I've never been a bigger fan of Wonder Woman than I am right now. And not because of the panel that ignited this thread. Her current book, by Azz and Chiang (which had the good taste to swipe from that amazing Thugs! webcomic), is the only New 52 title I still read in single issue format because I want to know what's coming next and how Diana is going to deal with it.
Wonder Woman is not the Punisher. She isn't Deathstroke. She isn't Lobo. She isn't even Judge Dredd. She's female empowerment. Sure she's wearing cute little tights and a corset...you gonna make something of it, tough guy? Didn't think so. Yes, she will go to the ends of the earth and move the very pillars of Heaven to help a friend in need, but don't mistake that for weakness, because if you're the person that wronged her friend, you're in for a world of hurt.
If she were brazenly killing every villain she came up against, I could see the need for hand-wringing over this. She's not. It's the same as with Man of Steel. If Superman goes around killing all willy-nilly in the sequel, I'll join the chorus crying foul. Diana is not a stone-cold killer...but she's perfectly capable of taking a life if it serves a greater good.
This is a total classics nerd digression for a second-- while I totally agree that the idea of a hero killing, especially with regularity, feels modern (which is to say "Modern Age", I am not putting a value judgment on whether it is sophisticated, I just mean Modern as opposed to Golden Age or Silver Age). . . from the larger point of view of hero stories, the idea of the hero NOT killing their enemy actually feels like the modern and relatively recent idea. An idea that I know Zorro had a big influence on, and maybe some other hero novel swashbucklers of the time, and brought into superheroes- that the hero is so virtuosic and virtuous that they can defeat their enemies and simply humiliate them (e.g. cutting the "Z") rather than kill them. Compared to prior centuries of hero stories where the enemy (sometimes a monster, sometimes a man) is killed as a matter of course.
Again, a total digression, but the whole notion of a hero who is constantly immersed in violence, but to whom even their worst enemies life is statement, is actually a pretty modern idea. Not in comics, but in literature at large.
And is it is an idea that has been such a big part of superheroes (even if it didn't originate with them) I can understand why it is a concept that superhero fans are protective of.
Not to nitpick your nitpick, Eric, but while you're right that I did misinterpret Peter's post, Diana herself still managed to join her sisters in getting blood on her hands. Sensation Comics #24 page 12 from 1943. That one took me all of 2 seconds to find.
Unless you're thinking those fellas walked away from those planes safely. ;)
Wanna bet there's more? I'd be willing to take that action. So for SOME of the prior 46 years... I'd wager mostly the ones published under the code, at least up until Perez.
On everything else you said below that, I agree completely. Especially on the point of realistic and believable not being the same thing.
Not to nitpick, @Paul, but Peter said Marston’s Amazons killed, not WW herself. Admittedly, I haven't read very much of the Golden Age or early Silver Age Wonder Woman material, so someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think there are any deaths that can be attributed to WW on-screen or off, intentional or even unintentional until Pérez revamped her post-Crisis. Marston’s Wonder Woman fought with her lasso and her fists, not with swords. She even managed to reform a few of her villains.
Again, I'm not saying I have a problem with today’s version of the character being willing to kill, because I don’t. But there is a distinct difference between the Marston Wonder Woman (he died in 1947) and the various post-Crisis versions of Wonder Woman. Twenty-five years is still a fairly long history for the willing-to-kill version, but WW did spend her first 46 years without spilling blood, and I don’t think you can just completely dismiss that history, or the people who prefer that version, out of hand.
As for “modernization,” the problem with publishing a stable of characters that have outlived their creators is that times change, attitudes change, etc. So, yeah, you need to update the hairstyles and the clothing and the cars on the street and the types of phones they are using. And you can modernize the storytelling—these days that means less dialogue; few, if any, captions; decompressed stories; etc. But all of this is done (ideally, anyway) for the purpose of making the characters more relateable to the reader. And that should be a goal for any story in any medium—relateable characters. They don’t have to be likeable—they don’t even have to be all that realistic—but they need to be relateable, believable (there is a difference between “realistic” and “believeable” in storytelling! But that’s for another rant), if you want them to make a lasting impact.
As Wonder Woman has been established thus far in the New 52, having her kill is believable. Whether she's more relateable because of it is up to the individual. That being said, DC could just as easily have created a believable Wonder Woman who is unwilling to kill. The question—and it’s the underlying question of the Man of Steel movie debate—is which version is more relateable, and what does that say about the comic-reading public?
Okay, she killed enemy soldiers during the war. There very well may be more scenes of her killing military combatants. Everyone had to do their part to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness after all. I’ll concede that point—and your Google skills (I’ve done several searches, but keep coming up empty). But I'd still be extremely surprised if Marston depicted her taking any lives outside of a military battlefield, Code or no Code. It just wouldn’t match up with the stories that I have read, and how he depicted WW in those stories.
Okay, she killed enemy soldiers during the war. There very well may be more scenes of her killing military combatants. Everyone had to do their part to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness after all. I’ll concede that point—and your Google skills (I’ve done several searches, but keep coming up empty). But I'd still be extremely surprised if Marston depicted her taking any lives outside of a military battlefield, Code or no Code. It just wouldn’t match up with the stories that I have read, and how he depicted WW in those stories.
Okay, she killed enemy soldiers during the war. There very well may be more scenes of her killing military combatants. Everyone had to do their part to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness after all. I’ll concede that point—and your Google skills (I’ve done several searches, but keep coming up empty). But I'd still be extremely surprised if Marston depicted her taking any lives outside of a military battlefield, Code or no Code. It just wouldn’t match up with the stories that I have read, and how he depicted WW in those stories.
Okay, she killed enemy soldiers during the war. There very well may be more scenes of her killing military combatants. Everyone had to do their part to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness after all. I’ll concede that point—and your Google skills (I’ve done several searches, but keep coming up empty). But I'd still be extremely surprised if Marston depicted her taking any lives outside of a military battlefield, Code or no Code. It just wouldn’t match up with the stories that I have read, and how he depicted WW in those stories.
Are. . .
Are there pictures of her spanking Nazis?
I'mAskingForAFriend.
Sorry, David, from what I’ve seen, she usually she just beat the crap out of them and tied them up. I think she reserved the spankings for her female villains. Although, there were a few recurring female Nazi villains, so don’t give up hope!
I'm completely fine with Wonder Woman killing, I think it's better her just saying she has rather than showing it, I recently helped run a superhero summer school (for students coming up to my secondary school in September) and I struggled to find comics to take in due to the sheer amount of blood and violence.
Spoilers for Wonder Woman #23: she kills a god in that. But it's sorta an interesting/mercy killing for a good reason that's still messy enough to lead to great plot developments. Loving Azzarello's run...
I have no problem with Wonder Woman killing gods & monsters.
Mortals, on the other hand, not so much.
At what point is a fictional god a true "god" versus someone who is mortal, but appears to be a god? I mean, 1,000 years ago Superman would have for sure been seen as a god, but he's completely mortal. And if Wonder Woman is able to kill them, doesn't that make them "Mortals"?
Doesn't this play into the whole Superman Man of Steel debate. She doesn't have to but she can. But they are playing Diana far more as the warrior than ever before. Let's face it, a lot of the media created about Ancient Greece usually has a lot of killing, whether it be Spartans or whatever, so doesn't it play into her Greek Warrior stereotype? I'm just posing the question.
Doesn't this play into the whole Superman Man of Steel debate. She doesn't have to but she can. But they are playing Diana far more as the warrior than ever before. Let's face it, a lot of the media created about Ancient Greece usually has a lot of killing, whether it be Spartans or whatever, so doesn't it play into her Greek Warrior stereotype? I'm just posing the question.
Totally agree here. I've never had an issue with a hero killing someone if it was truly part of their character, which is why while I enjoyed Man of Steel, I also understood why for many it was untrue to the character. If/when Shazam/Captain Marvel starts killing people when there were other options on the table, I'll join the chorus in crying foul.
But Diana is a greek warrior. She's named for the goddess of the hunt (albeit the Roman name, or she'd be Artemis Prince), and those Greek legends are full of bloodthirsty wars, capricious Gods who like to screw with their followers on a whim, and a generally hostile attitude towards an enemy. So I really have no problem with their presenting Diana as a killer or...heaven forbid...showing her killing an enemy. I didn't bat an eye when she broke Max Lord's neck. I thought "Good move"...and the move only Diana could have done. Batman would have talked it to death... :)
Comments
Wonder Woman is not the Punisher. She isn't Deathstroke. She isn't Lobo. She isn't even Judge Dredd. She's female empowerment. Sure she's wearing cute little tights and a corset...you gonna make something of it, tough guy? Didn't think so. Yes, she will go to the ends of the earth and move the very pillars of Heaven to help a friend in need, but don't mistake that for weakness, because if you're the person that wronged her friend, you're in for a world of hurt.
If she were brazenly killing every villain she came up against, I could see the need for hand-wringing over this. She's not. It's the same as with Man of Steel. If Superman goes around killing all willy-nilly in the sequel, I'll join the chorus crying foul. Diana is not a stone-cold killer...but she's perfectly capable of taking a life if it serves a greater good.
Again, a total digression, but the whole notion of a hero who is constantly immersed in violence, but to whom even their worst enemies life is statement, is actually a pretty modern idea. Not in comics, but in literature at large.
And is it is an idea that has been such a big part of superheroes (even if it didn't originate with them) I can understand why it is a concept that superhero fans are protective of.
Unless you're thinking those fellas walked away from those planes safely. ;)
Wanna bet there's more? I'd be willing to take that action. So for SOME of the prior 46 years... I'd wager mostly the ones published under the code, at least up until Perez.
On everything else you said below that, I agree completely. Especially on the point of realistic and believable not being the same thing.
Are there pictures of her spanking Nazis?
I'mAskingForAFriend.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/yHZKIVS3h2g?feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/embed/sA-cQf2Gfpw?feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/embed/IyZdIIPYXEA?feature=player_embedded
Mortals, on the other hand, not so much.
At what point is a fictional god a true "god" versus someone who is mortal, but appears to be a god? I mean, 1,000 years ago Superman would have for sure been seen as a god, but he's completely mortal. And if Wonder Woman is able to kill them, doesn't that make them "Mortals"?
But Diana is a greek warrior. She's named for the goddess of the hunt (albeit the Roman name, or she'd be Artemis Prince), and those Greek legends are full of bloodthirsty wars, capricious Gods who like to screw with their followers on a whim, and a generally hostile attitude towards an enemy. So I really have no problem with their presenting Diana as a killer or...heaven forbid...showing her killing an enemy. I didn't bat an eye when she broke Max Lord's neck. I thought "Good move"...and the move only Diana could have done. Batman would have talked it to death... :)