Alyssa Rosenberg had a post yesterday about the Azzarello/Chiang Wonder Woman reboot. For those not in the know, the new (new!) WW is no longer a clay statue come to life; instead she’s the illegitimate daughter of Zeus. Alyssa expressed some skepticism:
Similarly, in their quest for specificity, I wonder if Azzarello and Chiang are reducing Wonder Woman a bit. Her original story may not be plausible, or gritty, but it is about an expression of female will and independence. Not everything needs to be grounded in social realism. Some things can just be mysterious and strange. It’s yet another reason we’re far too consumed with origin stories. Trying to come up with a psychologically plausible explanation for the divine, or near-so, is a bit of a contradiction in terms.
Several commenters though were more positive about the Azzarello/Chiang version. Joe Pettinati, for example, said:
I think this origin story sounds way better and I disagree with your assertion about trying to come up with a psychological explanation for the divine. All Greek myths, including Zeus, are about putting human faces to divine phenomena in our world. Even Wonder Woman’s original origin story (which I confess I’ve never heard) speaks about the human desire for children, presumably when natural methods are not an option. The problem I have with that origin story is that it says a lot more about Aphrodite and Hippolyta then it does about Wonder Woman. Okay, this woman is brought to life, but why does she become a super hero?
Of course, I’m in Marston/Peter’s corner:
The original Marston/Peter Wonder Woman origin story is beautiful and weird and kind of makes me tear up. I compared it to the Winter’s Tale in that link, and I’ll stand by that. And I think your argument about a psychological explanation for the divine is right on the money; Marston and Peter had a divine that was actually mysterious and powerful, not just a bunch of ultra superhumans running around bashing each other.
I haven’t read the Azzarello/Chiang issues. They’re both competent creators, and I suspect they can tell a decent pulp adventure story. But the Marston/Peter WW was one of the great artistic achievements of comics, IMO. And it was ideologically committed to feminism — in the case of the origin story, specifically to the idea of the power of female creation and mother/daughter bonds — in a way that is very, very rare, in comics or in other art forms or anywhere.
Oh…and to Joe, who asks why WW becomes a superhero. She becomes a superhero basically because she’s strong and curious and courageous and wants to help people. Marston didn’t feel that you needed a tragic or sordid backstory to make you a hero. He thought strength comes out of being loved and happy, not out of being wounded. More power to him.
I just wanted to add…the Azzarello/Chiang version is of course an improvement…if you’re demographic is mostly adult men. If that’s the case, the illegitimate-daughter-of-Zeus is clearly superior; it’s got sex, conflict, and the possibility of lots of gratuitous angsting. On the other hand, if your audience is 8-10 year old girls and boys, an origin all about who slept with whom and strained family dynamics is probably going to have less appeal. Instead, you probably want something with room for magic and courage and adventure and love and giant kangaroos.
Myself, I am old, old, and in my second childhood, so I’m all for the magic and love and giant kangaroos…though angsting and sex and strained family dynamics can be okay too, in their place. Why exactly you would want talented creators like Azzarello and Chiang to take the magic and love and kangaroos of the 8 year olds and turn them into the sex and angst and family dynamics for the thirty year olds is, of course, an open question. I’ve discussed some answers elsewhere, and won’t repeat it here except to note that Marston/Peter’s Wonder Woman was by far the most popular iteration of the character, and to express my doubts that Azzarello/Chiang’s version will change that, whatever it’s other successes.
Update: The argument in the last part of this post is shredded, torn apart, and stomped upon by commenters. The Percy Jackson series and the Prydain chronicles are cited as painfully telling counter-examples.
“On the other hand, if your audience is 8-10 year old girls and boys, an origin all about who slept with whom and strained family dynamics is probably going to have less appeal.”
Interesting proposition, except for that whole pesky Percy Jackson series that’s sweeping the 8-10 year old girls and boys these days…
Uh-oh. I’ve never heard of Percy Jackson. But Wikipedia suggests it is indeed a fatal blow to my thesis.
Well, you win some you lose some….
I actually reviewed the Percy Jackson series for HU. It’s decent enough pulp adventure, but I think Marston would hate it. I feel that it has a strong bias against femme femininity (as opposed to tomboys, virgins, or young girls frozen in prepubescence, which it approves of).
“I’ve never heard of Percy Jackson”
Sure you have! https://hoodedutilitarian.com/2010/08/might-as-well-be-a-comic-percy-jackson-and-the-olympians/#commentspost
I think whenever superhero writers are looking for characterization they often run right to “character has daddy issues.” You see this in every Marvel movie: Iron-man, Thor, even in the recent Captain America movie they gave Red Skull daddy issues, making him upset over the fact the scientist who created the super soldiers serum liked Steve Rogers better than him. In Iron Man II, Tony stark is too weepy to save the day until they play some clip his father taped before his death where he’s all like “I love you son!”
It makes sense in that regard that they went for “daddy issues” as a plot device with the new Wonder Woman.
Well, not only don’t I know, I don’t even know what I know, obviously.
It’s interesting…the Jackson books sound like they’re aimed at older kids than the WW — or maybe it’s just a sign of changing times. And VM’s reading makes them sound way more boy focused too..maybe gender rather than age really is the main difference in shifting to a Zeus-progeny approach…
My daughter was all into Percy Jackson (now they’re kind of in the past)–several of her female friends also liked them. She digs the Greek myths (and Norse, and Egyptian)
Not sure if this is to the point (any point) but when I was in junior high I was all et up about Taran Ass’t. Pig Keeper’s orphan issues, despite being confident that my parents were my parents. (I’m talking about Lloyd Alexander’s Chronicles of Prydian.) All through the books he’s fretting about his lost family roots. I guess brit class issues came into play, but all I processed was that he wasn’t noble enough to pitch woo at Princess Elonwy.
It’s to the point…I was a fan of the Prydain books too.
I think my speculations about the preferences of 8-year-olds have been pretty well vitiated. So it goes….
Well, if you’re unhappy with the reboot, just wait two more years. I’m sure they’ll reboot it again (and again, and again…).
I have trouble with defining a character by the origin story. Is a woman (or anyone for that matter) defined by the cards she’s dealt or the way she plays them?
I think it’s too early to judge the new WW storyline until it’s had more than a few issues out. It’s very possible that they take this somewhere that satisfies the original WW’s legacy in some new way. I’m probably being too optimistic but maybe that’s because I’d like to actually see a DC (or any super hero) female character be treated like a real woman instead of a boy with boobs or a girl that sticks her ass out when she flies or whatever.
Well, I think you can judge an origin story on its own merits to some extent (though I haven’t read the Azzarello/Chiang version of course!)
Still, just because I like the Marston/Peter origin doesn’t mean that the Azzarello/Chiang effort has to be terrible or anything. From what I’ve read, their version of the character sounds like one of the better ones from the last few decades (which is not exactly high praise, but still.)
Noah, I know you’ve conceded your point about 8-10-year-olds to have been vitiated, but I just wanted to say, as the commenter who started all this nudnik mishegas, that I’m only ready the Percy Jackson books because my 10-year-old daughter (who has no apparent daddy issues) is a fanatic for them. She got into them based on recommendations from her 10-year-old girl friends.
Also, I am a confessed former Chronicles of Prydain addict myself, yet grew up in a stable, loving household with a really flat gender hierarchy. (Even wanted to change my middle name to Taran for a little while around age 11 or so… ::blush::)
*reading
“Mike- I’d like to actually see a DC (or any super hero) female character be treated like a real woman instead of a boy with boobs or a girl that sticks her ass out when she flies or whatever.”
Don’t hold your breath.
————————-
Mike says:
I have trouble with defining a character by the origin story. Is a woman (or anyone for that matter) defined by the cards she’s dealt or the way she plays them?
————————–
Everyone is!
To varying degrees, but far more than those who think people just choose to be gay, bibliophiles, in a relationship with one abusive lout after another; that people like G.W. Bush are rich not because of being born into a wealthy, politically-connected family, but because of their work ethic…