Secret Origins #6 Preview

[Dr. Hurt]

Wasn't that a promotional image released during the first few months of the run? If so, are you posting it to agree with me that that it's hard to find such images "inside" the book, "especially after the first few issues"? And I don't even think her facial expression is as ugly in Bermejo's cover for Secret Origins.

I will admit that there is a cover from late in this volume of Wonder Woman that does match the Bermejo cover when it comes to making Diana appear warped with rage and dehumanized by battle frenzy. Here it is


But that's not from Azz and Chaing, and I believe it's already a favorite of some of the fans who disliked their run.

It's a cover anyway. Covers are supposed to show the character in a cool pose to draw readers. Despite what's in the actual book, you wont see many SUperman covers of him saving cats and hugging people. Most of them are him punching people and flaring his eyes red with heat vision.

It is what it is. I think it's a cool cover and i like the armor, skirt and God of War stuff she wears (but what is up with those deformed horns?). Leave the heartwarming stuff for the actual story.

Wonder Woman is still relevant because of how she's grown and evolved. Marston got the ball rolling, but that's about it. At this point, Wonder Woman's success owes as much to Lynda Carter as it does to Marston.

If I plant a seed, I might be crucial to the plant being there but five years later it will be whoever is actually watering it that matters.

Agreed.

You are right in that Diana is the brightest part of her own world but many, many of the others are pure scum IMO. I do agree that Johns has portrayed Diana as violent at times but that seems to be improving(let's hope it lasts).

As for the cover of Secret Origins, it's Diana's facial expression that I find to be unattractive. While I'm not Chiang's biggest fan, his facial expressions for Diana have always been better than the SO cover.

I do remember Perez's Diana doing the things you mentioned but the circumstances always seemed very much like she had no other choice and out of Perez's entire run, I don't remember her resorting to that type of violence more than twice and with Perez's 50+ issue run, I'd say that's not too bad.

The cover wasnt drawn by Chiang.

[Dr. Poison]

It's a cover anyway. Covers are supposed to show the character in a cool pose to draw readers. Despite what's in the actual book, you wont see many SUperman covers of him saving cats and hugging people, because of them are him punching people and flaring his eyes red with heat vision.

It is what it is. I think it's a cool cover and i like the armor, skirt and God of War stuff she wears (but what is up with those deformed horns?). Leave the heartwarming stuff for the actual story.
Agreed.
The cover wasnt drawn by Chiang.

I know. I was trying to say that while I'm not Chiang's biggest fan, even he draws Diana's facial expressions a lot better than Bermejo.

[Dr. Hurt]

I strongly beg to differ. Without William Moulton Matston and the women in his life, there would be no WONDER WOMAN.

Someone alert the Siegel and Shuster families as well as anyone related to Bob Kane and Bill Finger that they're irrelevant to Superman and Batman and their recent 75th anniversaries.

Look, their creations still live on, but a lot of things have changed and rightfully so, if you expect the same product to sell month in, month out. "Without Karl Benz there would be no automobiles, so Mercedes Benz should continue to sell cars exactly like he sold them more than a century ago." See the problem? You cant sell a car from 1883 to today's market, no matter how much you revere the man. And it's the same thing for every product that has to keep selling on and on to our ever changing tastes and needs.

Yep! It will be a full circle. In issue #3, I think, Diana asked Hippolyta if she knew why she left the island, and it seems that theme will be explored in Secret Origins:



Also...I have nothing against Steve, but isn't it better if Diana had her own reasons for wanting to go in the outside world, like it seems the case, reasons that didn't evolve her simply wanting to follow the first man she had met? (And no, I am not counting Ares because she was a child back then, and he is also her brother and was her mentor).

I always said that Diana should want to leave the island on her own, not because of Steve and i'm happy that Azz is writing like that. Feminism aside, i think it speaks more of her values, goals and possible internal turmoil to want to leave her country and family to come to ours. Because she is young and wants to explore the world, to save it, to do this or that, it doesnt matter. But it should be more than "hey that guy is hot, let me follow him home." Marston gave her an immaculate conception and yet he did this.

[Silvanus]

It's a cover anyway. Covers are supposed to show the character in a cool pose to draw readers. Despite what's in the actual book, you wont see many SUperman covers of him saving cats and hugging people. Most of them are him punching people and flaring his eyes red with heat vision.

I agree with that, pretty much. It's why I said that it would be hard to find scenes "inside" the book that portray Diana like Bermejo's cover does (contrary to a couple of people here said that this cover exemplifies the current portrayal of Diana in her book.) I find the Finch cover unattractive, personally, but I agree that it would be a mistake to assume that it signifies much about how the character will be portrayed within the book itself.

[NYCER]

"MAD MEN references" ?

Azzarello and Chiang are plotting Wonder Woman the same way as 100Bullets and Hellblazer, tying the beginning into the ending towards the end of the story. Why? Because it made sense in those, and probably will in this WW story.

WW#0 showed Diana at a young age, and how she influenced Ares into mercy. It showed how she felt different as a kid and also set the stage for Ares role in the second act.

WW#Secret Origins looks like it'll detail why Diana wanted to leave the island, and Hippolyta role in things.

Steve Trevor doesn't seem to tie into the current story. Perhaps something a future writer could detail, especially if a story where they get together or something.

Why do other books even come into this discussion? I read WONDER WOMAN and I love the character but despise what Azzarello and Chiang have done with both the character and series. Who cares about what they did in other books they've produced? At best, it's speculative whether the storytelling technique and devices they used for those other books will work in WONDER WOMAN. At worst, it'll be just as bad as or worse than the crap they've churned out for 3 years.

[NYCER]

Look, their creations still live on, but a lot of things have changed and rightfully so, if you expect the same product to sell month in, month out. "Without Karl Benz there would be no automobiles, so Mercedes Benz should continue to sell cars exactly like he sold them more than a century ago." See the problem? You cant sell a car from 1883 to today's market, no matter how much you revere the man. And it's the same thing for every product that has to keep selling on and on to our ever changing tastes and needs.

Wrong analysis and inappropriate comparisons. I responded to a comment that flat out stated Marston is dead and therefore irrelevant. You bring in a different idea regarding evolving characters to reflect the zeitgeist. Clearly Marston isn't immortal like anyone else who's ever created or pioneered anything and yes Wonder Woman does need to change with the times. But don't conflate relevance with change of circumstances in society, business and desires of readers and fans etc. Those are two separate and distinct concepts. Marston will always be relevant because but for him, there wouldn't even be a Wonder Woman who could be molded "to our ever changing tastes and needs."

[Silvanus]

Wrong analysis and inappropriate comparisons. I responded to a comment that flat out stated Marston is dead and therefore irrelevant. You bring in a different idea regarding evolving characters to reflect the zeitgeist. Clearly Marston isn't immortal like anyone else who's ever created or pioneered anything and yes Wonder Woman does need to change with the times. But don't conflate relevance with change of circumstances in society, business and desires of readers and fans etc. Those are two separate and distinct concepts. Marston will always be relevant because but for him, there wouldn't even be a Wonder Woman who could be molded "to our ever changing tastes and needs."

Marston's not irrelevant to me, and I know that for sure because I've enjoyed the current run's various allusions to or parallels with Marston, whether it's an Easter egg like naming Zola's hometown after Olive Byrne or something more thematic like Artemis referring to the Amazons' "loving submission." Or even the Minotaur's bondage gear, which fits right in with the well-known bondage and domination subtext in Martston's issues. Or the parallel between Persephone in Azz's Diana's visit to hell and Conquest's wife in Marston's Diana's visit to the hell planet Mars--a parallel which may have been an accident or the product of my "reading in," but which improved my enjoyment of both books anyway.

However, I don't think we can know what Marston would have thought of some of the choices made by contemporary writers and artists on the book. If he'd been writing for an older audience, a 21st Century audience, in our historical context and with our frame of reference, for a publisher with 21st Century standards of what's acceptable, would he have made all the same choices? I think we can say with certainty that he would not have made ALL the same choices. Which choices he would have made differently, and which choices he'd approve of in later runs, I do not know.

Given his express interest in the domination of men by women, I find it particularly interesting to think about what he would have made of Wonder Woman's threat to Orion's masculinity in 19. Interesting, but unknowable, as far as I can tell.

What would he have thought of the preview under discussion in this thread [Silvanus asked hastily, as he believed he glimpsed the shadow of the moderator's watering can poised to darken the increasingly off-topic thread ]? I would guess he might have approved of Aleka's obvious attachment to Diana, and he might have liked to see it lead to Aleka's "loving submission" to Diana, the way Paula's former slaves lovingly submit to Mala's "love leadership" (a term Marston used in his non-fiction). I imagine he would have been struck by the fact that the story of Diana being sculpted from clay is still present, in some form, three quarters of a century later, when even he rarely if ever found reason to allude to it in the comics after the origin issues. I imagine that he would have hoped that in the issue itself Zeus would end up submitting to Hippolyta, rather than the other way around. If it turns out that they each surrender total control, as is said in issue 2, I don't know if he would have thought "mutual submission," on an equal basis, made sense. For me, mutual submission is a great way to make Marston's loving submission concept relevant today for readers who don't share some of Marston's predilections.

[GlennSimpson]

However, I don't think we can know what Marston would have thought of some of the choices made by contemporary writers and artists on the book.

This is my point. It wouldn't even matter what Marston thought of the contemporary Wonder Woman. Marston couldn't have forseen what culture would be like 70-something years later. His hypothetical opinions are irrelevant.

[Dr. Poison]

However, I don't think we can know what Marston would have thought of some of the choices made by contemporary writers and artists on the book. If he'd been writing for an older audience, a 21st Century audience, in our historical context and with our frame of reference, for a publisher with 21st Century standards of what's acceptable, would he have made all the same choices? I think we can say with certainty that he would not have made ALL the same choices. Which choices he would have made differently, and which choices he'd approve of in later runs, I do not know.

You're correct in that we'll never know what Marston would think of the various interpretations of Wonder Woman since he passed away but I've seen statements from 2 of his grandchildren(one who runs the Wonder Woman museum) that they are both quite displeased with the current interpretation of Wonder Woman.

[BlackFeath]

You're correct in that we'll never know what Marston would think of the various interpretations of Wonder Woman since he passed away but I've seen statements from 2 of his grandchildren(one who runs the Wonder Woman museum) that they are both quite displeased with the current interpretation of Wonder Woman.

Well, but that doesn't mean much... It's not as what they think is surely what Marston would have thought had he been alive now.

[Silvanus]

You're correct in that we'll never know what Marston would think of the various interpretations of Wonder Woman since he passed away but I've seen statements from 2 of his grandchildren(one who runs the Wonder Woman museum) that they are both quite displeased with the current interpretation of Wonder Woman.

I respect their feelings, but I don't know whether they have more complete and accurate insight into their grandfathers' thinking (and what he would, hypothetically, think today) than I have into mine. And I know nothing about what my grandparents would think of anything if they were alive today, since they passed away before I was born. If I knew their arguments, their family status (and the status of one of them as head of the museum) might give those arguments extra credibility with me--especially if they supported their arguments with specific "insider information," like "I still remember when my grandpa said the one thing he could never abide in a Wonder Woman comic would be a joke about three-martini lunches." ) But so far, I've only seen fairly general statements from them, not really arguments. It goes without saying that they don't have to make arguments if they don't want to; but I don't find it esay to be convinced by only their authority as family members.

[borntohula]

Yep! It will be a full circle. In issue #3, I think, Diana asked Hippolyta if she knew why she left the island, and it seems that theme will be explored in Secret Origins:



Also...I have nothing against Steve, but isn't it better if Diana had her own reasons for wanting to go in the outside world, like it seems the case, reasons that didn't evolve her simply wanting to follow the first man she had met? (And no, I am not counting Ares because she was a child back then, and he is also her brother and was her mentor).

The story will reach a full circle with WW#Secret Origin while also handing the toys over to the next writer with both the origin and ending fresh in hand! Perhaps even so that the next writer will be able to somewhat stick to the clay origin, but with some added connection to greek gods and making Paradise Island live up to it's name.

And I agree, I think it's cooler that her reasons to leave are her own. Her being a bit of an outsider is more relatable. Makes her less princess and more person.

Since the current run (in subtext) explores a lot of feminist ideas I'm really hoping Grant Morrison's Wonder Woman book also brings some sexuality (LGBT, different sorts of kinks and what not) stuff into the mix. If done right (methinks it works best in subtext) I think it could be VERY awesome!

Considering Morrison's (IMO) good results in making Superman a sun/overpowered hippie and Batman a cosmic batgod monk I believe his Wonder Woman has all the potential in the world becoming a mind opening/blowing love guru and/or goddess!

Why do other books even come into this discussion?

--the storytelling technique and devices they used for those other books...

Funny you ask since answered that by yourself after citing what I wrote.

I respect their feelings, but I don't know whether they have more complete and accurate insight into their grandfathers' thinking (and what he would, hypothetically, think today) than I have into mine. And I know nothing about what my grandparents would think of anything if they were alive today, since they passed away before I was born.

I think he'd aspire to become a Leopold von Sacher Masoch of comics (with so-so results), being a frequent guest at the San Francisco Armory and Vice TV and would most definitely champion Valerie Solana's SCUM-manifesto. He'd be widely considered a bit misguided as (if he'd called himself that) a feminist.

Also, since he (Marston) was living in a polyamorous relationship he'd probably take some interest in the relationship between Hippolyta and Zeus in the current run. Also the BDSM-minotaur of course, giving it two thumbs up.

[Dr. Poison]

I respect their feelings, but I don't know whether they have more complete and accurate insight into their grandfathers' thinking (and what he would, hypothetically, think today) than I have into mine. And I know nothing about what my grandparents would think of anything if they were alive today, since they passed away before I was born. If I knew their arguments, their family status (and the status of one of them as head of the museum) might give those arguments extra credibility with me--especially if they supported their arguments with specific "insider information," like "I still remember when my grandpa said the one thing he could never abide in a Wonder Woman comic would be a joke about three-martini lunches." ) But so far, I've only seen fairly general statements from them, not really arguments. It goes without saying that they don't have to make arguments if they don't want to; but I don't find it esay to be convinced by only their authority as family members.

Christie Marston has explained several instances where her grandmother told her about her grandfather's thought process when it came to Wonder Woman. Also - a lot of times, families are raised with the same values and ideas as the people that have come before them in their bloodlines so it's quite possible that the grandchildren of Marston have very similar values and thought processes as their grandfather did. While they may not be 100% experts on what their grandfather would think, I think they're in a much better position to make that call than you or I are.

[Silvanus]

Christie Marston has explained several instances where her grandmother told her about her grandfather's thought process when it came to Wonder Woman.

That would be interesting to hear about, if you remember and feel comfortable recounting any details, or if you could link to them.

Also - a lot of times, families are raised with the same values and ideas as the people that have come before them in their bloodlines so it's quite possible that the grandchildren of Marston have very similar values and thought processes as their grandfather did.

It's possible, of course. Lots of time people do share their ancestors' beliefs--but it's also true that lots of times people develop values and ideas of their own, which may be quite different from those of their ancestors. For example, I love my parents very much, but there are lots of beliefs of theirs that I do not share. Or, to use a less personal example, I'd point that Ronald Reagan, Jr., is a well-known liberal; that he may believe something doesn't indicate that his father believed it. And he and his conservative half-brohter have sometimes disagreed about what their father would believe if he were here today.

Sometimes, too, our attitudes towards past generations are shaped by veneration (which is a good thing). It would be only natural for Marston's descendants to feel that his work was permanently perfect and that variations could only tarnish it. If Marston were around, though, he might possibly feel more free to take an interest in what other people could do with his work, even if they were taking it other directions. (Or he might not have been the kind of guy who would feel that way; I really don't know.)

I actually think it would be unfair to the Marstons to assume that if their grandfather believed something, they must believe it too. Conversely, I don't assume that he would necessarily believe everything that they happen to believe.

While they may not be 100% experts on what their grandfather would think, I think they're in a much better position to make that call than you or I are.

I don't have any personal knowledge about what he thought, so any personal knowledge they have is more than what I have. But I guess I'd be somewhat more convinced by textual evidence--in particular, what Marston actually wrote--than by family authority alone, in most cases. For instance, hypothetically, if a Marston told me that her granddad never believed it was good for men to be dominated by women, I'd be interested and I would listen but it might be hard for me to be convinced, because he seemed to write very clearly that he did believe that. If that Marston told me, though, that she knew from family sources that his opinions had changed after he wrote something or that he felt that this words had been misinterpreted, that could possibly be convincing.

[toastedbread]

I'm grateful to Marston for creating her and for consciously attempting to engage with ideas about equality for women at a time when few did.

But I'm gonna be honest, I find it really offputting the way Marston's "original intent" is glorified in a way that, say, Kane and Finger's intent for Batman never is. Lots of us feel sorry for Siegel and Schuster and think they were treated badly, but when we get steamed about Superman doing something out of character we don't yell about how that wasn't "their original vision!" Even if we do start talking about the core of the character or what he was meant to stand for. We don't invoke their names.

If it's because Marston was more consciously political in his intentions, then fine, that's a distinction that makes some sense. But it goes hand in hand with acknowledging that the politics he was engaging in have changed radically in the last 70 years and if Wonder Woman is supposed to represent them then she has to be allowed to change too.

Honestly, while I respect his intention, I really don't agree with a lot of Marston's ideas and think they reflect both the time (they're pretty gender essentialist) and his own personal sexual preferences. Which you know, that's fine. As long as we don't start canonising the opinions of one dude, 70 years ago, as the be-all, end-all template for a woman who is supposed to explore feminist themes today.

Why are we so precious about him?

Like, seriously, I am COMPLETELY happy to admit that we owe him a huge debt of gratitude for creating her in the first place.

But why is he a better authority on what kind of a woman she should be, and how she should represent feminism, than anyone else?

Sometimes it feels like we're just handing authority over one more woman to a crusty old dude.