"Loving Submission" - Yay or Nay

[phonogram12]

And how do you see this "layer" playing out?

I'm not sure. None of us really can be, which is exactly the reason I think it should be explored.

Do you think we're all going to agree on what is a good "shake up" and what is not?

Certainly not, but that really isn't a good enough reason not to try.

[Awonder]

I'm not sure. None of us really can be, which is exactly the reason I think it should be explored.


Certainly not, but that really isn't a good enough reason not to try.

So, you're advocating for something in a book, but can't even give the slightest idea of how that might be good?

When the potential downside far outweighs any potential upside, that's a pretty good "reason not to try."

[phonogram12]

So, you're advocating for something in a book, but can't even give the slightest idea of how that might be good?

I wasn't sure I'd enjoy Brian K. Vaughn's Runaways, either, but I certainly enjoyed the hell out of that.

When the potential downside far outweighs any potential upside, that's a pretty good "reason not to try."

I'm not sure why you necessarily think there's more potential in a down side than an upside. You know about as much as anyone else here, really.

[Awonder]

I wasn't sure I'd enjoy Brian K. Vaughn's Runaways, either, but I certainly enjoyed the hell out of that.

How is that applicable here? Picking up a book and enjoying it more than you thought you would is not the same as advocating for an idea but not expressing why it's actually a good idea.

I'm not sure why you necessarily think there's more potential in a down side than an upside. You know about as much as anyone else here, really.

Statistically, the best predictor of tomorrow is today. How's DC's track record on things like this? DiDio thought Amazons Attack and Azzarello's sex pirate baby killing Amazons were good ideas for WW. Johns thought PG not feeling worthy of the 'S' was a good explanation for her showing off her cleavage. They also thought Red Hood and the Outlaws was a great way to reintroduce Starfire. And, of course, there's what they did to Sue Dibny. These are the guys you want to trust with submission and bondage sex games?

[SiegePerilous02]

I think you are underestimating just how destructive a single story can be. Amazons Attack was only six issues written a decade ago, yet, to many that is the perception of the Amazons. Made all the worse by Azzarello. Building something is far harder than destroying it. Take DC's treatment of Starfire for example. How often does she seem like an actual woman who owns her sexuality for herself, and how often does it come across as simple-minded titilation for a jr high boys locker room? I can't tell you how many times I've seen people call her a slut for that one issue of Red Hood and the Outlaws.

The only people who hated Amazons Attack (and rightfully so) were WW fans. Nobody else cared about it either way, except for getting a "So bad, it's good" vibe from it. The Azzarello run may have been worse in the regard. It was more divisive because there were just as many (if not more) people who loved it as hated it. So how destructive that run was depends on the person.

As for that Red Hood issue, it was indeed bad. However, I've seen more comments hating on it for what it did to Kory than any attacks against Kory herself. And a lot of the controversy came from people who were only familiar with the innocent cartoon version, and were unaware that she was created in the 80s as a source of fanservice who really wanted to sex up Dick Grayson, though the execution of that was far more nuanced than the 2011 travesty, not to mention it gave her her considerably more to do.

I'm not debating whether or not it was enjoyable, but I am saying it's nowhere near as critically well received as many of his other works. All-Star Superman doesn't need the second volume to make the first one a quality read. The quality of WW Earth One shouldn't need the rest of the series to really standout either.

Morrison has written WW for years. He also stated that he was researching the entire history of feminism. Yet, his WW project still reads as if it was written over a weekend. And it feels much less like a woman's voice than it does men writing women. Is Seeley going to put in that much work? Or are you just assuming he's naturally great at handling complex and delicate matters such as this with perfect precision?

Eta- If I were in charge, my policy would be simple: Don't go there. It's not needed. But, if you have one heck of a proposal, I may make an exception. Just be prepared for rewrites and/or rejection.

I think it's ridiculous to expect perfect precision from anybody, to be honest. I don't think Seeley would handle it 100% perfectly, but there really is no perfect way to handle this, or at least no one perfect way that everybody can agree on. The Azz run had just as many things I liked about as I hated.

Morrison's WW book is more divisive than his other work and I agree it isn't his best, but let's be real here: Wonder Woman's fanbase is a notoriously difficult one to please, even compared to the difficult Superman one. Our differing opinions right here is proof of that. I don't view it as something written in a weekend, nor do I see it as something only a man could write. There were also several tweets from female fans on Yanick Paquette's twitter page raving about the book, so clearly they don't think this male author was completely unable to engage them as women with fictional female characters.

Do you think we're all going to agree on what is a good "shake up" and what is not?

Nobody can agree on what a good shake up is. It wouldn't be shake up otherwise. That's the whole point of it, to stir things up and get people talking.

As much as certain parts of the Azzarello run made me want to bash my head against a wall, it did it's job in getting people talking. That's better than letting the character stagnate under safe story telling.

Eta- Here's my favorite part - those of us more on the side of saying Marston's "loving submission" isn't needed, yet, can still be seen in other ways have given multiple examples. Those of you saying you want to bring it back have yet to give a good example of how this adds those "layers" you speak of so highly. Just saying.

I said back on the first page that I like the interpretation of her giving herself over to a higher cause, submitting in loving supplication to Aphrodite's mission for her. I just don't think that needs to be the only meaning of the phrase present in any given iteration.

You guys haven't really offered a convincing argument against it other than "it might suck.'"

When the potential downside far outweighs any potential upside, that's a pretty good "reason not to try."

Who decided for us that the potential downsides outweigh the potential upsides? Especially since the people you mentioned wouldn't be writing it?

Are we supposed to just give up hoping for interesting Wonder Woman stories until everyone currently in charge of DC finally leaves?

[phonogram12]

How is that applicable here? Picking up a book and enjoying it more than you thought you would is not the same as advocating for an idea but not expressing why it's actually a good idea.

Trying things that you aren't so sure about can lead to great enjoyment. That's how it's applicable.

Statistically, the best predictor of tomorrow is today. How's DC's track record on things like this? DiDio thought Amazons Attack and Azzarello's sex pirate baby killing Amazons were good ideas for WW. Johns thought PG not feeling worthy of the 'S' was a good explanation for her showing off her cleavage. They also thought Red Hood and the Outlaws was a great way to reintroduce Starfire. And, of course, there's what they did to Sue Dibny. These are the guys you want to trust with submission and bondage sex games?

Umm...actually Azzarello's WW was really well reviewed and sold equally as well (a run I greatly enjoyed, myself). And just because he's made a few decisions I in no way agree with, doesn't mean I'm willing to write anything Didio has his hands in off. If that were the case, I don't think either of us would be reading DC anymore, quite frankly.

[Awonder]

Nobody can agree on what a good shake up is. It wouldn't be shake up otherwise. That's the whole point of it, to stir things up and get people talking.

As much as certain parts of the Azzarello run made me want to bash my head against a wall, it did it's job in getting people talking. That's better than letting the character stagnate under safe story telling.

This mindset is exactly why there's more downside than up. Shaking things up just to do so is the shallow, sensationalistic spectacle that happens quite frequently with DC and Marvel. This is their bread and butter. And it's exactly what "loving submission" does not need. There was no depth or layers or an ounce of real substance to the rape and murder of Sue; it was all a "shake up" to get a sales bump and "people talking." Forgive me for wanting better for WW.

I said back on the first page that I like the interpretation of her giving herself over to a higher cause, submitting in loving supplication to Aphrodite's mission for her. I just don't think that needs to be the only meaning of the phrase present in any given iteration.

You guys haven't really offered a convincing argument against it other than "it might suck."

Because "it might be good" is so convincing?

If we're talking about supplication to Aphrodite, Athena, submission to mom, sisters, then, sure, we're on the same page. But, beyond that? How would SM/WW really have been better, more layered (as you guys claim), if it had a brief glimpse of Clark binding Diana to the bed? That book would still be mediocre at best.

Who decided for us that the potential downsides outweigh the potential upsides? Especially since the people you mentioned wouldn't be writing it?

Are we supposed to just give up hoping for interesting Wonder Woman stories until everyone currently in charge of DC finally leaves?

Who decides? Don't give me that, 'cause you've been championing the upside this whole time just as I'm saying there's more downside. Ultimately, it's those in charge of the character at DC that decide, and, given their track record? No, I don't trust them. Why would I?

But, how does that eliminate "hoping for interesting WW stories"? Because an interesting WW can't exist without bondage games? If you don't know the kinky details of your friends' sex lives, does that mean you think your friends are not interesting and/or layered people?

Eta-

There were also several tweets from female fans on Yanick Paquette's twitter page raving about the book, so clearly they don't think this male author was completely unable to engage them as women with fictional female characters.

Well, Paquette's art is the one thing about the book that was truly stellar. But, a few tweets from women are not going to turn the story itself into a book anywhere near as highly recommended as All-Star Superman.

[Awonder]

Trying things that you aren't so sure about can lead to great enjoyment. That's how it's applicable.

Thinking and planning are far better indicators of success than just "try it, it might work."

Umm...actually Azzarello's WW was really well reviewed and sold equally as well (a run I greatly enjoyed, myself). And just because he's made a few decisions I in no way agree with, doesn't mean I'm willing to write anything Didio has his hands in off. If that were the case, I don't think either of us would be reading DC anymore, quite frankly.

Azzarello wrote one heck of a Diana. He wrote many of the men pretty well, too. But, all the other women? Anyone not named Diana or Strife was poorly written (some much worse than others) as he trampled all over the feminist themes to force more men into the story. To his credit, according to him, DiDio's idea was worse.

Still, I never said to write off anything DiDio does. For people claiming you want a sensitive subject handled deftly and with subtlety and layers, you guys make some big jumps in twisting my argument. Just saying.

I read DC for superheroes. On that, DiDio, Johns, and co. do a pretty good job on a pretty consistent basis. But, when it comes to bigger, more delicate issues like "loving submission," issues that require more attention and care, I've given you multiple examples, large and small, of their failures. What are their examples of success?

[numberthirty]

This aspect was handled as well as it ever will be during the Azzarello run.

Considering every other take I've seen, writers probably ought to just leave it alone.

[Marik Swift]

Ok, I'll bite, name a Superman or Flash story where they just stood there letting a powerful foe beat the crap out of them. I'll give you another: The Hiketeia. Diana takes a total stranger into her home, never even asking why she supliccated herself. They are bound together and help each other. How often has Flash or Superman had a murderer living in their house?

You're missing the point. The point is that it is something they WOULD do. It all comes down to the writer. Superman's very relationship with Lex Luthor is more abusive than any instance Diana has of "extending an hand rather than a fist" so to speak. Overall, the point is that they tell us Diana is the most peaceful of the Leaguers, but pretty much she displays instances of pacifism so rarely that she's really no different in her approach than the others. Her dichotomy, which is perhaps the biggest aspect of her character, becomes null in turn.

And I'm glad you brought up the Hiketeia, cause I would love to see a reverse of that story. Loving Submission is the equivalent of Hiketeia.

What's to enlighten? It's a good story that dramatically gets to the heart of seeing the good in someone who isn't acting all that good. Gets even better when she gets the GL to take on an apprentice that's of the very species he wanted extinct. And, it doesn't get lost in unnecessary kink and titilation.

I meant enlighten us on ways she can be portrayed as not being above other people other than submission. Comics way too often say without really showing. Superman coming down and walking amongst people is NOT putting himself at their level, cause in the end he's still walking around like a celebrity who owns the place. Even Clark Kent is barely an everyday joe; he still has a genius intellect and is "mr. award winning writer". Diana should be willing to subject herself to the will of the people, not because of some perceived fetishism, but out of trust & humbleness, which in it's own way takes a lot more strength than just punching bad guys in the face.

[Thor2014]

Nah. A person can discuss healthy sexual behavior without bondage kink.

They can, but it's not as fun.

[Awonder]

You're missing the point. The point is that it is something they WOULD do. It all comes down to the writer. Superman's very relationship with Lex Luthor is more abusive than any instance Diana has of "extending an hand rather than a fist" so to speak. Overall, the point is that they tell us Diana is the most peaceful of the Leaguers, but pretty much she displays instances of pacifism so rarely that she's really no different in her approach than the others. Her dichotomy, which is perhaps the biggest aspect of her character, becomes null in turn.

Diana is not a pacifist. Never really has been. And no different than the other Leaguers? Batman drops his baddies off at Arkham, knowing full well it's a horrible place. Diana has taken baddies home with her. Reformation Island is not Arkham. Bruce would not have taken Danielle home, give her a job and protect her from, well, Batman. That was all Diana.

You mentioned abusive relationship - so, is that your whole point? Diana should let people abuser her? She's just going to put up with abuse after abuse until these wonderful abusers see the error of their ways? How far you wishing to take that?

And I'm glad you brought up the Hiketeia, cause I would love to see a reverse of that story. Loving Submission is the equivalent of Hiketeia.

And to whom do you envision Diana supplicating herself and why?

I meant enlighten us on ways she can be portrayed as not being above other people other than submission. Comics way too often say without really showing. Superman coming down and walking amongst people is NOT putting himself at their level, cause in the end he's still walking around like a celebrity who owns the place. Even Clark Kent is barely an everyday joe; he still has a genius intellect and is "mr. award winning writer". Diana should be willing to subject herself to the will of the people, not because of some perceived fetishism, but out of trust & humbleness, which in it's own way takes a lot more strength than just punching bad guys in the face.

Do you require your friends to subject themselves to the "will of the people?" What does that even mean? She's takes every Thurs to do whatever her twitter feed tells her to do? If she's just a good person and a good friend that's too "above" us?

And, the grand question, how is all of this going to not look like just a fetish for abusing women?

[Awonder]

This aspect was handled as well as it ever will be during the Azzarello run.

Care to elaborate / explain how you think it was handled well there?

[numberthirty]

Care to elaborate / explain how you think it was handled well there?

Touching on it in a spot where it fit the narrative well as opposed to going down the rabbit hole with it.

[Awonder]

Touching on it in a spot where it fit the narrative well as opposed to going down the rabbit hole with it.

I agree with that in theory; are you thinking of any specific example during Azzarello's run or just generally speaking?