Tweak

InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Shut your pie-hole!"

Username: 
Password:    
Remember Me
  • Create Account
  • IJ Login
  • OpenID Login
Search by : 
  • View
    • Create Account
    • IJ Login
    • OpenID Login
  • Journal
    • Post
    • Edit Entries
    • Customize Journal
    • Comment Settings
    • Recent Comments
    • Manage Tags
  • Account
    • Manage Account
    • Viewing Options
    • Manage Profile
    • Manage Notifications
    • Manage Pictures
    • Manage Schools
    • Account Status
  • Friends
    • Edit Friends
    • Edit Custom Groups
    • Friends Filter
    • Nudge Friends
    • Invite
    • Create RSS Feed
  • Asylums
    • Post
    • Asylum Invitations
    • Manage Asylums
    • Create Asylum
  • Site
    • Support
    • Upgrade Account
    • FAQs
    • Search By Location
    • Search By Interest
    • Search Randomly

unknownscribler ([info]unknownscribler) wrote in [info]scans_daily,
@ 2009-07-31 01:02:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:char: wonder woman/diana of themyscira, creator: gail simone

Another Wondy #34 post
In the other thread I've been mouthing off about the levels of fail I felt this issue contained. Having read the issue in full I stand by my dissatisfaction with its content -- and I'm truly saddened if not at all surprised over Gail's antithical attiude in and out of the book about everything concerning Diana's costume -- but I freely admit there is some good stuff there as well.

I like the jist of the sequence with Morrow, if not the wording. The idea that someone like Clark or even Bruce would regard Morrow as inhuman is stated clumbsily; rather I think it seems that he's trying to say that Diana sees him as something other than just his crimes or as a villain. Superman is the ideal you aspire to, Batman is what happens when you fail to meet the ideal, Wonder Woman is the one who will be there to help you meet it if you ask it of her. Not exactly elegantly put either but there you go.

I'm glad the gorillas survived -- even if they've really been drawn more like yeti than actual gorillas. I like that she has non-human supporting cast members.

I like the way Diana reacts to how Psycho is abusing Steel.

I like that at least the Amazons aren't completely sheep-like in accepting the Gargarean rule, even though it should never have happened in the first place.


It's been discussed before that a lot of us had a problem with the plot-inspired stupidity of Diana easing up on Genocide long enough to let her get snatched away. But having just seen the last 2 WWWA posts, where Diana is unrepentant about having killed Max Lord and the reasons why and how she did it, the narration here was particularly jarring.

That description is essentially identical to the situation with Max and as a malicious godling zombie of a future Diana I'd argue that Genocide was far far worse than the prospect of a mind controlled Superman.

And then there's this:

I have no problem with Diana recognising the need for lethal force, but here it feels like she's justifying not the necessity but the use of said lethal force, and not on the situation -- an opponent looking to kill her -- but the nature of that opponent -- an AI.

This just reads totally wrong. She's friends with AIs like Red Tornado, she's friends with entities that would never ever pass for human. She would never ever believe that the difference between the way she should feel when taking an opponent's life is dictated by whether it's organic or synthetic.



(Post a new comment)


[info]thanekos
2009-07-30 04:40 pm UTC (link)
well, it's Ivo AI.

Ivo AI is pretty much killbot, so I guess any of her higher intelligence could be attributed to the cruelty algorithm.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]unknownscribler
2009-07-30 05:08 pm UTC (link)
I disagree - while sapient AI aren't ubiquitous in the DCU, they're no longer exactly novel creations either.

This is an intelligence that's been created for no other reason than to kill other beings in the most cruel manner it can for the pleasure of others: the narration should have had her express anger over yet another perversion of life created in Genocide's wake. It should have had her maybe think that she was doing the AI a favour by ending its travesty of an existence. Something other than the guilt free and even pleasurable breaking of one of Ivo's toys.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]gailsimone
2009-07-31 05:05 am UTC (link)
I've been thinking about this, and it seems to me that in Diana's eyes, she might consider Lira a weapon, which would make her fair game. Again, in Diana's eyes. A smart weapon is still a weapon, and she's knocked the heads off of robot's before.

However, I agree with those who think that that is short-sighted of Diana.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]alschroeder
2009-07-30 04:44 pm UTC (link)
Maybe you're looking at it the wrong way. Maybe it's the fact that an AI, presumably, can be repaired (just ask the Metal Men), whereas a killed human being---can't.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]unknownscribler
2009-07-30 05:14 pm UTC (link)
Nope, she's talking about ending its existence in much the same way I imagine that had she been there at the time she would simply have just snuffed Dr Light while the others will debating about the mind wipe.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jeyl
2009-07-30 05:11 pm UTC (link)
"Which means, no moral quandary about killing this thing"

God, I freaking HATE this kind of reasoning!

HERO: Surrender!
VILLAIN: No!
HERO: Hooray! Now I can kill you and no one will ever question the morality of it because I gave you a chance!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nevermore999
2009-07-30 05:20 pm UTC (link)
That wasn't the quandry here at all. The quandry was that it wasn't a sentient being.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jeyl, 2009-07-30 05:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nevermore999, 2009-07-30 05:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jeyl, 2009-07-30 05:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlbarnett, 2009-07-30 11:43 pm UTC

[info]gailsimone
2009-07-31 02:14 am UTC (link)
What the fuck?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jeyl, 2009-07-31 02:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gailsimone, 2009-07-31 04:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-07-31 04:58 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gailsimone, 2009-07-31 05:02 am UTC

[info]nevermore999
2009-07-30 05:19 pm UTC (link)
Diana's description of how she didn't kill Genocide bothered me too. The scene in the comic where she did it did not. Genocide was going to die in a horrible way- in pain, and suffocating to death underwater. Just the way Diana described it gave me the creeps. The way she killed Max was quick, clean and humane, meanwhile. So I had no problem with her going back to rescue Genocide, it seemed true to the Amazonian ideal of mercy kill.

But her description here- yeah, it seems like she's drawing a paralell to Max, and that seems really wrong. Wondy would have no problem killing Genocide. Maybe the argument was that there is a chance Genocide could be redeemed, while Max admitted under the lasso he would never stop? I dunno, it would be something to ask Gail about.

As for the AI, that didn't bother me. It just seemed she was commenting it was Ivo's, so it wasn't sentient, especially since it explained it's mockings as a "cruelty algorithm". Normally, Diana wouldn't kill someone for petty crimes such as cage fighting, especially when she didn't feel that threatened.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jlbarnett
2009-07-30 11:43 pm UTC (link)
since when can undead beings suffocate.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]gailsimone
2009-07-31 02:21 am UTC (link)
Diana has said she won't kill for vengeance. I think that's a pretty clear line in most cases. She'd kill, if necessary, in battle or to save innocents...she's not Superman. But some of the posts about this (not you, I swear!) are almost looking too hard for contradiction in a pretty simple code. Max's killing was hugely controversial by ITSELF, now you add on similar situations where it's going to come back against the character for a long time, and it's exponentially more complicated (and more of a pain in the ass for those people who can't enjoy a story without every star in alignment).

"But she killed Max under these circumstances!" Yes, she did, and the point of RotO is, in a big way, to show the line where she WILL kill and when she WON'T. Taking everything from her, even trying to kill her friends, that alone isn't going to do it. She'll kick the everloving shit out of you, but she won't murder a bound opponent and she won't kill for vengeance.

It's pretty clear. You have to make an effort to muddy those waters.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mullon
2009-07-30 05:35 pm UTC (link)
She's an I.C.O.A.P.C.E.C.A. That's not catchy at all.

If anyone she should be more willing to kill Genocide since she isjust a zombie anyway.

(Reply to this)


[info]batcookies
2009-07-30 06:09 pm UTC (link)
It comes down to "is there really a hope for this thing to be redeemed?" and in this case the answer is "no". It's a robot programmed just to kill and be cruel. That's all it will ever do.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2009-07-30 08:10 pm UTC (link)
It could be nothing more than a single program, or it could be a sapient AI following a program's directives. That's an important distinction - if it's the former then this is just a machine, if it's the latter, it's the equivalent of a person who has been brainwashed. Maybe there are more clues scattered throughout the fight scene, but there's not enough in this little section to tell us one way or the other. All we see here is Diana saying robots are fair game.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]box_in_the_box
2009-07-30 09:48 pm UTC (link)
The problem being that, in both the DC and Marvel universes, robots who are programmed to be irredeemable automatons not only CAN break such programming and gain redemption, but DO so at an alarming rate of frequency. Indeed, if anything, it's The Law Of Contrarian Robot Programming at work, as seen in nearly all sci-fi:

1. If a robot is programmed to be perfectly safe and beneficial to all people, it will inevitably go nuts and start slaughtering people .

2. If a robot is programmed to decive, betray, wound or murder, it will be inspired by the innate goodness of humanity to shed a tear and choose a life of heroism.

Clearly, then, what robot manufacturers should be doing, to create a perfectly safe population of robots, is to program them all to kill all humans, because whatever they're programmed to do, they'll always wind up doing the opposite in the end.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]khamelea, 2009-07-30 11:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-07-31 12:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dr_hermes, 2009-07-31 12:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]khamelea, 2009-07-31 03:23 am UTC

[info]jarodrussell
2009-07-30 07:19 pm UTC (link)
*ignores comic panels as hard as possible*

Superman is the ideal you aspire to, Batman is what happens when you fail to meet the ideal, Wonder Woman is the one who will be there to help you meet it if you ask it of her.

Lol wut? Seriously, Wonder Woman is the trasitionary angel between the Superman ideal and the failure that is Batman?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gailsimone
2009-07-31 02:33 am UTC (link)
Jarod, can I ask where that quote comes from? I disagree with it entirely...is it from canon somewhere?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-07-31 02:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gailsimone, 2009-07-31 04:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlbarnett, 2009-07-31 09:10 pm UTC

[info]proteus_lives
2009-07-30 09:18 pm UTC (link)
The IVO speech made me laugh.

(Reply to this)


[info]jackissuperfly
2009-07-30 10:42 pm UTC (link)
The difference between Genocide and Max is that Max wasn't defenseless. He had Superman under his control. She killed him to end the battle. She might have killed Genocide given no other choice, but as long as she can think of other choices, she'll take them. It may seem kind of silly, but at least it's consistent.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gailsimone
2009-07-31 02:31 am UTC (link)
Thank you...I thought that was pretty freaking clear, myself. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-07-31 04:46 am UTC

[info]dr_hermes
2009-07-30 11:33 pm UTC (link)
You know, maybe (like real people and more fully developed characters in mainstream literature) Wonder Woman ISN'T 100% consistent with her beliefs. Maybe she contradicts herself sometimes, maybe she slips in applying her philosophy. Fictional characters often seem more real when they have off moments and lapses.

I always shrug when someone says "Captain Amnesia would NEVER say that," or "The Bilious Beetle has been shown to think before he acts." Just today, you and those you know have probably said or did something a bit "out of character."

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gailsimone
2009-07-31 02:30 am UTC (link)
Very well said, Dr, but I will also add that RotO pretty clearly states what Diana's code is, in writing. She has nearly everything taken from her and she STILL doesn't kill in vengeance.

There's also a common mistake going on in this thread (not your post), that because a character says something, it reveals either 1) the writer's viewpoint, or 2) objective truth. I don't write like that. I actually agree with the point made earlier that Diana SHOULD give some thought to the notion of AI being a form of sentience. I will also concede that Diana should know better, particularly since she knows the Red Tornado and considers him a friend. I don't disagree with any of that, in fact, I'd say they hit the nail on the head.

But what she's saying is what's going through her mind at that moment, in battle. It's neither my viewpoint, nor is it necessarily objective truth. It isn't even necessarily the choice she would make at the crucial moment, since we've just recently seen her pull back from killing someone she had sworn to kill.

I think that's part of what makes fiction enjoyable, is the clashing of people's subjective opinions and reality.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]dr_hermes, 2009-07-31 02:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gailsimone, 2009-07-31 04:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dr_hermes, 2009-07-31 05:39 am UTC

[info]gailsimone
2009-07-31 02:24 am UTC (link)
"and I'm truly saddened if not at all surprised over Gail's antithical attiude in and out of the book about everything concerning Diana's costume --"

Does that sentence make sense to everyone else?

Antithetical to whom?

Trust me on this, the vast majority of readers' number one complaint about Wonder Woman is NOT that we're not reverential enough to twenty year old stories. It's that the continuity is intimidating and baffling (followed quickly by too much emphasis on the gods, always the worst-selling stories in any WW run). So few people have defended the Diana Rockwell Trevor story that I think the previous SD post might be the only time I've heard much of a complaint about modifying it at all, period.

It's easy to think everyone cares about the same stuff we do. But it's also usually completely incorrect.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]unknownscribler
2009-07-31 04:37 am UTC (link)
Antithetical to whom? Me mostly, and everyone else who isn't a fan of the music hall costume aka the Bathing Suit. Suffice to say that you and I seem destined to have little to no common ground on this issueespecially no you've determined to overthrough an elegant and mythic solution to the metaorigins of her costume and replace it with some needlessly convoluted alternative.

Why is Diana's continuity so intimidating and baffling (and why is it more so than that of any other character)?

And given the recidivist jihad to hammer illconsidered bits of the pre-crisis version onto the modern iteration of the character (well, all of the DC characters really) it doesn't surprise me that the Diana Trevor storyline is getting buried

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]gailsimone, 2009-07-31 04:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gailsimone, 2009-07-31 04:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]gailsimone, 2009-07-31 04:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-07-31 05:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-07-31 05:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]looking2dastars, 2009-08-01 02:38 am UTC

[info]jedd_the_jedi
2009-07-31 09:43 am UTC (link)
I recognise that outfit from the earlier post with Dinah finding something for Diana to go undercover in - still cracks me up.

(Reply to this)



Home | Site Map | Manage Account | TOS | Privacy | Support | FAQs