InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Th-they're watching me! AIIEE!"

gargoylekitty (gargoylekitty) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-07-29 11:30:00

Entry tags:

char: black canary/dinah lance, char: wonder woman/diana of themyscira, creator: aaron lopresti, creator: gail simone, publisher: dc comics, title: wonder woman

Wonder Woman #34
Ready for a Wonder Woman and Black Canary team-up?

Starting off from after the preview, skipped a page there, we find Diana and Dinah getting ready to infiltrate (what is assumed to be) Roulette's underground meta-fights. In the process of getting ready we find that Dinah is truly a master of disguise.

Brilliant!
And so, one ride in the invisible jet later, they're ready to put their camo to the test.

And they're in!
Yes, there is some bit of goings on over on Themyscira of note and some dwelling on deeper things but overal it was a pretty fun issue despite(because of?) a bit of the old cage match storyline and, if the last page is any indication, the next issue should be pretty fierce.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

gailsimone
2009-07-30 01:16 pm UTC (link)

"False parallel. Diana is the best of a race of mythical women. "

That is not an origin, Bluefall. It's a condition. There is a huge difference.

Wonder Woman's origin is not easily encapsulated, and her visual elements are (barring the lasso) complex to explain and not exactly thrilling to the novice reader. "She's from a race of warrior women" explains nothing about motivation, it's merely a starting point to a much longer explanation for why she does what she does. It's not a 'false parallel' at all. Batman and Superman can be explained in a compelling sentence...Wonder Woman, much less so, at least after Perez's revamp.

And your examples here prove my point, I'm afraid. Kal El wearing an "s" needed to be explained in the exact same way as what I'm describing, a simple, in-story answer that can be explained in a flash...It's his family crest, and the name "Superman" came from its similarity to our letter "s." That is simple, elegant, and a debate killer. If we had had a long flashback story about how Lois Lane's grandpa was an astronaut who met Jor El through a wormhole and left behind a scarf with the letter "S" on it, and that inspired the Kryptonians to...blah blah blah blah, well, you can perhaps see how ungainly that would have been.

Huge difference. One caters to the hardcore purist, one is designed to be a little less intrusive. In the Superman case, certainly, they found an answer that works. The Bat obsession is an even better example. If we had three issues on how that bat was a pet bat that belonged to Thomas Wayne's great uncle and had been trained to crash through windows, and...well, there's a small group that eats that stuff up. But it IS a small group, and I maintain that it's detrimental to the story.

Mark Waid added some odd stuff to the Flash origin, I believe, explaining the flash of lightning in a newly complicated way. Does anyone even refer to that any more?

The biggest element I added to Diana's origin is probably the Circle, and it can be easily removed from retelling Diana's origin without affecting the main story. It's when you build onto the house with scrap lumber and twine that you get an awkward construct.

You like that story, that's fine. But it's been a bone of contention for a very long time and a bit of a stumbling block. If you have to explain WW's costume by explaining that story, it really sounds uncomfortable AND it diminishes the impact of the Steve Trevor part of the story.

It's still there for people who like it. We're not 'retconning' it or disavowing it, in story. But even using that story, it doesn't fully explain Diana's costume AND it does tie her specifically to the American flag, which I think is a bit off-note for the character.

"But you've said it's the American flag anyway by saying that Betsy Ross was inspired by the Amazons. Reversing the order of inspiration doesn't change the equivalence."

Weird. You've got this wrong. If Diana's story is true, then the Amazons inspired the flag. They obviously didn't take all the elements. "Inspired" doesn't mean "identical." And if Diana's outfit inspired the flag, then it's America that borrowed from the Amazons, much as the Swastika means something completely different to Buddhists.

I don't read SuperFriends. This is something we've had in mind for a long time. But to be fair, it could just be a bit of cultural mythology.
(cont)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

gailsimone
2009-07-30 01:16 pm UTC (link)

(cont)

"More fitting than saying she dresses to honor a woman from our world, a lowly human, who made an amazing, Wonder Woman-like sacrifice for a perfect stranger? Because I think that's a pretty powerful message to lose for mere astrology."

Well, hell, yes, a LOT more fitting. First, that story is complicated. If someone asks how Diana's costume came to be, and you have to explain all that stuff with Steve Trevor and Diana Trevor, and why in the world would they choose her in particular to emulate when they have had hundreds of gods and valiant women making such sacrifices and why would the Amazons pay tribute to a particular country's flag anyway when that seems deliberately antagonistic to their message of world peace and why are they still so suspicious when Steve shows up and why wasn't he honored immediately when his relative is this huge Amazon hero and I'm sorry, Bluefall, but the whole thing is a huge ball of chunky peanut butter and a massive pain in the ass to explain in the story. The RECAP takes a page every time, and if you'll notice, most writers avoid it entirely, unlike most of George's brilliant work on the origin. There's a reason why, and that's that only purists like it and that it is awkward, awkward, awkward.

And since when are the heavens "mere astrology" for the Amazons? That's like saying Olympus is "merely clouds." We're going to tell the complete origin of Diana's costume pretty soon. It won't negate the Diana Trevor story. But it will answer some questions that the Diana Trevor story does not.

Sometimes we get a bit hung up on the comic book continuity academia to the detriment of the readership and the story. I believe that's what's happening here. If you like that addition, it is still there. I don't believe in negating stories if it's at all avoidable. But I'm all for repainting when the house has some weather damage.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-07-30 02:38 pm UTC (link)

If you like that addition, it is still there.

But see, no it isn't. The single most important message of that story is not that Diana Rockwell did anything for the amazons, it's that our Diana honors her. The amazons, particularly Diana, are routinely accused of arrogance. Of xenophobia. Of thinking they're better than us. Of looking down on us. Of all kinds of nonsense that completely misses the point. Diana Rockwell is the single most powerful refutation of that the mythos has ever had - not only do they not look down on us, they honor us so highly that their own princess wears the colors of one of us. Diana looking up to one of her gods, or to other amazons, doesn't begin to come close to that. Taking out the "Diana Rockwell is why I wear this" completely guts that whole story, removes its entire purpose.

That is not an origin, Bluefall. It's a condition. There is a huge difference.

... how's that any different than "last survivor of an alien race"? That doesn't tell you anything about Clark whatsoever. It doesn't tell you why he chose to be a hero, it doesn't tell you what his powers are, it doesn't tell you why he's a reporter or, frankly, why you should care about him at all. It's just who he is. Clark is the last of his race, Diana is the best of her race. I'm really not seeing any distinction there.

If we had had a long flashback story about how Lois Lane's grandpa was an astronaut who met Jor El through a wormhole and left behind a scarf with the letter "S" on it, and that inspired the Kryptonians to...blah blah blah blah, well, you can perhaps see how ungainly that would have been.

Well, really, we've had a dozen or more of those, and yes, they are ungainly. So? In the end, it easily pares down to "it's the crest of the House of El," which takes precisely one sentence to explain. Likewise, Diana Rockwell Trevor is a bit ungainly to lay out in full detail. However, in the end, it easily pares down to "she wears those colors to honor an American who died for an amazon," which takes precisely one sentence to explain.

If Diana's story is true, then the Amazons inspired the flag.

It doesn't matter who inspired who. Prior to your retcon, the American flag inspired the amazons. As of your retcon, the amazons inspired the American flag. Either way, Diana's wearing an American flag. Your point with the swastika actually makes mine. Both the Buddhist symbol and the Nazi symbols are swastikas. Which one came first is irrelevant. Either way it doesn't make either of them any less a swastika, or give either group any more or less claim to it. And even though the Buddhist symbol did come first, how many people in your audience are going to see it and think "oh, Buddhism" and not "oh, Nazis"? However few, it's still more than are going to look at Diana's costume and think "oh, star fields" and not "oh, American flag."

if you'll notice, most writers avoid it entirely

If you'll notice, most writers avoid everything that came before them entirely, regardless of how gainly it might be. However, Jimenez, WML and Rucka all managed to reference Diana Rockwell just fine without any awkwardness.

I don't read SuperFriends. This is something we've had in mind for a long time. But to be fair, it could just be a bit of cultural mythology.

Psh. Next you'll be telling me there's nothing sinister about aglets.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

gailsimone
2009-07-30 02:57 pm UTC (link)

Wow. I'm out of time to discuss this this morning, but MAN there's a lot here I disagree with.

You're dead wrong about the Diana Rockwell thing. It absolutely is not negated by what I've done and I think it's a bit weird you keep insisting that it is. We haven't even seen that story yet, and it's only been hinted at so far. "completely guts that whole story"? Really? That seems a trifle melodramatic, considering that it's not even remotely true.

"However, in the end, it easily pares down to "she wears those colors to honor an American who died for an amazon," which takes precisely one sentence to explain."

I maintain that that explains precisely nothing. "Crest of the House of El" is clean, smart, and easy to understand. What you've said here merely brings up a dozen more questions. If you know they answers to those questions, wonderful. If you don't, you've just complicated the origin needlessly and explained absolutely zilch. What American? What Amazon? How did she die? I'll also add that there is nothing, not a blessed thing, added emotionally in that sentence, so it's hard to justify for dramatic reasons, as well.

"Crest of the House of El" doesn't need footnotes and a flashback. It is good juice. "she wears those colors to honor an American who died for an amazon," is a sentence, I'll give you that. But it's not MUCH of a sentence, and it's even less of an explanation.

We can disagree in the end, but certainly, that story has been problematic for a long time and even some of the writers you mention aren't nuts about it, if I remember correctly.

I think this, by the way, "f you'll notice, most writers avoid everything that came before them entirely, regardless of how gainly it might be" is just silly. Name a DC writer, particularly a WW writer, who avoids EVERYTHING that came before, entirely. Come on, Blue.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-07-30 03:10 pm UTC (link)

"House of El? What's the House of El? If he came here as a baby, how does he know what his parents' crest was? Why would his human mom put that on a costume? Did she know about Krypton? How did she find out? Memory matrix? What?"

Not as simple as you think - it's just that, unlike Wonder Woman, it's enough a part of the popular consciousness that no one has to ask. If she could get, I dunno, a movie or a series or something... ;_;

Name a DC writer, particularly a WW writer, who avoids EVERYTHING that came before, entirely.

Man, Wonder Woman writers are the worst at that! You know this. How many cities has she lived in? How many supporting cast members have fallen by the wayside? How many amazons have been given names in one run and then never seen again? Take over, change everything! is like the Wonder Woman law, and you yourself have acknowledged this when you said that your purpose in this run was to show how everything prior could be one coherent whole... something that wouldn't be necessary if everyone didn't keep changing everything.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

gailsimone
2009-07-30 05:43 pm UTC (link)

???

These characters have been around for seventy years, Bluefall. Diana has lived in a handful of cities in that time.

We're mistaking the difference between a STORY and a 'retcon.' Diana being exiled is a story. Diana living in Boston is a story. Those things do not negate where she has lived previously or where she has lived in the future any more than Batman's back being broken negated his past or future.

And I don't see the Amazon example as much of a big deal, either. An Amazon is created or favored by one writer, and then not so beloved or even mentioned by another...is that really "Avoiding EVERYTHING that came before, entirely?"

Of course it isn't. The vast, vast majority of readers wouldn't even know.

And you yourself mentioned some writers who referred specifically to this Diana Rockwell Trevor story even knowing that they most likely weren't crazy about it. I have had cameos by very obscure characters and Amazons and will continue to do so. It's ridiculous to think that everything from the past has to continue into each current run whether people like it or not, whether it's intimidating or not, and even whether it's good or not.

Nothing in Diana's past is CHANGED by Diana moving to Washington or to Boston.

It's true I think she needs some cohesive storytelling for a while, but that's more because her stories have been more varied and less rooted than Superman or Batman, not because the writers ignored all previous incarnations.

Hope that makes sense. I think it's easy for the hardcore purist to put their Professor Of Wonderology graduation caps on so tightly that they can lose sight of how that stuff looks to new readers and even those who simply find that level of integral backstory to be a little intimidating. We have to have some kindness and grace for those who DON'T know every Amazon who has ever been named in the book (and believe me, you are far from the most fanatical example of this, there are some who are still angry when a story from the 40's isn't referenced...I don't mean 'fanatical' as an insult, by the way).

The balancing act with Wonder Woman is always trying to not negate the past, but not artlessly shove in every possible detail in her history, either. Your exhaustive posts about the Cheetah are a perfect example. The Cheetah has been many things, and reading your research on her was a blast. But when she is presented to new readers for the first time, you have to strive for a clean, complete version. My goal is never to negate previous versions, but when there are eight previous personalities and they contradict one another, the best you can do is try to use your art and craft to make a compelling version that hints at the whole. The more page time you get, the more you get to do that.

And is change by itself really that awful? Greg's gods were a serious (and effective) change to the gods, but it seems to have gone over well because it was considerate and thoughtful and interesting. I think holding on to the old versions of the gods in that case was a mistake (unfortunately a mandated one). If the new thing is better than the old thing, which you obviously disagree that it is, I say let's have the new thing. But do it in a way that doesn't negate, if possible.

Which is what we're doing precisely.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

gailsimone
2009-07-30 05:47 pm UTC (link)

""House of El? What's the House of El? If he came here as a baby, how does he know what his parents' crest was? Why would his human mom put that on a costume? Did she know about Krypton? How did she find out? Memory matrix? What?"

Not as simple as you think - it's just that, unlike Wonder Woman, it's enough a part of the popular consciousness that no one has to ask. If she could get, I dunno, a movie or a series or something... ;_;"

Yikes, this is a reach.

NONE of that stuff is even slightly necessary to get the sentence explaining the house of El crest. Not a bit of it. Memory Matrix? Are we being serious, here?

But even people with some history with Diana wouldn't know what the sentence with Diana referenced. It answers no questions, just raises new ones.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

batcookies
2009-07-30 09:00 pm UTC (link)

I'm afraid I agree with Gail on the costume. The Diana Trevor thing was a nice story, but way too awkward and contrived for the explanation for Wondy's costume. It honestly wouldn't have been too bad in my mind if she wasn't Steve Trevor's mom, but that element really took things a little too far for me.

That said, I'm not sure about this "the Amazons inspired the American flag" thing...

But most of all I want to throw in that I completely agree that we've been bad in transitioning from one writer to the next for a long time. Everyone seems to want to change the setting, change the cast, etc.

Gail sticking with the DEO is probably our smoothest transition... which really rubs salt in the wound, since the DEO and Diana Prince are the worst things to ever happen to Diana, post-Crisis.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	magus_69 2009-08-01 08:01 am UTC (link)
	Gail sticking with the DEO is probably our smoothest transition... which really rubs salt in the wound, since the DEO and Diana Prince are the worst things to ever happen to Diana, post-Crisis. The irony is certainly not lost on me. We should be careful about what we wish for. (Reply to this) (Parent)

parsimonia
2009-07-30 04:54 pm UTC (link)

Okay, I am a little wary of treading into this conversation when you've both got your Wondy-Fu on (*g*), however, I cannot resist arguing with this one point:

The amazons, particularly Diana, are routinely accused of arrogance. Of xenophobia. Of thinking they're better than us. Of looking down on us. Of all kinds of nonsense that completely misses the point. Diana Rockwell is the single most powerful refutation of that the mythos has ever had - not only do they not look down on us, they honor us so highly that their own princess wears the colors of one of us.

It's interesting that Diana and the Amazons are often perceived as arrogant, xenophobic, and think-they're-better-than-us, especially in a discussion with respect to whether or not her costume should be acknowledged as American, because the same could be (and is often) said about America and Americans.

On the one hand, no matter how you look at it, Wonder Woman is American. Created by an American, published by Americans, and frequently written/drawn by Americans, stories featuring her are intended for an American audience, her stories often take place in America, most of her non-Themysciran friends and allies are American, etc, etc. On a meta-level you can never separate Wonder Woman from America. So, yeah, it does seem silly to pretend there were some amazing circumstances where it turns out that the American flag was actually inspired by Wonder Woman/the Amazons.

On the other hand, she's not supposed to be American within the story, is she? She's from an all-woman culture evolving out of ancient Greece that was isolated from everyone and everywhere else on Earth, where the gods and Greek mythology are real and she was made from clay. How do you make that mesh with the American influences involved in her creation?

Not only does the idea of the Amazons honouring a woman from the outside world by paying tribute to the flag of that woman's country put a kind of limit on Diana, as being focused on America rather than the world at large (for one thing you'd think she'd want to explore modern Greece more than the States), but it also brings her down a peg and lessens her purpose. The idea that she has to wear the American flag on her butt to prove that she doesn't look down on Americans kind of ties in with how people think Superman is the best kind of immigrant, because he completely and totally embraces American culture as his own, and doesn't display or try to introduce Kryptonian culture to anyone.

Whereas Wonder Woman is an immigrant, she's supposed to be different and her influence is supposed to better the world. So why do we need to make her bow down and have her costume symbolically representing another country, when her own values and what she stands for probably often conflict with it? It's like saying "you're only okay if you're one of us, you know, now get in that melting pot". (I think it would actually be a fascinating theme to explore, really, given the increases in globalization, immigration and xenophobia we're seeing in the world today.)

She doesn't have the same connection to the US that Superman and Batman always will. It's the place where a lot of her friends live, so she spends a lot of her time there. I like that she's a misfit and an oddball in America, representing truth but also uncomfortable truths. I like that conflict, because it is tricky and sometimes difficult to take. Wonder Woman is always going to be complicated and have uncomfortable elements about her, but that's one of the things I like about her.

(But really, if they made a WW movie I would probably be happy just to watch her punch stuff, so long as there were no "you hit pretty well for a girl"/"not polite to hit a lady" jokes. >_< )

(Reply to this) (Parent)

bluefall
2009-07-30 02:43 pm UTC (link)

Also, I'm not sure why you think it interferes with Steve. You don't even have to bring Steve into it, any more than you have to explain that Jor-El sent Clark to Earth specifically because he had a hyperspace conversation with Thomas Wayne before either Clark or Bruce were ever born. Yes, it takes two issues to explain that. And if you want it explained, you can read those two issues. If you're just curious what the deal is with Clark, whoever you're talking to probably isn't even going to bring it up, because it's superfluous.

Also also, your icon is making me miss my dogs terribly, and that is very mean of you.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

gailsimone
2009-07-30 02:48 pm UTC (link)

How can you NOT bring Steve into it? That makes no sense. It's Diana Rockwell TREVOR. George brought Steve into it when he wrote the story.

This isn't making any sense, Bluefall. I get that you like the story. I like the story as well, on its own merits. But as a justification for Diana's outfit, it is way too arcane and complicated AND it makes the story about someone else, someone other than Diana. Diana's origin should be about herself and Hippolyta at its core, I feel.

Finally, there's something lovely about her costume representing the heavens, where both gods and Amazon princesses dwell, in my opinion. Since I have changed so little of what George set up, I think it's okay to carefully, carefully, add another possible explanation for the costume.

And I missed my stupid dogs every day while I was in SDCC, but when I come get 'Scuro from the kennel, every time, he reacts like it's the happiest day in the history of happy days. He comes running down the vet's hallway, nails scrabbling like crazy and dragging some poor assistant behind him on a leash, then he jumps and prances when he sees me like he can't BELIEVE I came back for him.

It's pretty cute. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-07-30 03:04 pm UTC (link)

You don't have to bring Steve into it because there's no need to tell the whole story to explain anything. How does that not make sense? You contend that the costume is arcane and difficult to explain, because you have to tell this whole complicated story. But that's not true, because you don't have to tell the whole complicated story. All you have to say is "she wears it to honor an American woman who was a hero to the amazons." That's it. That's all. You don't even have to give her name. That's all the explanation that story, or the costume, requires. That's enough to satisfy any novice. And if it isn't, if they want to know more, you can hand them the trade. Really, I'd rather tell a hundred people why Diana's wearing that idiot bathing suit than try to explain why Supergirl has wings even once. o.O

Diana's origin should be about herself and Hippolyta at its core, I feel.

Hmm. Now this I can grok. I think there's room for more (obviously), but that strikes me as a pretty reasonable line to draw.

My dogs live with my parents, who went and moved to another state while I was in college. They climb into my mom's lap to sniff at the phone when I call her. It's somewhat comforting to know they miss me at least a little bit as much as I miss them.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

gailsimone
2009-07-30 05:56 pm UTC (link)

Yeah, we're going to have to disagree on this, in the end. I think it's a lovely story on its own, but an unfortunate choice as an unwanted extension on the origin treehouse and a complete bitch to reference in-story. You say you don't need to include Steve but that makes no sense to me at all. If it wasn't an important connection, George wouldn't have gone out of his way to make it so clear that it's connected. It could have been any Amelia Earhart avatar, but the name Trevor pretty much ends this discussion, in my opinion.

And again, I think the 'bathing suit' discussion is ridiculous, but I've covered that many times previously. Nothing in the Trevor origin explains anything about how her uniform looks like a 'bathing suit (which it doesn't, anyway).'

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	bluefall 2009-07-31 12:24 am UTC (link)
	Well, thanks for hearing me out, anyway. :) (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	gailsimone 2009-07-31 05:16 am UTC (link)
	I'm listenin', you make some valid points. Nothing's been written yet. (Reply to this) (Parent)

nevermore999
2009-07-30 06:53 pm UTC (link)

Gail, I'd just like to thank you for explaining. I'm not sure I 110% agree with you, but I certainly understand a whole lot better now, and am now pretty much fine with the retcon. I'd just like to say it's great to have you come in here and talk things out with us.

And the Amazons inspiring Betsy Ross is so cracky, I can't help but love it a little. I'm glad to hear Diana Trevor won't be completely retconned.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

gailsimone
2009-07-30 11:07 pm UTC (link)

Bluefall's posts are making me re-think the Diana Rockwell thing a bit, too. I always liked it, but I assure you, she and I are in the very small minority regarding that tale and its impact on Diana. But there might be a way to reconcile both more clearly so that it's more obvious that the older story isn't retconned away. I'll give it some thought. I hate negation in the first place.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

magus_69
2009-08-01 08:24 am UTC (link)

Hmm... well, one thing Perez did was have Amazons imprint themselves upon little girls who were rescued from shipwrecks or boating accidents. Spiritually speaking, those girls and their descendents (regardless of gender) were at least partially Amazon because of it. Julia Kapatelis is one such example, which is one reason why Diana and the Kapatelis family clicked as beautifully as they did. Who's to say that Betsy Ross isn't another such girl, or a descendent thereof? If so, then having the Amazons "inspire" the American flag, and having that flag later be taken as an important symbol by the Amazons helps to bring it full circle.

Diana Rockwell Trevor may or may not have an "Amazon spirit." The power of the story comes from Diana Rockwell being an outsider, and her having the spirit would be very elegant but it could also rob the story of some of its power. I have not yet chosen a stance in that regard.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -