Atlantic Article on Wonder Woman

[americanwonder]

But the premise that he is "making Wonder Woman (the character) more violent," for the most part, is not strongly supported by textual evidence...

You're misquoting and misrepresenting the author by adding your own words. The author did not say, "Wonder Woman, the character." The title specifies it's about "Wonder Woman's Violent, Man-Pandering Second Act." And nowhere in the article (iirc) does the author limit it to WW, the character. It's an opinion regarding "Guts," issues #7-12 (which is why I said earlier that your examples that come later on don't really fit).

... but it is exactly what Wonder Woman is all about—using love as a weapon, as a means to bring the adversary to his better self...

Very nice post, Seant. Thanks for taking the time to write it up. This line was my favorite.

Good post, I agree.

Thanks, Dr. Hurt.

[slvn]

You're misquoting and misrepresenting the author by adding your own words. The author did not say, "Wonder Woman, the character."

That's why I put parentheses around the words "the character". Technically, the parentheses should have been square brackets, to mark the words as interpolated material. Mea culpa for the usage error. But I wasn't trying to mislead anyone about what he said; in my post, the author's unedited words are directly quoted above my sentence. And he says "making Wonder Woman more violent doesn't make her more mature or more real." (Emphasis mine! The word "her" is not bolded in the original!) The personal pronoun "her" refers to the character, not just the book in general. He suggests that giving Wonder Woman a gun rather than a lasso results in a portrayal of the character as more violent. Certainly he's not "limiting" the claim to the character, but the claim includes the idea that the character has become significantly more violent--and I disagree.

It's true that there's one sentence that identifies the argument as a response to the Guts volume specifically. But when Berlatksy says things, for example, that Azzarello's Wonder Woman comic "fairly consciously embrace the blood-curdling masculinity that Marston decried," he does nothing to qualify this claim as perhaps only applying to that one volume. And the article is dated February 5, so its not like later issues hadn't come out. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I would have liked to see him comment on the volume's place in the development of the character and story as a whole, if only for context.

But anyway, I'm glad we agree that the author's argument is hurt by his cherry picking of examples/

[Rob_Olivera]

That's why I put parentheses around the words "the character". Technically, the parentheses should have been square brackets, to mark the words as interpolated material. Mea culpa. But it's not a misrepresentation; I quoted the author's actual word are quoted directly above mine. And he says "making Wonder Woman more violent doesn't make her more mature or more real." "Her" is a personal pronoun, referring to the character, not just the book in general. He suggests that giving Wonder Woman a gun rather than a lasso results in a portrayal of the character as more violent.

I didn't see anything wrong with Wonder Woman handling the guns. I don't think it made her any more violent... or the book. It's not as if they replaced the lasso with Love Guns. They were just a plot twist.

[slvn]

I didn't see anything wrong with Wonder Woman handling the guns. I don't think it made her any more violent... or the book. It's not as if they replaced the lasso with Love Guns. They were just a plot twist.

As you probably know, I couldn't agree more; it's Berlatsky who seems to suggest that the guns made the character and book more violent. I was disagreeing with him.

[Rob_Olivera]

As you probably know, I couldn't agree more; it's Berlatsky who seems to suggest that the guns made the character and book more violent. I was disagreeing with him.

I know :) That was my support to you.

[slvn]

Thanks, Rob!

[americanwonder]

That's why I put parentheses around the words "the character". Technically, the parentheses should have been square brackets, to mark the words as interpolated material. Mea culpa for the usage error. But it's not a misrepresentation; in my post, the author's unedited words are directly quoted above my sentence. And he says "making Wonder Woman more violent doesn't make her more mature or more real." The personal pronoun "her" refers to the character, not just the book in general. He suggests that giving Wonder Woman a gun rather than a lasso results in a portrayal of the character as more violent. Certainly he's not "limiting" the claim to the character, but the claim includes the idea that the character has become significantly more violent--and I disagree.

I actually do know that "her" is a personal pronoun, but thanks for the English lesson anyway. And no, I don't care about the usage error of parentheses rather than brackets, I knew what you were going for.

But the way your post read to me is that you were cherry-picking lines when, as you now clarify, "Certainly he's not "limiting" the claim to the character..." To me, the "premise*" was not limited to the one line you quoted, nor to just the character of WW, herself. So, yes, to me, it read like a distortion of what the author was going for in the article. *I can see now that perhaps your use of "premise" was limited to only the premise of that particular remark/line by the author, whereas I initially read it as the "premise" of the article as a whole. Apologies for misunderstanding.

As for the violence, on the surface, I can see where guns can feel more violent than the lasso. But, I share your view that just looking at the guns misses the mark of the larger picture and what's going on.

It's true that there's one sentence that identifies the argument as a response to the Guts volume specifically. But when Berlatksy says things, for example, that Azzarello's Wonder Woman comic "fairly consciously embrace the blood-curdling masculinity that Marston decried," he does nothing to qualify this claim as perhaps only applying to that one volume. And the article is dated February 5, so its not like later issues hadn't come out. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I would have liked to see him comment on the volume's place in the development of the character and story as a whole, if only for context.

One sentence? It's the TITLE of the article. And since the collected edition of "Guts" has only been out since Jan. 15, I don't see a problem with an opinion piece about it.

I don't agree with all of the author's points; I think he takes them too far and doesn't give enough credit to the elements that don't fit his view. But I can't blame that on not having read subsequent issues as that wasn't the scope of what the author was talking about. eta - To put it another way, he was reviewing Two Towers and had not yet seen Return of the King.

[slvn]

I actually do know that "her" is a personal pronoun, but thanks for the English lesson anyway.

Sorry--I had actually edited that to try to stop it from sounding snarky, but I guess it still does. (I hope you didn't read it earlier. ;) )

*I can see now that perhaps your use of "premise" was limited to only the premise of that particular remark whereas I initially read it as the "premise" of the article as a whole. Apologies for misunderstanding.

Good deal. Thanks.

One sentence? It's the TITLE of the article.

Well, there is that. Still, within the body of the article, except in one sentence, the author does little to contextualize the volume within the series.

And since the collected edition of "Guts" has only been out since Jan. 15, I don't see a problem with an opinion piece about it... To put it another way, he was reviewing Two Towers and had not yet seen Return of the King.

No problem with an opinion piece about one volume--I'm just saying it could have been better contextualized. I like your Tolkein analogy , but the reviewer knew that Return of the King had been coming out in monthly serial form, maybe it would have been a good idea to at least offer a disclaimer--you know, like "Azzarello's Wonder Woman continues beyond this volume, and some may argue that his titular character is showing more proclivity towards non-violent problem solving. We'll see."

[americanwonder]

Sorry--I had actually edited that to try to stop it from sounding snarky, but I guess it still does. (I hope you didn't read it earlier. ;) )

Oh, I did. But then, I give enough snark around here myself, so it's probably fitting that I get some in return.

Well, there is that. Still, within the body of the article, except in one sentence, the author does little to contextualize the volume within the series.

The title is a minor detail easily overlooked. ;)

Sure, it would paint a clearer picture of the series to contextualize the volume within the story as a whole. On the other hand, I think long stories that require various volumes open themselves up to problems like this. If an old-school WW fan stops by a bookstore and decides to pick up the latest to see what's happening, they only get a chunk of the storyline.

Reading "Guts," they woudn't see Diana and her new found sister, Siracca, nor will they see Diana and Milan - both nice moments for Diana. If a fan got frustrated with the depiction of the Amazons (as many have), they may never know whether or not Azzarello eventually gets around to writing something good for them, because many of those fans have already left. It's part of the nature of any serial medium, but I think it can become somewhat more pronounced the longer a story takes.

[slvn]

The title is a minor detail easily overlooked. ;)

To be honest, I initially read the phrase "second act" in the title as referring to the reboot as whole. The two-sentence abstract that follows the title (the work on editor and not Berlatksy, I assume) seems to reduce Wonder Woman's publication history into two "acts":

[Act One] : "Her creator envisioned her as an antidote to the "blood-curdling masculinity" of comic books. But her modern-day reboot embraces the gore and crude sexuality she was originally supposed to avoid."
[Act Two]: "But her modern-day reboot embraces the gore and crude sexuality she was originally supposed to avoid."

Sure, it would paint a clearer picture of the series to contextualize the volume within the story as a whole. On the other hand, I think long stories that require various volumes open themselves up to problems like this. If an old-school WW fan stops by a bookstore and decides to pick up the latest to see what's happening, they only get a chunk of the storyline.
Reading "Guts," they woudn't see Diana and her new found sister, Siracca, nor will they see Diana and Milan - both nice moments for Diana. If a fan got frustrated with the depiction of the Amazons (as many have), they may never know whether or not Azzarello eventually gets around to writing something good for them, because many of those fans have already left.

True--and this is exactly why it would be good for a reviewer to help a reader out by letting him or her know that this volume s arguably in some ways not representative of the rest.

It's part of the nature of any serial medium, but I think it can become somewhat more pronounced the longer a story takes.

That's an interesting point. I'll have to think about it more. My initial reaction is that it may be just as pronounced with one shots. Imagine readers who only read the Sensation issue in which Wonder Woman causes Japanese planes to crash into their bases. Such readers might never know what a peaceful philosophy Wonder Woman was meant to embody. Hopefully, a reviewer would tell them. :)

[americanwonder]

To be honest, I initially read the phrase "second act" in the title as referring to the reboot as whole. The two-sentence abstract that follows the title (the work on editor and not Berlatksy, I assume) seems to reduce Wonder Woman's publication history into two "acts":

Hadn't thought about it that way, but I guess I can see that in the sub-title. I think a direct comparison between Marston's WW and Azzarello's version can quickly become problematic; as Seant's post pointed out so well, Azzarello is hardly the first to up the violence in the comic.

True--and this is exactly why it would be good for a reviewer to help a reader out by letting him or her know that this volume s arguably in some ways not representative of the rest.

That sounds like an odd, and somewhat unfair, expectation of the reviewer. It's a review of "Guts," and an opinion piece - one persons's view of having read one collected WW story bit. I don't recall many movie reviews stating the arguable opinions that others may have - in my experience, they generally just share their own opinion of the film, and don't spend must time regarding what may or may not occur later in the next installment.

That's an interesting point. I'll have to think about it more. My initial reaction is that it may be just as pronounced with one shots. Imagine readers who only read the Sensation issue in which Wonder Woman causes Japanese planes to crash into their bases. Such readers might never know what a peaceful philosophy Wonder Woman was meant to embody. Hopefully, a reviewer would tell them. :)

Sure, one shots can have a similar problem if that one-shot only focuses on one aspect of a character, for instance. But, if a reviewer is reviewing just this one-shot, then no, I don't think it's a fair expectation to think the reviewer is going to state what comes later on in other issues. Do book review spend much time telling you what may come in later volumes? Or do they review the book they have as it is?

In short, to me, it sounds like you want this opinion piece to be something it was never trying to be.

[slvn]

Do book review spend much time telling you what may come in later volumes? Or do they review the book they have as it is?

In short, to me, it sounds like you want this opinion piece to be something it was never trying to be.

I can't think, off-hand, of other examples of a book review published while the next volume was already well in progress in serial form. In such cases, if the installments that have come out include material that could be used to argue that the problems identified in the volume under review have been addressed, I think a one-sentence disclaimer could be in order. But it's a small point. The main point is that the interpretation of volume II itself is tendentious and draws on selective examples, and we seem to pretty much agree on that.