George Perez Heracles

[brettc1]

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.

I don't think her overdid it as much as showed a more socially relevant rendering. I am certainly on record as saying sometimes in recent years the DCU and MU have been too graphic in their realism - the tens of thousands of deaths that occur on a regular basis grate on me. But what Perez did in this case was shine a light on an ongoing problem affecting a huge number of people, in the same way as he did with in collaboration with Marv Wolfman when they did the child runaway story in Teen Titans a few years earlier.

[Empress96]

I don't think her overdid it as much as showed a more socially relevant rendering. I am certainly on record as saying sometimes in recent years the DCU and MU have been too graphic in their realism - the tens of thousands of deaths that occur on a regular basis grate on me. But what Perez did in this case was shine a light on an ongoing problem affecting a huge number of people, in the same way as he did with in collaboration with Marv Wolfman when they did the child runaway story in Teen Titans a few years earlier.

Yes, but that can be done in a regular Wonder Woman story. It's not like the Amazons needed such a rendering. It adds and loses nothing in my opinion. Doesn't make it better nor worse.

[Aioros22]

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.

That goes without saying for any period of time. Superman in the Golden Age was depicted as patriarcal towards Lois and co and pulling (what today we consider) politically incorrect behaviour. Bigger than life heroes are adapted with the times. What however sets Heracles apart from his breathen, was how even at the time, humane flaws aside, he carried himself with a bigger code of honor. In several versions, he`s the only one among the 49 gathered that lets Atalanta in the Argo. To give holy ground to chased women, to only attack first when in Hera`s rage (or drunk), among other likely less known tibits of character.

Where Perez failed was in using his version as merely a plot device for Diana. The moment when Heracles is holding Paradise Island and Diana is written as making that comment as to how she believed the demigod to be stronger because he once held the Heavens and Heracles replies with "exagerations", that is Perez using a character denying a part of his longstanding visual pathos (the demigod holding the globe on his shoulders) to promote another. But since it`s the title character, I have little issues with it. The book was "Wonder Woman", not "Heracles".

The problem was that even under Perez`s pen, he never went beyond that moment. It sells him under a level of character that is only used because of what happened to the amazons. He should be a figure, an elder, giving centuries worth of experience tips by doing what what the current crop of champions is just doing now. Instead he`s mostly an afterthought at DC. He`s "the guy who raped the amazons". New52 is another matter.

The fun thing is, Marvel manages to pull up "the greatest hero of his time" angle and they write their Hercules as mostly a frat boy with Thor being the guy who carries titles. Most of DC`s takes are usually on the serious side, but they end up dull and blank (Hercules Unbound however is GOAT). Heracles today should be written as carrying some hints of his culture within him, like Thor does, but I don`t find it out of character him being "nicer" or "more heroic". There`s no such thing. He was written as a hero thousands of years ago and a hero he is today. More realistically flawed than Superman, since it`s a simbolic point in him, but a hero nonetheless. It`s hard to write the character from which the term hero became part of everyday language as anything but.

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.

My take is that he`s brain damaged. He was betrayed saving Atlantis and locked up with all the Giants/monsters in that hellhole for centuries. He`s bananas. On the other hand it got more gravitas than what Perez did, to me. It`s an interesting angle that doesn`t paint him in one spot right away.

[brettc1]

As far as holding up Paradise Island, that in itself is pretty spectacucular as feats go. Also remember that this was only a few years after the COIE reboot and Byrnes's Man of Steel had radically dropped Superman's strength level and you don't want to be upstaging DCs big gun.

[AmiMizuno]

For me Diana shouldn't be giving that many powers but still be very skilled at a early age. Also in the contest I really want to see her skills. The amazons should all be on the same strength level. Also the mask for her to disguise herself

[Agent Z]

Would people have been okay with this if it had been another hero used. Say what if it were Theseus who'd done this since the story were Heracles meets the Amazons he's the one who kidnaps Hippolyta (or depending on who you ask Antiope).

[Vanguard-01]

Would people have been okay with this if it had been another hero used. Say what if it were Theseus who'd done this since the story were Heracles meets the Amazons he's the one who kidnaps Hippolyta (or depending on who you ask Antiope).

Nah. I think Heracles was the best candidate, considering what Perez was going for. Heracles was THE ultimate Alpha Male in Greek Mythology. Having him be the example of everything that's wrong with the Patriarchy and victimizing the Matriarchy makes the most sense.

[Aioros22]

As far as holding up Paradise Island, that in itself is pretty spectacucular as feats go. Also remember that this was only a few years after the COIE reboot and Byrnes's Man of Steel had radically dropped Superman's strength level and you don't want to be upstaging DCs big gun.

Don`t really have an issue with that, other than that Perez didn`t really need that line there whatsoever. That line placed him as under Diana and co on the go, with the more severe implication that "myths tend to be exagerated" from the man`s own mouth leading one to think "so, how many were exagerated? In a fictional universe where Gods, Imps, Cosmics and blackhole farts actually freely (co)exist, why does there need to be a line saying "x is exageratting"?

I can`t speak on the behalf of Perez original intent, but he didn`t really wrote much of a compelling "tribute" to a character that for all purposes is the first western world class hero story.

[brettc1]

Don`t really have an issue with that, other than that Perez didn`t really need that line there whatsoever. That line placed him as under Diana and co on the go, with the more severe implication that "myths tend to be exagerated" from the man`s own mouth leading one to think "so, how many were exagerated? In a fictional universe where Gods, Imps, Cosmics and blackhole farts actually freely (co)exist, why does there need to be a line saying "x is exageratting"?

I can`t speak on the behalf of Perez original intent, but he didn`t really wrote much of a compelling "tribute" to a character that for all purposes is the first western world class hero story.

I remember reading that back in 1987 and thinking it was pretty clever. For a start, it had been established that while the Olympians existed so did many other groups of gods, so saying Atlas alone was responsible for the heavens staying up would seem odd.

As for the treatment of Heracles, this is an old discussion on the WW forums. Marston in his original writing was deliberately questioning the concept of who a hero is, most especially by gender. Yes Heracles may have let Atlanta on the Argo but that hardly makes him the poster boy for equality in the ancient stories.

[Aioros22]

I remember reading that back in 1987 and thinking it was pretty clever. For a start, it had been established that while the Olympians existed so did many other groups of gods, so saying Atlas alone was responsible for the heavens staying up would seem odd.

Marvel didn`t had any trouble mixing it up. It`s magic after all, it`s supposed to be a punishment, but nothing that under the power of Zeus or a contract with Gaea/Ouranos/a higher power wouldn`t solve.

At the very least, you can just omit it.

As for the treatment of Heracles, this is an old discussion on the WW forums. Marston in his original writing was deliberately questioning the concept of who a hero is, most especially by gender. Yes Heracles may have let Atlanta on the Argo but that hardly makes him the poster boy for equality in the ancient stories.

Being a hero got little to do with gender, even within the Greek Myths. You get awarded such a title due to deeds, to actions, not whether you`re male or female. Marston`s point may have had something to do with how the older societies were mainly patriarcal and thus exposed such by having the "male hero" being the villain to the "female heroine". But his theory of loving submission is nothing short of another type of patriarchy.

Heracles wasn`t considered the hero he was because he was the alpha male of Greek mythology (which he was), he was considered the hero because his sense of sacrífice, courage, honor and self doubt rivaled his own strenght. Being the alpha male sets him only apart the other men. Being the hero with the qualities he had is what granted him immortality and set him above every other demigod, nymph, creature and mortals on the physical world.

The Atlanta story is not a one note incident.

[wonder39]

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.

[I]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.

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.

Here's my take. The story isn't about Heracles.... it's about the Amazons and Diana. Perez used the formula that Marston had set into place (which is inspired by, but not based in, the real mythology of Heracles and the Amazons) and then fleshed it out-- made it more complex and heart wrenching a story. Perez even shows in that #1 issue that Heracles is afflicted with madness by Hera-- so in some ways his treatment of the Amazons is done without his sanity in tact.

But again, he's not the focus of the story, but mainly a plot point-- he moves the story along. His actions cause the Amazons to retaliate, which causes them to repent and move to Paradise Island to guard Doom's Doorway. And as you said, Perez brings him full circle, in growing and repenting his ways as well-- and is forgiven by the Amazons for his actions. He's a flawed hero-- isn't that what everyone is so nuts for these days?

As for him being portrayed as "less than" vs Diana, to pump her up or something-- feh. It's not his comic. Diana should be the star of her own book. Besides, Pre Crisis Diana (Gene Colan era) was shown as being able to best Heracles ("Hercules" at the time), so this is nothing new.

And blame the post Perez writers for making him a villain/foe to Diana. He was all square with her at the end of "Challenge of the Gods" so it was Byrne, etc who screwed that up.....

M

[wonder39]

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.

"made love" in the 40s meant wooing, courting-- not the physical act of sex like it does today.... but still, there was a romance component

[Aioros22]

Here's my take. The story isn't about Heracles.... it's about the Amazons and Diana. Perez used the formula that Marston had set into place (which is inspired by, but not based in, the real mythology of Heracles and the Amazons) and then fleshed it out-- made it more complex and heart wrenching a story. Perez even shows in that #1 issue that Heracles is afflicted with madness by Hera-- so in some ways his treatment of the Amazons is done without his sanity in tact.

I think it was Ares. But that one point have been mainly brushed under by later writers. Save in the "Wonder Girl" mini.

But again, he's not the focus of the story, but mainly a plot point-- he moves the story along. His actions cause the Amazons to retaliate, which causes them to repent and move to Paradise Island to guard Doom's Doorway. And as you said, Perez brings him full circle, in growing and repenting his ways as well-- and is forgiven by the Amazons for his actions. He's a flawed hero-- isn't that what everyone is so nuts for these days?

Which is the reason I`m okay with it. Problem comes when people then try to use this version of Heracles, who never did some of the stuff that is literally part of the classic Mythology and pathos, to reason Diana being on a certain level compared to X or Y. But that`s mainly a fandom issue, not mine.

The point here is not that he shouldn`t be flawed, is that DC got him stuck into a corner of "villanish" characterization. He was no different than Superman being mindcontrolled, if one thinks about it.

As for him being portrayed as "less than" vs Diana, to pump her up or something-- feh. It's not his comic. Diana should be the star of her own book. Besides, Pre Crisis Diana (Gene Colan era) was shown as being able to best Heracles ("Hercules" at the time), so this is nothing new.

There`s another Pre Crisis story written by Conway where Heracles beats down Diana without bracelets, when she goes nuts and starts rampanging in Boston. He was "Hercules" in this one, same atire (pretty much the "Hercules Unbound" design created by Garcia Lopez) with no beard.

They were physical equals Pre Crisis. Same with the "Hercules" (both the red haired and "Unbound") appearances in Superman.

And blame the post Perez writers for making him a villain/foe to Diana. He was all square with her at the end of "Challenge of the Gods" so it was Byrne, etc who screwed that up.....

M

I totally put the blame of the reset on Byrne. The only thing that annoys me about Perez, is that to my knowledge, he never paints/writes the "Hercules" character well compared to other Alphas. There`s always exagerattion or adamantine chipping.