Perhaps not understanding in an "I'm sorry for your loss", but I don't know why you would think I don't understand your reasoning.
Well, it often appears like you, and other participants in this discussion, don't want to understand. One example actually came from you. After I said that I have no interest in the further releases of the in my opinion completely transformed character in both origin and personality, your response was:
Ok. I guess don't let the door hit you on the way out then. But, you're missing out on a great book because you are holding onto a singular vision of what a character with 75 years of history "has" to be.
Your loss.
You call me condescending, when there you basically call me
backwards for thinking feminist subtext in Wonder Woman comics mattering a great deal. So, please excuse me if I feel a little bit misunderstood.
Of course, they are all icons. But, is Wonder Woman's origin REALLY iconic? In the way that Superman's and Batman's is?
No, which is a problem in itself, imo, but the problem still stands. A feminist origin turned into a less-so origin. And furthermore, in the Azzerallo book, the original origin (weird phrase, but to the point) is called a lie, which just adds insult to injury.
And in terms of the New 52, didn't you say you haven't read it?
You are misremembering. I gave the New 52 a fair chance, I read several books from the start. Over a period of time, I have dropped them all, realizing that they don't appeal to me in any way. WW was the first book I dropped, but I read some issues before making up my mind.
Also: the incoming team had nothing to do with the change of her origin. So, those two aren't connected. Again, read the book.
First off, the comments from the incoming team are indecative of the climate at DC editorial at the moment, and that influenced Azzerallo's run as well. Also, on a personal level, it is an indecation that I propably won't like the book any better with the new team.
Second off, I won't read a book that doesn't appeal to me on any level, but feels like a perversion of a character which is very dear to me.
Of course there would be outrage. There's outrage over the lack of underwear. Outrage on the internet doesn't mean vast numbers of people.
Better leave the red trunks out of it, you don't want to even start that discussion with me.
Anyway, it's a matter of whether the outrage is justified. If a character is turned into someone completely different, then I think it is.
Sure. They matter. But to what degree? Comic book characters aren't immutable pieces of fiction. They are changing all the time. If they are truly myths of our times, they should change.
And comics aren't the work of one person. They are many people over decades.
Thanks for stating this obvious and totally irrelevant fact.
Like I said, it's about subtext, and whether a new subtext is contradicting an established one. When John Byrne rebooted Superman, he had Kal-El travelling through space as an embryo, with his actual "birth" happening when the Kents found him. The subtext here is Clark being born on American soil, a patriotic subtext fitting the 1980s pop culture. And while I don't favor this particular interpretation, I am okay with it because it does not change what the fictional character Superman stands for.
The same can not be said about the daughter-of-Zeus origin of Wonder Woman. Considering what was before, it is contradictory to the feminism the character is associated with.
It's not an invalid comparison. It's an example of other ways to motivate someone to dress up like a bat.
It is invalid, in that it did not change the canon of the character. You may not feel that way, or at least not as strongly as I and many others, but origins do matter.
... because it is specifically a different character.
Did you just take my outrage comment seriously? You do realize, I was making a joke at your expense, yes? The hard water thing is the Golden Age Flash's origin vs. The Silver Age's....
First off, I did get what you were doing, and I'm very familiar with the origins of the various Flashes. A joke at my expense, only that I don't agree on the comparison. In other words, your joke doesn't work. They are two different characters, the different origins didn't cause a dramatic change in subtext, and the Silver Age Flash was not a replacement of the Golden Age Flash, as the latter had been discontinued for a long time before the former came along.
I used it as an example. Both of them share the same power really, and the point is, how they get their power is pretty inconsequential to who they are and how they use their powers. It's an example that their actions make them iconic, not how they got their powers.
I think about Peter Parker. The radioactive spider bite. Sure. It gives him his powers. And in the 60s anything radioactive does weird things--other than give you cancer. But, now, most people would know better. But, sure, the spider gives him his power, but it's the death of his Uncle Ben that makes him a hero.
In the movies, how Peter gets his powers have changed with the time. It's not radioactive. It's DNA. But, what hasn't changed? Uncle Ben's death.
There is no change in subtext in any of your examples, as they were changes made to update the
science fiction aspects of the characters. Wonder Woman's origins, both of them, are not science-based, but mythological. Since people don't believe any less in Zeus and Aphrodite today than they did in the 1940s, I don't see any need or even incentive to update.
Wonder Woman could be made from clay, or birth, whatever. But, that's not the some total of her origin, or even what motivates her. Paradise Island (or some version of that), that motivates, her being a fish out of water in our world. That motivates.
I do wonder how often I have to repeat myself before you acknowledge my point that
subtext is inherent not only in the character, but also in the universe it inhabits. Maybe even moreso, since the character could always be portrayed to be wrong.
I also wanted to respond to this:
There's an idea for DC, just copy what Marvel is doing. Have to different universes, one with the classic version and one with the New 52, which can be whatever it wants to be for all I care, as long as I have the proper version.
1. You do know the DCU is a multiverse right? Like, 52 different ones?
2. What do you mean "proper"? What is a proper version of a character that's been around for 75 years, has changed, been rebooted? That's like asking for the "proper" Batman. Which one is that? The one from the 40s? The 70s? Frank Miller's "I'm the God Damn Batman"? Which is the proper Superman? Who is getting to define proper? You? Me? DC? The current writer? The writer who is coming in?
1. Yes, multiverse. If only they used it to the effect of actually publish comics set in the pre-52 universe. But, apart from some of the stories published in "Adventures of Superman" (which has already ceased publication) and "Sensation Comics featuring Wonder Woman", there's nothing. Oh, yeah, Captain Marvel will appear in an upcoming issue of "Multiversity". Sorry, this is nothing like the situation over at Marvel with MU proper and Ultimate Marvel.
2. Oh, for fuck's sake, do I really have to go into this? By now, you should know that I don't care for the New 52, so when
I'm saying "proper version", it should be obvious that I am referring to the pre-52 version, or a universe which does not differ from it as dramatically as the New 52, because that would be proper to
me. If you prefer I can rephrase: I wish DC would do as Marvel is doing with their Marvel U
proper (no argument when anyone says that) and Ultimate Marvel U, and publish comics from both the New 52and the
pre-52 universe, so the reader can choose to read the version he/she prefers (or both, if they choose to).
Now, I have been working on this post for over an hour, I'm exhausted, and to be quite honest, since we apparently are not going to agree on this, I'm deciding to leave it at that. We'll have to agree to disagree, and just make our peace with you liking Azzerallo's run, and me not liking it.
