Interesting analysis of Wonder Woman 8

[brettc1]

Am I missing something? Jim Shooter did not write the blog post you two are quoting -- Colin Smith did, and he's written several literate, well-reasoned posts both praising and complaining about this run.

My apologies if I misnamed the author. My status on his reasoning remains as is.

[brettc1]

Brettc what the hell is this?! Weren't you one on the side "Yeah I don't like this overall story, but I like the way Azza writes Wonder Woman".
What's this thing now that she's BLAND?!

That's a perfectly good question.

Based on what I read in the article I started to reflect on the book. What I found myself thinking was - I didnt so much like Diana as I had no reason to dislike her. In other words, unlike in other runs she had not done anything much I found violently at odds with my understanding of the character.

That said, when I compare her dialogue and general demeanour withint the book at the moment, it seems kind of two dimensional. For example, she finds out all her sisters are crazed sex-murderers and her reaction is...what? Not angry denial as you might expect, not stunned horror as might seem reasonable. It is merely blank acceptance followed up by a desire to free the men of the forge. And while that action is perfectly in keeping with WW, her apparent lack of emotion prior to that seems more in keeping with The Vision or Jocasta.

If I could try to put it in words, I would say that before Diana always struck me for most of her runs to be a free spirit. We have certainly seen her burdened with duty, but even then underneath the weight of her responsibilities was someone I could see as essentially happy, hopeful, and looking for the goodness in others and the world around her. I dont feel Azzarello has really shown that character. You could argue that is the nature of the story he is telling but after 8 months of it it becomes a bit wearying.

[jack-be-nimble]

It's fiction. Wonder Woman is a series of painted lines. What she is is what the writer in charge chooses her to be. Characters don't have a life of their own. It's a very interesting concept the possibility that they could have one, worthy of many Morrison's book, but at the end of the day, THEY DON'T.
They're not real. Therefore, there's not a "RIGHT" or a "WRONG" way to write them.

Agreed. Do I really miss the racist Wonder Woman personality from the WWII-era? She was my favorite. No, wait, scratch that...my favorite WW personality was the weepy, pining, I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Steve-Trevor. Mmm...no, maybe it's the Pollyanna one. Or the one that pines after Supes all the time. Or Mer-boy.

The point of the New 52 was a fresh(er) start to the characters. Which means this interpretation of Wonder Woman can be different than the previous interpretations and be just as valid.

[jack-be-nimble]

He's changing Diana so that she works with the story he had in mind rather than writing a story about Wonder Woman.

It's DCnU/New 52...she's meant to be different.

A character with a seventy year published history fortunately cannot be changed over the course of a year by a single writer.

Yes, she can and she has been. From her first appearance in All-Star to her full comic debut, she got an expanded origin story. She's been continually tweaked and updated and revised all along. Racist WWII Wondy...Boo-hoo I love Steve Wondy...Where'd My Powers Go? Wondy...I'm a Secretary, I own a boutique...I'm an ambassador and I work at Taco Whiz cuz I have no money Wondy...It's 1970 and I'm still fighting WWII Wondy.

This is DCnU Wondy and I like her.

[brettc1]

Agreed. Do I really miss the racist Wonder Woman personality from the WWII-era? She was my favorite. No, wait, scratch that...my favorite WW personality was the weepy, pining, I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Steve-Trevor. Mmm...no, maybe it's the Pollyanna one. Or the one that pines after Supes all the time. Or Mer-boy.

The point of the New 52 was a fresh(er) start to the characters. Which means this interpretation of Wonder Woman can be different than the previous interpretations and be just as valid.

It's a valid point that WW has eveolved over the years, and her outward character has been fluid. On the other hand, the core of the character has, IMO, remained the same, as has the core of the book.

Also, on a philosophical note, writing is communication and communication is always the result of the what the sender puts out and what the receiver percieves, Who has more validity, the sender or the reciever? The writer or the reader? Because reading should always be an active process.

So if a fictional character is no more than perception, then the perception of the reader is as valid as that of the writer. If the writer says "This is funny because I wrote it to be funny," and the reader disagrees - well, what is there to be done? So if the writer says "This is Wonder Woman because I wrote it to be Wonder Woman" and the reader disagrees, again there is nothing to be done about it.

I think at the end of the day writers have no more authority with the characters than the readers. The best they can say is "This is how I see X" and then hope enough people agree with them to make the book lucrative.

[WhitOro]

For example, she finds out all her sisters are crazed sex-murderers and her reaction is...what? Not angry denial as you might expect, not stunned horror as might seem reasonable. It is merely blank acceptance followed up by a desire to free the men of the forge.

Are you joking? She stunned and hurt, then she gets angry and then again, the realization of the "happiness" of the slaves, she's again hopeless and without clues of what to do and how to react. It's all in the body language.

You're telling me you don't see surprise, anger, determination, sadness, desperation in this? You're telling me she isn't expressing what she feels?
And the "blank" acceptance comes after she discovered that she wasn't made of clay. Her origins were all a lie. You can argue that something like this can shake your faith on what you hold dear, and makes you believe something like this.

I think the problem here is that people got spoiled by Gail Simone's unbearable inner monologues that plagued her run and told us everything everytime, with Diana repeating every single page stuff like "Oh gods Genocyde is so strong and she defeated me and humiliated I feel humiliated because she defeated me because sh'es the best villain of all and oh my gods, she's so strong and she's made out of my dead body why is that I don't know, I feel humiliated"

If I could try to put it in words, I would say that before Diana always struck me for most of her runs to be a free spirit. We have certainly seen her burdened with duty, but even then underneath the weight of her responsibilities was someone I could see as essentially happy, hopeful, and looking for the goodness in others and the world around her. I dont feel Azzarello has really shown that character. You could argue that is the nature of the story he is telling but after 8 months of it it becomes a bit wearying.

She goes clubbing, listens to rock metal, sleeps naked and eats grilled tomatoes.
I'd say she's a free spirit alright.
As for the looking for the good in others, I keep seeying people lamenting that she trusted Lennox, an overall friendly guy, and that she should have used the lasso of truth on him to see if he was saying the truth.
So, it's either "she should see the good in people" and "she should tie up strangers in the middle of the road out of suspect".
Decide!

[Don-Jack]

I think the problem here is that people got spoiled by Gail Simone's unbearable inner monologues that plagued her run and told us everything everytime, with Diana repeating every single page stuff like "Oh gods Genocyde is so strong and she defeated me and humiliated I feel humiliated because she defeated me because sh'es the best villain of all and oh my gods, she's so strong and she's made out of my dead body why is that I don't know, I feel humiliated"

This!
The analysis of the art in the actual run is VERY important, because there's no tought balloons at all, which is very unique

[Gaelforce]

As for the looking for the good in others, I keep seeying people lamenting that she trusted Lennox, an overall friendly guy, and that she should have used the lasso of truth on him to see if he was saying the truth.
So, it's either "she should see the good in people" and "she should tie up strangers in the middle of the road out of suspect".
Decide!

I think I'd like a middle road, please :)

It's one thing to be compassionate, to see the good in people and to give people a chance.

It's another to be naive, especially to the ways of the gods she was raised to worship and who she seems to have some experience with.

"Hi, I'm Lennox, your brother from another mother."

"Hello! Great to meet you! Tell me what's going on and what should I do about it!"

That just seemed very abrupt and far *too* trusting.

To me, the supporting cast went from total strangers to trusted friends and advisors waaaay too quickly.

[Don-Jack]

but it's her personality
now you're implying that she must act the way most people act
Wonder Woman always trust in people, until she discover things up

[Don-Jack]

the main point is that she believes in the TRUTH, but each time she is even more confronted by lies

[Gaelforce]

but it's her personality
now you're implying that she must act the way most people act
Wonder Woman always trust in people, until she discover things up

Again, there's a difference between 'trust' and 'blind naivete'.

Diana isn't stupid and never has been, so I think what I'd like to see is trust tempered by wisdom as opposed to this instant like/accept/trust we've been seeing.

[Desean101101]

I think I'd like a middle road, please :)

It's one thing to be compassionate, to see the good in people and to give people a chance.

It's another to be naive, especially to the ways of the gods she was raised to worship and who she seems to have some experience with.

"Hi, I'm Lennox, your brother from another mother."

"Hello! Great to meet you! Tell me what's going on and what should I do about it!"

That just seemed very abrupt and far *too* trusting.

To me, the supporting cast went from total strangers to trusted friends and advisors waaaay too quickly.

I think That is One of This Wonder Womens Problems, If you aren't Immediately Hostile towards Her or Explain Yourself She will Give you a Chance To Prove yourself Trustworthy or not .
Its not bad in itself but It can get her in trouble like with what happened when She gave Strife a Chance to be Good and hang around her. Azzerrello has Stated in Interviews before that Diana's Greatest Weakness is that She Believes Everyone Has Some Manner of Goodness in them and That Her trusting Nature will be challenged repeatedly throughout this story.

[NotSuper]

Hrm. A lot of the comments on the blog itself seem a tad bit reactionary to me. I don't think those kinds of statements help anything, especially when they're simply repeated in an echo chamber (unintentional one or not--in the end, still the same result).

[Dr. Hurt]

I think the problem here is that people got spoiled by Gail Simone's unbearable inner monologues that plagued her run and told us everything everytime, with Diana repeating every single page stuff like "Oh gods Genocyde is so strong and she defeated me and humiliated I feel humiliated because she defeated me because sh'es the best villain of all and oh my gods, she's so strong and she's made out of my dead body why is that I don't know, I feel humiliated"

Seriously, this.

[swatkat]

Are you joking? She stunned and hurt, then she gets angry and then again, the realization of the "happiness" of the slaves, she's again hopeless and without clues of what to do and how to react. It's all in the body language.

You're telling me you don't see surprise, anger, determination, sadness, desperation in this? You're telling me she isn't expressing what she feels?
And the "blank" acceptance comes after she discovered that she wasn't made of clay. Her origins were all a lie. You can argue that something like this can shake your faith on what you hold dear, and makes you believe something like this.

I think the problem here is that people got spoiled by Gail Simone's unbearable inner monologues that plagued her run and told us everything everytime, with Diana repeating every single page stuff like "Oh gods Genocyde is so strong and she defeated me and humiliated I feel humiliated because she defeated me because sh'es the best villain of all and oh my gods, she's so strong and she's made out of my dead body why is that I don't know, I feel humiliated"

Azzarello and Chiang force you to pay as much attention to the writing as they do the art, which I find very refreshing -- comics, after all, is half art, and too often art is treated as secondary; window-dressing of sorts. Azzarello's Diana is often taciturn, but what she's not is inexpressive -- just look at her face in the panels. Gail Simone is one of my favourite writers, but I do think she sometimes overuses dialogue boxes, like in the current Batgirl run (not so much in her WW run, IMO) -- although no one's as bad as James Robinson, whose JLA I actually had to stop reading solely because of ALL.THE.TALKY.VOICES!