Which Origin For Wonder Woman Do You Like Most?

[Silvanus]

After much needed experience, I've learned when a conversation has entered a rat hole, and there's nothing left to talk about. But:

That "quote from an interview" was Azzarello's defining statement for his Wonder Woman, not some random line.

In the same interview--in fact, in the same paragraph--Azzarello says "And the sentence or two [i.e., "she's the daughter of Zeus"] is not for people who read comics; it’s for people outside of comics, in general popular culture." So I think he meant the one-sentence description as a teaser, or bait, to draw people to the book and to the character--not as a final interpretation that readers should take away when they have actually read the book and gotten to know the character. If the bait draws certain people in and thus gets them to read a story about an empowered woman whom they might not otherwise have been interested in reading about, I'm OK with that.

If you want a more nuanced "defining statement" that more fully sums up Azzarello's take on the character as it had developed over his three-year run, see his last issue, in which she explicitly says she is not defined by her parentage, and in which she defines herself instead by her ideals of mercy, love and "submission" ("faith in the strength of another.")

Luke Skywalker was raised by Owen and Baru Lars. He didn't meet his father until he was an adult.

In the context of the Star Wars narrative - the hero's journey, as we call it - who is Luke's most important parental figure? What does the story tell you about who has the most influence on his life?

Symbolically or mythopoiecally , of course, it's Darth Vader; Vader is the symbolic parent with whom the questing hero must atone (or, in this case, the father who must atone with his son.) Morally and emotionally, though, Obi-Wan is the "parent figure" who guides Luke into his journey, and the one in whose footsteps Luke most directly follows.

Hippolyta, it seems to me, is a bit of both the mythopoeic parent ("Vader") and the real parent ("Obi-Wan"). Zeus is the former, but in a very remote way--especially since we never get a face-to-face reconciliation between Zeus and Diana. He is monumentally important as the behind-the-scenes force, but much less important to Diana as an actual person in a familial relationship.

we never even get to hear Baru say, "Luke, I am your aunt!"

No, we never do--nor (as far as i remember) do we hear Luke credit his aunt with teaching him to become the strong person he is. Not only is there little interesting drama in their relationship, but Luke, as far as I can tell, doesn't emphasize her importance as a "parent," so we don't either. On the other hand, he does see Obi-Wan as a key influence in his life--and that is certainly how Diana sees Hippolyta. We hear Diana acknowledging that Hippolyta taught her to be strong and independent, and then, in the subsequent and parallel scene, we see her demonstrating the importance of Hippolyta's influence by teaching the same lessons to Hera. And we see Diana reconciling with Hippolyta--all too briefly, but still reconciling--in the second to last issue, as we see Luke and Vader reconciling at the end of the first-released trilogy. Moreover, if Leia had become some kind of monstrous servant of the dark side because she lacked a good parent figure, then we might give a bit more credit to Luke's aunt and uncle for saving him from that dire fate--just as the contrast between Diana and the First Born prompts us (well, me, at least) to give some credit to Hippolyta.

I will admit that I would have liked it if Azzarello strongly hinted that Zeus' plan was motivated by his learning the value of loving submission from Hippolyta. This, to me, is the explanation that would make the most sense, but I acknowledge that there isn't a lot of strong textual evidence for it. I've always liked that Azz left us to draw out own conclusions, but very occasionally, giving us a little more basis on which to build those conclusions would have been welcome.

(I'm only talking about Azzarello's run, by the way. I'm not interested in defending anything the Finches have done.)

[Outside_85]

“We’ve cleaned her up. You can describe who she is now. She’s got the specific description now just like Batman or Superman. She’s the daughter of a god.” - Brian Azzarello

Yes, I can see how equal they are. The father who describes who she is. The mother that doesn't need to be mentioned.

The father who grants her her powers. The father who is more powerful, more important (King of the Gods!), and more well-known by every measure than Hippolyta. The father who provides her with all the relatives whose relationships and conflicts drive the first four years of the character's storyline. (While her mother gets turned into a a statue, and the Amazons into snakes, and stay that way, out of the way, for years of issues.)

And the father who, in fact, engineered the entire narrative: “Father… wanted more for you. Strife was told the secret of your birth… [and that started] you on the path to godhood…. You all played your parts splendidly." (Artemis.) He's large and in charge!

Yeah, I don't think equal is the way to describe them, or what the writer had in mind. By long cultural tradition, fathers tend to take over stories like these. Make the father Zeus (one of the two great patriarchs of Western civilization), and the tendency is increased by orders of magnitude.

It was to avoid this conclusion that Wonder Woman never had a father. Now, I'm still in favor of Wonder Woman having a more-or-less ordinary human father - but I must say, reading the responses here, I begin to see the value of the clay origin for keeping her story thematically intact over the long haul.

Sorry, but perhaps you'd like to read the story before you go on?

what it has to do with equality?

Clay origins=supremacy

[Agent Z]

Sorry, but perhaps you'd like to read the story before you go on?



Clay origins=supremacy

It ceased being a symbol of supremacy after it was shown the Amazons weren't perfect. It's not like we haven't seen other artificially created life forms in the DCU. Diana being born of clay isn't supremacy anymore than Superman looking like a white man despite being an alien outsider or Batman using his wealth to beat up the poor and mentally ill or Hal Jordan, a white man, having the strongest will in the universe.

[Outside_85]

It ceased being a symbol of supremacy after it was shown the Amazons weren't perfect. It's not like we haven't seen other artificially created life forms in the DCU. 1) Diana being born of clay isn't supremacy anymore than 2) Superman looking like a white man despite being an alien outsider or 3) Batman using his wealth to beat up the poor and mentally ill or 4) Hal Jordan, a white man, having the strongest will in the universe.

1) Diana being born of clay may not be supremacy. But the argument that no man should have anything to do with her at that stage most certainly is. Like imagine if DC redid the origins again, now Diana is something Themyscira as a whole came together to make, and then people started to argue the non-cucasian Amazons shouldn't be involved because Diana is white.
2) And in all fairness, that is an argument worth taking somewhere else. But I suspect its why Val-Zod is black.
3) And there's probably more than a few who have noticed the problematic narrative between Batman and the current GOP policies.
4) An idea which has mostly vanished by now, Hal might be gifted but he doesn't go around heralded with that title... and his weapon is now matched by a 4 other humans.

[Agent Z]

1) Diana being born of clay may not be supremacy. But the argument that no man should have anything to do with her at that stage most certainly is. Like imagine if DC redid the origins again, now Diana is something Themyscira as a whole came together to make, and then people started to argue the non-cucasian Amazons shouldn't be involved because Diana is white.

1) And if such a thing was said, I'd call b.s on it too, as is the right thing to do. But that's not what's being discussed here. Given how much is attributed to men in fiction, having one thing that is mostly the accomplishment of women is hardly supremacy. Having Diana not have a male progenitor isn't going to cause some bloody female uprising.

2) And in all fairness, that is an argument worth taking somewhere else. But I suspect its why Val-Zod is black.

A character who exists in a separate continuity, who has been given less of an opportunity to drive the story as of late and who I doubt will be getting any mainstream exposure anytime soon.

3) And there's probably more than a few who have noticed the problematic narrative between Batman and the current GOP policies.

Just as writers were showing the Amazons as flawed before the New 52. Yet it was okay to keep the problematic narrative between Batman and the GCPD but Diana's origin needed to be changed because despite having had male love interests and friends, having worked on a team with more men than women, her book apparently wasn't inclusive enough to men.

4) An idea which has mostly vanished by now, Hal might be gifted but he doesn't go around heralded with that title... and his weapon is now matched by a 4 other humans.

Tell that to the fans of John Stewart, Kyle Rayner, or any other GL character that's been killed off, limboed or whatever so DC can continue to treat Hal as the second coming.

[Outside_85]

1) And if such a thing was said, I'd call b.s on it too, as is the right thing to do. But that's not what's being discussed here. Given how much is attributed to men in fiction, having one thing that is mostly the accomplishment of women is hardly supremacy. Having Diana not have a male progenitor isn't going to cause some bloody female uprising.

My point with this is that fighting one extreme with another isn't a good way to balance the scales and it never is regardless of subject. The goal should be that everyone is depicted and presented equally, like you don't fix the lack of Lara-El in Superman depictions by having more female presence influence somewhere else, you fix that by elevating Lara. Same is true of Martha Wayne.

And quite a lot have spoken about how poorly Val Zod has been written.

Not unlike Diana right now.

Just as writers were showing the Amazons as flawed before the New 52. Yet it was okay to keep the problematic narrative between Batman and the GCPD but Diana's origin needed to be changed because despite having had male love interests and friends, having worked on a team with more men than women, her book apparently wasn't inclusive enough to men.

Not really sure what any of this has to do with anything I wrote under point 3?

Tell that to the fans of John Stewart, Kyle Rayner, or any other GL character that's been killed off, limboed or whatever so DC can continue to treat Hal as the second coming.

I'm more of a fan of John and Kyle than I am of Jordan, and I know that his coming and going is simply a nostalgia trip, not a testament to him being that much better than everyone else. Which is something that can be questioned, considering John is the only one thats 'exceeded' what the ring can actually do, and Kyle earned all of the HEAT's hate by being depicted as being better than Hal in certain area's.

[Agent Z]

My point with this is that fighting one extreme with another isn't a good way to balance the scales and it never is regardless of subject. The goal should be that everyone is depicted and presented equally, like you don't fix the lack of Lara-El in Superman depictions by having more female presence influence somewhere else, you fix that by elevating Lara. Same is true of Martha Wayne.

Problem is that as it stands, stories that elevate Martha and Lara are rare, if they even happen at all. In this case, can you blame people if they feel going to one extreme is the only solution?

Not unlike Diana right now.

Not sure what you mean?

Not really sure what any of this has to do with anything I wrote under point 3?

That despite the problematic premise of Batman, which I'd argue is far more toxic than Wonder Woman's, even under Marston, has not been changed. Oh sure we'll get the occasional story of him being a fugitive due to being framed for a crime he didn't commit, but his status quo still remains the same.

I'm more of a fan of John and Kyle than I am of Jordan, and I know that his coming and going is simply a nostalgia trip, not a testament to him being that much better than everyone else. Which is something that can be questioned, considering John is the only one thats 'exceeded' what the ring can actually do, and Kyle earned all of the HEAT's hate by being depicted as being better than Hal in certain area's.

And how often are these accomplishments used or referrenced in the books these days. Kyle's lost his ring and the only thing of significance that John has done since Hal came back is blow up another planet. Once upon a time, John and Kyle could have been said to surpass Hal, but DC is dead set against putting that genie back in the bottle.

[Outside_85]

Problem is that as it stands, stories that elevate Martha and Lara are rare, if they even happen at all.
In this case, can you blame people if they feel going to one extreme is the only solution?

And thats the problem that has be solved with those two; make more stories with them is the solution, not overcompensating somewhere thats completely unrelated.
Actually I can, because it isn't. This is a fictional world after all, everything can happen at the drop of a hat, so to me there isn't really an excuse to overdo something like this to cover the shortcomings elsewhere.

Not sure what you mean?

You argue that Val Zod is poorly written. Well right now so is Diana.

That despite the problematic premise of Batman, which I'd argue is far more toxic than Wonder Woman's, even under Marston, has not been changed. Oh sure we'll get the occasional story of him being a fugitive due to being framed for a crime he didn't commit, but his status quo still remains the same.

So your argument is that since Batman has got to keep his problematic status, then so should Wonder Woman get to keep her problematic origins?

And how often are these accomplishments used or referrenced in the books these days. Kyle's lost his ring and the only thing of significance that John has done since Hal came back is blow up another planet. Once upon a time, John and Kyle could have been said to surpass Hal, but DC is dead set against putting that genie back in the bottle.

So right now they have Hal exiled, again, from the GLC and flying around doing bugger all with his glowing fist.

[Agent Z]

And thats the problem that has be solved with those two; make more stories with them is the solution, not overcompensating somewhere thats completely unrelated.
Actually I can, because it isn't. This is a fictional world after all, everything can happen at the drop of a hat, so to me there isn't really an excuse to overdo something like this to cover the shortcomings elsewhere.



You argue that Val Zod is poorly written. Well right now so is Diana.



So your argument is that since Batman has got to keep his problematic status, then so should Wonder Woman get to keep her problematic origins?



So right now they have Hal exiled, again, from the GLC and flying around doing bugger all with his glowing fist.

1) People sometimes tell stories to specifically counter something they felt one other story did wrong. Morrison's All Star Superman for instance was designed to show that a Superman story heavily filled with Silver Age tropes could work.

So anything can happen in fiction but a woman being born without input from a man is where we toe the line?

2) Okay, then. Yeah let's just move on.

3) Yes, if Batman can keep a problematic status quo that is rarely frawn attention to I don't see why not the same for WW. Especially since Bruce's is far more troubling and reinforcing of troubling depictions than Diana's, who's only crime is that her in-universe creation didn't involve a man for the most part.

4)And how long do you think that'll last?

[Agent Z]

And thats the problem that has be solved with those two; make more stories with them is the solution, not overcompensating somewhere thats completely unrelated.
Actually I can, because it isn't. This is a fictional world after all, everything can happen at the drop of a hat, so to me there isn't really an excuse to overdo something like this to cover the shortcomings elsewhere.



You argue that Val Zod is poorly written. Well right now so is Diana.



So your argument is that since Batman has got to keep his problematic status, then so should Wonder Woman get to keep her problematic origins?



So right now they have Hal exiled, again, from the GLC and flying around doing bugger all with his glowing fist.

1) People sometimes tell stories to specifically counter something they felt one other story did wrong. Morrison's All Star Superman for instance was designed to show that a Superman story heavily filled with Silver Age tropes could work.

So anything can happen in fiction but a woman being born without input from a man is where we toe the line?

2) Okay, then. Yeah let's just move on.

3) Yes, if Batman can keep a problematic status quo that is rarely frawn attention to I don't see why not the same for WW. Especially since Bruce's is far more troubling and reinforcing of troubling depictions than Diana's, who's only crime is that her in-universe creation didn't involve a man for the most part.

4)And how long do you think that'll last?

[Outside_85]

1) People sometimes tell stories to specifically counter something they felt one other story did wrong. Morrison's All Star Superman for instance was designed to show that a Superman story heavily filled with Silver Age tropes could work.

So anything can happen in fiction but a woman being born without input from a man is where we toe the line?

Ideally they shouldn't have to, and really if thats what they are doing, then they are just engaging in a weeing-competition.

It's just as problematic the other way around, the goal should be to solve both ends of the issue. Or would you rather stick to this origins and effectively forfiet the right to complain about the problems elsewhere?

3) Yes, if Batman can keep a problematic status quo that is rarely frawn attention to I don't see why not the same for WW. Especially since Bruce's is far more troubling and reinforcing of troubling depictions than Diana's, who's only crime is that her in-universe creation didn't involve a man for the most part.

4)And how long do you think that'll last?

3) The point of problems is that they need to be solved one way or another, not maintained because someone else keeps on going. Batman might have an easier time solving his because he can also tackle other rich white people, corrupt cops while at the same time do a lot of good for the poor in Gotham.

4) It's more of a question of 'how long will it last'. The GLC will return eventually, Hal might even rejoin it again, but considering how he left it could be years before that actually happens.

[BiteTheBullet]

In this day and age, with her message of equality; Hippolyta and Zeus.

Did you have to qualify your answer?

In what day and age was the clay birth valid for you then?

[Outside_85]

Did you have to qualify your answer?

In what day and age was the clay birth valid for you then?

In 1940 where she was created. Time has moved on since.

[Agent Z]

Ideally they shouldn't have to, and really if thats what they are doing, then they are just engaging in a weeing-competition.

It's just as problematic the other way around, the goal should be to solve both ends of the issue. Or would you rather stick to this origins and effectively forfiet the right to complain about the problems elsewhere?



3) The point of problems is that they need to be solved one way or another, not maintained because someone else keeps on going. Batman might have an easier time solving his because he can also tackle other rich white people, corrupt cops while at the same time do a lot of good for the poor in Gotham.

4) It's more of a question of 'how long will it last'. The GLC will return eventually, Hal might even rejoin it again, but considering how he left it could be years before that actually happens.

1) And if they simply choose to do so?

I'd rather keep the clay origin and have Martha and Lara elevated. Unfortunately, the latter has rarely happened and the former up until recently, was a counter to that.

3) In theory you'd be right. However, these days Bruce spends more time fighting other weirdos in costumes and street level criminals than going after other rich people.

[Tayswift]

Clay origins=supremacy

not, it isn't. nothing on the origin suggests that women are superior than men. Just that hippolyta in that situation didn't needed a man to have a kid