Wonder Woman by Brian Azzarello / What is Your Verdict?

[UltraMagnetic]

The Nu WonderWoman book is interesting, but I'm pretty much tired of reading books about superheroes who don't do any actually "superheroing". I guess Azarello is leaving it up to Johns to make her look like a superhero while he takes us on a long decompressed run through her personal adventures.

[Superdog]

Sounds like Robin Hood to me. Lots of similarities to King John's Nottingham and Depression Era America.

My point was that SteveGus said that superhero comics by definition should have starkly defined right and wrong. Golden Age Superman flees from a hail if police bullets, kills people and threatens people all the time. So clearly Stevegus's definition of what it means to be a superhero comics is far too narrow.

[brettc1]

Maybe, but a nuanced villain isn't a minion of Darkseid, who himself is anything but nuanced. See, I don't have a problem calling the Amazons "nuanced villains", what I don't like is comparing them to mindless genociding minions, because that's not true, unfair, and not even relevant to this entire conversation, except by destroying any argument.
Interesting that you mention Lex Luthor, though, since the miniserie written by Azzarello totally played the "I'm a hero trying to make people realize that Superman is an alien parasite that will deprive mankind of its greatest achievements" thing, and did it quite well. of course, there was more to that, since even when told from his point of view, it was obvious that Luthor was an hypocrite. That's what he does. He shows you something, and then tells you "you know, if you look at it that way, maybe Luthor has a point about mankind relying on Superman instead of doing things their own way, and maybe there is something that doesn't feel right about an female only based society that separated from the rest of mankind around Antiquity". I generally think his points are well enough thought off.

Even in Darkseids case there are shades, its just that stories which highlight them are much harder to find. Totally evil characters are rare in comparison to those not totally black - Mephisto, Neron, and Annihilus would be good examples, and all not coincidentally inhuman beings who represent cosmic forces of destruction and/or darkness.

Another aspect of that argument are beings like Galactus, who destroys entire planets and often civilizations and yet who is painted as not being evil but rather a force of nature beyond moral classification.

One thing we dont currently have is a context for the Amazons actions. It is clear to me they hate men [whatever Slvn might argue ;) ] but we dont really know why. I cannot conceive of such a reason that would excuse their actions as shown, but it would be good at least to know what it is.

Now as to their villain status - to me, yes they are villains. Nuanced villains, as you say, but essentially they are in the bad guys camp. That could change, but for me it would require 2 things.

The first is repentance - they would have to acknowledge that what they did was wrong. And the second is making restitution - how will they now seek to make amends for the harm they have done.

[brettc1]

My point was that SteveGus said that superhero comics by definition should have starkly defined right and wrong. Golden Age Superman flees from a hail if police bullets, kills people and threatens people all the time. So clearly Stevegus's definition of what it means to be a superhero comics is far too narrow.

I think in fairness to Steve that the cultural context must be considered. We are talking about a time when Native Americans where the Indian savages of story and screen and almost always seen only as the villains. Heroes never talked about the emotional implications of killing. But I take your point that a superhero is not necessarily always a character like Captain America or Spider-Man.

That said, I think you could find commanalities in the characters even over the course of 70 years of publication, while still evolving as our own cultural perspective has evolved.

[Javier Velasco]

My argument may be flawed by saying that the presence of sexual intercourse means an asbolute presence of love, but so is your arguing that the presence of relationships doesn't mean love in the island.

But that wasn't my argument. (Sorry bit took so long to get back to you.)

My argument was that neither establishing sexual activity or the establishment of married Amazons proves that love is valued on PI. I wasn't stating that it didn't exist, just that neither of those two things could be used as proof of its existence.

If such were the case, then you could say that those forced polygamous marriages of Warren Jeffs or the goings-on at the Playboy mansion could be used as proof of love.

Sure, if Amazons are showing concern and compassion on other pages, that can be used to prove love. But that wasn't the initial statement that I disagreed with.

[WhitOro]

But that wasn't the initial statement that I disagreed with.

Misinterpreted.

but I'm pretty much tired of reading books about superheroes who don't do any actually "superheroing".

How many books are you been reading? The Flash, Aquaman, Superman, Action Comics, Batman, Justice League, JL International, Batwing, Supergirl, Blue Beetle, Green Lantern/Corps/NG, The Legion Books, Birds of Prey and many more, are all about superheroes doing superheroing.
Or are you refering simply to "Wonder Woman"? In that case, I can't see how a single book that deviates from the majority can make you tired of an entire style.

[SteveGus]

I can't see how a single book that deviates from the majority can make you tired of an entire style.

If that single book is that slow and boring, one is enough.

[Don-Jack]

I thought that bifaceted conception in comics ended in 60s with Marvel.

[Superdog]

I thought that bifaceted conception in comics ended in 60s with Marvel.

What is bifaceted conception?

[Don-Jack]

I don't know if I used the correct term, but I meant this "good is good, evil is evil, they fight each other" thing.

[brettc1]

I don't know if I used the correct term, but I meant this "good is good, evil is evil, they fight each other" thing.

I would agree with that concept. While technical specifics might change from culture to culture, I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives a good overall view of how people should be treated, and so helps define 'good.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...ghts#Article_1

[chastmastr]

I don't know if I used the correct term, but I meant this "good is good, evil is evil, they fight each other" thing.

Ah! In other words, "reality." :)

(Although as I understand it, metaphysically speaking, evil doesn't have its own determinate nature as such, but is merely spoiled or damaged goodness.)

[brettc1]

Ah! In other words, "reality." :)

(Although as I understand it, metaphysically speaking, evil doesn't have its own determinate nature as such, but is merely spoiled or damaged goodness.)

Niethzsche would argue that good and evil are merely artificial constructs and that it is only beyond moving beyond them and accepting that all life is about the acquisition and use of power to achieve your desires that we achieve our ultimate potential.

Of course, I think Ares would probably think that was a pretty great philosophy, which tells you something.

[chastmastr]

Oh, Nietzsche would indeed argue that. I don't know if even Ares would be so degraded as to agree with it or not, even in the current continuity, though. Considering that Nietzsche comes across as worse than Doctor Doom (!) in his book The Antichrist, I don't think he's exactly a reliable source for philosophical guidance about right and wrong.

[John Ossie]

Personally speaking I think he's doing a great job with Wonder Woman.