New Phil Jimenez/Wonder Woman Interview

[numberthirty]

The very idea that there is one way to "get" a character is pretty old hat.

The idea that being the God Of War has to make the person assuming the mantle into some bloodthirsty embodiment of war and conflict is also old hat.

If folks want to take the most narrow possible view of that as it relates to storytelling, their loss.

[SeanT]

You do realize that Marston and Azzarello had her killing people as well, right? Nad how was she lacking in love and compassion under Perez and Jimenez who showed Diana as an ambassador and philanthropist? They also portrayed the Amazons a hell of a lot better. Under them, the Amazons were healers, philosophers, poets, artists etc. How often did Azzarello have Diana use the Lasso? And what role did Aphrodite play? Perez had Hippolyta forgive Heracles for his crimes against them and he showed the Amazons growing past their hatred and anger over what had been done with them.



Just because Jimenez and Perez didn't have Diana constantly get tied up doesn't mean they didn't get her.

I didn't say they didn't get her. Clearly they've made a Diana that resonates with a lot of people (although not me). I was saying, they made a very different Diana than Marston's version, and Azzarello's is much closer to the original.

[brettc1]

I didn't say they didn't get her. Clearly they've made a Diana that resonates with a lot of people (although not me). I was saying, they made a very different Diana than Marston's version, and Azzarello's is much closer to the original.

Daughter of Zeus and God of War.

Closer must mean diametrically opposed in the urban dictionary these days.

[Silvanus]

You do realize that Marston and Azzarello had her killing people as well, right?

People? The only "person" I remember Azzarello having her kill was Ares, whom she tearfully sacrificed when was about to die anyway, and who willingly died at Diana's hand instead of the First Born's. A dead horse reanimated as a centaur-like zombie? Not a person.

A peaceful god of war, it seems to me, is just an elevation of, not a radical departure from, a warrior for peace. And even if Jiminez wasn't interested in the "warrior" aspect, the idea that she's a warrior for peace is firmly rooted in Marston's first issues. If anyone loves peace so much that she can continue to promote peace even when she has been made god of war, it's got to be Wonder Woman. That's her all over. ETA--And it's not unlike a warrior who armors up to lead "our worlds at war," only to ultimately infect a dark god (Darkseid) with her spirit of love and peace. Even though Jiminez might have preferred to avoid the subject of war, this real highlight of his run came when he had Diana act rather like a peaceful god of war.

(I'm not saying the OWAW crossover as a whole was a highlight, but the denoument with Darkseid was. And I like that in the interview Jiminez acknowledged that this war-themed crossover, though unwelcome, actually became a good challenge. Maybe it's one of the few times when having to participate in a company-wide event actually led to something really good in a comic. Another is probably Azz's 0 issue.)

[brettc1]

People? The only "person" I remember Azzarello having her kill was Ares, whom she tearfully sacrificed when was about to die anyway, and who willingly died at Diana's hand instead of the First Born's. A dead horse reanimated as a centaur-like zombie? Not a person.

A peaceful god of war, it seems to me, is just an elevation of, not a radical departure from, a warrior for peace. And even if Jiminez wasn't interested in the "warrior" aspect, the idea that she's a warrior for peace is firmly rooted in Marston's first issues. If anyone loves peace so much that she can continue to promote peace even when she has been made god of war, it's got to be Wonder Woman. That's her all over. ETA--And it's not unlike a warrior who armors up to lead "our worlds at war," only to ultimately infect a dark god (Darkseid) with her spirit of love and peace. Even though Jiminez might have preferred to avoid the subject of war, this real highlight of his run came when he had Diana act rather like a peaceful god of war.

(I'm not saying the OWAW crossover as a whole was a highlight, but the denoument with Darkseid was. And I like that in the interview Jiminez acknowledged that this war-themed crossover, though unwelcome, actually became a good challenge. Maybe it's one of the few times when having to participate in a company-wide event actually led to something really good in a comic. Another is probably Azz's 0 issue.)

And yet even in Superman / Wonder Woman we have seen her acknowledge this as a mistake. Thanks to Superman.

[Agent Z]

People? The only "person" I remember Azzarello having her kill was Ares, whom she tearfully sacrificed when was about to die anyway, and who willingly died at Diana's hand instead of the First Born's. A dead horse reanimated as a centaur-like zombie? Not a person.

A peaceful god of war, it seems to me, is just an elevation of, not a radical departure from, a warrior for peace. And even if Jiminez wasn't interested in the "warrior" aspect, the idea that she's a warrior for peace is firmly rooted in Marston's first issues. If anyone loves peace so much that she can continue to promote peace even when she has been made god of war, it's got to be Wonder Woman. That's her all over. ETA--And it's not unlike a warrior who armors up to lead "our worlds at war," only to ultimately infect a dark god (Darkseid) with her spirit of love and peace. Even though Jiminez might have preferred to avoid the subject of war, this real highlight of his run came when he had Diana act rather like a peaceful god of war.

(I'm not saying the OWAW crossover as a whole was a highlight, but the denoument with Darkseid was. And I like that in the interview Jiminez acknowledged that this war-themed crossover, though unwelcome, actually became a good challenge. Maybe it's one of the few times when having to participate in a company-wide event actually led to something really good in a comic. Another is probably Azz's 0 issue.)

You do know I never mentioned the God of War thing in my post. I was responding to Sean's quote that Jimenez and Perez didn't get Diana.

[Silvanus]

You do know I never mentioned the God of War thing in my post. I was responding to Sean's quote that Jimenez and Perez didn't get Diana.

Yeah--the part of my post that was a direct response to you was the first part:

"People? The only "person" I remember Azzarello having her kill was Ares, whom she tearfully sacrificed when was about to die anyway, and who willingly died at Diana's hand instead of the First Born's. A dead horse reanimated as a centaur-like zombie? Not a person."

I'm not disagreeing with your larger point that Jiminez and Perez "got" Diana. I think that they got her, in their own way and from their own angle, and so did Azzarello, in a different way and from a different angle (which I happened to enjoy more). She's a conceptually big character with many aspects; she can legitimately mean different things to different writers and readers. But my response to you was more limited and specific; I was just pointing out that it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that Azz "had her killing people."

And yet even in Superman / Wonder Woman we have seen her acknowledge this as a mistake. Thanks to Superman.

Wasn't that in a then-possible future that now will never occur? And wasn't her approach to being god of war a "mistake" that apparently led (or would have led, had this future come to pass) to the fulfillment of her destiny as goddess of peace? I don't mind the idea that she might mistakes in her role as god of war, and that what she learns from those mistakes could lead to the evolution of that role into a greater one. Some so-called "mistakes" are necessary learning experiences--and they can also make for good stories.

[wonder39]

The very idea that there is one way to "get" a character is pretty old hat.

The idea that being the God Of War has to make the person assuming the mantle into some bloodthirsty embodiment of war and conflict is also old hat.

If folks want to take the most narrow possible view of that as it relates to storytelling, their loss.

The thing is that the Greek Pantheon had two deities representing War-- Ares-- who represented the bloodlust, the violence, the brutality... and Athena-- who represented strategy and intelligent warfare. Diana has taken the mantle from Ares. It's a natural assumption that if Diana has taken over Ares' role as God of War, then that title includes the type of war he represented...

[brettc1]

Wasn't that in a then-possible future that now will never occur? And wasn't her approach to being god of war a "mistake" that apparently led (or would have led, had this future come to pass) to the fulfillment of her destiny as goddess of peace? I don't mind the idea that she might mistakes in her role as god of war, and that what she learns from those mistakes could lead to the evolution of that role into a greater one. Some so-called "mistakes" are necessary learning experiences--and they can also make for good stories.

The mistake, clearly, is in becoming God of War.

Warriors might be noble, but war isn't. It's destruction and rape and torture and death. If those things are not present, it's not war. You can no more change what war is as its patron god than you can change what lightning is as the God of Thunder, or what the ocean is as God of the Sea. It is what it is.


What's disillusioning for a lot of fans is a version of Wonder Woman not clever enough to work this out.

You could say that a story where Batman becomes a drug dealer to try and moderate the flow of narcotics might be an interesting twist, but I don't think a lot of Batfans would tolerate it going on for years.

[wagthedog]

I'm not disagreeing with your larger point that Jiminez "got" Diana. I think that they got her, in their own way and from their own angle, and so did Azzarello, in a different way and from a different angle (which I happened to enjoy more).

I'm not sure if you need to provide this statement to us, the messageboard, at all. I think it goes without saying that you liked the Azz run more than any other in the history of Wonder Woman stories

[Silvanus]

The thing is that the Greek Pantheon had two deities representing War-- Ares-- who represented the bloodlust, the violence, the brutality... and Athena-- who represented strategy and intelligent warfare. Diana has taken the mantle from Ares. It's a natural assumption that if Diana has taken over Ares' role as God of War, then that title includes the type of war he represented...

It might be a "natural assumption" that she would embody bloodlust as her predecessor did (though that predecessor seems to have had a slightly broader perspective on war in the current DCU than he did in the myths), but it's an assumption that she began to rebut in the very issue in which she inherited the title; at the end of that issue, she spares the Firs Born, saying "there has been enough killing today." That's the opposite of bloodlust, and it leads Hades to say that Diana will be an "intresting" god of war. It would be that "interesting," or strange or remarkable or impressive, if Wonder Woman had inherited Athena's mantle and gone on to be wise and merciful. What's impressive is that she's still being her wise and merciful self; a mantle can't change her, and maybe she can change what the mantle represents.

[brettc1]

It might be a "natural assumption" that she would embody bloodlust as her predecessor did (though that predecessor seems to have had a slightly broader perspective on war in the current DCU than he did in the myths), but it's an assumption that she began to rebut in the very issue in which she inherited the title; at the end of that issue, she spares the Firs Born, saying "there has been enough killing today." That's the opposite of bloodlust, and it leads Hades to say that Diana will be an "intresting" god of war. It would be that "interesting," or strange or remarkable or impressive, if Wonder Woman had inherited Athena's mantle and gone on to be wise and merciful. What's impressive is that she's still being her wise and merciful self; a mantle can't change her, and maybe she can change what the mantle represents.

No, she can't. Any more, as I said, that Zeus can change what lightning is or Apollo can change the nature of the sun.

As an example, I mentioned months ago the idea of Apollo absorbing Superman's powers and leaving him defenseless against Zod. I realize now that this probably can't happen because that's just not how the sun works. The sun gives out light and heat. It doesn't absorb it back, at least not in any way that is significant to it's output. So logically, the best Apollo could do was to supercharge Clark's enemies. He can't alter the basic nature of his domain to make it work differently, except possibly to withhold it altogether [as Demeter did when Persephone was taken]. He is bound to it as much as it is bound to him.

War is what it is, or it's not war. Diana cannot change that.

Edit - so you might think, could Diana WITHHOLD WAR, and thus remove it.

Possibly, but that would also mean removing free will. She would basically be forcing people to do what she wanted, which I am sure would cause it's own set of cosmic problems.

[Silvanus]

No, she can't. Any more, as I said, that Zeus can change what lightning is or Apollo can change the nature of the sun.

By "change what the mantle represents," I was thinking more of changing what it means to wear that mantle and to be "god of war,"and not so much about changing the fundamental nature of war itself. Maybe the mantle as worn by her will represent the wise regulation of warlike impulses, the tempering of war with mercy, the use of war preparation to deter actual war, and so on. Athena and the Romans' Mars stood for some of these ideas, at least some of the time, so I don't see it as so impossible that Diana can decide that she and Ares' former mantle will represent those ideas now.

You could say that a story where Batman becomes a drug dealer to try and moderate the flow of narcotics might be an interesting twist, but I don't think a lot of Batfans would tolerate it going on for years.

Batman becoming a drug dealer would be like Wonder Woman becoming a black-market arms merchant or some other kind of war monger--which she has not. To become a drug dealer, by definition, means selling drugs; becoming god of war has not, for Wonder Woman, meant promoting war.

While Batman won't fight drug-dealing by becoming a drug dealer, he has always fought terror by inflicting terror. It's something he points out in his first origin story, and, by the way, it's a key point in Jiminez's first arc of Wonder Woman. In the same arc, Wonder Woman points out that the god of war charged Wonder Woman to save mankind from his own domain, war:

jiminez.jpg

If War can deputize Wonder Woman to save people from war, why can't Wonder Woman as War try on her own initiative to save people from war?

And Wonder Woman has always used her skills at war to fight against war; that's what she was sent to do in the old days, when she was sent to fight the Nazis.

[brettc1]

Batman becoming a drug dealer would be like Wonder Woman becoming an arms merchant and war monger--which she has not. To become a drug dealer, by definition, means selling drugs; becoming god of war has not, for Wonder Woman, meant promoting war.

While Batman won't fight drug-dealing by becoming a drug dealer, he has always fought terror by inflicting terror. It's something he points out in his first origin story, and, by the way, it's a key point in Jiminez's first arc of Wonder Woman. And Wonder Woman has always used her skills at war to fight against war; that's what she was sent to do in the old days, when she was sent to fight the Nazis.

See above - the god of war exists in order to give humans the option of choosing war over peace. As God of War she actually embodies the choice for destruction and carnage, because that is what war is.

If Batman is a drug dealer, he isn't forcing people to buy drugs, he is just supplying to meet a demand. The God of War is no different.

[Silvanus]

See above - the god of war exists in order to give humans the option of choosing war over peace. As God of War she actually embodies the choice for destruction and carnage, because that is what war is.

Ares, then, presumably embodied that choice, and yet, according to Jiminez's Wonder Woman in the panel I pasted in, he was able to choose to charge Wonder Woman to work against destruction and carnage (if only as a hedge to protect his own existence.)

When you say what gods can or cannot do and what they must or must not represent, you speak, it seems to me, as though there were a Fourth Thermodynamic Law. If it were parallel to the real Thermodynamic Laws, I guess it would be the Law of Conservation of Mantles: The mantles of gods cannot be created and destroyed. But your law would be stricter, if you're claiming that mantles or domains, unlike matter or energy, not only can't be created or destroyed but can't even be transformed.

But I don't think that this law of yours exists in the the DCU as interpreted by Azzarello. And personally, I don't think mythology and fantasy have unalterable rules the way physics (or rather, the natural world) has. There was nothing to prevent Azzarello from crafting a world in which it's possible for a heroically determined person to take over the mantle of war and preside over the concept of war in a different way than her predecessor did. Again, that doesn't mean that she has fundamentally transformed war itself or that she is going to be able to do so; it just means that she represents a different, more critical and peaceful point of view on war, and she's going to try to temper war and reduce bloodlust rather than promoting them.

f Batman is a drug dealer, he isn't forcing people to buy drugs, he is just supplying to meet a demand. The God of War is no different.

Sure it's different. If Batman is a drug dealer, he's selling drugs. Wonder Woman as god of war isn't selling arms on the black market, or encouraging people to go to war. In Azzarello's run, she was not, as god of war, acting more warlike than she was before. Batman as drug dealer would be acting differently than he had before. That's a pretty important difference, because, as Sean pointed out, it's not just titles that matter: it's actions.