Diana And Misconceptions

[Agent Z]

More than most superheroes, Diana often suffers from misconceptions about what she is like and what the traits people associate with her would entail. But in her case, she suffers from two different yet equally untrue misconceptions.

For instance, both fans and detractors hear "Diana uses lethal force" and translate this to "Diana is a murderer and kills at the drop of a hat". Then we have the misconception of what Diana being a diplomat and compassionate person actually means. For some, this goes as far as claiming she is a pacifist (which she isn't and has never been) and it gets to the point that if she uses lethal force reasonably or is seen holding a sword it results in backlash.

[Vordan]

In regards to her lethality, I’d offer that it doesn’t seem like a good idea for two main reasons:

1. Diana more than anyone besides maybe Superman is about promoting a better way. She’s not supposed to adapt “Man’s World” methods, she’s supposed to show us a better way, “The Amazon Way”. That’s why her iconic weapon was a lasso, a non-lethal weapon. Unlikes Mars/Ares soldiers, Diana was a champion of Aphrodite and Athena, someone who believed in the power of love and venerated the goddess of the aspects of war that prized intellect and tactics over mass slaughter. She’s not supposed to be ruthless or cynical, one of her powers is the ability to talk to animals for gods sake, she’s a DC Princess (Please laugh at my lame pun)! This emphasis on her and the Amazons being “warriors” has never portrayed them in a positive light. They become primitive bloodthirsty misandrist barbarians, which reaches its lowest point in the Frank Miller/Brian Azzarelo take on the Amazons who are little more than straight up villains. Once upon a time the Amazons were huge proponents on redemption, and I’d rather Diana redeem her villains and rehabilitation them then kill them.

2. Batman and Superman don’t kill (I know, I know, yes there are exceptions but in general no they don’t) and DC is never going to pick Diana’s side over theirs, so when she kills she frequently is made to look bad to demonstrate how wrong her actions are. So it’s just more dumping on her to prop them up, because if DC says “well killing is ok sometimes”, the flimsiest shred of storytelling logic holding together Batman’s world breaks. Joker should be dead and the real reason he isn’t is DC wants to keep making Joker stories. If you say killing is ok sometimes, there’s no reason for DC to not let Batman kill the Joker, so that won’t ever happen.

[Agent Z]

In regards to her lethality, I’d offer that it doesn’t seem like a good idea for two main reasons:

1. Diana more than anyone besides maybe Superman is about promoting a better way. She’s not supposed to adapt “Man’s World” methods, she’s supposed to show us a better way, “The Amazon Way”. That’s why her iconic weapon was a lasso, a non-lethal weapon. Unlikes Mars/Ares soldiers, Diana was a champion of Aphrodite and Athena, someone who believed in the power of love and venerated the goddess of the aspects of war that prized intellect and tactics over mass slaughter. She’s not supposed to be ruthless or cynical, one of her powers is the ability to talk to animals for gods sake, she’s a DC Princess (Please laugh at my lame pun)! This emphasis on her and the Amazons being “warriors” has never portrayed them in a positive light. They become primitive bloodthirsty misandrist barbarians, which reaches its lowest point in the Frank Miller/Brian Azzarelo take on the Amazons who are little more than straight up villains. Once upon a time the Amazons were huge proponents on redemption, and I’d rather Diana redeem her villains and rehabilitation them then kill them.

While this sounds like a good idea in theory, it's one of those things that makes Diana sound naive at best, condescending and apathetic at worst. People kill for a variety of reasons and not all of them are malicious. There is a problem with emphasizing the warrior part of the Amazons that I agree with but it doesn't mean them using lethal force at times is problematic. The "show man's world a better way" thing is arguably as much of a cause for takes like the Azzarello run as the misconception of them just being warriors.

2. Batman and Superman don’t kill (I know, I know, yes there are exceptions but in general no they don’t) and DC is never going to pick Diana’s side over theirs, so when she kills she frequently is made to look bad to demonstrate how wrong her actions are. So it’s just more dumping on her to prop them up, because if DC says “well killing is ok sometimes”, the flimsiest shred of storytelling logic holding together Batman’s world breaks. Joker should be dead and the real reason he isn’t is DC wants to keep making Joker stories. If you say killing is ok sometimes, there’s no reason for DC to not let Batman kill the Joker, so that won’t ever happen.

This says more about how DC writes Superman and Batman than anything. How often is what happens in the Trinity's books relevant to each other anyway? And besides, another thing they won't do is rehabilitate the Joker so they're proving Diana right either way. Of course, they could just not make it so Bruce is fighting people that are for intents and purposes terrorists.

[Frontier]

In regards to her lethality, I’d offer that it doesn’t seem like a good idea for two main reasons:

1. Diana more than anyone besides maybe Superman is about promoting a better way. She’s not supposed to adapt “Man’s World” methods, she’s supposed to show us a better way, “The Amazon Way”. That’s why her iconic weapon was a lasso, a non-lethal weapon. Unlikes Mars/Ares soldiers, Diana was a champion of Aphrodite and Athena, someone who believed in the power of love and venerated the goddess of the aspects of war that prized intellect and tactics over mass slaughter. She’s not supposed to be ruthless or cynical, one of her powers is the ability to talk to animals for gods sake, she’s a DC Princess (Please laugh at my lame pun)! This emphasis on her and the Amazons being “warriors” has never portrayed them in a positive light. They become primitive bloodthirsty misandrist barbarians, which reaches its lowest point in the Frank Miller/Brian Azzarelo take on the Amazons who are little more than straight up villains. Once upon a time the Amazons were huge proponents on redemption, and I’d rather Diana redeem her villains and rehabilitation them then kill them.

The sword and shield usually feel so tacked on to me for similar reasons.

[Gaius]

The sword and shield more struck me as trying to make the character more appealing to the crowd who like to single out the lasso, the invisible plane, the costume, etc as stupid and why they don't like the character. Sort of like how the DCAU made Aquaman a prick to compensate for people thinking he's lame because of Super-Friends.

I don't mind the sword and shield for some occasions but it's like seeing Batman or Superman in some sort of power armor. It's fine for certain occasions but I'd rather it'd be just that. At least WW '84 seems to be going in the right direction with no sign of a sword or shield in the trailers.

[AmiMizuno]

This is why with the sword and shield I rather have it she can summon them if she wishes but her main weapon is the lasso.

[Agent Z]

The sword and shield more struck me as trying to make the character more appealing to the crowd who like to single out the lasso, the invisible plane, the costume, etc as stupid and why they don't like the character.

Or they just gave her an upgrade to her arsenal like every other character from the Big 2 has had during their longevity. Not everything has to have such a cynical motive behind it.

[Nyssane]

Diana isn't a pacifist by any means, but I'm not a fan of her using a sword. I don't hate it; like Gaius said, it's good for some occasions. But fighting common crook #3 or abused wife gone rogue #7 with a sword in her hand is just gross. Fighting Medusa or Steppenwolf? Sure, go for it.

Though calling it an upgrade to her arsenal is a little bizarre, too. This isn't a magic She-Ra sword we're talking about here.

[SiegePerilous02]

Diana isn't a pacifist by any means, but I'm not a fan of her using a sword. I don't hate it; like Gaius said, it's good for some occasions. But fighting common crook #3 or abused wife gone rogue #7 with a sword in her hand is just gross. Fighting Medusa or Steppenwolf? Sure, go for it.

Though calling it an upgrade to her arsenal is a little bizarre, too. This isn't a magic She-Ra sword we're talking about here.

Yeah, it works really well in situations like fighting Doomsday or her battle with Medusa. But it's something to be used sparingly IMO, and actually doesn't play much of a part in the more celebrated runs of the character anyway. Rucka had a sword and battle axe against Medusa and the 100 armed beast guarding Zeus's throne (can never spell out what it actually is lol) but otherwise didn't use it much in his first run. And didn't use it at all in his second, which I wonder was a deliberate choice. Perez barely used it outside of Challenge of the Gods, and one cover aside, I don't think Jimenez did either.

Nobody's calling for She-Ra or Amethyst to lose their swords, but I don't think it should be a regular feature for Wonder Woman even if she isn't a pacifist.

[Frank]

Although it wasn't the first time she was shown with a sword, Kingdom Come is the story that, in my mind, seemed to wed Diana to the sword in the minds of DC fans. It was an angrier, more bitter Diana, and so much drama was built up around her armoring up and Superman cutting himself on her sword, and the moment that she kills Von Back to save Zatara.

That story was so widely regarded, and for many, it was that version of WW that made sense to them. That's always driven me crazy because the point was that they were all broken in some way, that they had all strayed from what they knew to be true, and how could the broken version be the clearer version?

Anyway, although another story like it surely would have happened eventually, I think it was Kingdom Come that really opened the door for the sword and brutality approach. Which maybe had the tiniest seed of that alternate version of Diana in #300 that's super-brutal.

[Gaius]

Or they just gave her an upgrade to her arsenal like every other character from the Big 2 has had during their longevity. Not everything has to have such a cynical motive behind it.

I'm fine with it as a possible weapon in her arsenal, I just don't care for trying to make it a part of her default look.

[CRaymond]

This isn't a magic She-Ra sword we're talking about here.

I'd be into that though.

[Frontier]

Diana isn't a pacifist by any means, but I'm not a fan of her using a sword. I don't hate it; like Gaius said, it's good for some occasions. But fighting common crook #3 or abused wife gone rogue #7 with a sword in her hand is just gross. Fighting Medusa or Steppenwolf? Sure, go for it.

Though calling it an upgrade to her arsenal is a little bizarre, too. This isn't a magic She-Ra sword we're talking about here.

Yeah, it works really well in situations like fighting Doomsday or her battle with Medusa. But it's something to be used sparingly IMO, and actually doesn't play much of a part in the more celebrated runs of the character anyway. Rucka had a sword and battle axe against Medusa and the 100 armed beast guarding Zeus's throne (can never spell out what it actually is lol) but otherwise didn't use it much in his first run. And didn't use it at all in his second, which I wonder was a deliberate choice. Perez barely used it outside of Challenge of the Gods, and one cover aside, I don't think Jimenez did either.

Nobody's calling for She-Ra or Amethyst to lose their swords, but I don't think it should be a regular feature for Wonder Woman even if she isn't a pacifist.

And from what I've seen in media adaptions she ends up tossing it aside more often then not.

Like in Justice League vs. The Fatal Five, they just tack it on to DCAU Diana who never had the sword before and then she ends up not even needing it to beat Persuader.

[Zahina]

More than most superheroes, Diana often suffers from misconceptions about what she is like and what the traits people associate with her would entail. But in her case, she suffers from two different yet equally untrue misconceptions.

For instance, both fans and detractors hear "Diana uses lethal force" and translate this to "Diana is a murderer and kills at the drop of a hat". Then we have the misconception of what Diana being a diplomat and compassionate person actually means. For some, this goes as far as claiming she is a pacifist (which she isn't and has never been) and it gets to the point that if she uses lethal force reasonably or is seen holding a sword it results in backlash.

What are your thoughts on Wonder Woman breaking Maxwell Lord's neck and killing him?

[Agent Z]

What are your thoughts on Wonder Woman breaking Maxwell Lord's neck and killing him?

I thought it was the right decision given the circumstances.