Bryan Azzarello's Big Picture, Why He's A Genius..And Why I'm Still Reading!

[brettc1]

And this is where I point out that none of the characters you mention are shaped by what their father figures did professionally, they are for the most part shaped by what happened to them.
Batman and Spiderman are shaped by the deaths of theirs.

This is only partly true. Their deaths are what motivates them, but the lessons they learned from their fathers are by and large what shapes their moral code. The idea that with great power comes great responsibility is one that was passed on to Peter before her Uncle's death, and then brought into sharp relief when Ben was killed. Nevertheless, it was Uncle Ben's influence on Peter before he was killed that made Peter the hero he is

Superman got a one way ticket, even in the New 52 Superman has only learned about his own parents long after he's moved to Metropolis.

Jor-El built the ship and picked the planet he would go to. In many adaptations it is Jor-El's voice that speaks to Clark through the fortress, and to hear from Lara is a rare thing indeed.

And yes, Thor's relationship with mother is rarely touched upon...because she happens to be one of the Elder Goddess and is rarely seen as it is. Not to mention Thor happens to come from a world thats traditionally male-fixated like the Amazons are female-fixated. Unlike the Amazons however, there actually is the other sex in the world of the vikings.

And all of these points are fine and dandy. But your own arguments here demonstrate the point I am making. Male heroes guided shaped and motivated in some way by their dads. But what of the point I raised earlier that Lois Lane's dominant parent is her father Sam? Carol Danvers joined the air force acting out againt the wishes her chauvanist father. She-Hulk got her powers from her cousin Bruce. Scarlett Witch's father is Magneto, and her mother is almost never mentioned, being less a character than a plot point. Etc etc.

It seems more like you, and the others you speak of, are simply unable to accept there is suddenly a man involved in her creation. And that from now on, everything she does will be thanks to him.

Its nice to hear someone fron the opposing side of the argument admit it

Thats not a problem with the story or Diana, its your perception thats broke.

Mmmm, thats a dangerous argument. One could argue that in so many bad ways. But the point is that just because you dont see the problem with not having enough life boats doenst mean there isn't one.

Diana does not grow a massive beard or a pair of nuts whenever she goes into god-mode, nor does Zeus magically appear to turn her off and on or sort out her problems. God-mode is Diana drawing on her own power when it is needed.

No, it is Azzarello's Diana drawing on extra powers added on in this new version from her alleged father. Whether or not he is actually on panel.

[brettc1]

Eh. You're being too logical.

The race riots we are having here in Queensland this week prompt me to believe that this is not possible.

The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many, as Kirk tells Spock.

Yes, you've said that before and it is essentially flawed, since when Kirk said it he was talking about the willing informed sacrifice of the many to save the one, not Kirk putting other lives in danger without their consent.

Anyway, I said she has faith in her fellow heroes, and "faith is the evidence of things unseen"; and I'm sure you'll agree with me that heroes' ability to keep scary people in check is a thing unseen in contemporary comics.

Indeed, it seems increasingly to be barely existent.

But even if I can't sell that point--and it seems possible that I can't :) -- the important thing (to me) is this: IF god mode is a threat to her sanity, she bets that she can dodge that threat; and she wins that bet. Was it an impulsive bet? Perhaps, but it was a bet made out of love, and we know that love sometimes makes this Wonder Woman impulsive. And it's a bet he wins (perhaps because she controls her cuffless self by an effort of will, as she did in that Silver Age Gerry Conway story when she bascially talks herself down out of berserker mode).

Yes I remember, and I also remember than her bracelets were broken on that occasion. She never took them off. Neither am I aware she ever took them off after, despite being able to control herself on that occasion. Which shows wisdom, as well as compassion.

Mostly just faith. :) But she is probably the only one of Zeus' kids who is the child of a matriarch as illustrious and independent as Hippolyta. And going by what Hermes says i issue 2, it seems that she is probably the only one to whom Zeus appeared in his own form. And in #3, Hippolyta certainly makes the absolute surrender of control between her ansd Zeus sound unique. So if her conception is unique in these ways, and her power is also unique about Zeus' demigods, is that really just a coincidence? r might it be the kind of seeimg "coincidence"from which Sherlock Holmes might draw at least a tentative deduction?

Again, I think this is wishful thinking. How would Hippolyta know what Zeus is like in bed with others? It is equally likely that is just HER wishful thinking.

Sure. Having powers is what makes them super. But what they do with those powers is what makes them heroes. Getting bitten by a radioactive spider makes Spiderman like a spider in terms of abilities (in a way); as the old jigle goes, "he does whatever a spider can." And perhaps having god mode makes Wonder Woman somewhat like Zeus in terms of abilities. But in terms of ethics, character, spirit--everything that makes a superhero, as opposed to a supervillain or a superbystander, or an amoral Olympian--she is again about as much like Zeus as Spiderman is like a spider.

Yet here it is - you say her powers make her somewhat like Zeus. Above Outside_85 flat out says all her powers are thanks to him. Where previously Wonder Woman's abilities stood as those of a woman raised and empowered BY women, now that is not the case. Now her extraordinary physical powers are because a man was good enough to be involved.

I understand and respect the feeling that a matriarchal narrative has been lost[, but when I read you say that "She exists now because Zeus wanted to shag her mother," I can't help thinking that this is a pretty cynical and reductive reading of issue 3. What I remember is that she exists (according to her mother) because of a beautiful moment of complete surrender of control between two sovereigns. So maybe it's going to be not a story of straight matriarchy or patriarchy, but a story that undermines the necessity or value of gender hierarchy altogether. And that, I think, is more in keeping with 21st century feminism.

Did Hippolyta pursue Zeus? No, he initiated things, as he did with the other women he had sex with. Did Hippolyta have sex that hurt another women because it was with her husband? Yes. 21st Century feminism? Lets hope not.

[slvn]

No, it is Azzarello's Diana drawing on extra powers added on in this new version from her alleged father. Whether or not he is actually on panel.

Did you reach that conclusion using your own natural intellectual capacity, or the intellectual capacity that you inherited from your parents?

It's the same thing, is it not? So it doesn't make sense to suggest that because Diana has inherited powers form her father, they are not her own natural powers.

[slvn]

Sorry to hear about the race riots. I hope the situation gets better.

Too logical in interracial dialogue? No, probably not possible. You can be too cerebral and not empathetic enough, but not really too logical. But, in reading comics? Maybe, if by too logical we mean " so insistent on a certain kind of rigid logic that we become distracted from the pleasures of the imagination." Fantasy-oriented fiction is not first and foremost an exercise in logical rigor. I'm reminded of Vonnegut's comment that some critics of science fiction seemed to be putting on full dress armor to attach an ice cream sundae. I'd say it might be a good idea to lighten up and stop taking these things so seriously, but, given the amount of time I've put into arguing about such things, I guess that would make me a bit of a hypocrite. :)

Yet here it is - you say her powers make her somewhat like Zeus.

Yes--about as much like him as Spiderman is like a spider. I can live with that.

Which parent raised Diana with love? Hippolyta, with all her flaws. (And if you don't believe she was a loving parent, read what the narrator says towards the beginning of #0). I call her the more important parent.

Did Hippolyta pursue Zeus? No, he initiated things, as he did with the other women he had sex with. Did Hippolyta have sex that hurt another women because it was with her husband? Yes. 21st Century feminism? Lets hope not.

Does the comic say he initiated things? As I recall, Hippolyta chooses not to reveal how they came together--only that they fought until they both felt passion for each other and surrendered their absolute control. To the extent that the book avoids being either a specifically patriarchal or a specifically matriarchal narrative, I think it has something in common with a lot of contemporary feminism, which tends to question gender essentialism. If this run of the comic can show Wonder Woman taking the legacies of both of her parents and making them her own, without regard to traditional gender expectations, then it may be a contemporary feminist narrative. I'm not saying that Hippolyta is a perfect 21st century feminist role model. I don't see why any one character--especially one who is not the protagonist and feminist icon--should have to be a perfect 21st century feminist icon.

[americanwonder]

What is interesting is that the lasso has been completely overlooked in all this. In past stories [like League of One] Diana has used its powers for self examination to prevent exactly this sort of hypothetical loss of control.

Sadly, the lasso is often overlooked; Azzarello has done next to nothing with it. No creative energy, no real world-building for the poor lasso. Not dark and edgy enough or what?

Previously, and this speaks to Outside_85's question as well, Wonder Woman's origin was designed to be female-centric. Intentionally so. Others have pointed out at great length that other heroes origin stories are often dominated by father figures, and almost never by mothers.

Just look at the superhero movies: Batman (both dad and Alfred); Superman (both Jor El and Pa); GL; Iron Man; Thor; Daredevil; Electra, even Prof. X in X-Men. Where are the moms? Baking pies? Spider-Man does place great emphasis on Uncle Ben, but I feel like they balance it pretty well with nice moments for Aunt May giving Peter some good advice from time to time. At least she's much less absent than most of the other moms. Heroes can't have active, role model moms or what?

Please NOTE #1: I'm ALL for movies like Thor with a nice depiction of the relationship between father and son. I'm not bashing that. What I'm against is the trend of missing mothers.

Previously, Diana existed because of her mother's love... she now becomes Zeus-Girl. To me and others that another hit. For some, like maybe Americanwonder, it just dull.

Oh ####, you're going to get me ranting again. Dull? It is dull; but, the uncreative borrow/follow from Hercules/Percy Jackson is just the tip of the iceberg. I hate it. It's not as big of a hit as the depiction of the Amazons thus far, but together, it's compounded. They take her power from the goddesses (and/or Amazon training) and give it to dad. They even take her appearance and give it to dad. Because we just can't live with good Amazons (another creatively unimaginative move, not to mention a flat out lie by Azzarello as they WERE NOT PERFECT), she doesn't even seem to get a moral center from her mom. And while we can assume she was trained in mom's warrior skills, there is very little emphasis on any such skills.

Diana obviously still cares for her mother, and her mother cares for her. But the story itself is built on Diana's relationship to her father, and spends far more page time on dad's side of the family - there's not aruging that (though I don't doubt some will try). Even Azzarello said in an interview that WW was now very easy to define/summarize as 'She's a child of a god.' (paraphrasing as I don't remember the exact quote).

Please NOTE #2: I do NOT think this makes Azzarello sexist; I think that claim is unfair. But the story does feel much more male-centric, to me, whether or not it's intentionally so.

[Outside_85]

This is only partly true. Their deaths are what motivates them, but the lessons they learned from their fathers are by and large what shapes their moral code. The idea that with great power comes great responsibility is one that was passed on to Peter before her Uncle's death, and then brought into sharp relief when Ben was killed. Nevertheless, it was Uncle Ben's influence on Peter before he was killed that made Peter the hero he is

But thats pretty much exclusive to Peter, Bruce for instance doesn't quote his father.

Jor-El built the ship and picked the planet he would go to. In many adaptations it is Jor-El's voice that speaks to Clark through the fortress, and to hear from Lara is a rare thing indeed.

And Clark is in most cases a grown man whenever the fortress comes into play, to him its the voice of a man who claims to be his father, but Clark doesnt even have the glimmer of memory of the real person.

And all of these points are fine and dandy. But your own arguments here demonstrate the point I am making. Male heroes guided shaped and motivated in some way by their dads. But what of the point I raised earlier that Lois Lane's dominant parent is her father Sam? Carol Danvers joined the air force acting out againt the wishes her chauvanist father. She-Hulk got her powers from her cousin Bruce. Scarlett Witch's father is Magneto, and her mother is almost never mentioned, being less a character than a plot point. Etc etc.

I dont get most of your examples here, now it's suddenly a flaw in these characters that their fathers are morons and they are strong enough to forge their own paths in life rather than follow in daddy's footsteps.

Its nice to hear someone fron the opposing side of the argument admit it

I am looking at it from your perspective buddy.

Mmmm, thats a dangerous argument. One could argue that in so many bad ways. But the point is that just because you dont see the problem with not having enough life boats doenst mean there isn't one.

Well there isnt, theres just a bunch of fans that are unwilling to accept changes.

No, it is Azzarello's Diana drawing on extra powers added on in this new version from her alleged father. Whether or not he is actually on panel.

And that means she's suddenly daddy's girl?
This reminds me of something:

Because we all know Raven is totally daddy's girl right?

[americanwonder]

It seems more like you, and the others you speak of, are simply unable to accept there is suddenly a man involved in her creation. And that from now on, everything she does will be thanks to him. Thats not a problem with the story or Diana, its your perception thats broke.

Ah, playing the classics: when you don't like the message, blame the messenger? Weak. You can try and say it's all just in my lil' head, but please try and make a convincing case that the superfolks comic industry, as well as their movie counterparts, are NOT male centric, not just in who stars, but in who are the role models for the lead characters.

I understand and respect the feeling that a matriarchal narrative has been lost[, but when I read you say that "She exists now because Zeus wanted to shag her mother," I can't help thinking that this is a pretty cynical and reductive reading of issue 3. What I remember is that she exists (according to her mother) because of a beautiful moment of complete surrender of control between two sovereigns. So maybe it's going to be not a story of straight matriarchy or patriarchy, but a story that undermines the necessity or value of gender hierarchy altogether. And that, I think, is more in keeping with 21st century feminism.

Ok, I know what is written on the page - but my question is do you really buy into it? Does it ring true to you?

Point #1 - Let me put it this way: WW, you and I are having lunch at that same lil' cafe in London, but instead of lunky Lennox, a mutual female friend (we'll call her Lola) walks up and wants to chat. Lola tells us that she's met a man. Now, she knows he's married, she knows that he habitually cheats on his wife and isn't faithful to the mistresses, and doesn't stick around for very long after he gets what he wants: sex. Lola says she has feelings for him, and that everytime he wants to have sex with her, he tells her he loves her. They had sex. He left. I say, "Sure, he loves you, he said so, right?" What do you say?

Point #2 - If you were to ask 100 people on the stree that a Queen of a small country on Earth and Zeus, King of the gods, got together, are they an equal pairing - how many do you think would say, "Yes, that sounds like a modern equal feminist pairing to me!"?

[slvn]

Ok, I know what is written on the page - but my question is do you really buy into it? Does it ring true to you?

As a realistic account of dating? Nope. As a Romantic, quasi-mythic moment of transcendence? Sure, why not?

Point #2 - If you were to ask 100 people on the street that a Queen of a small country on Earth and Zeus, King of the gods, got together, are they an equal pairing - how many do you think would say, "Yes, that sounds like a modern equal feminist pairing to me!"?

No, they would seem, circumstantially, not to be an equal pairing; but Zeus, against his habit, appears to her in his own form, and Hippolyta apparently proves to be his match in battle, and both sovereigns surrender their absolute control. It's not what we would expect; it hardly seems possible; but that's part of what makes it miraculous.

[americanwonder]

As a realistic account of dating? Nope. As a Romantic, quasi-mythic moment of transcendence? Sure, why not?

Perhaps because the story itself doesn't support it? It's Zeus. The story tells us time and time again that he's one selfish ####. He selishly takes Heaven's chair for himself; he wants something irredeemable; he tries to kill his first born; and he cheats over and over. Even Hera, who says she loves him, does not describe him in flattering terms. Call me crazy, but one doesn't learn selfless love through centuries and centuries of serial cheating.

No, they would seem, circumstantially, not to be an equal pairing; but Zeus, against his habit, appears to her in his own form, and Hippolyta apparently proves to be his match in battle, and both sovereigns surrender their absolute control. It's not what we would expect; it hardly seems possible; but that's part of what makes it miraculous.

Zeus appears in his own form because it's his best chance to get what he wants (and what he wants is not to learn selfless love). Where is there any real indication that Zeus wasn't holding back when "fighting" with Hippolyta? The Amazons are not on par with the gods; that makes no sense, and is not supported by the rest of the story.

Talk about only seeing what you want see. eta- Why is it you will scour every page for every lilttle tibdbit inferences about 'god mode activate,' but when it comes to the character of Zeus, you limit it to just Hippolyta's account (like she isn't known for stretching the truth)?

[Rob_Olivera]

Perhaps because the story itself doesn't support it? It's Zeus. The story tells us time and time again that he's one selfish ####. He selishly takes Heaven's chair for himself; he wants something irredeemable; he tries to kill his first born; and he cheats over and over. Even Hera, who says she loves him, does not describe him in flattering terms. Call me crazy, but one doesn't learn selfless love through centuries and centuries of serial cheating.



Zeus appears in his own form because it's his best chance to get what he wants (and what he wants is not to learn selfless love). Where is there any real indication that Zeus wasn't holding back when "fighting" with Hippolyta? The Amazons are not on par with the gods; that makes no sense, and is not supported by the rest of the story.

Talk about only seeing what you want see.

Well Well Well... so I go to bed early, rise early to go to work, come home and find dinner then I log in here and I see that the little kitten I let loose last night has turned into a tiger. LOL. I don't know where to begin anew, so I'll start with AmericanWonder's post more or less. There is only one way to put this:

Zeus.. is a slut.

To him, Hippolyta was nothing but another conquest. Quite frankly I'd like to be referred to his Urologist who writes Cialis prescriptions like they're tic tacs. Hippolyta is queen of the Amazons, but he is Zeus king of the Gods with a capital G. She represents no more of a threat on the battlefield to him than a common household fly represents to me.

He just wanted her in bed regardless how long it took because he is immortal and time is of no consequence. He's not only king of the gods, but king of deadbeat dads. Talk to me not with words, but with actions.

[Gaelforce]

Perhaps because the story itself doesn't support it? It's Zeus. The story tells us time and time again that he's one selfish ####. He selishly takes Heaven's chair for himself; he wants something irredeemable; he tries to kill his first born; and he cheats over and over. Even Hera, who says she loves him, does not describe him in flattering terms. Call me crazy, but one doesn't learn selfless love through centuries and centuries of serial cheating.



Zeus appears in his own form because it's his best chance to get what he wants (and what he wants is not to learn selfless love). Where is there any real indication that Zeus wasn't holding back when "fighting" with Hippolyta? The Amazons are not on par with the gods; that makes no sense, and is not supported by the rest of the story.

Talk about only seeing what you want see. eta- Why is it you will scour every page for every lilttle tibdbit inferences about 'god mode activate,' but when it comes to the character of Zeus, you limit it to just Hippolyta's account (like she isn't known for stretching the truth)?

I will point out that, for an immortal who is thousands of years old, it's pretty clear that Zeus didn't think too highly of his 'love' for Hippolyta - he moved on to Zola (and she's the only one we know of because she's pregnant - did he sleep with others who aren't with child?)

What I think some of you are missing is that Diana was created to be a symbol for women by making her origin so female centric. It gives her a lot of meaning to some of us, so seeing all those female/maternal elements removed is troubling, especially in a world that is so dominated by men. In a world filled with dozens of popular heroes, the number in which a woman played a key role in their upbringing is minimal.

So taking away one that was specifically created to counter the male-centric stories just stings.

[SteveGus]

did he sleep with others who aren't with child?

If Azzarello's Zeus is the same as mythological Zeus, no. In The Metamorphoses, Ovid writes that 'the arrows of the gods rarely miss'; and what he meant is that any time a male god sleeps with a female mortal, she gets pregnant. At least, if Zeus slept with anybody and they didn't get pregnant, it didn't make the literature.

[brettc1]

Did you reach that conclusion using your own natural intellectual capacity, or the intellectual capacity that you inherited from your parents?

It's the same thing, is it not? So it doesn't make sense to suggest that because Diana has inherited powers form her father, they are not her own natural powers.

As shown, no. Because while intellectal potential is at least partly related to genetics, it still has to be developed into actuality by the individual. Diana's current god mode is a leg-up that previously never needed.

[carabas]

If Azzarello's Zeus is the same as mythological Zeus, no. In The Metamorphoses, Ovid writes that 'the arrows of the gods rarely miss'; and what he meant is that any time a male god sleeps with a female mortal, she gets pregnant. At least, if Zeus slept with anybody and they didn't get pregnant, it didn't make the literature.

Well, that seems logical. Those stories are pretty much always about the male offspring, not about the mothers. If Alcmene hadn't got pregnant when she slept with Zeus we would never have heard of her.
Zeus may have slept (and probably did sleep) with thousands of ancient Greek women, but it's only the ones that bore sons that were interesting enough to write a story about.

[slvn]

Perhaps because the story itself doesn't support it? It's Zeus. The story tells us time and time again that he's one selfish ####. He selishly takes Heaven's chair for himself; he wants something irredeemable; he tries to kill his first born; and he cheats over and over. Even Hera, who says she loves him, does not describe him in flattering terms. Call me crazy, but one doesn't learn selfless love through centuries and centuries of serial cheating.

The way Hippolyta tells it, it was one miraculous moment. Zeus, Hippolyta fully recognizes, wasn't able to sustain that kind of self-surrender. Maybe she wouldn't have been, either. But for one moment....

Zeus appears in his own form because it's his best chance to get what he wants (and what he wants is not to learn selfless love).

Perhaps, but the fact that he appears as himself is significant, at least symbolically, because Hippolyta, as opposed to all the other mortals he has known, was able to see him as he was, putting her closer to his level. And Zeus always appears as a woman's true desire so he himself was Hippolyta's true desire, not just her conqueror.

Don't forget--she was probably the greatest matriarch in the world, and he was the greatest patriarch, at least in his mythos. The fact that Diana was born of those two sovereigns may symbolically suggest that her story is neither patriarchal nor matriarchal. This feminist icon is now beyond gender hierarchy.

Where is there any real indication that Zeus wasn't holding back when "fighting" with Hippolyta? The Amazons are not on par with the gods; that makes no sense, and is not supported by the rest of the story.

If by "holding back," you mean he could have struck her down with lightning from a million miles away, turned her into a snake or sent her to hell---then yeah, maybe so. But if she was able to match him in one-on-one combat, that's pretty impressive and confers a kind of symbolic parity.

Hippolyta describes it as an epic battle. She's a proud warrior queen; she doesn't strike me as someone who would let herself be humored and then go on fooling herself for 23 or 24 years. And while she had lied in the past, Heph says it was always out of love for Diana; I don't see her lying just to make herself look bad-ass, especially when she's in the middle of finally coming clean about Diana's conception. But how could she hold her own? I don't know; maybe, in addition to her skills, she has the girdle of invincibility, which she has usually had in previous versions. Azzarello could revisit that scene to show that Zeus was just humoring her; but I really doubt that he ever will.

Talk about only seeing what you want see. eta- Why is it you will scour every page for every lilttle tibdbit inferences about 'god mode activate,' but when it comes to the character of Zeus, you limit it to just Hippolyta's account (like she isn't known for stretching the truth)?

Oh, there's tons of evidence of Zeus' bad character, going back to issue one. I think I've reminded people of some of that evidence in the past, when I was pointing out that the moral characterization of gods vs. goddesses hasn't been as unbalanced as some think. I'm not getting from Hippolyta's story that Zeus is of good character; I'm getting that there was one miraculous moment of self surrender.

Do I think selfish, monstrously manipulative womanizers are typically prone to sudden moment of loving submission> No. But I don't believe love is caused by the pistols of a hipster, either. I don't believe a person can fly. But this comic is realistic; it's fantastic (in both sense of the word :) ).