Wonder Woman: Holding the Female Fort

America's federal buildings are a part of the backdrop. I always felt there was a reason for that.

Recently, David E. Kelly tried his hand at a Wonder Woman weekly series. The network passed on the pilot, to the relief of some fans who got ahold of the script which kind of found the whole thing to be a bit of a travesty. Even the revamped costume got some bad press that made quite a few headlines. (However, the outfit actually used in the pilot was seen as much better) This has been another setback for Wonder Woman. The mainstream explosion of comic characters has, ironically, passed by the first lady of superherodom.

If you could ask someone to name a superhero, Wonder Woman would definitely be near the top of that list. If you asked for the name of a female superhero, she would practically come up every time, unless you came across a comic-reading smartass naming someone more obscure just to prove he could. The word "iconic" is overused over and over, but Wonder Woman is truly iconic. She is one of those characters who are currently more iconic right now than that economically viable.  She was one of the few characters (namely among DC's "Trinity" of heroes including Superman and Batman) to survive the culling of Golden Age superheroes. As such she was always featured prominently in lineups and press releases and merchandise. But recently, in a major slap-in-the-face to the character, the "trinity" was expanded to a "quorum", but at Diana of Themyscira's expense. The Green Lantern and the Flash--two characters who's secret identities weren't even written out of comics for substantial amounts of times, were included on DC's 75th anniversary buttons when Wonder Woman wasn't. There's just a lot of talk about how the character just can't fit in with the current paradigm, and is only continuously published because of an arcane clause that DC forsakes the rights if they stop publishing her.

Diana Prince is probably the most famous secret ID to be completely dispensed.

She's not only the most famous female superhero, but really the only really prominent one who isn't a derivative of a male superhero (often just created to secure copyright), or a member of a team concept (Like the X-Men features a lot of). One a meta-level, it should be mentioned that she's legally not allowed to guest star on shows, so for her, it's been all or nothing. It's kept her off of Smallville and Batman's 5,730 cartoons. (Which in turn, often turn the "Justice League" episodes into complete sausagefests.) Not much room for sneaking the in the back door there. Charged with the task of holding her own, every new Wonder Woman project is very high stakes, and often under the clout of "Female protagonists don't make bank, especially in the action genre". It should be said that DC's editorial policy has been kind of...good old boy lately. But still, why is it so tough for her?

Blogger Ragnell says that she definitely suffers from revamp after revamp. Icons, especially DC icons, get leveled and reinterpreted every now and then. But Wonder Woman probably suffers from it on an inordinate scale. It's certainly hurt her commercial appeal, as nobody really knows what they're going to get when they pick up the book. Ragnell also points out that an industry that is increasingly catering to males, and a certain type of male, is not best suited to do a character who was created for females, and did a good job at selling to them at that. But are there reasons even the most well-intentioned writers can have trouble with her?

I do think, for one, it's hard to wrap one's head around a character who is the very embodiment of feminism. Not only because it doesn't appeal to the reactionary male readers, (Who I was disappointed made up a large segment of comics readers one fateful day) but because...what is feminism? Writers have a hard enough time writing around the perfection of Superman, but this is a character who's supposed to be, ostensibly at least, ahead of the curve of where women are "supposed to be" in society. Because the fight for equality is always gradual and ever-changing, the superhero who's raison d'etre is that sort of thing is always going to have to have soft reboots and personality changes every now and then. Of course, there's also the problem that feminism, you know, isn't one thing. I've seen arguments that Twilight is anti-feminist because the character sees attaching herself to a controlling guy sends a bad message, and that it is an example of girl power because girls are buying it. Not that I particularly believe the latter point, it's just that this kind of infighting is going to happen on the subject. It boils down to the belief in freedom as negative rights or positive responsibilities. You have to do this with a character who operates on the arc of history. Who's supposed to be a paragon, as opposed to say, Green Arrow or USAgent, who are allowed to be abrasive in their political beliefs as character traits. And all of this written by men half of the time.

Completely out-of-left field revamps that isolate her from other superheroes are par for the course.

I also think there's another element that makes it hard to wrap one's head around her, and this would probably be controversial for many of her fans. Greek Mythology figures heavily into Wonder Woman's backstory, in her opponents, in her supporting cast. In my Thor article, I talk about how the welding of ancient myth and modern superheroes isn't always that seamless. You have fans of the genre who can be put off by all the mystical elements. You also run the risk that everyone always has their own opinion on representing myths, and thus the concept continuously gets overhauled to make it more "accurate". (George Perez famously revamped the character in the 80's, bringing back Themysicara as opposed to the more anglicized "Paradise Island", and much of everything looked more authentically Hellenic than the generalized Classical style of previous decades)  But the problem is, when half the figures of her book are of public domain, than they're not really part of "her" mythology, are they? A fight with Ares is always fun, but doesn't truly distinguish her from Xena. And many of her fans don't see a problem with it. I've seen many comments along the line of "Play up the mythological aspects! Play it up! It separates her from the other superheroes". But in my opinion it does separate her. Separates her right out of the genre.

It's very odd that a character from the Greek world (Or a world that was created from Greek Myth) would be the goodwill embassador for women in comics. But I think there's something important to remember. The United States of America modeled itself after the Greco-Roman world. Our architecture, our names for government bodies. We basically modeled ourselves after the classical world. We could draw parallels between Washington and Athens, and interpret Wonder Woman's mission as to "Man's World" as to make sure we don't make the same mistakes. That we live up to the mantle of responsibility and name of "democracy". One has to remember the mythical Amazons were not Greek. They were alien presence, even to other Greeks. So one does not have to tether Wonder Woman and her world to a strict Greek background, just the broad strokes of Classicism, or Neoclassicism as it were. The Amazons are a Matriarchal society that will adopt the model of the number one democratic power, and hope that we will return the favor. A stray minotaur and the like is always fun, but there's no reason to turn Wonder Woman into a toga-wearing Thor. Think about it, the Middle Ages were thus called because the Classical world was seen as much more advanced. The Utopia of Paradise Island should present itself as a world that never entered its Dark Ages. My general point I''m trying to make is, like all superheroes, Wonder Woman should be about the glory of the future. Of aspirations. The mystical stuff makes for a nice background, but her world should have a veneer of modernity, if not industry. Especially a character who's explicitly here to show us how to make things better.

Fans are often outraged at how folks treat her like the only thing she's a symbol of is sex.

Is Wonder Woman going to be forever resigned to dwindling readers, and no major media adaptations? Not necessarily. It's not been a great decade for her, but let me put it this way; At the beginning of the decade, the Hal Jordan Green Lantern was not being published monthly. In fact, he had very rarely carried his own title at all since the 1960's. But force of will from a creator (and editor) that had an intense love for him made him a franchise all his own, and of course, the upcoming movie. Wonder Woman has been having a tough time lately, but the arc of history bends towards justice. And Wonder Woman is a character who exists to exemplify the arc of history.

Thor: Weathering Two Worlds

The Edda meets the Marvel Age of Comics

 Thor occupies an interesting place in the Marvel universe, and its publishing empire in general. He is sometimes treated as one of the company's flagship icons, and alternately like its red-headed stepchild. (An irony I couldn't even begin to get into) I would, in fact say, when you go through the hierarchy of Marvel's properties, he's the first to have what you could call "hiccups" in popularity, before you get to the next tier like Dr. Strange and Submariner. Though considered one of the Avengers' "Big Three", if there is a culling, he will be the first to go. There are periods where he'll disappear, and the book's lead will be some kind of replacement-Thor. There are times where his book will be off the shelves completely. Even times when he's written out of the Marvel Universe completely. Why is it the company and management are so bi-polar about the character's priority?

He started out with some reasonably compelling details. When originally brought into comics, he had, strangely enough, his own mild-mannered "secret identity", a doctor with a lame leg. For a decade, his main love interest was Jane Foster, and that itself created a recipe for stories. The concept of an immortal in love with a mortal has been a very popular premise in various TV and movies. There's always good conflict to be found Odin wishing Thor would spend more time at home, and being met with "Ah don't want your (eternal) lahf!) Loki was transferred from Odin's adopted brother to Thor's, and the dynamic has worked so well that most popular media has followed suit when adapting Norse Myth. It's royal intrigue, with the noble-but-headstrong brother vs. the snake-in-the-grass.
                                       
As I've mentioned many, many times before, the comic book superhero is the latest incarnation of the mythological superhero. Same purpose as avatar of values. Martial beings with great powers. So the idea of taking an actual mythological God and transferring him into a superhero setting is a natural fit.

Sometimes, however, it's as easy as a young adult moving back into their parents' house.

Early on, the conception was so vague, Thor seemed to be a suit one wears, as opposed to a person.

Comics may be the new heroic sagas, but there's always going to be chaffing with mythological characters. Comics, for the most part, are science-based, or at least modern in their cadence. Maybe it's a ludicrous double standard to be perfectly able to accept a man can, through radiation, increase his mass to become the strongest being on the planet, but not magic hammers. But even if it's an arbitrary aesthetic, it's still an aesthetic. Comics are a visual medium. Besides, science is so important in superhero comics, because, unlike the legends of old, the common theme of the superhero is an embracing of the future, not the glories of the past. It's fun to have an ancient God of Thunder running around, but utilizing the mystical and storybook-based stuff, there's a subconscious sense it's going backwards. There's also a tendency for them to be American. Even though Thor strangely feels more "English" than truly Norwegian,  there's something of an alien presence when a character and his lore aren't from the states. It should be said that international heroes always have a struggle fitting in, except for Wolverine. (And Canada, of course, isn't vastly foreign, bags of milk notwithstanding.)

On the other end of the scale, while superhero purists may not like chocolate in their peanut butter, mythology buffs may not care for peanut butter in their chocolate. When first conceived, Thor was a garden-variety (albeit very powerful) crime fighter. He fought aliens, time-travelers, foreign dictators, even gangsters. He was replete with a secret identity and a mortal love interest (despite the mythological Thor being off the market vis a vis Sif). The kinds of things one would extract from the Eddic Sagas would only slowly creep in, and at times vary wildly from the actual stories and characters Vikinings regale each other with. What happens though, is if the kind of person who would be more at home with a Spider-Man or Fantastic Four doesn't want to do the character, then it may in fact go to someone who wants to do Thor because he's heavily into Norse Mythology, and sees the original Lee-Kirby take as an astro-turf version. What then happens is, that author goes more heavily into the classic elements, and leaves more and more of the modern, superhero trappings behind...until Thor is no longer a superhero book. The temptation to place him more firmly in the fantasy genre is strong. The superhero genre does have a pretty heavy hold over the medium, and so Thor may provide a way out. Likewise, the popularity of the Lord of the Rings franchise had many wondering if they could explore that avenue.

Every now and then, creators feel Thor doesn't look like a sufficient Viking, and try to rectify that.

It probably doesn't help to write an all-powerful,, immortal character. The most popular characters tend to be at least moderate in the powers they possess, (Superman has kind of been grandfathered in, and even then, you get the sense some writers and readers find him to be the white elephant of storytelling) and there are types who find a character who is explicitly immortal to kill drama. (Every now and again, they dangle to threat of Ragnarok, a sort of Norse Book of Revelations, but that's the kind of thing that some feel loses its punch in longform storytelling like comics) Plus, it's one thing to be all-powerful, but Thor is really, really old. Millennia old. The really ancient and well-versed forces of good in heroic fiction are the mentor. So readers may sometimes find themselves unable to relate to the Thunder God. There's also the possibility some may not be the most comfortable with pagan figures (An idea explored in the comics stories themselves)Finally, it should be mentioned that he's by and far the glamor boy of Marvel's roster, which may breed resentment amongst the a fanbase that was built on characters like Spider-Man, the Hulk and the Thing.

Contrary to popular belief, Marvel didn't invent the Apollo-ish "Goldilocks" Thor

It's the hazards of genre-busting when the genre holds almost an entire medium hostage. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby helped firmly establish his superhero credentials early on, and the comics world's very, very strong sense of nostalgia helps keep him afloat. But the character and the line of comics sometimes find themselves having to "take a break", and he has very clear waxings and wanings in popularity. We'll see if the new movie helps him wax.

Why this Blog?

I've always been a fan of comics growing up. Besides the colorful adventures, there's just something about them that has gone inside me head. I think in many ways, I'm not a completely visual person, or a complete verbal person, but somewhere in between. The artform is, in my opinion, not a cheat. Nor confusing. It's its own special language. Comics are about taking the conceptual, and solidifying them. People always talk about comics as the American mythology because of the "Gods had powers, heroes have powers" parable, but I think that's only an infinitesimal part of it.What comics do is take values, symbolhs, aspects of the universe both elemental and philisophical, and make them incarnate. Whether it's as a crimefighter who dresses like an American flag, or just the very embodiments of words and sounds into a visual manifestation. Many ancient religions, including Judaism, believed there was a very real power in names. Oaths and curses in the ancient world were considered binding, and to be taken seriously. In my estimation, there's something of a mysticism in cartooning, an invoking of the abstract into the palpable, and wielding a certain power with it. As Grant Morrison said, "Batman is probably more real than I am".

I'm something of a social watcher too. For years, I tracked box-office. Not because I felt how much money a movie made validated its existence, but because dollars are people. People who have consciously or by compulsion sculpted the cultural landscape. Of course, with the large proliferation of sequels, I've kind of been less fascinated by it. (Not so much that sequels aren't good, but the box-office of Harry Potter six isn't going to give me any new information) I like observing trends. People, it should be said, are incredibly fickle. When a thesis on why something exploded is made, the evidence is anecdotal. There's also a lot of quantifying in introspection, which I don't particularly care for.

This isn't going to be a blog on why I like particular characters. I'm not going to explore the in-story histories like an encyclopedia. (If say, you want to catch up on Captain America or Green Lantern, Comics 101 is probably better for that. Or you could just wiki them.) Nor am I going to do "Top ten best stories featuring",  since while execution is all well and good, it's only a small part of it. (And in fact, every now and then, I'll be talking about how a character is "execution-reliant". For instance, Daredevil.) But what I want to do is talk about the impact characters have. Why some are more popular. Why are some easier to draw or merchandise. I mean, sure, every pop-psychologist will tell you how this character changed everything, or that character was the first to. But I want to explore how flexible they are. How enduring. How rich their mythologies may be. I want to be very big-picture about this. John Seavy's "Storytelling Engine" series is actually  a pretty cool place to look at the history of some comics characters. (Note that a bad engine doesn't necessarily exclude a character from being a top tier. The Hulk is assessed to have a bad one, but I'll get to that whole thing later.)

I certainly have a  wealth of subjects. I can do the truly enduring (Superman), to the trendy (Spawn). I can cover characters who are so ingenious it hurts (Spider-Man), to characters so pointless it...hurts. (Like say, the Black Knight) But I hope you'll come visit as I explore comic book icons' place in the cultural landscape.