InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Is that a lunatic in my head?"

bluefall (bluefall) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-06-24 12:20:00

Entry tags:

char: achilles of thalarion, char: alkyone of themyscira, char: ares/dc, char: hippolyta of themyscira, char: wonder woman/diana of themyscira, char: zeus/dc, creator: aaron lopresti, creator: gail simone, publisher: dc comics, title: wonder woman

Wondy 33
Four pages from today's Wondy.

So, the sea monsters from the preview attack the island. The amazons fight back. Ares shows up.

WHUT. She won't kill Genocide, but she will kill Ares? She can kill Ares? Since when? He's the god of war. The whole point of him is that he outclasses her as much as Clark outclasses Jim Gordon.

They're on Thalarion at this point, and Zeus shows up and is all "be a wife and mother, and oh I killed Kane."

When WML does a better Polly than Gail, something is badly wrong with the universe.

... yeah.

On the plus side, I've had to cut back on luxuries recently and I've been waffling over what titles to cut, and this makes that decision easier at least..

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

lonewolf23k
2009-06-24 02:38 pm UTC (link)

I think the point of not killing Genocide, is that Diana took pity on the creature. In a way, it's a prisonner of it's own nature; it was made to be pure evil, and was never given a choice in the matter. By showing it mercy, Diana is hoping it can change.

But Ares, in the meantime, has deliberately chosen to commit ever act of evil he has done, willingly, knowingly and gladly. Diana feels no such pity for him.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

parsimonia
2009-06-26 06:29 pm UTC (link)

I think the point of not killing Genocide, is that Diana took pity on the creature.

This. Especially when you factor in Genocide being created from Diana's corpse. I dunno, it's almost rather Frankenstein's monster-ish. It's done horrible things, yet it's pitiable at the same time because it never asked for this.

Whereas Ares seems to be the architect behind this whole mess, the one who has actively been trying to do harm and cause harm, and threatening to do more harm. If he can cause something like Genocide to be created, then he is the true villain here, it would seem.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-06-26 07:07 pm UTC (link)

Pity is a ridiculously bad and irresponsible reason to let a monster live. Diana's job (at least in her warrior capacity) is to be a guardian of the innocent, not to feel good about herself. "Aww, it's not the poor thing's fault" is not much solace to Genocide's victims, past or potential, nor is it a moral justification for not doing everything in her power to prevent those deaths. "I would feel like it was vengeance and I don't want to be that kind of person" is an abhorrently selfish motive for permitting further atrocities at the hands of a demon. It's tantamount to stopping AIDS cure research because, after all, the virus never asked to be a killer, and now that your friend came down with it you're too angry and have too much of a personal stake to feel right about wiping it out.

"You slay the monster, Kal." Whether an evil is unwilling to change or incapable of change is irrelevant. The why does not matter. All that matters is the what; a thing that will not stop being evil, ever, must be destroyed.

I don't dispute that Ares is someone who could reasonably be presumed unwilling at this point in his career; I strongly dispute that any category of "will not stop being dangerous ever" could possibly include him and yet not include Genocide.

(Also, it kind of makes Diana look like a chump, and hard to take seriously, when she spends six issues repeating ad nauseum how badass and painful Genocide's death is going to be and then just goes "whatevs" and implausibly one-punches Ares instead. She used to actually have some credibility when she said "I will end you," and the thing with Max gave her a lot more. After this, though, I'd take her less seriously than Clark.)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

parsimonia
2009-06-26 09:06 pm UTC (link)

Strangely, I'm not really that invested in whether or not it was wrong not to kill Genocide.

My point is that I can sympathize with why she didn't kill Genocide. It's like if I kill a spider or some other creepy-crawly bug that I discover in my room. (Obviously, the fear of a bug crawling on me without my knowledge is not equivalent to the danger of Genocide hurting, killing and torturing people, but.) When you grab a tissue and go to squish that bug, there's something horrifying about pitiable about it. I feel guilty that I'm killing it, horrified that it might touch me, feel sorry for it if I don't kill it right away and its legs are twitching, and feeling doubly guilty that I feel it's necessary to kill it in the first place.

If you anthropomorphize the spider, you will feel sorry for it. And for Wonder Woman, knowing that Genocide is, in a sense, her, or a possible-her, it is very understandable why she would flinch at the last minute and not squish that bug. That response makes even more sense when you take into account what she said in this issue, about it being jealousy that motivated Genocide against her. She was an awful, pitiful creature who had nothing, and could do nothing but destroy. It's hard not to be revolted and feel pity, and action based on those feelings is to stop and let go, rather than to finish the job.

I can understand and appreciate the reaction that she had, even if she reasons it out differently in her own head, with talk of vengeance vs war.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-06-26 09:17 pm UTC (link)

Strangely, I'm not really that invested in whether or not it was wrong not to kill Genocide.

But that's what you're arguing against.

The whole point of that plot was poking at Diana's moral foundation. She goes on and on about how she's going to kill Genocide, how Genocide needs to die. She questions herself, asks the very legitimate question "am I culpable in the deaths caused by Genocide because I failed to stop her creators when I had the chance." She wavers in her convictions, tries to suss out and re-assert what her convictions even are. And then she doesn't kill Genocide, and she's all ZOMG RELIEVED. It's a huge thing for her. She thanks her gods profusely that she didn't have it in her to kill. In this issue, with Phillipus, she goes on and on about how she couldn't kill Genocide, and Phillipus is like "yes, that's why you're cool and why we follow you." It is entirely about whether or not it was wrong to kill Genocide.

You can't write that story and then make it about Genocide being sympathetic (and you can't write that story and then cave in Ares' head). And you can't say "but I get why she didn't kill Genocide" in the face of that story and not be implicitly making a moral argument, because the question itself is explicitly presented as a moral choice.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

parsimonia
2009-06-26 10:43 pm UTC (link)

But that's what you're arguing against.

No, it's not. I'm saying that I can understand why she would react the way she did, not arguing whether or not it was the right thing to do. I'm just focusing on a minute detail and expanding on it, perhaps turning it into a bigger deal than it deserves to be.

The thing is, IIRC (I don't have #32 handy at the moment) she thought that Genocide would die by letting her drown, killing her passively. She just didn't want to perform the act of killing her with her own hands. It's very "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you," a la Batman Begins. It has the effect of killing*, but saves WW from the burden of doing it directly.

*Theoretically, because Genocide and R'as don't exactly have to follow the rules.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-06-26 11:16 pm UTC (link)

No, she dives into the water to save Genny. That's her turnaround - she deliberately causes Genocide to fall helplessly into the water, believing that to be the best (or perhaps most miserable) means at her disposal to kill her. It would have been very much her directly making the kill (though I don't think Diana would make that distinction anyway - she doesn't really need to, after all, as she's willing to kill directly, so taking responsibility for an indirect kill should be automatic for her). She spends a moment exulting in the concept, then realizes she totally wants to rescue her, and goes streaking into the water all "Thank all the gods I am not that person," meaning to preserve Genocide's life.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

parsimonia
2009-06-26 11:43 pm UTC (link)

Ohhh okay, memory refreshed, thank you.

Hmm. Okay, how's this: once Genocide had the Lasso removed from her, she's a lot easier to handle and defeat or imprison. She could theoretically save her, and then lock her up somewhere, right? IDK.

Again, I can understand the motivation in not wanting to kill her, even from the vengeance angle to an extent. If doing it feels wrong in the moment (and I think that we do base a lot of our morals on how doing something feels or how the consequences would feel, which in turn explains why some people do horrible things: they somehow get to the point where doing something hurtful actually feels good) then of course she will question why she's doing it and whether or not it's the right thing to do. Killing Max Lord probably felt right in a way that–to use the example again–killing Frankenstein's monster never can.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-06-27 12:48 am UTC (link)

Thing is, it's incredibly problematic in light of Diana's internal monologue earlier in the issue. She asks herself if she hasn't been self-serving and self-righteous in not killing her foes; if perhaps she's been valuing her own self-satisfaction and ability to say "look how virtuous I am" over actually making the world a better, safer place. It's an extremely legit question. It is a question that needs an incredibly compelling answer. How can Diana continue to be considered a good guy if she can come up with no answer to "why is the one life of a villain worth more than the countless innocent lives this villain's existence will cost" other than "because that way I feel better about myself"? She absolutely can't. It completely condemns her behavior. Once she asks herself that, once she puts that incredibly morally powerful idea on the table for herself and the reader, she cannot spare Genocide's life without proving herself a monster unless she can offer an equally morally powerful rebuttal.

So what is her justification? What compelling reason does she eventually come up with to answer her own self-doubt, to rebuke the question "what genuine moral good am I serving when I choose not to kill a foe?"

All she offers is "it makes me feel better." She can't do it because she doesn't want to be that person. That's all. That's exactly what she condemned herself for, exactly what she accurately said would not be morally acceptable, half a fight scene prior, but it seems to be enough for her, since it's her final word on the matter and she limps her way home to Themyscira totally satisfied.

In the absence of that monologue, sure, not wanting to kill Genny because it feels wrong would be perfectly acceptable. But in the presence of that monologue, with that awareness that "feels wrong" is not a legitimate justification in the immediate forefront of both her brain and the readers', it becomes monstrous. It's the difference between misreading a label and seeing the dosage just fine but still handing out too many pills - awareness is everything, and Diana is incontrovertibly aware.

(Ideally, she'd have killed Genocide, like she damn well should have and promised to a dozen times, and thought to herself, "no more. Not ever again," and gone straight to where the Cheetah was holed up. And then something gets said or done to remind her of when Minerva was her ally, and she thinks to herself, "wait, that's why. Because they can change. Because I believe in reformation, because I must not prevent the good someone might do if given the chance." Because that question cannot go unanswered like this once asked, not without making Diana look like the worst kind of hypocrite.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	bluefall 2009-06-26 09:41 pm UTC (link)
	Also, it is apparently just possible that I feel very strongly about this particular comic. >.> Please tell me if I'm being uncivil; I think perhaps I might be from the tone of your first sentence there, and I certainly don't mean to. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

parsimonia
2009-06-26 11:30 pm UTC (link)

No, no, I didn't find you to be uncivil. I know and respect that Wonder Woman is something you take seriously and care about deeply. I said "Strangely, I'm not really that invested in whether or not it was wrong not to kill Genocide" because it is strange that I'm not especially concerned about it. Just acknowledging that, is all.

(If I seem irritated, it's probably because of some of the periphery discussion about atheism. Due to past arguments and discussions, both online and offline, I get easily hurt and frustrated so I have to think twice as hard about my words.)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-06-27 01:15 am UTC (link)

Heheh. I wouldn't ordinarily think it was a big deal myself but the fact that it was a story point gives it a significance I can't gloss over like I usually would.

(If I seem irritated, it's probably because of some of the periphery discussion about atheism. Due to past arguments and discussions, both online and offline, I get easily hurt and frustrated so I have to think twice as hard about my words.)

I feel you on that. I actually had a bit of trouble coming into the atheism argument without being defensive and I'm on the culturally dominant side of that debate. For what it's worth you seem pretty chill thus far to me. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -