Comics Alliance Review of Azz Run

[Awonder]

I was actually going to ask if Juliet Kahn was your pen name (though, come to think of it, I guess Awonder is your pen name.) She sounded like you.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Gaea is inherently the source of Olympian power. They never talk about Cronos or the Titans either, doesn't make them non-existent. Zeus being her father simply brings Diana into the Olympian family and it's clear that her maternal lineage is why she is dramatically more powerful than her half Olympian siblings. Zeus isn't the source of anything, just a conduit. Taking the stance of "if the writer didn't specifically say it then it doesn't exist" is a weak place to be.

Influence and manipulation are two different things. Diana never refers to him as her father, doesn't look to seek him out for answers, in fact she hardly mentions him at all. But she does embrace the fact that she now has a whole new family ... With all that entails.

- Um, I never said "if the writer didn't specifically say it then it doesn't exist" so fake-quotes are a weak place to be. Although I like the quote, because if it's not in the book, then it's not in the book. We can all fill in the margins as we please or don't please.

- How can you say Gaea is the source of Olympian power (though apparently she's so important that she's never mentioned) while Zeus isn't the source of anything (though he, his power, and his position get a lot of page time)? Makes no sense to me.

- Cronus is in the book. He makes a nice chair and provides delicious tears for drinking.

- Diana does refer to Zeus as her father in her big speech in issue #35.

[AmiMizuno]

It's clearly shown in Azz run Zeus leads the god and The gods are what the writers want the gods to e so Gaea for the most part is not important u forget this is a comic and as not been stated. Also Gaea is not on directed connection with Diana's myth so you really can't use it for it doesn't really matter for her power is more from Zeus each God might have gotten their power from Gaea but made it their own and it is theirs not Gaea for each god is different and unique. The female influence is less than it was before . There Should be a balance but with Azz males are more important.

One Ares training is a bit more important


Hermes gives Diana the ability the fly.

heptusne gives the upgrades

There should be a balance it it's not shown
We can't use Gaea for she is not in the run and many run she is not shown as a character expected in Perez she is mentioned

[Darius]

I'll take that as a compliment.



- Um, I never said "if the writer didn't specifically say it then it doesn't exist" so fake-quotes are a weak place to be. Although I like the quote, because if it's not in the book, then it's not in the book. We can all fill in the margins as we please or don't please.

- How can you say Gaea is the source of Olympian power (though apparently she's so important that she's never mentioned) while Zeus isn't the source of anything (though he, his power, and his position get a lot of page time)? Makes no sense to me.

- Cronus is in the book. He makes a nice chair and provides delicious tears for drinking.

- Diana does refer to Zeus as her father in her big speech in issue #35.

Gaea is the start of the Olympian line. It's a faulty assumption that if Diana is the daughter of Zeus that her power comes from a male source. The source of the power stretches beyond Zeus. Regardless of her being discussed in the series or not. Yes, Cronos does make a good chair... Forgot about that bit, this actually supports my point, if Cronus exists so too does Gaea, his mother and its clear that the Olympians general mythology is in existence.

She refers to Zeus as her father as a statement of fact, not as an influential part of her development. She's not looking to him as a father-figure, she doesn't go looking to find him in search of answers she never thinks about how nice it may be to know him.

You actually continue to say "if the author didn't say it it didn't happen" ... Not in so many words, but your entire point about Gaea is predicated on this argument. Zeus is never mentioned as the source of Olympian power. In fact its made clear that Hades, Poseidon and Zeus took power from the Titans. It's only logical to extrapolate that the Titans came from Gaea as they did in Greek Myth.

[brettc1]

The other thing that I really don't like is her nobility of purpose has been completely removed. This above all things is just unforgivable, imo.

Bruce Wayne became Batman to seek justice for his parents and for the downtrodden of Gotham.

Clark Kent became Superman because he wanted to use his gifts for the benefit of mankind.

Diana became Wonder Woman because...she wanted to run away from home.

Not combat war. Not take a message to the outside world. Not to save Steve, who instead just became a means to an end.

She was tired of being different, tired of being teased and didn't want to be a princess any more so she ran way from home.

Sadly this also lines up with Justice League #3 - "I want to fight evil things."

From noble warrior who wants to make the world a better place to 14 year old D&D player, just like that.

[borntohula]

1.) You're right! I should've been more clear. I'm not just concerned about the message sent to young girls and women but to young boys and men as well! Art, across all mediums, represents to varying degrees the cultural zeitgeist; more importantly, it provides the space to perpetuate harmful narratives or dismantle them. Wonder Woman's origin was PURPOSEFULLY feminist in intent and was meant to be a subversive counter to patriarchy and misogyny. Wonder Woman is innately political--comparing her origin and the intent of her creation to Batman and Superman is a false equivalency.

2.) Re: being bound, Marston's overall message was that everyone should relish in willing submission and being "bound" to a kind, wise and loving "authority"--neither Diana nor the villains (both male and female) she tied up were immune to this (THAT'S FEMINISM = EQUALITY). Being bound to someone in this context means being vulnerable to someone you trust and that should feel good/"pleasurable" to both men and women alike. Being able to be "weak" in the arms of someone else and not having to be strong all the time, while knowing/trusting you'll be cared for/healed, is a gift and is powerful. It can be transformative and it WAS in Diana's world. Women have usually been allowed the space to be emotionally vulnerable; Men on the other hand, via patriarchy, have been more conditioned towards stoicism, hardheartedness and non-emotionality. "Being bound" was something "natural" for Diana and so binding men and even other women was just a way to impart this aspect of Marstonian "femininity"; she was attempting to heal them with the same love that healed her. Feminism has always been a gateway to humanism in a sense. Therefore, with this in mind, no, I wouldn't be worried.

I think Marston is interesting in a similar way as Leopold von Sacher-Masoch was, and his views being like a "light version" of Valerie Solanas. Which is a bit problematic.

But: Reason I compared Wondy's origin with Bat's and Sup's was because it seems to mean to people, not what it was meant to do.

And my conclusion is that origins ultimately seem to take quite the back seat in people's minds when reading a story or thinking about the character (for example as an icon.). It's more often seen as starting line for a character. Essentially it's perhaps what made them, but not what makes them.

Neither Beatrix Kiddo in Kill Bill, Lisbeth Sallander in Men who hate women or Bruce Wayne in Batman are heiled seen as powerful because they got ruined, it's because they're strong (in one or several ways). Not "ideal".

Similar to Jesus. I'v met few who likes him because his papa happened to be God, but it's because he reads like a good guy in the Bible. Same thing with Buddah (who was royalty before becoming a monk. Not much tragedy there innit?). Same thing with Diana, a happy kind strong woman.

But surely "origin" (especially WW's it seems) does matter the most to some. On the internet at least. Never met anyone of such opinion in person.

3.) Having said all that, let's not act like EVERY detail of a character's origin must be upheld to the letter; I certainly never implied as much. Plenty of creatives are able to make tweaks that don't compromise the underlying foundations. IMO, Diana's motivations before Azzarello were more NOBLE and HEROIC in nature because her explicit purpose was to make the world better; she wasn't just escaping a life that would've bored her--which is also slightly problematic, considering she was supposed to hale from a feminist Utopia. Why is a woman running from this? What is so innately unbearable about a "perfect" all female space? The Amazons were living away from man for millennia and were seemingly content and fulfilled--why the sudden change now?

Diana's origin is more Messianic ('virgin' birth, perfect, purports to save mankind with her message) than Mosaic (cast down, pulled up from the earth, humbled, etc...), which parallels Superman's origin more so. Moses had to turn "shame into pride"; that's not Diana's story. She was NEVER shameful, she was never embarrassed about her identity AND all this as a woman (taken within a historical perspective)! THAT is what made her subversive. She believed herself to be an equal from the very beginning. She didn't have to fight to be equal because she was INNATELY--just as powerful as any man. And patriarchy has regarded women with the converse narrative--that they are lesser, unequal, weaker, etc.... That is why Diana's original origin is more powerful than the new one. She didn't need a father to be great. She was powerful and strong and loving and compassionate raised on womanhood alone. Diana wasn't simply bored and restless, seeking an escape like some Disney Princess. She was explicitly committed to making the world a better place.

Biggest reason methinks the Amazons was written closer to the myth and what Marston called "husband hunting" in his WW-run is what Azzarello recently said: "integration leads to conflict, and conflict leads to story. There is no story in Paradise.". http://herocomplex.latimes.com/comic...ang-finale/#/0

Basically Azzarello likes to test characters (preferably against themselves) and he isn't a fan of the idea of perfection.

And since you mentioned perfection. I think one "problem" with "perfect" is that it's quite relative to opinion, same (which IMO is a quality) goes with feminism. There are so many branches it's like they grow on trees. And women -just like men- are people, as in opinions on things differs from person to person.

But the opinions on perfection are quite often (both from men and women) that they don't like it. Because the thought of it makes them ultimately to not liking themselves and/or others.

A big part of being seen as equal seems to be being accepted for being unequal. Not all men are strong and other "classic" qualities, but they're still accepted. Women often have a steep road ahead of them to reach acceptance, and an even bigger climb up a brown stinky hill to reach respect.

But about Diana. May I ask if you'v read the latest run? She was neither -as you wrote her off- "bored" or "escape like some Disney Princess". And she never once said she was in need of a father, whom she mentioned only in relation to her family ties to the Gods or when declaring "I am the daughter of Hippolyta and Zeus. I am the God of war. I am Wonder Woman! But I need only be myself.". Which was her faith in herself being tested, not questioned.

The point to this is to weigh in on her qualities as a person, not what comes with her flesh and blood. Nature's power structure/struggle. Which is not only First Born's ideal but also a big chunk of patriarchy, something Diana challenged and ultimately literarily threw away. And Diana also challenged this when Athena said she'd dispose the last of Zola in the "vessel" ("Birth vessel". Similar to men viewed as "seed vessels" in WW#7). First born used nature, Diana nurture.

To boil it all down. This page.


http://www.the-medium-is-not-enough....es/WW35_20.jpg

Zola is more to Diana than what nature made her. Even if she's not she's not as tall, physically strong as others etc. and foremost was intended to carry a child she's still more than that to Diana. And this page reads like a celebration to that.

But just as I believe (well I hope.) you to see my point, I think I see your's and where both of ours ultimately comes from (no matter how many words we're tying it and ourselves up in), it all depends on what story we prefer and what ideas we throw into the mix.

Interesting to see yours!

Btw. Since you like Marston. Have you read the WW news paper strips book from IDW? It any good?

[BlackFeath]

Sadly this also lines up with Justice League #3 - "I want to fight evil things."

From noble warrior who wants to make the world a better place to 14 year old D&D player, just like that.

I don't think her portrayal in the first arc of Justice League is that bad. Considering she was just 18, and what she says here:





I'd say she is young, with still many things to learn, but with her heart in the right place. And she wants to fight evil because she has seen that in the world there also good things (she says trivial things, but she means also many other wonderful things), and she wants to protect them. Also, what she says to Steve in the first image I'd say it's in line with Secret Origin. Her not wanting to be treated like a 'girl'.

The only problem I have is that in the majority of the arcs after the first, after the five years gap, she was badly portrayed.

[Dr. Poison]

"The world belongs to no one. And everyone." That sounds like classic Wonder Woman to me.

[IndianaDrake]

'Rape by deception' is, indeed, a crime that Zeus technically committed. If you gain the victim's consent by misrepresenting yourself, it's considered rape under the law.

However, in this case it's just...weird. Zola was Athena who agreed to carry baby Zeus, so Athena wasn't deceived (apparently the only one who wasn't?) so I don't know if it counts. Too bizarre.

If, though, Zola was really a normal mortal woman and Zeus slept with her through deception (as he apparently did), then that's rape. The question is, would Zola have slept with a raping, cheating Greek god if she knew who he was? And since she didn't know, then she didn't have the choice to sleep with Zeus but rather with 'Bob the truck driver' (or whoever he appeared to her as), therefore it would have been rape.

But again, with Athena = Zola and Athena agreeing to the whole plan, I think (?) it's moot in this particular case.

So is it rape when Batman has sex with a girl and does not tell her his secret identity because he is definitely misrepresenting himself.

[Blacksun]

I don't think her portrayal in the first arc of Justice League is that bad. Considering she was just 18, and what she says here:





I'd say she is young, with still many things to learn, but with her heart in the right place. And she wants to fight evil because she has seen that in the world there also good things (she says trivial things, but she means also many other wonderful things), and she wants to protect them. Also, what she says to Steve in the first image I'd say it's in line with Secret Origin. Her not wanting to be treated like a 'girl'.

The only problem I have is that in the majority of the arcs after the first, after the five years gap, she was badly portrayed.

she was "just" 18?

I don't accept age for excusing bad writing like it was with geoff johns

she was pretty mature with 15 in year #0 and in secret origins

[BlackFeath]

she was "just" 18?

I don't accept age for excusing bad writing like it was with geoff johns

she was pretty mature with 15 in year #0 and in secret origins

She was more immature 5 years later in Justice League than in the first arc...

Granted, her swinging the sword in that way doesn't really make sense, but her speech wasn't that bad... Not only she was 18, but she was also in a new world for her. I don't find anything wrong in what she said to Darkseid or in her saying that in the world there are good things but also evil things she wants to fight. And like I said, what she says to Steve about her not wanting to be treated as a child is in line with Secret Origin.

Now, if you want to say that Azz writes her better, I agree. I just think that in the first arc of JL she wasn't that bad.

[Mel Dyer]

I think that Johns or whoever got the age wrong for that JL appearance. 18? That would make her the same age or one year older than Victor Stone...the Cyborg? No way.

[Blacksun]

She was more immature 5 years later in Justice League than in the first arc...

Granted, her swinging the swordIo in that way doesn't really make sense, but her speech wasn't that bad... Not only she was 18, but she was also in a new world for her. I don't find anything wrong in what she said to Darkseid or in her saying that in the world there are good things but also evil things she wants to fight. And like I said, what she says to Steve about her not wanting to be treated as a child is in line with Secret Origin.

Now, if you want to say that Azz writes her better, I agree. I just think that in the first arc of JL she wasn't that bad.

i still.think is poor writing and very.generic speech just generic as the first arc of of jl.
she doesnt want to be only a princess, she want more. for me 18 is a very good age do not act as a 13 years old, speacially for a ww that is very mature for her age and is royalty

[BlackFeath]

I think that Johns or whoever got the age wrong for that JL appearance. 18? That would make her the same age or one year older than Victor Stone...the Cyborg? No way.

She was 18 during the first arc. It was also confirmed in Azzarello's run. It takes place five years later Darkseid's invasion, and she says on the page to Apollo in issue #11 that she is 23. Also, we know that her first fight against the Minotaur was 10 years ago (she says so to Ares in #17), so she was 13 back then.
In Secret Origin I'd say she was 17 or already 18, since shortly after she left with Steve and when the first JL's arc happened she hadn't been in America for much time.

[Redwing]

This review pretty much summed up my opinion (and problems with) the run, in particular the overall point that is often missed, I think:



Batman and Superman are ultimate male fantasies - the 'perfect man' and the 'perfect superman', and Diana was to women what those two are to men. Azzarello demolished this, im. He captured Diana's personality, but obliterated her cast, home and history in terms of what they stood for for women.

The feminine influence on Diana is gone, and she becomes Wonder Woman not because of her mother or because of the Amazons but in spite of them. For me and others, this is a critical change in the character that just isn't acceptable, and I think a lot of guys just haven't understood what's been lost from this point of view. There are plenty of 'ultimate men' with lots of male supporting cast and male influence, but there's only ever been one Wonder Woman whose values and identity were firmly rooted in the feminine.

And yeah, it makes me a little sad, really, to see this loss for future generations. This isn't just 'another story' but the new DC 'status quo' (see her origin in the new animated movies and in the upcoming Bat v Supes).

Worse, I get the feeling from interviews with the editors and creative staff at DC that they just don't get what they've done in this regard.

I honestly don't see how Wonder Woman has lost being an "ultimate female fantasy" to women the way Batman and Superman are supposedly "ultimate male fantasies" to men. Batman and Superman aren't male fantasies to men because of Krypton or the Kents or Jimmy Olsen or Alfred or Lucius Fox or whomever. they are, if its true, "ultimate male fantasies" because one can fly, lift tanks, see through walls and do impressive stuff. and because the other is cool and dark and has great gadgets and vehicles and can do impressive stuff as well. and they are in great physical shape and and are brave men.

How did WW lose any of that?? she can still fly, fight, is super strong, block bullets, looks beautiful and is a brave, virtuous woman.
Women can't fantasize about being and doing this stuff the way men do about Bats and Supes?

I also don't think the feminine influence is gone as she still not only seems feminine but re-established her relationship with her mother and is leading her sisters into a new cultural way of being. as for future generations, not sure they are paying that much attention to the nuances of the Amazons and the rest of her supporting cast, but I know my 16 year old niece who never thought WW was very cool before loves the current book and fantasizes about WW herself...

[Silvanus]

- Diana does refer to Zeus as her father in her big speech in issue #35.

Oh, yeah--I see his name there. Right after "Hippolyta and...".

Joking aside, I do think it's interesting that she names him as her father there, whereas she usually doesn't. I think it's because she's saying that she's not defined by any one aspect of her identity, including "daughter of Hippolyta and Zeus"; what's ultimately important is that she's Diana, and because she knows that with such conviction she can take off her cuffs and not worry about losing control and becoming amoral like her father. She can even turn off the blue glow when she wants to.