Personality-wise, how do you distinguish Wonder Woman and Superman?

[Alpha]

Actually, I don't think that's true. Some people actually think Wonder Woman being more than willing to kill makes her into a cooler and more mature character than Superman and a little bit closer to Batman in terms of being a bad ass. We call the people that believe this "12 years old CS GO players"

[Agent Z]

Another reason these "Wonder Woman kills" storylines are so tiresome is usually it's just used to make Superman or Batman look good for not doing it so they can wag their fingers at her. There's Kingdom Come obviously that's been brought up already but then there's also Sacrifice, Injustice, and whenever hacks like Tom Taylor write her.

Sacrifice depicted Diana's killing Max in a reasonable manner. It was Infinite Crisis where DC started vilifying her for it.

[Agent Z]

Actually, I don't think that's true. Some people actually think Wonder Woman being more than willing to kill makes her into a cooler and more mature character than Superman and a little bit closer to Batman in terms of being a bad ass. We call the people that believe this "12 years old CS GO players"

Those people are not the ones writing for DC. Gaius's argument is that usually Diana killing people is done to unfavorably contrast her against Superman and Batman.

[Hcmarvel]

You should check out Rucka's Year One, Hiketia, Perez's Gods & Monsters, League of One OGN, Gail Simone's run or heck, the original stories by Martston to get a feel for what Diana is meant to be by her original creator. Diana is not the punisher. Killing is not her go-to response. She will kill but only after exhausting several steps first.

I've read Greg Rucka's Year One, The Hiketia, A League of One, and some of Simone's run. I own Gods & Monsters but haven't ever gotten through it.

I never said I thought Diana should be The Punisher. And I agree it should not be her go-to response.

But Batman and Superman's characters are so fundamentally built on the idea they do not kill (Yes yes, Batman used a gun once and Superman killed the three Kryptonians...their entire thing has become that they never kill). So I think it adds to the dynamic of the "trinity" if Wonder Woman is willing to use the sword.

Diana was created to be a subversion of Greek Mythos so we can examine them from a different perspective. We don't know what the RL female warriors were like but the ancient greeks were spooked by them because they saw women as little better than baby incubators thus the 'violent baby killing Amazons' were a subversion of that myth. Marston sought to be subvert the myth by making the Amazons a peaceful nation that had advanced beyond war, Hippolyta actually outsmarts Hercules and in response he subjugates her because his ego couldn't take it.

I did not know this, I certainly have not read any Golden Age Wonder Woman, so this is very interesting to find out. Thanks.

[Gaius]

Actually, I don't think that's true. Some people actually think Wonder Woman being more than willing to kill makes her into a cooler and more mature character than Superman and a little bit closer to Batman in terms of being a bad ass. We call the people that believe this "12 years old CS GO players"

What Agent Z said. That’s something fans come up with to justify her killing, DC always portrays it as a way to build up the World’s Finest egos and self-importance.

Sacrifice depicted Diana's killing Max in a reasonable manner. It was Infinite Crisis where DC started vilifying her for it.

Fair enough, I just group all depictions of the Max neck snap under Sacrifice

[SiegePerilous02]

What's weird is no fans of Superman or Batman are actually asking for this, yet DC continues to do it anyway.

[manwhohaseverything]

But Batman and Superman's characters are so fundamentally built on the idea they do not kill (Yes yes, Batman used a gun once and Superman killed the three Kryptonians...their entire thing has become that they never kill). So I think it adds to the dynamic of the "trinity" if Wonder Woman is willing to use the sword.

That depends on the versions of the character.I can only say that is the rampant percieved notion.The only character i have ever felt embody the no kill rule is silverage superman.

[Robanker]

That depends on the versions of the character.I can only say that is the rampant percieved notion.The only character i have ever felt embody the no kill rule is silverage superman.

Who himself killed if you consider Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow. In a really grotesque fashion, too... But he did hang it up afterward, so the rule is intact; he broke it, so he could no longer be Superman.

[Ascended]

Wow this thread grew fast.

Lighting Rider summoned me here, and with thunder and hel fire, I answer. So...I feel like this is a question that would require two essays to actually get into. And for once I'm gonna try not to do that. Much. So in the very broad strokes, I figure.....

Diana's an aristocrat, and accustomed to authority and rule. In her mind, it is correct and right for the masses to trust those who have been put above them and it is natural and right for Diana to often be the one who carries that burden. However, in the philosophy of loving submission, the Amazons view authority *very* differently than we usually do; it's about submitting to the people in every respect, not influencing your own views onto others (except Man's World; the whole WW mission is to get us to accept the clearly superior Amazon philosophy).

Clark doesn't share that trust in authority, he's American. And we can see this very clearly with their "civilian" ties; Clark's a journalist, who's job is to uncover the truth and reveal corruption while Diana usually works with some from of military, government, or intelligence agency, and while she may not trust individuals in those positions, it's almost always "you betrayed your authority" and not "the system is wrong."

Having been raised to rule her entire life, Diana is likely far more selfless than Clark. Despite his legend, Clark's actually got a strong selfish streak in him (not "I'll save myself!" selfish, that's just cowardice and Clark's no coward). Hel, the entirety of the "Clark Kent" façade is a selfish act when you get right down to it. Clark will treat himself and indulge more than Diana will.

Diana's also more empathic. Clark *wants* to understand people, he tries to see things their way, but his brain simply doesn't work like our's does. He can read our DNA, but there's a psychology to being human that he'll never fully see. Clark views the world in black and white (there is right and wrong in this universe, and that distinction is not hard to make) but Diana sees all the shades of gray, understands the variances and points the great philosophers make, she tries like hell to put herself in the shoes of other people and typically succeeds. And we see this reflected in Diana's history and all the villains she's (tried to) redeem.

Diana's also used to being the center of attention, and is comfortable in her own specialness. Diana doesn't lament that she's not a "normal" person, and wouldn't want to be. Somebody has to be the special one, the miracle baby, the divine child blessed by gods, and being special comes with responsibilities and demands and it's better for Diana to carry that weight, because it means someone else doesn't have to. Diana knows she's special but completely misses how far above everyone else it puts her; in her mind everyone is just as special/beautiful as her, just in less obvious ways. She truly doesn't see how amazing she is, but she knows she's competent and aware of her own power (and not just muscles). With Clark, there's two distinct elements constantly pushing at him on this topic; on one hand he loves his powers, the bittersweet wonder of his lost culture, everything that sets him apart is something Clark loves about himself; it's allowed him to have such adventures, meet such people, make such a difference. But on the other hand, he's far more aware of his Otherness than Diana, he feels his alienation more keenly. He doesn't like attention, he's actually introverted and shy (Superman's bravado is as much an act as Clark's clumsiness) but wishes he could truly fit in, while Diana assumes it's only natural to have people watching her and can mingle like a queen.

Diana's more disciplined, but Clark's more inventive. Diana's better educated in politics, social sciences, and military/strategy matters, but Clark's knowledge of physical sciences is crazy advanced. She's a far, far more skilled fighter, but Clark is harder to predict in a fight. In a sparring match, she wins 7 out of 10.

Clark will try to avoid a fight if he can, but it's easy to provoke him into action and he'll punch first and then sort out who needs more later, but he'll stop fighting as soon as the other guys says "time out." Diana is harder to provoke, puts even more effort into diplomacy, but if you make her throw a punch she's not gonna stop until every perceived threat is neutralized. Diana will kill if she must and regret the necessity but view it as one of the burdens of her mission. Clark struggles greatly with using lethal force, doesn't believe he has the authority to decide who dies, and will occasionally exile himself for such acts until he calms down.

Clark's mission is a long-term view that looks a thousand years ahead to the Legion's era, and his goal is to help us steer ourselves in that direction. Diana's mission is about the here and now, showing us that the Amazon philosophy will make us better and happier. Diana hopes to see Amazon philosophy earnestly begin it's spread across the globe within a generation, Clark expects his mission to take much longer.

And this is turning into an essay, so I'm done.

[Sacred Knight]

But I demand the full essay! That was a really good read.

[SiegePerilous02]

What SK said, that sums them both up excellently!

[SecretWarrior]

Wow this thread grew fast.

Lighting Rider summoned me here, and with thunder and hel fire, I answer. So...I feel like this is a question that would require two essays to actually get into. And for once I'm gonna try not to do that. Much. So in the very broad strokes, I figure.....

Diana's an aristocrat, and accustomed to authority and rule. In her mind, it is correct and right for the masses to trust those who have been put above them and it is natural and right for Diana to often be the one who carries that burden. However, in the philosophy of loving submission, the Amazons view authority *very* differently than we usually do; it's about submitting to the people in every respect, not influencing your own views onto others (except Man's World; the whole WW mission is to get us to accept the clearly superior Amazon philosophy).

Clark doesn't share that trust in authority, he's American. And we can see this very clearly with their "civilian" ties; Clark's a journalist, who's job is to uncover the truth and reveal corruption while Diana usually works with some from of military, government, or intelligence agency, and while she may not trust individuals in those positions, it's almost always "you betrayed your authority" and not "the system is wrong."

Having been raised to rule her entire life, Diana is likely far more selfless than Clark. Despite his legend, Clark's actually got a strong selfish streak in him (not "I'll save myself!" selfish, that's just cowardice and Clark's no coward). Hell, the entirety of the "Clark Kent" façade is a selfish act when you get right down to it. Clark will treat himself and indulge more than Diana will.

Diana's also more empathic. Clark *wants* to understand people, he tries to see things their way, but his brain simply doesn't work like our's does. He can read our DNA, but there's a psychology to being human that he'll never fully see. Clark views the world in black and white (there is right and wrong in this universe, and that distinction is not hard to make) but Diana sees all the shades of gray, understands the variances and points the great philosophers make, she tries like hell to put herself in the shoes of other people and typically succeeds. And we see this reflected in Diana's history and all the villains she's (tried to) redeem.

Diana's also used to being the center of attention, and is comfortable in her own specialness. Diana doesn't lament that she's not a "normal" person, and wouldn't want to be. Somebody has to be the special one, the miracle baby, the divine child blessed by gods, and being special comes with responsibilities and demands and it's better for Diana to carry that weight, because it means someone else doesn't have to. Diana knows she's special but completely misses how far above everyone else it puts her; in her mind everyone is just as special/beautiful as her, just in less obvious ways. She truly doesn't see how amazing she is, but she knows she's competent and aware of her own power (and not just muscles). With Clark, there's two distinct elements constantly pushing at him on this topic; on one hand he loves his powers, the bittersweet wonder of his lost culture, everything that sets him apart is something Clark loves about himself; it's allowed him to have such adventures, meet such people, make such a difference. But on the other hand, he's far more aware of his Otherness than Diana, he feels his alienation more keenly. He doesn't like attention, he's actually introverted and shy (Superman's bravado is as much an act as Clark's clumsiness) but wishes he could truly fit in, while Diana assumes it's only natural to have people watching her and can mingle like a queen.

Diana's more disciplined, but Clark's more inventive. Diana's better educated in politics, social sciences, and military/strategy matters, but Clark's knowledge of physical sciences is crazy advanced. She's a far, far more skilled fighter, but Clark is harder to predict in a fight. In a sparring match, she wins 7 out of 10.

Clark will try to avoid a fight if he can, but it's easy to provoke him into action and he'll punch first and then sort out who needs more later, but he'll stop fighting as soon as the other guys says "time out." Diana is harder to provoke, puts even more effort into diplomacy, but if you make her throw a punch she's not gonna stop until every perceived threat is neutralized. Diana will kill if she must and regret the necessity but view it as one of the burdens of her mission. Clark struggles greatly with using lethal force, doesn't believe he has the authority to decide who dies, and will occasionally exile himself for such acts until he calms down.

Clark's mission is a long-term view that looks a thousand years ahead to the Legion's era, and his goal is to help us steer ourselves in that direction. Diana's mission is about the here and now, showing us that the Amazon philosophy will make us better and happier. Diana hopes to see Amazon philosophy earnestly begin it's spread across the globe within a generation, Clark expects his mission to take much longer.

And this is turning into an essay, so I'm done.

Honestly, this is the best answer I've seen.

I like the idea of Diana constantly trying to redeem her enemies, while Clark's like, "You can't change people who don't want to change themselves." I think this would be the most compelling distinction.

I also think Diana would try harder at diplomacy upfront (and is generally better a it), but will still (compassionately) fulfill her duty if she feels she must.

The definition of extrovert I have isn't, "I want to be the center of attention," as someone else wrote, but rather "I get mental energy by being around people." An introvert like Clark has to go off on his own and find solitude in order to mentally recharge.

While Diana is more skilled and would beat Clark if neither had powers, especially if she had a staff or lasso, I think Clark would win more matches out of 10 due to raw strength. You put a skilled featherweight against an unskilled heavy-weight, and the heavy-weight will still win more times out of 10. If Clark is less predictable, it's only because of how he can use scientific thinking to blend his powers during a crisis situation (See, Superman Unchained). In terms of traditional combat, obviously Diana would be harder to predict since she has more martial training.

Even though Diana is the warrior, Clark is more of a man of action since he's more easily provoked, as you pointed out. I think Diana is quicker to pick up on manipulation and social games and so is better at dancing around it.

As an extrovert with natural social skills, Diana wouldn't really ever worry about fitting-in in the same way an introvert like Clark would. Part of that is upbringing, but I actually think the bigger part of it comes from their inherent nature from birth. (I think certain personality characteristics are genetic but adjusted by upbringing.)

Since Diana has a specific philosophy to spread, I think she's more active in trying to change the world than Clark is, probably publishing a book on her life to get people on board to her way of thinking.

I agree that Diana is more selfless in that she'll more consistently put others ahead of herself in the day-to-day, but that's not always a good thing. If it weren't for her powers, I could see her overextending herself more (like a selfless workaholic mom), while Clark has a better understanding of his personal boundaries and limitations. Maybe this trait would be trained out of her by the Amazons, but I still think it would be her personality's preferred inclination.

Diana's faith in people in authority making the right choices without institutional checks in place is in line with her character but also shows some level of naivete and (unwarranted) optimism. If she were real, I'd worry about her ending up more jaded than Clark for that reason.

[Ascended]

But I demand the full essay! That was a really good read.

Aw, shucks! Thanks man (and you too Siege!) Bro-fists all around!

While Diana is more skilled and would beat Clark if neither had powers, especially if she had a staff or lasso, I think Clark would win more matches out of 10 due to raw strength. If Clark is less predictable, it's only because of how he can use scientific thinking to blend his powers

Depends on how strong Diana is compared to Clark in any given continuity, really. I'm going on the assumption that their strength is relatively close and while Clark is stronger, it's not by such a wide margin that Diana can't counter it with superior skill and ability. But there have been times when the divide was much greater, and in those instances you're right, Diana doesn't win nearly as often.

Since Diana has a specific philosophy to spread, I think she's more active in trying to change the world than Clark is, probably publishing a book on her life to get people on board to her way of thinking.

I think she's more obvious about it, if not more active. With Clark, the crux of his mission is that he knows he *can't* drag us into that bright future; we have to choose it for ourselves or it won't happen. With Diana, she's not waiting for us to come to our own conclusions, she's telling us what's best for us and trying to set us straight. So she can be a little more blunt and direct, while Clark has to be almost Machiavellian in how he applies his efforts towards this ultimate goal. If they were parents, Clark's the guy talking to the kid and asking questions so the kid can figure out what they did wrong, while Diana is the parent who just lays it all out; this is how you screwed up, this is how you fix it. I'm speaking only of their greater, ultimate goals here, of course, this metaphor doesn't apply across the board of their characters.

I agree that Diana is more selfless in that she'll more consistently put others ahead of herself in the day-to-day, but that's not always a good thing.

It's often definitely not a good thing, and is likely one of Diana's more interesting flaws. Clark's work-life balance is pretty fantastic (especially when you consider his duality) but Diana definitely struggles with it, and it's gotten in the way of her happiness more than once.

[SecretWarrior]

Aw, shucks! Thanks man (and you too Siege!) Bro-fists all around!



Depends on how strong Diana is compared to Clark in any given continuity, really. I'm going on the assumption that their strength is relatively close and while Clark is stronger, it's not by such a wide margin that Diana can't counter it with superior skill and ability. But there have been times when the divide was much greater, and in those instances you're right, Diana doesn't win nearly as often.



I think she's more obvious about it, if not more active. With Clark, the crux of his mission is that he knows he *can't* drag us into that bright future; we have to choose it for ourselves or it won't happen. With Diana, she's not waiting for us to come to our own conclusions, she's telling us what's best for us and trying to set us straight. So she can be a little more blunt and direct, while Clark has to be almost Machiavellian in how he applies his efforts towards this ultimate goal. If they were parents, Clark's the guy talking to the kid and asking questions so the kid can figure out what they did wrong, while Diana is the parent who just lays it all out; this is how you screwed up, this is how you fix it. I'm speaking only of their greater, ultimate goals here, of course, this metaphor doesn't apply across the board of their characters.



It's often definitely not a good thing, and is likely one of Diana's more interesting flaws. Clark's work-life balance is pretty fantastic (especially when you consider his duality) but Diana definitely struggles with it, and it's gotten in the way of her happiness more than once.

You not only have a solid understanding for these characters, you also have a solid understanding of people. Very insightful.

What WW stories do you recommend?

[Ascended]

What WW stories do you recommend?

Oh, I'd suggest you hit up the WW forum, I'm pretty sure there's a dedicated recommendations thread and the folks there are more knowledgeable about Diana than I am.

But for myself, I really enjoy both of Rucka's runs (one from the early/mid 00's and one in 2016) and a huge chunk of how I view Diana is informed by his work. I like the original 40's material by Marston (which requires you read it kinda slanted, to account for the change in eras and social norms), Perez's run from the 80's (I think it's over rated, but still good), and....I wanna say Jimenez in the 90's? Was that a thing? Might be crossing my wires on that one. Probably a few more worth mentioning that I'm forgetting too. Simone almost had a fantastic run in the 00's, but was hobbled by having to uphold a previous status quo that didn't work for me at all.

I also liked a lot of what Azzarello did in the New52, but it's a really weird, uneven thing. The stuff where he hits, he hits perfectly (like Diana's characterization and the pantheon) but when he missed, he missed big (like the Amazons). It was well written, but a super, super slow burn with a lot of horror elements and....I dunno if I'd say I recommend it as a WW fan, but I think it's overall interesting and worth reading if you like Azzarello.