Review - Wonder Woman v. 4 #7 (mild spoilers)

Wonder Woman v. 4 no. 7
Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang

Ever since I moved from being a comic book fan to a comic book fan on the Internet, I've been aware of a substantial body of opinion out there that either simply doesn't like, or at best is deeply ambivalent about, superheroes. These people find the dominance of the industry by DC and Marvel, and by the dominance of superheroes in the books they publish, something to regret. They point to the European and Japanese industries and their rosters of non-superhero titles.

You can sort of see their point. If they want to develop the field with non-superhero books more power to them.

On the other hand, their tastes are not mine. I've tried to read the books they recommend. I usually end up putting them down, dismayed by the trowelled-on darkity-darkness, or by oblique, vague, and inconclusive storytelling. I've tried to read the books they recommend, and watched Element Girl tormented to death. I've learned not to trust their recommendations.

And human social dynamics get in the way. Differences in taste have a tendency to turn into tribal totems. It becomes not enough to prefer other books to superhero books; the superheroes are dismissed, say, as "juvenile power fantasies," and their fans are dismissed for simplistic tastes. If this is a bad thing then I am guilty of it. I view superhero books as a classical art form: the higher form of creativity comes from working within the restraints set by the classical forms, rather than disregarding them.

Problems arise when a writer influenced by this belief system tries to write a superhero title. They will come to the task with the idée fixe that superheroes are simplistic, lightweight entertainment, and think it's their mission to "fix" them somehow. They want to add moral depth, ambivalence, and complexity, even if this isn't what the readers came for. Superhero comics are not a good fit to complex, greyscale moralities or pithering about the indeterminacy of narrative. When you try to smoosh that stuff into them, the result is usually unreadable.

Then you come to the Wonder Woman title itself, where historically the largest problem is that every new writer that comes along the pipe tries to "fix" the title with a Bold New Direction, and as such the character had no firm supporting cast, consistent body of lore, or well developed rogue's gallery. Few of the writers have been able to step up to the plate and embrace a character who is simultaneously an Amazon warrior and a magical princess; this is a complicated and interesting character, but definitely challenging to write, a whole lot harder than a generic Vengeful Woman and Last Daughter of Themiscyra. There does seem to have been a perverse and consistent will, from the Rucka run if not before, to darken the character and turn her into a tragic figure.

Vertigo is a problem. From the foundation, the Vertigo imprint was supposed to be for creators who were, in Karen Berger’s words, “different, smarter, and edgier” than the makers of mainstream comics. In other words, we’re so much cleverer, hipper, and more sophisticated than the trogs who wrote all those four-color stories about stalwart patriotic superheroes.

When you have an entire imprint dedicated to this mentality, my impression is there’s always been a mood of scorn and condescension towards classic characters. My earliest diststeful Vertigo memories all revolved around the mistreatment of Silver Age characters in Vertigo books. I’ve learned to view the entire line with suspicion; if it isn’t soaked in violence or adolescent darkity-darkness, it will feature oblique and inconclusive storytelling.

So when Vertigo writers end up on DC universe titles, the containment field is breached. To accept the Vertigo mindset is to believe that traditional superheroes are simplistic and silly. They need complexity. (And in that view of things, this means, “it’s gotta be dark.")

Of course they’ll be flinging poo at an American icon. It’s how they show they’re more sophisticated than the people who created them.

<《 New Colchis / Guides / Mission Architect 》>
"At what point do we say, 'You're mucking with our myths'?" - Harlan Ellison

Preach on. Preach on.

I've not been following this book, but I thought I'd tell you that I enjoyed your post and understand where you're coming from.

I feel for you and the fans with similar tastes.

Also, I find it a real shame if it is true that Wonder Woman hasn't had good fortune with creative teams (and it is not like this is the first time I've heard this, at all).
It seems crazy to me that she wouldn't be a real draw for some of the best writers... do it right and you could really have a winner on your hands. That's how I see it, anyway.
I think there's a wide audience for such a character... done well. Beyond your average comicbook readers. And I don't think going darkity grit grit would be the way to go.

But hey... I've always been one who believes that there is a sure lack of talent out there (hey, amazing talent is a rare commodity - in each field, at least)... and a deluge of mediocrity.

The amazon will persevere.

Agree with the OP for the most part. I think it's possibly to be complex without being darkity dark and making the comic unreadable and nothing like a superhero comic however.

But by complex, I mean, still able to connect the dots for the readers.

Does that make sense? o.O

Don't care much for the made of clay angle myself.

Also, I love the idea of Wonder Woman. What I have hated is the writing/stories. Sadly like most comics now a days, writers can't be bothered to actually stay with a title. :/ "Okay, done this for a year, bored now, I'm either quitting or moving onto a new title."

If only that worked with all the other jobs out there.

I'd like to throw in my vote in agreeance with the OP. I don't read Wonder Woman, but I find that 'darkity grit dark' creeping into my comics for quite a while now. Part of the reason I enjoyed reading superhero stories when I was a kid is that ultimately good triumphs over evil no matter how diabolical the villain. I like Watchmen, I liked the original run of The Authority I like Ghost Rider, and a couple of the Vertigo titles. These books have their place too in the halls of comicdom. However, I don't read Captain America to see him struggle painfully while questioning the morality of his actions. I don't read the Avengers to have other heroes trying to put them down because 'they cause more problems than they solve in this "modern world"'.

I read Captain America to see him sock the bad guy in the jaw. Struggle sure, but overcome adversity because he believes in what he stands for, and what America means to him, and what he knows it can aspire to be as a country. This is so simple and at the same time so complex, I doubt few writers could handle it (though Brubaker has had his moments). I want to read the Avengers and see a group of powerful (and sometimes disparate) individuals come together and set aside differences to face a more powerful foe, and overcome it because they're the heroes, and because that's what they do. Lately I've enjoyed the movies and Animated series more than the comics.

And it's funny, to me DC's getting the animated thing down pat but not so good with the movies, and Marvel's getting the movies spot on and until the current Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, they haven't been very strong on the animated front. The Justice League/JLU animated series hit the DC heroes spot on for what I enjoy seeing, and for whatever complaints I've been seeing about the Marvel movies (not the ones from other studios, I just mean the Marvel ones specifically- I'm really leery of the new Spider Man film Sony's putting out) I've really, really, liked them.

So WTF are both companies doing to most of their comics, and why??? If I wanted to see everything suck and be gritty, only to suck some more, I'd turn on the news.

Instead, lately, my comics have been piling up instead of being read, and spend the time I would have been reading them playing City of Sadly, as funny as it sounds, it's a true story. I've been having a harder and harder time being excited to see what happens next because of the seemingly non-stop stuggle our heroes have been having lately. I'd really like to see them have a solid 'win' for a change. Even Spider Man back in the day got that often enough to keep me interested, and he was supposed to be the 'down on his luck' hero.

Basically, to use a COH term, the game is bugged and they need more inspiration drops if you ask me...

My biggest problem with the current run of Wonder Woman is just how annihilative the run is towards Wonder Woman's roots.

Amazons: Periodically go out and sex up sailors, murder them and then sell boy children for weapons (considered a good thing since they used to just drown or expose them).

Sorry, I prefer the whole "reincarnated spirits of women thing." Apparently, Marsten wrote that all Amazons are formed of clay and animated by spirits, not just Wonder Woman. It was retconned to make her special.

JLU flirted with the whole father thing with hyppy saying that Hades helped her craft the clay pre-WW. NOw it's Zeus, and she's just like Hercules, Kratos, Wonder Girl and any other demi-god.

In some ways it seems that the goal of this series is to "take her down a peg." If she's a suffering outcast, she's more relatable. The sales probably bear it out though. No room for shiny.

I'm seeing this as part of a literary evolution within comic books and in superhero storytelling in general.

Marvel rocked the world with the Silver Age, where heroes had flaws and real-world problems. The response to that was a deconstruction of superheroes in the Bronze Age of the 80s, which led to a darkitty-grim-dark era in the 90's. That was a natural evolution; if you deconstruct the superhero genre you're going to naturally find some pretty dark stuff, including insanity, murder, obsession and so on.

Marvel is now pulling away from the Grimdark Age and finding a proper balance, where they can write superhero stories again but with just enough darkness to make them thrilling. Call it the Cinematic Age. DC isn't there yet, they're behind the curve. The most visible DC properties skipped over the darkness of the 90s, although the Vertigo line delved into it. Instead, DC opted to keep most of their comics in the Bronze Age...until recently.

The New 52 seems to me to be DC attempting to evolve their stories into modern superhero literature. But they're failing, and their stories are turning out only as advanced as the previous era, the Grimdark Age. Which makes sense. It's *hard* to skip over a link in artistic evolution. Artistic movements build upon what came before. If a character hasn't gone through a Grimdark period yet, all the stories are going to lean toward it because they are the obvious stories that haven't yet been told, and you need to explore them before you can find the territory to which they lead.

DC is a step behind Marvel in literary evolution. Shame about that. Hope they catch up soon; the 90s were not my favorite period in comic books.