Wonder Woman 9 Preview

[Javier Velasco]

I've said it before, but I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of using real life wars/conflicts, and blaming Ares for "igniting" them. We do this very ugly #### on our own. I'm fine with Ares being there, but I'm not really ok with trying to paint our faults in some type of 'evil villain made us do it.'

With the scene in the preview for issue #9, I'm ok with the use of real world areas like this. What bothers me is the comedic portrayal of the killer. We can try to pass it off as "dark comedy," but I find it an unfunny and very ugly juxtaposition that doesn't help bring awareness to real issues, but feels more like it trivializes them (note: I really don't think that was the intent by anyone involved).

However, if you look at the Golden Age stories, Marston was very much portraying Mars as the instigator of WW II. There were many images where he was seen as manipulating Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. It is such a through line that Hitler even appears as early as WW #2.

It can be argued that much of WW's popularity in the 40's can be directly attributed to her direct connection with topical conflicts and current affairs.

I am not personally arguing for this sort of thing (as it is not the slant I enjoy), but I cannot deny that it was part of the comic for a long time in its early years.

[americanwonder]

I know it was part of the early comics - I don't like Ares as the instigator of WWII either (and not because it fits with Slvn's theory that Azzarello is updating Marston ).

I'm fine with a connection to current events. As Steve and Outside said above, I agree that Ares would be there to witness if nothing else. I just feels that if the gods are going to play an active role of instigator, that it's better to use fictional events so that it can't be seen as trivilizing the realities of our world.

[Auguste Dupin]

I know it was part of the early comics - I don't like Ares as the instigator of WWII either (and not because it fits with Slvn's theory that Azzarello is updating Marston ).

I'm fine with a connection to current events. As Steve and Outside said above, I agree that Ares would be there to witness if nothing else. I just feels that if the gods are going to play an active role of instigator, that it's better to use fictional events so that it can't be seen as trivilizing the realities of our world.

On the other hand, nothing is worse for the realities of our world than ignoring them. We all know these things happen in these countries. We have no reason to act as if it didn't. Respect? Meh, I'm pretty sure they are more angry at us for doing nothing than for using the situation in comic books. Trivilizing the realities of our world means that at least we are not pretending to look the other way.

[Dr. Hurt]

I would say the Gods actually don't start anything, they arrive where their kind of stuff happens, most of the time.
Blood is being shed, Ares will be nearby in one way or form.
Strife appears when strife is about to happen, such as it did when she hinted of Diana's parentage (note that she only hinted at it, it was Hippolyta who chose to tell the whole truth)

As such, its not unfair to say that the Gods are concepts that have taken form the same way the Endless have, perhaps just on a lesser scale.

Good idea. It's not that Ares is starting the war, he IS the war, so wherever there is war, there's Ares.

[Outside_85]

So Hades is really just trying to get a child of Zeus on the throne? That's very sweet of him.

It wouldn't be completely out there for it to be the real deal...If he is interested in maintaining the balance, he would be utterly terrified of someone as volatile as Poseidon getting it. I don't know how many times I've read and heard how people note how treacherous the ocean can be. Like, people don't mention how scary it is to walk on the ground, but they make sure to take all precautions when going out to sea.

[americanwonder]

On the other hand, nothing is worse for the realities of our world than ignoring them. We all know these things happen in these countries. We have no reason to act as if it didn't. Respect? Meh, I'm pretty sure they are more angry at us for doing nothing than for using the situation in comic books. Trivilizing the realities of our world means that at least we are not pretending to look the other way.

I'm 100% positive that I never indicated that we should ignore them nor act as if they don't happen. But by placing the "blame*" on Ares it distorts what's actually happening, and in it's own way, is very much like pretending the realitiy of it isn't happening.


*note: I don't think Azzarello and co. have placed the blame on Ares (yet?) for these real life conflicts. I also don't think anyone involved means to trivialize real life conflicts. I'm just giving my opinion/feedback on the suggestion that Ares is the instigator of the fighting in Syria and Darfur.

eta:

Good idea. It's not that Ares is starting the war, he IS the war, so wherever there is war, there's Ares.

I like the way you phrase it here, Dr. Hurt.

[americanwonder]

It wouldn't be completely out there for it to be the real deal...If he is interested in maintaining the balance, he would be utterly terrified of someone as volatile as Poseidon getting it. I don't know how many times I've read and heard how people note how treacherous the ocean can be. Like, people don't mention how scary it is to walk on the ground, but they make sure to take all precautions when going out to sea.

Generally speaking, I can see an argument for this. But from the comics themselves, I don't see it. Hades doesn't seem to kidnap Zola, and later make a deal with Diana, because he's only interested in keeping volatile Poseidon from the throne. Doesn't really fit the story we have thus far, imo.

[Outside_85]

Generally speaking, I can see an argument for this. But from the comics themselves, I don't see it. Hades doesn't seem to kidnap Zola, and later make a deal with Diana, because he's only interested in keeping volatile Poseidon from the throne. Doesn't really fit the story we have thus far, imo.

I know it doesnt seem to be that way with a guy who tells someone to call them Hell with a straight face (even if its covered by wax) and kidnaps Zola afterwards. But perhaps that is simply part of the grand scheme of things Hades has, the Gods obviously have no problem with being perceived in ill fashion by people walking the Earth, so why would Hades give a toss?

Also, Hades has the advantage of knowing if Zeus is really dead, since he would most likely have ended up in his part of reality if he was so; he sets a plan in motion of installing someone on the throne of Olympus who will at least try and keep the world running as it always has untill Zeus decides to return...what better choice than Diana for this?
Reason for his apparent villainy? He needs that someone to have a valid claim on the throne, yet still somehow still within in his control. Diana has the birth right to it and the bonus of being 'available' (as we saw in issue 5 Hades and Poseidon still dont think women can think for themselves to any great degree), so if he gets her to marry him he will have someone to plant on the throne and be controllable.....but as we know with a 100% chance of backfire when Diana stops playing along with him for the sake of preventing chaos.

[americanwonder]

Good point on Hades knowing if Zeus is "dead." Makes me wonder if Diana may be using Hades for better access in looking around the Underworld.

[Outside_85]

Good point on Hades knowing if Zeus is "dead." Makes me wonder if Diana may be using Hades for better access in looking around the Underworld.

She'd have reason to...if Hippolyta is down there.

[slvn]

I agree that money, the desire for increased sales (not in and of itself a bad thing), is the most likely driving factor. Nevertheless, for those that really enjoy a character as it was, don't you think that "All-New All-Different" can feel very much like "destroying?"

Yeah, I absolutely do think so. (And I like the way you worded your question--"can feel" leaves room for the possibility that some readers, like me, liked the character before but do not feel that she has been destroyed at all.) I asked Steve that question about the desire for increased sales becomes in some of his posts he seemed to be saying that DC was intentionally spiking sales because they hate the character, and/or Marston, so much. Corporations intentionally losing money seems implausible to me. Steve clarified that he does believe DC wants to make money off Wonder Woman.

So, there seems to be some 'wrinkles' that DiDio wanted ironed out, so to speak, no? Thus, I don't think we can really say this story is driven strickly by creative curiosity.

The story Azzarello was interested in telling fit DiDio's agenda. That doesn't mean that Azz shaped his creative choices specifically to fit that agenda. But, if what you're saying is that he wasn't only curious but was also trying to make a successful pitch and write a comic that would sell--then, of course that's true!

Complimented? Do you really think that Marston would say Azzarellos depiction of the Amazons thus far is a compliment to Marston's own?

"Complimented" (with an "I") means "praised" or "said nice things about." Azz did compliment Marston's run in an interview. I believe him when he says he like Marston's run, because as I detailed above, I see several glimmers of Marston in Azzarello's run. Am I denying that Azz departs from Marston in other ways? No, I'm not; of course he does. Do I think Marston would like Azzarello's run? No, not necessarily. But that doesn't bother me. I don't know what Homer would think of Joyce's Ulysses, either, but I think Joyce does interesting and perceptive things with his source material from Homer and elsewhere (as well as bringing brilliant ideas of his own).

And how is your own "prediction" model really that different than Steve's?

Fair question. Two ways: First I don't claim to have a particularly effective model for predicting the plot, though I enjoy trying. I do think that, deliberately or not, the story is generally following the hero's ourney model' but that doesn't mean I'm able to predict particular twists, like the revelationsin number seven. Steve says he can predict the plot by expecting Azz do do whatever would distort Marston; the counterpart to that would be if I thought I could predict the plot by assuming that Azz would do whatever would uphold Marston. And I certainly do not think that! Second, my interpretation is open to refutation. I've already admitted that when I read #2 I underestimated how aggressive Azz would make the Amazons. And if Wonder Woman does marry Hades and become a "champion of death" for a significant number of issues, I'm probably not going to claim that this is somehow evidence that Wonder Woman is still effectively a champion of life or that the story is still following a version of the hero's jpurney that I find recognizable. But Steve seems to interpret everything good or Marstonian that Wonder Woman does or says as evidence that Azz just wants to twist the knife and make his interpretations of Marston's vision more painful. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Steve.

eta: Please note that I think you bring some very interesting and valuable insights to the discussion.

Likewise.

I just find it funny that you almost always seem to paint every complaint in the best possible light you can find. :)

Hey, i have to hold up my side of the argument! But note my ambivalence about the use of real-life settings for terrorist incidents.

[americanwonder]

... (And I like the way you worded your question--"can feel" leaves room for the possibility that some readers, like me, liked the character before but do not feel that she has been destroyed at all.)

Absolutely. One man's "destroy" is another's "fix." Cater Hall vs. Katar Hol.

The story Azzarello was interested in telling fit DiDio's agenda. That doesn't mean that Azz shaped his creative choices specifically to fit that agenda. But, if what you're saying is that he wasn't only curious but was also trying to make a successful pitch and write a comic that would sell--then, of course that's true!

I have no idea how much Azzarello had to shape his story to fit with DC's desired direction for WW. Perhaps this is a story that's been brewing in Azzarello's mind and DC just decided to go with it with little to no editorial mandates. Perhaps in their discussion regarding what to do with WW, he/they came up with what they thought were interesting solutions to perceived problems, solutions that could raise sales and be an interesting story. How much is story, and how much is sales pitch (to both DC and to the customer)? I don't know. But I'd suspect that elements of both are at play here (not that they are mutually exclusive - good stories often make for a good sales pitch). Personally, I don't feel like all the decisions here were made just for the sake of story.

"Complimented" (with an "I") means "praised" or "said nice things about." Azz did compliment Marston's run in an interview...

My bad, my sleepy eyes read that wrong. You're right, Azzarello did compliment Marston's WW.

Fair question. Two ways: First I don't claim to have a particularly effective model for predicting the plot, though I enjoy trying. I do think that, deliberately or not, the story is generally following the hero's ourney model' but that doesn't mean I'm able to predict particular twists, like the revelationsin number seven. Steve says he can predict the plot by expecting Azz do do whatever would distort Marston; the counterpart to that would be if I thought I could predict the plot by assuming that Azz would do whatever would uphold Marston. And I certainly do not think that!

I know you're not trying to predict every twist, but I guess I just see your use of the hero's journey model as your predictive model. And where Steve gives us the "Destroyed," glass half-empty interpretation of events and events yet to come, you give us plenty of interpretations of your own, both for events and events yet to come. But your interpretations almost always seem to assume the best possible and come from the glass half-full side. So, I don't see the counterpoint as "uphold Marston," but instead interpreting Azzarello in the best possible light. Not saying you're wrong for doing so or anything like that, just my observation (but then, I can't tell the difference between compliment and complement today ).

Second, my interpretation is open to refutation. I've already admitted that when I read #2 I underestimated how aggressive Azz would make the Amazons. And if Wonder Woman does marry Hades and become a "champion of death" for a significant number of issues, I'm probably not going to claim that this is somehow evidence that Wonder Woman is still effectively a champion of life or that the story is still following a version of the hero's jpurney that I find recognizable. But Steve seems to interpret everything good or Marstonian that Wonder Woman does or says as evidence that Azz just wants to twist the knife and make his interpretations of Marston's vision more painful. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Steve.

What? You were wrong? Oh how I wish I'd known that. ;)

I don't think that everything good is Azzarello twisting the knife, but I do think there is some twisting the knife (not necessarily a bad thing in fiction writing). Also, Steve may seem rather doubtful about Azzarello's WW (to put it mildly), but I'd dare say he could be open to refutation as well (though it may take a bit more convincing).

[SteveGus]

Fair question. Two ways: First I don't claim to have a particularly effective model for predicting the plot, though I enjoy trying. I do think that, deliberately or not, the story is generally following the hero's ourney model' but that doesn't mean I'm able to predict particular twists, like the revelationsin number seven. Steve says he can predict the plot by expecting Azz do do whatever would distort Marston; the counterpart to that would be if I thought I could predict the plot by assuming that Azz would do whatever would uphold Marston. And I certainly do not think that! Second, my interpretation is open to refutation. I've already admitted that when I read #2 I underestimated how aggressive Azz would make the Amazons. And if Wonder Woman does marry Hades and become a "champion of death" for a significant number of issues, I'm probably not going to claim that this is somehow evidence that Wonder Woman is still effectively a champion of life or that the story is still following a version of the hero's jpurney that I find recognizable. But Steve seems to interpret everything good or Marstonian that Wonder Woman does or says as evidence that Azz just wants to twist the knife and make his interpretations of Marston's vision more painful. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Steve.)

It's a bit more nuanced than that. I believe that Azzarello means to turn Wonder Woman into a specific kind of character trope: one whose values and feelings contradict their duties or unavoidable obligations, and is tormented by this conflict. This sort of character is supposed to be deeper or more interesting than one whose duties and values agree, though that in itself strikes me as a failure of imagination. As far as Diana herself is concerned, Azzarello is trying to sell you on straight 90s bad-girl clichés (and doing a fairly good job).

As to DiDio's plans, whatever they were, let me put it this way: Amazons and Paradise Island are a deal-breaker for me. I am a fan of the Amazon concept in general. They strike me as a perfect example of Marston's actual message and his clever -- yes, clever -- way of getting it across. He'd cross an eternally recurring and essentially benign male fantasy, a tropical paradise populated with beautiful women, with a message of women's liberation. Any change that seeks to twist or distort Marston's message here, or render the character and the book unsuited to convey it, is not something I can accept.

[brettc1]

I dont see any body parts flying from the explosion. It's only pieces of the truck, the table and the cloth that was over it.

There are certainly two victims being hurled through the air by the explosion. To me some of the debris around Ares looks like it might be bits of shredded human being but I am not sure.

Note also the figure in the bottom panel carrying an injured or dead child.

[brettc1]

Azzarello puts Ares in Darfur and shows fightings.
"Oh god, that bigot of Azzarello should do his homeworks, right now there's no open warfare in Darfur! Instead of keep shwoing black people killing each other why doesn't he put Ares in places like Colombia or Syria where there's real trouble?"

Azzarello puts Ares in Syria and shows car-bomb.
"Oh god, there's real people getting killed there! This stuff is really happening! Can't Azzarello be a little more respectful and remove these scenes, considering the tragedy these people are living in?"


Now, Rob, I know you weren't one of the guys "complaining" the first time, but I think we are getting silly here. Yes, there's tension and trouble in Syria, this is the kind of stuff that happens there and making a joke about it can be considered bad taste.
But at the same time, at least once a day somebody gets murdered in New York City, should the Punisher book get cancelled for that?

To be clear, my original comment was directed to the sentiment that there was a comedic element to the scene relating to Ares sitting calmly and having his hat blown off when the bomb explodes. To me there wasn't.

Showing violence in comic books is not off limits as far as I'm concerned. Yes, we should be aware that horrors like this exist. On the other hand, for me having these things happen in the DC universe as well as Darksied rocking up with an army of parademons, killing/adbucting thousands of innocent people, makes you think that there is no way in hell you would want to live in the DC universe. It has all the horrors of our world and then even more terrible ones on top of that. I dont see being able to get the real Wonder Woman's autograph as enough of a reason to live there.