New Phil Jimenez/Wonder Woman Interview

[Awonder]

and since Azzarello has taken up entirely too much of my life already, how do folks feel about Kingdom Come?

The Azzarello run may be over, but, for better or worse, the ramifications continue. I'm less concerned about the comics than I am the movies.

As for Kingdom Come, I enjoy the story for what it was: a stand-alone 'what if.' I'm not so thrilled with brining it into the main continuity.

[brettc1]

The Azzarello run may be over, but, for better or worse, the ramifications continue. I'm less concerned about the comics than I am the movies.

As for Kingdom Come, I enjoy the story for what it was: a stand-alone 'what if.' I'm not so thrilled with brining it into the main continuity.

Which seems to be what Jimenez discusses in the interview. Up til that moment, Diana had killed opponents before, but only mythological ones. And since you know they are going to an afterlife from which they can even return it doesn't have the same impact as killing a bank robber.

After KC, the emphasis changed dramatically for WW to become the one out of the big three who will kill. Subsequently by the time we get to new 52 Madame Xanadu's card deck has Diana pegged as "the warrior". as opposed to Superman, who is "the hero".

The implication here is subtle, but present. Tne hero is the focus of the story, but perhaps more significantly he is innately good. A warrior CAN be good, but that is not mandated.

[Silvanus]

While I liked Kingdom Come as a "what if" for the DCU at large, I thought that when it came to Wonder Woman specifically, it didn't even work as a good "what if"; it didn't give an interesting (to me), fleshed-out answer to what she'd be like in this other world, but just reduced her to a one-dimensional shadow of her usual self. To his credit, Waid, in an interview with Gail Simone, offered some honest self-criticism of what he did with Wonder Woman:

Simone: Do you think Diana’s cause is at all just in the book’s climax? She seems pretty cold hearted for the most part.

Waid: She is pretty cold-hearted at the end. I’ve said to you before, one of my failings with that story is that I never could fully understand Wonder Woman–and, so, she became a plot device more than a character. To some degree, that’s because the story is really about Superman and everyone else is a “plot device” to some degree or another, but I do regret overcompensating to make her unsympathetic. I just really (without Batman around at his side) needed someone whose strident decisions could contrast with Superman’s growing equivocations.

He also said he had trouble writing Wonder Woman because he couldn't figure out what to do with Marston's "psychosexual component" or "concept of peace through fisticuffs," so he couldn't take the character "back to basics."

https://fivequestionswith.wordpress.com/mark-waid/

[brettc1]

While I liked Kingdom Come as a "what if" for the DCU at large, I thought that when it came to Wonder Woman specifically, it didn't even work as a good "what if"; it didn't give an interesting (to me), fleshed-out answer to what she'd be like in this other world, but just reduced her to a one-dimensional shadow of her usual self. To his credit, Waid, in an interview with Gail Simone, offered some honest self-criticism of what he did with Wonder Woman:



He also said he had trouble writing Wonder Woman because he couldn't figure out what to do with Marston's "psychosexual component" or "concept of peace through fisticuffs," so he couldn't take the character "back to basics."

https://fivequestionswith.wordpress.com/mark-waid/

I have no idea why Waid had such difficulty.

If you watch any episode of Kung Fu with David Carradine then the warrior for peace idea is easily grasped.

[Tayswift]

I have no idea why Waid had such difficulty.

If you watch any episode of Kung Fu with David Carradine then the warrior for peace idea is easily grasped.

well johns nailed it on his last justice league issue. Not hard to understandm really hard to understand why waid didn't got it. I don't think he even bothered, wonder owman was just a plot device. most AUs she is just a accessory for superman narrative, blaffles me that chuck dixon was the one that wrote the best WW AU on justice riders.

[Silvanus]

I have no idea why Waid had such difficulty.

If you watch any episode of Kung Fu with David Carradine then the warrior for peace idea is easily grasped.

I agree that "warrior for peace" is not a hard concept to get, but it seems like Waid hasn't been the only writer to have trouble with it, or forget about it, or set it aside--whether by replacing it with "just plain warrior" or by trying to downplay the warrior aspect altogether. It seems possible that writers and audiences were more comfortable with warriors for peace and similar concepts--whether it's David Carradine's Kung Fu character, the Wonder Woman tv show, or the original Star Wars trilogy--back in the 70s. Maybe it's because a writers who were thirty years old or so at that time grew up hearing about about their fathers' exploits in WWII, so they were disposed to believe in virtuous people who fought to defend their ideals and country and to build a stronger peace, rather than because they like war. (I know that the allies committed atrocities too, but there were a lot of idealistic narrative and perceptions of that war, as opposed to WWI or Vietnam.) By the end of the Cold War, a lot of writers may have been more jaded about the whole idea that only one side in a conflict is hostile and bloodthirsty, while the other really just wants peace. But even if some people weren't that comfortable with the warrior for peace idea in 1996 (when Waid's Kingdom Come came out), that doesn't mean it's a bad ideal; I'm not surprised to see it making a comeback in Johns' latest issues and elsewhere.

And it was never really gone, I realize; there are probably always some people for whom an idea like "warrior for peace" sounds inspiring, and others for whim it sounds hypocritical and dangerous. I'm sure we could think of positive examples of the warrior for peace in the nineties, and maybe my historical theory of why it was more popular in the 70 s is BS. I just find it interesting to think about.

There's one central idea in Jiminez's interpretation of the character that seems never to have gone out of style:

Here’s a little girl, raised by a single mother in Paradise; nothing bad ever happened on that island, but nothing interesting ever happened on that island either. This was a girl who was like, ‘Get me out of this place. I want to see what’s out there.’ ADAM HUGHES once summed it up perfectly, he said that basically she was always the one that was sitting on the beach pointing and wondering, ‘what’s out there, I need to know’.

Her mother and the other Amazons have a terrible relationship with what was out there, so they were fine with Paradise. But she wasn’t. She grew up thinking the best of people, that everyone loved each other, that it was all beautiful and wonderful. I’ve often believed that the best versions of the character takes that attitude with her. Rather than anticipate the worst, she finds wonder in the best of us. She never, ever, ever would be sullied by sadness or cynicism. She would always be trying to figure out a way to make things better, to make things more like Paradise. I think she would also take great pleasure in all the diversity around her, because the world she came from looked the same, it was the same people, there was no difference.

I think it's striking that this image of Wonder Woman as an outsider who's curious and optimistic about the larger world seems to be a big constant even across versions that otherwise get contrasted with each other. We saw it in Johns recently too, in that flashback scene in which the young Diana was talking to her mother and an art book had washed up on shore.

[brettc1]

It's funny that you think that version of Wonder Wonan remained completely intact inthe New52.

[Awonder]

It's funny that you think that version of Wonder Wonan remained completely intact inthe New52.

Uh-oh, is the cease fire over, are we starting the nu52 War over again?

To be fair, Silvanus didn't say WW remained completely intact; he said one central idea was constant: that Diana is more curious and optimistic of the outside world.

I agree that "warrior for peace" is not a hard concept to get, but it seems like Waid hasn't been the only writer to have trouble with it, or forget about it, or set it aside--whether by replacing it with "just plain warrior" or by trying to downplay the warrior aspect altogether. It seems possible that writers and audiences were more comfortable with warriors for peace and similar concepts--whether it's David Carradine's Kung Fu character, the Wonder Woman tv show, or the original Star Wars trilogy--back in the 70s. Maybe it's because a writers who were thirty years old or so at that time grew up hearing about about their fathers' exploits in WWII, so they were disposed to believe in virtuous people who fought to defend their ideals and country and to build a stronger peace, rather than because they like war. (I know that the allies committed atrocities too, but there were a lot of idealistic narrative and perceptions of that war, as opposed to WWI or Vietnam.) By the end of the Cold War, a lot of writers may have been more jaded about the whole idea that only one side in a conflict is hostile and bloodthirsty, while the other really just wants peace. But even if some people weren't that comfortable with the warrior for peace idea in 1996 (when Waid's Kingdom Come came out), that doesn't mean it's a bad ideal; I'm not surprised to see it making a comeback in Johns' latest issues and elsewhere.

And it was never really gone, I realize; there are probably always some people for whom an idea like "warrior for peace" sounds inspiring, and others for whim it sounds hypocritical and dangerous. I'm sure we could think of positive examples of the warrior for peace in the nineties, and maybe my historical theory of why it was more popular in the 70 s is BS. I just find it interesting to think about.

Interesting theory. I think Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and Moore's Watchmen ushered in a lot of cynicism and attempts at mature grittiness in comics. Moreover, like Kingdom Come, most writers seem to start by dishing out the lead roles to Superman and/or Batman, leaving WW (and others) in smaller supporting roles. Rather than starting from a story of her own, she's forced into the story of others and simply not given the same development, in part, because they can't quite decide on who she should be.

[Silvanus]

Uh-oh, is the cease fire over, are we starting the nu52 War over again?

To be fair, Silvanus didn't say WW remained completely intact; he said one central idea was constant: that Diana is more curious and optimistic of the outside world.

Thanks, AWonder. That is how I meant it. In particular, I thought it was striking how closely the Hughes guote about "a girl sitting on the beach wondering..." matched a Paradise Island flashback in a recent issue of JL. Brett, sure, I'll acknowledge that some of the other stuff in the quote--in particular, "nothing bad ever happened on that island"--is no longer true (if it ever was). She's still from an island without old age, disease, pollution, violence that she knew of (other than sparring and fighting monsters), sexism (other than in theory, since there was only one gender on the island), racial or ethnic conflict, socioeconomic class conflicts that we know of; but sometimes, the other kids did call her Clay.

Interesting theory. I think Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and Moore's Watchmen ushered in a lot of cynicism and attempts at mature grittiness in comics. Moreover, like Kingdom Come, most writers seem to start by dishing out the lead roles to Superman and/or Batman, leaving WW (and others) in smaller supporting roles. Rather than starting from a story of her own, she's forced into the story of others and simply not given the same development, in part, because they can't quite decide on who she should be.

I agree. I guess, besides the large-scale kinds of historical explanations I was looking for, there was a receptive audience for Miller's and Moore's stuff because the comics audience had already aged a bit and because even kids were getting used to grittier stuff in media outside comics.

[brettc1]

Did I say funny. I meant hilarious.

Other children taunt and bully her growing up because she's different.

As to there being no sexism on the island, that's like saying there would be no racism if you just let the Daleks kill eveyone else.

[Silvanus]

Did I say funny. I meant hilarious.

Other children taunt and bully her growing up because she's different.

Yeah, well, that happens at Hogwarts too. Poor Luna Lovegood. But for the most part, it's still a pretty wondrous place.

As to there being no sexism on the island, that's like saying there would be no racism if you just let the Daleks kill eveyone else.[/QUOTE]

I said no sexism "except in theory." That's an important exception. Sure, the Amazons (as a group) are sexist, but , that probably didn't cause a lot of bad things to happen on the island (and remember, I was talking about Jiminez's point that "nothing bad happened on that island") while Diana was growing up, since there were no men to be sexist to (and also apparently no raids at taht time, or at least Diana didn't know about them.).

The Daleks would probably turn on each other if there was no one else. They need to someone to hate, if I understand them correctly. But if that were not the case, and if the Daleks had children, then sure, I guess a young Dalek in a Daleks-only world would group up not seeing or being involved in much actual racism.

Besides, doesn't a mean anything more. I was kidding around a little bit in my last message; sure, Diana's upbringing isn't exactly the same in this continuity. But my previous, more serious point was that the "image of Wonder Woman as an outsider who's curious and optimistic about the larger world" has been a constant across a lot of versions of Wonder Woman (yes, even in the New 52). Do you actually disagree with that?

[brettc1]

In theory!?

LOL.

They actively seek out men, sex them up, murder them and then engage in human trafficking of their boy babies.

That is not theoretical sexism. I'm not sure then even is such a thing.

And yes, I do disagree. John's early writing had her slitting throats and arguing to cut peoples heads off. That is not an optimistic point of view. That is pragmatic verging on homicidal.

[Awonder]

I feel like Strife, getting all excited by the rising clash again - the cease fire was really cramping my mojo.

I said no sexism "except in theory." That's an important exception. Sure, the Amazons (as a group) are sexist, but , that probably didn't cause a lot of bad things to happen on the island (and remember, I was talking about Jiminez's point that "nothing bad happened on that island") while Diana was growing up, since there were no men to be sexist to (and also apparently no raids at taht time, or at least Diana didn't know about them.).

In theory!?

LOL.

They actively seek out men, sex them up, murder them and then engage in human trafficking of their boy babies.

That is not theoretical sexism. I'm not sure then even is such a thing.

And yes, I do disagree. John's early writing had her slitting throats and arguing to cut peoples heads off. That is not an optimistic point of view. That is pragmatic verging on homicidal.

In Silvanus' defense, Diana didn't know about the raids and baby-trafficking, and we don't know if any even happened in her lifetime.

Nevertheless, the Amazons had to be actively teaching their daughters fear and hatred of men. That may not be the same as directly seeing sexism in practice on a daily basis, but I think I essentially agree with Brett, that it's more than just sexism in theory.

Johns' early JL was not a great showing for WW. It goes to Silvanus' early point:

I agree that "warrior for peace" is not a hard concept to get, but it seems like Waid hasn't been the only writer to have trouble with it, or forget about it, or set it aside--whether by replacing it with "just plain warrior" or by trying to downplay the warrior aspect altogether...

Johns used to really hyper-focus on the "warrior" aspect of WW. Now, I'm a fan of the warrior side - however, like Reeses' peanut butter cups, you need both the chocolate and the peanut butter or it misses the point. Diana (and the Amazons) needs the ambassador for peace to go along with the warrior that doesn't want to, but can kick your ###. Thankfully, Johns did more homework, and Phil's run seemed to help him see more in WW.

Now, if we can just get DC to see more in the Amazons as well. Hopefully, Morrison's Year One can do some of that.

[brettc1]

I feel like Strife, getting all excited by the rising clash again - the cease fire was really cramping my mojo.

well if folks are going to make outRAGEous statements they will get called on it.

In Silvanus' defense, Diana didn't know about the raids and baby-trafficking, and we don't know if any even happened in her lifetime.

don't matter none, since we ain't talkin bout Diana with that

Nevertheless, the Amazons had to be actively teaching their daughters fear and hatred of men. That may not be the same as directly seeing sexism in practice on a daily basis, but I think I essentially agree with Brett, that it's more than just sexism in theory.

Johns' early JL was not a great showing for WW. It goes to Silvanus' early point:



Johns used to really hyper-focus on the "warrior" aspect of WW. Now, I'm a fan of the warrior side - however, like Reeses' peanut butter cups, you need both the chocolate and the peanut butter or it misses the point. Diana (and the Amazons) needs the ambassador for peace to go along with the warrior that doesn't want to, but can kick your ###. Thankfully, Johns did more homework, and Phil's run seemed to help him see more in WW.

Now, if we can just get DC to see more in the Amazons as well. Hopefully, Morrison's Year One can do some of that.

Well Silvanus point was that that a particular way of writing Diana was present in all incarnations. To me that statement is clearly false, and not just for else worlds. It began to erode before the new52 but since then has been more prevalent than ever.

Which again is also what Jimenez was saying.

[Awonder]

Have you learned nothing from Obi Wan? True/false is often due to a certain point of view.

Silvanus' point, as I see it, is not that Diana is exactly the same - but the element of her being more curious and optimistic than her Amazon sisters is a central, recurring theme throughout her history. Even early Johns sword-happy version - which is not how Phil would write her - is still more curious and optimistic than the other Amazons, right?

And it is interesting that the quote from Adam Hughes is so much like the scene of young Diana finding a book washed up on shore and being fascinated by it. Marston's Amazons are very different to what we have now, but even back then, Diana is not the one to stay home; she's the one to venture out while the others (mostly) stay home.

Obviously, there are differences, but can you honestly not see any similarities?