Perez #1 Discussion

[brettc1]

An arrogant man swagger into their territory, crowing about how he's going to conquer them all.....and Hippolyta deserves criticism for throwing back a couple retorts?

So Hippolyta should only approach violent people with a beatific smile and an offer of a hug now? Interesting viewpoint.

Heracles was going to attack the Amazons regardless of what Hippolyta said or didn't say. She could've approached him wearing a Heracles-themed cheerleader outfit and chanting his name and nothing would've changed. There is nothing wrong with a leader approaching a violent aggressor from a position of strength.

Of course we know that Heracles attack was plot induced and therefore inevitable, but the characters within the story don't.

It's one thing to display strength, but another to say things that are only going to goad you enemy into a fight that you supposedly wish to avoid. So yes, I am criticizing her dialogue.

Hippolyta here is written as jumping straight into declaring that she and the Amazons are going to lead and expects others to follow. That immediately does not propose an alliance of equals. If we are going to use hyperbole, her words boil down you "You're not very clever. I'm much better than you. We should be in charge."

Actually that isn't hyperbole - more like a summation.

That might be how 16th century European conquerors handled a first contact, but if I recall it very rarely led to peaceful coexistence. In fact, never.

[Vanguard-01]

It's one thing to display strength, but another to say things that are only going to goad you enemy into a fight that you supposedly wish to avoid. So yes, I am criticizing her dialogue.

You stand up to bullies by standing up to them. Not by stroking their egos and making them think you're afraid of them.

Hippolyta here is written as jumping straight into declaring that she and the Amazons are going to lead and expects others to follow. That immediately does not propose an alliance of equals. If we are going to use hyperbole, her words boil down you "You're not very clever. I'm much better than you. We should be in charge."

Actually that isn't hyperbole - more like a summation.

In ancient cultures, boasting was part and parcel of the diplomatic process. Read the Illiad sometimes, half the dialogue is one warrior or another boasting about his accomplishments and how no one can stand against him. It's all posturing designed to show strength and attempt to undermine your enemy's confidence.

"Why IS this woman provoking me like this? Either she's a suicidal idiot, or she might know something that I don't."

That might be how 16th century European conquerors handled a first contact, but if I recall it very rarely led to peaceful coexistence. In fact, never.

Tiny difference: the European conquerors were the AGGRESSORS in those encounters. They came into a region knowing full-well that they were going to conquer it no matter what the natives did. It didn't matter if the natives came to them and bowed down at the sight of them or if they grabbed their weapons and got ready to attack.

Expecting people who are merely defending their homes to bow and scrape before their attackers is simply not how people work.

[brettc1]

You stand up to bullies by standing up to them. Not by stroking their egos and making them think you're afraid of them.

And there is no middle ground here? You cannot stand up strong without making the other person feel inferior and belittling them? That seems wrong to me.

In ancient cultures, boasting was part and parcel of the diplomatic process. Read the Illiad sometimes, half the dialogue is one warrior or another boasting about his accomplishments and how no one can stand against him. It's all posturing designed to show strength and attempt to undermine your enemy's confidence.

"Why IS this woman provoking me like this? Either she's a suicidal idiot, or she might know something that I don't."

Boasting might be a very important part of how the patriarchal societies of the time handled things, but having read the Iliad in High School I again seem to recall that this chest beating rarely, if ever, prevented a blood fight from ensuing. Indeed, it was more likely to cause conflict simply because the other person did not want to be seen as weak by backing down.

So, a very hyper-masculine way to deal with introductions, but not really a very Amazon approach, I would say.

Tiny difference: the European conquerors were the AGGRESSORS in those encounters. They came into a region knowing full-well that they were going to conquer it no matter what the natives did. It didn't matter if the natives came to them and bowed down at the sight of them or if they grabbed their weapons and got ready to attack.

Expecting people who are merely defending their homes to bow and scrape before their attackers is simply not how people work.

And is Hippolyta acting so differently here. Her words telling Heracles that the Amazons are going to lead is easily misconstrued as a demand for unconditional surrender before hostilities have even begun.

Again, you make no room for a middle road. If you can find a place where I asked for the Amazons to bow and scrape you should post it immediately.

But this is exactly the kind of attitude that leads to conflict - the belief that if you take a more moderate tone that you are immediately showing weakness.

[Vanguard-01]

And there is no middle ground here? You cannot stand up strong without making the other person feel inferior and belittling them? That seems wrong to me.

Heracles belittled them first. If he doesn't want his delicate baby ego bruised, maybe he should consider NOT trying to do the same thing to other people.

Heracles was at fault for all of this. Hippolyta cannot be blamed for refusing to let him intimidate her. The mere fact that she offered him a hand in friendship after their battle is all the proof one needs that Hippolyta was in the moral right.

Boasting might be a very important part of how the patriarchal societies of the time handled things, but having read the Iliad in High School I again seem to recall that this chest beating rarely, if ever, prevented a blood fight from ensuing. Indeed, it was more likely to cause conflict simply because the other person did not want to be seen as weak by backing down.

So, a very hyper-masculine way to deal with introductions, but not really a very Amazon approach, I would say.

The boasting very often wasn't about avoiding conflict. It was about demoralizing your enemy so that they'd fight less effectively, or decide not to fight you at all because they don't think they can beat you.

And Hippolyta was speaking to Heracles in the language he understood. He came to her boasting and posturing. She boasted and postured right back at him.

Key difference? If Heracles had won their fight, he would've raped and/or killed Hippolyta. Hippolyta won and offered him a hand and an opportunity to see the futility of solving one's problems through violence.

Sounds like a very Amazon approach to me.

And is Hippolyta acting so differently here. Her words telling Heracles that the Amazons are going to lead is easily misconstrued as a demand for unconditional surrender before hostilities have even begun.

If you are the aggressor in a conflict then it is YOUR fault if a conflict begins. What the defender says or does not say is irrelevant. If you don't want a fight, you don't invade someone else's home and try to convince THEM that they should just bow down to you and accept your superiority over them.

Herc was the European conquerors. Hippolyta was the crafty native leader who stopped an invasion of her home and then had the grace to offer the aggressors a chance for peace.

Again, you make no room for a middle road. If you can find a place where I asked for the Amazons to bow and scrape you should post it immediately.

Mostly because I don't believe that bullies deserve to have their feelings protected. If you show up on my doorstep and threaten me, you should NOT expect ME to be the one to try to be nice here.

[brettc1]

Heracles belittled them first. If he doesn't want his delicate baby ego bruised, maybe he should consider NOT trying to do the same thing to other people.

Heracles was at fault for all of this. Hippolyta cannot be blamed for refusing to let him intimidate her. The mere fact that she offered him a hand in friendship after their battle is all the proof one needs that Hippolyta was in the moral right.

Assigning blame never helped one dead victim.

You can not be intimidated and still not say things that are quite obviously going to inflame the situation. Maybe Perez was working to show that Hippolyta didn't really understand that.

The boasting very often wasn't about avoiding conflict. It was about demoralizing your enemy so that they'd fight less effectively, or decide not to fight you at all because they don't think they can beat you.

Didn't work.

And Hippolyta was speaking to Heracles in the language he understood. He came to her boasting and posturing. She boasted and postured right back at him.

It's a great patriarchal approach to starting a fight, I agree. Not so good if you are trying to disarm a conflict with a crazy person.

Key difference? If Heracles had won their fight, he would've raped and/or killed Hippolyta. Hippolyta won and offered him a hand and an opportunity to see the futility of solving one's problems through violence.

Sounds like a very Amazon approach to me.

No, it isn't. Because the Amazons are not just about avoiding a fight. They are supposed to be making allies to make a better world. So maybe she was deliberately goading him into fighting so she could beat him? Possible I suppose. But still, not the best way to approach making a lasting alliance...

If you are the aggressor in a conflict then it is YOUR fault if a conflict begins. What the defender says or does not say is irrelevant. If you don't want a fight, you don't invade someone else's home and try to convince THEM that they should just bow down to you and accept your superiority over them.

Herc was the European conquerors. Hippolyta was the crafty native leader who stopped an invasion of her home and then had the grace to offer the aggressors a chance for peace.

What both sides say is entirely relevant. Let's remember that to Heracles, Hippolyta is the aggressor. He genuinely believes the Amazons are evil because of the false propaganda spread about them.

And Hippolyta didn't actually stop the invasion.

Mostly because I don't believe that bullies deserve to have their feelings protected. If you show up on my doorstep and threaten me, you should NOT expect ME to be the one to try to be nice here.

A better analogy here would be - if a hostage negotiator goads a dangerous armed perp into killing hostages, that's a fail.

[Vanguard-01]

Assigning blame never helped one dead victim.

No, but it's sure useful for determining who deserves to be punished for the crime and who doesn't.

You can not be intimidated and still not say things that are quite obviously going to inflame the situation. Maybe Perez was working to show that Hippolyta didn't really understand that.

Or maybe Perez just doesn't share your opinion that Hippolyta should be some flawless saint who fights her enemies with smiles and passivity.

Didn't work.

Worked great actually. Ever noticed that none of the rank-and-file warriors seemed to dare to attack Achilles, Hector, or the Ajaxes? They were plenty intimidated and only too happy to hang back and let the heroes fight it out.

No, it isn't. Because the Amazons are not just about avoiding a fight. They are supposed to be making allies to make a better world. So maybe she was deliberately goading him into fighting so she could beat him? Possible I suppose. But still, not the best way to approach making a lasting alliance...

One side provokes a fight, wins, and then behaves graciously toward the other? Nope. Works fine. The losing side has only himself to blame for the loss of the fight and then his opponent still treats him well and with respect? Yeah, pretty much only psychopaths respond poorly to that.

Oh, wait....

What both sides say is entirely relevant. Let's remember that to Heracles, Hippolyta is the aggressor. He genuinely believes the Amazons are evil because of the false propaganda spread about them.

Where the HECK are you getting this? Where was it written in the books that Heracles believed the Amazons to be evil? I remember him swaggering around, talking about how he was going to conquer them, but I definitely don't remember him making any self-righteous declarations against them.

And Hippolyta didn't actually stop the invasion.

She stopped the violent invasion. She didn't stop the sneak attack under a flag of truce. Big difference.

This is starting to sound like victim-blaming. Hippolyta didn't coddle the raping, mass murdering psychopath and thus she somehow shares some responsibility for what happened to her and her people?

[brettc1]

No, but it's sure useful for determining who deserves to be punished for the crime and who doesn't.

Heracles was indeed punished. But the dead remain dead.

Or maybe Perez just doesn't share your opinion that Hippolyta should be some flawless saint who fights her enemies with smiles and passivity.

You should probably stop making things up now.

Worked great actually. Ever noticed that none of the rank-and-file warriors seemed to dare to attack Achilles, Hector, or the Ajaxes? They were plenty intimidated and only too happy to hang back and let the heroes fight it out.

No, that is just a different level of failure. You still end up with lots of dead people.

One side provokes a fight, wins, and then behaves graciously toward the other? Nope. Works fine. The losing side has only himself to blame for the loss of the fight and then his opponent still treats him well and with respect? Yeah, pretty much only psychopaths respond poorly to that.

Oh, wait....

That's crazy. Absolutely crazy. Humiliating a person to make friends with them is probably the silliest thing I have heard today.

Where the HECK are you getting this? Where was it written in the books that Heracles believed the Amazons to be evil? I remember him swaggering around, talking about how he was going to conquer them, but I definitely don't remember him making any self-righteous declarations against them.

Where am I getting it? Well from the actual book, obviously.

I suggest you go back and read Perez #1 again. In the first page where you see Heracles you will read that the Kings of Greece coerced or forced storytellers to spread false reports about the evil and cruelty of the Amazons, describing them as being 'even inhuman' in their practices.

The woman Heracles is sleeping with further spreads malicious rumors about Hippolyta's own disrespect of him personally.

She stopped the violent invasion. She didn't stop the sneak attack under a flag of truce. Big difference.

This is starting to sound like victim-blaming. Hippolyta didn't coddle the raping, mass murdering psychopath and thus she somehow shares some responsibility for what happened to her and her people?

There is no difference. The invasion happened.

I dont think she is repsonsible, but I do think that the way Perez writes her does not display the wisdom she is supposed to possess. Heracles was going to attack her anyway, but another more rationale person might have done the same based on her words.

Without doing any of the bowing and scrapping you are making up me having suggested, Hippolyta could have said...

"We want to work with you."

"We both have strengths and they would be better working in harmony."

And probably instructing her people not to laugh at the volatile guy with an army behind him would have helped too.

[Vanguard-01]

Yeah, sorry. I'm not buying how coddling the ego of a raping, mass-murdering psychopath is in any way a good idea. Herc was in the wrong. He deserved to get his pathetic ego bruised, and I think Hippolyta was plenty wise to try to humble him before trying to make peace with him. if she didn't humble him, he NEVER would've viewed her as anything CLOSE to an equal. All the honeyed words and tactful evasions would NOT have convinced him to show her any respect.

And if you don't get how losing a fight can help foster friendship? It was EXTREMELY common in ancient times for martial artists to meet, challenge each other, fight, and then discuss the outcome of their fight in order for both fighters to decide what they could learn from it. The victor, obviously, got reinforcement that his/her particular fighting style is very effective. The loser would get to reflect upon WHY he/she lost and what he/she could've done differently.

There's nothing "crazy" about the idea of teaching an arrogant man humility in order to get him to actually listen to you.

[brettc1]

Yeah, sorry. I'm not buying how coddling the ego of a raping, mass-murdering psychopath is in any way a good idea. Herc was in the wrong. He deserved to get his pathetic ego bruised, and I think Hippolyta was plenty wise to try to humble him before trying to make peace with him. if she didn't humble him, he NEVER would've viewed her as anything CLOSE to an equal. All the honeyed words and tactful evasions would NOT have convinced him to show her any respect.

And if you don't get how losing a fight can help foster friendship? It was EXTREMELY common in ancient times for martial artists to meet, challenge each other, fight, and then discuss the outcome of their fight in order for both fighters to decide what they could learn from it. The victor, obviously, got reinforcement that his/her particular fighting style is very effective. The loser would get to reflect upon WHY he/she lost and what he/she could've done differently.

There's nothing "crazy" about the idea of teaching an arrogant man humility in order to get him to actually listen to you.

There were many things common in ancient times that the Amazons were supposed to correct. Not perpetuate.

It's also important to remember that at the point where Hippolyta Starts Pointing out Heracles inadequacies and then asks to be put in charge, he is neither a murderer nor a rapist. And is he is a psychopath to any degree its at least partially the fault of Hera, who the text says has plagued him with madness.

Of course the plot must unfold as it will, but twelve issues later Perez has Diana discussing the nobility she has heard about Heracles in the outside world. The Amazons as a race also forgive him.

If the story were in the real world it would be worth reflecting on how that encounter could have been handled differently, and whether it might have changed the outcome. Literary Heracles is a puppet of the writer but real people have choices. Even in the Lord of the Rings (the book) Gollum comes to a moment of moral crisis where he almost repents and helps Frodo, but some unfortunate words from Sam tip the scales in the favor of evil.

[Awonder]

Assigning blame never helped one dead victim.

And what is your point in assigning blame to the victim?

While I think I know you well enough to know this is not your intent, but this is sounding an awful lot like "Oh, it's not his fault he hit me; it's my fault for saying something that upset him. I should know better."

The woman Heracles is sleeping with further spreads malicious rumors about Hippolyta's own disrespect of him personally.

And what was Hercules' reaction to her? Is this not further proof that Hercules had anger management and self-control problems?

I dont think she is repsonsible, but I do think that the way Perez writes her does not display the wisdom she is supposed to possess. Heracles was going to attack her anyway, but another more rationale person might have done the same based on her words.

And why should Hippolyta speak to this hypothetical "more rationale person" that isn't there?

Without doing any of the bowing and scrapping you are making up me having suggested, Hippolyta could have said...

"We want to work with you."

"We both have strengths and they would be better working in harmony."

And probably instructing her people not to laugh at the volatile guy with an army behind him would have helped too.

This is primarily based on what YOU would like to hear, right? But, we know that we don't all respond to the same words in the same way.

More important, no matter what she says, it's just words. Nothing more. Words don't set the stage for violent conflict unless you think we as "rational" thinking humans are incapable of not reacting to words without resorting to violence. And, I don't believe you think that.

The stage for violence, as you called it, was set by Hercules when he marched his army to her door. He, and his army, chose this violence. She, and the Amazons, defended themselves.

[Awonder]

And if you don't get how losing a fight can help foster friendship? It was EXTREMELY common in ancient times for martial artists to meet, challenge each other, fight, and then discuss the outcome of their fight in order for both fighters to decide what they could learn from it...

It's not just ancient times, you still see this in modern mma.

[Vanguard-01]

There were many things common in ancient times that the Amazons were supposed to correct. Not perpetuate.

There is nothing inherently wrong with two martial artists testing their skills against each other. Especially not when it's done in the respectful format in which most ancient cultures insisted. Now, sure, that's not what happened in this issue, but that was only because Heracles chose to buck protocol and go straight to belittling and degrading Hippolyta and the Amazons. Once again, by the standards of these ancient cultures, Heracles would be the one viewed as the uncivilized boor. Not Hippolyta.

The Amazons like competition just fine. This is not one of those things that they would think needs to be purged from the world.

It's also important to remember that at the point where Hippolyta Starts Pointing out Heracles inadequacies and then asks to be put in charge, he is neither a murderer nor a rapist.

He killed people long before he came to Themiscyra. He was very much a murderer.

He came to Themiscyra with the express intention of raping and enslaving Hippolyta and the rest of the Amazons. He was very much a rapist.

And is he is a psychopath to SNY degree its at least partially the fault of Hera, who the text says has plagued him with madness.

This is the same guy who murdered his own music teacher because he was frustrated that he couldn't play the lyre very well. This incident happened LONG before Hera cursed him. Heracles always displayed psychopathic tendencies. The curse from Hera was just a convenient excuse.

[Awonder]

There is nothing inherently wrong with two martial artists testing their skills against each other. Especially not when it's done in the respectful format in which most ancient cultures insisted. Now, sure, that's not what happened in this issue, but that was only because Heracles chose to buck protocol and go straight to belittling and degrading Hippolyta and the Amazons. Once again, by the standards of these ancient cultures, Heracles would be the one viewed as the uncivilized boor. Not Hippolyta.

The Amazons like competition just fine. This is not one of those things that they would think needs to be purged from the world.

One bad part about online debates is that you can't hear the applause - but, this is me clapping. You're doing a great job, Vangaurd.

To add to this point - Brett, you're Australian, right? So, I'm assuming you know some rugby. What do the All Blacks do before each match?

Now, that's not meant to be friendly and build allies with the other team. And, rugby can get pretty rough. But, after the match has ended, is it not possible for these people that have been bashing each other repeatedly to get up after and shake hands in mutual respect?

Yes, I know that rugby isn't actual war. Nor are comic books. Perez-WW #1 isn't meant as a manual on hostage negotiations. Superheroes aren't even meant to be real. What "realism" is there is, at best, a somewhat distorted/exaggerated reflection. And, in that reflection, do we not see that the person that started the violence is responsible for starting the violence, not the person who maybe could have said something a little better?

[brettc1]

And what is your point in assigning blame to the victim?

While I think I know you well enough to know this is not your intent, but this is sounding an awful lot like "Oh, it's not his fault he hit me; it's my fault for saying something that upset him. I should know better."

Or, is it both people's responsibility because they both made unfortunate choices.

We all know that Heracles doesn't have free will here and the plot/writer dictates he MUST betray the Amazons. But in the real world leaders can and should reflect carefully on their choice of words [or in modern times, Tweets].

And what was Hercules' reaction to her? Is this not further proof that Hercules had anger management and self-control problems?

And why should Hippolyta speak to this hypothetical "more rationale person" that isn't there?

This assumes meta knowledge of the plot that is obvious to the reader sitting in his chair but cannot be assumed to shared by the characters in the story. Having not met Heracles before and knowing him by reputation, is it not reasonable for Hippolyta to assume that he can be reasoned with? Indeed, she MUST assume that, or else why invite him inside the city?

This is primarily based on what YOU would like to hear, right? But, we know that we don't all respond to the same words in the same way.

More important, no matter what she says, it's just words. Nothing more. Words don't set the stage for violent conflict unless you think we as "rational" thinking humans are incapable of not reacting to words without resorting to violence. And, I don't believe you think that.

Everyone naturally argues from their point of view. You are happy with the words here because the situation matches with your perceptions. I don't see things the same way.

And - you'd be only partially correct. Words are incredibly important. The right word can make a friend, the wrong word an enemy. Words can start wars or avoid them. This is the very essence of diplomacy.

The stage for violence, as you called it, was set by Hercules when he marched his army to her door. He, and his army, chose this violence. She, and the Amazons, defended themselves.

Not straight away. First they attempted to open a dialogue to try and win the Greeks as allies. This is clearly Hippolyta's goal. She wants to make friends.

She just doesn't do a very good job of it. To put the question back to you, if you had a grievance with someone you had only just met and you confronted them, and they responded by telling you that...

1. you were being foolish

2.they were smarter than you and

3. they should be in charge, and you should follow their lead

...would you react by agreeing with them or by getting angry with them? Honestly, tell me which?

Remember also that Heracles and his army initiated violence because of information manipulated by a third party - Ares. So in purely hypothetical terms based on people who had free will, even when Heracles marches to their doorstep there is still a chance to avoid an actual confrontation.

My point is that, in a real world situation, Hippolyta's words here do not reduce the chances of that confrontation, they increase it.

[Awonder]

Or, is it both people's responsibility because they both made unfortunate choices.

No, it really isn't "both people's responsibility." Hippolyta is not responsible for Hercules' choices. Yes, I know, the author makes the choices. But, since you keep talking about this as if they are real, then how is Hercules not responsible for what he chooses to do? Do you let your school kids punch each other based on "he made me do it, because he said something mean"? Or, do you teach them it may be hurtful for Child A to say something mean, but that doesn't mean Child B gets to attack Child A?

And, Hercules is no child. He just acts like one sometimes.

This assumes meta knowledge of the plot that is obvious to the reader sitting in his chair but cannot be assumed to shared by the characters in the story. Having not met Heracles before and knowing him by reputation, is it not reasonable for Hippolyta to assume that he can be reasoned with? Indeed, she MUST assume that, or else why invite him inside the city?

So, now she's wrong for treating him like he can be reasonable?

Everyone naturally argues from their point of view. You are happy with the words here because the situation matches with your perceptions. I don't see things the same way.

I never said I was happy with the words nor that it matched my perception. What I'm unhappy with is you ascribing the blame to her. She did not set the stage for violent conflict. He did. He brought the army. He chose to attack. He is capable of intelligent thought and made his own choices. Any "fault" in her words are just words. Words from others do not control us unless we give up our control of self - which is really just an excuse. "She made me do it" is not a valid defense.

And - you'd be only partially correct. Words are incredibly important. The right word can make a friend, the wrong word an enemy. Words can start wars or avoid them. This is the very essence of diplomacy.

Yes, I know where you are going with this, because my country could be smack dab in the middle of a literal World War 3 thanks to two idtiots that should be banned from Twitter.

Not straight away. First they attempted to open a dialogue to try and win the Greeks as allies. This is clearly Hippolyta's goal. She wants to make friends.

And she extends her hand in friendship even after, he not only uses bad words, but attacks her.

She just doesn't do a very good job of it. To put the question back to you, if you had a grievance with someone you had only just met and you confronted them, and they responded by telling you that...

1. you were being foolish

2.they were smarter than you and

3. they should be in charge, and you should follow their lead

...would you react by agreeing with them or by getting angry with them? Honestly, tell me which?

You've been telling me this for years, and I still consider you a friend.

I have been called much, much worse than "foolish," and, no, I haven't attacked anyone for WORDS since grade school (I did warn him).

Remember also that Heracles and his army initiated violence because of information manipulated by a third party - Ares. So in purely hypothetical terms based on people who had free will, even when Heracles marches to their doorstep there is still a chance to avoid an actual confrontation.

Yes, Heracles has the CHOICE to not attack. It's his CHOICE. Her words are her words. His actions are his actions. She didn't make him do anything. He CHOSE violence.

My point is that, in a real world situation, Hippolyta's words here do not reduce the chances of that confrontation, they increase it.

Again, we don't all respond to the same words. There is no perfect thing to say that's going to reduce the chances of confrontation. If you don't believe me, then why has Child A in Asia never really "reduced the chance for conflict" no matter what anyone from any country has said to him?