New Phil Jimenez/Wonder Woman Interview

[Silvanus]

'Women who are critical of men are really horrible people needing to reform'

Hold on--did you think I was saying that? Or that I was interpreting Azzarello as saying that? I was not. Brett might be, but I was not. Far from it. For one thing, I don't see any reason to think that the Amazons--who retreated from the rest of the world instead of engaging it--stand for all "women who are critical of men."

I really don't see Azzarello's approach as a way of addressing the notion that women are expected to be better. That sounds like a retrofitted excuse to me. And a poor fit.

Like I said, I think Azzarello's intention was to tell a good story, and any message is incidental. (And, by the way, I think there is room in good comic book storytelling for details, like that Amazon mother in issue 8, that are just illustrative or suggestive and don't get elaborated in the plot.) But, whether or not he did it with any kind of feminist or other rhetorical intent, I think he jettisoned an outmoded idea that needed to be jettisoned: the assumption that ancient women warriors, if they were not to be completely monstrous, needed to be more morally pure and exemplary than other ancient warriors. Other writers had at least clouded that assumption; Azz just dispatched it more definitively and more clearly raised the question, what if Diana came from Amazons who were more like ancient warriors? And he began to answer that question by leaving the Amazons on a trajectory of reform.

Why's it important to me that an Amazon (Diana) starts to lead the others towards reform? Because that's key to the point that these women aren't innately monsters but are capable of doing better things (just like their peers, the ancient male warriors who treated women terribly but also got Western civilization rolling).

As for "restoring patriarchy"--well, she put her friend's son (her own brother) on a throne because it appeared to be the only way to save the world, and the kid turned out to be the king. That doesn't strike me as an endorsement of patriarchy as such, and there seem to be lots of reasons, as we've discussed before, to think that the patriarchy may be eroded or transformed as a consequence.

[brettc1]

Hold on--did you think I was saying that? Or that I was interpreting Azzarello as saying that? I was not. Brett might be, but I was not. Far from it.

AWonder is right though - Azzarello sells his story be playing on a very old and disturbing trope of women who are capable hating men. Diana is the exception to this rule in the book, but remains the rule for 99.9% of the Amazon nation nonetheless. The reader finishes the story with thoughts like "Wow, it's lucky Wonder Woman was there to stop these crazy feminazi's from killing any more innocent men and babies."

Like I said, I think Azzarello's intention was to tell a good story, and any message is incidental.

Then that is incredibly foolish.

The message in a story should ALWAYS be considered. Stories hold great power.

But, whether or not he did it with any kind of feminist or other rhetorical intent, I think he jettisoned an outmoded idea that needed to be jettisoned: the assumption that ancient women warriors, if they were not to be completely monstrous, needed to be more morally pure and exemplary than other ancient warriors. Other writers had at least clouded that assumption; Azz just dispatched it more definitively and more clearly raised the question, what if Diana came from Amazons who were more like ancient warriors? And he began to answer that question by leaving the Amazons on a trajectory of reform.

OH, this old chestnut!

Here are the Amazons, look at how pious and virtuous and boring they are. We have to drag them through the mud to make them interesting enough for anybody to read them.

Completely false! The Amazons have been human and fallible for decades. You are right to use the word dispatched, since what Azzarello basically did was kill the goodness in the Amazons and leave the rotting corpse in its place. Yeah, lets a break a thing into bits and put it back together again to tell a story. Except if history has told us anything it's that every time you do that with the Amazons they start out a little lower down the ladder and never climb quite as high as they did in the past.

Let's challenge the idea of what he Amazons are by challenging the idea of challenging male partriarchal conceptions that strong women like this must be monsters. Let's make them into the monsters men talked about to prove that its possible, because seeing a group of homicidal xenophobes who regularly commit mass murder of menfolk begin to not do that will make men more comfortable with the idea of strong capable women.

Do you have any idea how very counter-intuitive that sounds?

[Silvanus]

AWonder is right though - Azzarello sells his story be playing on a very old and disturbing trope of women who are capable hating men. Diana is the exception to this rule in the book, but remains the rule for 99.9% of the Amazon nation nonetheless. The reader finishes the story with thoughts like "Wow, it's lucky Wonder Woman was there to stop these crazy feminazi's from killing any more innocent men and babies."

If the reader is you or Rush Limbaugh (the reactionary talk show host who, I think, coined the term "femnazi"), then I guess that reader finishes the story with thoughts like that. I do not. I don't ever find myself thinking about "feminazis" at all, but I come away from this story thinking about ancient warriors who behaved as other ancient warriors might have in similar circumstances, and about how they are beginning to reform. How about we each read the story for ourselves and not project our thoughts onto every other reader?

Then that is incredibly foolish.

I couldn't be further from denying that stories have power or that writers and artists are responsible for their use of that power. But stories whose authors deliberately set out to make their stories carry agendas are often (not always) less powerful, because they become too didactic. Azz and Chiang said in an interview once that they learned this lesson from working on Architecture and Morality; they later felt the story of that book had faltered by playing second fiddle to its agenda of commentary on other comics. In Wonder Woman, I don't think Azz and Chiang necessarily set out to make a point, but I think certain points--and the omission of certain points, like the old and outmoded point that women warriors should and must be more pure--proceed organically from the storytelling.

OH, this old chestnut!...Do you have any idea how utterly ludicrous that sounds?

If by "this" you mean not my actual argument but your gross distortion of it, then yes, yes I do realize how ludicrous it sounds.

[numberthirty]

You know...

For a bunch that want to talk about how this Athena is the mythological Athena and this Zeus is the skirt chasing/raping mythological Zeus, you guys get weird really quick when your Amazons start to look a little more like mythological Amazons.

[brettc1]

If the reader is you or Rush Limbaugh (the reactionary talk show host who, I think, coined the term "femnazi," then I guess that reader finishes the story with thoughts like that. I do not. How about we each read the story for ourselves and not project our thoughts onto every other reader?

The purpose of the discussion here is to talk about Jimenez interpretation of the story and how he sees the story being interpreted by others. So thinking about what others are likely to be thinking is essential to the point.

Do you think we can take it down a notch? Calling each others' arguments "incredibly foolish" isn't quite name calling, but I think it's against the spirit of the forum's guidelines, which are meant to promote civility. But if we
are going to go your route, I have a few colorful adjectives and adverbs that I would apply to your arguments, too; let me know, so that we can all play by the same rules.

You misunderstood. My comment was to say that a writer who does not consider the message of his story is being incredibly foolish - a position I stand by.

I am well aware of the forum rules, and it is not within my power or my desire to set them aside.

As to the "substance" of your comment, let me clarify; I couldn't be further from denying that stories have power or that writers should not be held responsible for their use of that power. But stories whose authors deliberately set out to make their stories carry agendas are often (not always) less powerful, because they become too didactic. Azz and Chiang said in an interview once that they learned this lesson from working on Architecture and Morality; they later felt the story of that book had faltered by playing second fiddle to its agenda of commentary on other comics. In Wonder Woman, I don't think Azz and Chiang necessarily set out to make a point about not over-sentimentalizing or over-idealizing the roles of women, but I think that this point does emerge organically from the storytelling.

I think there is a large difference between what I bolded from your comment and what actually came across in the book.

If by "this" you mean not my actual argument but your gross distortion of it, then yes, yes I do realize how ludicrous it sounds.

As I read your words this does seem to me to be your actual argument.

Edit - however, on reflection perhaps 'counter-intuitive' would have been a better description.

[numberthirty]

Utter rubbish! The Amazons have been human and fallible for decades. You are right to use the word dispatched, since what Azzarello basically did was kill the goodness in the Amazons and leave the rotting corpse in its place. Yeah, lets a break a thing into bits and put it back together again to tell a story. Except if history has told us anything it's that every time you do that with the Amazons they start out a little lower down the ladder and never climb quite as high as they did in the past.

Again...

"What we're talking about is mythological Athena."

"We are talking about rapist, mythological Zeus."

"Wait! You better use my good, upstanding, comic book Amazons!"

[Hawk80]

Again...

"What we're talking about is mythological Athena."

"We are talking about rapist, mythological Zeus."

"Wait! You better use my good, upstanding, comic book Amazons!"

It's supposed to be "Wonder Woman", so... yes. Mythologiacal accuracy was never a priority.

[brettc1]

Again...

"What we're talking about is mythological Athena."

"We are talking about rapist, mythological Zeus."

"Wait! You better use my good, upstanding, comic book Amazons!"

Personally I don't think I ever mentioned Zeus. And frankly I would rather have Perez' Lawrence Olivier version than the naked Liam Neeson homage.

And if Athena is not the goddess of wisdom and battle strategy, then what is she? Azzarelly never bothers to make her anything else, so what else have we to go on?

[numberthirty]

I'm saying that you are clearly defaulting to "mythological goddess" Athena when you fill in the blank. If that is the case, why wouldn't the Amazons be the "Mythological" Amazons?

[Silvanus]

The purpose of the discussion here is to talk about Jimenez interpretation of the story and how he sees the story being interpreted by others. So thinking about what others are likely to be thinking is essential to the point.

I don't think Jiminez says "feminazi," and I wouldn't insult him by assuming he was thinking in such crude, anti-feminist terms or that he believes most readers were thinking in such crude, anti-feminist terms.

You misunderstood. My comment was to say that a writer who does not consider the message of his story is being incredibly foolish - a position I stand by.

Again, there's a difference between "considering" the message and letting the message or agenda drive the story. I don't know if Azz and Chiang deliberately set out to make the statement that women warriors can act like their male peers without being irreedmable monsters, but I think that this statement does emerge from the storytelling, if you read the run as a whole.

As I read your words this does seem to me to be your actual argument.

Nope. I think that the book, taken as a whole, challenges the idea that women warriors who do the kinds of things of things male warriors have done are somehow more innately, irredeemably monstrous. I don't think that powerful women who are not sweet and gentle will make everyone "comfortable," but I don't think comfort is the point.

Edit - however, on reflection perhaps 'counter-intuitive' would have been a better description.

Thanks for the clarification, and I'm fine with counterintuitive. I'm not interested in only reading stories that confirm my intuitions.

[brettc1]

I'm saying that you are clearly defaulting to "mythological goddess" Athena when you fill in the blank. If that is the case, why wouldn't the Amazons be the "Mythological" Amazons?

Athena has always been Athena, but the Amazons have been quite different.

[numberthirty]

In the context of stories that were not based around mythology? Sure.

That said, this was a run that started with a new #1 and an obvious mythological base. It ain't those "have been quite different" Amazons.

[brettc1]

I don't think Jiminez says "feminazi," and I wouldn't insult him by assuming he was thinking in such crude, anti-feminist terms or that he believes most readers were thinking in such crude, anti-feminist terms.

It is, nevertheless, a term in common parlance and a legitimate description of how many people see feminists. I can ask him on facebook, if you like.

Again, there's a difference between "considering" the message and letting the message or agenda drive the story. I don't know if Azz and Chiang deliberately set out to make the statement that women warriors can act like their male peers without being irreedmable monsters, but I think that this statement does emerge from the storytelling, if you read the run as a whole.

And that is not a bad message, considering 25% of all intimate partner homicides in Australia are committed by women against men, though you would scarcely know it from the news coverage or discussions around domestic violence.

But again, ARE they treated as equals. Men who abused women the way the Amazons abused men would hardly been seen favorably by the end of the story, no matter how contrite they felt. So it seems to be that maybe the Amazons are expected by the writers to get a free pass because of their female status.

Nope. I think that the book, taken as a whole, challenges the idea that women warriors who do the kinds of things of things male warriors have done are somehow more innately, irredeemably monstrous. I don't think that powerful women who are not sweet and gentle will make everyone "comfortable," but I don't think comfort is the point.

See above. Men who behaved like the Amazons did for 3000 years and then were put on the path to redemption would be burned in effigy, if not in truth.

Thanks for the clarification, and I'm fine with counterintuitive. I'm not interested in only reading stories that confirm my intuitions.

Counter-intuitive refers to the ability of a person to clearly understand what is going on at a meta level. It's nice to know you are so open minded in considering alternative points of view and the possibility your intuitions are mistaken.

[brettc1]

In the context of stories that were not based around mythology? Sure.

That said, this was a run that started with a new #1 and an obvious mythological base. It ain't those "have been quite different" Amazons.

No. They are a good deal worse.

[numberthirty]

No. They are a good deal worse.

Compared to what? Characters who are part of a whole other continuity?