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

[Silvanus]

But it still gives no reasons to do the raids. I really don't care because someone should have done it early Dc is trying to fix a problem it's really a poor excuse due to the simple fact to much damage has been done to save their characters. They are trying to cover their butts with this half excuse. The damage is to late to fix. THey could have and should have done it sooner. This still might explain some but very little to the bigger problem at hand

It was always obvious to me that if there was a tribe of women warriors in the ancient world, they would have been hounded to the point of destruction--or corruption-- by their patriarchal neighbors. And obviously, in a patriarchal world, misandry is typically a reaction to misogyny--like a a continuation of the cycle of abuse. What else but the hostility of patriarchy would Dessa and Diana have been talking about when they said the Amazons did what they did to survey and out of vulnerability? What Myrina says basically just confirms the obvious and makes it a little more specific. I don't think the book should have made it so specific and explicit too much earlier, because while we were supposed to be seeing Diana rebound from leaning the truth about her family and then try to lead them towards redemption, it made dramatic/narrative sense to emphasize their dark side and keep us in suspense about their lighter side.

Clearly Ares is the reason why she is the way she is not the amazons. SO the amazons did not teach her mercy. In a way this really shows more Male influences. Azz's run has the men be more of an impact to Diana's characters than the females.

I disagree. She inspired Ares to show some mercy; if she in turn learned from his involuntary example, that should be credited to her inspiration and discernment, not to "his influence," considering he intended to influence her to become merciless. It's Hippolyta who actually tells her to stop beating a defenseless opponent (namely Aleka, who had just disobeyed Hippolyta's orders by trying to hurt her daughter). She follow Hippolyta's explicit teaching, and not that of Ares. And thus she asks if her mercy can be her tribute to her mother. It's all too obvious to her that it can't be a tribute to Ares, who abandoned her because of it.

The finches show that clear and The finches will have to make it clear they this is why the amazons the way they are.

I'm not a fan of what the Finches have done; I would have preferred that they take up where Azz left off with the Amazons and let Diana's reform efforts gather some traction.

[AmiMizuno]

Sorry Silvanus I just so mad about what the Finches did to the amazons. You know. They take the easy way out. They could have made a great yea the amazons still distrust so they made the men stay else where but one by one a few interested talk with the men. I might not have loved what Azz did but to hate everything is unfair. I mean his run was to long and could have been told quicker. The Raids and things threw me off. The Amazons well sorry it's just I feel this issue should have been earlier. It still feels after all the bad things we are suppose to take it. Does it give reason why they want children? You know they are trying to set things right but with the finches it just made it worst. The question reminds the amazons where able to make weapons strong to kill a god before why stop now? The amazons were intelligent blacksmiths. Now it a somewhat dystopia world. which was the point.

[Hawk80]

Not just because it was different? So, for you, there would have been a way of doing something different from the clay birth that would not have been "bad and wrong"

Not "different from the clay birth"... different direction for the character. If I wanted a different direction for the basic concept I'd search for another character. (direction for the character =/= direction for the basic concept)

Easy. Tell new stories leaving the background intact. The background doesn't need to be reinvented to explore new directions. Expanding a character's world never required nagating what was good before nor fixing what wasn't broken.

es. Simone added the beast under themyscira and the amazon extremists. Was it a nice add? Then WW's world became bigger. Was it a mediocre invention? Nobody will talk about it again and nothing unwanted will stick. (it's a generic example of "expanding vs changing", not what i'd call a new direction, just to be clear)

[numberthirty]

They did something different and ruined the character, not beacuse it was different, but because was bad and wrong. Now please reboot.

Here's the thing. The Finch/Finch run isn't saying "Dude, we hear you. Reboot on the way."

That run is doubling down on what you feel is "different/ruined".

I just don't see DC/Warner trying to mend fences with the "old" Wonder Woman crowd anytime soon. Not saying it to be a jerk. Just seems like they are intent on staying the course for the near term.

[numberthirty]

Easy. Tell new stories leaving the background intact. The background doesn't need to be reinvented to explore new directions. Expanding a character's world never required nagating what was good before nor fixing what wasn't broken.

If leaving the background intact actually worked, Diana working the fast food thing would have worked. Exactly what you are talking about has happened about a zillion times on this title.

How many times has it really worked?

[Hawk80]

Here's the thing. The Finch/Finch run isn't saying "Dude, we hear you. Reboot on the way."

That run is doubling down on what you feel is "different/ruined".

I just don't see DC/Warner trying to mend fences with the "old" Wonder Woman crowd anytime soon. Not saying it to be a jerk. Just seems like they are intent on staying the course for the near term.

This is life, sadly. Things that were good become garbage every day to stay that way (also the opposite is true, but not in this case).

It's not a old/new dispute, but good/bad and true/untrue.

[Hawk80]

If leaving the background intact actually worked, Diana working the fast food thing would have worked. Exactly what you are talking about has happened about a zillion times on this title.

How many times has it really worked?

I don't quite understand. This is exactly what I was talking about. They added an element that, if not liked, just needed to go unmentioned to restore the proper status quo. Nobody cared for it, so it vanished: no long term damage.

Background is the clay origin, the amazons' story and portrayal, the contest, the purpose for leaving the island and so on. Following stories don't need to be repeated.
New shades of light could be cast on the background, obviously, but the real changes should be limited to the following stories.

[Silvanus]

Not "different from the clay birth"... different direction for the character. If I wanted a different direction for the basic concept I'd search for another character. (direction for the character =/= direction for the basic concept)

"The clay birth," in Marston's run, consists of a couple of panels in which Marston pays tribute to the Pygmalion story and preempts questions about where baby Amazons come from. I still don't see why that has to count forever as part of the "basic concept." Even Marston didn't feel the need to be all that consistent about this snippet of "background"; on the page shown above, he seems to imply that this origin accounts for her unique abilities, but later, he credits her training, and in the newspaper strip--the only place he refers to the clay birth again, as far as I know-- he treats it as something fairly common among Amazons and nothing unique to Diana.

It's obvious to me that the concept of Wonder Woman is whole and good even without the clay birth, because many people in a couple of its largest audiences (Marston's comic book audience, which missed this part of the background if they blinked, and the tv audience) were delighted and inspired by the concept without necessarily even knowing about the clay birth.

Background is the clay origin, the amazons' story and portrayal,...

So then, is the Amazons's ancient tradition of "husband hunting," as revealed in the Giganta's first issue (#9, was it?), also an immutable part of the background and "basic concept"?

It's not a old/new dispute, but good/bad and true/untrue.

None of the plot points are factually true; they're all fiction. Some of the ideas that this story was meant to communicate or represent are true in a larger sense, in my opinion. And the story can still--and perhaps better--represent or communicate such ideas, in the context of our time, without treating the clay birth as a "fact."

[Hawk80]

Boring. Never said that "everything was good back then", nor that "every single page ever inked should survive today".

Concepts expanded during the decades should serve as inspiration, not just the first incarnation ever.

Diana is supposed to be born from clay, the amazons are supposed to form a mostly positive kind of society, Diana's supposed to join man's world because she has a mission. Details will vary.

If these guidelines are removed, than what's the meaning of the character in the first place? Next time they will remove the greek myth, Diana will be born on a petri dish from her scientist mother, amazons will be 5th dimension imps and she will fight some aliens in a space opera setting...

Don't bother replying... we are going in circles...

[Amazon Swordsman]

Boring. Never said that "everything was good back then", nor that "every single page ever inked should survive today".

Concepts expanded during the decades should serve as inspiration, not just the first incarnation ever.

Diana is supposed to be born from clay, the amazons are supposed to form a mostly positive kind of society, Diana's supposed to join man's world because she has a mission. Details will vary.

If these guidelines are removed, than what's the meaning of the character in the first place? Next time they will remove the greek myth, Diana will be born on a petri dish from her scientist mother, amazons will be 5th dimension imps and she will fight some aliens in a space opera setting...

Don't bother replying... we are going in circles...

Yup, that's the next move! Let's start by getting rid of all the myth and greek lore by getting rid of the gods! I'm sure folks will like it!

[Silvanus]

Boring. Never said that "everything was good back then", nor that "every single page ever inked should survive today".

I din't think or say that you claimed that. I was asking about how you decide what parts of the background count as immutable "basic story" and what parts don't. You said that the basic concept or background, including the background and history of the Amazons, should remain the same; I just wanted to know if that included all their previously established background and history, including the husband hunts (or, I might add, speaking of hunts, Diana's Day, that festival of faux cannibalism.) If not--is that because you don't like those parts? Or because other writers haven't expanded on them? If the latter, why is it that Kanigher could have expanded on the husband hunts or Diana's Day, but Simone, Azzarello or Finch can't? Is there a "sell by" date for plot points?

Concepts expanded during the decades should serve as inspiration, not just the first incarnation ever.

The main reason I'm responding, after you so kindly invited me not to , is to give you credit for this point. If you're saying we can expand but that contract--well, OK, that could be a consistent principle. I can respect that, even if it's not a principle I consider mandatory.

It's a principle that writers have honored mostly in the breach, if at all. Perez "expanded," sure, but he also contracted, snipping out the previous career of Diana Prince, the romance with Steve, etc. New takes usually displace something from old takes. You may believe that this shouldn't happen, but I don't think that's written in stone anywhere. It's just your preference--and the preference of many others, but not everyone.

If these guidelines are removed, than what's the meaning of the character in the first place? Next time they will remove the greek myth, Diana will be born on a petri dish from her scientist mother, amazons will be 5th dimension imps and she will fight some aliens in a space opera setting…

This is a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy--an argument based on the false claim that is one distinction can't be made, no distinction can be made. There are lots of principles that could be invoked to distinguish eliminating the clay birth from eliminating the Olympian/Amazon background. For example, we could say that if an aspect of the character's background has been referred to repeatedly throughout the entire comic book run of the run and the character's presence in other media--without major gaps like the whole of Marston's comic book run after the origin issues, or the shoe tv show--then we should probably leave it in. If, however, large numbers of readers have been able to love and be inspired by the character without necessarily being exposed to a particular element of that background, then maybe it can be left out or kept in, depending on what the creators and editors think will work best for them and their audience at a given point in history.

[MarvelMaster616]

I suspect that some of Wonder Woman's origins come from Pandora, who was also molded by clay. Marston did take a lot of cues from Greco-Roman lore so it wasn't unprecedented. And for a long time, I thought it worked. But something about it didn't always sit well with me.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with this origin of Wonder Woman. But I actually like her new origins better. I think it's more beneficial for her as a character to be the result of a union between Zeus and Hippolyta. It doesn't just add some complexity to her character and some new conflicts. It also humanizes her in an important way.

There's a reason why there are numerous mythological figures molded from clay. In the ancient world, especially in cultures with patriarchal traditions, there's this inherent aversion to being born of a sexual union. There's also this inherent aversion to natural birth through a woman. That's why figures like Jesus Christ and the Buddha had different circumstances with their births, either avoiding sexual unions altogether or being born through another means besides a woman. This concept partially stems from this notion that women are unclean and impure somehow. And I have a problem with that tradition. I think it creates this false inequality between men and women. By having Wonder Woman be born through a process that circumvents this unclean, impure process of birthing a child, she also circumvents one of the core functions of being a woman. She's supposed to be the pinnacle of feminine strength. By being born of clay, she misses on an important aspect of the female experience. That doesn't make her less of a woman or less of a character. It just undermines some of her ideals.

This is all just my opinion. I'm sure a lot of people here disagree with me. But I think Wonder Woman's new origin as a demigod makes her a much stronger feminine ideal than her previous origins.

[Agent Z]

I suspect that some of Wonder Woman's origins come from Pandora, who was also molded by clay. Marston did take a lot of cues from Greco-Roman lore so it wasn't unprecedented. And for a long time, I thought it worked. But something about it didn't always sit well with me.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with this origin of Wonder Woman. But I actually like her new origins better. I think it's more beneficial for her as a character to be the result of a union between Zeus and Hippolyta. It doesn't just add some complexity to her character and some new conflicts. It also humanizes her in an important way.

There's a reason why there are numerous mythological figures molded from clay. In the ancient world, especially in cultures with patriarchal traditions, there's this inherent aversion to being born of a sexual union. There's also this inherent aversion to natural birth through a woman. That's why figures like Jesus Christ and the Buddha had different circumstances with their births, either avoiding sexual unions altogether or being born through another means besides a woman. This concept partially stems from this notion that women are unclean and impure somehow. And I have a problem with that tradition. I think it creates this false inequality between men and women. By having Wonder Woman be born through a process that circumvents this unclean, impure process of birthing a child, she also circumvents one of the core functions of being a woman. She's supposed to be the pinnacle of feminine strength. By being born of clay, she misses on an important aspect of the female experience. That doesn't make her less of a woman or less of a character. It just undermines some of her ideals.

This is all just my opinion. I'm sure a lot of people here disagree with me. But I think Wonder Woman's new origin as a demigod makes her a much stronger feminine ideal than her previous origins.

What exactly does she lose by being born in a different way. She can still deal with problems women face and she has. She was relegated to secretary in the SA, had to deal with being under appreciated and mistrusted and was at one point a victim of attempted sexual assault by Zeus.

Plus the Amazons have also dealt with the ugly side of being women in a man's world as well.

[Amazon Swordsman]

Wonder Woman's origin basically got retconned away without much explanation. It was basically summed up in an issue or two, which I think could be a lingering issue with some readers. You can't call her previous origin a complete lie, but then still say that it's somehow intact. How does it apply to her currently if it was demonstrated to be false? Wonder Woman has has many conflicts with the Gods for decades, she didn't need to be related to them to make her stories more "complex". Heck, in pre-52 continuity she actually became a full-fledged Olympian and still had issues with that. Changing her origin was nothing but a way to simplify her for easy, breezy storytelling IMO.

If they wanted Zeus to have a stronger tie to her, then they could've had him play a more active role by taking interest in the molding of Diana at birth, and giving his blood to the divine clay. I don't see how her being born from that makes her ideals compromised.

[Silvanus]

Wonder Woman's origin basically got retconned away without much explanation. It was basically summed up in an issue or two,

It was a reboot, so things were likely to change in some way. And why should undoing it take more than an issue or two, when tellling it took about the same?

You can't call her previous origin a complete lie, but then still say that it's somehow intact. How does it apply to her currently if it was demonstrated to be false?

Ironically, the clay birth story has had more consequences for her now that it's false than it usually did when it was "true." As a "lie," the story of the clay birth saved her from Hera's wrath but also caused her, and some of her sisters, to see her as a misfit or freak; consequently, I think it helped her empathize with outsider sand extend her love beyond the Amazons. It also inspired Hera to turn Hippolyta into clay instead of punishing her in some other way, and so it helped provide Derinoe with the raw material she needed to make Donna.

Anyway, her previous origin's by no means a complete lie. A number of elements remain--she's still daughter of Hippolyta, princess of the Amazons, and she still goes to man's world to return Steve Trevor after his plane crash.

Plus, even if though it's not in continuity, we all remember it and now that's part of the larger history of Wonder Woman.