A Real Deconstruction of Wonder Woman

[Guy_McNichts]

Deconstruction, in its simplest form, is usually "What if this really happened?" What if this character existed in the real world? What would happen if this fictional event really happened?
At its best, it offers a new and unique insight into the subject. At worst, it's surface-level trolling.

We've seen attempts as deconstructing Wonder Woman and her world, and more often than not, they tend to suck. I don't think it's hard to see why.
Mel Brooks once said you have to love something to properly parody it. I think, similarly, you have to understand a thing to properly deconstruct it, and far too few writers understand Wonder Woman enough to offer such insight.

The thing about Wonder Woman is she was consciously created to be subversive. And you don't really deconstruct subversion. That's just regression.
Subversion is "Dracula is the hero of the story rather than villain." So to deconstruct that by making Dracula the villain again...that's the just the original story. You've gone backwards.

Hence, attempts at deconstructing Wonder Woman usually default to "the Amazons would be backwards thinking savages" and/or "Diana would be a joyless zealot" which defeats the whole purpose.
It's also really lame, lazy, and hackneyed.

So, what would a proper deconstruction of Wonder Woman look like? What would a story about Wonder Woman in the real world be?

Personally, and maybe this just reflects my own world-view, I think it would be an unbearably depressing story.
If Diana existed in the real world, she would be the most hated woman on the planet. Every single word out of her mouth would be twisted and misconstrued. Every action she took would be misinterpreted and turned against her. TERFs would accuse her of not being a real woman. Fox News would dedicate large portions of their schedule to bad-mouthing her every single day. Incel losers would post hours upon hours of videos on YouTube mocking her. Evangelical wack-jobs would be protesting her everywhere at every opportunity. Her supporters would be harassed and beaten.

Greg Rucka touched on this in his first run, but it wasn't as harsh or overbearing. Grant Morrison also went in this direction with Earth One, but they ended it with the bad stuff being the machinations and manipulation of Ares and Diana taking over the world.

But I think a proper deconstruction of Wonder Woman--taken to its logical conclusion--would be the story of a well-meaning, heroic woman trying to do good for the world and inspire positive change and being despised for it.
I honestly don't know what the ending would be, but I can't imagine it would be a happy one.

And maybe that's another reason why we've yet to see a real deconstruction of Wonder Woman. It's easier and safer to take the "Diana is wrong and a wacko" approach than "The world sucks."

[I'm a Fish]

I’d need a lot of time to think about this because deconstructions can come off as edgy if not done properly.

In some ways you could argue the Perez run was a deconstruction.

[astro@work]

Not fully baked yet, but feel like a true reconstruction would have have to address the religious aspects of what Diana's appearance would mean to the greater world.
Would most likely look like this:

1. Diana appears in "Man's World" and unapologetically explains her ties to the Greco-Roman pantheon of gods.
2. Diana is immediately rebuked for these beliefs and branded a heretic. Vilified in the media. Anybody who sides with her is equally vilified.
3. One of her classic mythological foes appears and is battled by Diana in public. Extensive media coverage.
4. The appearance of this first foe validates everything Diana had said about herself, that was universally rebuked.
5. Modern religion is thrown into complete chaos by Diana's beliefs being validated by the appearance of said foe (Ares? Phobos & Deimos? You pick).
6. Diana would then draw an odd unique cult of followers as some sort of modern day prophet, and also probably unwanted attention to Themiscyra.

[Gaius]

Wonder Woman's depiction in the Red Son animated movie I actually thought does get close to how I think deconstruction of Wonder Woman would/could work. Or at least how it'd end.

Most previous attempts are pretty straightforward failures as they either just try to overly demonize the Amazons (New 52) or like Kingdom Come and it's even dumber younger brother, Injustice try to make Diana some blood-thirsty zealous conqueror. But I think Red Son was actually on to something that a deconstruction of WW would actually end with Diana deciding that Man's World is indeed not worth saving and would simply go back to Themyscira.

Her being a would-be conqueror fits a deconstruction of Superman more as he actually comes from a world that was destroyed so him overreaching in trying to protect it to prevent the same sort of thing happening makes more sense for him than it does for Diana. She was raised in paradise, it's still around, the world would clearly violently resist attempts to become like Themyscira, so instead she would simply go back to it.

This is actually something some writers have hinted at, The Hiketeia had Diana's inner narration talk about there's days where she wishes she could give up her duties and go back just being an Amazon on Themyscira.

[Vordan]

Well you could certainly deconstruct Marston’s Golden Age stuff, there’s a lot there that’s aged poorly, as far ahead of others as it was in terms of treatment of women. The whole “brainwashing criminals into being good” or the BDSM themes could pretty easily be taken apart. As could the idea that women are inherently morally “better” than men, which was central to Marston’s beliefs.

You could also attack the very core of Diana: that she is supposed to be a role model. Diana is either created by the goddesses or a direct offspring of the divines. She was raised as a princess on a perfect island, by her mother the queen, with immortal warrior women. Her people talk directly to the gods and the gods sometimes answer. What could Diana really have to teach us? Her home is the way it is because actual deities shaped it into that form. How could anyone possibly emulate that lifestyle? The average woman has to have a job, she has bills to pay, she has to eat and sleep. She doesn’t have super strength, she can’t fly, how could she possibly be equal to Wonder Woman? What lessons from Wondy or Themyscaria could possibly be relevant for the “normal” women. Realistically Diana is going to have to adjust her approach if she wants to improve the lot of women globally, taking into account cultural differences, and working with women from those places rather than spreading the “Amazon Way” or what have you.

Oh I just thought of another one, and I think this is actually stronger. There’s the whole “Warrior for Peace” aspect of her. She uses violence to solve problems but regards this as bad. Yet 99% of the time that’s how she resolves conflicts, through violence, which smacks of hypocrisy. Hell it’s how her people chose their ambassador to Man’s World. They didn’t send the best diplomat, they sent the strongest warrior. I’d deconstruct Diana by taking that attribute apart. For all their talk of being better, Themyscaria seems to have the same “might makes right” mindset underlying their society as Man’s World is susceptible to. Diana was the best choice to send because she was the fastest, the strongest, the best warrior. But was she the kindest? The smartest? The most empathetic? The best negotiator? The Amazon who was truly best suited to representing Themyscaria? And if not… what does that say about her people and their customs? Or about HER?

[John Venus]

It's easy to deconstruct Diana if you focus on the fact that she is the most privileged person in the world; born to royalty, gifted with powers from a young age and pampered since birth. Have you seen wealthy people pretending to relate to regular people or how tone deaf they can be to the struggles of ordinary people? Now apply that to Diana; how much of a role model can you be when you grow up so isolated from the world? Someone who hasn't grown up in Man's World would also have a harder time navigating it; they would lack the wisdom that comes from life experience and could end up as a danger to others than an asset.

Jill Thompson's True Amazon actually comes to close to what I believe to be a deconstruction of Wonder Woman. Imagine that Diana but without the tragedy trying to navigate Man's World.

Grant Morrison's Earth One did kind of come close when he made Steve Trevor African American and had him turn down bondage with Diana. Although the execution could have been better that was an interesting take as well. Another thing to tackle would be Marston's gender essentialism; men are inherently aggressive and women are nurturing element. By pitting Diana against a woman who isn't nurturing and a man who isn't violent. The WW comics already does with Circe, Cheetah and Steve Trevor but imagine the conflict being done with a Diana who believes all women are inherently nurturing and all men are inherently violent.

[John Venus]

Oh I just thought of another one, and I think this is actually stronger. There’s the whole “Warrior for Peace” aspect of her. She uses violence to solve problems but regards this as bad. Yet 99% of the time that’s how she resolves conflicts, through violence, which smacks of hypocrisy. Hell it’s how her people chose their ambassador to Man’s World. They didn’t send the best diplomat, they sent the strongest warrior. I’d deconstruct Diana by taking that attribute apart. For all their talk of being better, Themyscaria seems to have the same “might makes right” mindset underlying their society as Man’s World is susceptible to. Diana was the best choice to send because she was the fastest, the strongest, the best warrior. But was she the kindest? The smartest? The most empathetic? The best negotiator? The Amazon who was truly best suited to representing Themyscaria? And if not… what does that say about her people and their customs? Or about HER?

Eeehhh, they tried this in Kingdom Come.

The Amazons will attempt peace first but can defend themselves if the situations escalates to that point.

They were welcoming of Hercules but he betrayed and enslaved them.

They were skeptical of Steve but they actually healed him.

Diana fought Ares but her ultimate victory in the Perez run was when she managed to show him the consequence of his actions and kick starting his quasi redemption arc.

Even in the infamous neck snap story, Diana exhausts every other option before killing Max. Same thing happened Rucka's Hiketiea; she tried diplomacy first and only attacked Batman after he persisted.

Lets not forget the Golden Age WW comics had Paul Von Gunther who was a reformed Nazi.

The thing is, most action stories are built on the premise that diplomacy is for wussies and that it's ones who resort to violence who gets shit done. So even with WW, most stories will just show diplomacy being ineffective and Diana having to resort to violence thereby reinforcing the notion that violence is the only solution to problems.

[Guy_McNichts]

RE: Diana's privilege

This is why I actually liked and preferred the pre-Rebirth version of Veronica Cale because she was someone who would and did confront Diana with these questions. It is a valid point that Diana, as well-meaning and empathetic as she is, is privileged and comes from privilege. How she would be respond and contend with these questions would make for an interesting conflict and story.

This was something that was also touched on in Paul Dini and Alex Ross's Spirit of Truth. Of course, I would hope whatever resolution she reaches would be better than the one offered in there...where just creates a secret identity because Superman told her to.


RE: Diana and violence

One thing is the impetus for the Contest and Diana leaving Themyscira depends on continuity and interpretation. Sometimes, the need for an Amazon Champion is to defend the world from evil...in which case it would make sense for them to send their best warrior. Other times it's specifically to defeat Ares, and she becomes ambassador after the fact.
But then there are versions of the origin where Diana is specifically sent as ambassador or to spread the Amazon's message of peace. In which case, the Contest probably should be more than a test of martial skills. And, FWIW, I think certain creators like Steve Orlando have adapted the Contest to better reflect that.
Sometimes it's expected that the Champion, once their mission is done, will return to Themyscira. Other times, there is no going back.

I think it's tough to deconstruct the Contest and its purpose when said purpose varies from interpretation to interpretation.

As for Diana's use of violence in particular...personally, I rarely like when creators and critics come down on characters because of the limitations or requirements of the medium. Superhero comics are an action-based genre. As peaceful and diplomatic as Diana is, sooner or later it's going to come down to a fight of some sort.
For me, the important thing is that she only sees it as an unwanted last resort. Beyond that, I can accept the contrivances of superhero storytelling that her opponents won't listen to reason and fight anyway.

Talented writers can create a compelling and consistent balance where she's peaceful and there's still action, but at the end of the day, there's going to be punching and violence. Just like, no matter how many times they get sent to Arkham, none of Batman's rogues are getting rehabilitated. That's just the nature of the genre, so it feels to me like a cheap-shot to condemn the characters in-universe for that sort of thing.

[Vordan]

Hm you two make some good points. Perhaps leaning into her privilege is the way to go. Maybe this would make things easier: what are Diana’s flaws? Batman obviously has the classic flaw of Pride, and that’s made him pretty easy to take apart. Superman I would argue has the classic flaw of Wrath. What is Diana’s? What is the chink in her armor, the blemish in her otherwise ideal image? Knowing that would make it easier to take her apart.

I know what *I* would make her big flaw but I’m curious to read others.

[Stanlos]

Deconstruction, in its simplest form, is usually "What if this really happened?" What if this character existed in the real world? What would happen if this fictional event really happened?
At its best, it offers a new and unique insight into the subject. At worst, it's surface-level trolling.

We've seen attempts as deconstructing Wonder Woman and her world, and more often than not, they tend to suck. I don't think it's hard to see why.
Mel Brooks once said you have to love something to properly parody it. I think, similarly, you have to understand a thing to properly deconstruct it, and far too few writers understand Wonder Woman enough to offer such insight.

The thing about Wonder Woman is she was consciously created to be subversive. And you don't really deconstruct subversion. That's just regression.
Subversion is "Dracula is the hero of the story rather than villain." So to deconstruct that by making Dracula the villain again...that's the just the original story. You've gone backwards.

Hence, attempts at deconstructing Wonder Woman usually default to "the Amazons would be backwards thinking savages" and/or "Diana would be a joyless zealot" which defeats the whole purpose.
It's also really lame, lazy, and hackneyed.

So, what would a proper deconstruction of Wonder Woman look like? What would a story about Wonder Woman in the real world be?

Personally, and maybe this just reflects my own world-view, I think it would be an unbearably depressing story.
If Diana existed in the real world, she would be the most hated woman on the planet. Every single word out of her mouth would be twisted and misconstrued. Every action she took would be misinterpreted and turned against her. TERFs would accuse her of not being a real woman. Fox News would dedicate large portions of their schedule to bad-mouthing her every single day. Incel losers would post hours upon hours of videos on YouTube mocking her. Evangelical wack-jobs would be protesting her everywhere at every opportunity. Her supporters would be harassed and beaten.

Greg Rucka touched on this in his first run, but it wasn't as harsh or overbearing. Grant Morrison also went in this direction with Earth One, but they ended it with the bad stuff being the machinations and manipulation of Ares and Diana taking over the world.

But I think a proper deconstruction of Wonder Woman--taken to its logical conclusion--would be the story of a well-meaning, heroic woman trying to do good for the world and inspire positive change and being despised for it.
I honestly don't know what the ending would be, but I can't imagine it would be a happy one.

And maybe that's another reason why we've yet to see a real deconstruction of Wonder Woman. It's easier and safer to take the "Diana is wrong and a wacko" approach than "The world sucks."

Greg Rucka's run plus John Byrne's prose companion novel WW: GODS AND GODDESSES do just that. Had DiDio and his foolishness not interfered we would have seen the logical conclusion of America's desires for Themyscira. WWG&G however highlights the panic that the religious powers would feel upon the arrival of a WW.

[Gaius]

Hm you two make some good points. Perhaps leaning into her privilege is the way to go. Maybe this would make things easier: what are Diana’s flaws? Batman obviously has the classic flaw of Pride, and that’s made him pretty easy to take apart. Superman I would argue has the classic flaw of Wrath. What is Diana’s? What is the chink in her armor, the blemish in her otherwise ideal image? Knowing that would make it easier to take her apart.

I know what *I* would make her big flaw but I’m curious to read others.

Well using the deadly sins, it'd have to be Pride wouldn't it?

Similar to Batman, she's egotistical enough to try and tackle giant-scale problems she'll probably never actually be able to solved (though that also goes back to the requirements of an ongoing medium) and might not be ever able to admit that.

Plus there's also regardless of how humble she might be, she was still treated as a princess on the island and her special status (usually even being the only child on the island) will factor into that regardless.

[Guy_McNichts]

I would say Wonder Woman's core flaws is that she tries too hard and can be idealistic to a fault.

She can get so caught up in her mission and truth, she doesn't realize some aren't ready or are unwilling to confront their own flaws. Her intentions have been misinterpreted as zealotry. However compassionate and empathic she is, she can also be very stubborn and pig-headed. Her devotion to her mission has left her with not much of a personal life and few close friends. Breezing in and out of other people's lives bit her in the ass when Vanessa Kapatelis turned into the Silver Swan. Sometimes, setbacks and disappointment lead her to double-down, which can make things worse. And she does have limits where she loses her temper.

EDIT:
I suppose you could call all that an extension of pride, as Gaius suggested.

[bardkeep]

I think it depends on how you're defining "deconstruction." I don't necessarily think it's the same thing as asking what would happen if something was put into different context (in this case putting these characters into something more like the real world), though that can serve a similar purpose.

Earth One is definitely the most ambitious attempt we've seen at a deconstruction, though it's specifically about Marston's Wonder Woman. There's a lot that I liked in theory but in execution it really fell apart. It felt like Morrison couldn't decide if they wanted to subvert Marston's vision or take it literally and consider its logical extreme, and by the time they settled on the latter they'd already dismantled so much of what the character represented (making the Amazons cruel and judgmental, Daddy Hercules, making Diana so weak-willed and naïve that PUA Dr. Psycho was able to easily swindle her) that what was supposed to be a respectful tribute came across as spiteful and dystopian.

That's just one of the story's many problems - its handling of sexual assault and race were terrible, it hyperfixated on bondage imagery without really exploring what any of it represented, it lacked any emotional pull because it was a self-indulgent intellectual exercise rather than an actual story with characters - but while my overall verdict is a resounding "not good," there were definitely a lot of interesting ideas.

Lots of writers have deconstructed her in various ways though, most notably Rucka and Perez.

Not fully baked yet, but feel like a true reconstruction would have have to address the religious aspects of what Diana's appearance would mean to the greater world.
Would most likely look like this:

1. Diana appears in "Man's World" and unapologetically explains her ties to the Greco-Roman pantheon of gods.
2. Diana is immediately rebuked for these beliefs and branded a heretic. Vilified in the media. Anybody who sides with her is equally vilified.
3. One of her classic mythological foes appears and is battled by Diana in public. Extensive media coverage.
4. The appearance of this first foe validates everything Diana had said about herself, that was universally rebuked.
5. Modern religion is thrown into complete chaos by Diana's beliefs being validated by the appearance of said foe (Ares? Phobos & Deimos? You pick).
6. Diana would then draw an odd unique cult of followers as some sort of modern day prophet, and also probably unwanted attention to Themiscyra.

A lot of this happened in Perez's run. Religious and atheist groups call into news networks demanding they stop covering Diana; Julia Kapatelis' mother is a devout Catholic who hates Diana's guts because she's a pagan; Italy abstains from the UN vote for Themyscira's sovereignty because they fear rebuke from the Vatican; every religious leader who's invited to serve as a delegate to Themyscira declines other than one Unitarian minister and a reform rabbi; Hermes shows up at one point and causes absolute chaos because everyone wants to worship him and reap the spoils of his affection; etc. Obviously Perez was only able to go so far because he was working within the constraints of the DC universe, but he still focused on it a lot.

He also wrote an absolutely killer story about a Wonder Woman cult. A bunch of people she saves from Circe in Greece start a Wonder Woman-worshipping cult called the Amazonians, they start wreaking havoc and vandalizing churches, and one guy goes on a murdering spree at a WW-themed burlesque show because he thinks they're heretics.

Hm you two make some good points. Perhaps leaning into her privilege is the way to go. Maybe this would make things easier: what are Diana’s flaws? Batman obviously has the classic flaw of Pride, and that’s made him pretty easy to take apart. Superman I would argue has the classic flaw of Wrath. What is Diana’s? What is the chink in her armor, the blemish in her otherwise ideal image? Knowing that would make it easier to take her apart.

I know what *I* would make her big flaw but I’m curious to read others.

Curious to know what you think here.

I think she has elements of Pride and Wrath (her whole story is that she rolls up into a world she's never known thinking she knows how to make everything better and immediately gets kicked in the teeth by reality), but I think her core flaw is more depressive - maybe we should choose something fittingly Greek and call it acedia. She's constantly trying to find reasons to keep fighting for a world she owes nothing, and as Gaius said before, the story of Wonder Woman failing is a story where she gives up. I think most writers get that though - "Wonder Woman gives up on humanity" is as played out as "Superman becomes a tyrant."

Also some people probably aren't going to like this but I think she'd have to consciously combat her biases against men.

[Vordan]

I’ve mentioned it before elsewhere but my pick is Sloth. Not physical Sloth, she’s obviously not lazy, but there’s another kind of sloth. Spiritual sloth, acedia, is when you put off or get distracted from the spiritual work you’re supposed to be doing. Diana wasn’t sent here to fight crime, she’s got a specific mission, but she kinda sucks at actually achieving progress at it. Often she gets waylaid by personal issues regarding her sense of self, or problems with her friends, or even her villains. If she’s here on a mission to bring enlightenment to Man’s World, she needs to be doing more than just beating up Barbara every time Cheetah massacres a crowd. There’s a whole mandate she’s slacking off on, and needs to periodically refocus on.

[John Venus]

Seven Deadly Sins is kind of limited. I would say that Diana's flaw is naivete. Especially around other women and not realizing that some women can be just as manipulative and hateful as men like Ares and Hercules.

RE: Diana's privilege

This is why I actually liked and preferred the pre-Rebirth version of Veronica Cale because she was someone who would and did confront Diana with these questions. It is a valid point that Diana, as well-meaning and empathetic as she is, is privileged and comes from privilege. How she would be respond and contend with these questions would make for an interesting conflict and story.

This was something that was also touched on in Paul Dini and Alex Ross's Spirit of Truth. Of course, I would hope whatever resolution she reaches would be better than the one offered in there...where just creates a secret identity because Superman told her to.

To me Barbara is the one who underscores Diana's privilege the most. Both her pre and post crisis version. Barbara is human, disabled, overlooked by her parents and those in her field, she got her powers not as a gift but as an attempt to survive. Diana cant relate to any of these but there are many women who can relate to Barbara. Thus Barbara is more sympathetic than Wonder Woman. Where that sympathy stops is that Barbara ultimately wants whats best for herself while Diana wants every one to be at their best. Diana's attempts to reform Barbara leads to them hurting each other and others around them.


Also: re: Spirit of Truth

Oh boy, talk about a story that started off well and then veered off into 'Superman is the bestest hero and everyone should emulate him' territory. Never mind the sketchy politics of how it depicted the Middle East. I should put that story in the thread about fixing Diana's role in famous stories.