they had slaves

were matriarchs
and barbaric
and twisted
and wonder woman is clearly stronger/better than all of them

they had slaves
were matriarchs
and barbaric
and twisted
and wonder woman is clearly stronger/better than all of them

I don't think so, I'm pretty sure his Amazons are a charicature of modern feminism

@archizooom: well he did a bad job

@willienotwilliam said:

they had slaves

were matriarchs

and barbaric

and twisted

and wonder woman is clearly stronger/better than all of them

they had slaves

were matriarchs

and barbaric

and twisted

and wonder woman is clearly stronger/better than all of them

I'd be surprised if Azzarello even knew about them to be honest. Much more likely that he took a little inspiration from the Bana who his Amazons greatly resemble.

@csg_cl: maybe i dont know enough about comics but is it normal for writers to have not read the characters before writing them? id imagine most writers would at least go back and read some of the earlier stuff just to understand the character

I think it's fairly common, Finch hasn't read a ton of old WW either. But in their defense I'd say that there is so much WW material that only the hard-core fans have read even a fraction of it ... Azzarello basically went in and pitched a story idea, and only after he got the job did he go research her ... to his credit he learned enough to incorporate older concepts, like removing the bracelets making her more powerful but lose control.

@csg_cl: that's so weird to me. I'd imagine that would be the first thing they'd do. Maybe finch should look into them too

@willienotwilliam: Probably, but the more I look back on the N52 Wonder Woman, the less I blame the Finches on her characterization (though, yeah they are mostly to blame). They more or less were set-up by Azzarello's Greek-inspired version of her (that just won't ever really go away for even a moment) and continued on with over violent Amazons, the half-assed unmemorable side-characters, and too much Greek-ness, and the all but destroyed original mythos, that began with Azzarello.

Azzarello obviously had better structure and development in his run, and I did enjoy his series for what it was worth, but I think most of the current problems with writers picking up her title can be traced to him and Didio.

Of course I'm probably just bitter because it makes my stomach queezy when people say that he wrote the "definitive" Wonder Woman.

@alsummers: anyone who says that hadnt read wonder woman before hand or, at the very least, werent fans of her prior to her having nearly every essential thematic element ripped from the character

I don't know how you can blame Azzarello for Finch's poor writing ... I didn't like his characterization of the Amazons either, but even that was a slow roll from the last 10 or so years of WW, the Amazons started getting more standoffish and violent and even anti-Diana as early as Byrne's run and the Circle by Simone pretty clearly shows that not all Amazons loved the idea of a child among them and do we even need to discuss the travesty of Amazons Attack?. Azzarello took some existing concepts to an extreme, but there is nothing that he did that Finch couldn't have dialed back if she was a stronger storyteller.

At the end of Azzarello's run he left the fate of the Amazons and Diana pretty much wide open. The manazons could have been used as a catalyst for positive changes in the Amazons, bringing them out of their Xenophobic ways and adding new skills to the culture and then quietly been moved off the island to their own home to keep the purity of the all female tribe. Finch chose to have a group of Amazons slaughter these men and try to depose Diana and killed off Hippolyta (who was alive at the end of Azzarello).

Azzarello was in no way perfect, and not the "definitive" WW by any stretch, but trying to blame Finch's problems on what he left behind is poor logic IMO. She could have gone in many directions and chose to make the Amazons even more deplorable, make WW a whiny little girl and clumsily introduce white washed versions of classic villains.

Outside of Amazons Attack and Byrne's run, the pre 52 Amazons never did anything on the level of the New 52 versions. Even stuff like the Circle showed they weren't a hive mind of violent misandrists.

@agent_z: I think they are saying azzarellos Amazon's were a logical extension of pre 52 amazons because at some point ww fans are going to have to admit pre 52 wonder woman isn't the holy land we've made it out to be and even people like Perez and rucka weren't at all perfect

exactly .... and trying to blame the mistakes of a bad writer on her predecessor is silly, especially when there were dozens of directions Finch could have gone but did not. Blame it on editorial if you need to blame anyone aside from Finch herself.

@willienotwilliam:

Hardly... they are based off of the actual mythological Amazons.

loosely at best though ... but I'm also pretty sure they are NOT a caricature of modern feminism, maybe a little of a shot at second wave feminists such as Gloria Steinem, but even that is probably giving him too much credit for caring about such things.

@jonny_anonymous: There's more than one greek myth about the Amazons, I read a few on Tim Hanley's blog, if you can find that article I recommend you read it

@csg_cl: Maybe I didn't word things right. I never meant to BLAME Azzarello for whatever shlock the Finches are doling out these days, I mearly meant his new trends and direction are what the Finches picked up on and whatever flaws that lay with us accepting this more violent Diana could be TRACED back to him. Granted, the Finches could've more or less played on her being a more peaceful God of War which you're right Azzarello left open to, but instead more or less continued the trend. It's the tricky way of how to word what I'm trying to say here. In a perfect world, the Finches could've picked up where Azzarello left of, reintroduced some elements of her original mythos that felt more Wonder Woman-y organically, and executed it flawlessly. But its not a perfect world, and the Finch run is evidence of that.

@alsummers: but that's where you are incorrect. This Diana wasn't nearly as violent under Azzarellos pen. And the violent streak maps back for more than a decade prior to Azzarello ... He might have taken it a bit further than some previous writers, but Rucka and Simone both had variations of a much more violent WW well before Azzarllo came along. Even Perez and focused more on her warrior side than anything Pre-Crisis and Bryne and Mess-L followed suit.

@csg_cl: yeah new 52 is just taking pre 52 wonder woman to her logical extension

@willienotwilliam: there's a huge middle ground between perfect and what we have now.

@csg_cl: seriously? Perez Diaba was shown as being reluctant to use force almost to a fault. Mess we-Loebs had Diana using diplomacy and negotiation and even made allies out of enemies (see the Sangtee arc). Rucka and Simone always killed as a last resort and their kill counts are pretty minor even without comparison to Wolverine and Punisher.

New 52 Diana isn't a natural evolution . It's a flanderisation of a single trait of Diana's.

@agent_z: @agent_z:

pre new 52 wasnt perfect at all.

at some point we have to realize that wonder woman wasnt "perfectly written until big bad Azzarello came along." the character is this way because of decades of work by different people. Perez did plenty of bad to her mythos(the way he wrote steve and etta, his cheetah and silver swans lack of agency, focus on warrior side instead of athleticism,making her the stand out amazon) as did Rucka(he really didnt focus on her as a character but other people's reactions to her) as did every other writer during this time. really you cant pull from wonder woman an ideal or thematic expression that embodies her mission and how she goes about it and you havent really been able to since golden age. ofc we can say she's about peace and compassion and justice but those terms have been really empty. what type of justice? what is she fighting for? who are her main enemies? what do they embody? these questions cant be answered and if they can theres no concrete, well thoughout answer we can really give. and when we can get to the basis of the charater its in single issues of her talking to lois in an interview telling us what she does for people around the world instead of an interesting plot that shows us what she means. she's been lacking in a consistent and well thoughout mythology as well as good writers to express those ideas because when we get good writers they dont exactly get her right (azzarello and others)

i mean she denounced the term feminist during perezs run. also, her having a father is something theyve been toying with for a while just look at the DCAU version of her in Justice League where theres an entire plot which ends in her finding out hades(or ares) helped mold her in clay. Shes threatened and used violence plenty of times pre 52(not just as a last resort esp if were considering all versions of the character). She's been betrayed as irrationally bored or angry at mans world plenty of times.The amazons have become progressively more violent and barbaric since bronze age. They've reinvented her time and time again so to act as if new 52 wonder woman isnt a logical step is a lie.

@willienotwilliam: Perez was the one who made her an Ambassador in the first place. He showed the Amazons as artists, philosophers, teachers. His Silver Swan didn't have any less agency than the original and Barbara chose to become the Cheetah of her own will. I don't see what you mean about Rucka's Diana. And that story with Lois is exactly the answer to your question of what Diana stood for; compassion, equality and justice for those that have been denied it for too long. Hell, I'd ask what Batman stands for given his stories rarely ever focus on anything besides him fighting street muggers and weirdos in costumes.

The Amazons weren't perfect but in no way could I call them barbaric pre flashpoint. Amazons Attack is more an exception than the rule.

As for being angry at mans world, who hasn't expressed frustration at the world every once in a while? If you want to talk stuff like Miller's Diana there's a reason it was an elseworld.

I really don't see what as so awful about Steve besides him not being a love interest.

1. i never said he did no good, i said he did bad and was apart of the problem as all her writers have been to some extent. Barbara was clearly a lot more of a tragic character than Priscilla. Barbara's villainy is owed at least in some part to her desire to survive whereas Priscilla was her own woman and made her choices on her own free will as her mental illness was never used as an excuse just to understand her motivations. Post crisis silver swans typically were manipulated kids who were experimented on by more powerful people while pre crisis made the decision to become silver swan based off of her own actions and was not meant to be as tragic as the post crisis mantle holders
2. Rucka said that he focused on how other people percieved wonder woman and not how she percieved the world ofc this is menial and i will say that it clearly can be seen as an interesting point of view i just think we rarely see the world through her eyes
3. Yeah i know that story with lois tells me who she is(though not exactly detailed)but they could have told me who she was based on a story where she utilizes her abilities and has her beliefs tested not told to me verbatim in a boring one issue interview that came off more like an ego stroke than a true analysis of the character
4. Also i know the amazons werent nearly as bad as new 52, i feel i addressed that the new 52 pushed these things to its most extreme, my entire argument is simply that most(if not all) these things existed pre new 52. The amazons were still often shown as barbaric and backwards, often a group of man hating women still living in the past who have made no technological advances(as evident in things such as the invisible plane becoming alien tech or the gods granting them things like sisterhood).
5. i dont feel as if i ever stated that she cant have emotions outside of happiness, ofc she can be angry sometimes, or sad or bored but that shouldnt be the default characterization. Wonder Woman ultimately should find man's world interesting and fun. Shes a vibrant people-loving woman who enjoys talking to people and adventure and exploring new worlds/cultures(respectfully ofc) while knowing her worth as a woman and making sure other women know their worth. This can be done without making her patronising(i.e her in the animated film talking down to etta candy or other women being feminine with no regard for those women's capability to decide what decisions they should make and how they should navigate the world, which often is hypocritical since she's often shown as pretty feminine herself) or bored with man's world from the get go, or irrationally angry to the point that shed forgo all her morals(i.e the DCAU version who was ready to pummel two robbers when it was clear she handled the situation already)
6. Also, idc about steve being a love interest so to speak but i do care that him and etta basically filled a minor role in her life despite being two important characters in her pre crisis mythos. Etta and Steve were two interesting characters that added alot to Diana's backstory and to make them basically minor characters with little importance when they were extremely important for Dianas introduction just doesnt seem respectful to a great mythos that was set in place by Marston

I want to address the batman comment last:

batman is a costumed detective that attempts to stop crime in a city that he loves and stands for a symbol of hope in a dark, terrible place. he pretty much utilizes fear as a source of inspiration as it is what drives him as a character and also a weapon against his enemies and prosepective enemies to show them that as long as crime exists in dark alleys of gotham so will batman, a well trained fighting machine , and he will stop them. hence "he is the night" or he is the unknown darkness, the thing to fear.

As for Wonder Woman we cant really pinpoint a thematic significance to her in the same way anymore and when we attempt to we can only give responses such as compasssion and love and peace. The one time we really could go in depth like that is with marston's run. There she had a specific mission and approach that breathed throughout the story. She was a woman that was devoted to the practice of loving submission and wanted to teach man's world that we must learn to submit to a loving authority in order to find our best selves and that everyone could do this. In doing so she not only emphasized justice but transformative justice or the idea that even the most evil people can change and the ability for good exists in everybody. Along with nonviolence as her strength was protrayed in her ability to preform athletic feats or destroy walls and chains and while she did use violence(punching and fights) she certainly did not do so in the same way golden age superman and batman did and certainly she wasnt the typical warrior woman who's main weapon was her sword. We saw these things in how she handled characters during that run and in things like restoration island and in her choice of weapon, the lasso. She had her own city and world to deal with along with a secret identity and a side job that connected her to missions in other fabricated/magical societies along with dealing with things in her city. This isnt to say that everything after Marston is bad or that Marston's run was perfect. I wouldnt want to treat the character like that nor the hard work of the people who have written her in all these years nor do i desire for a complete marston rehaul but i wont lie and say i dont believe Marston didnt have the most coherent and workable concept of the character because i definitely believe he did. He also did so in a way that allowed for humor and light and love to be at fore front.

@agent_z: when did Diana kill before Perez? When did the Amazons become warriors before all,else until Perez? Pre-Crisis Diana and the Amazons were vastly less violent. Perez brought a level of warriorism into the mythos that was vastly expanded from previous continuity. Azzarello took that farther for certain, but it's not like he created anything new on this front.

@csg_cl: actually there's some pre crisis stories where Diana kills. Perez did more than make them warriors and even when they killed there were often mitigating circumstances.

Also pre crisis had the Amazons participating in husband hunts.

That's a damn lie, obviously you're a witch up to the devil's mischief.

@scorpio_cassadine: im just spreading the good lords word

1) Barbara was a villain because of greed, selfishness and disregard for boundaries. Her first meeting with Diana is the first time the latter learns women can be just as evil as men. Perez Silver Swan chose to undergo the experiment and wasn't forced or tricked. Even then just because a character is tragic doesn't mean they're lacking in agency. In fact, with these two characters their tragedy comes from the fact that their choices are very much their own.

2)That's not how the book read to me. I very much had a clue who Diana was and never felt like I was just reading a book about how other people saw her.

3)It's no more an ego stroke than a dozen stories that show Batman, Superman etc as the ultimate, untouchable badass. Hell, having the story focus on her humanitarian activities is much closer to Marston's vision and not something seen in superhero stories very often.

4) The gods did not grant the Amazons sisterhood. And their tech was something they developed while studying the outside world. Outside of Amazons Attack, I really can't say I saw anything on the scale of Azzarello's Amazons. An exaggeration of a certain trait is not the same thing as an evolution of that trait.

5) I'll give you DCAU Diana. It's not my favorite version of the character though there are far, far worse. However, I disagree about the Diana from the animated movie. She wasn't criticizing Etta for being feminine but for using her femininity to manipulate men and get her way. Her argument was that women shouldn't have to buy into men's shallow views of what they are to succeed.

6) Fair enough.

7) The secret identity has never been needed tbh. It was no different than the Clark Kent thing and really did more hindrance to Diana's mission than anything. I'll admit there are inconsistencies with Post-Crisis Diana but even then I can't think of many times she drew a sword or acted unnecessarily violent. And numerous stories focused on her altruism. I'd recommend a series of posts on scans_daily called "When Wondy Was Awesome" for you to read and get a good feel of her

https://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/tag/series:+when+wondy+was+awesome

1. Im speaking specifically about how the characters are framed as being tragic and lacking in personal motivation/intentions. Golden Age Cheetah might have had split personality but it was very clear that she was her own woman and made these decisions and there was no needless pontificating on her victimhood or her illness. While post crisis cheetah certainly makes plenty of decisions out of her own selfish and evil desires the framing of her illness is what makes her lose a lot of agency as its outside forces that make her into the villain that she is (unknown cultures and black magic) and her struggle is no longer an inner struggle as Priscillas was. Silver Swan(during rucka's run) is more of a weapon to be used for Circe and Veronica's jealousy and hatred of Wonder Woman and Alexandria's motivation is her relationship with her husband as opposed to pre crisis's silver swans own desire driving her to be a villain. This isnt to say a tragic character is bad or that every villain needs their own motivations and can never have those sorta "trapped in a rock and a hard place" back stories but its sorta tiring and one of the reasons her rogues gallery cant flourish since many arent allowed to be fully realized individuals, plus i think that writing a villain as totally accountable for their actions and still show them as in need of reformation and not retribution is pretty radical and something wonder woman should stand for

3.. idc about the stories of batman and superman. im not talking about them and their bad stories because frankly wonder woman also doesnt have a long halloween or all star superman or a birthright or a hush or any works to compare to batman and supermans best work. The problem with the book isnt the focus on the humanitarian work but the fact that its boring and they cant find a way to tell a story about her and her principles so instead we had to read an interview about what she does thats not a good story . Show me who a character is and what they stand for and why they stand for it dont just tell me thats bad writing period.

4. Yeah they did. everything post crisis Amazons had they basically got from the gods. Their intelligence, power, community were all gifts from the gods and the tech that they created no longer was a result of their ingenuity but a result of outside help. Another example of this is them gaining help from Martian Manhunter to rebuild Themyscira after the Gods destroyed it and it he helped make it better than before.

5. but what is the problem with flirting with some guy? and why did she have to be so rude to her about it and if you truly prioritized women in this criticism of mans world why is every woman always treated as shallow 2 dimensional people that she's incapable of having a conversation with(outside of patronizingly dissenting them) which becomes even worse when you consider that the only person allowed to express their grievances with her opinions is Steve as if he didnt try to get her drunk a few scenes ago but were mad at the woman who asked a guy to pick a pencil up for her? what sense does that make? and its not even just this film but something theyve tried to make her into in plenty of comics. She's often protrayed as a straw feminist who somehow has no social couth despite being a princess of a supposed utopia

7. its not about her needing a secret identity its about her having a consistent and thorough mythos and back story, which she has not had in a while esp not post crisis, at least not a good one. Wonder Woman has gotten increasingly violent since her golden age years and even more so in post crisis. Its already been stated that she became much more of a warrior under perez pen which means they focused and utilized more violent weaponry and imagery(the sword, axes, etc. along with beheadings and killings) which are apparent if youve read any post crisis wonder woman. I mean eyes of the gorgon has her beheading Medusa, she kills Maxwell Lord by snapping his neck, and she's been much more prone to torturing people(i.e Cheetah in Gail Simone's run). And there are plenty more examples of this throughout post crisis so idk what you're getting at. I dont need to read the list because ive read most of post crisis wonder woman already which is why i have these opinions

@agent_z: which just proves the point that Azzarello didn't create this mess, just took it another step down a road she's been in for decades.

This.

Wonder Woman veered off from her roots almost instantly after Marston passed away, first into a generic female superhero (where she played second fiddle to the menfolk) which almost lead her into near obscurity. The Perez came in to steer the boat in another direction, one where the Amazons were less like college girls and more like soldiers, like the mythological Amazons... and the road has been kept to ever since then. Byrne even alluded to the family connection to Olympus and Ares way back in his run, and Azzarello more or less just came full circle by making Diana into an actual goddess which people mostly already considered her as, like they do Superman. And made the Amazons barbaric traits even more visible, remember that in the past men couldn't be allowed to set foot on PI because the Amazons would loose their immortality? That in Perez's origins, the wounded Steve Trevor would have been thrown back into the sea if Philipus had the final say? Heck in WML you get the story of the PI Amazons supposedly using their Bana sisters as a meat-shield while they were all lost in a demon dimension.

What Azzarello might be more accurately blamed for is failing to show the New 52 Amazons having redeeming qualities that somehow justified their other actions.

@outside_85:Perez showed the Amazons as more than just warriors. As did Jiminez and Rucka The familial connection to the Olympians was dismissed as untrue. Philipus was shown as not speaking for the entire tribe.

1) Barbara is not a villain because of outside forces. She tries to still the Lasso before she becomes cheetah. Vanessa I'll give you, but both Valerie and Helen were exploited by their need for acceptance. That's the them of all three Silver Swans.

3) The story did show you what Diana was about. Just in a way different than most superhero stories.

4) They built their city and developed their philosophies themselves Marston's Amazons did gain some things from the gods too.

5) Flirting is one thing. That's not what Etta was doing, though. And she was plenty rude to Diana herself. Also, first thing Diana does when she comes to man's world in that film? Comfort a little girl who was upset because the boys wouldn't play with her.

&) You're kind of ignoring the context of Medusa and Lord. I'll give you her torturing Cheetah, though.

.

Hence the last part.

By whom was it dismissed?

If Hippolyta and Diana hadn't been standing right next to her, she would have been.

@outside_85: There's another issue where an Amazon is shown thinking of killing the men who showed up later on. She's stopped by the other Amazons. Hell, Philipus even apologizes to Steve later on. We had variety of opinion among these women. Way more than what we've seen post Flashpoint

They didn't spend most of the initial run as snakes.

1. yeah she is a villain because of outside forces as those are the things that turned her into the monster she is, that dark magic is what turned her into the cheetah. Her character before turning into the cheetah is irrelevant to the point im making since im not saying she was a good person before hand but their is clearly a subtexual reading to be made for Perez's cheetah in which there is a white woman being corrupted by outside force(in this case an othered culture/religion). As for silver swan i guess she is an example of that sorta lack of agency or at least real motivation even pre crisis so i was wrong but that could mean these problems could have existed even farther back

2. no it didnt it told me verbatim who she was as opposed to having an actual narrative which is my problem

3. Most of the amazons achievements were due to the goddesses blessings and not their own and the things they did create they did so through knowledge granted to them. Even then they werent really shown to be advanced technologically and seemed more stuck in the past than anything else

4. thats absolutely what she's doing, she was flirting. that little non chalant attitude towards diana certainly didnt require diana's response.

context doesnt matter for my point, it doesn't matter if she NEEDED to be violent or not the point is that the situations in which Diana exercises more violent solutions, necessary or not, have increased in volume and in gruesomeness. My critique isnt what individual characters do and/or don't do but of the writer of those characters. Obviously none of these characters are real but the motivations the people that create/write these characters have are definitely real, whatever they may be. I'm simply saying that these characters were written in a manner similar, but not as bad, as their new 52 counterparts and at some point we have to address that this is the case and stop acting as if pre 52 didnt hold its own set of problems that gave way to many peoples problems with n52 wonder woman.