George Perez Heracles

[Agent Z]

The tv tropes website describes the 'Ron the Death Eater' trope as "The result of either shoehorning a good canon character into being a villain or making a villain significantly more evil than in canon" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...nTheDeathEater). This is pretty common in (bad) fanfic where a character who was a hero, or at least not a totally bad guy, suddenly has flaws that he/she never had or have their flaws dialed up to eleven. It also occurs in professionally produced works as well.

George Perez 1985 reboot of the Wonder Woman property was viewed as a huge critical and financial success in its time (not unlike how Brian Azzarello's own relaunch has been received). Perez take on the character gave her a new supporting cast and stronger ties to Greek Mythology (the clay origin) as well as an honest focus social issues of both the past and the present.

Of course, Perez's run wasn't without its critics. One that I have noticed is how Perez seemed to take too many liberties with the myths he drew from. In particular , the portrayal of the Demigod hero Heracles as a misogynistic rapist. Those who have decried this have accuses Perez of throwing a popular hero under a bus to prop up Diana and the Amazons. Here is a quote from a poster on comicvine:

I believe DC editorial staff made a conscious decision to use Hercules as a foil/heel against Wonder Woman to, by contrast, elevate her status/power in the DC Universe.

Before the post-Crisis/1987 WW reboot, WW was rarely shown to have strength on par with DC's top-tier strength characters such as Superman, Captain Marvel or their version of Hercules. Her reboot redefined the origin of the Amazons and squarely placed DC Hercules in the role of callous and underhanded oppressor instead of hero.

This is a role he consistently fulfilled then, as recently as a few years ago during the "Who is Wonder Woman" story-arc illustrated by Terry Dodson and various times in between. During this entire span of time, Wonder Woman was shown to be mightier/stronger than Hercules several times. It is also in the time of the '87 reboot, and ever since, that Wonder Woman has continually been shown to be not only stronger but also more righteous than DC Hercules. (http://www.comicvine.com/hercules/40...gonist-722780/)

I'm a bit torn on this myself. On the one hand I do sympathize with fans who feel their favorite characters are dragged through the mud to prop up another character (see popular rivalries like Bats vs Supes, Cyke vs Wolvie). On the other hand I don't really think that was really Perez's intent here.

For one thing, the heroes of many ancient myths and folklore displayed behaviour we do not typically endorse today i.e Theseus kidnapping women to claim as his bride, Achilles taking slaves and killing a boy who refused his advances etc. Furthermore, the ancient world was as patriarchal as you could get, with women having little in the way of rights, if they had any at all. Indeed, many have argued that the interpretation of the Amazons man-hating baby killers (one of many accoutns) was a horror story concocted to keep women in their place (Perez included this as a meta commentary as well)

Another reason I don't agree with the comic vine quote is that Perez did not intend for Heracles to be a re-occurring antagonist. The ending of Challenge of the Gods saw Heracles beg for forgiveness for his crimes against the Amazons which he was granted. This keeps in line with many portrayals of Heracles as well; when he made a mistake he owned up to it and did his damndest to repent.

Finally, the Amazons aren't perfect either. Yes, they are presented as the victims of this story and while their mistrust of men is understandable, it is not justified. The scene where they forgive Heracles for his crimes against them is one of the most touching moments I have ever seen in comic history.

So what do you guys think of this? Do you think Perez take on Heracles and the Amazons, however much it differentiates from the more well known myths, is a good enough story? Please feel free to discuss. I'm not here to start a fight, just a conversation.

[Vanguard-01]

Perez's portrayal of Heracles was actually pretty mythologically spot-on. The guy, like just about all mythic heroes of his time, was not a nice person by any stretch of the imagination. Thanks to modern pop culture (Hercules: The Legendary Journeys comes to mind) we have this IDEA that Heracles was just a great guy, but the actual source material just doesn't bear that out.

Now Perez's Amazons were decidedly NOT mythologically accurate at all. The Amazons in the myths were described as savage man haters. This is well-documented. However, it made for a good setting for Diana to grow up in and it made Diana's mission to Man's World a little more believable. And in the case of the Amazons, at least, it's easy enough to rationalize why they aren't as the myths describe them: those myths were written by MEN, who of course had a vested interest in portraying those uppity women in a bad light. Also? It can easily be stated that the negative tales about the Amazons were really tales about the Bana after they split from the other Amazons. The Bana certainly lived down to the Amazon's negative portrayals.

On the Azzarello side of things? He obviously hasn't done anything with Heracles, so that's not really a conversation that needs to be had until and unless he chooses to include Heracles in the Amazon's backstory yet again.

Now, the Amazons? It's easy to say. His portrayal of the Amazons definitely is more in keeping with their mythological roots. Is that a good thing? Not necessarily. I've spoken in defense of Azz's portrayal of the Amazons, but that doesn't mean that I like the changes he's done to them. I do wish he'd kept the Amazons as better resembling the Amazons that Perez created. I don't think he needed to take things as far as he has. But still, his portrayal of the Amazons DOES show that Diana doesn't come from a perfect society and that there are problems in BOTH Man's World and her own world that will require her attention. Azz's Amazons are flawed, but flawed things can be fixed and improved upon. Seeing Diana potentially BUILD her sisters into better resembling Perez's Amazons will be a most enjoyable sight.

So, as far as I'm concerned? I love both runs for different reasons. In my heart, I'll always love Perez's Amazons more than Azz's Amazons, but I see real merit to both approaches. Both Amazons are heading toward the same destination. Azz and Perez just used different origin points and had them take different paths to get there.

As for Heracles? We've only JUST seen him make his New 52 debut, and right now he's being mind controlled or possessed. So we have no idea what he's going to be like. Hopefully the Aquaman Annual when Arthur and Diana team up to deal with Heracles will give us some answers on what to expect.

[AmiMizuno]

Actually the amazons being man haters came later on. In earlier myths the amazons did have males in their nations got along peacefully. They did not cut of their left breast and were not savages

[Vanguard-01]

Actually the amazons being man haters came later on. In earlier myths the amazons did have males in their nations got along peacefully. They did not cut of their left breast and were not savages

I do not claim to be any kind of a scholar, but I've never heard anything like that in all my research on the Amazons. Got a source?

[Agent Z]

Now Perez's Amazons were decidedly NOT mythologically accurate at all. The Amazons in the myths were described as savage man haters. This is well-documented. However, it made for a good setting for Diana to grow up in and it made Diana's mission to Man's World a little more believable. And in the case of the Amazons, at least, it's easy enough to rationalize why they aren't as the myths describe them: those myths were written by MEN, who of course had a vested interest in portraying those uppity women in a bad light. Also? It can easily be stated that the negative tales about the Amazons were really tales about the Bana after they split from the other Amazons. The Bana certainly lived down to the Amazon's negative portrayals.

The Bolded part in general is why I gravitate more towards the Perez run, though I respect what Azzarrello is doing. Perez actually did an arc about the Amazons' prejudice against men. He gave them a reason for it, without using it as an excuse. Azzarello, who is again a brilliant writer, only tried to resolve this are three years after he dropped issue 7 on us. This is not something you can just introduce and then shrug off. I understand the need for patience with this type of writing (I gave Agents of Shield a second chance after all) but I feel that if Azz had actually made the Amazons characters in this story their arc would have been more interesting. Thank you for the reply.

[Vanguard-01]

The Bolded part in general is why I gravitate more towards the Perez run, though I respect what Azzarrello is doing. Perez actually did an arc about the Amazons' prejudice against men. He gave them a reason for it, without using it as an excuse. Azzarello, who is again a brilliant writer, only tried to resolve this are three years after he dropped issue 7 on us. This is not something you can just introduce and then shrug off. I understand the need for patience with this type of writing (I gave Agents of Shield a second chance after all) but I feel that if Azz had actually made the Amazons characters in this story their arc would have been more interesting. Thank you for the reply.

I can definitely agree with you about Azz. I understand that he's actually known for this type of writing style. He introduces a plot point, then ignores it for a long time, and then he comes back to it later and reveals that everything was NOT as it appeared. But, at the same time, giving no backstory to the Amazons and not even a half-baked explanation of WHY they hate men so much really isn't the best way to go about things either.

Other, more anti-Azz posters on this forum have stated it numerous times, and I can't really dispute them on this one: How did Diana become such a wonderful, compassionate person if she was raised by such women? I understand his desire was to spend as much time as possible just focusing on Diana and establishing her as the main character, but a character's upbringing is a pretty BIG part of explaining to people who this person is and why he/she acts the way he/she does. It is a bit neglectful on his part to not show anything about how the Amazons raised Diana and/or how the Amazons came to acquire the beliefs that they have.

Even the Amazons hatred of men and Diana's "specialness" at being an Amazon who doesn't hate men could have been explained with a quick, one-page flashback at some point. Show Diana in "Amazon school" as a child, being lectured by a teacher. This teacher (it could even have been Hippolyta) talks a big game about how the Amazons believe in mercy, compassion, and respect for all life.......except for those......MEN! Diana innocently asks "But if we're supposed to show mercy and compassion to EVERYONE, why are men the only exception?" The teacher has no good retort. Poof! There you go. Diana was taught mercy and compassion by the Amazons, she just happens to be one of those rare Amazons who believes that their beliefs must be shown to EVERYONE or they become meaningless.

I do love this run a lot, but it's not perfect. I like that Azz is going to give us better Amazons by the end of the run, but I do wish he'd spent more time explaining WHY these women did the terrible things they've done and how they could've raised such an amazing woman as Diana. That would've definitely made the run that much closer to perfection.

[AmiMizuno]

I do not claim to be any kind of a scholar, but I've never heard anything like that in all my research on the Amazons. Got a source?

I probably should say in some of the myths not all of the myths . Also the cutting the breast is false. This was to show them in bad light. Also the information is lose. I do have to ask a friend . She does have a page of a amazons myths on her deviantart but I don't think u would accepted that as a source

[Vanguard-01]

I probably should say in some of the myths not all of the myths . Also the cutting the breast is false. This was to show them in bad light. Also the information was giving to me by a close friend. I have to ask her. She does have a page of a few other myths on her deviantart but I don't think u would accepted that as a source

Yeah, I knew the cutting off the breast thing was totally false. For one thing, it's factually untrue that a woman's breast in any way impedes her ability to draw and fire bow in any way. The only thing I've never heard before is that idea that the Amazons were originally peaceful.

But yeah, I'd be happy to look at your friend's stuff, anyway. More Amazon information is always a good thing.

[AmiMizuno]

http://medusa1893.deviantart.com/art...ons-412411005p

[Vanguard-01]

http://medusa1893.deviantart.com/art...ons-412411005p

Strange. I just clicked it and Deviantart is telling me that the page doesn't exist.

[AmiMizuno]

Strange. I just clicked it and Deviantart is telling me that the page doesn't exist.

http://medusa1893.deviantart.com/art...zons-433710714

Sorry about that.

http://medusa1893.deviantart.com/art...zons-412411005

[Vanguard-01]

http://medusa1893.deviantart.com/art...zons-433710714

Sorry about that.

http://medusa1893.deviantart.com/art...zons-412411005

Got it!

Hm. Sounds like she's drawing more from historical, rather than mythological sources, which means she just might be right.

Interesting. Thanks!

[AmiMizuno]

Got it!

Hm. Sounds like she's drawing more from historical, rather than mythological sources, which means she just might be right.

Interesting. Thanks!

U should take a look at her art. I ask her for her sources. So I will post it here

[brettc1]

Perez was honouring the original source material by Marston. Heracles adventure against the Amazons is a well documented part of his 12 labours, but Marston, in turning gender roles in their head, decided to postulate the idea that all female race in the story were not villains but victims.

And it's hardly the first time DC used Hercules as an opponent for their hero. He also fought Superman back in the silver age.

Perez Heracles worked hard to redeem himself. It was only later writers starting with Byrne who reversed that.

[Empress96]

Perez was honouring the original source material by Marston. Heracles adventure against the Amazons is a well documented part of his 12 labours, but Marston, in turning gender roles in their head, decided to postulate the idea that all female race in the story were not villains but victims.

And it's hardly the first time DC used Hercules as an opponent for their hero. He also fought Superman back in the silver age.

Perez Heracles worked hard to redeem himself. It was only later writers starting with Byrne who reversed that.

Technically Perez was honoring Marston's version of the event with Hercules, but there is a distinct difference between the two that brings a different tone.

In Marston's version, Aphrodite creates the Amazons and gives Hippolyta a belt that makes the Amazonian army invincible as long as she wears it. When Hippolyta falls in love with Hercules, she chooses to risk the strength of her army for love.

Perez's version had Hippolyta fall in love with Heracles as well, but here is the distinct difference. Perez's Hippolyta, along with her fellow amazons, were drugged, beaten, and raped. Marston's Hippolyta wasn't incoherent when she made her decision as well as the fact that it is implied that her and Hercules made love. The worst thing Marston's Amazons, to my recollection, faced were being captured. It also doesn't help that this isn't the first time men are shown in a bad light in regard to Perez's Amazons. The post-crisis Amazons were the reincarnation of women who experienced terrible treatment from men in their past life. That's why I think Perez may have received a complaint over his portrayal. He overdid certain aspects.