Wonder Woman #0 solicit

[brettc1]

What about love? Didn't it cause the Trojan War? Or pride? Or need? Or freedom? War simply for war's sake isn't a natural response. War requires a reason even if that reason is really foolish.

Wars almost always start because someone else wants something that someone esle has. But none of that matters really to Ares, he's happy as long as folks keep fighting.

Which is why he and Wonder Woman have been natural adversaries from the start. The Amazons were busy saying we dont have to kill each other and it ticked him off.

[brettc1]

You tell me. World War II. Not a good thing to stop Hitler? Was diplomacy going to work? If its always evil then its always evil regardless. You list one example yourself. Superpowers playing chess. War was just another pawn in the game. And what about the conflicts in the Arab countries last year? Again, war isn't good or evil. Its a means to an end.

Hitler STARTED World War II - which is why in the original Wonder Woman comic he is a puppet of Ares. War is bad, and the fact that it only takes one side to start it doesnt make it better.

Listen to Mr Miyagi - "Fighting always bad. But if must fight, win!" But the first sentence is just as important as the second.

[brettc1]

I dont think the book is preaching this time. The Amazons just are who they are. Azzarello is not making a point about misandry, misogyny or whatever.

Perhaps not consciously. But stories have power.

Secondly, if "honestly address[ing] misogyny/patriarchy male-dominance" starts with showing that there is are profound and powerful misogynisy, patriarchal, and male-dominated power structures in the world, Azzarello is certainly doing that. Look at Poseidon's diatribe at the beginning of 5. Look at Apollo's casual use and discarding of the oracles. Look at the oracles' description of Zeus as irreedemable. Look at Hades treating his former and prospective wives like property. Even Hera represents a patriarchal concept of what it is to be queen--dependent on the king and insecure of her position.The Olympian hierarchy that presumes to rule the world is a depicted as an obnoxiously misogynsitic patriarchy. That's the kind of society feminists oppose, and it is what Wonder Woman, the feminist icon, is up against.

Yet you can see at a glance that all of these examples are rooted in the gods of Ancient Greece. Thus all the examples of gender bias, from Amazons to Zeus, are ones that are not part of the modern human world.

That being the case, it is easy for the reader to look at these examples and believe that while they are bad they are not related to his modern 21st Century life. Which is a bit sad, because I believe there are hotly contested issues around women's rights happening the United States right now, certainly in other part of the world as well. You dont need to go the land of Myth to find them.

[Auguste Dupin]

Well, you tell me since I'll admit that I haven't read New 52 Ares. Has this guys come across at all like he's her archenemy? I haven't gotten the impression that he is.



People can judge his appearance for themselves. In my opinion, he looks way better than the old man in the New 52 issues. You can make an action figure with the Perez Ares, or have him fight in a big screen or animated battle as is. Can you do that with the new version?



Do you genuinely believe that Frank Miller suddenly turned everything around in 1987, or are you revising history to make Frank Miller's work look like a bigger change than it really was?

Batman fought aliens and had a Bathound and other goofy elements in the 1950s and early 60s. That's early Silver Age, or even before the Silver Age. Two and a half to three decades before Miller came around. More than one generation grew up in that span of time. The 50s and early 60s were also Batman's goofiest era BY FAR, because it was a time when space alien scifi was popular. It was also after the publication of Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent, which forced comics including Batman to tone things down and take on a lighter, kiddier direction. Those stories that you refer to were in fact the deviation from what Batman was supposed to be, because Batman started out dark. And in the years after that goofy era, way before Miller came around, there were multiple runs which took on a darker, grittier, "back to basics" approach.

Miller wrote a grim, down-to-earth Batman. He also didn't even write Batman for very long. He wrote a three-issue, possible-future miniseries (The Dark Knight Returns), and a four-issue origin arc set in the "past" even at the time of its publication (Year One). Miller left a mark on Batman, but he did NOT turn everything upside down. Batman was still who he was, and things were more of the same after Miller's brief run. Bruce Wayne was still haunted by the deaths of his parents, Gordon was still his ally on the police force, Robin was still his partner, and Batman still fought the Joker, Riddler, and Penguin. The basic mythos was maintained, just expanded.



Way to be black-and-white, which is the kind of faulty thinking that the Perez series denounced. Perez's Wonder Woman did kill, but she didn't like to and only used lethal force when necessary. Because let's face it, in combat against a maniac with other people's lives at stake, you do have to be willing to kill. Not wanting to kill is admirable, but it's one of the most misused ideas in superhero comics. No one blames the Avengers for mowing down alien troops throughout their movie, because holding them to the "no killing" rule in that situation is stupid. Everyone gets that, only fanboys who want to use the "no killing" rule to bolster a personal complaint ever go that route. Other examples of the "no killing" rule being broken in famous stories are Superman killing Doomsday, and the way Batman handled Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins. That scene was perfect IMO, because it showed that while Batman has deep reservations against killing, he's not a complete idiot or extremist about it.

Now, Marston's original comics DID portray a Wonder Woman who advocated peace and didn't kill, but even those comics skirted around the issue. Marston's original comics were published during WW2, and were STAUNCHLY in favor of the war effort. Diana Prince was a commissioned officer in the US military, a job that she would hold throughout the decades. The first story ended with a Nazi spy base being blown up with everyone inside. Mission accomplished! Wonder Woman raised money for US troops, who obviously killed the bad guys. Steve Trevor is implied to kill thousands of Japanese sailors in one issue, when he bombed a giant Japanese battleship, sinking it "with all aboard." Wonder Woman actually fought alongside soldiers and marines, pounding into Japanese lines with her super strength.

Yes, a hero can kill. Perez didn't dodge the issue, and his Wonder Woman took direct responsibility for the kind of killing that the character always supported before. No, killing when the situation calls for it does not automatically make you the same as Wolverine or Spawn (or the Punisher, as some extremist fans have brought up).



Yes, Perez made some changes, and I even agree that some of those, such as making her a newbie and removing Steve as her love interest, were mistakes. And I would argue that that's making my point, because massive deviations to established characters, rather than trying to develop and elevate what is already there, tends to lead to problems.

But Perez also kept a lot, while adding nuance and expanding on things in an intelligent way. Paradise Island was still a paradise, for the most part. The Amazons were still an admirable society. You asked what Perez managed to do, and I will say it was the balancing act betwen portraying the Amazons as a positive and remarkable civilization, while showing that they still had room to improve. That is a very important point to me, because a lack of self-awareness and examination by people is a big problem in the world. It's a factor in why prejudice and war, things that Wonder Woman is against at her very core, persist. The idea that the Amazons are good people who became embittered and isolationist because of the evils committed against them was also at the very center of the 2009 animated movie, which I loved. I'm not sure if they were aware that they were making the same general point as Perez, but they did and the movie was better because of it.

Perez's artwork also brought the character and her corner of the world to life. Ares's look was overhauled in a good way while keeping her as Diana's nemesis. His modus operandi of having his subordinates whisper in the ears of dictators was updated, and in the Perez issues he was bringing powerful people into a cult that threatened to turn the Cold War hot.



I would say that development, and evolution of the character is good. Completely tossing everything that came before, both the bad AND the good, is not the best way to do things.

-Well, at the very least, he comes accross as someone who knows her and doesn't like her at all.

- Well, it's not like Pre-Flashpoint Ares was an impressive archennemesis worthy of the Joker and Lex Luthor, at least from my reading experience. Last time I checked, he was this lame god that got oneshot by Diana with an axe. And Everyone is judge, but when I was a kid, no way I would have bought that action figure.

- I believe Frank Miller did things that were a big departure from even Neal Adams's portrayal (more violent, more gritty, more outlawish....). And even then, what's your point, that you can get rid of things that appeared in the 50's because they're goofy but you can't do that if said things appeared in the 80's?
But okay, let's roll with Adams and Starlin. So, we went from a well rounded fellow fighting crime in darkness and daylight alike to a brooding vigilante who remembers the murder of his parents everytime he rests, and who can become a howling figure of revenge has the proper berserk button being used in front of him. That's still a huge departure from what we got before, even compared compared to the Golden Age, who was much less troubled. And Miller may not have written Batman for very long, nevertheless, his portrayal has been the one true influence of every Batman written trhoughout the 90's- early 00's.

-It's annoying heh, to have someone arrive , completely disregard everything positive about a character and concentrate on the negative just to crucify a series?
Point is, you can make all the points you want , I only say this: Pre Crisis Diana: did not kill at all. Post Crisis: does kill whenever a writter sees fit to do so. Big change from one to the other. Considering the nature of fans in general and WW fans in particular, had it happened right now, what would have happen is a giant fan outcry (considering how people are complaining about things that didn't change as if they did). A hero can kill, that's not the point, it's just that WW didn't (and was like a super pacifist), but did ater Crisis. "Uneccessary" change of character.

- How much these things were mistakes is arguable , because of a little thing called subjectivity. Perez, for all his faults, revitalized the character for some time, partly by getting rid of half her main points. was it a mistake? Maybe, but no one can argue the character was in a good shape before.
But revitalization can only work for so long, no matter how good it was. Here, DC brought back some stuff (Trevor as someone who could be her love interest, her as one of the first heroes....), got rid of others ("perfect" Amazons, Gods in tonga....). Just like Perez did.

-Happens all the time. Ridley Scott 's Robin Hood, the last Star Trek, the Three Musketeers......like for every thing, the execution is what matters.

[Dr. Hurt]

You make a well-reasoned and compelling arguement here. But I'm not sold. To me, it has felt like more of a depiction of gods behaving badly (male and female), rather than questioning the inherent flaws of a patriarchal system.

Azzarello is not Gail Simone. In BG barbara looks at the horizon and Simone has to make sure you get it by writing "and then Barbara looked at the horizon" in a box. Azzarello hasnt used a thought box yet. He's letting the reader get it for himself, he's letting the art speak for the emotional moments.

Also, it's only using the gods, never mentioning the sexism in patriarchies of our world.

And TDK didnt make any referrences to real life terrorists but i think we got the point through the Joker, did we not?

As such, honestly, I'll find it lacking any real teeth if a male god ends up on the throne at the end, retaining the male-dominant power structure.

1) Does the good guy always have to win?
2) What if some good guy gets the throne, someone like Hephaestus or Eros, if they really are good guys? I mean, a good ruler is a good ruler, despite of his genitalia. Even if the ruler is a queen it doesnt mean that she'll be awesome.

But she isn't doing it to fight the oppression of the patriarchy; she does it to fight the queen. Though, I suspect some of what she said is foreshadowing things to come.

Yes because thank god, even WW has had enough of that gender crap and she only cares about Zola. Does every story have to be a blatand exposition on the cons of patriarchy and the pros of matriarchy?

I said Hippolyta is playing at being equals because we aren't actually shown Zeus treating her as an equal - it's Zeus, once again, playing a part to play the woman.

The dude hasnt said a word and you're making assumptions about him. People get together and they break up, it doesnt mean Zeus was playing her.

Both are simplistic portrayals with the women getting the ugliest side of the deal. I don't like it. I don't find it creative or compelling. I find it shallow.

I find "YEAH WE HAVE VAGINAS AND WE'RE AWESOME!!! YEAAAAAH SUCK IT MEN" equally shallow and pandering.

And, honestly, I find it uncomfortable to portray the best known female-dominant society this way (the only female dominant society on DCU Earth, right?). Let me put it this way, female infanticide is a very real problem in our world. That's not to say boy babies don't get killed, but it isn't on the scale that girl babies are killed. But female infanticide isn't addressed in DC comics. Instead, it's inverted, playing women as the sexist man-haters, and boy babies as the victims.

Wait... People kill more girls than boys? Where does that happen? Who does that?

Rape as a weapon of war is also a real problem. And it's not mainly women doing so. No mention.

Read Identity Crisis. This is probably the second time a woman has "raped" someone in the DCU, the first being Tarantula. The subject of men raping women has already been addressed a million times.

And i say "raped" because it didnt look like those sailors were unwilling. But lets not go there again.

But here, we have female parties of sex pirates as the only female dominant society on DCU Earth?

Marvel has Wakanda, an all black nation. I dont know much about it, but i'm told that they're very racist.

What, the only all black superhero community in the universe has flaws? OH HELL NAWWWW!

[Dr. Hurt]

Frank Miller (who has done some great work, but also a bunch of crazy crap) is not the end-all of comics.

I didnt say that. But Denny O Neil and Miller had a huge impact on Batman, bringing him from the Adam West era to the modern era where he's a dark avenger of the night.

Would you ever say that Superman is "pre-Miller" and needs to darken things to match?

Not really because Superman has shed the silliness and camp of the old comics as well. WW hadnt done that up until now.

As I explain in my post above, this idea of a goofy "pre-Miller" Batman is a myth, because Batman comics had gone long way from the 1950s or Adam West years before Miller came along, and things were basically the same after Year One anyway. If we're going to bring up Ace the Bathound and the Zebra suit, you don't compare 1980s-2010 Wonder Woman to that because the latter is way more sophisticated regardless of any problems. Wonder Woman's equivalents would be goofy Silver and pre-Silver Age stuff like Wonder Tot, Space Kangas, and Egg Fu.

WW still has many cheesy and random things in her book that throw a spanner in the mechanism of the book. Random tech, the burden of the feministic agenda which people think needs to be as blatant and over the top as in the 40ies (which was a different time), the Mary Sue Amazons, and so on.

WW just hadnt matured and adapted to each era. She was still in the Perez era.

What was so horrible about Wonder Woman learning her morals from a good, loving society that it had to be thrown out? I can't wait for a supposed "Miller" take on Superman, where Pa Kent is revealed to be a racist redneck. Because perfectly moral Midwestern farmers who never ever abuse their alien son's super powers are clearly unrealistic...

There's nothing bad about that. In fact i too feel uneasy about the revelations about the Amazons. But other than that, i do prefer the more pragmatic take on them and Themiscyra, the less colourful suit, the new gods, the tone of the book.

Yes i agree, the Amazons didnt have to do that. They could have been "grey" enough without going so far.

[brettc1]

Azzarello is not Gail Simone. In BG barbara looks at the horizon and Simone has to make sure you get it by writing "and then Barbara looked at the horizon" in a box. Azzarello hasnt used a thought box yet. He's letting the reader get it for himself, he's letting the art speak for the emotional moments.

Yes, and it annoys the hell out of me.

In my mind, the art is there to support the narrative, not to take its place. I think the value of language in comic books has been sadly neglected for some time. It could be argued that a picture is worth a 1000 words, but by my reckoning a picture and 20 words is worth even more.

[WhitOro]

Yes, and it annoys the hell out of me.

In my mind, the art is there to support the narrative, not to take its place. I think the value of language in comic books has been sadly neglected for some time. It could be argued that a picture is worth a 1000 words, but by my reckoning a picture and 20 words is worth even more.

I'm starting to doubt your tastes Brettc.

[hunter_peterson]

Azzarello is not Gail Simone. In BG barbara looks at the horizon and Simone has to make sure you get it by writing "and then Barbara looked at the horizon" in a box. Azzarello hasnt used a thought box yet. He's letting the reader get it for himself, he's letting the art speak for the emotional moments.
And TDK didnt make any referrences to real life terrorists but i think we got the point through the Joker, did we not? 1) Does the good guy always have to win?
2) What if some good guy gets the throne, someone like Hephaestus or Eros, if they really are good guys? I mean, a good ruler is a good ruler, despite of his genitalia. Even if the ruler is a queen it doesnt mean that she'll be awesome.
Yes because thank god, even WW has had enough of that gender crap and she only cares about Zola. Does every story have to be a blatand exposition on the cons of patriarchy and the pros of matriarchy?

The dude hasnt said a word and you're making assumptions about him. People get together and they break up, it doesnt mean Zeus was playing her.
I find "YEAH WE HAVE VAGINAS AND WE'RE AWESOME!!! YEAAAAAH SUCK IT MEN" equally shallow and pandering.

Wait... People kill more girls than boys? Where does that happen? Who does that?
Read Identity Crisis. This is probably the second time a woman has "raped" someone in the DCU, the first being Tarantula. The subject of men raping women has already been addressed a million times.

And i say "raped" because it didnt look like those sailors were unwilling. But lets not go there again.
Marvel has Wakanda, an all black nation. I dont know much about it, but i'm told that they're very racist.

What, the only all black superhero community in the universe has flaws? OH HELL NAWWWW!

I think he was referring to the practice of killing unwanted female newborns by leaving them outside away from the house in China, which was exacerbated by the One Child Policy. The gender bias combined with the restriction led and continues to lead to mass infanticide by parents who see girls as less viable offspring. Ironically, this is partly why there is an unhealthy shortage of women in China. There's also a lot of girls in orphanages for the same reason. It's pretty terrible, but also a good example of a modern society that does absolutely reprehensible things based on a gender bias that's outdated, just like the Amazons. Saying that their actions make them any worse than "Man's World" is patently ridiculous, given our conduct both historically and currently. It's just harder to see from the inside.

And I totally agree that the Amazons were overtly sexist before, but never brought up on it by anyone at all, really. They blatantly were anti-feminist in their assertion that women were superior to men, and Wonder Woman could be interpreted as an ambassador of bigotry. Sort of like a specifically sexist Mormon missionary, but with a seat at the UN. And huge influence. And super powers. So they could easily have been darkened up without the changes Azarrello made, but he had the reboot, so why not rebuild the Amazons conceptually from the ground up? He hasn't really changed the core of their character, just the way they're presented. Your example of the Wakandans, who segregate themselves because they're "better", is a good one.

I also think that americanwonder was right to say that rape as a weapon of war is a big issue... but that's not really applicable here. The Amazon raids weren't acts of war, they were peacetime pillaging of waterborne sperm banks.

[Dr. Hurt]

Yes, and it annoys the hell out of me.

In my mind, the art is there to support the narrative, not to take its place. I think the value of language in comic books has been sadly neglected for some time. It could be argued that a picture is worth a 1000 words, but by my reckoning a picture and 20 words is worth even more.

The dialogue and art get the point across just fine. I dont need Simone's overanalytical thought boxes or Snyder's forced owl info dumps. I get it.

[Dr. Hurt]

I think he was referring to the practice of killing unwanted female newborns by leaving them outside away from the house in China, which was exacerbated by the One Child Policy. The gender bias combined with the restriction led and continues to lead to mass infanticide by parents who see girls as less viable offspring. Ironically, this is partly why there is an unhealthy shortage of women in China. There's also a lot of girls in orphanages for the same reason. It's pretty terrible, but also a good example of a modern society that does absolutely reprehensible things based on a gender bias that's outdated, just like the Amazons. Saying that their actions make them any worse than "Man's World" is patently ridiculous, given our conduct both historically and currently. It's just harder to see from the inside.

And I totally agree that the Amazons were overtly sexist before, but never brought up on it by anyone at all, really. They blatantly were anti-feminist in their assertion that women were superior to men, and Wonder Woman could be interpreted as an ambassador of bigotry. Sort of like a specifically sexist Mormon missionary, but with a seat at the UN. And huge influence. And super powers. So they could easily have been darkened up without the changes Azarrello made, but he had the reboot, so why not rebuild the Amazons conceptually from the ground up? He hasn't really changed the core of their character, just the way they're presented. Your example of the Wakandans, who segregate themselves because they're "better", is a good one.

I also think that americanwonder was right to say that rape as a weapon of war is a big issue... but that's not really applicable here. The Amazon raids weren't acts of war, they were peacetime pillaging of waterborne sperm banks.

Good post!

Thanks for the answer about the infanticides!

[Dr. Hurt]

Yes because thank god, even WW has had enough of that gender crap and she only cares about Zola. Does every story have to be a blatand exposition on the cons of patriarchy and the pros of matriarchy?

Heh, i just found this oddly appropriate pic.

[WhitOro]

The dialogue and art get the point across just fine. I dont need Simone's overanalytical thought boxes or Snyder's forced owl info dumps. I get it.

[]http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/9168/51306770.jpg[]

Oh come on Doc, be fair! That's not Gail Simones style at all.
Here, this should work better:

[Don-Jack]

And that's why the issues with Tony Akins are worse than Chiang's. He cannot express characters thoughts and feelings like Chiang.

Also, a book of Gail's run can be published. There's no need of drawings, anyway.

[SteveGus]

And that's why the issues with Tony Akins are worse than Chiang's. He cannot express characters thoughts and feelings like Chiang.

Which is why I have nothing but praise for Chiang. He has a gift for expressive faces, like Maguire. I'd like to see him on something with a broader repertoire of emotions.

I wonder. When did we last see Wonder Woman smile?