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 CommentsRefresh
Avatar image for docfatalis
Posted By DocFatalis

@RockyRaccoon37 said:


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?

As a soldier, I've been to several countries where people were being enslaved, and I can guarantee you that there is absolutely nothing abstract about that. This forum is not the place for that, but I've taken pictures to help establish UN reports and there is freaking nothing abstract about slavery nor the way children who are being born slaves feel. And no, this is a status that is never comfortable and yes it erodes people sanity and self esteem.

Avatar image for crimson_butterfly
Posted By Crimson_Butterfly

How can WW be raise with compassion and love if the people who raise her are criminals how come she didnt know what her sisters are doing supposedly that she was stuck with them in an island for years is she stupid or what? The writer should fix this plothole.

Avatar image for imsirius
Posted By imsirius

Dropped. Wish I could go back to before the Straczyinski storyline and continue on from there.

Avatar image for phaedrusgr
Posted By Phaedrusgr

Sucks. Big time.

Avatar image for roldan
Posted By Roldan

@DarthShap said:

@RazzaTazz said:

@DarthShap: There are easy enough answers for each of your questions, but it is clear you don't like this development. I on the other hand think it is pretty interesting.

It is interesting as a story, sure.

But it makes no sense with Diana still being the same compassionate person and it destroys pretty much everything Pre-New 52.

Hippolyta was never treated this badly. Even Amazons Attacks seems in-character by comparison.

Well Diana only found out about this recently. Diana was also called an outsider of the Amazons. So yes, it makes sense that she's more compassionate. This is basically the same thing they did with Diana being born a demigod. She had been told one thing but in reality it was something else. It makes it more interesting and places the Amazons more to their true myth.

Avatar image for billy_batson
Posted By Billy Batson

Let's see how many posts this will get. CBR's thread has about 90 pages of this (sure it continued from the preview but still).
Anyway, in Azz we trust.
BB

Avatar image for catpanexe
Posted By CATPANEXE

Everyone's history was changed with New 52 (sort of the whole point), so i would say " either way ". I won't doubt that there will be nothing but similar revelations for every character as time goes on. What was canon just isn't anymore. Fact of DC reading life.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a77aa5e0a324
Posted By deactivated-5a77aa5e0a324

Okay, I initially had some reservations about the Amazons being rebooted into this violent a society. However, the more I think about it, the more I enjoy what's being done. Some commenters are saying that it isn't feasible for Wonder Woman to become the compassionate individual that she is because she grew up in a society that does horrible things to men. To me, it's kind of like saying every child of a broken home is destined to become a jerk. Yes, that can be the case, but it doesn't happen all the time. It isn't fair to judge a person based on her/his parents' actions. Diana turning out as wonderfully as she did is another facet of individuality to her character that allows her compassion to shine against the crimes of her family. Commenters are also saying that there is no grey area about what the Amazons do to their mates and male children. With that, I completely agree; killing the men they use to procreate is not acceptable. Wanting to kill male babies for being male is not okay. I will also say I do not condone slavery. However, after I read this issue, I did not see the agreement between the Amazons and Hephaestus as slavery. Yes, Hephaestus gave the Amazons weapons in exchange for the babies, but I was under the impression that he did this to save them, not in order to have his own personal workforce. He was able to empathize with the male children, and because he'd been in their situation of not being good enough, he did whatever he needed with the Amazons in order to secure their safety. Personally, I love this new conception of Diana. Although I loved her before, it always seemed like Amazon society was a bit too perfect -and oftentimes boring- for me to take it seriously. These new developments add intrigue and humanity to the demigoddess.

Avatar image for perry_411
Posted By perry_411

These are some dirty bitches.

Avatar image for eyz
Posted By Eyz

I still preferred Perez's reboot/origins over the current one (or even his whle run - simply said)

Avatar image for pingclang
Posted By pingclang

Good or bad? My response? *Facepalm* Enjoy.

Avatar image for wdw
Edited By WDW

Perez had some good elements but that version of Wonder Woman was pretty boring having rered it recently. It was just a linear progression of predictable events. It also left wonder woman with no credible antagonist save cheetah or internal turmoil. This new version is much more exciting and opens the door to an incredible amount of intrigue.

It also brings Amazons closer to the original greek myth of the female warriors.

Avatar image for billy_batson
Posted By Billy Batson

@Erik:

Since you're a big fan of Wonder Woman, are you liking the new series?
BB

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@Roldansaid:

@DarthShap said:

@RazzaTazz said:

@DarthShap: There are easy enough answers for each of your questions, but it is clear you don't like this development. I on the other hand think it is pretty interesting.

It is interesting as a story, sure.

But it makes no sense with Diana still being the same compassionate person and it destroys pretty much everything Pre-New 52.

Hippolyta was never treated this badly. Even Amazons Attacks seems in-character by comparison.

Well Diana only found out about this recently. Diana was also called an outsider of the Amazons. So yes, it makes sense that she's more compassionate. This is basically the same thing they did with Diana being born a demigod. She had been told one thing but in reality it was something else. It makes it more interesting and places the Amazons more to their true myth.

That is not the point. The point is this (CBR review):

For starters, this plot development simply doesn't make much sense. If this is a part of The Amazon culture, then why wouldn't Diana know about it? How can Diana be who we know her to be -- good and proud, strong and brave, honest and true, full of compassion and power -- and come from and/or agree with the supposed ways of Azzarello's Amazons? If The Amazons do not believe their actions to be shameful (and they do not seem to) then why hide them from Diana or anyone else? If Diana did not know, as Azzarello's story seems to imply, then we must assume Diana to be a naïve fool at best and galactically stupid at worst. If Diana is a naïve fool unaware she was raised by killers, rapists, liars and abandoners, how can we believe that she would she grow into the honorable, heroic and compassionate person she is when these are the people who raised her? Lastly, perhaps Azzarello is suggesting Diana's origin for coming to man's world (to help them, to bring them compassion, etc.) is different than what we know it to be. However, since he has not said as much, we must assume her mission is the same. Why would a group of dishonorable liars, thieves, killers, etc., send the best of themselves to man's world with a mission of any sort other than utter destruction? In the end, it's a bold and risky idea that feels executed for shock value and doesn't stand up to examination.

@divingfalcon713 said:

Okay, I initially had some reservations about the Amazons being rebooted into this violent a society. However, the more I think about it, the more I enjoy what's being done. Some commenters are saying that it isn't feasible for Wonder Woman to become the compassionate individual that she is because she grew up in a society that does horrible things to men. To me, it's kind of like saying every child of a broken home is destined to become a jerk. Yes, that can be the case, but it doesn't happen all the time. It isn't fair to judge a person based on her/his parents' actions. Diana turning out as wonderfully as she did is another facet of individuality to her character that allows her compassion to shine against the crimes of her family.

Of course people do not necessarily become their parents. But where do they get their values then? School? Church? Books? Sesame street? The point is, values are not natural so if nobody taught them to you, there is no reason why you would have them. In Diana's case, for the first 20 years of her life, she only knew these psychopath Amazons.

@divingfalcon713 said:

OHowever, after I read this issue, I did not see the agreement between the Amazons and Hephaestus as slavery. Yes, Hephaestus gave the Amazons weapons in exchange for the babies, but I was under the impression that he did this to save them, not in order to have his own personal workforce. He was able to empathize with the male children, and because he'd been in their situation of not being good enough, he did whatever he needed with the Amazons in order to secure their safety.

I do not see how the fact that he saved them initially makes it less slavery. In some countries, people sell their children because they cannot afford to feed them. It does not change what the children are, slaves.

Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Posted By The Mighty Monarch

@DarthShap said:

@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".

So even if they work reasonable hours, have time off, and the ability to leave if they want; it could still be slavery?

I'm not saying they do have those things, but we don't know if they don't.

It seems like the places they slept weren't locked, they all came out when Diana caused commotion.

Sometimes calling someone 'master' happens when you're an apprentice. Or a Jedi. All the trainee Jedi called their superiors 'Master' and listened to every word they said and wore the same cloak. Are they slaves too because of that?

Avatar image for deactivated-5a4e0e8ea3dfb
Posted By deactivated-5a4e0e8ea3dfb

Wow. A lot of discussion on this topic. Guess its having the impact DC wanted (Bioware would agree as well :o )

Though I've never been a great fan of Wonder Woman as a solo series (just never felt it carried the same weight as others but she's always been great in team titles) I did find the contradiction of preaching peace while living a warrior's code to be better than this change. I do appreciate how Azzarello has grounded these characters in a depiction closer to their mythology. But I don't think he's pushing the envelope.

Making this change definitely brings a new dimension to the Amazons and I have to admit its a fair one in a lot of ways. The concept behind the Amazons are women that shunned the rest of the world because of the maltreatment they received at the hands of men. To turn fear into strength they took on a doctrine similar to what Azzarello is using. It makes sense. Are their actions "evil" in our sense of morality? Yes. But they were at one time the victims so we should have some sympathy for them.

This comment is going to piss some people off but imagine if WWII had ended and everyone that had been in a Nazi concentration camp formed their own country and wouldn't allow anyone in, killing anyone that tried. Would those actions be considered extreme and "evil" to others? Yes. But you can understand why they might go a bit extreme. Also like the fact it ties in the Olympians that were created in 2009 as Zeus' answer to the failure of the Amazons to change the world.

Where I find fault with Azzarello is not pushing the envelope. I think it was a horrible mistake to not have Diana conscious of these actions. I think she should have been aware and been repulsed by it. It would be nearly impossible for her not to know. She lives on an island. The Amazons aren't that numerous (in every incarnation every Amazon knows everyone else). She would have been present at at least a birth or two and the odds that one of them wasn't male is extremely low. She would have eventually been queen and would have to know the customs of her people. So her not knowing about this is too much of a stretch.

I get that Azzarello wants to keep the ideal of Diana alive despite these changes and it still could have been done. Azzarello could have written Diana as knowing about this and this knowledge is one of the reasons she left the island. Rather than embrace her culture Diana could have easily been shown as being repulsed by the idea, voicing her opinion that the Amazons needed to change their ways but was ignored by them and her mother wouldn't change things on the fear of civil war. So when Steve Trevor came along and she had a reason to leave the island Diana took it and went to live in the world. Why didn't she tell people or come back to stop this practice? Because she couldn't turn against her people. Simple. Easy to understand. Would most people be able to turn in their parent or a loved one if they knew a terrible secret? Crime statistics say no, that most times this knowledge remains in the family. So why couldn't this be the same thing? Diana would have been carrying this secret around for years and as a result hasn't gone back to Themyscira because of the ideological conflict between her and her "sisters". Now that everything has changed given this revision and events of past issues Diana has the chance to correct these wrongs and enact the changes she had always voiced.

Would keep her character they way it should while at the same time bring in a conflict and long lasting plot point to the series that Wonder Woman has tended to lack.

Avatar image for j_saints
Posted By J_Saints

I really like this idea, I was reading the first four issues and then I dropped it (mainly to thin out my pull list.), but at the time I was loving the whole Demi-God thing they had going on. It kind of reminded me of Percy Jackson, especially with Hera not liking Wonder Woman.

In all honesty, Wonder Woman has not always been a very popular character, especially when compared to Batman and Superman and that is why I believe this change will be good for her. It's an easier concept to understand, and it is also very close to the origins of the Ancient Amazons of Greece and Rome.

Plus, Demi-Gods are badass.

Avatar image for wdw
Edited By WDW

@DarthShap said:

@Roldansaid:

@DarthShap said:

@RazzaTazz said:

@DarthShap: There are easy enough answers for each of your questions, but it is clear you don't like this development. I on the other hand think it is pretty interesting.

It is interesting as a story, sure.

But it makes no sense with Diana still being the same compassionate person and it destroys pretty much everything Pre-New 52.

Hippolyta was never treated this badly. Even Amazons Attacks seems in-character by comparison.

Well Diana only found out about this recently. Diana was also called an outsider of the Amazons. So yes, it makes sense that she's more compassionate. This is basically the same thing they did with Diana being born a demigod. She had been told one thing but in reality it was something else. It makes it more interesting and places the Amazons more to their true myth.

That is not the point. The point is this (CBR review):

For starters, this plot development simply doesn't make much sense. If this is a part of The Amazon culture, then why wouldn't Diana know about it? How can Diana be who we know her to be -- good and proud, strong and brave, honest and true, full of compassion and power -- and come from and/or agree with the supposed ways of Azzarello's Amazons? If The Amazons do not believe their actions to be shameful (and they do not seem to) then why hide them from Diana or anyone else? If Diana did not know, as Azzarello's story seems to imply, then we must assume Diana to be a naïve fool at best and galactically stupid at worst. If Diana is a naïve fool unaware she was raised by killers, rapists, liars and abandoners, how can we believe that she would she grow into the honorable, heroic and compassionate person she is when these are the people who raised her? Lastly, perhaps Azzarello is suggesting Diana's origin for coming to man's world (to help them, to bring them compassion, etc.) is different than what we know it to be. However, since he has not said as much, we must assume her mission is the same. Why would a group of dishonorable liars, thieves, killers, etc., send the best of themselves to man's world with a mission of any sort other than utter destruction? In the end, it's a bold and risky idea that feels executed for shock value and doesn't stand up to examination.

@divingfalcon713 said:

Okay, I initially had some reservations about the Amazons being rebooted into this violent a society. However, the more I think about it, the more I enjoy what's being done. Some commenters are saying that it isn't feasible for Wonder Woman to become the compassionate individual that she is because she grew up in a society that does horrible things to men. To me, it's kind of like saying every child of a broken home is destined to become a jerk. Yes, that can be the case, but it doesn't happen all the time. It isn't fair to judge a person based on her/his parents' actions. Diana turning out as wonderfully as she did is another facet of individuality to her character that allows her compassion to shine against the crimes of her family.

Of course people do not necessarily become their parents. But where do they get their values then? School? Church? Books? Sesame street? The point is, values are not natural so if nobody taught them to you, there is no reason why you would have them. In Diana's case, for the first 20 years of her life, she only knew these psychopath Amazons.

@divingfalcon713 said:

OHowever, after I read this issue, I did not see the agreement between the Amazons and Hephaestus as slavery. Yes, Hephaestus gave the Amazons weapons in exchange for the babies, but I was under the impression that he did this to save them, not in order to have his own personal workforce. He was able to empathize with the male children, and because he'd been in their situation of not being good enough, he did whatever he needed with the Amazons in order to secure their safety.

I do not see how the fact that he saved them initially makes it less slavery. In some countries, people sell their children because they cannot afford to feed them. It does not change what the children are, slaves.

This is my answer to the CBR review

The Plot development makes sense! at this point we barely know the Amazons history and Wonder Woman is only in her 20's it would be easy to hide the past deeds of the Amazons. How do you know the Amazons do not believe their actions are shameful but neccesary? Also the last raid the Amazons went on most likely occured as early as 200 years ago to at most 50 years ago based on the design of the ship dipicted in the flash back in Wonder Woman 7. Wonder Woman could easily be oblivious to the past. Also to label the Amazons killers rapists liar and abandoners because of these actions is a little misleading and entirely unfair The Amazons did what they needed to do to survive as Amazons. Exactly the same thing every society in history has done. (Hence wars) For Example. Aliens tracking United States over its 200+ years of its history would see imesurable amounts of killers rapists liars and abandoners doing it to there OWN people I may add. Same goes for every other society and country. Yet we still see honorable, heroic, people from these societies (SUPERMAN). In the Amazons case if the original orgin is still true then they are the resurected souls of women brutally KILLED in the past. You can bet your ass if I was abused my whole life my male dominance then killed because of it and ultimatly resurrected to an immortal Amazon, You can bet your ass I would have an extreme aversion to men and would not ask questions of I had to kill one in order to support my race untill somone like Wonder Woman showed me the errors of my ways..... Its a classic theme. and well done if thats the direction AZZ is going in.

The CBR review is confusing what we previously knew of Amazons to what is happening in the NEW 52.... he is looking for a reconciliation and there is not going to be one.

Obviously the CBR review is an outsider looking into the AMAZON world and judging..... as an insider to his own world the UNITED STATES or where ever he is from would he make the same harsh judgments watching the 6 oclock news?

Azzarello is setting Wonder Woman up to someone who is truly heroic in that she will have to bridge the GAP between 2 differen societies who think they are both right. same as real life.

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@The Mighty Monarch said:

So even if they work reasonable hours, have time off, and the ability to leave if they want; it could still be slavery?

I'm not saying they do have those things, but we don't know if they don't.

It seems like the places they slept weren't locked, they all came out when Diana caused commotion.

Sometimes calling someone 'master' happens when you're an apprentice. Or a Jedi. All the trainee Jedi called their superiors 'Master' and listened to every word they said and wore the same cloak. Are they slaves too because of that?

From the moment you buy or trade someone, yes it is slavery. Is it so hard to understand?

From the moment we are told they were sold to Hephaistos, that is what is supposed to be on your mind. It is what Wonder Woman understood. And it is never contested. It is that simple.

If Azzarello wanted us to understand that this was not slavery, he would not have had the slave call Hephaistos "master", he would have had the slaves dressed in all kinds of clothes and not living in a prison (and the doors do not need to be locked for it to look like a prison, they are not going anywhere anyway, they do not know better), or you know, someone saying "we are not slaves".

It is never contested.

Avatar image for azza04
Posted By azza04

I quite like the sound of the new Amazon's, it makes for a ton of interesting stories for Diana and the DC universe in general.

Avatar image for darthshap
Edited By DarthShap

@WDW said:

This is my answer to the CBR review

The Plot development makes sense! at this point we barely know the Amazons history and Wonder Woman is only in her 20's it would be easy to hide the past deeds of the Amazons. How do you know the Amazons do not believe their actions are shameful but neccesary? Also the last raid the Amazons went on most likely occured as early as 200 years ago to at most 50 years ago based on the design of the ship dipicted in the flash back in Wonder Woman 7. Wonder Woman could easily be oblivious to the past. Also to label the Amazons killers rapists liar and abandoners because of these actions is a little misleading. The Amazons did what they needed to do to survive as Amazons. Exactly the same thing every society in history has done. (Hence wars) For Example. Aliens tracking United States over its 200+ years of its history would see imesurable amounts of killers rapists liars and abandoners doing it to there OWN people I may add. Same goes for every other society and country. Yet we still see honorable, heroic, people from these societies. In the Amazons case if the original orgin is still true then they are the resurected souls of women brutally KILLED in the passed. They have a reason to be bias towards men and continue to hold a grudge

The CBR review is confusing what we previously knew of Amazons to what is happening in the NEW 52.... he is looking for a reconciliation and there is not going to be one.

Obviously the CBR review is an outsider looking into the AMAZON world and judging..... as an insider to his own world the UNITED STATES or where ever he is from would he make the same harsh judgments watching the 6 oclock news?

Azzarello is setting Wonder Woman up to someone who is truly heroic in that she will have to bridge the GAP between 2 differen societies who think they are both right. same as real life.

200 years to 50 years? Errr...menopause and you know, natural death. It says in the book it happens three times per century.

And if what is necessary to your survival is to kill and abandon men, you teach your children that they do not deserve to die at an early age so they do not snap when thirty years later you ask them to kill their mate and abandon their baby boy.

Also, there is a difference between people doing what is necessary for survival and having a culture with only cold blooded killers and future cold blooded killers and who believe that death and abandonment are somewhat necessary to their survival. As I explained, this is why the Amazons were always the villains in Greek Mythology.

The reason why there are good people is because they are taught their values in one way or another but the primal Amazon value is that men do not deserve to live and Wonder Woman has only been in contact with them for the first twenty years of her life.

Avatar image for wdw
Posted By WDW

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

So even if they work reasonable hours, have time off, and the ability to leave if they want; it could still be slavery?

I'm not saying they do have those things, but we don't know if they don't.

It seems like the places they slept weren't locked, they all came out when Diana caused commotion.

Sometimes calling someone 'master' happens when you're an apprentice. Or a Jedi. All the trainee Jedi called their superiors 'Master' and listened to every word they said and wore the same cloak. Are they slaves too because of that?

From the moment you buy or trade someone, yes it is slavery. Is it so hard to understand?

From the moment we are told they were sold to Hephaistos, that is what is supposed to be on your mind. It is what Wonder Woman understood. And it is never contested. It is that simple.

If Azzarello wanted us to understand that this was not slavery, he would not have had the slave call Hephaistos "master", he would have had the slaves dressed in all kinds of clothes and not living in a prison (and the doors do not need to be locked for it to look like a prison, they are not going anywhere anyway, they do not know better), or you know, someone saying "we are not slaves".

It is never contested.

So surrogate mothers are slave traders? Adoption agencys Slave centers? The moment you buy or trade someone is not slavery slavery is the CONTINUED ACT of stripping stripping freedom from someone and forced work in addition to the buying and selling of somone.

the act of buying or selling somone on its own is not the final definition of slavery. Forced work is an intregal part of what slavery is combined with the buying selling or aquiring of slaves

Calling somone master also does not automatically imply slavery Master can be applicable to Teacher in the case of chinese culture

I agree Azzarello wanted the reader to think they are slaves as does Wonder Woman but in the end they are not actually slaves.

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@WDW said:

So surrogate mothers are slave traders? Adoption agencys Slave centers? The moment you buy or trade someone is not slavery slavery is the CONTINUED ACT of stripping stripping freedom from someone and forced work in addition to the buying and selling of somone.

the act of buying or selling somone on its own is not the final definition of slavery. Forced work is an intregal part of what slavery is combined with the buying selling or aquiring of slaves

Calling somone master also does not automatically imply slavery Master can be applicable to Teacher in the case of chinese culture

I agree Azzarello wanted the reader to think they are slaves as does Wonder Woman but in the end they are not actually slaves.

Surrogate mothers and adoption agencies do not buy people because people are legally not goods. From the moment they become goods, yes it is slavery, until they stopped being goods.

What makes you say they are not slaves "in the end"? Nothing indicates it! If that is what he wanted us to understand, he is not as good a writer as I thought he was because the words used, the costumes and the settings are not that clear and on the contrary pretty much confirms that they are indeed slaves.

Avatar image for razzatazz
Posted By RazzaTazz
@DarthShap said:

@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.

I don't agree with this point so much.  Having read and reviewed every single monthly issue to ever bear her name, I don't think this is as much of a disconnect from those 70 years, instead being something more akin to actually being a more regular comic book character.  Case in point, Diana can be said to be on of the last characters to exit the golden age into the silver age.  Whereas a lot of characters such as Hal Jordan and Barry Allen signaled the beginning of the silver age in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Diana had to wait until the late 60s to break free of the somewhat childish approach of Kanigher.  What comics are prone to do is to be quite sensitive to developments in other areas of culture, so for instance sci fi became more popular in the 1960s and so many characters were sci fi related.  There were later trends as well, and while Wonder Woman has been subjected to a few of them (like the kung fu themed mod girl, or Deodato's version of bad girl art), she has mostly stayed the same character, whereas most other character have changed throughout the course of their publication.  And while this does provide a degree of continuity for Diana, it also means that she gets kind of stale, as Jim Lee said, kind of like a grandmother figure.  
Avatar image for wdw
Posted By WDW

@DarthShap said:

@WDW said:

This is my answer to the CBR review

The Plot development makes sense! at this point we barely know the Amazons history and Wonder Woman is only in her 20's it would be easy to hide the past deeds of the Amazons. How do you know the Amazons do not believe their actions are shameful but neccesary? Also the last raid the Amazons went on most likely occured as early as 200 years ago to at most 50 years ago based on the design of the ship dipicted in the flash back in Wonder Woman 7. Wonder Woman could easily be oblivious to the past. Also to label the Amazons killers rapists liar and abandoners because of these actions is a little misleading. The Amazons did what they needed to do to survive as Amazons. Exactly the same thing every society in history has done. (Hence wars) For Example. Aliens tracking United States over its 200+ years of its history would see imesurable amounts of killers rapists liars and abandoners doing it to there OWN people I may add. Same goes for every other society and country. Yet we still see honorable, heroic, people from these societies. In the Amazons case if the original orgin is still true then they are the resurected souls of women brutally KILLED in the passed. They have a reason to be bias towards men and continue to hold a grudge

The CBR review is confusing what we previously knew of Amazons to what is happening in the NEW 52.... he is looking for a reconciliation and there is not going to be one.

Obviously the CBR review is an outsider looking into the AMAZON world and judging..... as an insider to his own world the UNITED STATES or where ever he is from would he make the same harsh judgments watching the 6 oclock news?

Azzarello is setting Wonder Woman up to someone who is truly heroic in that she will have to bridge the GAP between 2 differen societies who think they are both right. same as real life.

200 years to 50 years? Errr...menopause and you know, natural death. It says in the book it happens three times per century.

And if what is necessary to your survival is to kill and abandon men, you teach your children that they do not deserve to die at an early age so they do not snap when thirty years later you ask them to kill their mate and abandon their baby boy.

Also, there is a difference between people doing what is necessary for survival and having a culture with only cold blooded killers and future cold blooded killers and who believe that death and abandonment are somewhat necessary to their survival. As I explained, this is why the Amazons were always the villains in Greek Mythology.

The reason why there are good people is because they are taught their values in one way or another but the primal Amazon value is that men do not deserve to live and Wonder Woman has only been in contact with them for the first twenty years of her life.

Hephestus says 3 times a century but he does not say when the last time it happend if the amazons are 3000 years old then it happend 90 times. It also does not suggest the 3 times a century is exactly every 33 year per act!....is could be 3 nights every century! so to jump to conclusions is a little early. based on Wonder Womans age it is not every 33 years.

Again these ARE IMMORTAL women... considered above normal humans. there needs and experiance are alien to yours....ALSO They where murdered by men and resurected and that is what defines them. Vietnam we are told to think of the enemy as inhuman so its ok to kill them. as having died at the hands of a man and being resurrected are they supposed to embrace them with open arms?....No To the amazons men are inhuman. Wonder Woman is the buffer.

Avatar image for razzatazz
Posted By RazzaTazz
@joshmightbe said:

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

I never said it was grey, of course it is wrong, but the interesting thing is that it is wrong.  It adds depth to the character
Avatar image for razzatazz
Posted By RazzaTazz
@DrewHLMW said:

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

Well in the new 52 they have been on the scene for only about 7 years I think, and this probably happened last over twenty years ago judging by the maturity of the workers.  
Avatar image for fodigg
Posted By fodigg

I think that--just like the change in her personal origin from clay-child to god-child--it's a mixed bag.

Cons:

  • I think making the Amazons scarier you lose some of the idealism of Wonder Woman's character. The "paradise" of her home comes with a terrible cost, and while that is great fuel for stories and consistent with their mythic origins, it negates her traditional role as an ambassador of peace come to show us a better way. With this change, truly gone is Diana as the "guide for a world," and the new Wonder Woman really is just some young kid looking for a fight.
  • Combined with Diana's new "yay, a fight!" attitude, I'm picking up worrisome tones of 90s-style "gritter and angrier is better!" here. She does a lot of brooding in this book as well. I don't mind more aggressive takes on the character (e.g., Kingdom Come, Flashpoint), but I don't want her to turn into a "blood knight" either. Or to lose her personal idealism.

Pros:

  • It makes Diana special by giving her something to rebel against--she's not just some Amazon who wandered off the reservation, she's living ideals other Amazons are not (I hope).
  • It makes the Amazons seem less conflicted thematically and certainly less "holier than thou" in that they have some serious dirty laundry. The Amazons as a peaceful race ran completely counter to the mythic roots as warriors and resulted in very inconsistent portrayals of the Amazons, where they were often factionalized so that more dangerous sub-groups (e.g., Alkyone and her heretics) or splinter groups (e.g., the Bana) could be used as villains.
  • Wonder Woman & the Amazons needed a change that could stick, and simplifying them both these ways--making them more like well-known mythic interpretations such as Hercules and more traditional scary Amazons--is a good step toward making her more accessible to the average Joe.

Neutral:

  • Making the Amazons into dangerous man-killers vilifies them in a very old and tired fashion, and yet empowers them by casting them in the same light as much-celebrated male counterparts. The portrayal of women in a negative light was always something that DC's Amazons were an attempt to fight against (which I applaud), and yet by making the Amazons into dangerous, cultish warriors by default, it puts them on the same standing as traditionally celebrated masculine-run warrior races--Sparta, namely--who were celebrated not just for their prowess, but for their brutality. I think on this point it's a wash.

I think this change will be good for the character if they can maintain Wonder Woman's idealism as a strong personal trait as opposed to a broad Amazonian trait. I always thought the latter was a little too saccharine and inconsistent with their militant roots to begin with.

Avatar image for the_ghostshell
Posted By The_Ghostshell

@RazzaTazz said:

It adds depth to the character

co-signed

Avatar image for razzatazz
Posted By RazzaTazz
@Gambler said:

@RazzaTazz said:

It adds depth to the character

co-signed

Finally someone rational :) :P
Avatar image for superguy1591
Posted By Superguy1591

@DarthShap: She didn't get 21st century values from the Amazons. She develop the personality we see in the Wonder Woman books after 5 years living with humanity. She never felt at home with the Amazons that's why she left. Also, just because you're the princess doesn't mean you know everything. Keep in mind that Diana thought she was built by Hippolyta and given breath by Hera when all the Amazons knew that she was the daughter of Zeus.

Hippolyta clearly shielded Diana from the horrors of their society, it's clear and out there from BA's writing. Thank god they changed Diana's origins, DC did this thing where the only character allowed to grow was Batman. Thank god that other people are being given the chance to grow.

God bless these new 52 books.

Avatar image for superguy1591
Posted By Superguy1591

@joshmightbe, - Read the books, it was already answered. I could tell you, but I don't want to spoil the series for you. It's been a great run with BA, trust me. The only thing that has disappointed me so far with what DC has done to Diana is the fact that they kept her in her bikini. Would've looked sweet in some Diana greek battle amor.

Avatar image for darthshap
Edited By DarthShap

@WDW said:

Hephestus says 3 times a century but he does not say when the last time it happend if the amazons are 3000 years old then it happend 90 times. It also does not suggest the 3 times a century is exactly every 33 year per act!....is could be 3 nights every century! so to jump to conclusions is a little early. based on Wonder Womans age it is not every 33 years.

Again these ARE IMMORTAL women... considered above normal humans. there needs and experiance are alien to yours....ALSO They where murdered by men and resurected and that is what defines them. Vietnam we are told to think of the enemy as inhuman so its ok to kill them. as having died at the hands of a man and being resurrected are they supposed to embrace them with open arms?....No To the amazons men are inhuman. Wonder Woman is the buffer.

They were immortals pre-reboot, yes. I do not think they are now. Otherwise, why reproduce?

That is why three times every century made sense. Because women are fertile and strong at 33.

And how is Wonder-Woman's age relevant? She's the daughter of Zeus.It is not like he was on a boat.

Loading Video...

And I do not think they are resurrected souls either now. That was Perez' thing and it made sense because they were a finite number handcrafted by the gods but from what it now seems, the gods only care about themselves and no longer intervene in the creation of amazons, like they did pre-reboot.

Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Posted By The Mighty Monarch

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

So even if they work reasonable hours, have time off, and the ability to leave if they want; it could still be slavery?

I'm not saying they do have those things, but we don't know if they don't.

It seems like the places they slept weren't locked, they all came out when Diana caused commotion.

Sometimes calling someone 'master' happens when you're an apprentice. Or a Jedi. All the trainee Jedi called their superiors 'Master' and listened to every word they said and wore the same cloak. Are they slaves too because of that?

From the moment you buy or trade someone, yes it is slavery. Is it so hard to understand?

From the moment we are told they were sold to Hephaistos, that is what is supposed to be on your mind. It is what Wonder Woman understood. And it is never contested. It is that simple.

If Azzarello wanted us to understand that this was not slavery, he would not have had the slave call Hephaistos "master", he would have had the slaves dressed in all kinds of clothes and not living in a prison (and the doors do not need to be locked for it to look like a prison, they are not going anywhere anyway, they do not know better), or you know, someone saying "we are not slaves".

It is never contested.

So if some child is being SOLD as a slave, but I want to liberate them so I BUY them to avoid having the slavers on my ass, but I raise them as my own child; they're still a slave because of the simple act of buying them? One single moment in childhood defines an entire life?

But this would require us to believe that Hephaestus would have some sympathy for these abandoned children, right? OH WAIT. He was abandoned by his own mother, and by some mythological accounts HIMSELF RAISED TO BE A MASTER CRAFTSMAN. Is it so unreasonable to believe he's doing to these cast off children what was done to him after he was cast off? Doing unto others in his situation the kindness that was done to him?

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@Superguy1591 said:

@DarthShap: She didn't get 21st century values from the Amazons. She develop the personality we see in the Wonder Woman books after 5 years living with humanity. She never felt at home with the Amazons that's why she left. Also, just because you're the princess doesn't mean you know everything. Keep in mind that Diana thought she was built by Hippolyta and given breath by Hera when all the Amazons knew that she was the daughter of Zeus.

Hippolyta clearly shielded Diana from the horrors of their society, it's clear and out there from BA's writing. Thank god they changed Diana's origins, DC did this thing where the only character allowed to grow was Batman. Thank god that other people are being given the chance to grow.

God bless these new 52 books.

But why was she shielded for her own culture? Are they not proud of it? If not, why do they seem so eager to want to protect it from men? Again, it would be like Ma & Pa being hateful racist rednecks yet still teaching Clark compassion, integrity and the importance of helping others. And it is not a good comparison because Amazons kill people in cold blood and abandon their male children because men do not deserve to live. That is their credo, their first value. To them, it is not horror, it is the truth. And that is why they were always villains and Wonder-Woman has no reason not to be like them, except for the camera following her every move.

Avatar image for the_stegman
Posted By the_stegman

 
 

 @RazzaTazz   said:

It adds depth to the character

co-signed


 -Co- co-signed 
Moderator
Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

So even if they work reasonable hours, have time off, and the ability to leave if they want; it could still be slavery?

I'm not saying they do have those things, but we don't know if they don't.

It seems like the places they slept weren't locked, they all came out when Diana caused commotion.

Sometimes calling someone 'master' happens when you're an apprentice. Or a Jedi. All the trainee Jedi called their superiors 'Master' and listened to every word they said and wore the same cloak. Are they slaves too because of that?

From the moment you buy or trade someone, yes it is slavery. Is it so hard to understand?

From the moment we are told they were sold to Hephaistos, that is what is supposed to be on your mind. It is what Wonder Woman understood. And it is never contested. It is that simple.

If Azzarello wanted us to understand that this was not slavery, he would not have had the slave call Hephaistos "master", he would have had the slaves dressed in all kinds of clothes and not living in a prison (and the doors do not need to be locked for it to look like a prison, they are not going anywhere anyway, they do not know better), or you know, someone saying "we are not slaves".

It is never contested.

So if some child is being SOLD as a slave, but I want to liberate them so I BUY them to avoid having the slavers on my ass, but I raise them as my own child; they're still a slave because of the simple act of buying them? One single moment in childhood defines an entire life?

But this would require us to believe that Hephaestus would have some sympathy for these abandoned children, right? OH WAIT. He was abandoned by his own mother, and by some mythological accounts HIMSELF RAISED TO BE A MASTER CRAFTSMAN. Is it so unreasonable to believe he's doing to these cast off children what was done to him after he was cast off? Doing unto others in his situation the kindness that was done to him?

Again, I am not saying that there is no compassion involved. You can feel bad for your slaves. I am just saying it does not make them less slaves. Slavery is not subjective depending on the feelings of the master. You do know that when slavery was legal in the States, a lot of slave owners were good christians who actually thought they were doing it out of compassion because without them, what could the black men do? And a lot of slaves agreed because that is all they ever knew.

And as I said, like Wonder Woman, we are led to believe they are slaves and it is never contested.

Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Posted By The Mighty Monarch

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@DarthShap said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

So even if they work reasonable hours, have time off, and the ability to leave if they want; it could still be slavery?

I'm not saying they do have those things, but we don't know if they don't.

It seems like the places they slept weren't locked, they all came out when Diana caused commotion.

Sometimes calling someone 'master' happens when you're an apprentice. Or a Jedi. All the trainee Jedi called their superiors 'Master' and listened to every word they said and wore the same cloak. Are they slaves too because of that?

From the moment you buy or trade someone, yes it is slavery. Is it so hard to understand?

From the moment we are told they were sold to Hephaistos, that is what is supposed to be on your mind. It is what Wonder Woman understood. And it is never contested. It is that simple.

If Azzarello wanted us to understand that this was not slavery, he would not have had the slave call Hephaistos "master", he would have had the slaves dressed in all kinds of clothes and not living in a prison (and the doors do not need to be locked for it to look like a prison, they are not going anywhere anyway, they do not know better), or you know, someone saying "we are not slaves".

It is never contested.

So if some child is being SOLD as a slave, but I want to liberate them so I BUY them to avoid having the slavers on my ass, but I raise them as my own child; they're still a slave because of the simple act of buying them? One single moment in childhood defines an entire life?

But this would require us to believe that Hephaestus would have some sympathy for these abandoned children, right? OH WAIT. He was abandoned by his own mother, and by some mythological accounts HIMSELF RAISED TO BE A MASTER CRAFTSMAN. Is it so unreasonable to believe he's doing to these cast off children what was done to him after he was cast off? Doing unto others in his situation the kindness that was done to him?

Again, I am not saying that there is no compassion involved. You can feel bad for your slaves. I am just saying it does not make them less slaves. Slavery is not subjective depending on the feelings of the master. You do know that when slavery was legal in the States, a lot of slave owners were good christians who actually thought they were doing it out of compassion because without them, what could the black men do? And a lot of slaves agreed because that is all they ever knew.

And as I said, like Wonder Woman, we are led to believe they are slaves and it is never contested.

Again, we have no indication that they aren't allowed to choose whether or not they can leave. The key factor in slavery is the lack of freedom, and we don't have any definitive evidence to suggest freedom isn't a possibility.

And the line "He raised us" CAN still say he 'raised them to be slaves' BUT appears in this context to indicate he raised them as his own children. He specifically said he raised them to avoid having them left to drown, unloved, because that's what his mother did. Left to drown UNLOVED. It suggests that he LOVES them as his own children, because he didn't want them to feel unloved as he did. And again, once in the workplace of the forge, he is the MASTER Craftsman and they are APPRENTICES.

Avatar image for or35ti
Posted By Or35ti

I'm really impressed, this is hardcore mythology. I'm not reading the series but I love these concepts I'm hearing of.

Avatar image for darthshap
Posted By DarthShap

@The Mighty Monarch said:

Again, we have no indication that they aren't allowed to choose whether or not they can leave. The key factor in slavery is the lack of freedom, and we don't have any definitive evidence to suggest freedom isn't a possibility.

And the line "He raised us" CAN still say he 'raised them to be slaves' BUT appears in this context to indicate he raised them as his own children. He specifically said he raised them to avoid having them left to drown, unloved, because that's what his mother did. Left to drown UNLOVED. It suggests that he LOVES them as his own children, because he didn't want them to feel unloved as he did. And again, once in the workplace of the forge, he is the MASTER Craftsman and they are APPRENTICES.

But we do not need indications at this point because at this point, we already believe that they ARE slaves. Everything points towards it at this point. The burden of proof is on proving that it is not slavery at this point.

And it does not really matter what the involved parties say. Slavery is objective, not subjective. The Stockholm Syndrom is very present in slaves, especially if they feel abandoned and do not know any better. And as I said, for Hephaistos, his compassion is meaningless.

To be honest, from what I understood of his speech, if it was OK for him to work underground night and day for all eternity after his parents abandoned him, it should be enough for them. None of them really know any better.

Avatar image for monkeytoe
Posted By MonkeyToe

I think it is a little early to condemn this book for their take on Amazons. Has anyone considered Hephaestus could be lying?

Avatar image for wdw
Posted By WDW

@DarthShap: @DarthShap said:

@WDW said:

Hephestus says 3 times a century but he does not say when the last time it happend if the amazons are 3000 years old then it happend 90 times. It also does not suggest the 3 times a century is exactly every 33 year per act!....is could be 3 nights every century! so to jump to conclusions is a little early. based on Wonder Womans age it is not every 33 years.

Again these ARE IMMORTAL women... considered above normal humans. there needs and experiance are alien to yours....ALSO They where murdered by men and resurected and that is what defines them. Vietnam we are told to think of the enemy as inhuman so its ok to kill them. as having died at the hands of a man and being resurrected are they supposed to embrace them with open arms?....No To the amazons men are inhuman. Wonder Woman is the buffer.

They were immortals pre-reboot, yes. I do not think they are now. Otherwise, why reproduce?

That is why three times every century made sense. Because women are fertile and strong at 33.

And how is Wonder-Woman's age relevant? She's the daughter of Zeus.It is not like he was on a boat.

And I do not think they are resurrected souls either now. That was Perez' thing and it made sense because they were a finite number handcrafted by the gods but from what it now seems, the gods only care about themselves and no longer intervene in the creation of amazons, like they did pre-reboot.

Well then that means Hippolyte was not always the Queen and they has as many as 30-60 queens. If the Amazons are not immortal then the whole point of them being Amazons makes no sense at all. Why reproduce? maybe only 100 amazons existed 3000 years ago and they are increasing the population

Wonder Womans age is relevant because if the raids happened every 33 years for 3000 years then the last raid would have happen 10 years at most prior to wonder womans birth. since no 10 year old amazons on the island its safe to assume it has not happened in a while

My point is so far the new reboot make sense. its just that some things have not been reveled yet

Avatar image for the_mighty_monarch
Edited By The Mighty Monarch

@MonkeyToe said:

I think it is a little early to condemn this book for their take on Amazons. Has anyone considered Hephaestus could be lying?

As much as I love defending this book, I can't get behind that idea. What possible reason would Hephaestus have for lying in that situation? Plus it lends more credibility to the idea that his workers ARE slaves, which I really don't want to see happening. I was against Wonder Woman's conclusion-jumping-to from the start.

The idea taught Wonder Woman that everything isn't as simple as it appears, you can't always jump to conclusions; so jumping back to 'Oh, it turns out they really ARE slaves' would pretty much defeat the purpose.

Avatar image for erik
Posted By Erik

@Billy Batson said:

@Erik:

Since you're a big fan of Wonder Woman, are you liking the new series?
BB

I am liking it as a whole. It is a good story so far. It is not a good Wonder Woman story in my opinion. I do not see how making the Amazons nothing more than barbarians and savages can add depth to the WW lore. Someone said that the Pre-New 52 WW fell short because her people seemed too mystical. That was one of the reasons why I loved the series. Her story is rooted in Greek myth. So while I am enjoying the series as a series, I think they made some grave and terrible errors all in the name of "edgy" and new story telling. This is something I would have preferred to see as an Elseworld, not the main canon.

Avatar image for monkeytoe
Posted By MonkeyToe

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@MonkeyToe said:

I think it is a little early to condemn this book for their take on Amazons. Has anyone considered Hephaestus could be lying?

As much as I love defending this book, I can't get behind that idea. What possible reason would Hephaestus have for lying in that situation? Plus it lends more credibility to the idea that his workers ARE slaves, which I really don't want to see happening. I was against Wonder Woman's conclusion-jumping-to from the start.

The idea taught Wonder Woman that everything isn't as simple as it appears, you can't always jump to conclusions; so jumping back to 'Oh, it turns out they really ARE slaves' would pretty much defeat the purpose.

I wasn't directing it at anyone specific. But doesn't Hephaestus mention the cruelty of his mother Hera in the book?

Avatar image for joshmightbe
Posted By joshmightbe

I'm not judging Wonder Woman as a character, nor am I disputing the fact that slavery, rape, murder and child abandonment is a part of the history of many cultures. I'm just saying that this should not be treated as proof that they are strong women, not needing men is fine but mothers selling their children for weapons is wrong, always has been always will be. I'm not saying anything about surrogate moms or people who give their children up for adoption because most of them are doing it to give their child a better life than they could provide so I see that as acceptable, but to sell or abandon a child simply because it's not the gender you wanted it to be is a bad thing. And the fact that they don't advertise it is proof that they know it's wrong and one of the definitions of true evil is knowing something is wrong but doing it any way. Regardless of how these boys are treated by the guy who bought them the point remains that their mothers did something unforgivable to them.

Avatar image for supermanjohnathankentjr
Posted By SupermanJohnathanKentJr

"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"

Uhhh...nevermind, I'm shutting now.

Avatar image for billy_batson
Posted By Billy Batson

@Erik said:

I am liking it as a whole. It is a good story so far. It is not a good Wonder Woman story in my opinion. I do not see how making the Amazons nothing more than barbarians and savages can add depth to the WW lore. Someone said that the Pre-New 52 WW fell short because her people seemed too mystical. That was one of the reasons why I loved the series. Her story is rooted in Greek myth. So while I am enjoying the series as a series, I think they made some grave and terrible errors all in the name of "edgy" and new story telling. This is something I would have preferred to see as an Elseworld, not the main canon.

Is it worth the buy? Thinking about getting it in a trade along with other new 52 series.

Hah, I remember someone else saying it would have been better if it was an elseworld. But the series doesn't make you want to quit being a Wonder Woman fan like some others at CBR lost their sh!t after this issue?

The route with the amazons can still change, since anything with Azzarello is possible. He can turn the whole thing in a different direction without any trouble. Be it in the next issue, in the middle or in the end.

You wouldn't mind if the writer would write Wonder Woman for years?

BB

Avatar image for joshmightbe
Posted By joshmightbe

@WDW: If Wonder Woman is the daughter of Zeus then she was not a product of one of these raids being that I seriously doubt any of the Amazons would be able to force Zeus to do a damn thing so for all we know he could have just popped down there for a weekend and the next raid could be a month from now

Avatar image for joshmightbe
Posted By joshmightbe

@MonkeyToe said:

@The Mighty Monarch said:

@MonkeyToe said:

I think it is a little early to condemn this book for their take on Amazons. Has anyone considered Hephaestus could be lying?

As much as I love defending this book, I can't get behind that idea. What possible reason would Hephaestus have for lying in that situation? Plus it lends more credibility to the idea that his workers ARE slaves, which I really don't want to see happening. I was against Wonder Woman's conclusion-jumping-to from the start.

The idea taught Wonder Woman that everything isn't as simple as it appears, you can't always jump to conclusions; so jumping back to 'Oh, it turns out they really ARE slaves' would pretty much defeat the purpose.

I wasn't directing it at anyone specific. But doesn't Hephaestus mention the cruelty of his mother Hera in the book?

In the actual myth Zeus is the one who threw Hephaestus from Olympus for defending Hera during one of their arguments so it would honestly make more sense for him to be on Hera's side.