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

[brettc1]

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

No, but we often see him in flashbacks, in both books and movies.

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 prior to that who was the biggenst influence in his life? His Pa.

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 not a flaw, its an identifiable pattern. These are fictional characters who actions are in the hands of the writers, and the writers seem to attribute a vastly greater amount of weight to the influence of male parental figures.

I am looking at it from your perspective buddy.

That's good to know, but I would encourage you not to get personal.

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

I suppose equally it could be argued there are some who will accept change blindly whatever it entails. But since we are both thoughtful individuals with respect for each others cognitive abilities I dont think that would apply to either of us.

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?

The value in this vid is to show when the character of Raven was created her Raven's male parentage drives most of her plot. I do notice that when she list the positive influences in her life her mother is absent.

[slvn]

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.

Your talents are part of who you are. Even if they are inherited from a parent, they are still yours, not some extraneous add-on. It's true that previous versions of Wonder Woman didn't have this inheritance; but for this this version, this inheritance is, as Outside said, her own power.

You're onto something, though, when you mention how inherited potential has to be developed into actualize by the individual . This is something that I think we may see. So, far, Wonder Woman has had to suppress much of her inherited power. But now, maybe we'll see her really make it her own. For Azzarello, the uncuffing represents the idea that "Wonder Woman should be able to do whatever the hell she wants" (if I remember his interview answer correctly)--I suspect that this includes being able to use her inherited power without being overshadowed or defined by her father.

[brettc1]

Your talents are part of who you are. Even if they are inherited from a parent, they are still yours, not some extraneous add-on. It's true that previous versions of Wonder Woman didn't have this inheritance; but for this this version, this inheritance is, as Outside said, her own power.

You're onto something, though, when you mention how inherited potential has to be developed into actualize by the individual . This is something that I think we may see. So, far, Wonder Woman has had to suppress much of her inherited power. But now, maybe we'll see her really make it her own. For Azzarello, the uncuffing represents the idea that "Wonder Woman should be able to do whatever the hell she wants" (if I remember his interview answer correctly)--I suspect that this includes being able to use her inherited power without being overshadowed or defined by her father.

It may power she can use, but she got it from a man. And I say as the father of daughter I wish it was not so.

As to Azzarello's words, if that is what he wants, perhaps he should have summed her origin up as something other than "She's the daughter of Zeus." Which I think was also in an interview.

As regards Wonder Woman's actions, the simple fact is she has no free will. So when Brian Azzarello says

"Wonder Woman should be able to do whatever the hell she wants",

what he really means is

"Wonder Woman should be able to do whatever the hell I want her to."

Of course that could be said of any character who attains a certain iconic status. Less than a year ago I suspect it might have been said of Captain America. Fancy all those people getting miffed about his authorizing torture of innocent people to find a spy.

Of course the point is that Azzarello, like any writer, can do whatever his editors allow. All we can do is share opinions about the result and vote with our wallets.

[americanwonder]

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 should send you my therapy bill. ;)

Talk to me not with words, but with actions.

Exactly. Just because Azzarello paints a flowery picture doesn't make it believable.

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.

Thank you, Gaelforce. I do enjoy your posts.

[americanwonder]

Do I think selfish, monstrously manipulative womanizers are typically prone to sudden moment of loving submission> No.

I'm starting from the bottom, because I'm glad we can at least agree on something.

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.

Say WHAT??? Beyond gender hierarchy? How so? Did you agree that an Earthly Queen and a Godly King are NOT on equal footing?

Here, it feels like you (and Azzarello) are trying to have it both ways. Remember your earlier post that I applauded:

So, in other words, Azzarello shows that in a patriarchal society even--and perhaps especially--the "most powerful" woman is wholly dependent on the patriarchy for her power; patriarchy strips her of her Firstborn, embitters her, leaves her "burdened with expectations" (Strife) and inscure about her lofty position--a lonely woman in a gilded cage watching the world through reflections in her pool--and permits her only a tragically limited field of action. And Azzarello contrasts that with Wonder Woman, the feminist icon, who pointedly refuses to become a queen at the price of entering into a trustless union like Hera's. And then the Queen is abruptly cut loose by the patriarchy and, when left to her own devices, becomes dependent on the feminist, who, rather than taking vengeance upon her, indulges her and gives her relative freedom--which may have put her upon a path of transformation and redemption.

Sounds to me like Azzarello (even though he probably wouldn't put it this way) has begun a feminist critique of the effects of patriarchy on its ostensibly most privileged women.

The Queen of the godly patriarchy CRUSHED the entire kingdom of the matriarchy and that's equal ground?

The story spends FAR more time focusing on this patriarchy. Most of the characters, and the story itself, define Diana by her relationship to her father. It's summarized in one word: Blood. The power in her blood as well as the family ties. If Diana isn't related to Zeus, this story doesn't happen because most of the godly players would really care about her. Everything revolves around Zeus; it's ALL about his patriarchy.

But that's "beyond gender hierarchy" because Zeus cheated on his wife (again), indulged in lust, enjoyed his passion and pleasure and in doing so suddenly knew unconditional love (until the sex was over and he left to find another)?

*headdesk*

This is where I have a hard time taking some of your posts seriously. (I'm going to need something stronger to drink.)

eta - In an interview, Azzarello has said he wanted Diana born of love. I get that part, and I'm not against the idea (though still prefer the clay birth). But I don't think he made a good choice for it, nor do I think he's constructed a convincing storyline, in this regard.

[brettc1]

The story spends FAR more time focusing on this patriarchy. Most of the characters, and the story itself, define Diana by her relationship to her father. It's summarized in one word: Blood. The power in her blood as well as the family ties. If Diana isn't related to Zeus, this story doesn't happen because most of the godly players would really care about her. Everything revolves around Zeus; it's ALL about his patriarchy.

But that's "beyond gender hierarchy" because Zeus cheated on his wife (again), indulged in lust, enjoyed his passion and pleasure and in doing so suddenly knew unconditional love (until the sex was over and he left to find another)?

*headdesk*

Quoted for Truth. So much truth in fact that it deserved to spelt out, rather than abbreviated.

Even though he is not around, Zeus dominates this story. Who is his heir? Who has he fathered? What powers did they inherit from him.

Honestly if all he wanted was a story where Diana was born of love he could have left it as it is. But as you and others have pointed out, this entire tale is conditional on Zeus being her father. Essentially the plot came first and the character was altered to fit it.

[Auguste Dupin]

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.

On the other hand, it's clear from the narrative that there is more to Zola's baby than Zeus finding her hot. He/she is obviously some part of a bigger plan coming from Zeus, especially considering how Hermes, the one God still loyal to him, is trying to protect him/her at all cost. So I'm not sure you can use the fact he screwed Zola as a proof of whatever he may (or may not) have felt for Hyppolita.
Personnaly, I think the fact Zeus appeared as himself (when he can appear as whatever is irresistible to a person) can lead to two things:
-That Hyppolita simply has the hots for powerful guys (as lots of people, and that's no shame), and then, well, king of the Gods is pretty much as powerful as you can get so why changing form?
- For some reason, he didn't want to "cheat" with Hyppolita.

[slvn]

The Queen of the godly patriarchy CRUSHED the entire kingdom of the matriarchy and that's equal ground?

I said that "this feminist icon" is beyond gender hierarchy, not that her world is beyond gender hierarchy. There's a big, big difference. Feminist heroes often operate in sexist worlds--the dark backgrounds against which they shine.

The fact that she's conceived in one moment of impossible love and self-surrender between the greatest patriarch and the greatest matriarch is one small token of her role as the figure who is destined to forge her own path, beyond patriarchal or matriarchal narrative.*

There are two kinds of readers in the world: the kind who divide all narratives into two kinds, and the kind who aren't completely reductive. Some folks want to call the current Wonder Woman's a patriarchal narrative, even though it's about a heroic woman who was raised by a single mother on an island of all women, and even though her main preoccupation has been protecting a young mother. There are patriarchal elements, but to say that this hero's story is a patriarchal narrative is an oversimplification. And I understand and respect missing the purely matriarchal narrative--Gael, I'm hearing that point--but I personally think it's good, especially in light of contemporary feminism, to undermine the notion that all narratives can be broken down into the two categories of patriarchal and matriarchal.

*At least, I think she's going to forge her own path beyond matriarchy and patriarchy. Let's see where her story goes; for instance, let's see how the actions of the feminist icon affect "the queen of the godly patriarchy" and the "the entire kingdom [or shouldn't that be queendom?] of the matriarchy. My guess is that she will help reform the queen and restore and reform the matriarchy. Both of those eventualities seemed to be foreshadowed in the last couple of issues (with Wonder Woman's mentions of restoring the Amazons, and Hera's dialogue with Zola). But we'll see.

[slvn]

As regards Wonder Woman's actions, the simple fact is she has no free will.

Well that's true--no fictional character has free will when considered outside the diegetic frame (the boundaries around the fictional world of the story). Within the diegetic frame, though, she has free will, and Azzarello wants to have her exercise it. If he has her exercise it by torturing civilians, I won't like that. If he has her exercise it by using swords (even though some people think it's not feminine enough) or by using her father's somehow-forbidden-or-foreboding power to protect a friend and the friend's unborn child, I'm OK with that.

Of course the point is that Azzarello, like any writer, can do whatever his editors allow. All we can do is share opinions about the result and vote with our wallets.

Sure. I have no quarrel with that. I just happen to be voting differently.

[Outside_85]

And prior to that who was the biggenst influence in his life? His Pa.

Partially, I dont recall Clark looking more to one or the other. But then again Jonathan is usually the one who's died first.

Its not a flaw, its an identifiable pattern. These are fictional characters who actions are in the hands of the writers, and the writers seem to attribute a vastly greater amount of weight to the influence of male parental figures.

And unfortunately that's mostly a product of the times they were created in, where the maternal figure was still 'just' the homemaker and as such not the most dynamic person to base a heroes motives on. I know that it is wrong by today's standards, but back then it was just the way it was. And since this is comics, it can still be corrected.

That said, I think you are being harsh when you put everything at the feet of the father, because it basically robs the hero/heroine of both will and power. In Diana's case, Zeus is to blame for her being born and for being a demigoddess, since conception however it is all Diana and Hippolyta credit for how Diana turned out now.

That's good to know, but I would encourage you not to get personal.

My apologies, there's been a fair amount of stress at this end.

I suppose equally it could be argued there are some who will accept change blindly whatever it entails. But since we are both thoughtful individuals with respect for each others cognitive abilities I dont think that would apply to either of us.

I would remind you that comicbook fandom is notorious for it's resistance to change.

The value in this vid is to show when the character of Raven was created her Raven's male parentage drives most of her plot. I do notice that when she list the positive influences in her life her mother is absent.

*I suppose you are aware Arella was deemed an unnecessary risk to Raven and barely ever saw her for the first 10 years of her life, Azar however took over that job (sort of).

That said the value I tried to exemplify through the video was that while Raven was conceived and partially empowered by her father, it still didn't mean she would be 'daddy's girl' and as it showed she had powers of her own making.
Yes, Trigon gave her some of her powers, but he did not decided what she used them for.

[brettc1]

On the other hand, it's clear from the narrative that there is more to Zola's baby than Zeus finding her hot. He/she is obviously some part of a bigger plan coming from Zeus, especially considering how Hermes, the one God still loyal to him, is trying to protect him/her at all cost. So I'm not sure you can use the fact he screwed Zola as a proof of whatever he may (or may not) have felt for Hyppolita.

Hmmmm.

Seems to me the idea that he had sex with all those women he found hot but the only one he was in love with was Hyppolita is a bit of a stretch. No doubt Zeus feels perfectly entitled to get women pregnant and put them in harms way of Hera to further whatever great plan he has to save the world. Amanda Waller screws people for the same realsonbn all the time. Greater good burden of responsiblity blah blah blah.

As for not wanting to cheat with Hyppolita, its a litte late for that. Even she knows it.

[brettc1]

Partially, I dont recall Clark looking more to one or the other. But then again Jonathan is usually the one who's died first.

When he is crippled by Graves in JL11 its with a vision of his Pa dying. Later we see him with both parents, but its fairly well established his bond with his fater is set up as more significant to the story of Superman.

And unfortunately that's mostly a product of the times they were created in, where the maternal figure was still 'just' the homemaker and as such not the most dynamic person to base a heroes motives on. I know that it is wrong by today's standards, but back then it was just the way it was. And since this is comics, it can still be corrected.

Exactly. But what I and others like Gaelforce are saying is that Wonder Woman's origin stood as an example of how that trend was resisted and now that has been undone. Effectively a step backwards in broader terms.

That said, I think you are being harsh when you put everything at the feet of the father, because it basically robs the hero/heroine of both will and power. In Diana's case, Zeus is to blame for her being born and for being a demigoddess, since conception however it is all Diana and Hippolyta credit for how Diana turned out now.

If Hypollita gets much credit in this current version, we see little of it. Even in #0 she gets her training from Ares. We do get one scene in #4 where she speaks to her mothers statue, which personally I found unconvincing because it is coloured by Azzarello's bias that previous versions of Diana were never a real girl or really her mothers daughter.

My apologies, there's been a fair amount of stress at this end.

I am sorry to hear that. I understand very well how when that happens it can affect your posts here. I hope that resolves itself happily soon.

[brettc1]

I said that "this feminist icon" is beyond gender hierarchy, not that her world is beyond gender hierarchy. There's a big, big difference. Feminist heroes often operate in sexist worlds--the dark backgrounds against which they shine.

The fact that she's conceived in one moment of impossible love and self-surrender between the greatest patriarch and the greatest matriarch is one small token of her role as the figure who is destined to forge her own path, beyond patriarchal or matriarchal narrative.

Again, wishful thinking. All we know is that Hippolyta fell for Zeus, not the other way around. The idea that he surrendered himself totally to her seems based solely on her observation that he let her be on top. Neither do we know that he did not do exactly the same thing with Sirraca's mother.

[americanwonder]

First, I want to say that I believe there are times in debates that more than one side has merit, and that, imo, this is one of times. In other words, when I say that I don't fully buy into Slvn's view described here, that is not to say there's no merit - just that I don't see it as the only view with merit, and that, as is, the story doesn't quite live up to it. Also of note, this is another time where I feel like we're not quite on the same page - by that I mean, where you seem to focus primarily on the narrative of this individual storyline, my point is to the larger context in which this story is told.

I said that "this feminist icon" is beyond gender hierarchy, not that her world is beyond gender hierarchy. There's a big, big difference. Feminist heroes often operate in sexist worlds--the dark backgrounds against which they shine.

The fact that she's conceived in one moment of impossible love and self-surrender between the greatest patriarch and the greatest matriarch is one small token of her role as the figure who is destined to forge her own path, beyond patriarchal or matriarchal narrative.*

I understand the idea of seperating the individual (Diana) from the world in which he/she operates, but I don't think it's always that simple as the two are intertwined to some degree.

In keeping with your description (assuming I understand your view correctly), Diana does throw off the cuffs of the matriarchy she was raised in, refusing to be shackled by their ways, and storms off on her own. Similarly, though her 'new' patriarchal family has many expectations and wants to rope her into their disturbing disfunctions, she refuses to play strictly by their rules - again, forging her own path on her own terms (as best she can, at any rate). So, while she now has roots in both a matriarchy and patriarchy, she is confined by neither and has grown (/is growing) beyond both. Am I in the right ball park of understanding you?

I question whether "this feminist icon" can be wholly seperated from "her world." It's not such a clean break nor as well-developed as you describe, imo. As I've said before, Azzarello defined WW as 'the daughter of a god.' His own statement left out her mother, and that is telling to me. His story has Diana express more concern about her mother, but the story also places far mare emphasis (and screen time) on her involvement with her father's family (whom Azzarello has talked about far more in interviews). So, when Azzarello has her literally empowered by her father, defines WW in relation to her father, the story develops her father's family far more than her mother's, then in going forward, how are others more likely to define her? She even looks like her father and not her mother, now.

In a comics world where fathers are given more emphasis than mothers, don't you think there's a good chance this is a set-up ripe for more of the same? To use a similar example: There's nothing wrong, imo, with individual characters that are straight, white American men. But if each main character is a straight, white American man, and they form a group, ala JSA (with an Amazon secretary), then the whole picture starts to look skewed, no?

... There are patriarchal elements, but to say that this hero's story is a patriarchal narrative is an oversimplification. And I understand and respect missing the purely matriarchal narrative--Gael, I'm hearing that point-- ...

Here, I agree that to say it's strictly a patriarchal narrative would be an oversimplification. Also, I want to thank you for respecting the loss of the more maternal version of the narrative (calling it "matriarchal" seems a bit oversimplified as well - perhaps I just don't fit your categories of readers. ).

I'd also like to point out that Azzarello's version of the story has not only shifted the focus, at least in part, away from the maternal, but it has also stripped away the queer aspect in favor of the more heteronormative standard. I'm by no means against male-female couples, and I'm not against father figures, but is it really something we needed more of in superhero comics so we could have more attention for fathers?

[americanwonder]

Again, wishful thinking. All we know is that Hippolyta fell for Zeus, not the other way around. The idea that he surrendered himself totally to her seems based solely on her observation that he let her be on top. Neither do we know that he did not do exactly the same thing with Sirraca's mother.

WHAT? You dare to question the sincerity of their love?

"Hey, hottie. Check out my sword."

"Oh, you're so manly I can't control myself."