is not unappealing.

Plus, don't you find that second cover over-the-top to the point of being also funny and whimsical, albeit of course in a darker way? Not everyone finds "horror" and "fun" or "humor" mutually exclusive.

it all boils down to an eager desire to be taken seriously.

But the irony is that you seem to be taking these comics so much more seriously than the people who like them are.

[SteveGus]

It depends on the audience. For some, the idea that wonder can come even in middle age, and even in the midst of cancer and depression and smog, is not unappealing.

Plus, don't you find that second cover over-the-top to the point of being also funny and whimsical, albeit of course in a darker way? Not everyone finds "horror" and "fun" or "humor" mutually exclusive.

What I see mostly is an attempt to fling darkness at another Silver Age concept that was never meant to be so, and this has happened so often that it's turning into a cliché for me. I don't object to more horror titles; not my thing, but so it goes. What I object to is the warping of original creations into horror titles, the omnipresence of dark and serious moods, and the belief that this somehow makes them deeper, more imaginative, or more meaningful.

The concept itself is cheapened as a result. Originally, it was 'be any hero you can imagine'! Here, the choices seem to flow from Nelson's vices and flaws.

But the irony is that you seem to be taking these comics so much more seriously than the people who like them are.

I'm trying to call attention to a bad editorial direction that needs to do a 180, and fast.

[slvn]

Here, the choices seem to flow from Nelson's vices and flaws.

That actually sounds quite interesting. I wasn't sure I was going to pick it up, but I think you've sold me on it. Thanks!

[americanwonder]

...How could these guys have dirt on them when they barely spoke? You would have to be Darkseid or the Joker to have dirt on you after so litgtle time. Honestly, don't you think that if Azzarelo wanted to use them to make a statement, he would have made more of them? ...

Before we even see a female Amazon in this run, we get man-hatred from them. The very first panel. I think Azzarelo's statements are pretty clear: a) Amazon women are dirty and b) Diana ain't too bright. Lots of room for growth, should make Slvn happy. ;)

...They are a culture based on the concept of warrior and unisex, which, like many concepts, lead to great things (putting their life on the line for their "sisters", some sort of honor code) and to horrible things (general hating of every thing that doesn't fit in their community). You know, like Vikings. You can regret the loss of some of the "peace" aspect of them, but they're not hyper simplistic...

I get your point about fighting for their queen; I like that moment, too. But I still feel that if all you show is fighting, it's a very simplistic portrayal. It's not as if they are shown fighting for anyone who isn't an Amazon. 300 had more depth. Feel free to disagree.

-Nah, I'm just messin with ya. Sorry, I was tired.

Oh, no worries.

... How you can see them as "perfect", and more importantly, how you can think Azzarelo tries to highlight them as such, is just beyond me... You think baby raised by a God in a forge to work all their life without acheiveing anything except some weapons no one is using sounds like role model, even if they're happy with it? No way...

... And that's exactly what I'm calling you out: you're using what you are given, forgetting that you have nothing on these guys. You have no dirt, but you have no quality as well.

Didn't you say you found their scene "heartwarming"? The Amazon women are portrayed as man-haters from the very first words out of their mouths, before we even see them. That's their defining characteristic so far. In contrast, do the men show any hatred towards women because of their mothers? They may not be a utopia (good point, btw), but are they killing anyone? Any human trafficing? Being a craftsman is honorable work; being a murderer and baby trader is not. One group (men) may not be "ideal;" but it is being used here to showcase the dirty, backwards ways of they other (women).

Here's a thought: would this scene work as well, would they seem as sympathetic, if the men were spewing hatred towards all women?

... Okay, this is getting ridiculous. Their actions have nothing to do with the Amazons here. When I say "not doing anything", I'm not only talking about fighting. They could bargain, they could explain in a rational fashion how perfectly content they are to be here, they could wonder what's going on. There is a world of nuaces between "jump in swords flying" and "beg". But they litteraly don't move. The first thing they do is begging. They're passive by any definition of the word. They do what they are told to. Diana thought they were robots, the definition of passive worker. Just because they are connected to the Amazons doesn't mean every thing they do is supposed to be compared to the Amazons, especially considering they don't do much.

a) I can see an arguement being made for the "passive worker" thing. But then, Diana (and Lennox) are shown to not be the brightest, so do we really want to take their word for it? She's not shown to be the most insightful. ;)

b) They don't wait to be told to help Hephaustus. They immediately ask for his release and explain why. There is need to bargain or fight or do anything more because Diana is instantly defeated by them with only a handful of words.

[Outside_85]

What I see mostly is an attempt to fling darkness at another Silver Age concept that was never meant to be so, and this has happened so often that it's turning into a cliché for me. I don't object to more horror titles; not my thing, but so it goes. What I object to is the warping of original creations into horror titles, the omnipresence of dark and serious moods, and the belief that this somehow makes them deeper, more imaginative, or more meaningful.

You'd rather have meaningless comics full of pretty colors?

I'm trying to call attention to a bad editorial direction that needs to do a 180, and fast.

Comicbook characters go out of print because they aren't selling, obviously Dial H wasn't selling as it was (last I remember seeing it it involved the carrier being dead and somehow involving Batman) or it would have been better presented than that. What you are basically suggesting that non-print was better than a darker take and potentially better sales all in the name of nostalgia? ...actually this sounds familiar...

[americanwonder]

So far, this run is flawed because it leaves many unanswered questions and depicts Wonder Woman's family as acting in ways that are unpleasantly gender-coded. Maybe it can be fixed later.

lol. The imaginary americanwonder in Slvn's head is imaginary. I don't recall ever saying the story is flawed because it has unaswered questions. Not sure I'd even say that as a story it's flawed. For what it is, it is well-crafted. But, you did get one part right: I don't like the choice to depict WW's family this way. He is smart enough to know WW comes with some gender politics, and all we get as the first building blocks are terrible stereotypes?

I wouldn't want to see terrible sterotypes of race in depictions of the Black and White Kryptonians either. They may get around to saying something interesting with it later, but it's an ungly and shallow way to start. So, I understand anyone who doesn't want to bother to continue to give money to something that starts out like this. Not sure I care to stick around.

It's not a matter of "fixing," but of turning and progressing as a story will.

It's a matter of trashing; I think good stories can be told without this type of trashing of the hero's world. And this isn't a crazy ungle Larry in the family, this is some really ugly #### built into the entire society. Everyone. I get the hero's journey bit - "tear down to progress the story" and all that - but I don't think this was the right choice. "WW coming to our world so she can go back home to 'fix' those backwards barbaric women she calls sisters" is not what I would call WW's story. I think it's short-sighted shock value with little forethought for the bigger picture of WW and her value (just my impression so far).

Judging by how shocked many people seemed to be by the revelations in #7, I don't think that they were "lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition" (the definition of "trite").

Shocked doesn't equal fresh. I think it's trite because it is generic (and not just the portrayal of the Amazons). It not only is repeating DC's Amazons Attack and Flashpoint WW, it seems to rely heavily on some portrayals of the Amazons in the public domain. In fact, much of this story is public domain. So, no, while I'm bothered by it, I do not see freshness in Azzarello's Amazons. I see stereotype. A far cry from freshness.

Heavy-handed? Maybe. The hints of potentially redeeming qualities (such as the weeping Amazon mother) are certainly more subtle than the "thrashing." But if part of the point was to cause shock and bewilderment on the part of Wonder Woman and her readers, would a less heavy-handed approach have been as effective?

This question seems to assume that "shock and bewilderment" is necessary for a good WW story; I'd disagree with that. I also think that more redeeming qualities can create more bewilderment because it can get more confusing in how to deal with it. As portrayed, these Amazons are terrible; I'd have no problem walking away from that family with no bewilderment.

... Or, let's say it's a T-rated comic, many of whose readers are over 30. Does it need to always be suitable for young girls and boys?...

Ah, comics - such serious business. "How dare you kids want to touch my comics!" ;) I'm not against serious comics for serious readers. But I do think this whole approach to the industry is one reason it keeps shrinking. And WW in particular is not custom made for "serious business." She's a lovely princess from a magical kingdom and she talks to animals. She's custom made for lilttle girls (that's not to say other good stories can't be done with her). Yet, the DC boy's club can't seem to handle anything other than the same 30-something readers. I find it hilarious that the TinkerBell and Barbie dvds outsell even the best selling DC/WB animated dvds, yet DC/WB still keeps making making those movies all in the same tone?

Well, yeah, I think the sex pirate is not an uplifiting image. I don' think it's nearly as dangerous a stereotype, though, as the stereotype of women as weak-willed and deferential, since for a long time powerful institutions and opinion leaders within Western civilization have taught that that's how women should be. No one's going to read Wonder Woman and think, at any level, that women SHOULD be sex pirates. The Amazons' thrice-centennial actions are depicted as monstrous, not normal. The real problem with stereotypes is that they become norms that people are expected (often by themselves) to comply with. That doesn't seem to be happening here.

No, they aren't saying women should be sex pirates. But they are taking strong, powerful women and making them man-hating sex pirates. Hera is pissed at her husband and on the war path. Strife is Strife. And none of the other goddesses have shown up. None of them are helping Diana (that we know of). So besides Diana, we don't get a counterbalance to the "strong women are man-haters" theme going on. That's the background of WW. Not the best portrayal of women in my book.

Stereotyping deemphasizes the "exceptions" or depicts them as abnormal or deviant. If the "exception" is the most admirable and heroic woman, then her actions seem more normative than deviant.

Sure, Diana is the most heroic and most "normal" to us. But take Batman for example - he's deviant because he's out fighting crime in his city, right? His deviance from the norm is what makes him heroic. Gotham feels worth saving because we know not everyone there is directly involved in the crimes going on.

What I think they've been tilting towards is sending Diana on her hero's journey by stripping away her most familiar world--which happens to be a world of women.

Because there are just too many good portrayals of women in comics these days. AWAY WITH YOU WOMEN! ;)

[Zagreus]

Wow, i just read his wiki page. The guy has written a lot of literature, academic books, gotten into politics, etc. He sounds like someone who's offered a lot in so many areas of life.

His book Perdido Street Station was great, definitely worth checking out.