InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Pete. Do you love me?"

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 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)

(Read comments) -