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

[AmiMizuno]

I find it weak and stupid that Hera did not find out sooner. It would be dumb not to think she knew. One Hera knew about all of Zeus children.Look at Hercules. So it's was unless for a lie. Like at Diana's half sister this history doesn't really help. So what's the point. Hera found the women Zeus slept with even when Zeus shape shifted them. So this lie it unless and stupid for Hippoltya to say it was not to have Hera know sooner since she knew of all his affairs in many of the Greek myths what is the point. You can defend something that clearly is dumb. There was no point in lying. A big plot hole. Hera found out about Zeus offsprings so what is the point. Tell me how Hippoltya protecting Diana though a lie that many times has not work. What's the point. Siccrra and Heracles and many others were found by Hera why would Diana be the only one because Plot point demands it

[Amazon Swordsman]

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.

Diana had issues with other Amazons just for who she is/was. From what I remember, Alkyone just hated Diana and wanted to kill her. There was a circle of Amazons who had made a pact to kill Diana just for being born. Being the crown Princess daughter of the Amazon Queen surely has its perks, as well as its downsides. I'm sure there are other examples. Diana never needed to become an Olympian to have that quality. She was a beautiful, strong, kind, and caring adventurous woman from an ancient society of women detached from the rest of the world for thousands of years. When she encounters people away from her home, she may still wonder why people don't all take what she says at face value. That in and of itself is enough to give that "outsider" quality.

I never finished Azz's run, so to me it never seemed like her new "family" welcomed her with open arms. But then again, given the odd nature of what makes that group of gods tick, I guess that shouldn't be expected, now should it?

[AmiMizuno]

Also I mean the Banas and Paradise I guess are the mixed of the now Amazons. I mean I could take it if some of the amazons were man haters and some of the Banas were not man haters but to have a majority of the Island be that way is mixed up. I mean in Demon Knights it's stated they collect information it would be wrong for us to see that they wouldn't have collected how Men have changed. I mean Diana mostly have told how men are different. For me it's that the amazons try to be better than what they allow their hate is and since they are now rejecting that what is the point. The ending was a good start but it was mixed with. Also it bothers me of how they were suppose to be bigger than their hate but it's Diana to save their them. This is a big problem that the amazons are somewhat 1 dimension since they can;t get development without her. Before DIana was born they got better and not made their hate into something better peace. Banas now were opposite and even than it makes more since they are more in connection with humans.

[AmiMizuno]

The only other story would be the circle in pre 52 where the amazons tried to kill Diana

[Silvanus]

Diana had issues with other Amazons just for who she is/was. From what I remember, Alkyone just hated Diana and wanted to kill her. There was a circle of Amazons who had made a pact to kill Diana just for being born. Being the crown Princess daughter of the Amazon Queen surely has its perks, as well as its downsides. I'm sure there are other examples. Diana never needed to become an Olympian to have that quality.

She also didn't need to be made of clay to have that quality, back before Flashpoint. She didn't need it to get her powers or her mission, either. For such an extraordinary detail of her birth, it didn't have many extraordinary consequences,or many consequences at all (other than perhaps the symbolic consequence of suggesting that being "tainted by male seed" at conception diminishes people or makes women less pure than they ideally should be--and do we really want that consequence or message, today?) It was and is a beautiful story, but it may not have been mattered a lot whether it stayed in continuity.

And I wasn't saying that she needed to become an Olympian to have that quality; I was saying that, in this particular continuity, the way by which she came to this quality of outsider-ness and empathy for outsiders had a lot to do with the story of her clay birth, "lie" though it was. You asked how this story could apply to her now, even though it's been made a "lie," and this is part of my answer: it's a lie from which she's learned the truth about what it's like to be an outsider among Amazons.

At least in the present continuity, the supposed clay birth is the reason that other Amazons resent her; being born without taint of male seed makes her the "ultimate Amazons" in their eyes, according to Hermes; and being seen as the ultimate Amazons evidently stoked some jealousy, as well as making it easy to label her a freak. So, again, the false story of being made of clay logically has more consequence, or more of a point, than the "true" story of being made of clay usually did. That story makes her different, in her own and many of her sisters' eyes, and having had the experience of being different helps explain why she's more empathetic than her sisters towards others who are different (aka, everyone but the Amazons).

She was a beautiful, strong, kind, and caring adventurous woman from an ancient society of women detached from the rest of the world for thousands of years. When she encounters people away from her home, she may still wonder why people don't all take what she says at face value. That in and of itself is enough to give that "outsider" quality.

You're saying that she's got "that outsider quality" because she's a foreigner when she goes to foreign lands? That's true of everyone, isn't it? But in the present continuity, Diana grew up as something of a "foreigner" or outsider even at home, in her own and others' eyes, because of the legend of her clay birth. The Amazons taught her her to love Amazons, but feeling like an outsider taught her to love outsiders; it other words, it taught her to love "everyone."

(And no, it doesn't always work that way; some "misfits" learn to be empathetic, and some just learn to be resentful and to continue the cycle of abuse. Similarly, some people from doting families ,like the kind of family the pre-Flashpoint Amazons were for Diana, grow up to be loving, and some grow up to be spoiled. Probably her chances of becoming a good person were better with a loving family; but becoming a good person from a somewhat more troubled family background just makes her more of a "wonder," in my eyes. She made the right decisions and made the most of her upbringing.)

I never finished Azz's run, so to me it never seemed like her new "family" welcomed her with open arms. But then again, given the odd nature of what makes that group of gods tick, I guess that shouldn't be expected, now should it?

You're right that they don't, for the most part and especially at first, welcome her with open arms; and yet, I'm not sure I see your point here. Did you think I was implying that they welcomed her with open arms? Why would that even have been good for the story? I don't think the point of putting her into such a tumultuous family was the give us the warm-and-fuzzies over how well everyone gets along. She most certainly is not welcomed with open arms by Hera or Artemis, for example. But they respect her a lot more, as a "redeemer" and as a warrior, by the end of the run. It's not an "unconditional love" family so much as the kind of family i which people have to prove themselves; and it's into a family I'd particularly want to belong to, but it's the kind of family that provides suitable trials for a hero's journey.

Also it bothers me of how they were suppose to be bigger than their hate but it's Diana to save their them. This is a big problem that the amazons are somewhat 1 dimension since they can;t get development without her.

But Diana was one of them, however much she saw herself as an outsider or was perceived by others that way. It's not like they were changed from outside; a leader rose up from among their numbers and started to help them change by caring for a boy and working with their brothers (at least until the Finches came along....)

[Hawk80]

It never was about being not tainted from sperm, it alwais was about heroic Hippolyta deserving the blessing of a daughter even in the absence men. That heroic Hippolyta would have never accept Zeus' advances because he is married and she is loyal to her patron goddess Hera. (Yes, I really want these message today: "a woman deserves to be mother even in the absence of a man" and "a woman shouldn't partecipate to an adulterous affair even if the man involven is ok with it". It sounds pretty good and modern to me).

I massively disagree about everything else.

[Silvanus]

It never was about being not tainted from sperm, it always was about heroic Hippolyta deserving the blessing of a daughter even in the absence men.

You're not wrong about plot, but what about symbolism? A woman born without any paternal contribution turns out (even as a baby, on the very same page--see above) to be more wonderful and special than anyone around her? You don't think the symbolic implication is that that a woman born without sex and without male influence would be better and more pure? Some readers evidently inferred such a message from the clay birth; I don't think Herowatcher, who agrees with you in preferring the clay origin, was alone in getting the impression that

[Marston] did the clay origin so Diana would be free of any male influence and she’d be a more innocent messenger of peace and equality.

After all, Marston explicitly and emphatically said that Wonder Woman was all about teaching men to submit to women and recognize their superiority. (Again, I think this was a good counterbalance to the presumption of male superiority at the time, but I don't think it's an up-to-date feminist message today. In fact, I think a lot of feminists would argue that this kind of message of moral superiority or greater purity restricts womens' freedom by putting them on a pedestal.)

(Yes, I really want these message today: "a woman deserves to be mother even in the absence of a man" and "a woman shouldn't partecipate to an adulterous affair even if the man involven is ok with it". It sounds pretty good and modern to me).

Well, you've got 'em. Hippolyta evidently deserved to be a mother even in the absence of a man, because, even with an absentee father and despite her grave mistakes, evidently she raised Diana pretty well. Diana certainly says Hippolyta was a worthy mother, and though she (like all real-world mothers who raise sons in the absence of men) had at least a "sperm donor," I don't think this dilutes the message that she didn't need that 'baby daddy" around to raise Diana. (And, no, I don't think Ares dilutes it either; everyone's going to interact with people other than their parents by the time they'll 12 or 13, but it's the job of the parent to raise the children well enough that they will be able to learn the right lessons, and not the wrong lessons, from those with whom they later interact.)

And participating in an adulterous affair was clearly a moral error for which Hippolyta was punished, even though a wonderful child resulted from it. If you look at the scene between Hera and Hippolyta in issue 4, I don't see how you can come away saying "yeah, the book shows that adultery between two consenting adults is victimless and fine."

I don't really agree that there was an anti-adultery message in the original, by the way. The book never really presented any kind of sex with men--whether adultery, extra-marital sex, or even marriage--as an option for Hippolyta, who was., of course, living on an island of women only. Since we don't see her actively choosing against adultery, I don't see a message that "a woman shouldn't partecipate to an adulterous affair even if the man involven is ok with it". The question just doesn't arise.

[Hawk80]

You're not wrong about plot, but what about symbolism? A woman born without any paternal contribution turns out (even as a baby, on the very same page--see above) to be more wonderful and special than anyone around her? You don't think the symbolic implication is that that a woman born without sex and without male influence would be better and more pure? Some readers evidently inferred such a message from the clay birth; I don't think Herowatcher, who agrees with you in preferring the clay origin, was alone in getting the impression that



After all, Marston explicitly and emphatically said that Wonder Woman was all about teaching men to submit to women and recognize their superiority. (Again, I think this was a good counterbalance to the presumption of male superiority at the time, but I don't think it's an up-to-date feminist message today. In fact, I think a lot of feminists would argue that this kind of message of moral superiority or greater purity restricts womens' freedom by putting them on a pedestal.)



Well, you've got 'em. Hippolyta evidently deserved to be a mother even in the absence of a man, because, even with an absentee father and despite her grave mistakes, evidently she raised Diana pretty well. Diana certainly says Hippolyta was a worthy mother, and though she (like all real-world mothers who raise sons in the absence of men) had at least a "sperm donor," I don't think this dilutes the message that she didn't need that 'baby daddy" around to raise Diana. (And, no, I don't think Ares dilutes it either; everyone's going to interact with people other than their parents by the time they'll 12 or 13, but it's the job of the parent to raise the children well enough that they will be able to learn the right lessons, and not the wrong lessons, from those with whom they later interact.)

And participating in an adulterous affair was clearly a moral error for which Hippolyta was punished, even though a wonderful child resulted from it. If you look at the scene between Hera and Hippolyta in issue 4, I don't see how you can come away saying "yeah, the book shows that adultery between two consenting adults is victimless and fine."

I don't really agree that there was an anti-adultery message in the original, by the way. The book never really presented any kind of sex with men--whether adultery, extra-marital sex, or even marriage--as an option for Hippolyta, who was., of course, living on an island of women only. Since we don't see her actively choosing against adultery, I don't see a message that "a woman shouldn't partecipate to an adulterous affair even if the man involven is ok with it". The question just doesn't arise.

People will get what they want to get. Some will like, some will not. The majority will just see/read it.

Marston injected a great amont of now-obsolete feminism in his creation, but you are over-anmalyzing it.

I made a little mess with the anty-adultry message, trying to mix two different sentences (forget about that)

[Agent Z]

You're not wrong about plot, but what about symbolism? A woman born without any paternal contribution turns out (even as a baby, on the very same page--see above) to be more wonderful and special than anyone around her? You don't think the symbolic implication is that that a woman born without sex and without male influence would be better and more pure? Some readers evidently inferred such a message from the clay birth; I don't think Herowatcher, who agrees with you in preferring the clay origin, was alone in getting the impression that

Except that Diana was NOT more pure than everybody else. She had flaws, she lost her temper, she trusted the wrong people. This type of hyperbole doesn't help and just serves to spread misconceptions of the character which leads to writers going overboard in trying to make her 'relatable'.

[Silvanus]

You're not wrong about plot, but what about symbolism? A woman born without any paternal contribution turns out (even as a baby, on the very same page--see above) to be more wonderful and special than anyone around her? You don't think the symbolic implication is that that a woman born without sex and without male influence would be better and more pure? Some readers evidently inferred such a message from the clay birth; I don't think Herowatcher, who agrees with you in preferring the clay origin, was alone in getting the impression that

Except that Diana was NOT more pure than everybody else. She had flaws, she lost her temper, she trusted the wrong people. This type of hyperbole doesn't help and just serves to spread misconceptions of the character which leads to writers going overboard in trying to make her 'relatable'.

"Better and more pure" is relative, not absolute; it's not the same as "perfect."As the hero in a fantasy "epic" like this (not the kind of comic that stars an anti-hero), she probably should be more exemplary than most other people, don't you think? And I think she was and is more exemplary than most, regardless of her flaws. I don't have a problem at with her excelling in ethics or ability, but when her excellence--and indeed, that of the Amazons as well--is attributed to being made of clay and not born the old-fashioned way, I do think there's an implication that male-free, asexual reproduction is better and more pure (and, again, I think that implication worked better in 1941 than it would works in 21st Century feminism). That doesn't happen everywhere in the book by any means--not even close. But, as you can see from the passage I'm quoting from myself, which you were ostensibly responding to, I was talking about her Golden Age origin, and in particular about the "clay baby" page that Herowatcher posted. I don't think it's hyperbolic at all to say that this page suggests that a girl born of clay, instead of having been conceived by sex, might be extra special and wonderful.

[Agent Z]

"Better and more pure" is relative, not absolute; it's not the same as "perfect."As the hero in a fantasy "epic" like this (not the kind of comic that stars an anti-hero), she probably should be more exemplary than most other people, don't you think? And I think she was and is more exemplary than most, regardless of her flaws. I don't have a problem at with her excelling in ethics or ability, but when her excellence--and indeed, that of the Amazons as well--is attributed to being made of clay and not born the old-fashioned way, I do think there's an implication that male-free, asexual reproduction is better and more pure (and, again, I think that implication worked better in 1941 than it would works in 21st Century feminism). That doesn't happen everywhere in the book by any means--not even close. But, as you can see from the passage I'm quoting from myself, which you were ostensibly responding to, I was talking about her Golden Age origin, and in particular about the "clay baby" page that Herowatcher posted. I don't think it's hyperbolic at all to say that this page suggests that a girl born of clay, instead of having been conceived by sex, might be extra special and wonderful.

Being conceived without sex would be considered special. So is being hand selected by aliens to protect the universe because of unstoppable will. Or being sent to Earth as a child of a dying race and being considered the savior of Earth. Or the idea that one man can combat crime with only his money and resources.

Like I said, Diana had flaws in spite of her miraculous birth. And hilariously enough, the current run seems to give the idea that Diana is better than everyone else because of who her father was.

[Silvanus]

Being conceived without sex would be considered special. So is being hand selected by aliens to protect the universe because of unstoppable will. Or being sent to Earth as a child of a dying race and being considered the savior of Earth. Or the idea that one man can combat crime with only his money and resources.

So? I'm not against her, or any of those heroes, being special. I'm pointing out that if one of the reasons she's special is that she's not tainted by male lineage, this seems to tie her to an idea that was progressive in Marston's time but would probably seem outmoded to most feminists today. Your GL, Superman and Batman examples have nothing to do with that point, do they?

Like I said, Diana had flaws in spite of her miraculous birth.

Like I said, that's true--but it doesn't contradict the point I was making at all. I was talking about the Golden Age clay birth scene as shown in the page that Herowatcher posted, especially as the scene relates to Marston's particular, essentialist brand of femnism. I wasn't talking about everything that ever happened in the entire publication history of the character up to 2011.

And hilariously enough, the current run seems to give the idea that Diana is better than everyone else because of who her father was.

Morally better? It really, really, really doesn't. As Lennox points out to Diana, Zeus' "blood" tends to make people crazy or corrupt. One of the wonderful things about Diana in this run is that she's a good person despite Zeus's maddening legacy. She has the same father as the First Born; had she been raised the way the First Born was and made some of the early choices he made, she might be no better than him.

[Darius]

Being conceived without sex would be considered special. So is being hand selected by aliens to protect the universe because of unstoppable will. Or being sent to Earth as a child of a dying race and being considered the savior of Earth. Or the idea that one man can combat crime with only his money and resources.

Like I said, Diana had flaws in spite of her miraculous birth. And hilariously enough, the current run seems to give the idea that Diana is better than everyone else because of who her father was.

I really dislike the idea that sexless conception is somehow superior. It is rooted in a mysoginistic world view that kept women from sex for centuries. So called Original Sin and all that is inherently demeaning to women IMO ... Especially since the consequences are rarely dealt with by the men.

I don't think Azzarello's run was in any way showing us that Diana was special because she was the daughter of Zeus ... I think it showed us that she was special despite being his daughter.

[AmiMizuno]

Well many myths have children be made of sexless conception. So it would be no surprise if the Amazons were able to do that.In Marston's amazons could have children though the clay but Diana was the strongest.

[Silvanus]

Well many myths have children be made of sexless conception. So it would be no surprise if the Amazons were able to do that.In Marston's amazons could have children though the clay but Diana was the strongest.

I don't think anyone's surprised. But I also don't think that the fact that the idea of clay births is very ancient necessarily means that it's a good fit for a 21st Century feminist icon.