Diana didn't "need" to know about the raids.

[Rob_Olivera]

Unlike Rob, I hate this topic, just hate it. It pains me that Azzarello chose to dig so low for dirt.

Well.. I love the discussion and diversity of opinions about it, but of course I wish it had never happened.

I wish they would've been portrayed as Amazons who did what they did, and then given the sailors some form of exotic herb from the island to make them 'forget' or something of that sort. The possible baby discarding (until Heph showed up) would've been controversial enough if that is what Azz was after.

Of course, the ULTIMATE solution for the Amazons would've been to get their heads out of their collective azzes and stop it with the crap already... expand your shores. Inhabit the land of men, procreate. Learn! Do something! But this seclusion BS is just inexcusable. Really... How are they ever going to "get over it' and move on for God's sake!

[americanwonder]

I love the raids Azz is a genius.

Hi jabare - do I dare ask what you see in the raids that's "genius"?

I think the main question is what will Diana's reaction will be when she finds out? There is a point in time when you face the illusion of your societal ideals. When you realize that many of the standards that governments and societies demand from you are standards that governments and societies seldom demand of themselves. At that point you have to wonder if you are a fool or if you've just been brought up to be a fool? I wonder how many here can remember how really crushing Watergate was? If Diana didn't know then she's going to have to face the fact that her sisters are murders. She's also going to have to face the fact that she might have known, but ignored the evidence for one reason or another.

As a set up for future conflict it works great. But to me its the last stake in the heart of the concept that the Amazon's were a good group. But it is a trend that I've noticed as I've aged: institutions and individuals that I was taught in my youth were good and noble and -yes, even honest- have been chipped away at until I really trust no one and believe in nothing. By savaging the Amazon's Azzarello is just going along with the cynicism that says 'No group is good' that is currently in vogue with America and especially with comic book writers.

Oh, very nice post, Mark. Thank you.

I agree, the "dirty" Amazons seems a bit too cynical for my tastes (and that's saying something as I'm too cynical for my tastes).

Well.. I love the discussion and diversity of opinions about it, but of course I wish it had never happened.

I wish they would've been portrayed as Amazons who did what they did, and then given the sailors some form of exotic herb from the island to make them 'forget' or something of that sort. The possible baby discarding (until Heph showed up) would've been controversial enough if that is what Azz was after.

Of course, the ULTIMATE solution for the Amazons would've been to get their heads out of their collective azzes and stop it with the crap already... expand your shores. Inhabit the land of men, procreate. Learn! Do something! But this seclusion BS is just inexcusable. Really... How are they ever going to "get over it' and move on for God's sake!

Well, can't say I agree with that either.

In the Young Romance thread, Slvn asked some questions about ways to get around the lasso dispelling illusions and mind control. Personally, I'm much less interested in creators trying to find ways the lasso won't work, and would much prefer them find creative and constructive uses for it.

With the Amazons, I find that too much of DC's creative focus is spent and dirt digging, and I say they should spend that creative energy on building up. I'd much rather Azzarello focus less on dirt (it's not even all that original as I can find dirty Amazons in countless sources), and spend more time giving them somethig interesting to do (which I don't think is all that hard to do if even my lil' uncreative brain can come up with some ideas).

[Rob_Olivera]

Hi jabare - do I dare ask what you see in the raids that's "genius"?



Oh, very nice post, Mark. Thank you.

I agree, the "dirty" Amazons seems a bit too cynical for my tastes (and that's saying something as I'm too cynical for my tastes).



Well, can't say I agree with that either.

In the Young Romance thread, Slvn asked some questions about ways to get around the lasso dispelling illusions and mind control. Personally, I'm much less interested in creators trying to find ways the lasso won't work, and would much prefer them find creative and constructive uses for it.

With the Amazons, I find that too much of DC's creative focus is spent and dirt digging, and I say they should spend that creative energy on building up. I'd much rather Azzarello focus less on dirt (it's not even all that original as I can find dirty Amazons in countless sources), and spend more time giving them somethig interesting to do (which I don't think is all that hard to do if even my lil' uncreative brain can come up with some ideas).

Well I was trying to compromise, AW... It should be painfully obvious to even the greatest enthusiast and optimist that the wave of the future is shock & awe. We kind of touched on this issue lightly a while back, but... yeah... we're old school you and I. Dirt is IN, Creative and Constructive is OUT. Signs of this are all over not only this industry, but others as well. The Dog eat Dog world has invaded the entertainment media quite some time ago.

[americanwonder]

Well I was trying to compromise, AW... It should be painfully obvious to even the greatest enthusiast and optimist that the wave of the future is shock & awe. We kind of touched on this issue lightly a while back, but... yeah... we're old school you and I. Dirt is IN, Creative and Constructive is OUT. Signs of this are all over not only this industry, but others as well. The Dog eat Dog world has invaded the entertainment media quite some time ago.

Oh, I know - but I am old and stubborn and sometimes need a little time hiding my head in denial.

Working with what we got, I think Slvn has done a nice job bringing up the possibility of godly meddling in this. Hippolyta spoke to Hera as if it was not their first time speaking. Hera had her first son thrown out. Perhaps Hera wanted a rememberance of sorts, a memorial to her pain, and part of the "gift" for protection and immortality is that the Amazons can not keep their sons? Or, as I've suggested, perhaps the island itself is literally toxic to males, so they can't stay for very long - it could be part of the "protection" from the outside world, and it would require the Amazons to get rid of their sons?

I don't know. There's room to work with - it may end up being brilliantly done. I just don't find it well done thus far. Too shallow. Feels too "shocky" for shock's sake.

Now, GET OFF MY LAWN YOU KIDDIES!

[Rob_Olivera]

Oh, I know - but I am old and stubborn and sometimes need a little time hiding my head in denial.

Working with what we got, I think Slvn has done a nice job bringing up the possibility of godly meddling in this. Hippolyta spoke to Hera as if it was not their first time speaking. Hera had her first son thrown out. Perhaps Hera wanted a rememberance of sorts, a memorial to her pain, and part of the "gift" for protection and immortality is that the Amazons can not keep their sons? Or, as I've suggested, perhaps the island itself is literally toxic to males, so they can't stay for very long - it could be part of the "protection" from the outside world, and it would require the Amazons to get rid of their sons?

I don't know. There's room to work with - it may end up being brilliantly done. I just don't find it well done thus far. Too shallow. Feels too "shocky" for shock's sake.

Now, GET OFF MY LAWN YOU KIDDIES!

Yes, SLVN has done quite a good job of excusing (err.. explaining) what could possibly be vs. what we suspect. I even agree with his theories to an extent, regardless of the hard time I give him. I just feel that IF it is a divine intervention of some sort that it should be done in a plausible manner... and a "plausible" manner requires giving explanations and details, something which we both know Azzarello is rather short on. Just like the NOT-Berzerker Rage.

IF it is Divine intervention, the most likely culprit is, of course... Hera. But, I don't feel too easy in saying that when a MAJOR player hasn't entered the battle-field yet (Athena).

It could ALSO be Aphrodite, whom Eros warned WW against not being deceived by appearances. Azzarello may not write much, but when he does it usually means something. What did THAT mean?

For now, I'll keep my chips on the Non-Divine intervention side. I think he just meant straight out that the Amazons kill to protect their secret island. But.. we shall see indeed, won't we? Hopefully sooner than later.

OOps.. sorry! Didn't mean to step on yer lawwn, OLD MAN!

[americanwonder]

Yes, SLVN has done quite a good job of excusing (err.. explaining) what could possibly be vs. what we suspect. I even agree with his theories to an extent, regardless of the hard time I give him. I just feel that IF it is a divine intervention of some sort that it should be done in a plausible manner... and a "plausible" manner requires giving explanations and details, something which we both know Azzarello is rather short on. Just like the NOT-Berzerker Rage.

IF it is Divine intervention, the most likely culprit is, of course... Hera. But, I don't feel too easy in saying that when a MAJOR player hasn't entered the battle-field yet (Athena).

It could ALSO be Aphrodite, whom Eros warned WW against not being deceived by appearances. Azzarello may not write much, but when he does it usually means something. What did THAT mean?

For now, I'll keep my chips on the Non-Divine intervention side. I think he just meant straight out that the Amazons kill to protect their secret island. But.. we shall see indeed, won't we? Hopefully sooner than later.

OOps.. sorry! Didn't mean to step on yer lawwn, OLD MAN!

Details and explanations? I thought that was what Azzarello was paying Slvn for. If we wait for Azzarello to get there, I'll really be an old man. ;) As for the culprits?

Hera - I kind of hate to dogpile too much dirt on the gal, but the parrallel to having lost her own son, imo, is the strongest.

Athena - I know she isn't always depicted as all that nice and all, but can't we please have one goddess with a bit more niceness? Also, not enough foreshadowing here, for my tastes.

Aphrodite - Eros is just mad he got grounded a lot. ;) You're right, that very well could turn out to be some foreshadowing of something. But does this really fit with Aphrodite? I don't know, I'd need more meat to really bite into that one.

[Rob_Olivera]

Details and explanations? I thought that was what Azzarello was paying Slvn for. If we wait for Azzarello to get there, I'll really be an old man. ;) As for the culprits?

Hera - I kind of hate to dogpile too much dirt on the gal, but the parrallel to having lost her own son, imo, is the strongest.

Athena - I know she isn't always depicted as all that nice and all, but can't we please have one goddess with a bit more niceness? Also, not enough foreshadowing here, for my tastes.

Aphrodite - Eros is just mad he got grounded a lot. ;) You're right, that very well could turn out to be some foreshadowing of something. But does this really fit with Aphrodite? I don't know, I'd need more meat to really bite into that one.

Ok, so like, I don't know where the hell SLVN is now, but since he appears to be absent let me fill in for a moment.. LOL.

Aphrodite: The Goddess of Love. Umm... doesn't love mean sex nowadays? or something like that? Heheh. It could possibly be that she demands that the amazons procreate and she likes to play the game so the only way to continue doing so for eternity (since they are immortal) is to have no witnesses.



Athena: In old continuity, a favorable goddess towards the Amazons. Same goal. Perhaps she placed a magical spell on Zeus's daughter to grant her immortality and wisdom to teach her sisters the folly of their actions. Meh.. I don't even swallow this one.

Hera: She doesn't seem amused by the amazons living in the "cockless coop", as she said in the earlier issues. Could be her, but if she lost her son and is doing it because of such motive, would she NOT want them to save the male children?

[americanwonder]

Hera: She doesn't seem amused by the amazons living in the "cockless coop", as she said in the earlier issues. Could be her, but if she lost her son and is doing it because of such motive, would she NOT want them to save the male children?

Good point regarding the "coop" comment - she didn't seem to be a fan.

I was thinking Hera, who had her son taken from her, would want others to know her pain. In a way, he probably had to suffer in silence, as I doubt Zeus wanted to hear her sorrow about it. It was out of her control. So, she makes sure she's not alone in that pain, that others know what she has had to go through, even if it means they must suffer a similar fate.

Then again, we could be way off the mark, over-thinking and writing too much into it - it's not like we've been given a whole lot to go on (so far?).

[Outside_85]

Except that when we are first introduced to the Amazons, they seem very eager to castrate/kill the source of the 'musk' on their island, so I just don't see them having any issue with killing men, especially if they consider themselves to be at war with them.

I put it down to them feeling threatened by finding this 'musk' on their island. So that they puff their chests (figuratively) and talk harder to seem more imposing is just natural.

[slvn]

Thanks for the compliments, Rob and AmericanWonder. Nice to see you coming around .

I think the big clue in #7 may be the fact that Amazons rowing towards the mens' ship have bare wrists (along with bare everything else). Everywhere else--except when Hippolyta in making love with Zeus, and a couple of times when Diana is sleeping or relaxing) the Amazons wear bracelets (even if only leather ones). Diana may not be the only one who wears "cuffs" to keep the forces within her in check. But maybe--at least according to the Olympian goddesses' way of seeing things--the cuffs have to come off once in awhile, and the inner monsters have to come out, so that the Amazons can be in control of themselves the rest of the time.

In other words, the reason for the raids may relate to something Brett said recently about how we're all killers until we learn not to be. This might be extra true of the new Amazons; maybe their gifts (immortality, strength, peerless warrior skills) come from primal, pre-Olympian, pre-civilized forces (like the Mother of Monsters and her brood in Batwoman, but if you believe there is no coordination, this could just be parallel, not exactly the same in the two books). Athena, Aphrodite, Hera and Artemis may have kept the Amazons around, after the defeat of the od powers, to be their champions against whatever menaces might crop up, on the theory that in order to defeat monsters, you have to have a little bit of monster in you. And maybe the goddesses even wanted their own army in case their Olympian patriarchs ever became intolerable. But, just like in Marston, they gave the Amazons special bracelets (even if only leather ones) to help them keep their primal, egoistic impulses in check.

But what happens when you keep your aggressive or egoistic impulses in check all the time, without ever venting them? If you're a saint, maybe nothing bad happens; but in some cases, trying to suppress all your unwanted instincts can probably lead to chaos (like the tinderbox that Strife is able to light in #2). Historically, civilized societies have channeled a lot of their primitive aggressive instinct into war, which has probably helped them maintain some semblance of solidarity and order at home. More civilized societies have had artistic outlets, like the "catharsis," or purging of terror and pity, that tragedy was supposed to offer. Steven King argued once that we crave horror films because they allow us to "feed the gators" inside ourselves, throwing a symbolic bone to the monsters and murderers within. In other runs of Wonder Woman, I guess bondage games or guarding the hell door were symbolic or real ways of venting the more aggressive impulses within. But with the New 52 Amazons, the venting mechanism is the sex raids, which also serve the incidental purpose of replenishing the ranks after occasional losses of Amazons while monster hunting. Artistic outlets and the occasional monsters to vanquish might not have been enough of an outlet for the Amazons, if the forces that they had to hold in check were more powerful than those within ordinary mortals. So the goddesses devised this ritual by which the Amazons would allow their inner monsters to come out, once every 30 thirty years or just once in the life of each Amazon.

Wonder Woman, as the daughter of Zeus, has had to keep more powerful forces in check than any of the Amazons have within them (except maybe Hippolyta, who also wears big metal cuffs). Maybe Wonder Woman is going to be the one to learn, and then teach the Amazons, that there are healthier ways to tame the demons within, maybe by actually integrating them into your personality rather than keeping them under lock and key. I think she would argue that, while we are born with these murderous instincts, we're also born with the capacity to love, and the latter will win out if our upbringing is what it should be.

[Mark_S]

But with all that said slvn there is still the fact that the amazons raped men, murdered men and murdered their own children who were not female. Any society that does that -as a group, not as individuals- is a worthless society. There is a difference between vicariously cheering on Jason (Which I've actually done, anyone dumb enough to go back up to Camp Crystal Lake after the first 40 murders or so deserves what they get... I mean come on, look at the body count :) ) and actually doing it yourself. I think the men who were killed, the friends and relatives of the men; their wives, daughters and sons, would agree.
If the amazons truly did go after passing ships and rape and murder the men and then murdered the male children of that rape then we are talking one of the worst societies ever to be on the Earth. When Diana confronts her mother and her sisters about this there should be a lot of repugnance on her part.

[Gaelforce]

But with all that said slvn there is still the fact that the amazons raped men, murdered men and murdered their own children who were not female. Any society that does that -as a group, not as individuals- is a worthless society. There is a difference between vicariously cheering on Jason (Which I've actually done, anyone dumb enough to go back up to Camp Crystal Lake after the first 40 murders or so deserves what they get... I mean come on, look at the body count :) ) and actually doing it yourself. I think the men who were killed, the friends and relatives of the men; their wives, daughters and sons, would agree.
If the amazons truly did go after passing ships and rape and murder the men and then murdered the male children of that rape then we are talking one of the worst societies ever to be on the Earth. When Diana confronts her mother and her sisters about this there should be a lot of repugnance on her part.

Actually...no.

Did they rape the men?

Absolutely not. They seduced the men. There is absolutely nothing in the description that implies that they forced any man to have sex.

They apparently murdered the men, but again, I concede the two points previously brought up - that 'drained of life' could mean someone else killed them, and that all we have is Hephaestus' side of the story - could be valid. However, it certainly seems as if they murdered them or, at the very least, are complicit in their murders.

And I don't think they murdered the children. I think it was said that they *would have* murdered them if Hephaestus didn't take them.

On the other hand, they traded their children for weapons, so that does make them slave traders ;)

[slvn]

On the other hand, they traded their children for weapons, so that does make them slave traders ;)

Even if they knew that Heph was going to raise the kids lovingly and teach them a craft, not treat them as slaves?

Anyway, I don't doubt that they did Bad Things (though I agree with you, Gael, that there's no indication of rape). I just suspect that those Bad Things were probably presented to them by gods as Necessary Evils and Divine Will. Lots of Europeans who believed in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" were willing to go kill when they thought God wanted Crusades.

Suppose the goddesses came to the Amazons in primitive times and said "we're going to civilize you and use your immortality and ferocity and strength to imprison monsters and save the world from them. But the price is that once in each of your lives, you will have to BE monsters." And suppose that each of them only had to go a raid once, when her cohort reached the age of 30 or so. (I don't think there's anything in #7 that says all of the Amazons go raiding each time.) Then, I think their choices would start to seem more understandable, and their moral standing more complex, not just Plain Evil. But sure, I expect that Wonder Woman will and should ask "how could you"?

I don't see thrice-centennial raids as worse than wars of aggression fought on an more frequent basis by some societies, especially when those wars often involved raping women and taking them into concubinage as spoils of war. If that makes them worthless, then it seems probable that some worthless societies" paradoxically contributed a lot to our civilization.

[Gaelforce]

Even if they knew that Heph was going to raise the kids lovingly and teach them a craft, not treat them as slaves?

Anyway, I don't doubt that they did Bad Things (though I agree with you, Gael, that there's not indication of rape). I just think those Bad Things were probably presented to them by gods as Necessary Evils and the Will of the Gods. Lots of Europeans who believed in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" were willing to go kill when they thought God wanted Crusades.

Suppose the goddesses came to the Amazons in primitive times and said "we're going to civilize you and use your immortality and ferocity and strength to imprison monsters and save the world from them. But the price is that once in each of your lives, you will have to BE monsters." And suppose that each of them only had to go a raid once, when her cohort reached the age of 30 or so. (I don't think there's anything in #7 that says all of the Amazons go raiding each time.) Then, I think their choices would start to seem more understandable, and their moral standing more complex, not just Plain Evil. But sure, I expect that Wonder Woman will ask "how could you"?

I don't see thrice-centennial raids as worse than wars of aggression fought on an more frequent basis by some societies, especially when those wars often involved raping women and taking them into concubinage as spoils of war. If that makes them worthless, then it seems probable that some worthless societies" paradoxically contributed a lot to our civilization.

Granted, there are many possible explanations, however, as presented and taken at face value (i.e. that Hephaestus speaks the truth):

- Amazons are man-hating murderers of innocent men whose only crime was to agree to have sex with the naked women who came on board their boats
- They are, indeed, slave traders as they used human beings as currency and there is no indication that Hephaestus isn't a slave owner. Yes, he treats them very well, but nothing shows that they are allowed to leave and pursue an education or a career outside of the artisan training Heph provides. They love it there and are well treated, but none of them seem to be equipped to leave. Regardless, even if Heph chooses to 'free' them, they were still used as chattel by the Amazons.
- Amazons are immortal (tho' they can die by non-natural causes). There is nothing to indicate that they (a) only have to raid once or (b) don't want to raid. Some of them seem downright bloodthirsty, while others want children, so it seems more natural to assume that some (most?) want to raid either for the sex, for the children or for the chance to kill their hated enemy.

I do hope that there's more to it than that - that this is all either a warped telling of the tale by Hephaestus, that they only target 'bad men' (pirates, drug runners, etc.) or that the gods command it. But, based on what's actually been written, that isn't the case.

[Mark_S]

At the moment we simply don't know enough. Any point I make can be counter-pointed. Until -and if- Azzarello chooses to clarify this we're stuck.