Diana's origin - why can't DC make up its mind?

[raidensix]

Daughter of Zeus or made from clay?

Why is it DC can't make up it's mind about Diana's origins? We had the post-Flashpoint daughter of Zeus by Azarello then back to clay with Rucka and then we just had the Jason arc where she is daughter of Zeus again and now the latest arc where Ares calls her the vague term "kinswoman" while Aphrodite just calls her "amazon".

Does anyone think these constant revisions affect getting new readers or affect keeping current readers interested in the book?

[LordUltimus]

Daughter of Zeus or made from clay?

Why is it DC can't make up it's mind about Diana's origins? We had the post-Flashpoint daughter of Zeus by Azarello then back to clay with Rucka and then we just had the Jason arc where she is daughter of Zeus again and now the latest arc where Ares calls her the vague term "kinswoman" while Aphrodite just calls her "amazon".

Does anyone think these constant revisions affect getting new readers or affect keeping current readers interested in the book?

Rucka never explicitly said that she was clay, just that she was the only child on Themyscira again.

I presume that editorial has kept the daughter of Zeus origin intact, but writers that dislike it avoid saying it as much as possible.

[Sacred Knight]

Exactly. DC has made up its mind that its the Zeus origin, but they gave the keys to Diana for Rebirth to Rucka, who dislikes it, and now have GWW, whom in no uncertain terms voiced her disdain for it as well. But they're not allowed to retcon it so they just ignore it. Sandwiched in between there was Robinson, whom was hired specifically to tell a tale in which the origin was a key detail and drove many story beats, so it was pretty front and center.

[kjn]

DC: Writers and readers, editorial has made a decision.

Wonder Woman writers and readers: We recognise editorial has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, we've elected to ignore it.

[BiteTheBullet]

They can't even decide on a consistent powerset for Diana so what makes us think they can do the same for her origin?

[Joao]

DC: Writers and readers, editorial has made a decision.

Wonder Woman writers and readers: We recognise editorial has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, we've elected to ignore it.

Lol great way to put it.

I think the best we can do is ignore. As Rucka said, her origin doesn't change who she is.

It's a shame though cause the good, sensible writers like Rucka and Wilson tend to dislike the origin. So they ignore it. I'm not complaining, but if they REALLY want to make this origin official, a great writer should write a good story addressing it.

[king81992]

The real question is why DC can't make up their minds about anything connected to the WW franchise. Diana(regardless of her parentage)is the most stable aspect of the franchise.

No one seems to know if the Amazon's are an advanced utopia or a man hating dystopia, what to do with Donna(and to a lesser extent Casie)and her rogue gallery.

[Agent 86]

Daughter of Zeus or made from clay?

Why is it DC can't make up it's mind about Diana's origins?

Don't worry. In their next reboot - they'll be sure to get it right.

Diana will be the sole surviving baby of a planet called Themyscira who crash lands on Earth and is raised by a sheltered community of man-hating lesbians who call themselves "Amazons" until the day her two mothers take her to see a "Xena: Warrior Princess" movie in the big city and they're killed in an alleyway by a random thug.

Diana will then decide to use her alien super powers to fight crime, taking costume and weaponry inspiration from Xena!

Or, you know, Diana will be rebooted as the daughter of Superman and a gender-bent Batman from another Earth. Because a character is only worth something to DC if it can be inexplicably tied to Superman or Batman or, ideally, Superman and Batman!

[Geraldofrivia]

In the next reboot, Diana will be raised by Female Gorillas who call themselves Amazons but unlike gorilla city, these Amazons don't have technology.

[kjn]

To take a little more serious stab at this question, I think Wonder Woman makes a lot of people who have to handle her uneasy. Because once you start to look at her character, and where she comes from, the more you find it exposes and criticises the assumptions of our society.

She's queer, not only in that she is bisexual (though only so far in paratext) but because she grew up without thinking about gender at all.

She's at the very least kink-friendly, if not an outright bondage practicioner, and sex-positive, in an environment which is profoundly uneasy about sexuality except in carefully orchestrated ways.

She grew up in what can only be described as an utopia, which was built by women only. An utopia which furthermore rejects the consumerism and inequality of capitalism.

She grew up without class distinctions, and simply does not see them. To her the poor ice cream maker is just as worthy of praise and valuable to society as the general or the banker.

I don't think even Marston realised how extremely subversive a figure he managed to craft. I think basically every writer (and editor) since has started to examine Wonder Woman and found things that made them fundamentally uneasy, because she goes against fundamental assumptions they make. They try to make her safe for them to write, but in doing so removes or suppresses some fundamental aspect of her character. And the absence of those aspects are felt, making the character less than she should be, even in hands like Pérez or Rucka.

It also means that at every handover, the new creative team set out to fix the absences, but since they face the same fundamental problem, they just introduce another one that is felt just as bad.

[Fuzzy Mittens]

To take a little more serious stab at this question, I think Wonder Woman makes a lot of people who have to handle her uneasy. Because once you start to look at her character, and where she comes from, the more you find it exposes and criticises the assumptions of our society.

She's queer, not only in that she is bisexual (though only so far in paratext) but because she grew up without thinking about gender at all.

She's at the very least kink-friendly, if not an outright bondage practicioner, and sex-positive, in an environment which is profoundly uneasy about sexuality except in carefully orchestrated ways.

She grew up in what can only be described as an utopia, which was built by women only. An utopia which furthermore rejects the consumerism and inequality of capitalism.

She grew up without class distinctions, and simply does not see them. To her the poor ice cream maker is just as worthy of praise and valuable to society as the general or the banker.

I don't think even Marston realised how extremely subversive a figure he managed to craft. I think basically every writer (and editor) since has started to examine Wonder Woman and found things that made them fundamentally uneasy, because she goes against fundamental assumptions they make. They try to make her safe for them to write, but in doing so removes or suppresses some fundamental aspect of her character. And the absence of those aspects are felt, making the character less than she should be, even in hands like Pérez or Rucka.

It also means that at every handover, the new creative team set out to fix the absences, but since they face the same fundamental problem, they just introduce another one that is felt just as bad.

Very true. I would have simply said she is a radical figure to simplify but that is well put. I would also add that a big part of her character early on was pointing out how flawed the outside world was. She battled the wage gap. She questioned the effectiveness of the American penal system. She challenged and activly fought against the notion that specific careers were only suitable for men and made an active effort to change it. She celebrated education and made an effort to to present her views to educational institutions.

The thing that sets Wonder Woman apart from the likes of Superman and Batman is that they existed to preserve a flawed system and fought against any efforts to change it while Wonder Womans whole point was to change things for the better and improve society. To make the world a utopia like Paradise Island.

[kjn]

I believe that's a bit unfair, at least to Superman. Superman (if we take his original origin) grew up in the dustbowl, and in the shadow of the great depression. He clearly believes in the American Dream, and wants to expand it to reach as many as possible. Society might be flawed, but it can be improved and made better.

[Agent Z]

Here's the thing. One person's utopia can be viewed as another person's dystopia. The concept of a utopia is a flawed one because humans by their nature are flawed and what is perfect for one person isn't perfect for another. I think Themyscira works when it is shown as a good place but with flaws not unlike a lot of places and the story is about Themyscira re-connecting with the outside and exchanging views and ideas.

[Joao]

I like Themyscira as a utopia as it is. It can have conflict and drama, the amazons have to work and be dedicated (I agree with Rucka when he says that if paradise is boring, it's not paradise at all). But ideally it is a place where there is no violence, hate, hunger, poverty, prejudice etc.

The fact that Diana knows the human world will never be as good as Themyscira but loves it for what it is and always tries to make it better, that makes Diana's more interesting to me.

But back to the topic: the more complex topics of her history don't need to be addressed all at once, and most of them can be explored through a guideline that is her superheroic actions. It's her altruistic doings in different situations that should demonstrate her worldview and background. It would make her a more cemented character and not one who has her foundations revised every single run.

[Jim Kelly]

I like the idea of gods not really being real to the Amazons but more a matter of faith. They may have visions where they see them as animals or they may read things in nature as indicating the existence of gods, but they have no concrete proof of their existence.

So either way, if Hippolyte gave birth to Diana or if infant Diana just suddenly arrived one day (and Hippolyte assumed she was delivered by the gods), they wouldn't know if she had a father or who that father was. But they would imagine her--like themselves--as being created by the Divine.

It's a matter of etymology. Zeus is just God, the Divine, Dia, Deus, the Presence. Everything comes from God (in the DCU), so like everyone else Diana was created by Zeus, the Bringer of Life, that which is unknown and unknowable, the Source of all things, Agape, the Light of the World.

Even if she was made from the primordial clay, that clay is put there by God.

In the 1950s, Miller and Urey did an experiment that seemed to suggest the origin of amino acids (the building blocks of life) involved a reaction of lightning with simple molecules. This research later was held in doubt, but a more recent analysis suggests that in the tidal pools of volcano islands, where lightning occurs, the right combination of elements could exist to cause amino acids to form.