Double Standards And The Big Three
With the end of the "Sacrifice" mini-arc, The OMAC Project has reached a major turning point. However, as we prepare for the worst, I'd like to look at how this relates to one pivotal character. Beware of many SPOILERS at the other end of the link.
SPOILERS, remember:
5
4
3
2
1
So, after reading Wonder Woman #219 and OMAC #4, it seemed pretty obvious to me that Max had anticipated his own death, and knew there was a good chance Wonder Woman would actually kill him. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Max's consciousness has been uploaded into Brother Eye, or even if he didn't mind dying in order to eradicate every superhero.
Still, while I also wasn't surprised that Diana actually killed Max, it hit me -- why wasn't I? Shouldn't each of DC's "Big Three" be role models, with similar standards? "Sacrifice" showed Max controlling Superman to the point where he would kill, because that would go a long way toward destroying the ideal he represents. Put another way, it's shocking when Superman kills, but somehow not so much with Wonder Woman; and in hindsight that disturbed me.
Of course, Wonder Woman has historically been the least popular of DC's holy trinity. The three earned their iconic status in the 1950s for being the only major DC heroes to survive the end of the Golden Age. Thus, when other characters' revivals had to wait on the good graces of DC editorial, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman were continually published. Even so, Wonder Woman got her own "revamping" in the late '60s, losing her powers and costume for a few years at the hands of Denny O'Neil and Mike Sekowsky. Clearly, DC thought that Wonder Woman wasn't as untouchable as Superman or Batman, and that no one would mind wholesale changes. When angry feminists, including Gloria Steinem, proved DC wrong, Diana's traditional status quo was restored and her "Emma Peel" period is now a distant memory.
After Crisis on Infinite Earths, George Perez revitalized Diana into her current, and perhaps most successful, incarnation. Integrating her mythological underpinnings more fully with her mission to Patriarch's World, Perez took great pains to respect Diana as a woman, as a person, and as a symbol both within and outside the comics. In a 1988 interview, he told Amazing Heroes (#156, Jan. 1, 1989)
However, in returning Diana to her warrior roots, Perez also avoided having her learn the standard superhero code of morality. Thus, in Wonder Woman v. 2 #5, a desperate Diana used her razor-sharp tiara to behead Deimos, the war-god son of Ares. While it may have been shocking at the time, it was also part of Perez's goal to make Diana more than just a female counterpart to Superman or Thor. His efforts paid off, and although future writers like Bill Messner-Loebs and John Byrne put Diana in more superheroic situations, she was firmly established as having a perspective slightly outside the mainstream. Mark Waid took advantage of this in the alternate future of Kingdom Come, when Diana took hard-line stances on the social issues which made Superman squeamish; and she, not Superman, ended up fighting Batman.
Therefore, Diana may be believable as the bad cop, but does that make it right? Moreover, as the most recognizable female superhero, should Diana be held to a higher standard than her grimmer, grittier descendants -- or, because she's a woman, does this just make her "strong," "edgy," or "deep"? Wouldn't Xena, Dana Scully, or Sydney Bristow have done the same thing to Max Lord? Would there have been gasps of shock if Aquaman, Hawkman, or Green Arrow had killed Max? Isn't this part of the same sexist mentality which holds that a murderous Jean Loring is more shocking than a murderous Ray Palmer?
Hard to say -- but over the past two decades, DC has allowed Diana to develop into a distinct character with her own viewpoint and her own mission. This was apparent from the beginning of Perez's run when, an issue after she killed Deimos, she defeated Ares not by force or violence, but with the Lasso of Truth. It showed him the futility of his plan to incite nuclear holocaust, and compelled him to abandon it. (Nowadays, either the lasso has lost its kick or Max Lord's mental powers are stronger than a Greek god's, because it couldn't even force Max to break his hold on Superman, let alone see the truth of where his actions would lead. Since Greg Rucka has just given Diana "vision of the gods," I suppose one could rationalize that at least she saw the truth of what she did.)
Clearly a double standard has evolved from DC's having more well-defined boundaries for Superman and Batman than it has had for Wonder Woman. On the bright side, this treatment has encouraged writers to take more chances with Diana and arguably has made her a far more complex character. The downside is that while Superman and Batman may have been treated like hothouse flowers, and not allowed to grow or change in the same ways Diana has, now she looks vengeful, even amoral, in comparison to someone who only knows her from Lynda Carter. Given the choice, if fans could "sacrifice" the morality of one of the Big Three, they might well vote for Wonder Woman.
Of course, OMAC raises other questions besides "did Diana's writers have too much freedom?" First among them would be "why would DC want to present its heroes with the choice to kill Max Lord?" Sadly, it makes sense that if one of the "trinity" had to do it, Diana was the only option. It depresses me not that Diana has developed to the point where this is in character for her, but that DC has seen her development as this kind of opportunity. Talk about taking one for the team.
There had better be some bright, shiny, fun superheroics on the way in 2006.
SPOILERS, remember:
5
4
3
2
1
So, after reading Wonder Woman #219 and OMAC #4, it seemed pretty obvious to me that Max had anticipated his own death, and knew there was a good chance Wonder Woman would actually kill him. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Max's consciousness has been uploaded into Brother Eye, or even if he didn't mind dying in order to eradicate every superhero.
Still, while I also wasn't surprised that Diana actually killed Max, it hit me -- why wasn't I? Shouldn't each of DC's "Big Three" be role models, with similar standards? "Sacrifice" showed Max controlling Superman to the point where he would kill, because that would go a long way toward destroying the ideal he represents. Put another way, it's shocking when Superman kills, but somehow not so much with Wonder Woman; and in hindsight that disturbed me.
Of course, Wonder Woman has historically been the least popular of DC's holy trinity. The three earned their iconic status in the 1950s for being the only major DC heroes to survive the end of the Golden Age. Thus, when other characters' revivals had to wait on the good graces of DC editorial, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman were continually published. Even so, Wonder Woman got her own "revamping" in the late '60s, losing her powers and costume for a few years at the hands of Denny O'Neil and Mike Sekowsky. Clearly, DC thought that Wonder Woman wasn't as untouchable as Superman or Batman, and that no one would mind wholesale changes. When angry feminists, including Gloria Steinem, proved DC wrong, Diana's traditional status quo was restored and her "Emma Peel" period is now a distant memory.
After Crisis on Infinite Earths, George Perez revitalized Diana into her current, and perhaps most successful, incarnation. Integrating her mythological underpinnings more fully with her mission to Patriarch's World, Perez took great pains to respect Diana as a woman, as a person, and as a symbol both within and outside the comics. In a 1988 interview, he told Amazing Heroes (#156, Jan. 1, 1989)
Readers' reaction has been incredibly positive, because Diana does come off as something that she was supposed to be, but never quite was: the role model. She comes off as someone who manifests the best things about humanity, not just the best things about being a woman. The fact that she has developed the uniqueness -- even for people who are not crazy about super-heroes -- that she's not the standard super-hero, even though there are a lot of stories by necessity wherein she does super-heroic things, makes me happy.
However, in returning Diana to her warrior roots, Perez also avoided having her learn the standard superhero code of morality. Thus, in Wonder Woman v. 2 #5, a desperate Diana used her razor-sharp tiara to behead Deimos, the war-god son of Ares. While it may have been shocking at the time, it was also part of Perez's goal to make Diana more than just a female counterpart to Superman or Thor. His efforts paid off, and although future writers like Bill Messner-Loebs and John Byrne put Diana in more superheroic situations, she was firmly established as having a perspective slightly outside the mainstream. Mark Waid took advantage of this in the alternate future of Kingdom Come, when Diana took hard-line stances on the social issues which made Superman squeamish; and she, not Superman, ended up fighting Batman.
Therefore, Diana may be believable as the bad cop, but does that make it right? Moreover, as the most recognizable female superhero, should Diana be held to a higher standard than her grimmer, grittier descendants -- or, because she's a woman, does this just make her "strong," "edgy," or "deep"? Wouldn't Xena, Dana Scully, or Sydney Bristow have done the same thing to Max Lord? Would there have been gasps of shock if Aquaman, Hawkman, or Green Arrow had killed Max? Isn't this part of the same sexist mentality which holds that a murderous Jean Loring is more shocking than a murderous Ray Palmer?
Hard to say -- but over the past two decades, DC has allowed Diana to develop into a distinct character with her own viewpoint and her own mission. This was apparent from the beginning of Perez's run when, an issue after she killed Deimos, she defeated Ares not by force or violence, but with the Lasso of Truth. It showed him the futility of his plan to incite nuclear holocaust, and compelled him to abandon it. (Nowadays, either the lasso has lost its kick or Max Lord's mental powers are stronger than a Greek god's, because it couldn't even force Max to break his hold on Superman, let alone see the truth of where his actions would lead. Since Greg Rucka has just given Diana "vision of the gods," I suppose one could rationalize that at least she saw the truth of what she did.)
Clearly a double standard has evolved from DC's having more well-defined boundaries for Superman and Batman than it has had for Wonder Woman. On the bright side, this treatment has encouraged writers to take more chances with Diana and arguably has made her a far more complex character. The downside is that while Superman and Batman may have been treated like hothouse flowers, and not allowed to grow or change in the same ways Diana has, now she looks vengeful, even amoral, in comparison to someone who only knows her from Lynda Carter. Given the choice, if fans could "sacrifice" the morality of one of the Big Three, they might well vote for Wonder Woman.
Of course, OMAC raises other questions besides "did Diana's writers have too much freedom?" First among them would be "why would DC want to present its heroes with the choice to kill Max Lord?" Sadly, it makes sense that if one of the "trinity" had to do it, Diana was the only option. It depresses me not that Diana has developed to the point where this is in character for her, but that DC has seen her development as this kind of opportunity. Talk about taking one for the team.
There had better be some bright, shiny, fun superheroics on the way in 2006.
posted by Tom Bondurant @ 11:06 AM
10 Comments:
There had better be some bright, shiny, fun superheroics on the way in 2006.
Or what? The same people that are complaining -- yet still buying -- will complain -- and still buy -- louder?
Or, disgusted with the thinking that the only way to make the Big Three "interesting" and "dramatic" is to keep subjecting them to increasing levels of punishment, I'll finally stop buying and find something more enjoyable to read. I just cannot imagine that anyone who claims to love these characters would put them through so much without some kind of happy payoff. Even Identity Crisis had that "the League endures" epilogue.
Aw shucks, 'twarn't nuthin.
The double standard in the 'trinity' is that Bats and Superman are simple, but well-defined creatures, and you can do a lot with them without breaking them.
WW is beyond complicated. She's a weird, frankly inhuman character, and Perez did a lot to make her that way.
I agree with the Captain. I really have never found WW to be a compelling character. The only time I've ever enjoyed her is in the context of the rest of the JLA.
There had better be some bright, shiny, fun superheroics on the way in 2006.
Fun superheroics, you say? Well, let's see. Elongated Man's wife was raped and murdered, Blue Beetle was shot in the face, Max Lord was retconned into a supervillain and killed. Am I missing someone? Oh, I'm sure they'll manage to off Booster Gold and the rest of the Giffen-era JLA in time, but once that petty grudge is played out, there still might be a few fun characters hiding under a rock somewhere. Spoiler? No, wait...
Is Sue Dibny being raped and murdered, and Blue Beetle being shot and so on happening in every issue of every book in every company? I'm sorry but this whinning about the darkening of comics is getting out of control. Giffen-era JLA is dead. Horrible, but inevitable given that only a few writers today, could pull soemthing like that off.
What's happening today is the same old comic book melodrama that has existed since the beggining.
Captain Qwert Jr said:
"The double standard in the 'trinity' is that Bats and Superman are simple, but well-defined creatures, and you can do a lot with them without breaking them. WW is beyond complicated. She's a weird, frankly inhuman character, and Perez did a lot to make her that way."
While I'm not certain I agree entirely with that last part, I think there is something very interesting here to note: Batman & Superman are "simple" and "well-defined" while Wonder woman is "beyond complicated" and almost "inhuman."
Instead of "inhuman," what if we changed that to "un-male?" That is, of the Big Three, she is the sole woman, created and written almost exclusively over the years by men. In addition to being created by something of a bondage fetishist, being valorized at one point by feminism, and being boxed into a andro-centric superhero genre, could it be that, in this Trinity, Wonder Woman is complex because she is the woman?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
^^^ No, I meant not human. She's part of a race of immortal, non-sexual beings cut-off from the world in an unchanging eternal aquarium created by incestuous monomaniacal 'gods'.
Now it may be because she's a woman, (assuming amazons are sexual beings, if not she's not just in the shape of a female human), that all this so-called complexity was thrown in, but I don't think so. If you look at the early issues of Perez's run, she's almost a guest in her own book. It had a cast of thousands it seemed, with everyone else doing the talking, and WW occasionally coming in to do the punching. Perez seemed to be able to write the thoughts and feelings of the normal women just fine, but not WW. One minute she's condemning soldiers for using guns, the next she's beheading someone. No wonder he had everyone do the talking.
I'm glad Rucka gave her new eyes. I'm tired of her being portrayed as a dolt. This does not mean I like her killing Lord. Don't see why she could not have sent Superman away, and found some way to neutralize his powers (What about magic? Oh no! Can't do that! That's dark and gritty!) or Imprison him or something.
Post a Comment
<< Home