Diana And Misconceptions

[Agent Z]

More than most superheroes, Diana often suffers from misconceptions about what she is like and what the traits people associate with her would entail. But in her case, she suffers from two different yet equally untrue misconceptions.

For instance, both fans and detractors hear "Diana uses lethal force" and translate this to "Diana is a murderer and kills at the drop of a hat". Then we have the misconception of what Diana being a diplomat and compassionate person actually means. For some, this goes as far as claiming she is a pacifist (which she isn't and has never been) and it gets to the point that if she uses lethal force reasonably or is seen holding a sword it results in backlash.

[Vordan]

In regards to her lethality, I’d offer that it doesn’t seem like a good idea for two main reasons:

1. Diana more than anyone besides maybe Superman is about promoting a better way. She’s not supposed to adapt “Man’s World” methods, she’s supposed to show us a better way, “The Amazon Way”. That’s why her iconic weapon was a lasso, a non-lethal weapon. Unlikes Mars/Ares soldiers, Diana was a champion of Aphrodite and Athena, someone who believed in the power of love and venerated the goddess of the aspects of war that prized intellect and tactics over mass slaughter. She’s not supposed to be ruthless or cynical, one of her powers is the ability to talk to animals for gods sake, she’s a DC Princess (Please laugh at my lame pun)! This emphasis on her and the Amazons being “warriors” has never portrayed them in a positive light. They become primitive bloodthirsty misandrist barbarians, which reaches its lowest point in the Frank Miller/Brian Azzarelo take on the Amazons who are little more than straight up villains. Once upon a time the Amazons were huge proponents on redemption, and I’d rather Diana redeem her villains and rehabilitation them then kill them.

2. Batman and Superman don’t kill (I know, I know, yes there are exceptions but in general no they don’t) and DC is never going to pick Diana’s side over theirs, so when she kills she frequently is made to look bad to demonstrate how wrong her actions are. So it’s just more dumping on her to prop them up, because if DC says “well killing is ok sometimes”, the flimsiest shred of storytelling logic holding together Batman’s world breaks. Joker should be dead and the real reason he isn’t is DC wants to keep making Joker stories. If you say killing is ok sometimes, there’s no reason for DC to not let Batman kill the Joker, so that won’t ever happen.

[Agent Z]

In regards to her lethality, I’d offer that it doesn’t seem like a good idea for two main reasons:

1. Diana more than anyone besides maybe Superman is about promoting a better way. She’s not supposed to adapt “Man’s World” methods, she’s supposed to show us a better way, “The Amazon Way”. That’s why her iconic weapon was a lasso, a non-lethal weapon. Unlikes Mars/Ares soldiers, Diana was a champion of Aphrodite and Athena, someone who believed in the power of love and venerated the goddess of the aspects of war that prized intellect and tactics over mass slaughter. She’s not supposed to be ruthless or cynical, one of her powers is the ability to talk to animals for gods sake, she’s a DC Princess (Please laugh at my lame pun)! This emphasis on her and the Amazons being “warriors” has never portrayed them in a positive light. They become primitive bloodthirsty misandrist barbarians, which reaches its lowest point in the Frank Miller/Brian Azzarelo take on the Amazons who are little more than straight up villains. Once upon a time the Amazons were huge proponents on redemption, and I’d rather Diana redeem her villains and rehabilitation them then kill them.

While this sounds like a good idea in theory, it's one of those things that makes Diana sound naive at best, condescending and apathetic at worst. People kill for a variety of reasons and not all of them are malicious. There is a problem with emphasizing the warrior part of the Amazons that I agree with but it doesn't mean them using lethal force at times is problematic. The "show man's world a better way" thing is arguably as much of a cause for takes like the Azzarello run as the misconception of them just being warriors.

2. Batman and Superman don’t kill (I know, I know, yes there are exceptions but in general no they don’t) and DC is never going to pick Diana’s side over theirs, so when she kills she frequently is made to look bad to demonstrate how wrong her actions are. So it’s just more dumping on her to prop them up, because if DC says “well killing is ok sometimes”, the flimsiest shred of storytelling logic holding together Batman’s world breaks. Joker should be dead and the real reason he isn’t is DC wants to keep making Joker stories. If you say killing is ok sometimes, there’s no reason for DC to not let Batman kill the Joker, so that won’t ever happen.

This says more about how DC writes Superman and Batman than anything. How often is what happens in the Trinity's books relevant to each other anyway? And besides, another thing they won't do is rehabilitate the Joker so they're proving Diana right either way. Of course, they could just not make it so Bruce is fighting people that are for intents and purposes terrorists.

[Vordan]

While this sounds like a good idea in theory, it's one of those things that makes Diana sound naive at best, condescending and apathetic at worst. People kill for a variety of reasons and not all of them are malicious. There is a problem with emphasizing the warrior part of the Amazons that I agree with but it doesn't mean them using lethal force at times is problematic. The "show man's world a better way" thing is arguably as much of a cause for takes like the Azzarello run as the misconception of them just being warriors.



This says more about how DC writes Superman and Batman than anything. How often is what happens in the Trinity's books relevant to each other anyway? And besides, another thing they won't do is rehabilitate the Joker so they're proving Diana right either way. Of course, they could just not make it so Bruce is fighting people that are for intents and purposes terrorists.

Sounds like it would be a good way to give Diana organic storytelling drama, when her ideals are ridiculed as “naive and out of touch” how does she respond? In a post-9/11 world where America wages total war abroad while the majority of its citizens shrug their shoulders and carry on with their day, I think you could have a lot of interesting stories about how Diana views the way America kills and it’s reasons for doing so, as well as the cultural attitudes toward killing. I mean that sure sounds more interesting to me than daddy issues and crying over her boyfriend.

[Zahina]

Sounds like it would be a good way to give Diana organic storytelling drama, when her ideals are ridiculed as “naive and out of touch” how does she respond? In a post-9/11 world where America wages total war abroad while the majority of its citizens shrug their shoulders and carry on with their day, I think you could have a lot of interesting stories about how Diana views the way America kills and it’s reasons for doing so, as well as the cultural attitudes toward killing. I mean that sure sounds more interesting to me than daddy issues and crying over her boyfriend.

Do you think that Diana's role as an ambassador of peace can still work today?

[Vordan]

Do you think that Diana's role as an ambassador of peace can still work today?

Yes but it requires writers to invest time and effort into what that look like and how it goes about. Who are the two sides Diana must broker peace between? What do they want? What’s their relationship with each other? What do the people in each group want? How about their leaders? It’s a lengthy process that’s not really something you can do in a 2 part arc or what not.

[Agent Z]

Sounds like it would be a good way to give Diana organic storytelling drama, when her ideals are ridiculed as “naive and out of touch” how does she respond? In a post-9/11 world where America wages total war abroad while the majority of its citizens shrug their shoulders and carry on with their day, I think you could have a lot of interesting stories about how Diana views the way America kills and it’s reasons for doing so, as well as the cultural attitudes toward killing. I mean that sure sounds more interesting to me than daddy issues and crying over her boyfriend.

It would have to be a lot smarter and nuanced than the typical superhero story about lethal force.

[Frontier]

In regards to her lethality, I’d offer that it doesn’t seem like a good idea for two main reasons:

1. Diana more than anyone besides maybe Superman is about promoting a better way. She’s not supposed to adapt “Man’s World” methods, she’s supposed to show us a better way, “The Amazon Way”. That’s why her iconic weapon was a lasso, a non-lethal weapon. Unlikes Mars/Ares soldiers, Diana was a champion of Aphrodite and Athena, someone who believed in the power of love and venerated the goddess of the aspects of war that prized intellect and tactics over mass slaughter. She’s not supposed to be ruthless or cynical, one of her powers is the ability to talk to animals for gods sake, she’s a DC Princess (Please laugh at my lame pun)! This emphasis on her and the Amazons being “warriors” has never portrayed them in a positive light. They become primitive bloodthirsty misandrist barbarians, which reaches its lowest point in the Frank Miller/Brian Azzarelo take on the Amazons who are little more than straight up villains. Once upon a time the Amazons were huge proponents on redemption, and I’d rather Diana redeem her villains and rehabilitation them then kill them.

The sword and shield usually feel so tacked on to me for similar reasons.

[Gaius]

The sword and shield more struck me as trying to make the character more appealing to the crowd who like to single out the lasso, the invisible plane, the costume, etc as stupid and why they don't like the character. Sort of like how the DCAU made Aquaman a prick to compensate for people thinking he's lame because of Super-Friends.

I don't mind the sword and shield for some occasions but it's like seeing Batman or Superman in some sort of power armor. It's fine for certain occasions but I'd rather it'd be just that. At least WW '84 seems to be going in the right direction with no sign of a sword or shield in the trailers.

[AmiMizuno]

This is why with the sword and shield I rather have it she can summon them if she wishes but her main weapon is the lasso.

[Agent Z]

The sword and shield more struck me as trying to make the character more appealing to the crowd who like to single out the lasso, the invisible plane, the costume, etc as stupid and why they don't like the character.

Or they just gave her an upgrade to her arsenal like every other character from the Big 2 has had during their longevity. Not everything has to have such a cynical motive behind it.

[Nyssane]

Diana isn't a pacifist by any means, but I'm not a fan of her using a sword. I don't hate it; like Gaius said, it's good for some occasions. But fighting common crook #3 or abused wife gone rogue #7 with a sword in her hand is just gross. Fighting Medusa or Steppenwolf? Sure, go for it.

Though calling it an upgrade to her arsenal is a little bizarre, too. This isn't a magic She-Ra sword we're talking about here.

[Gaius]

Or they just gave her an upgrade to her arsenal like every other character from the Big 2 has had during their longevity. Not everything has to have such a cynical motive behind it.

I'm fine with it as a possible weapon in her arsenal, I just don't care for trying to make it a part of her default look.

[FutureWonder]

In regards to her lethality, I’d offer that it doesn’t seem like a good idea for two main reasons:

1. Diana more than anyone besides maybe Superman is about promoting a better way. She’s not supposed to adapt “Man’s World” methods, she’s supposed to show us a better way, “The Amazon Way”. That’s why her iconic weapon was a lasso, a non-lethal weapon. Unlikes Mars/Ares soldiers, Diana was a champion of Aphrodite and Athena, someone who believed in the power of love and venerated the goddess of the aspects of war that prized intellect and tactics over mass slaughter. She’s not supposed to be ruthless or cynical, one of her powers is the ability to talk to animals for gods sake, she’s a DC Princess (Please laugh at my lame pun)! This emphasis on her and the Amazons being “warriors” has never portrayed them in a positive light. They become primitive bloodthirsty misandrist barbarians, which reaches its lowest point in the Frank Miller/Brian Azzarelo take on the Amazons who are little more than straight up villains. Once upon a time the Amazons were huge proponents on redemption, and I’d rather Diana redeem her villains and rehabilitation them then kill them.

When they eventually make new Wonder Woman films, could you please write them??
Not that I don't love Gal Gadot, Patty Jenkins, and the current Wonder Woman cinematic presence (I do), but the one nitpick I have is that they have evidently made them so "male-freindly" to the point of erasing many of the things that made Wonder Woman a beacon of feminine power and womanly symbolism. Notice how in the film, the source of her powers is daddy, her weapon of choice is a phallic symbol/aggresively 'male' sword, and more than any other solo superhero film ever, Wonder Woman's love interest has a huge centrality in the plot. When did Lois Lane and MJ become so integral in any other Superman or Spideyfilm? In what superhero movie starring a male is a romantic interest the key for the protagonist to find his power and defeat the villain? Only in the superhero hit satrring a woman. But besides that, I loved it.
Now, don't get me wrong, I DO WANT Steve to be a part of every movie iteration of WW they make, but I want the next trilogy of Hollywood WW to have:
the Olympian goddesses being the source of Diana's powers, Wonder Woman SAVING Steve's ass, multiple times, and if they need to have someone else trigger DIana's discovery of her inner strength, let it be a woman. There are plenty to choose from: Phillipus, Hyppolita, Julia or Vanessa Kapatelis, Etta Candy, etc. Heck, even Cheetah, as Greg Rucka wrote her, could inspire Diana to save the day.

[Agent Z]

When they eventually make new Wonder Woman films, could you please write them??
Not that I don't love Gal Gadot, Patty Jenkins, and the current Wonder Woman cinematic presence (I do), but the one nitpick I have is that they have evidently made them so "male-freindly" to the point of erasing many of the things that made Wonder Woman a beacon of feminine power and womanly symbolism. Notice how in the film, the source of her powers is daddy, her weapon of choice is a phallic symbol/aggresively 'male' sword, and more than any other solo superhero film ever, Wonder Woman's love interest has a huge centrality in the plot. When did Lois Lane and MJ become so integral in any other Superman or Spideyfilm? In what superhero movie starring a male is a romantic interest the key for the protagonist to find his power and defeat the villain? Only in the superhero hit satrring a woman. But besides that, I loved it.
Now, don't get me wrong, I DO WANT Steve to be a part of every movie iteration of WW they make, but I want the next trilogy of Hollywood WW to have:
the Olympian goddesses being the source of Diana's powers, Wonder Woman SAVING Steve's ass, multiple times, and if they need to have someone else trigger DIana's discovery of her inner strength, let it be a woman. There are plenty to choose from: Phillipus, Hyppolita, Julia or Vanessa Kapatelis, Etta Candy, etc. Heck, even Cheetah, as Greg Rucka wrote her, could inspire Diana to save the day.

Look I have my issues with the Zeus origin too but there is nothing "male" about using a sword.

The first three Spider-Man movies focused primarily on Peter and MJ's relationship (the opening narration of the first film even spells this out) and Lois has been integral in two or three Superman movies.