Batman #40 Preview.

[cheswick]

She totally is. King didn't have to write a temptation arc he didn't have to put her in a position where readers might Cast her in that role. He could have just written the same type of story he gave supes. no ambiguity no confusion

King chose to put them into a story where they experienced not just physical conflict, but also emotional conflict, and one that, ultimately, showed the strength of Bruce and Selina's relationship (as well as Bruce and Diana's friendship). My initial point still holds: Some people are holding Diana to different standards than Bruce, casting her as a "temptress", etc. A writer cannot be faulted for some people's values coloring their interpretation of a story.

That said, stacked up against the rest of the run, I didn't think it (#39) was a great issue. I thought the "cliffhanger" was cheap and cheesy. In television, they used to call that type of ending "schmuckbait", because only "schmucks" would fall for it.

[cheswick]

Baffles me how people are still missing that point.

So Bruce is the one who pulls back. Bollocks. Can't say how much I hate that or how unfair that is to wondie's character. If there is a God this run is headed for the retcon bin

I do think it would have been better if they would have said it simultaneously. It would have been kind of sitcom-y, but could have added some levity to the awkward situation of two friends almost making a huge mistake. Which, seems to be what King is trying for there.

[CryNotWolf]

Wonder Woman is in the same situation as Bruce and facing the same circumstances, yet you view her as "temptress" because she's the woman in the situation? That's incredibly sexist of you.

Readers probably view her as being shoehorned into the role of a temptress due to her suggestive dialogue in the other dimension, among other things. There's the framing of the story itself. Diana was the one who initiated everything, she waltzes into Bruce's town. She whisks him off far away from his fiance. No mention was made of her significant other. She's made to look absolutely irresistible and suggestive in multiple panels. I mean it's quite obvious, all things told. That was her entire role in the issue, and it was to get tongues wagging.

Your assumption that King penned role of the literary tempter on an equal footing with both Bruce and Diana just seems very poorly thought out to me.

[cheswick]

Readers probably view her as being shoehorned into the role of a temptress due to her suggestive dialogue in the other dimension, among other things. There's the framing of the story itself. Diana was the one who initiated everything, she waltzes into Bruce's town. She whisks him off far away from his fiance. No mention was made of her significant other. She's made to look absolutely irresistible and suggestive in multiple panels. I mean it's quite obvious, all things told. That was her entire role in the issue, and it was to get tongues wagging.

Your assumption that King penned role of the literary tempter on an equal footing with both Bruce and Diana just seems very poorly thought out to me.

There is absolutely no suggestive dialogue on Diana's part in the entire issue. The closest thing is "even without the pointy ears you don't look so bad", which is flirtatious at best, but ultimately a joke. As far as "made to look irresistible" goes, she looks like Wonder Woman always looks. Bruce was the one sitting around topless. The only panel that could, fairly, be called obvious titillation is the scene where Diana is wet. But, even then, she is fully clothed/wearing her usual costume (as she is in every scene).
And "waltzes into town" and "whisks him off", when she was simply reminding him of a previous obligation, is a bit much. Bruce made the obligation and chose to keep it. You make it seem like he had no choice while up against her female-wiles. Why not go all the way and call her a "Jezebelle" or "home wrecker".

[anarki]

There is absolutely no suggestive dialogue on Diana's part in the entire issue. The closest thing is "even without the pointy ears you don't look so bad", which is flirtatious at best, but ultimately a joke. As far as "made to look irresistible" goes, she looks like Wonder Woman always looks. Bruce was the one sitting around topless. The only panel that could, fairly, be called obvious titillation is the scene where Diana is wet. But, even then, she is fully clothed/wearing her usual costume (as she is in every scene).
And "waltzes into town" and "whisks him off", when she was simply reminding him of a previous obligation, is a bit much. Bruce made the obligation and chose to keep it. You make it seem like he had no choice while up against her female-wiles. Why not go all the way and call her a "Jezebelle" or "home wrecker".

If you have to argue with everyone, I think at least we can say it's misleading writing.(if not intentional)

[gregpersons]

If you have to argue with everyone, I think at least we can say it's misleading writing.(if not intentional)

I think it's clearly intentional — the point Tom King is trying to make with her lines and portrayals in #39 is "Wonder Woman is obviously attractive, she is literally a goddess, the beautiful woman in the world, great warrior, intelligent, charming... AND she may be attracted to Batman." You are supposed to see her as attractive. It's to set up the point in #40 which will likely be "Yet even in a situation where he's stranded on a desert island for 10 years with this person, Batman is so committed to Catwoman that he would barely even consider it."

[CryNotWolf]

There is absolutely no suggestive dialogue on Diana's part in the entire issue. The closest thing is "even without the pointy ears you don't look so bad", which is flirtatious at best, but ultimately a joke.

"And yet here you are without her...with me."

As far as "made to look irresistible" goes, she looks like Wonder Woman always looks. Bruce was the one sitting around topless. The only panel that could, fairly, be called obvious titillation is the scene where Diana is wet. But, even then, she is fully clothed/wearing her usual costume (as she is in every scene).

Yes, we literally see her bathing while she muses about Bruce missing ol' whats-her-name, reminding him that she's not there.

And "waltzes into town" and "whisks him off", when she was simply reminding him of a previous obligation, is a bit much. Bruce made the obligation and chose to keep it. You make it seem like he had no choice while up against her female-wiles. Why not go all the way and call her a "Jezebelle" or "home wrecker".

Yeah...as I said that's the framing of the story. And I don't appreciate you shifting words onto me, but yes "homewrecker" would be an apt term for the situation as presented in issue 39. Wonder Woman initiated everything in the story, she was the central motor of the plot and dialogue. She received word, she came to Gotham, she opened the portal, she referenced their situation, she commented on Bruce's appearance, yada yada yada. Bruce was just along for the ride, he possessed very little sense of literary autonomy in the issue. It's HIS establishment at play, his relationship at risk, his story being interrupted. It IS his book after all. And it was all meant to convey and subsequently address some kind of hypothetical conflict or drama in the relationship between Batman and Catwoman.

It's not "sexism" to see what King was doing. He wasn't exactly being subtle about it.

[cheswick]

If you have to argue with everyone, I think at least we can say it's misleading writing.(if not intentional)

I just seems to me, sometimes, that some people's dislike of a writer can prevent them from being objective about a story's actual, verifiable content.

As far as arguing goes, there's nothing wrong a good debate. Otherwise, these boards would be a ghost town. I just wish people would stop with the thinly-veiled insults lobbed at people who disagree with them. Along those lines, I regret calling Barbatos666 sexist, but rather should have stated that what he/she said came across to me, personally, as sexist.

[Barbatos666]

"And yet here you are without her...with me."



Yes, we literally see her bathing while she muses about Bruce missing ol' whats-her-name, reminding him that she's not there.



Yeah...as I said that's the framing of the story. And I don't appreciate you shifting words onto me, but yes "homewrecker" would be an apt term for the situation as presented in issue 39. Wonder Woman initiated everything in the story, she was the central motor of the plot and dialogue. She received word, she came to Gotham, she opened the portal, she referenced their situation, she commented on Bruce's appearance, yada yada yada. Bruce was just along for the ride, he possessed very little sense of literary autonomy in the issue. It's HIS establishment at play, his relationship at risk, his story being interrupted. It IS his book after all. And it was all meant to convey and subsequently address some kind of hypothetical conflict or drama in the relationship between Batman and Catwoman.

It's not "sexism" to see what King was doing. He wasn't exactly being subtle about it.

Pretty much.

[Nick Miller]

So what?

WW was a temptress here. So what? You think women don’t have that in them? Or WW is somehow exempt? She is not.
The whole spectrum is open for her.

Can’t she be cruel? Can she be petty? Can she be vengeful? Can she be jealous?

Are these here main traits ? Of course not. In this story, she wanted some action after 10 years.

What I don’t like here is how King continues to humiliate the Batman/superhero tropes.

[dietrich]

So what?

WW was a temptress here. So what? You think women don’t have that in them? Or WW is somehow exempt? She is not.
The whole spectrum is open for her.

Can’t she be cruel? Can she be petty? Can she be vengeful? Can she be jealous?

Are these here main traits ? Of course not. In this story, she wanted some action after 10 years.

What I don’t like here is how King continues to humiliate the Batman/superhero tropes.

She could be all those things but dos she have to? Is there some reason why she wasn't allowed the same treatment the other superfriend did?

It's make believe the gentleman is a new character is there some reason if King wanted to explore the very real ordeal of soldiers working away being tempted which I'm told this was. Why couldn't you make up a new character like the gentleman why use Diana?
Why does her story have to go in this direction ?
There is no excuse for what was done here and was done here was intentional.

[Nick Miller]

There was nothing bad done to her though.

Like if she fell into a pile of garbage, that’s horrible!

If she was forced to milk the teats of a fat gross alien cow? Awful.

She did make fun of bats cowl, so there is that. Petty AF

[Sacred Knight]

"And yet here you are without her...with me."



Yes, we literally see her bathing while she muses about Bruce missing ol' whats-her-name, reminding him that she's not there.



Yeah...as I said that's the framing of the story. And I don't appreciate you shifting words onto me, but yes "homewrecker" would be an apt term for the situation as presented in issue 39. Wonder Woman initiated everything in the story, she was the central motor of the plot and dialogue. She received word, she came to Gotham, she opened the portal, she referenced their situation, she commented on Bruce's appearance, yada yada yada. Bruce was just along for the ride, he possessed very little sense of literary autonomy in the issue. It's HIS establishment at play, his relationship at risk, his story being interrupted. It IS his book after all. And it was all meant to convey and subsequently address some kind of hypothetical conflict or drama in the relationship between Batman and Catwoman.

It's not "sexism" to see what King was doing. He wasn't exactly being subtle about it.

All of this. And its why such a role was not befitting Wonder Woman. This was just so beneath her caliber. Something like this should have been told with an actual former flame of Batman within his actual mythos. Would have been a truer temptation, first off, if it was someone he had significant romantic history or at the very least significant romantic tension with. Second, Batman supporting characters are designed to serve Batman in the first place. That's what a supporting character does; support. Wonder Woman is a Batman supporting character much less a supporting character to anyone. It was just a bad decision. Her Superfriends entry should have just been light-hearted like the Superman entry.

[dietrich]

There was nothing bad done to her though.

Like if she fell into a pile of garbage, that’s horrible!

If she was forced to milk the teats of a fat gross alien cow? Awful.

She did make fun of bats cowl, so there is that. Petty AF

You didn't answer any of my questions.
And yes something bad was don to her she to me read like a tempetress. She might not have done to you but she didn't have to read like that to ANYONE.

The writer made a choice and choose to go the click bait.

[K. Jones]

I don't find Diana to be a temptress so much as the notion that we the fans might unconsciously be agreeing with each other that ... Bruce might be tempt-able. You know ... I agree wholeheartedly - Diana is used in this story specifically as a temptation for Bruce, making her an object in a Batman story - but her character motivation is not "to tempt", though her story role is to "tempt Batman, somewhat, and probably subvert expectations". The title of the book is "Batman" after all, and the overall story arc "Super-Friends" is about BATMAN's relationships with his best friends. But more than that ... deep in our hearts we know that our boy, Bruce Wayne, is not a pillar of virtue. He's a noble guy, far less dark and grim at heart than the grim-dark fans and meta-grim-dark characters want him to be.

But he doesn't have a very great track-record historically with women.

Bruce had lovely parents. They always seem like solid people. But TEENAGE Bruce Wayne only had a male paternal role model figure in Alfred, no mother-figure. He's got the memory of his mom, but in his formative years, the "learning how to treat women with respect" years, you know ... just a weird old butler who himself has a baby-momma out there he doesn't talk to. Beyond that, we've seen, chronologically, that his relationships don't last. It's everything. It's the job. It's the isolation and anxiety. It's the childish quest taking precedence. It's the danger involved. Julie and Linda in the Golden Age. Vicki and Kathy in the Silver Age. Silver and Talia in the Bronze Age. Shondra and Vesper in the Dark Age. Who in the modern age? A slew of femme fatales, mostly who he was just sort of playing to get information from? Jezebel Jet? Mayor Hady's daughter? If Bats has a "ten year-ish career", he literally hasn't had a relationship last over a year except Catwoman who there for all of it, Gold, Silver, Bronze, Dark, Modern.

Anyway, I've never shipped Batman and Wonder Woman. Because frankly I think Bruce is just plain too ... masculine, in that "possibility of toxic" way ... and Diana would never be attracted to that. Not that Batman isn't pretty self-aware, but like ... he's hyper-aggressive, he's got that alpha-alpha thing going on, he's bossy, I bet he Batmansplains the crap out of everything all the time. His ego is kind of massive. Noble or not ... I just can't see Diana ever being into that.