How they come up with the back story of clay in the first place?

[Awonder]

Did I accidentally grant that premise when I wasn't looking?

You've been all but directly admitting it for over a year and a half now. You added a strong maternal line to Hippolyta, right? If Azzarello did such a great job on the maternal narrative - such that it feels like a true balance with the paternal narratives - why are you making your own additions - or should we just call them corrections?

ETA--But, if you mean that it can a paternal narrative even while it dramatizes how destructive and corrupting unbridled patriarchy can be--well, OK. I won't quibble over semantics (at least, not right now.) If the run contains a "paternal narrative" that enacts a feminist critique of patriarchy, I'll take it.

You mean how Azzarello dramatizes males as the innocent victims of sex-based infanticide? And how Diana unquestionably restores this "destructive" and "corrupting" patriarch to "his throne" to save the day? That's your strong feminist critique?

Hey, getting swallowed whole, while surely not pleasant, isn't necessarily fatal for gods, as we know from the case of Zeus's siblings. According to what may be the oldest and most authoritative sources for the myth, Hesiod's Theogony (924 ff), Metis was swallowed but was not killed; on the contrary, she lived to be a great help to her daughter:


I guess sometimes a goddess as wise as Metis is able to affect or subvert the patriarch's schemes from the inside. Could Azz's Athena have learned from her example?

ETA--It might be interesting if a writer were to reveal that one reason Athena agreed to participate in Zeus' plan was that she knew her mother would go free when Zeus' original body ceased to exist.

More "might's" and "maybe's"? Oh yeah, Azzarello's great maternal narrative of Athena's mom - that is nowhere in his story.

[Silvanus]

You've been all but directly admitting it for over a year and a half now. You added a strong maternal line to Hippolyta, right? If Azzarello did such a great job on the maternal narrative - such that it feels like a true balance with the paternal narratives - why are you making your own additions - or should we just call them corrections?

I wouldn't call them corrections, because they wouldn't contradict or replace what's been established--they'd add to it and build on it. Azz left some room for the imagination, to be sure, and I've said how I'd work within that room; most recently, I've said so in response to your own question, upthread, about how we'd adopt one of Wonder Woman's origins for a movie. There's lot that could still be spelled out, my way or some other way; but it doesn't follow logically that Azz must have made the paternal narrative more important to Diana's heroism than the maternal narrative.

Again, I totally understand that it's possible to focus on other details, or on some of the same details in a different light, and arrive at a different interpretation. There can be more than one supportable interpretqation; I've been making a case for mine being a bit more convincing and more satisfying, but even if I could succeed in making that case convincingly, that still wouldn't make your argument invalid.

You mean how Azzarello dramatizes males as the innocent victims of sex-based infanticide? And how Diana unquestionably restores this "destructive" and "corrupting" patriarch to "his throne" to save the day? That's your strong feminist critique?

Not really--I was thinking more of how he showed that the "paternal narrative" of a patriarch clashing with his male heir almost destroyed the world, and of how he symbolically messed with the paternal narrative by have a patriarch choose--out of boredom and/or repentance--to become his daughter's son. But, since you ask, I did always assume that the Amazons' apparent misandry could, in the context of the ancient world, only have been a reaction to the prevailing misogyny; and i do think it make sense to show that any isolationism and supremacism on behalf of either gender can lead to perverse acts. And having to support a maternal regency instead of an outright queenship or democracy seems like a nod to the idea that the long patriarchal tradition won't just abruptly end overnight--which seems both truthful and conducive to future storytelling about the continuing shift in the gendered balance of power among the Olympians.

More "might's" and "maybe's"? Oh yeah, Azzarello's great maternal narrative of Athena's mom - that is nowhere in his story.

That's true--it's nowhere in the story. Neither is Zeus' swallowing of Metis, which you invoked. If you want to "default" to the myth that Zeus swallowed Metis, why shouldn't we also default to the myth that Metis survived and armed her daughter? After all, these aren't really even separate myths; Hesiod utters them almost in the same breath. Sure, we could default to neither, and say that Athena had no maternal narrative in the story. But, why is that a problem? She and all of the old Olympians are presented in the story as products of old patriarchy, only now, in this feminist age, becoming something different--and now, after all, she's getting a maternal narrative of sorts,as her own grandmother.

[Awonder]

I'm not sure how much a reviewer's gender matters, ...

Simple explanation: You ever been a woman? Me either. I've been to China, even lived there for awhile; but what do I really know about being Chinese? Not much. Women experience the world differently, and that has an effect on how they see women portrayed in media. I'm interested in better understanding that perspective.

You may love your own "feminist reading," but I've read it before - unless you got something new? I was hoping that finding new voices would add new material. And, imo, we could use more female voices on the subject.

... but since you wanted to limit our search to articles by "a female writer," I want to point out that the article you mentioned (the one linked by Gaelforce and Blacksun) doesn't meet your standard; going by the pronouns in the bio provided by The Mary Sue, Doctor Bifrost is a male writer...

Ok, help me understand. I suggest finding blog/articles to support you, and you still want to find something to argue about?

One female writer, Juliet Kahn (in a review, at http://comicsalliance.com/wonder-wom...ello-chiang-dc that I think most of us praised when it came out just after the run ended) conceded that Azz's run was "kinda" feminist. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but she at least agrees that there is a feminist side of the run. Like dumbduck, Kahn sees Wonder Woman's devotion to protecting Zola as a strong feminist element in the story, and she sees Wonder Woman herself as exemplifying feminist values in general. And she also appreciates the lack of cheesecake. She complains, however, that "while the run may embrace 'values of women’s culture,' it does not embrace women." I can respect that point of view, but several of the female characters (especially Zola) seem more interesting and sympathetic to me than they apparently do to her, and the sins of the Amazons strike me as more obviously reactions to misogyny, and the bad behavior of a character like Orion seems more clearly disapproved by the text to me than it does to her. So I go stronger than "kinda" feminist, but both interpretations seem supportable.

Another female reviewer for Comics Alliance, Janelle Asselin, says this about teh Azz/Chiang run:

Asselin finds the Zeus paternity "problematic," but evidently not enough to prevent her from praising the run in an article about the need for Wonder Woman books to be feminist (written as a response to David Finch's controversial "I don't want to say feminist" comment.) ...

Some good, some bad. So, basically, they agree with me. Nice!

I agree, as I've said many times, that there are good moments. Diana, in particular, is written pretty, darn well. But, just as Bruce is not all there is to the Batman story, I have high expectations for women in the WW story.

[Silvanus]

Ok, help me understand. I su
ggest finding blog/articles to support you, and you still want to find something to argue about?

I just pointed out that Dr. Bifrost is not (according to The Mary Sue) a "female writer"; I don't think that this is really "something to argue about."

I (like you, and presumably like Dr. Bifrost) would never claim to be be able to declare "what women think" or "how women think," by the way. Applying feminist principles is something else; I don't believe you have to be female to make arguments about how the principles certain feminists have laid out can be applied to texts--just like an American scholar who's learned in Confucian thought can make a Confucian argument without claiming to be Chinese.

Some good, some bad. So, basically, they agree with me. Nice!

While I knew that you concede that the run has good moments, I didn't know that you'd agree with these critics that the run is "kinda feminist," that it "may embrace 'values of womens' culture,'" or that it is arguably one of the best runs ever and certainly the most acclaimed of the last decade or so. Cool.

[Awonder]

I wouldn't call them corrections, because they wouldn't contradict or replace what's been established--they'd add to it and build on it. Azz left some room for the imagination, to be sure, and I've said how I'd work within that room; most recently, I've said so in response to your own question, upthread, about how we'd adopt one of Wonder Woman's origins for a movie. There's lot that could still be spelled out, my way or some other way; but it doesn't follow logically that Azz must have made the paternal narrative more important to Diana's heroism than the maternal narrative.

Again, I totally understand that it's possible to focus on other details, or on some of the same details in a different light, and arrive at a different interpretation. There can be more than one supportable interpretqation; I've been making a case for mine being a bit more convincing and more satisfying, but even if I could succeed in making that case convincingly, that still wouldn't make your argument invalid...

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "it's possible to focus on other details." How can you make a case for your interpretation being "more convincing" if you are picking and choosing what to focus on and aren't trying to include ALL the details EQUALLY?

If you are adding to what's there in Azzarello's run, it's because there is room to add; a lot that could be spelled out means a lot that is not there. I notice you haven't focused on adding more to the paternal side of things; is that due, in part, because you recognize Azzarello already spent more time and energy there?

You seem to keep tying to limit "paternal/maternal narrative" to "Diana's heroism;" as if in raising Diana (the hero) automatically makes the narrative maternal. Herc stories say otherwise - wouldn't you agree? I've already agreed that Azzarelo does more with Diana's mother, but, imo, it still simply isn't enough.

For instance, tell me one specific lesson our hero learns only from her mother that she uses later on. I can tell you one she learned from Ares' mentorship, because Azzarello makes a point of highlighting it, just as me chose to focus more on her taking over for her male mentor.

And though you always try to downplay the role Ares had - because it was only 12 nights - you try to play up Athena's role even though it was a one brief moment on ONE page. Are you going to make a convincing argument that Athena's one page makes her the greater mentor?

Not really--I was thinking more of how he showed that the "paternal narrative" of a patriarch clashing with his male heir almost destroyed the world, and of how he symbolically messed with the paternal narrative by have a patriarch choose--out of boredom and/or repentance--to become his daughter's son. But, since you ask, I did always assume that the Amazons' apparent misandry could, in the context of the ancient world, only have been a reaction to the prevailing misogyny; and i do think it make sense to show that any isolationism and supremacism on behalf of either gender can lead to perverse acts. And having to support a maternal regency instead of an outright queenship or democracy seems like a nod to the idea that the long patriarchal tradition won't just abruptly end overnight--which seems both truthful and conducive to future storytelling about the continuing shift in the gendered balance of power among the Olympians...

Showing the gods behaving badly is not unique to maternal narratives and feministic stories; so what really makes this one so unique to make it more feminist/maternal than not? Athena gets to be dad's mom - because dad asked her to? It's so femisinst to give up any plans of your own for yourself so you can obey dad? And that outweighs any other potential criticism?

I don't see your "symbolically messed" as a very strong argument for the reasons I've stated before. It's still Zeus's plan that they follow. It's still Zeus on the throne. Zeus did it mainly for him and they all go along. Azzarello puts no emphasis on a "queen regent;" that's you trying to add emphasis.

You make assumptions about the background of the Amazons, but where is the story emphasis? And you're trying to claim the "truthful" card here? Really? Men as the victims of sex-based infanticide is NOT truthful; it's a made-up lie. And it sure as #### is not feminist.

Furthermore, in showcasing the patriarchy of this story, Azzarello showcases BOTH men and women behaving badly. There are men whom Azzarello chooses to create and showcase more goodness (Heph rescuing abandoned boys); where does Azzarello choose to create and showcase more goodness in a goddess? A few male gods are willingly helpful to our hero without first wanting to be antagonists; can the same be said of the goddesses?

In showcasing the matriarchy, ONLY the women are shown behaving badly. The male Amazons are peaceful artisans who ride to the aid of those who wronged them. How is that not one-sided?

Azzarello shows both a patriarchy and a matriarchy - but the story's hero only shows interest in forcing change in the matriarchy. Why? If change is slow and doesn't end overnight, how is this dichotomy of change feminist and maternal?

That's true--it's nowhere in the story. Neither is Zeus' swallowing of Metis, which you invoked. If you want to "default" to the myth that Zeus swallowed Metis, why shouldn't we also default to the myth that Metis survived and armed her daughter? After all, these aren't really even separate myths; Hesiod utters them almost in the same breath. Sure, we could default to neither, and say that Athena had no maternal narrative in the story. But, why is that a problem? She and all of the old Olympians are presented in the story as products of old patriarchy, only now, in this feminist age, becoming something different--and now, after all, she's getting a maternal narrative of sorts,as her own grandmother.

Alone, Athena not having a maternal narrative isn't the problem. I'm even ok with "Zeus as father" for Diana. But big picture and context matter. Azzarello doesn't just stop at "Zeus as father." He focuses more on a patron male mentor while all but removing the patron goddesses (yay, Athena gets a single page). That can only be feminist because other feminist writers, right? No.

Sure, he changed his mind and left Zola, giving us a nice little speech of platitudes about her, but he does a rather poor job with the maternal overall in the three year run. That's not to say there aren't some moments, there are, as you point out; but there's also plenty of room for making additions. And the room(s) left unfinished by the home-building author are not gender-equal.

*sigh*headdesk*sigh* I'm falling into the same rut of regurgitating myself that I had hoped to avoid. This is all rather pointless, right?

[Awonder]

While I knew that you concede that the run has good moments, I didn't know that you'd agree with these critics that the run is "kinda feminist," that it "may embrace 'values of womens' culture,'" or that it is arguably one of the best runs ever and certainly the most acclaimed of the last decade or so. Cool.

"Kinda feminist"? Sure. May just be the best description of the run. I've said there are good moments, right? I don't focus on it that much since you usually got that side covered and do a better job of it. As she points out, the Diana-Zola moments are "kinda feminist." I don't think Zola gets to do much more than be rescued and give birth - not enough of her own agency for the poor girl. So, "kinda" it is, even for Zola, one of the better written females in the run.

"May embrace 'value's of women's culture'"? I'd say that's mainly true for our hero (and she's obviously the most important); but not so true for the rest of the female cast as a whole (see previous post for more details). The females need more for this to really be an embracing of "women's culture."

"Most acclaimed"? Objectively, it's probably true (who am I to say what's "acclaimed"?). But, many "acclaimed" comics, imo, aren't all that good, and certainly aren't very maternal/feminist. So, "acclaimed" doesn't really mean a whole lot to me. I'm "kinda" arrogant and selfish like that.

[Silvanus]

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "it's possible to focus on other details." How can you make a case for your interpretation being "more convincing" if you are picking and choosing what to focus on and aren't trying to include ALL the details EQUALLY?

Well, one tries, but, in practice, I think almost no interpretation focuses on all details equally. Even if there is an all-inclusive uber-interpretation, the interpreter will still see those details by the light of his or her own perspective. Anyway, I was just trying to be conciliatory and acknowledge that there's more than one valid interpretation.

*sigh*headdesk*sigh* I'm falling into the same rut of regurgitating myself that I had hoped to avoid. This is all rather pointless, right?

It's no big deal. Why don't we just agree to disagree on some of this stuff again, for now at least? There's other Wonder Woman stuff to talk about. ETA--Or I could answer the questions and objections in your post if you want me to; that sounds like fun to me, but if you're at "headdesk" stage, I'm willing to let those questions and objections go by.

[Awonder]

Well, one tries, but, in practice, I think almost no interpretation focuses on all details equally. Even if there is an all-inclusive uber-interpretation, the interpreter will still see those details by the light of his or her own perspective. Anyway, I was just trying to be conciliatory and acknowledge that there's more than one valid interpretation.

True, none of us is completely objective and without bias, and there are many interpretations with their own validity.

It's no big deal. Why don't we just agree to disagree on some of this stuff again, for now at least? There's other Wonder Woman stuff to talk about. ETA--Or I could answer the questions and objections in your post if you want me to; that sounds like fun to me, but if you're at "headdesk" stage, I'm willing to let those questions and objections go by.

Feel free to answer how you wish; if it brings you "fun," go for it. I'm all for more fun.

I've just been trying (and failing) for more new and less cycle of repetitiveness from myself. I was also trying to avoid making this a review of Azzarello's run, and make it more expansive and creative speculation(ala your Gaia, or Ceto, theory). To borrow from you, to focus more on identifying the room for "additions" (or "corrections" ).

[Silvanus]

I've just been trying (and failing) for more new and less cycle of repetitiveness from myself. I was also trying to avoid making this a review of Azzarello's run, and make it more expansive and creative speculation(ala your Gaia, or Ceto, theory). To borrow from you, to focus more on identifying the room for "additions" (or "corrections" ).

That's why I love that you brought up Metis--Azzarello's run aside, now that you've mentioned Athena, it seems to me that she is a mythological resources just waiting to be used in a Wonder Woman story.

For instance, suppose for another earth, a Sensation story or a reboot somewhere down the line, someone wants to use the clay birth origin, but with Athena explicitly as the "father." I remember reading this suggestion before, and I like it. It fixes a problem that I see with the Pygmalion and Galatea story that Marston used as inspiration. That problem is that Pygmalion seems kind of narcissistic; he's an artist falls in love with his [or her] own work, which is a bit too much like falling in love with himself. I think this is why George Bernard Shaw gave the title Pygmalion to a play about an arrogant linguist who falls in love with a Cockney girl after remaking her (and her accent) in his image (later the basis for the movie My Fair Lady). Marston and Perez arguably free Hippolyta from that burden of narcissism by giving her a statue a divine purpose; but it still could be nicer to have Diana conceived in love.

So have Athena and Hippolyta's mentor-mentee relationship turn into a relationship between lovers, and have them want a child--but no one believes, at the time, that two women can have a baby, even if one of them is a goddess. So the spirit of Metis appears, perhaps through the helmet that she made for Athena, to Hippolyta, and invites her to make a statue of a baby; and then Metis tells Athena that she can, when she makes love to Hippolyta, breathe life into that statue, which will be daughter to both of them. It could even be Metis's escape from within Zeus; maybe her essence goes to dwell within Diana and becomes the source of her wisdom and at least some of her power.

t would totally subvert the Metis myth, if, as some scholars argue, that myth was about imagining a way to take women about of the procreation process. I'd love it if Morrison were to do something like this, though maybe he'd bypass the clay (since he finds that part of teh story off-putting, apparently) and have Athena just magically impregnate Hippolyta.

[Awonder]

That's why I love that you brought up Metis--Azzarello's run aside, now that you've mentioned Athena, it seems to me that she is a mythological resources just waiting to be used in a Wonder Woman story.

For instance, suppose for another earth, a Sensation story or a reboot somewhere down the line, someone wants to use the clay birth origin, but with Athena explicitly as the "father." I remember reading this suggestion before, and I like it. It fixes a problem that I see with the Pygmalion and Galatea story that Marston used as inspiration. That problem is that Pygmalion seems kind of narcissistic; he's an artist falls in love with his [or her] own work, which is a bit too much like falling in love with himself. I think this is why George Bernard Shaw gave the title Pygmalion to a play about an arrogant linguist who falls in love with a Cockney girl after remaking her (and her accent) in his image (later the basis for the movie My Fair Lady). Marston and Perez arguably free Hippolyta from that burden of narcissism by giving her a statue a divine purpose; but it still could be nicer to have Diana conceived in love.

So have Athena and Diana's mentor-mentee relationship turn into a relationship between lovers, and have them want a child--but no one believes, at the time, that two women can have a baby, even if one of them is a goddess. So the spirit of Metis appears, perhaps through the helmet that she made for Athena, to Hippolyta, and invites her to make a statue of a baby; and then Metis tells Athena that she can, when she makes love to Hippolyta, breathe life into that statue, which will be daughter to both of them. It could even be Metis's escape from within Zeus; maybe her essence goes to dwell within Diana and becomes the source of her wisdom and at least some of her power.

t would totally subvert the Metis myth, if, as some scholars argue, that myth was about imagining a way to take women about of the procreation process. I'd love it if Morrison were to do something like this, though maybe he'd bypass the clay (since he finds that part of teh story off-putting, apparently) and have Athena just magically impregnate Hippolyta.

Wait, are you suggesting that Athena be both "father" and lover to Diana? Are those separate ideas?

I agree that Metis has loads of story potential, as you pointed out earlier in that nice quote about her. But I doubt I would use her as the one to bring a clay statue to life. It could work, but it seems more complicated than it needs to be. Maybe if Metis were a goddess of childbirth or women.

I don't see Hippolyta as "narcissistic" for wanting a child. Pygmalion makes a statue, then falls in love with it; Hippolyta has maternal love for a child, then makes the statue. Do you see all parents as "narcissistic" for wanting kids?

I'm still confused by Morrison not liking the clay birth - the guy embraces and creates all kinds of weird stuff, but a clay statue brought to life is too much? I don't know what his fix will be, but I'd guess it may be science based. For all the complaints about Diana's clay birth, I never saw any of these same people complain that post-Crisis, pre-52 Superboy didn't have a "mother."

[Silvanus]

Wait, are you suggesting that Athena be both "father" and lover to Diana? Are those separate ideas?

Sorry--I just typed "Diana" in place of Hippolyta; I didn't mean to suggest having Athena as Diana's lover--just her "father."

I agree that Metis has loads of story potential, as you pointed out earlier in that nice quote about her. But I doubt I would use her as the one to bring a clay statue to life. It could work, but it seems more complicated than it needs to be. Maybe if Metis were a goddess of childbirth or women.

I can see how it might get overly complicated. But she was Wisdom before Athena, so it would make sense that she'd be the one to come up with a plan; and since she was the victim of Zeus' "reproduction without a woman," there might be poetic justice if she were to propose "reproduction without a man."

I don't see Hippolyta as "narcissistic" for wanting a child. Pygmalion makes a statue, then falls in love with it; Hippolyta has maternal love for a child, then makes the statue. Do you see all parents as "narcissistic" for wanting kids?

Nah, it's not narcissistic to want kids at all; it means you want to collaborate (even if with an anonymous stranger) in bringing a new person into the world, whom you will then love and care for. But if you make that person by yourself, as Pygmalion did, then it seems to me that it's more of an extension of yourself than a truly separate, new person. I don't really see Hippolyta as narcissistic; it's just that every time I'm reminded that the Pygmalion was Marston's inspiration for this idea (and he does allude to it directly) it strikes me as a off that he used the guy who literally built his own lover. Not a big deal; I just think the story comes tot eh WOnder Woman story with a little symbolic baggage. In Hippolyta's case, this baggage is relieved, as I said, by Diana's divine purpose and by the goddesses' role in bringing the statue to life; but it could be alleviated even more by playing up the collaboration between Hippolyta and a goddess whom she loves. And, of course, I think the idea of Diana being born to a same-sex couple would be a very positive and fitting idea for our era..

I'm still confused by Morrison not liking the clay birth - the guy embraces and creates all kinds of weird stuff, but a clay statue brought to life is too much? I don't know what his fix will be, but I'd guess it may be science based. For all the complaints about Diana's clay birth, I never saw any of these same people complain that post-Crisis, pre-52 Superboy didn't have a "mother."

You might be right about Morrison using science, but I hope she's not a clone. I don't know if I even complained about Superboy's origin, because I don't care about Superboy enough, but I never cared for the clone origin. I don't think I was the only one; I seem to remember some of his non-fans referring to him dismissively as "the clone." But, again, I didn't care enough about the character to keep track of fans' opinions.

[Awonder]

I totally agree that Diana being born to a same sex couple would be very fitting to our era. I've read (and like) the suggestion that the couple is Hippolyta and Philipus, and the goddess(es) are the means via an answered prayer.

I like Metis as a wise planner, and, as you point out, she just might be in favor of reproduction without a man. I doubt I would make this Metis's own idea, per se, but I'm picturing Athena consulting with her wise mother, and maybe only mom knows of how to make this happen?

I find it funny that you say Hippolyta kind of brings Pygmalion's baggage even though the stories are different, because you've been arguing that stories may take inspiration from previous tales while making big changes. I wouldn't want Diana to be a "clone" (though clone stories can be done well, too); but, I don't think there has to be a "father" either. After all, it's magic.

[AmiMizuno]

I totally agree that Diana being born to a same sex couple would be very fitting to our era. I've read (and like) the suggestion that the couple is Hippolyta and Philipus, and the goddess(es) are the means via an answered prayer.

I like Metis as a wise planner, and, as you point out, she just might be in favor of reproduction without a man. I doubt I would make this Metis's own idea, per se, but I'm picturing Athena consulting with her wise mother, and maybe only mom knows of how to make this happen?

I find it funny that you say Hippolyta kind of brings Pygmalion's baggage even though the stories are different, because you've been arguing that stories may take inspiration from previous tales while making big changes. I wouldn't want Diana to be a "clone" (though clone stories can be done well, too); but, I don't think there has to be a "father" either. After all, it's magic.

Agree with Polly and Phillpus



I figured Nubia could also be Diana's twin.

[AmiMizuno]

maybe that could be the new origin for Nubia