Comic Vine News

300 Comments

Is Changing Wonder Woman and the History of the Amazons A Good Idea?

Issue #7 of WONDER WOMAN introduced massive changes to Wonder Woman's heritage, but are these changes for the better or worse?

When the decision to relaunch the entire DC Comics universe came about, the question of whether to make integral changes to characters, character identities and concepts obviously came up. If this wasn't obvious before, it is certainly obvious now considering some of the massive changes made to characters and their histories, particularly recently.

No Caption Provided

The latest issue of WONDER WOMAN #7 is certainly evidence of that, and it's also something that took readers by surprise. When Comic Vine received the preview for the seventh issue of WONDER WOMAN just two short weeks ago we were certainly excited, but there was no way of our knowing what huge revelations would take place in the latter portion of the issue. If you read the book you already know what I am talking about, and if you haven't then be aware that there will be some spoilers below.

== TEASER ==

Whoever was responsible for the massive changes made to Wonder Woman and the Amazons seen in WONDER WOMAN #7 is beside the point. The real question is, were these changes a good idea? Were the things that happened in this issue positive or negative, overall? Before I divulge my personal perspective on the recent changes made to the heritage of one of the most iconic characters in comics, let's discuss what is actually different about Wonder Woman and the Amazons now, compared to the way they were before.

No Caption Provided

Prior to the "new 52" the Amazons were seen as a group of women who never interacted with men. The Amazons were comprised as the souls of women throughout the ages who had been persecuted and killed, "dying before their time" who were given a chance to live a life based on "love and the teaching of the Gods" rather than "power and conquest." This origin can be seen in Wonder Woman #72, by Bill Loebs, Lee Moder and Ande Parks.

The story tells of the origin of the Amazons, their ideologies, as well as of Hippolyta's struggles against Heracles and the outside threats the Amazons faced. That origin, however, is vastly different from the one that was recently published in WONDER WOMAN #7. While the former paints the Amazons as a group of abandoned, disrespected women who are given a second chance at life to live out a happy, full and loving existence; their most recent incarnation brands them as a race of women who are warriors and have done what they must to ensure that their race would survive and persevere. The key word that defines these Amazons is "warrior."

No Caption Provided

In issue #7 we see the Amazons as a race of warrior women who "thrice a century" leave their island, seduce men, eliminate those men and then return to their island where nine months later they celebrate the births of the baby girls and abandon the boys, giving them up to Hephaestus in exchange for weapons. Now, I've obviously simplified things a lot, so I recommend you read the issue in order to get the full scope of the inherent changes made to these characters and to the identity of the Amazons. What is obvious, however, is that these Amazons are vastly different than the Amazons of yesteryear.

No Caption Provided

While very different, both of these stories have one thing in common: they both empower the Amazons. In Loebs telling of the Amazon's history we have a group of women who band together, support one another and live in peace and love after suffering years of abuse and persecution. In the most recent telling of the Amazon's history we see Amazons who have never feared persecution and have empowered themselves and their island of women by staying strong and embracing their warrior spirit. Both reflect this idea that women can be strong (and as strong) as men can be, even if the latter (and most recent version) does paint them to be a race of women who fail to regard the lives of men. Essentially, lacking compassion.

Loebs' Amazon's are emotionally empowered but they still live in isolation, away from men. Is this out of fear? Is it because they are afraid that their livelihood would be threatened? Meanwhile, Azzarello's version of the Amazons paint this portrait of a tribe of women who choose to live isolated from men but do not fear the penetration of men into their society, and fully prepare themselves to ward them off. While one version aims to protect the women from harm by shielding themselves from the eyes of the world, the other protects women by being prepared for any threat that comes their way.

No Caption Provided

So is this change a good thing for the Amazons?

When it comes to comics, you have to expect change. And that change (although it might make you uneasy) may not necessarily be a bad thing. Reading the latest issue of WONDER WOMAN I found myself at the edge of my seat and completely in disbelief, not knowing what to feel. As a Wonder Woman fan familiar with her character history, I have always appreciated that she was surrounded by compassionate, loving women who were once persecuted and given a second chance. It's a beautiful character history. Yet, reading this new interpretation of the Amazons and their race I found myself completely enthralled in this new history. These women paved their own way and were not always kind to the world; but when was the world ever kind? Additionally, this new interpretation of the Amazons is also very consistent with the mythology of the Amazons.

In some versions of the myth, no men were permitted to have sexual encounters or reside in Amazon country; but once a year, in order to prevent their race from dying out, they visited the Gargareans, a neighbouring tribe. The male children who were the result of these visits were either killed, sent back to their fathers or exposed in the wilderness to fend for themselves; the females were kept and brought up by their mothers, and trained in agricultural pursuits, hunting, and the art of war. Source

Considering most Greek city-states were patriarchal societies (in Athens women were not even permitted to sit in on Assemblies and vote), the fact that the myth surrounding the Amazons painted them as self-sufficient with a warrior mentality is very interesting. Additionally, this new history adds something new to Wonder Woman. She has brothers. This change in her identity as an Amazon will allow Azzarello to explore her as both a warrior and as a compassionate woman. It will also give her compassion a purpose, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Did you read the issue? What did you think of the story? Do you think that making huge changes to characters is a positive or a negative?

300 Comments

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@RazzaTazz said:

@DarthShap: A slave lacks among other things freedom of choice. They had a choice here, and they made it

So what is the point? That you cannot free a slave? That is even worse! That was part of the South's argument during the American Civil War!

We have no indication of whether or not they are completely enslaved. Perhaps they ARE allowed to choose to leave if they want, perhaps they ARE allowed to see the surface and experience it to make their decision.

But we don't know. And neither did Wonder Woman. But they respect Hephaestus, and he appears to respect them back.

They are being traded for guns, meaning that they become Hephaistos' propriety. And again with the speculations (and this time, I am pretty sure we will not get the tales of the brothers who chose to leave)...

It is just a badly executed rip-off and Azzarello did not think that much about what it would mean. It worked on Apokolips because it was on a planet scale and have a religious dimension to it (and Waid's Kingdom Come to some extend inspired this conclusion with Apokolips still being a tyrannic dictatorship after Orion's coup because submission to the Gods in in their nature) but here it does not. It is not Apokolips, it is Earth and only a few hundred people at best who do not know any better.

Avatar image for razzatazz
Posted By RazzaTazz
@DarthShap: I am not defending the actions of the Amazons by any means, all i am saying is that this makes them much more interesting than they use to be, and that depending on the definition of slavery, the male Amazons might not fit the bill.
Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Posted By The Mighty Monarch

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@RazzaTazz said:

@DarthShap: A slave lacks among other things freedom of choice. They had a choice here, and they made it

So what is the point? That you cannot free a slave? That is even worse! That was part of the South's argument during the American Civil War!

We have no indication of whether or not they are completely enslaved. Perhaps they ARE allowed to choose to leave if they want, perhaps they ARE allowed to see the surface and experience it to make their decision.

But we don't know. And neither did Wonder Woman. But they respect Hephaestus, and he appears to respect them back.

They are being traded for guns, meaning that they become Hephaistos' propriety. And again with the speculations (and this time, I am pretty sure we will not get the tales of the brothers who chose to leave)...

It is just a badly executed rip-off and Azzarello did not think that much about what it would mean. It worked on Apokolips because it was on a planet scale and have a religious dimension to it (and Waid's Kingdom Come to some extend inspired this conclusion with Apokolips still being a tyrannic dictatorship after Orion's coup because submission to the Gods in in their nature) but here it does not. It is not Apokolips, it is Earth and only a few hundred people at best who do not know any better.

So any stories where someone buys a slave in order to set them free is still slavery because "they paid for them so they are technically their property?" Yes, TECHNICALLY they could be Hephaestus' property if he wanted them to be, but are we assuming that he's evil enough to not give them any freedoms? We DON'T KNOW how much freedom he gives them but considering they seem healthy, he hasn't been visibly cruel to them, he knows them by name and they have a variety of names, they actually seem happy and not oppressed; I think its safe to say that him allowing them to be free if they want is A VIABLE THEORY.

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@noj said:

@DarthShap said:

@noj said:

@DarthShap: Look man you gotta stop looking at the Amazons and judging them so harshly. Sure from our point of view it looks terribly evil and wrong but this is from a 21st century POV. The Amazons are still practicing traditions that were not uncommon in their time period. Their isolation from the outside world basically ensured that they didn't move beyond these practices and develop with the rest of the civilized world.You cant really call it evil without basically calling all the people and cultures throughout history that led a similar life inherently evil as well. Its just their way of life. They are a society stuck in the past.

Except they were described as monsters even then. THEY WERE THE VILLAINS OF THEIR STORIES!

I wasnt solely talking about the Amazons of myth, I was also talking about real world cultures and people who practiced similar traditions, like the Spartans. You cant REALLY call these people truly evil, it was just their way of life. It is how they were raised. You can look at the Amazons in a similar light.

And Spartans killed their mates and their children solely on the basis of their gender?

Bottom line, the Amazons were invented to appear as monsters even to the Spartans. They made up people so cruel that even the Spartans would cheer when Achilles or Hercules would slay them.

Right and wrong are points of view, to some extent. The US has the death penalty and guns, Europe does not. But the Amazons always were evil because they were invented to be evil.

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

I find it so cool that in 2012, we debate about which type of slavery is the best for the slave.

Avatar image for cbishop
Posted By cbishop

Okay, I skipped all the comments up to this point, after the 1st page, but will read them later - my apologies if I repeat anyone. Personally, I think this is a wonderful change, but I have said about as much as I can about it in the comments of the WW # 7 review. I will say this again though: drastic change in comics usually means they just didn't know what to do with the character before, so they've thrown everything out and started from a new approach. I think this is cool, and I think there are going to be some very classic, mythical/ fable story twists that will explain away the biggest complaints about WW so far. I think it's going to turn out to be very, very cool.

Avatar image for razzatazz
Posted By RazzaTazz
@The Mighty Monarch: He also gives them what is for him honourable burials 
 
@DarthShap: I am not sure if they are abjectly evil, remember the Amazons of Bana Mighdall did a lot of stuff that the main stream of the Amazons would not.  Of course anyone that does this is evil, but you are condemning them all based off of what?  Three panels?  Maybe five?  Also I am not saying that what Hephaestus is doing is right, it just raises an interesting point
Avatar image for diomjk
Posted By DIOMJK

@DarthShap: Simple end to your argument. Yes he bought them. But that also means he could free them, since they are now his property. Also, since he bought them as infants, he couldn't just abandon them (amazons being super powered by their nature) so he raised them. And they decided to stay with them when they grew old enough to make their own decisions (as evidenced when they stood up for him when he was attacked). So where is the moral grey area? I see none at all

Thats what I get when I read this issue. you just seem hell bent on judging Hephaestus as a slaver.

Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Posted By The Mighty Monarch

@DIOMJK: He's just bent on finding every possible reason he can to slam Azzarello's run on Wonder Woman.

Avatar image for darthshap
Edited By DarthShap

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Simple end to your argument. Yes he bought them. But that also means he could free them, since they are now his property. Also, since he bought them as infants, he couldn't just abandon them (amazons being super powered by their nature) so he raised them. And they decided to stay with them when they grew old enough to make their own decisions (as evidenced when they stood up for him when he was attacked). So where is the moral grey area? I see none at all

Thats what I get when I read this issue. you just seem hell bent on judging Hephaestus as a slaver.

So your point is that it is better to buy them young and treat them right so they stay loyal to you.

Got it.

Avatar image for outside_85
Posted By Outside_85

It amazes me how little people actually seem to read the book in relation to what was before. WW hasn't gotten a total reboot, all of these changes are things that can exist alongside with the older history. The Amazon babies is something the island just chose to keep from Diana, same way they kept who her father was a secret, added it only happens once every 30-33 years and if Diana is around the same age, she wouldn't have noticed it.

Whatever utopia Paradise Island used to be, is still here, this is just the dark secret. Diana hasn't changed, the world around her has just come up with some really nasty surprises lately.

Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Posted By The Mighty Monarch

@DarthShap said:

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Simple end to your argument. Yes he bought them. But that also means he could free them, since they are now his property. Also, since he bought them as infants, he couldn't just abandon them (amazons being super powered by their nature) so he raised them. And they decided to stay with them when they grew old enough to make their own decisions (as evidenced when they stood up for him when he was attacked). So where is the moral grey area? I see none at all

Thats what I get when I read this issue. you just seem hell bent on judging Hephaestus as a slaver.

So your point is that it is better to buy them young and treat them right so they stay loyal to you.

Got it.

It's better to SAVE THEM FROM BEING KILLED so maybe you can give them an actual life. Should he buy them and then just dump them in an orphanage?

Avatar image for darthshap
Edited By DarthShap

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DIOMJK: He's just bent on finding every possible reason he can to slam Azzarello's run on Wonder Woman.

No, but he is a great writer. The execution is top notch.

It just does not make any sense that Diana would turn up so well. Pretty much everything else is a destruction of 70 years of continuity. The rip-off is obvious but does not work within the context of this story.

Avatar image for rockyraccoon37
Posted By RockyRaccoon37

@DarthShap said:

I really do not think that it was the point. Because you do no cease to be a slave just because your master treats you right, especially if you do not know any better.

The original point showed that Superman could not win because Apokolips had been completely corrupted by Darkseid, to the point where he was considered to be God by the people.

The point of the rip-off is that not everything is black or white and that there are some shades of grey. But I am not sure it works here because to say in 2012 that sometimes slavery is "grey" is just stupid.

It's not about "the master treating you right"-- It's questioning the notion of freedom, asking what it means to be a slave, and looking critically at the role of the liberator.

You can think of it as a parallel to any of America's recent wars to "free" people enslaved to their totalitarian governments. Or think of freedom as defined in our everyday lives-- aren't we slaves in some way to material things; we're slaves to the economy, a system out of our control, and slaves to our jobs so we can (often barely) earn enough to maintain a level of happiness (usually defined by the spending of monies on material things). But we endure because true freedom is chaotic, unpredictable and new, and most people would sooner have a safe and familiar illusion of freedom.

Just as these "slaves" would sooner stay with Hephaestus, because anything else would be entirely unknown. In the same way that he defends his "slaves" our system will protect us so long as we obey it's rules. Why not stay a piece in that system so long as it protects you?

You're thinking of notions of slavery and freedom in very narrow terms, you need to think of it here (but also in general) in a more abstract sense-- what does it mean to free from everything we know?

Avatar image for joshmightbe
Posted By joshmightbe

@DIOMJK: I wasn't judging Hephaestus, I was judging the women who sell their children to him, this is not a moral grey area. This is selling their children into slavery, even the most pro slavery civilizations in history would call people who sell their own children into slavery evil.

Avatar image for diomjk
Posted By DIOMJK

@DarthShap: Thats not what I meant and you know it. The only way I even see a slavery angle by the end of the book is that they call him master, but historically when you learn a trade you have a master and his apprentice(s). Besides that, I see a man raising a bunch of children who would have otherwise been killed over their "birth defect", as it were, the same way his mother tried to kill him when she threw him off of mount Olympus for being ugly (according to greek mythology). He's raising them out of compassion, and they reciprocated. So what if he had to "buy" them in order to keep their mothers from killing them. Check your civil war history, there existed men who bought slaves in an attempt to rescue them from a far worse fate than if they let them be. If you don't like the story, fine, but don't attempt to make unfounded claims because you're upset over the direction of a story after a reboot.

Avatar image for darkmount1
Posted By Darkmount1

@The Mighty Monarch: You're right. Then again, I have no insight into Azarrello's creative process--I've never even read any of his prior work.

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Simple end to your argument. Yes he bought them. But that also means he could free them, since they are now his property. Also, since he bought them as infants, he couldn't just abandon them (amazons being super powered by their nature) so he raised them. And they decided to stay with them when they grew old enough to make their own decisions (as evidenced when they stood up for him when he was attacked). So where is the moral grey area? I see none at all

Thats what I get when I read this issue. you just seem hell bent on judging Hephaestus as a slaver.

So your point is that it is better to buy them young and treat them right so they stay loyal to you.

Got it.

It's better to SAVE THEM FROM BEING KILLED so maybe you can give them an actual life. Should he buy them and then just dump them in an orphanage?

Yes. What's wrong with that? Sure beats working in the same confined place for all your life never seeing the light of day, people of the opposite sex etc...

And that is not the point. Azzarello should not have ripped it off if he did not have the proper context to do so. He wrote himself into that corner.

Avatar image for diomjk
Posted By DIOMJK

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Simple end to your argument. Yes he bought them. But that also means he could free them, since they are now his property. Also, since he bought them as infants, he couldn't just abandon them (amazons being super powered by their nature) so he raised them. And they decided to stay with them when they grew old enough to make their own decisions (as evidenced when they stood up for him when he was attacked). So where is the moral grey area? I see none at all

Thats what I get when I read this issue. you just seem hell bent on judging Hephaestus as a slaver.

So your point is that it is better to buy them young and treat them right so they stay loyal to you.

Got it.

It's better to SAVE THEM FROM BEING KILLED so maybe you can give them an actual life. Should he buy them and then just dump them in an orphanage?

Yes. What's wrong with that? Sure beats working in the same confined place for all your life never seeing the light of day, people of the opposite sex etc...

And that is not the point. Azzarello should not have ripped it off if he did not have the proper context to do so. He wrote himself into that corner.

You have no idea if he kept them locked away in the foundry. That was never established. And the amazons race has been established as having super powers dumping them at an orphanage is a horrible idea. A place where they are separated from their world in a place that won't understand them, unable to know or explain there history or the abilities they wield? kind of crappy life. and since they seem to be happy (as they explicitly state) and treat him like a father, I think the right choice is obvious

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Thats not what I meant and you know it. The only way I even see a slavery angle by the end of the book is that they call him master, but historically when you learn a trade you have a master and his apprentice(s). Besides that, I see a man raising a bunch of children who would have otherwise been killed over their "birth defect", as it were, the same way his mother tried to kill him when she threw him off of mount Olympus for being ugly (according to greek mythology). He's raising them out of compassion, and they reciprocated. So what if he had to "buy" them in order to keep their mothers from killing them. Check your civil war history, there existed men who bought slaves in an attempt to rescue them from a far worse fate than if they let them be. If you don't like the story, fine, but don't attempt to make unfounded claims because you're upset over the direction of a story after a reboot.

Slave owners never think they do something wrong. That does not mean they do not own slaves. You do know there are alternatives to owning slaves, like freeing them and employing them.

Just saying.

Avatar image for alch21
Posted By Alch21

Gods do as they please.

Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Posted By The Mighty Monarch

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Simple end to your argument. Yes he bought them. But that also means he could free them, since they are now his property. Also, since he bought them as infants, he couldn't just abandon them (amazons being super powered by their nature) so he raised them. And they decided to stay with them when they grew old enough to make their own decisions (as evidenced when they stood up for him when he was attacked). So where is the moral grey area? I see none at all

Thats what I get when I read this issue. you just seem hell bent on judging Hephaestus as a slaver.

So your point is that it is better to buy them young and treat them right so they stay loyal to you.

Got it.

It's better to SAVE THEM FROM BEING KILLED so maybe you can give them an actual life. Should he buy them and then just dump them in an orphanage?

Yes. What's wrong with that? Sure beats working in the same confined place for all your life never seeing the light of day, people of the opposite sex etc...

And that is not the point. Azzarello should not have ripped it off if he did not have the proper context to do so. He wrote himself into that corner.

Yes, because we know for certain that they never see the light of day or the opposite sex. We absolutely know that for a fact, right? OH WAIT.

Wait..... ripped off... No. This is NOTHING like that Apokalyps story you keep saying he 'Ripped off.' That one had a bleak tone of an entire world that functions on the basis of psychologically shaping someone to worship their 'God.' They had any and all potential for free will removed. THIS is a story that shows Wonder Woman how you can't leap to conclusions without knowing all the facts, because things aren't always as black and white as they seem. Because she had no idea if they are allowed to see the light of day or not, or if they are allowed to be free. OH WAIT, these are all things that YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER AND ARE ALSO JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS.

Avatar image for alch21
Posted By Alch21

Story wise, amazing choice. You and I know, theres going to be some Male Amazons who will leave and stop working for him, maybe some already have. I mean they make God like weapons, someones gotta think of the potential here.

Avatar image for joshmightbe
Posted By joshmightbe

@DarthShap: Hephaestus being a god more than likely views humans as little more than animals so to him buying them would be along the lines of buying a dog, not saying it's right just putting it out there but the women who sell them are their mothers, the people who should be their first line of defense against harm. They are the evil ones, they are the ones betraying a sacred biological bond that most wild animals wouldn't break. This is more evil than anything Lex Luthor or even the Joker have ever done as far as I'm concerned and it makes me lose all respect for Wonder Woman's people.

Avatar image for fables87
Posted By fables87

Okay, coming from a die-hard Wonder Woman fan this is what I want. More mythology! Making the Amazons more violent is fine by me. Always thought they could do a sick Wonder Woman comic for Vertigo . I mean let's face the facts: if Wonder Woman really focused on the myth, she'd only have one boob. I also think this is a great idea because he's making the comic more enjoyable for guys again. Yes she's a feminist icon, but it was a guy who created her.

Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Posted By The Mighty Monarch

@DarthShap said:

@DIOMJK said:

@DarthShap: Thats not what I meant and you know it. The only way I even see a slavery angle by the end of the book is that they call him master, but historically when you learn a trade you have a master and his apprentice(s). Besides that, I see a man raising a bunch of children who would have otherwise been killed over their "birth defect", as it were, the same way his mother tried to kill him when she threw him off of mount Olympus for being ugly (according to greek mythology). He's raising them out of compassion, and they reciprocated. So what if he had to "buy" them in order to keep their mothers from killing them. Check your civil war history, there existed men who bought slaves in an attempt to rescue them from a far worse fate than if they let them be. If you don't like the story, fine, but don't attempt to make unfounded claims because you're upset over the direction of a story after a reboot.

Slave owners never think they do something wrong. That does not mean they do not own slaves. You do know there are alternatives to owning slaves, like freeing them and employing them.

Just saying.

So saving them from death just to drop them off at an orphanage instead of raising them as children and then employing them? Because who's to say they aren't 'employed?' Who's to say they aren't 'free' if they so choose? Were there any restraints or disciplinary devices? Did any character at any point yet ask 'Are you allowed out of here ever?'

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@RockyRaccoon37 said:

@DarthShap said:

I really do not think that it was the point. Because you do no cease to be a slave just because your master treats you right, especially if you do not know any better.

The original point showed that Superman could not win because Apokolips had been completely corrupted by Darkseid, to the point where he was considered to be God by the people.

The point of the rip-off is that not everything is black or white and that there are some shades of grey. But I am not sure it works here because to say in 2012 that sometimes slavery is "grey" is just stupid.

It's not about "the master treating you right"-- It's questioning the notion of freedom, asking what it means to be a slave, and looking critically at the role of the liberator.

You can think of it as a parallel to any of America's recent wars to "free" people enslaved to their totalitarian governments. Or think of freedom as defined in our everyday lives-- aren't we slaves in some way to material things; we're slaves to the economy, a system out of our control, and slaves to our jobs so we can (often barely) earn enough to maintain a level of happiness (usually defined by the spending of monies on material things). But we endure because true freedom is chaotic, unpredictable and new, and most people would sooner have a safe and familiar illusion of freedom.

Just as these "slaves" would sooner stay with Hephaestus, because anything else would be entirely unknown. In the same way that he defends his "slaves" our system will protect us so long as we obey it's rules. Why not stay a piece in that system so long as it protects you?

You're thinking of notions of slavery and freedom in very narrow terms, you need to think of it here (but also in general) in a more abstract sense-- what does it mean to free from everything we know?

Not having to stay in one place your entire life is a good start. The possibility to have sex a few times in your lifetime is also nice.

If it were symbolic, it would make sense to some degree because "liberators" rarely free people. However, considering the conditions, it does not work.

Avatar image for darthshap
Edited By DarthShap

@joshmightbe said:

@DarthShap: Hephaestus being a god more than likely views humans as little more than animals so to him buying them would be along the lines of buying a dog, not saying it's right just putting it out there but the women who sell them are their mothers, the people who should be their first line of defense against harm. They are the evil ones, they are the ones betraying a sacred biological bond that most wild animals wouldn't break. This is more evil than anything Lex Luthor or even the Joker have ever done as far as I'm concerned and it makes me lose all respect for Wonder Woman's people.

I agree.

@fables87 said:

Okay, coming from a die-hard Wonder Woman fan this is what I want. More mythology! Making the Amazons more violent is fine by me. Always thought they could do a sick Wonder Woman comic for Vertigo . I mean let's face the facts: if Wonder Woman really focused on the myth, she'd only have one boob. I also think this is a great idea because he's making the comic more enjoyable for guys again. Yes she's a feminist icon, but it was a guy who created her.

A feminist guy.

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Yes, because we know for certain that they never see the light of day or the opposite sex. We absolutely know that for a fact, right? OH WAIT.

Wait..... ripped off... No. This is NOTHING like that Apokalyps story you keep saying he 'Ripped off.' That one had a bleak tone of an entire world that functions on the basis of psychologically shaping someone to worship their 'God.' They had any and all potential for free will removed. THIS is a story that shows Wonder Woman how you can't leap to conclusions without knowing all the facts, because things aren't always as black and white as they seem. Because she had no idea if they are allowed to see the light of day or not, or if they are allowed to be free. OH WAIT, these are all things that YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER AND ARE ALSO JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS.

Well, that is exactly what I am saying. That it is the exact same scene (Big guy gets beaten, is thrown out to the slaves. Hero screams "you are free". Slaves help the guy up. Guy explains why they did.) but the context is different so it does not work.

Avatar image for joshmightbe
Posted By joshmightbe

@DarthShap: He also invented the polygraph

Avatar image for darthshap
Edited By DarthShap

@joshmightbe said:

@DarthShap: He also invented the polygraph

I know, some say it inspired him for the lasso of truth. :)

Avatar image for rockyraccoon37
Posted By RockyRaccoon37

@DarthShap said:

@RockyRaccoon37 said:

@DarthShap said:

I really do not think that it was the point. Because you do no cease to be a slave just because your master treats you right, especially if you do not know any better.

The original point showed that Superman could not win because Apokolips had been completely corrupted by Darkseid, to the point where he was considered to be God by the people.

The point of the rip-off is that not everything is black or white and that there are some shades of grey. But I am not sure it works here because to say in 2012 that sometimes slavery is "grey" is just stupid.

It's not about "the master treating you right"-- It's questioning the notion of freedom, asking what it means to be a slave, and looking critically at the role of the liberator.

You can think of it as a parallel to any of America's recent wars to "free" people enslaved to their totalitarian governments. Or think of freedom as defined in our everyday lives-- aren't we slaves in some way to material things; we're slaves to the economy, a system out of our control, and slaves to our jobs so we can (often barely) earn enough to maintain a level of happiness (usually defined by the spending of monies on material things). But we endure because true freedom is chaotic, unpredictable and new, and most people would sooner have a safe and familiar illusion of freedom.

Just as these "slaves" would sooner stay with Hephaestus, because anything else would be entirely unknown. In the same way that he defends his "slaves" our system will protect us so long as we obey it's rules. Why not stay a piece in that system so long as it protects you?

You're thinking of notions of slavery and freedom in very narrow terms, you need to think of it here (but also in general) in a more abstract sense-- what does it mean to free from everything we know?

Not having to stay in one place your entire life is a good start. The possibility to have sex a few times in your lifetime is also nice.

If it were symbolic, it would make sense to some degree because "liberators" rarely free people. However, considering the conditions, it does not work.

At no point is it ever mentioned that they can not leave. And again, what determines you or I leaving the country? Technically I could stow away on a boat and just end up somewhere, or I would need money which means I would need a job, which means....

You're still thinking to literally.

Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Posted By The Mighty Monarch

@DarthShap said:

@joshmightbe said:

@DarthShap: Hephaestus being a god more than likely views humans as little more than animals so to him buying them would be along the lines of buying a dog, not saying it's right just putting it out there but the women who sell them are their mothers, the people who should be their first line of defense against harm. They are the evil ones, they are the ones betraying a sacred biological bond that most wild animals wouldn't break. This is more evil than anything Lex Luthor or even the Joker have ever done as far as I'm concerned and it makes me lose all respect for Wonder Woman's people.

I agree.

@fables87 said:

Okay, coming from a die-hard Wonder Woman fan this is what I want. More mythology! Making the Amazons more violent is fine by me. Always thought they could do a sick Wonder Woman comic for Vertigo . I mean let's face the facts: if Wonder Woman really focused on the myth, she'd only have one boob. I also think this is a great idea because he's making the comic more enjoyable for guys again. Yes she's a feminist icon, but it was a guy who created her.

A feminist guy.

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Yes, because we know for certain that they never see the light of day or the opposite sex. We absolutely know that for a fact, right? OH WAIT.

Wait..... ripped off... No. This is NOTHING like that Apokalyps story you keep saying he 'Ripped off.' That one had a bleak tone of an entire world that functions on the basis of psychologically shaping someone to worship their 'God.' They had any and all potential for free will removed. THIS is a story that shows Wonder Woman how you can't leap to conclusions without knowing all the facts, because things aren't always as black and white as they seem. Because she had no idea if they are allowed to see the light of day or not, or if they are allowed to be free. OH WAIT, these are all things that YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER AND ARE ALSO JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS.

Well, that is exactly what I am saying. That it is the exact same scene (Big guy gets beaten, is thrown out to the slaves. Hero screams "you are free". Slaves help the guy up. Guy explains why they did.) but the context is different so it does not work.

The context is DRASTICALLY different. And on Apokalypse.... Superman KNOWS Darkseid is an evil guy, Wonder Woman knows NEXT TO NOTHING about the conditions here with Hephaestus, she goes in, lasso a' blazing, because SHE DOESN'T KNOW. The context doesn't make this a rip off that doesn't work, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

I mean, Wonder Woman has always been a rip-off of the original Amazons, oh but they were nice so the different context means it doesn't work, is that right?

Avatar image for dragonfirexl
Posted By DragonfireXL

What did Azzarello rip off exactly?

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@The Mighty Monarch said:

The context is DRASTICALLY different. And on Apokalypse.... Superman KNOWS Darkseid is an evil guy, Wonder Woman knows NEXT TO NOTHING about the conditions here with Hephaestus, she goes in, lasso a' blazing, because SHE DOESN'T KNOW. The context doesn't make this a rip off that doesn't work, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

I mean, Wonder Woman has always been a rip-off of the original Amazons, oh but they were nice so the different context means it doesn't work, is that right?

So you are saying that the two scenes just look similar by coincidence? OK, that is your opinion but I disagree.

Avatar image for joshmightbe
Posted By joshmightbe

I'm shocked at the amount of people referring to the Amazons selling their children as a moral grey area. It's not grey, it's evil pure and simple. Any woman who would do that do her own child is unfit to exist let alone be looked up to

Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Posted By The Mighty Monarch

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

The context is DRASTICALLY different. And on Apokalypse.... Superman KNOWS Darkseid is an evil guy, Wonder Woman knows NEXT TO NOTHING about the conditions here with Hephaestus, she goes in, lasso a' blazing, because SHE DOESN'T KNOW. The context doesn't make this a rip off that doesn't work, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

I mean, Wonder Woman has always been a rip-off of the original Amazons, oh but they were nice so the different context means it doesn't work, is that right?

So you are saying that the two scenes just look similar by coincidence? OK, that is your opinion but I disagree.

You seem to have this AMAZING ability to completely miss the main points of people's arguments and argue more often than not the less important details instead of trying to counter the stronger arguments.

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

The context is DRASTICALLY different. And on Apokalypse.... Superman KNOWS Darkseid is an evil guy, Wonder Woman knows NEXT TO NOTHING about the conditions here with Hephaestus, she goes in, lasso a' blazing, because SHE DOESN'T KNOW. The context doesn't make this a rip off that doesn't work, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

I mean, Wonder Woman has always been a rip-off of the original Amazons, oh but they were nice so the different context means it doesn't work, is that right?

So you are saying that the two scenes just look similar by coincidence? OK, that is your opinion but I disagree.

You seem to have this AMAZING ability to completely miss the main points of people's arguments and argue more often than not the less important details instead of trying to counter the stronger arguments.

That's what law school does to you.

Avatar image for drewhlmw
Posted By DrewHLMW

i know Hera already dealt with the amazons and after reading issue 7 they sort of had it coming.

but shouldnt superman or batman or some hero have wondered why ships crews kept disappearing and looked into it?and why does the brothers have to work the forge 24/7 hasnt hephestus ever heard of holidays

Avatar image for the_devil_tiger
Posted By The Devil Tiger

They are two way to dehumanize people : dismissing them, and idolizing them. Giving flaw to amazonian culture is only giving true equality between men and women. Beside of that, there's nothing more boring than a "flawless" society. Didn't read this issue, because my access to comics is uneasy these times, but this can be a good idea.

Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Posted By The Mighty Monarch

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

The context is DRASTICALLY different. And on Apokalypse.... Superman KNOWS Darkseid is an evil guy, Wonder Woman knows NEXT TO NOTHING about the conditions here with Hephaestus, she goes in, lasso a' blazing, because SHE DOESN'T KNOW. The context doesn't make this a rip off that doesn't work, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

I mean, Wonder Woman has always been a rip-off of the original Amazons, oh but they were nice so the different context means it doesn't work, is that right?

So you are saying that the two scenes just look similar by coincidence? OK, that is your opinion but I disagree.

You seem to have this AMAZING ability to completely miss the main points of people's arguments and argue more often than not the less important details instead of trying to counter the stronger arguments.

That's what law school does to you.

Law school teaches you how to argue ineptly and infuriate people who think you're completely missing the point because you never address the strong counter arguments?

Actually that doesn't surprise me.

Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Posted By The Mighty Monarch

@DrewHLMW: Because who says they all work the forge constantly? Who says they don't get vacation time or reasonable hours or anything like that?

Avatar image for joshmightbe
Posted By joshmightbe

I find it funny that everyone looks on countries where people abandoned baby girls with moral outrage but see the concept of abandoning baby boys as a moral grey area

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Law school teaches you how to argue ineptly and infuriate people who think you're completely missing the point because you never address the strong counter arguments?

Actually that doesn't surprise me.

No, just that if an argument has huge flaws, and yours has, they should be addressed, especially for a counter argument.

Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Posted By The Mighty Monarch

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Law school teaches you how to argue ineptly and infuriate people who think you're completely missing the point because you never address the strong counter arguments?

Actually that doesn't surprise me.

No, just that if an argument has huge flaws, and yours has, they should be addressed, especially for a counter argument.

Mmmm, because your arguments are completely flawless?

You've chipped away a few loosely hung decorations, but have barely even attempted to tackle the foundation.

Avatar image for danhimself
Posted By danhimself

honestly think about how well every Wonder Woman series sold before this...not very well at all...it was the least selling book out of DC's big three...they needed to make some big changes to the mythos or do the same thing over again expecting different results

Avatar image for darthshap
Edited By DarthShap

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Law school teaches you how to argue ineptly and infuriate people who think you're completely missing the point because you never address the strong counter arguments?

Actually that doesn't surprise me.

No, just that if an argument has huge flaws, and yours has, they should be addressed, especially for a counter argument.

Mmmm, because your arguments are completely flawless?

You've chipped away a few loosely hung decorations, but have barely even attempted to tackle the foundation.

Did I say my arguments were flawless? I am not the one who "made it personal" right there, you were. I am not the one who is infuriated, you are. And it is really not my problem.

Anyway... amazons.

Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Posted By The Mighty Monarch

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Law school teaches you how to argue ineptly and infuriate people who think you're completely missing the point because you never address the strong counter arguments?

Actually that doesn't surprise me.

No, just that if an argument has huge flaws, and yours has, they should be addressed, especially for a counter argument.

Mmmm, because your arguments are completely flawless?

You've chipped away a few loosely hung decorations, but have barely even attempted to tackle the foundation.

Did I say my arguments were flawless? I am not the one who "made it personal" right there, you were. I am not the one who is infuriated, you are. And it is really not my problem.

Because you keep saying the same thing. No matter how many times ANYONE seems to point out how little we know about the working conditions at Hephaestus' forge, YOU KEEP COUNTER ARGUING WITH ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOU TREAT AS FACT.

Avatar image for rockyraccoon37
Posted By RockyRaccoon37

@joshmightbe said:

I find it funny that everyone looks on countries where people abandoned baby girls with moral outrage but see the concept of abandoning baby boys as a moral grey area

What are you talking about? No one thinks that.

Avatar image for joshmightbe
Posted By joshmightbe

@RockyRaccoon37: All kinds of people on this thread have been talking about this being a grey area and saying crap like we shouldn't judge this behavior by our standards on this thread.

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Because you keep saying the same thing. No matter how many times ANYONE seems to point out how little we know about the working conditions at Hephaestus' forge, YOU KEEP COUNTER ARGUING WITH ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOU TREAT AS FACT.

I do not know what to say. I do not need to see the level of pay, the numbers of hours worked and the number of holidays to differentiate slavery from employment.

When a group of males only are traded against weapons, call their owner "master ", are submissive, all wear the same clothes, and appear to live in what looks a lot like a prison with bars on the windows of their doors, it does seem not completely crazy to call it "slavery".