Tweak

InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "In Latin, it's Christo."

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

bluefall ([info]bluefall) wrote in [info]scans_daily,
@ 2009-03-17 16:59:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:char: cheetah/barbara minerva, char: wonder woman/diana of themyscira, creator: mike deodato, creator: william messner-loebs, series: many faces of barbara minerva, series: world of wondy

The Many Faces of Barbara Minerva, part 2 (William Messner-Loebs)
Ah, Messner-Loebs. I have some serious problems with his run, which are only exacerbated by the repellent atrocity that is the later Deodato pencilling. But one thing I've got to credit him with, he did some good work with Diana's rogues.



The thing about Diana is that she's too practical and effective for the Joker Problem. She kills monsters and she saves victims, and she's really good at both. Run into her two or three times, and she either cuts your puppet strings, converts you, or decides you're too dangerous to live and sends you the way of Drakul and the khunds. You can't really sustain "can't be reformed" around Diana.

So there's only three real ways to do a lasting Wondy rogue. One, you make the villain flat-out more powerful than her. Circe's a good example. She's a freaking god, and not the chump kind like Phobos and Deimos either (moly weakness notwithstanding). No matter how much of a danger she is, Diana's not killing her unless Circe lets her. But that's incredibly hard to write - how do you defeat a more powerful foe without diminishing that foe or looking stupid or pulling a deus ex? Perez and Jimenez were awesome at it, but not everyone can be.

The second way is to make rogues who aren't actually malicious or even necessarily dangerous. A genial, swashbuckling gentleman thief, for example, who would never dream of actually hurting anyone. Then you have the problem of explaining why someone on Diana's field of play should *care* - Angle Man seems like a shot at this, but it's hard to justify Diana giving a crap about some petty theft when she's routinely embroiled in actual wars and armageddon events. At her power level, it's actually harder to write a believable amiable rogue story than a well-done conflict with a Circe or Darkseid. (A Mxy-like magical prankster who doesn't ever quite understand the consequences of his "harmless" jokes could actually work quite well, though, adding humor and giving her a regular opportunity to showcase her wisdom and diplomacy; really, why doesn't she have one of those already?)

The third way, somewhat tricky to establish but relatively easy to maintain, is to complicate the fuck out of Diana's relationships with them. Make them her friends, make her owe them or need them or feel responsible for them, make sure that "can't be reformed" is close enough to true that the enmity never ends, but is also a conclusion that Diana's constitutionally incapable of coming to. This was WML's go-to method, and he was actually pretty good at it (...at least, on the conceptual level).


So, last we saw Barbara Minerva, she was Chuma-less, fleeing Circe's rent-a-beasties, able to transform nearly at-will but slave to Circe's drug when doing so. Circe, of course, gets dealt with by the heroes. Dr. Minerva manages to find herself new trouble, though.





This place, which Minerva "should never have come back to," is Pan Balgravia, a lawless devil-worshipping pit of festering fiction somewhere in the Balkans. It is expected that horrible things will happen to her now that she's in captivity in such a place. And before you ask, no, at no point does WML ever deign to inform us just why the hell she's running around there in the first place or what's up with the dagger she'll later be going on about.



Now, WML, because he routinely fails to comprehend that Wondy is not about some ludicrous, juvenile "battle of the sexes" (he should go hang with Jelenic), makes Diana's motivation out to be "Cheetah = woman, woman = sister, sister = rescue." This is, of course, utter simplistic gryphonshit. However, what is true is that Minerva is very much Diana's responsibility; Diana accepted that when Chuma first entrusted the maddened Cheetah to her care, and Minerva only reinforced it when she helped Diana's people against Circe. So Diana going to save her does make perfect sense even at this early point in their acquaintance.

Anyway, in a fit of absurd out-of-character lunacy which I won't post for my own sanity and yours, Diana recruits Deathstroke - no, that's not a typo, I do mean Slade Wilson - to help her bust out the Cheetah, and they, um, sneak into Pan Belgravia by the entirely Wonder Woman method of public airline and Sydney Bristow-style fake identities.

No, I don't know either. Just nod and smile.

Meanwhile, back in the royal seat of Pan Belgravia, otherwise known as the Castle of Gratuitous Violence and Torture, there's some gratuitous violence and torture happening.



Turns out the Baron is into a little Elder God wrangling, and he needs an insanely powerful metahuman female for bait/host body/wife/thing. Lucky for him, he happened to have one wandering around the grounds for completely, utterly unexplained reasons, and another on the way in the most moronic and unnatural-for-her way possible, leaving him plenty of leeway to notice she's there and lay a trap for her as well.



Yes, I'm skipping over vast swaths of plot here. Trust me when I say that it's better this way.

So, anyway, Diana's in a cage.



If you're curious about the "gift of illusion" business, don't be. That's just WML carrying on the fine Perez tradition of randomly assigning strange, a-thematic one-shot powers to Diana to serve the needs of the plot via the old "A god did it" chestnut. Basically, for the duration of this story, Diana can create sophisticated illusions (in this case, a blown eye, suggesting a concussion to make her seem less dangerous). It's just a random MacGuffin. Don't worry about it.

Anyway, Diana gets free.



If you think about it for a couple seconds, the Baron's plan makes no sense whatsoever, here. He wants to use the Cheetah as a host body for his elder god or whatever. Not Minerva, who's far too powerless, but the Cheetah. Remember what "the Cheetah" is? A god in a host body. That's like one of those spiders that lays its eggs in a caterpillar coming up to some huge, swollen caterpillar and going "ooh, lots of food for my babies, I'll lay my eggs here," only the caterpillar's all swollen because it's already full of spiders. You'd think the Baron's demons would be able to tell that Dr. Minerva's soul is currently No Vacancy.

It doesn't really matter, though, since the Cheetah transformation's gone, so they decide to go with Diana instead.





The next two pages are basically Slade getting his ass kicked by the demon, and not worth posting. I only include that first panel because frankly, it's too hilariously stupid not to share. That "good entrance" caption box, he's totally dead serious about that there.





That was Diana's temporary illusion power again, by the way. I have to say that Minerva's willingness to play bait is a little odd, but I suppose without her Cheetah form she doesn't have much choice but to follow Diana's lead. No comment on the blatant tentacle rape, or why Diana allows it to go on for so long.

Anyway, Diana springs out of hiding and lays into the demon.



More fighting, and holy crap, I'd forgotten just how much fucking Slade there is in this story. Anyway, Diana's not really cleaning house.





So here we see a minor retcon - the Cheetah only needs one drop of blood to change, and she doesn't need Circe's drug (no longer in evidence) to keep blood down and sustain her transformation. Very sensible decision IMO; Perez really hamstrung her as an effective villain by giving Circe permanent power over her like that.



At least the unpronouncable elder god recognizes that Cheetah's of no use to her. She really should invest in a better class of minions.

And that's that story wrapped. It might be worth mentioning that this is the first bit of Wondy that WML ever wrote. He does get better. (Then he gets worse again.) But so far his Cheetah actually cleaves pretty close to Perez' - she doesn't care who gets hurt so long as *she* escapes, but she does feel beholden to Diana and is perfectly capable of normal human interaction. And of course, she sees something unknown and interesting and dives fearlessly into it.

There are two big things worth noting, though. First, this Minerva is apologetic, marveling that Diana would come for her "after all she's done," and there's something deliberately redemptive about her diving into the portal and possibly saving Diana's life. Perez' manipulator knew all about the naive and the do-gooding, and would probably have expected a rescue from Diana. (And been annoyed to owe her, of course.)

Second, she refers to the Cheetah as her "true self." Perez actually did hint at that, ever so glancingly, but the relationship between his Cheetah and his Dr Minerva was much more complex than that. This is the first blatant, straightforward repudiation of Barbara Minerva in favor of the animal inside, made consciously and willingly by the human half. Add that to the things you're keeping in mind as we go through this series.

Anyway, thirty issues later, WML is a bit more in the swing of things, Deodato has taken over pencilling duties, and a woman named Sazia is trying to stake out a place in the massive gang war that's been raging through Boston since Perez left.





Boom, flash, the Widow Sazia has found herself a Cheetah. She also breaks Cheshire out of jail (well, smuggles her a mirror, a length of twine and a plastic butter knife with which to break herself out, which is kind of lolarious), and recruits Ivy. She then sends all three of them to kill her mob rival Paulie Longo - who has just come to Diana for protection. Punching and kicking ensues.





The idea of Cheshire as a credible threat to Diana just makes me laugh. Ivy, I can see slowing her down for a minute, at least at her full power with plants at her disposal. But freakin' Cheshire? WML gives the girls more credit than me, but not *that* much, because Diana puts them down fairly handily before staggering off into an alley.





This leads to that famous pizza-and-bondage scene that got posted at the old S_D a bazillion times. (Apparently it's a foregone conclusion that Diana gets taken down, so we don't even see the fight; that seems entirely fair given the state Diana's in in that alley.) I won't repost it, because it's silly, it's been done, and most important, there's very little of interest re: the Cheetah here, apart from her accusing Ivy of being weird, and a quick panel with the Widow Sazia.



So, this Cheetah is competent and on-task, even in her Cheetah form -- she's got an entirely normal human brain (contrasted with the slightly insane Ivy here, or Perez' blood-hungry hunter). And her task, in this case, is working as a hitman.

Anyway, Diana escapes, naturally, and the girls give chase.



Meanwhile, Paulie Longo has hired some magical help to attack the Widow Sazia, so there's an assault in progress on the mansion that Diana just busted out of, which Ivy and Cheetah sort of get caught in.



I would think Ivy would be familiar with the word "golem" at least, if not the particulars of the thing's function. But I guess we're showcasing Cheetah's doctorate here, which I can appreciate.

So Ivy takes down the golem, but Cheetah disappears on her. Meanwhile, elsewhere on the grounds, Diana is still wearing the stupidest costume ever.



LOL again at Cheshire of all people about to kill Diana.



You know, I loathe everything else about this art style pretty much unconditionally, but I do actually kind of dig Cheetah's wild-ass mane.

(Ignore the caption boxes in this next, they're unrelated.)









And then... nothing. We never see the conclusion of this scene, we just jump to Diana dealing with Paulie Longo. After that, she goes after the Widow Sazia, who's sort of captive to the Joker, and while she's inside dealing with him, we see Minerva lurking out in the street.





Then the building explodes. And, strangely, despite Minerva's comment that Diana's the one who asked her to watch her back, Diana seems surprised to hear that Cheetah was at the scene.



That or she's lying to protect Cheetah, but even WML knew better than to have Diana lie. I assume we're to take this to mean that Diana asked Cheetah to watch her back against the golems and then let her escape in gratitude, and Cheetah interpreted that more broadly and kept following her into new danger.

In any case, Cheetah got bounced off to hell with Asquith, and the next we see of them, Asquith looks quite different, and poor Cheetah is not in a good way.





You know, that line really kinda makes me want to write Cheetah/Wondy. It's just so thoroughly "My boyfriend is gonna kick your ass for touching me."

Turns out she's right, though. Because when Diana comes looking for Asquith...



I know her facial expression mostly suggests that someone just let a really nasty fart loose, but it's actually supposed to be horror and rage.



See?

I do like the reminder of her crazily keen sense of smell, though. Those enhanced senses of hers never get enough play.

So Diana rushes off to find Asquith and save Artemis and the Cheetah. This involves her figuring out that Donna Milton is Circe (which is the other really cool thing WML did with a Wondy rogue), which gets her teleported right to Asquith, who's busy with an obscenely sexualized slaughter of Artemis. Honestly, this would be a great finale if it weren't for the horrific, repugnant obscenity of the art.



Aw, poor Cheetah, warped into something feral and mad by Asquith's power. (As gods go, the cat-spirit bride of Urzkartaga is obviously not a very strong one, but I'd still say that subverting her will has got to be some pretty impressive magic. Very ominous, Randolph. Very ominous indeed).

Artemis fights the transformed Cassandra Arnold; Diana takes on the roid-rage Cheetah.



"She doesn't know me." This is really not dissuading me from that Cheetah/Wondy thing.

Anyway, fight, fight, hideous unspeakable art, more fighting...





So Circe saves Diana from the Cheetah, because we're just lousy with old enemies of Diana becoming her friends and sidekicks around here (more on that elsewhere). She's still too weak for Asquith, though.





And then Asquith kills Artemis and Diana kills Asquith and it's all very heroic and moving and pornographic. And Cheetah, Circe and poor Cassie Arnold are just... gone.

And WML leaves the book.

So, that's the Messner-Loebs Cheetah. She bears a lot of similarities to the Perez Cheetah, but she's got some distinct differences as well. She's still an incredibly powerful fighter, and she's still very smart and educated and rational. But she's not a scholar, and despite her initial dive into the unknown, she's not an explorer. She's a mercenary, apparently completely embracing the concept of killing for money, and spends all her time in service of other people's plots - first Sazia's, then Diana's, then (involuntarily) Asquith's. At no point does she appear to have ideas or plans of her own, or even motivations apart from "protect Diana."

Which motive is in itself is pretty interesting. I actually do genuinely dig that as a concept; Perez' Minerva was a self-interested and rather vile schemer, but she had human connections and she backed Diana against Circe. I find it completely believable that she would feel a sense of obligation to Diana for saving her life, that she could form the same sort of resentful dependence/support relationship with her that she had with Chuma, even that the two of them would get along fairly well when Barbara wasn't scheming. I love the idea of them doing a sort of permanent dance of amity-hostility; something somewhere between Xavier-Magneto and Batman-Harvey, where sometimes they rely on each other, sometimes they try to destroy each other, and Barbara never stops resenting Diana and Diana never stops trying to save her. And I do mean permanent. After all, the Cheetah is immortal; if nothing else, they're stuck with each other in a way that most hero-rogue pairs will never be.* The idea of them therefore almost having to reach some kind of accord because, over the centuries, they'll simply spend too much time together not to, is really appealing on a mythic level.

* Well, provided Diana remains immortal; I can't remember the last time Supes had to give up his heat vision in order to marry Lois or J'onn had to surrender his shapechanging as the price of living in the mortal world, but for some idiot reason Wondy writers just fucking love to rob Diana of her immortality. Fortunately it never sticks.

I don't think WML's execution of the concept was that hot, though. The conversion is too quick, too easy, too wholehearted, and his Barbara Minerva is straight-up nice to Diana. There's no sense of resentment, of her own pride and ambition, of the history and personality conflict that would make that bond unwelcome to them and interesting to the reader. And he does it at the cost of Barbara Minerva as a character, who becomes too embroiled in Diana's story to have one of her own.

One last significant point: WML's Cheetah is the Cheetah, not Barbara Minerva. You see this in the "true self" dialog, but more telling is the fact that we never see her human after that. Perez' Cheetah got twelve to maybe thirty-six hours of fur out of several pints of blood and a painstaking ritual; WML's Cheetah seems to be able to go a whole year on a single drop. Perez' Cheetah was a canny brilliant planner when human, but very physical, animalistic and vaguely bloodlusted when transformed - not Hulk mindless, by the end of his run, but something on the level of drunkenness - different priorities, feral catlike posture, less self-control, without complete access to everything that makes her *her*. WML's Cheetah never *is* human, but she acts perfectly human all the same; stands like a human and makes plans, waits around, takes orders and regrets missing her chance to make money while a big anthro cat. This was a bad decision, although you can't tell yet, as it's only the seed of the problem. We won't see it fully bloom until I get around to Pfeifer.

Next up: Deals with demons and yet another indistinguishable Generic White Cop with a Crush on Wondy, as we move onto Cheetah as perceived by ye olde John Byrne.



(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]mysteryfan
2009-03-17 04:46 pm UTC (link)
Hey, this is the first WW post of yours that I read! (I remember because of Slade's 'Good Entrance' which I first for some reason, I thought was something Diana was saying.)

So weird to me, the team-up with Slade. And inclusion of Poison Ivy.

I think I don't like villain and pseudo-villain crossovers very much. Except for occasional novelty value. Why does WW get Batvillains here versus something intrinsic to her? Do they not exist? Was there some crossover agreement? I am perplexed.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ebailey140
2009-03-17 06:27 pm UTC (link)
Sometimes writers like to use the fact that these characters exist in the same universe, and pull other people's villains in. Giganta and Angle Man are primarily Wonder Woman foes, for example, but they're usually in some other book.

It should also be noted that this was during Deathstroke's antihero phase that Wolfman started over in Titans. That lasted as long as Wolfman's Titans was still going and popular.

I'd have liked to have seen how Perez would have done WW vs Ivy, since, with Karen Berger editing, it would have been Gaiman's take on Ivy, the insane May Queen with a mystical connection to the Earth Mother (that Rucha would play up during No Man's Land). Given that Perez's Diana also had a special mystical connection to the Earth Mother (I'll have to figure out how to edit that story with Gaea and Pandora to fit the posting limits), it would have been an interesting conflict. So many What Ifs when we speculate on where Perez and Berger would have taken Diana if they'd kept the character...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]mysteryfan
2009-03-17 06:39 pm UTC (link)
Giganta and Angle Man are primarily Wonder Woman foes, for example, but they're usually in some other book.

I'll totally take your word on it, but that sounds crazy to me.

Sometimes writers like to use the fact that these characters exist in the same universe, and pull other people's villains in.

That's fine, and I've certainly seen it before. But I think it definitely reduces the conflict for me, and I think it would--and this is a completely personal opinion, but stories feel more interesting to me when it's not somebody else's villain the protagonist is fighting. Batverse is different, because they're all so always up in each other's business. But WW crossing over to Batverse in her own book, especially with no interaction from the heroes of that universe, feels odd to me.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]sailorlibra
2009-03-17 07:19 pm UTC (link)
Yes. There's no way Batman could ever hear about Joker hanging out in some other city without taking off after him. Poison Ivy, maybe, but not the Joker.

And on that note, it's sort of weird for the Joker to leave Gotham at all. I know he's done it before, but that always seems to contrast badly with his Batobsession. I really can't see him giving a damn about Diana, except possibly as a way to bother Batman.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]bluefall
2009-03-17 07:24 pm UTC (link)
In WML's world, all bad guys are mercenaries. All of them. Offer them money to kill somebody, every one of them will pop up and say "sure."

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]icon_uk
2009-03-17 09:06 pm UTC (link)
Look, giant whackily murderous props don't just pay for themselves you know! That hit job he took paid for a twenty-foot-wide acid meringue pie and a catapult to launch it towards Batman, and a thirty-foot-tall soda siphon to drown Robin in...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ebailey140
2009-03-17 07:46 pm UTC (link)
Superman asked the Joker just that in one of Byrne's issues when Mr. J attacked Metropolis. The Joker answered something like "Ohhh, Superman... Why not?"

For the Joker, that's actually a good reason to go to another city and give it's hero or heroine grief, doing it just on a whim.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]sailorlibra
2009-03-17 09:35 pm UTC (link)
In that issue, I would say that the Joker's real motivation was to bother Batman by causing distress to his friend. Though that's just my opinion and I'm not sure we'll ever know the Joker's true motivation, as it can't really be assumed that he ever really tells the truth.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ebailey140
2009-03-17 08:15 pm UTC (link)

Well, the authorities did shove the Cheetah into Arkham. That ultimately led to a conflict between Diana and Gordon. Batman was involved, but he ended up having to mainly deal with the larger War of the Gods spillover.

While I don't think the shared universe being used this way should be a regular thing, there have been some nice stories involving it. I enjoyed Harley's and Ivy's stay in Metropolis, and their interactions with the Superman cast. Brubaker did a fun Catwoman story with Selina and Holly in Keystone City causing trouble, with Selina commenting that she didn't like Keystone, thinking it too weird, missing the normalcy and sanity of Gotham. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]bluefall
2009-03-17 07:07 pm UTC (link)
Giganta and Angle Man are primarily Wonder Woman foes, for example, but they're usually in some other book.

Lies. Angle Man has never been in a story outside Diana's book. EVER. GOT THAT?

Diana vs Ivy would be ten thousand kinds of fun, and I'm deeply sorry we've never gotten a chance to really see it beyond completely incidental stuff like this.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]ebailey140
2009-03-17 07:49 pm UTC (link)
Heh... I do try my best to mentally block out Angle Man's appearances in Outsiders and Catwoman, I really do. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]bluefall
2009-03-17 07:08 pm UTC (link)
Hey, yeah, were you the one I had that conversation in the comments with about WML's overuse of the word "woman"?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]mysteryfan
2009-03-17 09:29 pm UTC (link)
This sounds familiar. Also like something I'd decide needs mentioning.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mysteryfan
2009-03-17 09:32 pm UTC (link)
Also, what did we come up with?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]bluefall
2009-03-17 09:57 pm UTC (link)
I attributed it to WML's obsession with Wondy-as-Gender-War. You'll note the Deathstroke team-up is a story about very gendered violence - Diana and Minerva are threatened by a pretty poorly-veiled rape, here, not just on the metaphor level (possession by an Elder Evil) but on a physical one as well (the possessed body then to be used for consummation with the demon husband dude who captured them). Diana then goes on to fight a cosmic rebellion against a race of only men who enslave only women, and you can divide the gang wars and Diana's redemption of Circe & Cheetah and slaying of Asquith along pretty stark gender lines as well (Cheshire, Ivy, Cheetah, hired by the basically-sane Widow Sazia, to fight the irredeemable Paulie Longo and his demonic White Magician ally... it's all very unsubtle once you look). The way WML goes out of his way to drive the point home in the dialog is almost an afterthought, really.

Which isn't an inherently bad concept, actually, Diana being more concerned than most with combating gendered violence (though making her its target, failed or otherwise, is a very different thing), because feminist critique of Western society and a particular concern for sex-based injustice is very much an intrinsic part of her mythos, whether DC likes it or not. It requires a writer who has any idea what the hell she's talking about, though, which WML (and Jelenic, and Luke to some extent, and any number of pre-Crisis authors, and...) was very much not.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]mysteryfan
2009-03-17 10:16 pm UTC (link)
I really, really don't like Wondy-as-Gender-War.

Why do we need a gender war, again?

I would mention that perhaps it is a... less welcome concept for some. Do we need more critique of Western society's sex-based injustice just because it's WW or could we have a really good story?

I just say, I usually like reading funner stories. Batman and Superman never have gender issues.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]mysteryfan
2009-03-17 10:18 pm UTC (link)
Batman and Superman never have gender issues.

I mean clear and obvious gender issues. In which they actually think about gender issues versus how they know best.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]bluefall
2009-03-17 10:31 pm UTC (link)
I'll take Wondy critiquing it over Batman quietly, viciously reinforcing and perpetuating it any day of the Goddamn week.

Do we need more critique of Western society's sex-based injustice... or could we have a really good story?

The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact they rather tend to support one another. There's a reason "Sound of Silence" is a better song than "Toxic."

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]mysteryfan
2009-03-17 10:55 pm UTC (link)
Viciously reinforcing and perpetuating it

I personally think that's overemphasized in discussions sometimes and would appreciate the opportunity to talk about specific examples of Batman being misogynistic. I know he is written that way, but I don't like it.

The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact they rather tend to support one another. There's a reason "Sound of Silence" is a better song than "Toxic."

Heh. Okay. Also, not mutually exclusive, agreed. But depth is enjoyed, in my opinion, delving into different concerns and issues, requiring different emotional reactions, actions and skillsets from a character. And they don't--Batman does not--ever have to deal with gender issues. Is it better for WW that she does? When her character is mostly written by men anyway?

I would so appreciate it if she could just take care of business more often without her gender being part of the plot.

So I don't know? And for some reason, which I'm trying to figure out, I have not yet been drawn in by her mystique enough to know for sure. Personally, I prefer less gender issues in stories, maybe. Or, more subtly done.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]bluefall
2009-03-18 12:14 pm UTC (link)
I would so appreciate it if she could just take care of business more often without her gender being part of the plot.

It's not that her gender should be part of the plot. It's that opposing injustice that is gender-based should be a larger part of her repertoire than the average hero (which, generally, means it should be part of her repertoire at all...).

Personally, I prefer less gender issues in stories, maybe. Or, more subtly done.

There's your real issue. Take... okay, let's go with "Golden Perfect," which is a few chapters yet to come in WWwA. That story opens in a women's shelter being run and maintained by amazons. A woman shows up, seeking asylum from her husband, because she and her child are being mistreated. Problem is, her husband is a mystical king, a JLA-level threat, and he wants them back.

That's a gender story. The fundamental issue at the heart of the external conflict is this: Rama Khan's patriarchy and disregard for his wife and child's needs is wrong, and unacceptable, and must be changed. A balance must be found where their needs and his are considered equally. That is exactly the reason Diana was sent into the world - to deal with exactly that kind of bullshit.

It's also a completely normal superhero story where the good guys beat up a jerk with superpowers, and you would never even notice how feminist it is if gender treatment weren't something you were already consciously and deliberately aware of.

The only difference between it and, say, a Batman story featuring Damien and Talia, is that "Golden Perfect" is teaching the reader, quietly and subtly, that women's issues are real issues, that women's shelters are an important and heroic endeavor, that patriarchy is damaging and needs to change, that the needs of women are as important as the needs of men, while the Batman story is quietly, subtly teaching the reader that women are weak obnoxious untrustworthy setpieces and obstacles in the more important lives of men. In other words, both stories are perfectly plate-standard enjoyable superhero stories, but the Wonder Woman story is feminist and the Batman story is not.

You can't just "take care of business" in this industry, in this *culture,* and have it turn out gender-neutral. It isn't possible, because not worrying about gender stuff means you use the default, and the default is a sexist one. Having a character who's explicitly about critiquing that default provokes an examination of that default, and the production of stories that defy that default, that is desperately needed.

The snag comes in not when you explore that aspect of the character, but when you put someone in charge of the character with no understanding of that need and that role. Because then they do like WML and Jelenic and get it wrong, in really clumsy and obvious ways, and do bullshit gender war nonsense and showcase their own weird sexism and basically do a lot of crap that has nothing to do with the character. The fault is not hers for being explicitly feminist. The fault is her handlers', for not.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]mysteryfan
2009-03-18 06:11 pm UTC (link)
That story opens in a women's shelter being run and maintained by amazons. A woman shows up, seeking asylum from her husband, because she and her child are being mistreated. Problem is, her husband is a mystical king, a JLA-level threat, and he wants them back.
That is not a tempting scenario for me to read.

That's a gender story. The fundamental issue at the heart of the external conflict is this: Rama Khan's patriarchy and disregard for his wife and child's needs is wrong, and unacceptable, and must be changed. A balance must be found where their needs and his are considered equally. That is exactly the reason Diana was sent into the world - to deal with exactly that kind of bullshit.

I feel it may be sexist if the biggest, most important, most visible woman hero is specifically supposed to deal with sexism. That seems limiting and.. kind of sexist.

And she's doing it in stories--repping all women and the struggle of the terrible struggle of being a woman, in stories written--what 99%? By men.

And they won't even let her be lesbian. Or even bi. I mean, she doesn't even get to like sex, right? Is it the madonna ideal at least in some minds?

I don't like learning lesson stories very often, they often feel condescending and in this Golden Perfect story case it would seem to me to very much be preaching to the choir.

I don't think you can compare a specific WW story to 'a Batman story featuring Damien and Talia'. And I like complicated characters. I like that Talia's often devious and probably insane. It makes her more interesting to me. She's not saddled with the role of representing female perfection. WW is, and that feels sexist to me. There is only one kind of woman? Obviously not, and no man has to put with that.

Having a character who's explicitly about critiquing that default provokes an examination of that default, and the production of stories that defy that default, that is desperately needed.

It probably is needed, but...if that is the case, the reason for her existence and/or the way her stories are crafted, it's not surprising that I can't get into many of her stories.

not worrying about gender stuff means you use the default
I address issues of equality and social conscience in almost every choice I make, from the language I use to the groceries I buy. But I think it's --well, for me--it's the time to know that I don't use the sexist default, and that I trust more and more men, too, to not use the default. To not be sexist. And a lot of them are right there with me.

And if a reader learned anything from the last Talia and Batman story I read, which was originally printed in 1971, I think, we learn that Talia is quite resourceful and will save Bruce's life. I don't say we learn that women are quite resourceful, because luckily, Talia doesn't have to rep all women.

I will agree, very very wholeheartedly, that Batman has been written as a terrible misogynist recently. This makes me sad. And confused.

I don't know why writers of Batman in the 80s, 90s and 2000s hate women more than the writers of Batman in the 70s.
Is it a societal problem? Do they? They seem to. I don't know. I see it in the way they write the female Batcharacters, too. Diminishing the female characters.

I really don't know WW, so I may be totally off on some of this WW ideas. It's just what I think I see as an outsider looking in on the WWverse.
I like her character, and am very glad she exists. I love her and the idea of her and don't want them to make her go shopping in Trinity. I get that she does represent a feminine ideal, and that that will never change. I hope I didn't seem disrespectful in mentioning what I think I may have picked up on regarding her portrayal. I know she's your favorite character, and that it all, always for any character, comes back to the writing and the reader's own personal take on the character.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]bluefall
2009-03-18 09:20 pm UTC (link)
That is not a tempting scenario for me to read.

I am utterly perplexed by this statement. Why?

Would you object to a story that began with, to maintain our example, Damien attempting to escape Ra's and Batman wanting to protect him?

To a scientist seeking political asylum in El Paso, who Jaime must decide what to do with?

To an Intergang lieutenant who comes to Superman wanting to turn States' evidence?

What is it about the women's shelter scenario, specifically, that you find so offputting?

That seems limiting and... kind of sexist.

Limiting? In what way is it limiting for Wonder Woman stories to address not only normal superhero issues, but also this one thing that every other superhero story avoids like the plague? In what way is it limiting to have a character who, by definition, has a wider palette of available important stories because her nature forbids a large swath of those stories from getting summarily swept under the rug and ignored as they are *everywhere else* in the industry?

You can tell a punching robot story with Wonder Woman.
You can tell a punching robot story with Superman.
You can tell a political story with Wonder Woman.
You can tell... you can tell another punching robot story with Superman.

Who's the limited character?

It's, again, not about "repping the terrible struggle of being a woman." It's the fact that, if she is any kind of hero, she will not sit idly by and watch sexism happen. All superheroes fight injustice. That is what they are there for. That is what we, theoretically, watch them do every week, when they're not wrapped up in post-modern masturbatory territorial battles (which is a whole other obnoxious tangent that I apologize for even bringing up). We watch them overcome the injustice of someone outsmarting the law or outgunning the law; of someone inflicting a hurt that the law does not prevent; we watch them protect the people who cannot protect themselves. Why should it perturb you if Diana is particularly concerned with social injustice? Bruce has a special penchant for children, particularly orphans, because he relates to them. Ollie makes a point of looking out for the disadvantaged - a belief they're being overlooked is his whole shtick. What makes it so problematic that Diana should be particularly interested in women?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]ebailey140
2009-03-19 03:28 am UTC (link)
You can tell a punching robot story with Wonder Woman.
You can tell a punching robot story with Superman.
You can tell a political story with Wonder Woman.
You can tell... you can tell another punching robot story with Superman.

Who's the limited character?


The thing is, he doesn't have to be. Clark is a friggin' journalist. There are all kinds of stories they could do from that angle. Investigate and expose something as Clark, do something more directly about it as Superman. There's a lot more good for Metropolis and the world he can do than punch robots, and you don't have to mess with the fundamentals of the character, since it'd just be using something that has been there from the beginning. You can explore any issue with this character that a crusading and idealistic journalist could possibly get involved in.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]bluefall
2009-03-19 10:32 am UTC (link)
Yeah, but he's limited by his icon status. I mean, we all saw "Decisions." DC is terrified to let Clark take a stand on anything, terrified to ever have him enforce anything but established neutral authority (check out all those Bronze Age stories where he protects government interests against radical anti-nuclear-weapon types), terrified to alienate even a single reader by giving him even the slightest bit of political texture that someone might disagree with or that might force someone to think. And the thing is, despite his Golden Age heritage of being a radical and rabble-rouser, there's nothing inherent in his character now that would force his writers out of that comfort zone, and a lot (journalistic neutrality, his concern about exerting too much power over the world, etc etc) to help them settle right down into it.

They'd love to play it that safe with Diana too, I imagine. But an editor can look at a Superman writer who offers up a story about affirmative action and say "no, this is too political, you can't tell this story with Superman, you're going to insult and offend people." What editor can look at a Wonder Woman writer who offers up a story about institutionalized sexism and say "You can't tell this story with Wonder Woman" with a straight face?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mysteryfan
2009-03-19 01:25 pm UTC (link)
That is not a tempting scenario for me to read.

I am utterly perplexed by this statement. Why?


Well, it's not my personal taste, mostly. But also, You're starting out in that scenario with the women as disenfranchised, downtrodden, lesser. Yes, family violence is real and violence against women is real, and that's great the Amazons have a shelter. But the woman character, the one who's being protected, is having to be protected because she's a woman. Starting out from a position of weakness. She's not been able to avoid the violence or whatever, she's put up with an oppressive husband, and she's allowed her children to be put in danger. While I know people do exist in that situation, and I've worked for the cause of people in need, and hope that anyone in real life experiencing these things finds a better life, I don't want to read about this fictional woman, particularly. She's starting out from a place of weakness and despair.

Would you object to a story that began with, to maintain our example, Damien attempting to escape Ra's and Batman wanting to protect him?

Damien is a child. Not a grown woman.

To a scientist seeking political asylum in El Paso, who Jaime must decide what to do with?

That's closer, imo, but unless the scientist was being beaten and tortured for being a scientist, it's not as close to the same (again, imo, right this minute)as if he was abused because he was a man.

To an Intergang lieutenant who comes to Superman wanting to turn States' evidence?

Okay, I don't even know what Intergang is. But again, to me it's a different story if the person we are talking about doesn't need protection because of the sex they are born.

What is it about the women's shelter scenario, specifically, that you find so offputting? What I said above, and downtrodden characters who are starting out the story in a situation of abuse and flight from abuse. Just not my cup of tea.

And there's no arguing that Superman isn't limited, too. He is. He's just not limited to being concerned with stories that specifically pertain to men. Written by women.

It's, again, not about "repping the terrible struggle of being a woman." It's the fact that, if she is any kind of hero, she will not sit idly by and watch sexism happen.

Fair enough.

All superheroes fight injustice. That is what they are there for. That is what we, theoretically, watch them do every week...We watch them overcome the injustice of someone outsmarting the law or outgunning the law; of someone inflicting a hurt that the law does not prevent; we watch them protect the people who cannot protect themselves. Why should it perturb you if Diana is particularly concerned with social injustice?

Agreed. Good points. And it doesn't perturb me if Diana is particularly concerned with social justice. All of the heroes are.

Bruce has a special penchant for children, particularly orphans, because he relates to them.

But they're children. Not adult women needing special protection.

Ollie makes a point of looking out for the disadvantaged - a belief they're being overlooked is his whole shtick.
"The disadvantaged" is also not synonymous with being a woman.

What makes it so problematic that Diana should be particularly interested in women?

When you put it that way, I certainly don't disagree. I'm absolutely fine with her being particularly interested in women. It makes sense. I'm glad we found some common ground. I believe my concerns have to do with whether women are sometimes portrayed as needing special help because they are women.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]arrlaari.livejournal.com, 2009-03-19 09:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mysteryfan, 2009-03-19 09:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mysteryfan, 2009-03-19 09:49 pm UTC

(Read comments) -


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