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

[Alpha]

Clark is an idealist, Diana is a pragmatist.

Diana should not be seen as more pragmatic than Clark. In fact, Clark should actually be the more pragmatic since he grew up around these people, unlike Diana. Diana could maybe make certain choices more easily than Clark, but it really depends on what the options are. There are times where Clark would make them wuicker than Diana.

And there's nothing interesting about making Diana a pragmatist in her own stories.

[Frontier]

The problem is they're very similar so it's hard to highlight their biggest traits because they both apply. This thread lives on quirks. Both are immigrants looking to bring change who are largely inspiring, hopeful figures with a penchant for the truth.

One of the reasons writers go so hard on Warrior Woman is she's immediately different and thus easier to write.

To some extent I think having similarities are fine because they can probably express them better individually within their own stories and mythos. At least, ideally.

[Robanker]

To some extent I think having similarities are fine because they can probably express them better individually within their own stories and mythos. At least, ideally.

Absolutely, but it makes contrasting them more difficult because they share so many key character traits.

[Alpha]

The problem is they're very similar so it's hard to highlight their biggest traits because they both apply. This thread lives on quirks. Both are immigrants looking to bring change who are largely inspiring, hopeful figures with a penchant for the truth.

One of the reasons writers go so hard on Warrior Woman is she's immediately different and thus easier to write.

That's a very selective reading of the characters. It's not even the main appeal behind either of them, at least to me. I think those two characters are only similar if you decide to move away from their core characteristics and force them to be similar. Heck, I could write Superman and the Flash the same way, but they have wildly different personalities.

[SecretWarrior]

That's a very selective reading of the characters. It's not even the main appeal behind either of them, at least to me. I think those two characters are only similar if you decide to move away from their core characteristics and force them to be similar. Heck, I could write Superman and the Flash the same way, but they have wildly different personalities.

Wally and Clark, sure-- Not Barry and Clark though.

Different personalities interacting is one of the draws of team books and a shared universe.

[Robanker]

That's a very selective reading of the characters. It's not even the main appeal behind either of them, at least to me. I think those two characters are only similar if you decide to move away from their core characteristics and force them to be similar. Heck, I could write Superman and the Flash the same way, but they have wildly different personalities.

I'm saying that their differences are found more in small detail than any large strokes like "Clark is an optimist, Bruce is a pessimist." You have to go into specifics because a lot of the broad statements generally apply to both. They're both optimists. They both try to resolve their problems nonviolently. They're both outsiders. They're both human-passing but not really human. Etc.

This one's not something a succinct post can adequately break down.

[Alpha]

Wally and Clark, sure-- Not Barry and Clark though.

Different personalities interacting is one of the draws of team books and a shared universe.

The way he has been written? Sure. Not how I would write them tho. These characters have existed for decades on decades, and there have been countless interpretations of them. I think there will always be a desire to set a standard of rules for their personality and there will always be reinvention. But if you're on the side of reinvention then try to hone in on the specific appeal of each character deep down, not on the most common denominator trend of edginess.

Wonder Woman being seen as the "pragmatic one" that walks the line between Bruce and Clark is the most boring way of distinguishing her and doesn't help her out in her own book.

Barry and Clark have very different relationships with their powers and have evey reason to use them in different ways and be different type if heroes. If you think these characters are similar then you aren't seeing themas human beings and considering the actual way they feel about their lives.

[SecretWarrior]

The way he has been written? Sure. Not how I would write them tho. These characters have existed for decades on decades, and there have been countless interpretations of them. I think there will always be a desire to set a standard of rules for their personality and there will always be reinvention. But if you're on the side of reinvention then try to hone in on the specific appeal of each character deep down, not on the most common denominator trend of edginess.

Wonder Woman being seen as the "pragmatic one" that walks the line between Bruce and Clark is the most boring way of distinguishing her and doesn't help her out in her own book.

Barry and Clark have very different relationships with their powers and have evey reason to use them in different ways and be different type if heroes. If you think these characters are similar then you aren't seeing themas human beings and considering the actual way they feel about their lives.

They're not human beings-- They're works of fiction. And redundant characters by definition have nothing to add, making them irrelevant.

[Alpha]

What do you mean "redundant characters by definition". who are you talking about and why?

And don't you think of Peter Parker as someone full of a real personality to the point where you know how he would react to almost any situation? Same thing can be true of Superman and Flash when you dedicate your time to thinking about them and write about them.

[Frontier]

I think Barry's more of a stoic, introverted, type compared to Clark.

[Alpha]

I'm saying that their differences are found more in small detail than any large strokes like "Clark is an optimist, Bruce is a pessimist." You have to go into specifics because a lot of the broad statements generally apply to both. They're both optimists. They both try to resolve their problems nonviolently. They're both outsiders. They're both human-passing but not really human. Etc.

This one's not something a succinct post can adequately break down.

Optimistic and pessimistic are to me very random ways of defining a character. Batman is optimistic about how much he helps the city when he beats up a jewelry thief. Superman is pessimistic about how people will handle knowing his secret identity. When I'm trying to understand a character these aren't the questions I ask.

I ask what drives them, what do they care about, and how do they handle conflict? The answers to this aren't two words, but I can still reduce their personalities to three words if necessary. Superman is an tanky contemplative introvert. Wonder Woman is a retentive dabbling extrovert

[Alpha]

I think Barry's more of a stoic, introverted, type compared to Clark.

I like to think that Barry is a little bit more obsessive and yet detached than Clark. He is much more "normal" then Clark, which allows him not to be contemplative.

I maintain that the best way of really defining a character's demeanor is to imagine how they would sit in a chair during a meeting. It makes you think of how they consciously and unconsciously like to present themselves and how they look at the world.

[SecretWarrior]

I think Barry's more of a stoic, introverted, type compared to Clark.

Isn't that what Clark is next to Diana?

[SecretWarrior]

What do you mean "redundant characters by definition". who are you talking about and why?

And don't you think of Peter Parker as someone full of a real personality to the point where you know how he would react to almost any situation? Same thing can be true of Superman and Flash when you dedicate your time to thinking about them and write about them.

DC has hundreds of Superhero characters, some of whom are arguably stronger and smarter than the core Leaguers. They're not as relevant because they don't have much to add in terms of a unique perspective. The differences between Clark and Diana don't lead to different choices or outcomes, so what's the point of having both involved in key conversations and decisions? One is just going to be a tag along, and unfortunately that seems to be the role Diana is relegated to more often since Clark came first and is more well known. Her role can't just be to help Superman out vote Batman.

[Alpha]

I'm not gonna bring down characters like Plastic Man, Booster Gold, Animal Man, Vixen, Doom Patrol, Metal Men Metamorpho, Etrigan, Raven, Cyborg or Hawkman. There are plenty of unique characters in the DC universe that get under represented.

But this doesn't mean that the core seven are uninteresting and "of the same type". Give me an example of a decision the Justice League has to make and I'll tell you how I think Clark, Diana and Bruce would react.