Who Is Wonder Woman: A Look At The Character Pre and Post New 52

  • 104 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by Mask of Tengu (208 posts) - - Show Bio

I just wish everything would go back how it was.

#52 Posted by herrweis (433 posts) - - Show Bio

after reading this article the irony of wonder woman accured to me.it seems marston created wonder woman to be powerful and stand out from the guys all for her to be acceped as one of the guys.heh

#53 Posted by KingofMadCows (345 posts) - - Show Bio

@Outside_85 said:

I can explain that through there either being a code of honor amongst them that allows them the option to offer it to a worthy opponent. Second option is that because of what men has done to them, the Amazons consider them little more than beasts and as such dont have such rights. Last option is the still lingering question whenever it actually happens as Eros and Hepheastus say it does (they are after all men and apparently only have the version they have either been told (by people who have an interest in making the most horrible version the official one, even if its not true) or made up on their own). Finally I dont really think the notion of mercy just pops into someone's head if they've been taught from childhood never to show it to anyone.

But then at the very beginning of the issue Diana steals an egg from a Harpy and all the Amazons cheered her for it despite the fact that she basically just kidnapped the child of a sentient being just so she could make a cake. If the Amazons have no problem harming sentient beings like that then why would they have a problem harming a beast like the minotaur?

#54 Posted by KingofMadCows (345 posts) - - Show Bio

I would say that the real problem is simply the lack of representation for women, as well as minorities. I don't think there is anything sexist or anti-women about Wonder Woman #0. There is nothing wrong with having a female superhero being trained by a man. There is nothing wrong with a character who is heavily influenced by men. The problem is the lack of superheroes who were trained or heavily influenced by women. If there are 100 superheroes, 95 of them are trained by men and 5 of them are trained by women, reducing the number of superheroes trained by women by even 1 is a bigger impact than reducing the number of superheroes trained by men by 10. If the vast majority of superheroes are already trained by men and they're more influenced by men than women, why alter the origin of one of the few superheroes who wasn't trained by men so that she's now trained by a man, especially the origin of a character who is supposed to be a feminist icon? I don't think the problem is the story itself, the problem is the marginalization of women's roles in comics.

#55 Posted by sethysquare (3843 posts) - - Show Bio

@KingofMadCows said:

@Outside_85 said:

I can explain that through there either being a code of honor amongst them that allows them the option to offer it to a worthy opponent. Second option is that because of what men has done to them, the Amazons consider them little more than beasts and as such dont have such rights. Last option is the still lingering question whenever it actually happens as Eros and Hepheastus say it does (they are after all men and apparently only have the version they have either been told (by people who have an interest in making the most horrible version the official one, even if its not true) or made up on their own). Finally I dont really think the notion of mercy just pops into someone's head if they've been taught from childhood never to show it to anyone.

But then at the very beginning of the issue Diana steals an egg from a Harpy and all the Amazons cheered her for it despite the fact that she basically just kidnapped the child of a sentient being just so she could make a cake. If the Amazons have no problem harming sentient beings like that then why would they have a problem harming a beast like the minotaur?

maybe because of the same reason how you would not kill a dog or an elephant but u have no would not mind eating an egg.

Besides harpies are known to be pests and attacks humans but in this case the minotaurs is trapped in the cave and was already defeated. There isnt a point to kill it if he is not harming anyone.

Would you kill a tiger that is already injured and cant move?

#56 Posted by turoksonofstone (13199 posts) - - Show Bio

GA WW is Hawt.

#57 Posted by KingofMadCows (345 posts) - - Show Bio

@sethysquare said:

maybe because of the same reason how you would not kill a dog or an elephant but u have no would not mind eating an egg.

Besides harpies are known to be pests and attacks humans but in this case the minotaurs is trapped in the cave and was already defeated. There isnt a point to kill it if he is not harming anyone.

Would you kill a tiger that is already injured and cant move?

But the harpy was a sentient intelligent being while the minotaur didn't appear to be much smarter than an average animal. There's a big difference between taking the egg of a creature with an intelligence comparable to a human and killing a beast that was maybe as intelligent as a wolf or maybe chimp.

Also, while it is true that harpies are evil in myths, the minotaur is also evil and kills people.

#58 Posted by lorex (954 posts) - - Show Bio

Good article Sara. I have enjoyed Wonder Woman in the New 52 and think it is one of their better quality titles. Some of the changesd in her mythos have been good while others I am less thrilled with. I would like to see her get away from the mythology and have some real world  adventures. I think since her powers are magic based a technology based foe could be interesting be it a man or woman.

#59 Posted by RedheadedAtrocitus (6885 posts) - - Show Bio

I do like how you have conveniently sidestepped the bondage issue since that was an important part of Marston's entire character. He was a closeted BDSM advocate and was even a practitioner of polyamory and much of his experiences with that helped formulate Diana's character. Plus its no secret that his wife Elizabeth was instrumental in driving him to creating a strong female superhero that culminated in making Wonder Woman in a time in which female superheroes were almost unheard of. The point here being is that maybe the changes we see in Wonder Woman over the years are good, because there's been a shift of the central theme of what she is over the years. She began as a superheroine with serious dominatrix undertones (Lasso = dominatrix whip no doubt) and grew into a character that was a fighter for truth and justice even if she came to the world of man for the love of a certain man. Over the years she came to be simply "Diana Prince" then Wonder Woman again, went from flying an invisible jet to actually flying herself, and beyond. For me, one of the best story arcs as of recent years was the famous "Who is Wonder Woman?" story done not long after Infinite Crisis. It was a good re-defining moment for the times just prior to the New 52 reality of Diana, a reality I think is just as fresh under Azzarello's writing now as it was under Marston's tenure in the forties or Perez in the 80s or any of a number of writers who have handled her over the years. I would like to get this current series (only have issue number one), but I have much backtracking to do still with Straczynski's run and before that to be truly caught up. Always have been a Wonder Woman fan here, an always will be.

#60 Posted by DonFelipe (1096 posts) - - Show Bio

I just love the new Wonder Woman and what Azzarello is doing!

It's easily one of the best series of the New 52 - probably the best alongside Snyder's takes on Batman and Animal Man.

#61 Posted by Dorko (5 posts) - - Show Bio

I think that Ares taking Diana on as a student makes TONS of sense. Diana is stronger and faster than any of her sisters due to her "divine" birth. It only makes sense that for her to reach her full potential she would need a teacher able to take her to that next level. It actually explains why she is the greatest Amazon warrior. She has the blood of the king of the Gods in her as well as the training from the god of war himself.

This affection towards a male figure may also explain why when Steve Trevor lands on the island she chooses to save him and return him to man's world.

#62 Posted by jrock85 (2874 posts) - - Show Bio

Azzarello's WW is one of the two titles that I thoroughly enjoy every month.

#63 Posted by Outside_85 (9027 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarthShap said:

I could pop up upon realisation of what killing really means. And beyond that, even if there is some code of honour between warriors etc..., it still does not explain why Wonder-Woman did not know about how the entire culture that raised her felt about men and life in general until she was in her late twenties. Why wasn't she taught that men do not deserve to live?

Actually that is quite obvious why she didn't know anything about how Amazons view men; because no one told her. And to this I point to when Diana met Ares and not immediately shunned him because of him being a man, also it appears the Amazons aren't taught to hate Ares either. Also, you are a little confusing with the bold bit; do you actually want her to have that value?

(But it might be something that the Amazons only mention when the kids reach a certain age, as in when they are ready to hear it or when they are considered 'grown up'. Take Tolkien's hobbits as an example, they weren't considered a grown up before they were 33 years old.)

#64 Posted by Sekele (276 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarthShap said:

Sara seems to forget a fundamental change to the character and her mythos:

Pre-New 52, she was raised in a feminist utopia. The Amazons were basically smart, peaceful, moral people. They gave Diana her values.

Post-New 52, it is completely different. The Amazons are somewhat closer to the myths and as such, villains. They are amoral and barbaric, they rape, kill and abandon their children. To this day, Azzarello still has not explained from whom Wonder-Woman got her values and why she was surprised to learn who these Amazons really were. Why wasn't she taught that men do not deserve to live if she was to become queen of the Amazons in the future? If it is an Amazon belief, Amazons would teach it to their children so that they grow up hating men. In my opinion, that is a huge plot hole.

I think it's rather obvious she got these from her mother

#65 Posted by cloudzackvincent (1028 posts) - - Show Bio

the new ww is just 13 issues old so better wait and see before jumping to conclusions... that said i really like the current arc

#66 Edited by FoxxFireArt (3554 posts) - - Show Bio

My ideals of Wonder Woman should be that she has a unique place in the DC Universe. Superman is the ultimate powerhouse, Batman is the ultimate detective, and I always felt that Wonder Woman should be the ultimate warrior. By warrior I don't been a power hungry fighter quick to violence. She's from Greek origins. Wonder Woman should be a tactician and strategist. Greek warriors are famous for such brilliant strategic moments as the Trojan Horse and the story of the 300. She should have incredible power, but also know how to apply that power intelligently.

I've always found Diana's romantic interest in Steve rather confusing. It just sort of happens becasue he's the first man she sees. I remember reading that a lot of people were offended by the idea that she abandoned her powers. It seems crazy that she should give up her potential just to be with this guys. It doesn't make sense why she couldn't have both.

The idea that we have of feminism has sort of devolved into a stereotype of the angry man-hater. Isn't feminism born from the ideal of having a choice and breaking expectations?

There are women who find empowerment in being a business woman, but there are also women who feel empowered by something such as working as a stripper. However, there are self-identified feminist who would say they are demeaning themselves. That's a matter of perspective. Why does one group get to choose what any woman should or shouldn't take pride in? Isn't that just fascism?

Just to use this example, I have a childhood friend who works as a stripper. She started when she was eighteen. She eventually started modeling, then girl on girl videos. She's not some typical airhead with low self esteem. She's been forceful but kind for as long as I've known her. Now, she's still in the adult industry, she still dances, and runs her own business. She decides who she works with, she has a website, and sponsors an adult toy line. She works hard and she has pride in herself. Recently, she's been traveling around the world and climbing mountains in Russia and China.

Not too long after Marston's death and Wonder Woman acquired a new writer, Frederic Wertham published his 'Seduction of the Innocent,' (1953), an attack on the comic book industry. In it he called Wonder Woman a "morbid ideal for young girls" and a "threat to masculinity" because she was a strong woman who defied the social norm of the place of women in society.

Doesn't this sound similar to the groups opposed to gay marriage? The way they call it a threat to "traditional marriage". A man doesn't need to fear a confident woman if he's confident in his own masculinity. Only the weak need to fear the strong.

I don't see any real issue in Diana being trained by Ares, but I do see it as a serious oversight by the creative team to put so much focus on that alone and just imply she was trained by the Amazons. What I thought was weird was making her the offspring of Zeus. Sure, Zeus was pretty famous for all the human children he sired with mortal women, even though he had a wife and several kids. The problem I see is more about the fact that Zeus wasn't in love with these women. He was a horny lecher.

In the story of Hercules, Zeus impersonated Alcmene's husband and essentially rapes her for three nights to impregnate her. Not to mention that Alcmene is also Zeus' great-granddaughter. In many tales, he is an icon of misogyny. He frequently doesn't attack those mortals who oppose him directly, but their wives in a sexual manner. What does this say about Hippolyta that she'd be seduced by him?

#67 Posted by DarthShap (875 posts) - - Show Bio

@Sekele said:

@DarthShap said:

Sara seems to forget a fundamental change to the character and her mythos:

Pre-New 52, she was raised in a feminist utopia. The Amazons were basically smart, peaceful, moral people. They gave Diana her values.

Post-New 52, it is completely different. The Amazons are somewhat closer to the myths and as such, villains. They are amoral and barbaric, they rape, kill and abandon their children. To this day, Azzarello still has not explained from whom Wonder-Woman got her values and why she was surprised to learn who these Amazons really were. Why wasn't she taught that men do not deserve to live if she was to become queen of the Amazons in the future? If it is an Amazon belief, Amazons would teach it to their children so that they grow up hating men. In my opinion, that is a huge plot hole.

I think it's rather obvious she got these from her mother

Her mother? The queen of the Amazons? The one who organizes the rapes, murders and trades of children?

#68 Posted by TDK_1997 (14896 posts) - - Show Bio

Really nice.

#69 Posted by kapitein_zeppos (341 posts) - - Show Bio

The new 52 Wonder Woman is a nice enough book by itself, but I feel it tries too hard to re-write the story. I'm not against an update, but this version of WW made some radical changes and I do wonder if they insisted on doing the same level of re-writing with the entire DC line would they have been equally well received.

Personally I'm sitting this one out and hope that it is retconned away a few years from now.

#70 Posted by fables87 (1003 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm loving this new Wonder Woman! I think I like it the most because it's attracting new and unexplainable fans. Which is very good for a comic book. Any pre-52 I felt the writing was normally off and the writers didn't seem real enough. They never focused this much on mythology and if they did, it was never true to the stuff I read. It seemed obvious the writers were trying to focus on the elements from the Wonder Woman show in the 70s. I liked that show, but that missed so many actual points in the comics. I should also point out that when I read Vol. 1: Blood I was surprised to see the sex references again. Seems like the previous writers left that out. Let's not for get the constant bondage references in the original. Wonder Woman is a feminist character, but she is also a sex symbol.

#71 Posted by carnivalofsins00 (938 posts) - - Show Bio

@ips: Oh no, RUINED!

#72 Posted by telepathic666 (227 posts) - - Show Bio

i think the writer got it reversed she was hardened by the amazons and received extra training from Ares. but it was through his actions she found mercy meaning through man she found "mercy". It's also interesting she found a father in her uncle. i thought it ironic and symbolic in a way. I am in love with the new wonder woman.

#73 Posted by LemmyCaution (28 posts) - - Show Bio

I have no problem with Ares being one of Diana's teachers. Not sure why Sara or anyone else does. I mean, it did take me back for a moment, but it makes sense as to why Diana, unlike the other Amazons, would be the one to eventually leave the island and come into the "world of man." I think it was handled perfectly.

I see no reason to think that it implies "that the Amazons could not mold a fearsome warrior on their own..." It simply isn't there in the story, so that's the reader's baggage, something they infer on their own, and not the writer's misstep.

#74 Posted by No_Name_ (17403 posts) - - Show Bio

@FoxxFireArt said:

There are women who find empowerment in being a business woman, but there are also women who feel empowered by something such as working as a stripper. However, there are self-identified feminist who would say they are demeaning themselves. That's a matter of perspective. Why does one group get to choose what any woman should or shouldn't take pride in? Isn't that just fascism?

Doesn't quite have to do with the article, but I agree 100%! :)

#75 Posted by No_Name_ (17403 posts) - - Show Bio

@LemmyCaution said:

I have no problem with Ares being one of Diana's teachers. Not sure why Sara or anyone else does. I mean, it did take me back for a moment, but it makes sense as to why Diana, unlike the other Amazons, would be the one to eventually leave the island and come into the "world of man." I think it was handled perfectly.

I see no reason to think that it implies "that the Amazons could not mold a fearsome warrior on their own..." It simply isn't there in the story, so that's the reader's baggage, something they infer on their own, and not the writer's misstep.

I'm disappointed you read it as my having a problem with it as opposed to seeing it as my observation and analysis of the changes that have been made to the character throughout the years.

#76 Posted by Pokeysteve (8303 posts) - - Show Bio

No comic book character is dissected as much or as often as Wonder Woman.

Volume 2 is the definitive WW for me. That run made it clear who she is and what she stands for.

#77 Posted by DarthShap (875 posts) - - Show Bio

@Outside_85 said:

@DarthShap said:

I could pop up upon realisation of what killing really means. And beyond that, even if there is some code of honour between warriors etc..., it still does not explain why Wonder-Woman did not know about how the entire culture that raised her felt about men and life in general until she was in her late twenties. Why wasn't she taught that men do not deserve to live?

Actually that is quite obvious why she didn't know anything about how Amazons view men; because no one told her. And to this I point to when Diana met Ares and not immediately shunned him because of him being a man, also it appears the Amazons aren't taught to hate Ares either. Also, you are a little confusing with the bold bit; do you actually want her to have that value?

(But it might be something that the Amazons only mention when the kids reach a certain age, as in when they are ready to hear it or when they are considered 'grown up'. Take Tolkien's hobbits as an example, they weren't considered a grown up before they were 33 years old.)

Again, that was my point. The mere fact that they would hide this core belief of theirs from their future queen is absolutely ridiculous. Why would they do that?

As I was saying in my second post, "If History is of any indication, when a society feels very strongly about a hate or disdain towards certain people, they do not do anything to hide it from their children. Slave owners did not tell their children that their slaves were individuals just like them. Nazis were not teaching their children that Jews, communists and homosexuals were people nonetheless."

#78 Edited by SolthesunGod (278 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarthShap said:

@Outside_85 said:

@DarthShap said:

I could pop up upon realisation of what killing really means. And beyond that, even if there is some code of honour between warriors etc..., it still does not explain why Wonder-Woman did not know about how the entire culture that raised her felt about men and life in general until she was in her late twenties. Why wasn't she taught that men do not deserve to live?

Actually that is quite obvious why she didn't know anything about how Amazons view men; because no one told her. And to this I point to when Diana met Ares and not immediately shunned him because of him being a man, also it appears the Amazons aren't taught to hate Ares either. Also, you are a little confusing with the bold bit; do you actually want her to have that value?

(But it might be something that the Amazons only mention when the kids reach a certain age, as in when they are ready to hear it or when they are considered 'grown up'. Take Tolkien's hobbits as an example, they weren't considered a grown up before they were 33 years old.)

Again, that was my point. The mere fact that they would hide this core belief of theirs from their future queen is absolutely ridiculous. Why would they do that?

As I was saying in my second post, "If History is of any indication, when a society feels very strongly about a hate or disdain towards certain people, they do not do anything to hide it from their children. Slave owners did not tell their children that their slaves were individuals just like them. Nazis were not teaching their children that Jews, communists and homosexuals were people nonetheless."

Well Wonder Woman claimed that she thought the reason the Amazons didn't have male children was the will of the gods, divine. It's possible that needing men to sire their daughters was the darkest secret of Amazon society. Given that the Amazons expand their numbers every 33 years it's possible that the girls from Wonder Woman's generation aren't aware of this until it's their turn. Depending on it's execution that could be pretty interesting.

Either way though, this article and the Wonder Woman view has prompted a more critical view of Azzarello's Wonder Woman, and I like her more of it so kudos Sara.

#79 Posted by DarthShap (875 posts) - - Show Bio

@SolthesunGod said:

@DarthShap said:

Again, that was my point. The mere fact that they would hide this core belief of theirs from their future queen is absolutely ridiculous. Why would they do that?

As I was saying in my second post, "If History is of any indication, when a society feels very strongly about a hate or disdain towards certain people, they do not do anything to hide it from their children. Slave owners did not tell their children that their slaves were individuals just like them. Nazis were not teaching their children that Jews, communists and homosexuals were people nonetheless."

Well Wonder Woman claimed that she thought the reason the Amazons didn't have male children was the will of the gods, divine. It's possible that needing men to sire their daughters was the darkest secret of Amazon society. Given that the Amazons expand their numbers every 33 years it's possible that the girls from Wonder Woman's generation aren't aware of this until it's their turn. Depending on it's execution that could be pretty interesting.

Either way though, this article and the Wonder Woman view has prompted a more critical view of Azzarello's Wonder Woman, and I like her more of it so kudos Sara.

Either Amazons believe that men do not deserve to live and are just useful as sperm donors and slaves to be traded or they do not. The idea that any civilization with such hatred would hide it is ridiculous. What do you think happens? They just lie to their children for 33 years and then : "Surprise! Everything we taught you was a lie! We are actually rapists and murderers who think men do not deserve to live!" No civilization teaches their values this way. And anyway, it is not a secret if everybody over 33 knows it.

#80 Posted by SolthesunGod (278 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarthShap said:

@SolthesunGod said:

@DarthShap said:

Again, that was my point. The mere fact that they would hide this core belief of theirs from their future queen is absolutely ridiculous. Why would they do that?

As I was saying in my second post, "If History is of any indication, when a society feels very strongly about a hate or disdain towards certain people, they do not do anything to hide it from their children. Slave owners did not tell their children that their slaves were individuals just like them. Nazis were not teaching their children that Jews, communists and homosexuals were people nonetheless."

Well Wonder Woman claimed that she thought the reason the Amazons didn't have male children was the will of the gods, divine. It's possible that needing men to sire their daughters was the darkest secret of Amazon society. Given that the Amazons expand their numbers every 33 years it's possible that the girls from Wonder Woman's generation aren't aware of this until it's their turn. Depending on it's execution that could be pretty interesting.

Either way though, this article and the Wonder Woman view has prompted a more critical view of Azzarello's Wonder Woman, and I like her more of it so kudos Sara.

Either Amazons believe that men do not deserve to live and are just useful as sperm donors and slaves to be traded or they do not. The idea that any civilization with such hatred would hide it is ridiculous. What do you think happens? They just lie to their children for 33 years and then : "Surprise! Everything we taught you was a lie! We are actually rapists and murderers who think men do not deserve to live!" No civilization teaches their values this way. And anyway, it is not a secret if everybody over 33 knows it.

Not a great example but look at Santa Claus

SPOILERS

Parents all over the world lie to their children about his existence and the lie keeps a bit of magic in their kids lives. Maybe the Amazons lie for similar reasons. I do understand your critiscm and it's reasonable but I think it's more likely that all the girls are lied to that just Diana. I think the Amazons could teach their detest of men to their daughters and not reveal that they need them to procreate. One of the big issues I had with that was that I thought wouldn't it be easier for the Amazons to keep their male children around as a slave caste instead of risking exposure in the outside world every 33 years. But I'm sure there would be risks involved their too.

#81 Posted by UsagiTsukino (245 posts) - - Show Bio

DC is sooner or late going to being wonder woman orgin back. Pro-woman is what she always will be. There is no replacing that.

#82 Posted by DarthShap (875 posts) - - Show Bio

@SolthesunGod said:

@DarthShap said:

Not a great example but look at Santa Claus

SPOILERS

Parents all over the world lie to their children about his existence and the lie keeps a bit of magic in their kids lives. Maybe the Amazons lie for similar reasons. I do understand your critiscm and it's reasonable but I think it's more likely that all the girls are lied to that just Diana. I think the Amazons could teach their detest of men to their daughters and not reveal that they need them to procreate. One of the big issues I had with that was that I thought wouldn't it be easier for the Amazons to keep their male children around as a slave caste instead of risking exposure in the outside world every 33 years. But I'm sure there would be risks involved their too.

You are right. It is not a great example. ^^

#83 Posted by Darkmount1 (1276 posts) - - Show Bio

Personally, I feel Wonder Woman's character should be that of her portrayal on Justice League/Justice League Unlimited, but as more of a centrist character--not a feminist, not a reactive or proactive, but a centrist. If Superman is the comic book equivalent of an idealist liberal, while Batman is the pragmatic conservative, Wonder Woman should be (and could be) the more nuanced, balanced, compromising centrist.

#84 Posted by Outside_85 (9027 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarthShap said:

@Outside_85 said:

@DarthShap said:

I could pop up upon realisation of what killing really means. And beyond that, even if there is some code of honour between warriors etc..., it still does not explain why Wonder-Woman did not know about how the entire culture that raised her felt about men and life in general until she was in her late twenties. Why wasn't she taught that men do not deserve to live?

Actually that is quite obvious why she didn't know anything about how Amazons view men; because no one told her. And to this I point to when Diana met Ares and not immediately shunned him because of him being a man, also it appears the Amazons aren't taught to hate Ares either. Also, you are a little confusing with the bold bit; do you actually want her to have that value?

(But it might be something that the Amazons only mention when the kids reach a certain age, as in when they are ready to hear it or when they are considered 'grown up'. Take Tolkien's hobbits as an example, they weren't considered a grown up before they were 33 years old.)

Again, that was my point. The mere fact that they would hide this core belief of theirs from their future queen is absolutely ridiculous. Why would they do that?

As I was saying in my second post, "If History is of any indication, when a society feels very strongly about a hate or disdain towards certain people, they do not do anything to hide it from their children. Slave owners did not tell their children that their slaves were individuals just like them. Nazis were not teaching their children that Jews, communists and homosexuals were people nonetheless."

Except you actually have proof that the Amazons did teach her about mercy and you see it twice in that issue alone before you get to the Minotaur; the fight with Aleka and the later one with the teacher, if she didnt know about it there she would have killed both and no one would have cared.

#85 Posted by FoxxFireArt (3554 posts) - - Show Bio

@Babs:

Yeah, I kind of went on a weird tangent. Sorry. lol I just felt that in a discussion that partially talked about Diana being an icon of feminism it was worth mentioning what defines it. Too often when people hear the word. The first thing they think of is angry man-hater. At the heart, it should be about having equal opportunities and the ability to choose.

I found this article fascinating in learning how the fictional character of Wonder Woman actually worried real life men that she was a "threat to masculinity", and this led to the creation of the Comic Code Authority. I didn't know that.

#86 Posted by sethysquare (3843 posts) - - Show Bio

@KingofMadCows said:

@sethysquare said:

maybe because of the same reason how you would not kill a dog or an elephant but u have no would not mind eating an egg.

Besides harpies are known to be pests and attacks humans but in this case the minotaurs is trapped in the cave and was already defeated. There isnt a point to kill it if he is not harming anyone.

Would you kill a tiger that is already injured and cant move?

But the harpy was a sentient intelligent being while the minotaur didn't appear to be much smarter than an average animal. There's a big difference between taking the egg of a creature with an intelligence comparable to a human and killing a beast that was maybe as intelligent as a wolf or maybe chimp.

Also, while it is true that harpies are evil in myths, the minotaur is also evil and kills people.

Uhm, are we sure that it had an intelligence of a human? Also, there haven't been good harpies, they're known as monsters and pest and would only harm people.

Also, the point is yes Minotaur also kills people according to myths. But, it is probably comparable to a tiger. Minotaurs are known to be aggressive and dangerous, but unlike harpies, they don't actually harm humans and create havoc and are usually isolated like in a cave or what not.

But the point is, if a tiger attacked you and you defeated it, it is no harm to you, would you kill it? Knowing that the tiger is kept in the cave and would not harm anyone.

I mean the creature is already lying there almost dead and you saw it in his eyes that its begging for mercy. Well, a compassionate person would let it live. Unless its a survivor reason, which it isn't, I dont see a point to kill it.

#87 Edited by KingofMadCows (345 posts) - - Show Bio

@sethysquare said:

Uhm, are we sure that it had an intelligence of a human? Also, there haven't been good harpies, they're known as monsters and pest and would only harm people.

Also, the point is yes Minotaur also kills people according to myths. But, it is probably comparable to a tiger. Minotaurs are known to be aggressive and dangerous, but unlike harpies, they don't actually harm humans and create havoc and are usually isolated like in a cave or what not.

But the point is, if a tiger attacked you and you defeated it, it is no harm to you, would you kill it? Knowing that the tiger is kept in the cave and would not harm anyone.

I mean the creature is already lying there almost dead and you saw it in his eyes that its begging for mercy. Well, a compassionate person would let it live. Unless its a survivor reason, which it isn't, I dont see a point to kill it.

The Harpy was able to talk. How many animals can talk?

And how do you know the harpy goes around harming people but the minotaur doesn't? There's no evidence to suggest that the harpy was any more malicious than the minotaur.

Of course, I probably wouldn't kill a helpless animal but I wouldn't steal the baby of a sentient being either.

If someone has problem stealing the child of a creature who is capable of human speech, why would they suddenly have a problem with killing a beast that showed no more intelligence than a dog?

@Outside_85 said:

Except you actually have proof that the Amazons did teach her about mercy and you see it twice in that issue alone before you get to the Minotaur; the fight with Aleka and the later one with the teacher, if she didnt know about it there she would have killed both and no one would have cared.

But Diana wasn't engaged in a fight to the death with either Akela or her teacher. There's a big difference between killing someone in a sparring match and killing someone in real combat. Not killing your opponent during practice isn't about mercy, it's just common sense since if the Amazons did that, their population would plummet since they practice fighting each other all the time.

The only time when Diana learned about showing mercy in a life or death situation was when Ares spared her after saying that their duel would be to the death.

#88 Posted by Outside_85 (9027 posts) - - Show Bio

@KingofMadCows: It's not really the point if it was training or not, Diana had both in a position where she could choose to end them, but she didn't. Also she starts off with asking Aleka to yield after she's disarmed her and Aleka ends up shouting it when Diana flips on her.

#89 Posted by sethysquare (3843 posts) - - Show Bio

@KingofMadCows said:

@sethysquare said:

Uhm, are we sure that it had an intelligence of a human? Also, there haven't been good harpies, they're known as monsters and pest and would only harm people.

Also, the point is yes Minotaur also kills people according to myths. But, it is probably comparable to a tiger. Minotaurs are known to be aggressive and dangerous, but unlike harpies, they don't actually harm humans and create havoc and are usually isolated like in a cave or what not.

But the point is, if a tiger attacked you and you defeated it, it is no harm to you, would you kill it? Knowing that the tiger is kept in the cave and would not harm anyone.

I mean the creature is already lying there almost dead and you saw it in his eyes that its begging for mercy. Well, a compassionate person would let it live. Unless its a survivor reason, which it isn't, I dont see a point to kill it.

The Harpy was able to talk. How many animals can talk?

And how do you know the harpy goes around harming people but the minotaur doesn't? There's no evidence to suggest that the harpy was any more malicious than the minotaur.

Of course, I probably wouldn't kill a helpless animal but I wouldn't steal the baby of a sentient being either.

If someone has problem stealing the child of a creature who is capable of human speech, why would they suddenly have a problem with killing a beast that showed no more intelligence than a dog?

@Outside_85 said:

Except you actually have proof that the Amazons did teach her about mercy and you see it twice in that issue alone before you get to the Minotaur; the fight with Aleka and the later one with the teacher, if she didnt know about it there she would have killed both and no one would have cared.

But Diana wasn't engaged in a fight to the death with either Akela or her teacher. There's a big difference between killing someone in a sparring match and killing someone in real combat. Not killing your opponent during practice isn't about mercy, it's just common sense since if the Amazons did that, their population would plummet since they practice fighting each other all the time.

The only time when Diana learned about showing mercy in a life or death situation was when Ares spared her after saying that their duel would be to the death.

seriously who gives a shit.

the writer can write anything he wants. in his world harpies are evil and should be slain but minotaurs are humane.

deal with it.

the point is she shows compassion. if you're so self righteous about it, stop eating chicken eggs. "King of mad cows"

#90 Posted by fps_dean (255 posts) - - Show Bio

Great article.

I do not take the fact that Wonder Woman was trained by Ares as necessarily meaning the Amazon's couldn't train her but that she went above and beyond and got training anywhere she could. Nor does it mean she was dependent on a man, bit she would accept training from one if they had anything to offer her.

It is what makes Wonder Woman who she is.

#91 Edited by KingofMadCows (345 posts) - - Show Bio

@sethysquare said:

seriously who gives a shit.

the writer can write anything he wants. in his world harpies are evil and should be slain but minotaurs are humane.

deal with it.

the point is she shows compassion. if you're so self righteous about it, stop eating chicken eggs. "King of mad cows"

Except the point is not that she showed compassion, the point is that there's nothing to suggest that she learned compassion from the Amazons. It would be like if the Terminator in T2 suddenly learned the value of human life without any interaction with John Connor or if Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day started out as a humble altruistic person.

If you're just going to accept anything the writer writes without considering the implications and the characterization then why even have this discussion in the first place? If your answer to questions about inconsistencies in characterization or plotting is "deal with it" then there's really no point in talking about any story.

And really? Resorting to personal attacks when discussing a work of fiction?

@Outside_85: Which has nothing to do with showing mercy in real combat. Just because Hippolyta stopped Diana from beating someone up doesn't mean she taught her to show mercy in combat. Ares was affectionate towards Diana during all their training sessions, he sparred with her, and he showed her mercy when he told her that their duel would be to the death. Yet, Ares told her to be ruthless towards the minotaur. What is there to suggest that the Amazons are any different than Ares? What is there to suggest that the Amazons don't treat practice differently than real combat like Ares? The only time they showed Diana learning mercy in combat was when Ares spared her after their duel. That suggests Diana learned to show mercy in combat from Ares, not the Amazons.

Of course, you can say that the Amazons taught it to her off panel but considering how this is supposed to be a pretty important arc for the character, it makes no sense to leave a major impetus for this change out of the story.

#92 Posted by Outside_85 (9027 posts) - - Show Bio

@KingofMadCows: It wasn't, as I said it was showed twice. And if you really want to hack the concept of mercy up like this, we could as easily say what Ares did wasn't mercy, he didn't want the fight in the first place and never had any intention of killing her as it would defeat the purpose of him trying to get her ready to take his place, no mercy, it was practicality.

#93 Posted by KingofMadCows (345 posts) - - Show Bio

@Outside_85: I didn't hack up the concept of mercy like that, the story did. Ares didn't go all Cobra Kai on Diana during their training. He wasn't completely ruthless to Diana all the time, so the story clearly shows a separation between showing mercy in practice and showing mercy in combat.

As for Ares being practical during the duel, if he was being practical, he wouldn't have agreed to the duel in the first place since it would have only hurt his goals. If he had killed Diana, he wouldn't have an heir. If he went back on his word and spared Diana, he would be teaching her that she does not have to be ruthless in combat all the time.

Anyway, the real issue is whether or not Wonder Woman should be treated like a myth. If this is a myth, then they don't need to explain where Diana learned mercy since heroes and gods in myths are just born with a certain set of innate morality, knowledge, and skills. For example, Zeus grew up in Kronus's stomach and yet he was able to gain the power and knowledge of an adult god. Similarly, Athena popped out of Zeus's head as an adult god. The gods are simply born that way, they don't need to learn or train or practice, they automatically develop the powers and knowledge of a god. It's the same thing with the heroes of myth. Hera sent snakes to kill Hercules right after he was born and Hercules was already strong enough to kill those snakes with his bare hands.

If this story is to be treated as a myth, then discussion's over. There's no need to explain anything since Diana was just born with the innate morality, honor, inner strength, etc. to be a hero. If this story is not supposed to be treated like a myth then the issues of where Diana learned her beliefs, morals, values, compassion, code of honor, etc. does matter. And it would take a lot more than a few wordless panels or off panel speculation to develop that arc.

#94 Posted by Outside_85 (9027 posts) - - Show Bio

@KingofMadCows: Nice to see you doing a 180 there m8te and your myth knowledge is rubbish apparently.

#95 Posted by brettjett (55 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheRyanHimself---"Wonder Woman herself is still a strong, dependable, self reliant, capable woman. I don't think it matters so much where she got those traits as long as she's shown possessing them." Hey Ryan. I'd say that's the right attitude to have in regards to WW's abilities. But I must inform you that WHERE she got them makes significant differences in the symbolic implications. And in this case, the Ares-as-trainer is VERY true to the aspect of the WW mythos that is related to her core: "Force adapted to Love". @DarthShap---"Sara seems to forget a fundamental change to the character and her mythos: Pre-New 52, she was raised in a feminist utopia....Post-New 52, it is completely different..The Amazons are somewhat closer to the myths and as such, villains..are amoral and barbaric..To this day, Azzarello still has not explained from whom Wonder-Woman got her values..." Well, Darthshap....Diana got her values from Diana. The idea behind the character wasn't that she HAD to have gotten her values from her Amazon sisters. The point of the character is that she is The ONE. The one who holds to the Marston family value of stepping in to stop bullies. @Mercy_ MODERATOR-----" This was a great and incredibly insightful article. Enjoyable and educational read. Those links are definitely something that I'll be checking" MERCY, If you think this article & its links are educational, you should check out mine: https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/ndcOke and http://www.worldofsuperheroes.com/exclusive-news/who-is-wonder-woman-by-brett-jett/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Man! This article is a continuation of a theme for WW this year (her 70th) that analyzes who she truly is and has been....in addition to my article/unpublished-book by the same title. I recently found out about this #0 issue and went out and bought it. After I read it, it confirmed to me what I suspected months ago when I investigated this new WW incarnation...DC knows what its doing now. And let me tell you all....this new WW has more implications than you think! But it sucks that I don't have more time to chat with you guys about right now! I'll be back on the internet probably in February 2013 with a new article I had written about this new WW...and now I must amend it with my report on this #0 issue which further contains shadows of the original marston WW in it! (HINT: Ares training WW, and then her having altered his warlike training due to her humanity, is a demonstration of Marston's core concept for both WW and for society..... Force-Strength adapted to LOVE-Humanity. Obviously this Azzarello guy knows what he's doing. But more on that in a few months!)

#96 Edited by KingofMadCows (345 posts) - - Show Bio

@Outside_85: Where did I do a 180? I was simply talking about the perspective one uses to approach a story. If you approach a science fantasy story as if it's hard sci-fi then you'll end up with a bunch of questions about how things work and you won't enjoy the story. If you approach a myth as if it has nuanced and deep characters, then you'll be disappointed and find the story lacking.

And how is my knowledge of myths rubbish? I'll admit that I made a mistake about Zeus, I meant the other gods that Kronus swallowed. Hades, Poseidon, Hestia, etc. They grew up in Kronus's stomach and yet they did not have to get an education or any training. There's even one version of Zeus's myth that he was raised by a goat. But my point was that gods and heroes in myths are born with a certain set of knowledge, skills, morality that they simply don't need to learn.

If you treat Wonder Woman like it's a myth then there's a lot of things that really don't really need to explain. You don't need to explain why Poseidon was willing to go to war with Hera over an unsubstantiated rumor. You don't need to explain why Hades was willing to give up his desire to take Zeus's throne just so he can torment Wonder Woman. You don't need to explain why Hera started believing that Zeus would return despite having no evidence. You don't need to explain why Wonder Woman was able to grow up to be the person she was despite being raised in a depraved society.

So it's a question whether you treat this series more like a myth where things are simple, emotions are exaggerated, and motivations are shallow, or whether you treat the series as having more nuance and depth where there are multiple factors affecting a character's behaviors and societies and cultures have more complex rules of conduct.

#97 Edited by finiteman (8 posts) - - Show Bio

Great post. You have really explained my main complaints with DC's handling of Wonder Woman (I have similar issues with the treatment of Captain Marvel). I admire your tact. You pointed out things to consider without being overly harsh on the creators (often a failing for me on this subject) or being heavy handed in your presentation.

I have been reading the new52 Wonder Woman series and overall I am fairly disappointed. My disappointment is with the leadership at DC, not so much the creators. The creators were tasked with coming up with a fresh take on the character. This is as good as any take on WW since Marston passed. It is a well written series with appealing art. The art at times screams "mythology!"

My main gripe is that it isn't Wonder Woman. You could have easily written pretty much the same series about Big Barda. The whole "why aren't there any men on Paradise Island" idea was a story that I am sure every wonder Woman writer since the creator considered writing and laying over the WW mythos, but ultimately the likely plots would have painted the Amazons as disgusting people.

Likewise Diana having a dad I am sure was considered many times over, but again detracts from the mythology so earlier writers and editors chose not to go there.

I am not saying the current Wonder Woman books are not solid books. I am saying what kind of basis are they creating for creators to work from in 3-4 years? Is there anything there that suggest Wonder Woman is going to be one of DC's best selling books at that point? Protecting that future potential is the role of the leadership at DC and the editors.

I think the creators are strong enough that they really didn't need to cleave away major elements of the character to deliver compelling stories. So why were they allowed to do so?

To me, the point of the clean start should have been to re-lay the foundation of the DC Universe and rediscover the compelling magic of each of their core characters, not to pare stuff away. The great comic characters should force you to be a better writer. The idea of cutting major elements so it is easier to write seems likely to yield disappointing returns down the road.

I think for the most part they blew the clean start ...and that may mean another clean start in a few years. Much like Heroes Reborn begat Heroes Return.

I think they have cut away at their characters' identities to try to get them to fit into a shared universe. Overall few of their characters recaptured lost compelling elements in this reboot and that is just a shame. (Action Comics being one of the few exceptions. The early issues pull right from the original superman stories and the character is stronger from that rediscovery of it's roots.)

#98 Posted by jphulk26 (1332 posts) - - Show Bio

Where is Gail Simone and greg ruckas work. you can´t talk about WW without mentioning them.

#99 Posted by ceilingkats (1 posts) - - Show Bio

I have tried to like the 52 Wonder Woman, but I just find it to be boring. There is no connection to the character as she has been hence I don't care that much one way or the other about what happens to her. She could be any other female comic character. She seems WAY less powerful and WAY less mature - by that I mean emotionally mature not necessarily age - I'm reading it because she is one of my favorite characters but give me the Rucka Wonder Woman any day over this one.

#100 Posted by brettjett (55 posts) - - Show Bio

Who is WW, you ask?

Ask a Marston scholar (me):

http://www.worldofsuperheroes.com/tag/wonder-woman-history/

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.