Jungle Empress PSA: Stereotyping women makes them CRAZY!

Four-Color Shadows has this Zegra, Jungle Empress story and it's pretty awesome. Shortly after an earthquake uncovers a hidden temple in Zegra's part of the jungle...



The director of the museum patronizes his top anthropologist for being a woman and sneaks in a lecture about - of all things - gossiping. Because those women sure do like to gossip, don't they fellas? Dr Morgan responds professionally, as does young Peter Brooks, the guy who's chosen to be her assistant on this important dig. But secretly? He hates that bitch for being "a little queer in the head." This, by the way, is the good guy.

Once they get to the site, they discover a huge trove of...



Now, I'm no archaeologist, but I suspect that most would be pretty thrilled at discovering hundreds of intact mummies from a previously unknown civilization all in one place. Our hero Brooks though: suspects his boss of sinister motives beyond her justifiable excitement over the fortune and glory this is going to bring her. After all, from her "long experience" she must see stuff like this every day. Idiot.

When he finds out that she's also discovered how to re-animate mummies (for the purpose of documenting their first-hand experiences with their ancient and mysterious culture, mind you), Brooks freaks out, declares Morgan insane, and runs to get Zegra so they can shut Morgan's operation down.

To be fair, Morgan does then try to shoot Brooks as he's running into the jungle, but is that because she has a secret plan that he's discovered? Or because she's had about enough of his crap? There's no evidence of a secret plan up to this point (even in a comic that's very free with showing us what people - including Morgan - are thinking), so it looks to me like she just snapped.

And snapped but good. Brooks finds Zegra, but...



Kill all you meet?!

I'm not sure what the moral is here. I think maybe we shouldn't dismiss women and their accomplishments or stereotype them as childish gossips. 'Cause if we do, they'll go nuts and lead their mummy hordes into battle in a mad vendetta of vengeance.



And knowing is half the battle.

Hawke (Ted Bell)

This one didn't even make the 100 Page Rule. And I so wanted to like it too.

I had to go to the DMV not too long ago and realized as I was out running errands beforehand that I'd brought nothing to read. So I popped into a Barnes & Noble and browsed until I found Ted Bell. Hawke, the first novel in his Alex Hawke series, looked promising. There's a picture of a boat, a reference to "high adventure," a comparison to Clive Cussler (whom I've never read, but have always meant to), and a romantic, swashbuckling name for the hero.

Turning the book over I saw that the hero is the direct descendant of a legendary privateer and a decorated Naval hero himself. There's also something about a top secret assignment in the Caribbean. I bought the book right away. Unfortunately, I only made it to page seventy-two.

It began promisingly enough. Young Alex Hawke is on a yacht trip with his parents when modern-day pirates board the boat and orphan the boy. Bell writes the scene convincingly and horrifyingly. I felt real fear and sorrow for the poor kid. It's only when we flash forward to years later that things start to come apart.

Alex overcomes his adversity to join the British Navy and not only better himself, but to become annoyingly perfect. He's rich, he's charming, he's adventurous. The only flaws I could find in him before I gave up are that he's no good at golf and that he doesn't know how to break up with women very well.

I could've stuck it out if that's all that was wrong, but I was already irritated by the time I got to page sixty-eight, which is where I started questioning my commitment to the book. Four pages later, I closed it for good.

What's happening on page sixty-eight is that Alex is trying to track down a lead on a missing submarine and is in a Caribbean bar interviewing a couple of former Soviets who now traffic in high-end military equipment like hovercrafts, helicopters, scud missiles, and - hopefully - submarines. Alex has heard that the men had recently been arguing over a girl (the argument makes them late for their meeting with him) and that one of them had abused her.

The knowledge doesn't seem to affect his attitude towards the men; in fact, he sort of feels sorry for them at first. Bell writes:

Looking at them, Hawke felt a twinge of pity. At one time, these two cold warriors had surely been formidable men, accustomed to a sense of purpose, power, and command. Now they had a dissolute air about them, stemming no doubt from too much sun, too much rum, too little self-respect. It was more than a little humbling, Hawke imagined, to be peddling the arsenal of your once vaingloriously evil empire.

But Hawke's empathy for the Russians quickly changes when he realizes that the waitress serving them is actually the girl the men were fighting over. Seeing abrasions on her wrists and ankles, he becomes a different man.

Now, I get the difference between "hearing" that someone got rough with a girl and seeing the results of it for yourself. It's now how I'd react, but I understand that maybe Alex is the kind of guy who'd let it go until he was confronted with the evidence. In fact, it would make him a more interesting character if he was that kind of guy. It would be a significant flaw that I'd be interested in watching him overcome. But that's not the case here.

On page sixty-eight (aka Chapter Five), Bell retroactively paints Alex as the kind of guy who brooks no tolerance for anyone who would abuse a woman. Words like "unbridled loathing" and "sodden degenerates" are used. Bell tells us, "In Alex's world there was right and there was wrong. And there were no shades of gray."

First of all, my worldview doesn't leave me very patient with folks who see everything in black and white. Abusing someone weaker than you is always wrong, but I'd want to hear the whole story before passing final judgment. Was the girl armed? Was she threatening one of the men in some other way? Did she have information they needed? This new Alex of Chapter Five doesn't care about those questions. His "no shades of gray" policy immediately makes me question whether or not I want to keep reading about him.

But more than that is the sloppiness in the storytelling. Alex already knew that at least one of these guys had beat up a girl. And he felt badly for them; related to them even. Turn the page and now he's outraged. He quickly adjourns the meeting, invites the men back to his boat for further discussion, and when they leave he promises the grateful, gleaming-eyed waitress that he'll take care of them and they'll never bother her again. She all but folds her hands and says, "My hero!"

The inconsistency between the nonchalant, businesslike Alex of Chapter Four and this vengeful Alex of Chapter Five is what made me throw up my hands and put the book away. And it's too bad really, because a series of books about a pirate's descendent who travels the world fixing unfixable problems sounded awesome to me.

Publishers Weekly's review of it (on the Amazon page in the link above) makes me glad I quit now though. It calls Alex "a cartoon" and the book itself "a pirate book for adult boys (that) ... tips over into unintentional parody more often than it should." Maybe instead of reading "the new Clive Cussler" I should try some actual Clive Cussler instead.

An Announcement

I'm narrowing the focus of the blog. I've been thinking about it for a while and I think it's the right thing to do for four reasons:

1. You don't need another Star Wars blog.

Seriously, I keep seeing the same information and news all over the Internet and very often it pops up here too just because I think it's cool or whatever. You don't need me to tell you that John Favreau has been signed to direct Iron Man 2 or to link to Clone Wars and Spirit trailers or to say that Fringe looks exciting. There are a ton of sites that do that so much better than I do.

In fact, the only reason I've been doing it as long as I have is because I know there are some friends of mine who read my blog, but don't read the major entertainment news blogs. But the rest of you don't need that and besides, I just can't keep up with it anymore. Which leads me to my second reason.

2. I just can't keep up with it anymore.

Reading and filtering through a couple of hundred blog posts everyday is fun, but it's way time-consuming. I don't plan on dropping any of my reading, but not having to share every little tidbit that I find interesting is going to save me a lot of time that I could use writing my novel, following up on comics projects, or even just improving the content here. Narrowing my focus will limit the amount of link-blogging I do, and I think that's a good thing.

3. Less link-blogging means better content.

I hope it does anyway. I've got a folder full of ideas for honest-to-goodness articles I've been wanting to post, but keeping up with the links has been distracting me from that. And recently I read a couple of things from other Internet writers that have made that clear to me.

At the end of June, Tom Spurgeon questioned his own site-strategy and the amount of link-blogging he was doing. He was just thinking out loud and repented of it the next day, but while mulling it over he said something that hit home to me:

...I feel that link-blogging is becoming less and less valuable, more a way for people to fake content than provide a service.

While I'd never presume to tell Tom Spurgeon how to run his incredibly successful blog, he got me thinking about my own blogging and whether or not I'm "faking content." I certainly don't thing that all link-blogging is useless. My day isn't complete without going through both Tom's blog and Dirk Deppey's with a fine-toothed comb. But I don't think it's what I want Adventureblog to be.

And while I was considering that, Warren Ellis sent out one of his email newsletters that reminded me about this post with the following thoughts in it.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could stand up now and say, okay, these are the post-curation years? The world does not need another linkblog. What is required, frankly, is what we’re supposed to call “content” these days. When I were a lad, back in the age of steam, we called this “original material.” Put another way: we like it when Cory and Xeni are the copy/paste editors for the internet, but we like it better when Cory writes a book and Xeni makes an episode of BoingBoingTV.

...And, frankly, no-one’s going to do a better job of being the internet’s copy/paste editors than the BB crew anyway. They have the time, they have the money, they have the setup, they have the audience and they have the momentum of nearly a decade in the job. Nobody needs another linkblog like that. There are already thousands of them. The job of curation is being taken care of. Look ahead.

I'm challenged by that. And while I doubt that reviews are exactly what Ellis had in mind, I'm not going to be able to improve by continuing to let linking eat up most of my time.

4. I'll be able to get out more.

Right now, when I read something nifty on someone else's blog, my initial instinct isn't to comment on it. It's to save the link so I can write about it later. I think it would be nicer to provide feedback directly on other people's blogs, so I'm going to try to do that more.

So, what's the focus going to be?

Like I said, I'm cutting out all the Star Wars and Star Trek stuff. In fact, I'm cutting out most of the scifi stuff altogether. There are a ton of great scifi blogs already covering that. I'll probably still geek out on some new TV show or movie enough that I'll want to talk about it, but I'll try to keep that to my Off Topic blog when that's the case.

What I want to keep talking about here are two things. One is sea adventure. That includes pirates, fish-people, Atlantis, mad scientists in submarines, sea monsters, all that stuff. I said earlier that I've really been drawn to that lately, but it's not just lately. Anyone who knows me knows what a sucker I am for this stuff and always have been. Especially pirates.

It also includes jungle islands filled with loin-cloth wearing heroes (male and female), lost cities, giant gorillas, and dinosaurs. That may not be what most people think of when they hear "sea adventure," but it's what I think about. So I'll keep talking about all that too.

The other thing I'm going to keep talking about could go by the hoity toity label "women in heroic fiction," but I prefer to call them Action Girls. Meaning nothing disrespectful by the use of the word "girl;" it just flows better and I don't think it's really a diminutive term anyway. Anyway, I'm far too fascinated by strong, heroic women to quit talking about them, so you'll still be hearing much more about Wonder Woman and Black Canary and the others than you want to.

(A third topic that's being grandfathered in is giant monsters and giant robots because Jason and I are still hard at work on Kill All Monsters! and it's a subject of interest. But I'm going to be more exclusive about which monster/robot links I post.)

Not that I'm cutting out the link-blogging cold turkey, you understand. As they relate to the topics of Sea Adventure and Action Girls, I'll still be sharing plenty of links (and art and videos). It's just that in cutting out everything else, I hope to be able to write more "original material" about those topics, in the form of both blog essays and my novel.

So, hopefully everyone's down with the new direction. I really think it's going to make this place more fun.

...and the power you possess.

Former Wonder Woman writer Greg Rucka is upset about the most recent Playboy's featuring Tiffany Fallon in a painted-on Wonder Woman costume. According to Rucka, "You've no idea the damage you've done. No idea at all."

And he may be right. But not according to Steven Grant who writes, "We're talking about Wonder Woman, right? Bazoongas out to here, skintight costume, high heels, bare legs and emphasized crotch, slave bracelets on her wrists Wonder Woman. Right? The Wonder Woman whose creator intended her to warm girls up to the joys of freedom via bondage and submission, right? If you think Wonder Woman is a role model, bodypainted nudes are about the least of your problems... "

My take on it is falls somewhere between the two. I think Wonder Woman is a role model for girls. That doesn't mean I think little girls should go out and start dressing like her; it's Wonder Woman's attitude and confidence that I wish more girls -- heck, more people -- would try to mimic. It's that same confidence that allows her to wear that costume without giving a crap about what anyone else thinks about it.

But in response to Rucka's post title, I guess I kind of don't get it. Someone explain to me how a Playboy Playmate's imitating Wonder Woman hurts Wonder Woman's image or impact as a role model. Yes, it's sexist. Yes, it's completely focused on Wonder Woman's attractiveness.

But to Grant's point, Wonder Woman has always been attractive. That's an undeniable aspect of her character. And as far as her being the perfect role model for girls goes, it's a flaw. Sure, it's a lot easier for Wonder Woman to be as confident as she is. Just look at her. I don't see how the Playboy pictorial changes that. It overemphasizes one aspect of her character to the neglect of the rest, but it doesn't ruin her effectiveness as a role model any more than her unchanging attractiveness already does.

Warrior Women Wednesday!

Today's Warrior Woman is Big Barda -- or, more accurately, "Lil' Big Barda" -- from Darryl Young's blog, which is chock full of good stuff.

But speaking of Barda, I'm sorry that Big Barda & Scott Free Week at Scans Daily never really took off.

"I want to have the kind of run I had on Birds of Prey"

The Dallas Morning News has a small, fluffy interview with Gail Simone in which she says she hopes to remain on Wonder Woman for at least five years. She wants to "have the room and time to really tell a megastory, made up of satisfying smaller chunks." Sounds good to me.

Who it doesn't sound good to: people who don't really seem to care about Wonder Woman in the first place.

JLA movie on hold

From a Hollywood Reporter article on how the WGA strike is affecting movie production: "At Warner Bros., Justice League of America finds itself without a shooting script and has options expiring on potential actors who recently were screen tested. As a result, it might have to postpone production." Sucks for me, but I'm still with the writers.

"I would frigging love to be Wonder Woman!"

So, with no chance of seeing an actual, big screen Wonder Woman any time soon, let's go back to fantasizing about who we'd like to see. I'll second the Lorelai Gilmore nomination. Not because she's the first person I'd think of for the role, but because she rules in general.

^_^

I haven't been into DC Direct's anime-inspired statues so far, but I actually kinda like the Wonder Woman one. The face is goofy in it's cutesy grimaciness, but I really like the costume design.

Added to my Wish List

DC's Power Girl collection.

Feminist Icon vs. Sex Object: Where's the line?

Former (I think) DC editor Steve Bunche has an interesting review of the '70s grindhouse sexploitation flick 'Gator Bait. It's interesting because while Bunche isn't necessarily a feminist, he's clearly hip to feminist concerns when he writes stuff like, "Lemme tell ya, buddy, the makers of this film simply set out make a movie about a scantily clad hottie who kicks ass on the people who fucked with her and her family, but I strongly doubt that capital F feminism was intentionally involved in the creative process.

"Think about it: you have fine-ass Claudia Jennings, a woman for whom the wearing of clothing should have been a capital offense, traipsing about the fen in gear that shows off her priapism-inducing assets for all they’re worth, despite the fact that such gear is in no way conducive to the rigors of marshland hunting and trapping. Desiree is not so much a feminist role model as she is a fantasy wild woman/jungle girl updated and transplanted to a sweltering southern bayou, and as a lifelong fan of such characters I have no problem with that. But don’t hand me that feminist overanalysis horseshit; Desiree’s a forest spirit fantasy made flesh — hell, she even looks like an anthropomorphic fox — and to say otherwise is a tad disingenuous."

Which makes me wonder: is it possible for a character to be a feminist role model and an object of lust at the same time? Certainly there are scantily clad superheroines who have plenty of female fans, but who are also ogled by male fans. Does the fact that some fanboys drool over these characters diminish them as role models for the fangirls? Does it depend entirely on the number of gratuitous butt, boob, and crotch shots the artist indulges in? What decides if an image is gratuitous or not? I'm asking. Where's the line?

Warrior Women Wednesday!

The illustration du jour is by the muy talented Victor Santos, who's been drawing lots of jungle girls lately.

Wonder Woman

pHilippos adds to the "Who is Wonder Woman?" discussion with a link to... the DC Message Board? Holy Crap. I'd given up on that place as a source of intelligent thought a long time ago, but damn if jv2000 didn't come up with something smart to say:

WW should NOT be a title about a woman who feels bad about herself or her mother or her upbringing. She should not have to go around apologizing ad naseum. Nor should she be looked upon as the pariah of DCU. Its time for someone to put the COMIC back in this comic book. And while they are at it, please remind the rest of the writers at DC that good writing doesn't equal depressing writing or killing off a character every third issue or scripting the bloodiest fight scene ever.

I would challenge the writers to write GOOD stories where our heroes feel GOOD about themselves. Or is that beyond the ability of the caliber of writer who writes for the serial form? Or is it some sick form of dealing with their own inferiority complexes? "Look, how great I am. I can make Superman and Wonder Woman feel bad. I can bring them down a notch." Or is it just a bad formula? "Issue 1- Superhero feels good. Issues 2 through 5 - Make superhero feel bad. Issue 6 - Superhero wins, but somebody close to him/her dies. Superhero feels bad."

When was the last time that WW actually used her mind to figure out a solution to a problem? When was the last time she actually outsmarted an opponent? As opposed to just beating them up.

There's more smart stuff in the linked post, but those are the parts that struck me as being important to who Wonder Woman is: smart and not at all angsty.

Oh, well. Gail's coming.

On writing women

Speaking of Wonder Woman, one of the writers who seemed to really get her, Greg Rucka, talked on his LJ about accusations that he's sexist because he makes bad things happen to female characters:

Seems there's a tirade over my treatment of Sasha on scans_daily coming out of the "CheckOut" storyline, and including her behavior in Checkmate 16. Apparently I've turned into a sexist bastard and didn't get the memo. "This would never happen to Batman." No shit. Batman isn't infested by nanobots and being examined by a madman vivisectionist. Doctor Mid-Nite asks if she was sexually assaulted, and that's a problem? Why, because it acknowledges that rape is a crime that happens? Would it have been more honest to simply pretend it wasn't a possibility, rather than treat the scene with maturity, and have Sasha answer and confirm that, no, she wasn't? Or is the problem that I dared broach it at all, that "there's no room in comics for that kind of thing"? Or is it because the fact that women are the victims of rape far more often than men are is something that we'd rather just all ignore? People read for what they want to read, I guess, rather than reading what was written.

David Welsh responds:

Super-heroic fantasy is at least partly about portraying a better world than the one we live in. There are lots of societal trends, positive and negative, that aren’t proportionately represented in comics, and arguing that you’re just being honest by folding in some of the fouler ones strikes me as specious.

I've unfairly boiled their arguments down to a paragraph each, so if you're interested you should definitely click through and read the rest of their thoughts. Because I like both of these guys and believe that each of them has given their opinion plenty of thought, I'm inclined to think that they're both right. Rucka has always pursued honesty in the comics of his that I've read and hasn't been shy about including some brutal stuff if that's what he thought the story called for. On the other hand, David is exactly right that those kinds of comics stories aren't for everyone. Some folks want lighter, escapist tales and there's nothing wrong with that. Rucka's comics aren't for those folks though, as Rucka himself points out in his post.

Still, I can't fault David for seeing Rucka's work in the broader context of the way women heroes have traditionally been portrayed in superhero books.

Fiona

I had a huge crush on Gabrielle Anwar after seeing her in The Three Musketeers and For Love or Money in the early '90s, but I lost track of her after that. When she popped up on Burn Notice, I recognized her name, but barely the actress. In the '90s she was all fresh-faced and girl-next-door. Obviously she's matured in the last fifteen years, but on Burn Notice -- although she's still hot -- she looks worn and haggard. Like she's had a rough life.

Which, of course, she has. Or her character has, I mean.

I didn't like Fiona for a while. Like most of the other characters on the show, she seemed placed there merely to give Michael a hard time. She felt like a generic ex-girlfriend who could still fit in with the show because she also had a similarly shady past. But as the show's gone on, I'm loving her more and more.

Lately she's been pressuring Michael to talk about their relationship. That could get annoying fast, but it hasn't been thanks to the writing and Gabrielle's acting. Oh, she's nagging him, but underneath that is the knowledge that she's a fiesty, former IRA-member who could not only kill Michael thirty-five different ways, she'd do it while eating an ice-cream cone and listening to her iPod. Fi's got a streak in her that may not be sadistic, but it's close to sociopathic. Gabrielle plays her very calmly and dispassionately, but with a sad loneliness that's beautifully painful to watch.

It's like Fi knows that she's in a dark place and she's pretty much okay with that, except that she likes the way Michael makes her feel. I don't get the feeling that she wants Michael to "redeem" her or anything. He seems unequipped to do that even if she did. It's just that she loves the guy, so she flirts and teases and nags and tests, because Michael can't get past how bad their relationship was last time. But because she's so nearly unhinged, her nagging and testing carry a huge sense of danger with them. In last week's episode, she put Michael in harm's way a couple of times just to see if he'd support her.

Since he's Michael though, he can handle himself in those situations, so you never get angry with her. That's why they're such a hot couple. They'd totally kill anyone else they'd ever try a relationship with, which is why they're both so lonely. But they can survive each other. They're the only people in the world who they can survive. If only Michael would realize it.

Their relationship will always be rocky though. Michael's right to be nervous about her. Fi is to Burn Notice what Wolverine is to X-Men. She's unpredictable and deadly. Michael can take care of himself, but Fi is a monster in the way she deals with opponents. Michael's badass, but Fi's fifty times more. As capable as he is, Fi's the one he calls in when he needs super-muscle. It's a really good thing that she's so fiercely loyal to him. I'd be worried about his eventually pissing her off and making an enemy of her, but that's not the way things are going. Michael obviously cares about her and is loyal to her too; he's just not sure he can go where she wants him to romantically.

The result is a fascinating relationship between two characters I absolutely love. I started watching the show for Bruce Campbell (and he's great, don't get me wrong), but Fi's my new favorite. Not just on Burn Notice, but in genre fiction in general.

Black Canary: Real woman

So, Black Canary #2 came out yesterday and my comics shop had restocked their supply of #1, which I'd missed thanks to not picking up my stash the week of July 4th. I'm all caught up now, and apart from a couple of weird lines of dialogue, I'm liking the mini-series.

I'm not saying that Batman would never say, "I was here the whole time, in case you rookies couldn't hack it," but it felt off. Or maybe it was the idea that Batman could actually sit patiently and watch a couple of young superheroes prove themselves without just stepping in himself and taking over.

The really strange line though was Kobra, not usually a great humorist that guy, telling Green Arrow, "I sssaid you hit like a girl." The joking made for interesting juxtaposition with his seemingly un-ironic hiss-talking, but it's still weird.

But, like I said, I'm liking it. I like the flashbacks that track Black Canary and Green Arrow's relationship, and I like the adventures of Sin trying to fit in with other kids. But I especially like that Black Canary's taking her time and thinking through Green Arrow's proposal. Even though we already know what her answer will be, it's good that she's mulling it over first. 'Cause honestly, Green Arrow's not good enough for her.

Not that anyone is or that marriage is about finding someone who "deserves" you, but Green Arrow's history with Black Canary is especially troubled. And that sounds odd for me to say since I became a Black Canary fan through Green Arrow.

I was a huge Robin Hood fan as a kid (still am), so it was a pretty easy transition for me to start digging Green Arrow once I heard of him. Then when I eventually discovered the "Hard Traveling Heroes" stories with him and Green Lantern, I was smitten by his dedication to the Little Guy and social justice issues. Before long, I was not only collecting his appearances in comics, but those of his "family" too: Speedy/Arsenal and Black Canary.

I eventually got tired of Arsenal. Too much baggage; too big a chip on his shoulder. But Black Canary I liked. I didn't think about it in these terms back then, but I think the reason I dug her was that she was an interesting combination of Wonder Woman's confidence and Rogue's neediness, both traits that I find attractive in a cognitively dissonant sort of way.

In her earliest appearances in Flash Comics, she was a femme fatale: bold, confident, and deadly. She was initially a guest-star in Johnny Thunder stories and since he was a doof, she got to be the hero. Eventually though she got to star in her own stories, but she was still the confident hero. In her secret identity as Dinah Drake, she ran a flower shop and pretended to be as mild-mannered as Clark Kent, but that was a disguise. In reality, she always saved the day for Larry Lance, a private eye who frequently ran his business out of her shop.

She got to be popular enough that she joined the Justice Society of America, but that unfortunately meant that she had to play second-string to more powerful (more male?) heroes like Green Lantern and the Flash. It's nice to see her participating in such a prominent team, but I much preferred seeing her solo in her own adventures. It's too bad that Flash Comics was cancelled shortly after she started appearing in the JSA's All-Star Comics.

She stayed with the JSA for three years until All-Star was cancelled and was mostly unheard from again until the JSA started appearing in yearly Justice League of America events. During that time we learn that Dinah and Larry got married. When Larry is killed during one of the team-ups, Black Canary decides to avoid memories of him by leaving the JSA (and Earth-2 where the JSA lives) and join the JLA on Earth-1. That's where she meets Green Arrow.

There's a huge gap in my collection right there, so I don't know what Black Canary and Green Arrow were like back then, but the sense that I get is that she was sad a lot (though I may have formed that impression after reading retcon tales, so take it for what it's worth). So -- at least in my perception -- she went from being this very confident character to being this emotionally vulnerable character and it was during this time of vulnerability that she started her relationship with Green Arrow. Not that he took advantage of her. I don't know that. But even if she was completely into him, it's not the healthiest way for a relationship to begin.

After Crisis on Infinite Earths merged the two Earths into one, DC explained that there were actually two Black Canaries. Dinah Drake Lance was a member of the JSA and her daughter Dinah Laurel Lance was in the JLA and had the relationship with Green Arrow. Eventually though, both Dinah Laurel and Green Arrow quit the JLA and moved to Seattle from which Mike Grell launched the Green Arrow ongoing.

I don't have many issues of Grell's GA, but it's common knowledge that he really put Black Canary through the ringer. She was tortured and as a result lost her Canary Cry superpower and her ability to have children. Green Arrow stole money from her florist shop and the final straw was when she caught him in a kiss with her shop assistant. Fans have hugely differing opinions about that kiss and who was at fault, but based on what I've heard (not having tracked down the issue for myself yet), Green Arrow wasn't as much of a lech as he later got a reputation for.

But he did get the reputation and it eventually came to be accepted by Green Arrow writers after Grell. As Black Canary was climbing out of her funk and becoming a cool, confident character again in Birds of Prey and JSA, Green Arrow seemed to be slowly winning her back under the writing of Kevin Smith and Brad Meltzer, but there was a general acknowledment that he'd screwed up at some point in the past and needed to regain Black Canary's trust.

And I was okay with that. Especially since I hadn't read the actual kissing scene back in the day, but also: even if he was more innocent than his reputation deserved, he wouldn't be the first guy to accept responsibility for something he didn't do just to give in and let the fight blow over. I was rooting for Green Arrow and Black Canary to get back together again. They didn't have a perfect relationship, but it felt like a real relationship and I wanted to see it continue. Until Judd Winick ruined it anyway.

Winick took over the Green Arrow series after Brad Meltzer and in his second story arc he had Green Arrow, who was supposedly still trying to woo Black Canary and prove his trustworthiness, fall for a completely new character and do things with her that in no way allowed room for a misunderstanding or any innocence on his part. At that point, I lost interest in him, threw my allegiance completely over to Black Canary who was apparently right about him all along, and dropped the Green Arrow series.

So, here's what I like about Black Canary. Wonder Woman is the ideal, confident woman. Rogue is the poster-girl for "damaged and vulnerable." Both are attractive in those ways, but Black Canary is a mixture of both, sometimes all at once, and that makes her real. She's one of the most real, complex women I've ever read about and that's why I love that DC and Tony Bedard are giving her some time to think over Green Arrow's proposal. It's what a real woman in her position should do. I don't know that she should accept, but I certainly buy that she would. I'd also buy that she wouldn't, if that was the direction DC wanted to take her. Where the heart and all her history with Green Arrow are concerned though, it makes sense that she might be willing to take a chance that he really has changed. And I'm excited to learn along with her if her taking that chance will pay off.

Except that after the wedding, Judd Winick will be her primary writer and that makes me exceedingly nervous.

Sheena: Queen of the Jungle #1

I hate variant covers.

Not for any moral, "they're-ruining-comics" reasons; just because I sometimes have a hard time choosing which to buy. When I was reading Dynamite's Red Sonja series, it was especially difficult because I'd usually like two or three of the covers every issue (but I refuse to buy more than one copy of the same book). That's what ultimately led to my dropping the monthly Red Sonja issues in favor of picking up the eventual collections with their complete cover galleries.

That's not why I'm not going to buy any more of Devil's Due's Sheena, but I'll get to that in a second. I'm just bringing it up because I had a hard time picking between these two covers.

I love Joe Jusko's work in general, and the lush background in that top image is gorgeous, and exactly what a cool, jungle setting should look like. His Sheena is stunning, but not overly sexualized. Still, she's just standing there.

Nicola Scott's cover in the second image is sparse on setting, but Sheena is so kick-butt in it. That's the one I ended up with.

Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, the story turned me off enough that I won't have to make that decision again. Rather than having cool, jungle adventures, Sheena gets to join up with some environmentalists to defeat an evil corporation that's destroying the rainforest. Not that saving rainforests isn't a noble effort, but "yawn."

Sheena doesn't even fight anyone in this issue. Her panther does, but just a corporate lackey with a handgun. Who, by the way, feels the need to offer a long explanation of why he's justified killing Sheena before he actually does it. And she just stands there and let's him finish.

Once Sheena does decide to take action, she's shot with a tranquelizer dart before she can do anything. How exciting.

You'll notice that there's also a strong focus on Sheena's butt. I'm not actually complaining about that. I don't have a problem with her being sexy or scantily clad; those are requirements of the genre, whether you're talking about Sheena or Tarzan. And dadgummit, they're fun requirements.

Althought this picture is pushing it:

Johanna at Comics Worth Reading expresses her concerns with this panel: "I don’t think a human body can do that — isn’t there a scary amount of torso hidden behind that giant thigh? gotta make sure we don’t block the boobies — but it does present an in-your-face crotch shot."

I'm going to argue that she might be wrong about the anatomy and that it's an improbable, but not impossible pose. But she's right about the purpose of the shot. It's completely gratuitious and unsubtle, even for a jungle girl book.

Johanna's being too harsh with her next comment though: "Speaking of face, who cares about that? Hair means not having to draw features or cheekbones." From her comment about "idly checking out" the book, I'm guessing that she didn't actually read it (not that I necessarily blame her), but it becomes obvious later on that keeping Sheena's face obscured for a while is intentional. And not because Matt Merhoff can't draw faces. When she lands after being tranquelized, there are several shots of her like this:

I'm not sure why they went that way. I think maybe they were trying to get us to think that maybe Sheena was someone we'd recognize, but she's not, so the big "reveal" -- while proving that Merhoff's not hiding an inability to draw features and cheekbones -- is a letdown. Sadly, just like the rest of the book.

Links: Comic book cliffhangers, a Lordi movie, and paying your dues

Horror

There are a couple of Lady Bathory movies in the works.

Heavy metal monster-costume band Lordi is doing a horror movie. And did you know that there are Lordi comics in Finland, written and drawn by Mr. Lordi himself? Me either.

John Rozum and Kody Chamberlain's The Foundation comic, about a group who's trying to stop the prophecies of Nostradamus from coming to pass, has been optioned for a film by Paramount.

Comics

Kill All Monsters! editor Jason Rodriguez has a fantastic post up at Blogarama about comic book cliffhangers and that crazy desire comics nerds get for next month's issue right now.

Women in Fiction

A while back, I was invited to share one of my posts at the POWER in Comics Community. Unfortunately, I couldn't access the site at the time, but it looks like I can now. The group's mission statement is to Promote Ownership of stores and publishing houses, Writing & drawing of comics, Editing of comics & Reading of comics and graphic novels for women and minorities. I'm having trouble signing up for it, but once I can I'll be sure to take them up on their invitation.

Writing (and making comics) is Hard

The Beat has a great summary of the recent MoCCa (Museum of Comic and Cartoon Art) Festival. I especially like her thoughts on alleged "classism" in the indie comics community and the need to pay one's dues.

Alas, even in a world as egalitarian as indie comics, where almost everyone wants the kids to do alright, the reality is that not everything is created equal ... But it takes a while to become a Paul Pope or Adrian Tomine, let alone a Kim Deitch. Maybe you have to pay your dues by sitting there behind a table wishing someone would stop by. Maybe being more selective and having to pay your dues is part of the process.

As someone who's done a fair share of "sitting there behind a table wishing someone would stop by," I certainly think so.

Stuff Nobody Cares About But Me

I could smooch Steve Jobs right now.

Smart pirates and the Evolution of the movie franchise

I discovered Henry Jenkins' blog via this post about At World's End and how it's a better movie than critics are giving it credit for (thanks to the Disney blog for the link). I thought it was a worthy second look to this discussion. He begins with the following assertion: "As a rule, one should never trust the opinion of an established film critic about a movie with a number after its title -- and one should multiply the level of distrust for each number over 2. The whole concept of franchise entertainment seems to bring out the worst high culture assumptions in the bulk of American film critics..."

He goes on to quote from several critics who can all be summed up in this review by Chris Vognar of The Dallas Morning News: "Unlike, say, Shrek the Third, which works perfectly fine as a mediocre stand-alone sequel, At World's End relies heavily on viewers' knowledge of the previous film, Dead Man's Chest. Seems fair enough, given how many moviegoers were willing to pony up for that one. Still, all the curses, vendettas, double-crosses, reconciliations, trinkets, negotiations and sea monsters longing to be human again gave me severe tired head before the two-hour mark. Summer blockbusters may have many goals, but tired head should not be among them ... So yeah, At World's End has some fun stuff. If only it weren't so stuffed to the gills with moving parts. "

At World's End should've been more like Shrek the Third? Is that really what you meant to say, Chris? Way to shoot your credibility in the head.

Jenkins argues, "At the World's End (sic) ... gets no credit for its ambitions here, no recognition for placing new kinds of conceptual demands on its spectators, and no praise for its craftmanship. Rather, it is being forced back into the box where critics place any and all popular entertainment. The perception that summer movies are mindless and motivated purely by commercial considerations is being forced onto this film; At the World's End is being whacked for every step it takes outside of the confines of a totally classically constructed film."

In other words, it's too smart. And while I still wish parts had been made clearer, I completely agree. It's what got me back to the theater to see it again a couple of times, and the reason I've got the first two movies queued up on my DVD player in anticipation of seeing it yet again. As Jenkins says, "I can only imagine the pleasures that await us when we watch all three films back to back in a DVD marathon or all of the telling details I will pick up on during a second or third viewing -- and that's part of the point. The modes by which we consume these films have shifted. Most films don't warrant a first look, let alone a second viewing, but for those films that do satisfy and engage us, a much higher percentage of the audience is engaged in what might once have seemed like cult viewing practices."

He makes a brilliant observation about the way movie franchises have changed recently from being character-based to being world-based: "Hollywood has moved from a primary focus on stories as the generators of film pitches to a focus on characters that will sustain sequels to a focus on worlds that can be played out across multiple media platforms. This shift accommodates a much more active spectator who wants to watch favorite movies again and again, making new discoveries each time, and who enjoys gathering online and comparing notes within a larger knowledge culture." He cites the Matrix franchise as an example and Pirates as another. To one critic's gripe about there not being enough Jack Sparrow in At World's End, Jenkins replies that Jack's not the selling point for the franchise (though he may have been the initial draw for a lot of folks); the Pirates world is. He gives tons of examples of how the trilogy supports that, but I'll leave those for you to read when you click through. It's fascinating stuff.

Jenkins argues that the critic's job, by its very nature, interferes with critics' abilities to enjoy world-focused franchises to their full potential. "(Critics) went into the film expecting a certain kind of experience," he says. "They hadn't successfully learned how to take pleasure from its world-building; they don't want to dig into the film more deeply after the fact, comparing notes online with other viewers, because their trade demands constant movement to the next film and a focus on their own private, individualized thoughts."

He goes on to say, "Watch a film with a group of critics and it is a rather chilly experience, each trying to suppress signs of their emotional response for fear of tipping their hands to their competition. They don't laugh at comedy; they don't cry at melodrama; and they don't know how to engage in fannish conversation around film franchises, which means that their professional conduct cuts them off from the shared emotional pleasures that are so much a part of how popular culture works its magic on us. For that reason, I trust film critics far more when they are writing about art films which demand distanced contemplation than popular films which desire an immediate emotional reaction."

Like I said, fascinating stuff. And it ought to be since Jenkins is the Director of the MIT Comparative Media Studies Program, which sounds like the coolest job in the world to me. He's also written and/or edited nine books on various aspects of media and popular culture, so he knows what he's talking about.

That's what took me to Jenkins' blog in the first place. What's going to keep me going back is that he's got a series of posts on Gender and Fan Studies. So I'll definitely be talking more about that.

Women in genre fiction

There are a couple of (related) reasons that I'm interested in the portrayal of women in genre fiction. One is that I've always gotten along well with women and most of my closest friends have always been women. I think women are fascinating, so I tend to like them and I'm interested in seeing them well represented in the stories I read or watch.

I like writing female characters too. Not as a way to show how It Should Be Done, because there are many many writers already doing it very well, but again... I just like them. The main character in the novel I'm working on is a woman (well, a girl really), so I'm particularly interested in exploring women heroes right now.

What made me decide to post about this today is a recent USA Today article that's poorly titled "Male heroes draw comic fans." Conjures up images of Batman doodling pictures of the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons. Unfortunately, the article's just as unthoughtful as the headline.

Starting with the thesis that "comic-book movies — even the bad ones — have become a virtual Hollywood ATM ... as long as they aren't anchored by women," the article cites examples of how even Ghost Rider and Daredevil outperformed Elektra and Catwoman. Then it scratches its head over the success of Fantastic Four when Sue Storm plays such a prominent role (forgetting, I guess, that the other three stars are dudes).

What's particularly upsetting to me though as a comic book fan, is the dismissive "support" for the thesis that "there's a bias against comic-book movies with women in big roles ... because fanboys are, well, boys." That's a quote from G4TV's Blair Butler, who goes on to say, "(Fans) like women in distress or supporting roles — or in a bondage outfit with open-toed stilettos like Catwoman." Excuse me for dissenting, Blair, but the hell we do. That's a humongous brush you're painting us all with there and it's not helped by this quote from Jessica Alba: "I think the success of (Fantastic Four) is that we were aiming for the families as much as the fans. And that's a group that recognizes strong women roles."

Gah. I'm digressing, but damn it I'm a comics fan and I recognize strong women's roles. I hate that the fanboy stereotype is representative of all comics readers in that article. Like I said, it's an extremely unhelpful look at the issue.

Far more useful is this older (and better titled) article from The Hollywood Reporter: "Female action pics need hero of own." It starts with a similar observation that "female-led action film(s) getting off the ground" is a rare thing, but explores other possible causes like studio sexism, the reluctance of female actors to keep pursuing action roles, and just poor writing. It also mentions money-making female-led films like Underworld and Tomb Raider (while acknowledging that their sequels were financial disappointments). It doesn't mention the hugely successful Alien and Terminator franchises, but maybe those are old enough to be less relevant to an article on the state of movies today.

The HR article does talk though about how well women heroes have done on TV lately (as well as historically). Citing examples like Alias, Buffy, and Veronica Mars (as well as the upcoming Bionic Woman and Sarah Connor Chronicles), the article says that "it's been far more accepted for a woman to carry a (TV) show than it was for a woman to carry a movie." It's a good article and well worth reading if you're interested in the subject.

Links: Elric movie, Tiempos Finales 2, and Lois Lane: Girl Reporter

This still won't catch me up on the backlog, but I'll keep picking away at it.

Pirates

• In the comments for my At World's End review, someone mentioned that SPOILER! "because Elizabeth faithfully waited for Will, the curse was eventually broken after 10 years." To which I replied that I'd heard the same thing somewhere. Here's where. I really hope there's an extended version DVD in the works.

Horror

• Sam Hiti has announced that as soon as he finishes his current graphic novel Death Day (which from what I've seen is going to be unbelievably awesome by the way), next on his plate will be Tiempos Finales Volume 2. His plan for the future is to work on two projects a year, one of which will be a Tiempos Finales volume.

Fantasy

• There's an Elric movie in the works from the guys who are doing The Golden Compass. I loved Elric stories as a kid (except for the ones where he was teaming up with those other Eternal Champion guys -- that was one crossover I could've done without).
• Looks like that Harry Potter theme park is finally coming to fruition.

Science Fiction

• LucasFilm's released a trailer for the CGI Clone Wars series.
• Here's a great list of Disney films with a steampunk feel. Time to update my Netflix queue.

Superheroes

• There's a Teen Titans movie in the works. No news on what characters will be in it (though Nightwing is rumored), but Mark Verheiden (Smallville, Battlestar Galactica) is writing and the tone is supposed to be similar to Batman Begins and Superman Returns.
• I haven't been reading Supergirl, but I've mentioned the general fan dissatisfaction around it a couple of times. Looks like DC is serious about remedying that and revamping the character into a believable teenaged heroine. Looks like I will be reading Supergirl before too long.
• Speaking of superheroines, and in light of my recent examination of Wonder Woman, Lillian S. Robinson's Wonder Women is definitely going on my Wish List.
• I totally agree with Kalinara: there ought to be a Lois Lane comic focusing on her investigative reporting. It could be a great adventure/mystery comic.

Stuff Nobody Cares About But Everybody Cares About Including Me

• Movie theater owners are figuring out how you can rat out obnoxious movie watchers to managers without leaving the movie. It's about time. (Thanks to Brad Meltzer for the link.)

You're a wonder, Wonder Woman: part three

Read Part One here.

Read Part Two here.

So, I was talking about Greg Rucka. I haven't enjoyed every Greg Rucka story I've ever read, but I love how he approaches them. He thinks hard about them, and if he doesn't think he has anything interesting to say about a character, he won't write the story. And usually, I'm interested in his take on the characters he writes about.

So, I got pretty excited when I heard that he was writing Wonder Woman and I think he did a fine job of capturing the confidence that I've gone on and on about. Where I started getting tired was with his interpretation of Wonder Woman's Mission.

Although I agree with West in yesterday's comments that giving her a Mission was probably a mistake in the first place, Rucka took it seriously and I think that's okay. It's part of the story now and dealing with it is probably better than ignoring it. But even though Rucka made the Mission the central part of his story (by making the Amazonian embassy Diana's base of operations and having her write a best-selling book that promoted Amazonian ideals), I think he was just as unclear about the Mission's details as anyone else.

Mad Thinker Scott takes a stab at defining the Mission and the thought he put into it is worth linking to even though I don't agree with him. He sees "the championing of women’s rights and equality" as the core theme of her character and I think that's the perception that a lot of people have. But Scott also summarizes the inherent problems with having that as the Mission. He says, "If fighting for women’s rights is going to be the central theme of Wonder Woman’s conflicts, she’s going to have to get into stickier situations than she has in the past. For instance, there are women’s issues that Wonder Woman could fight for in the US. She could lobby to increase the amount of child care available to working women, so women aren’t held back in their careers as much as some are now. However, that isn’t the kind of conflict that comic buyers are looking for when they pick up a magazine about a woman who can deflect bullets and throw cars."

He goes on to suggest other women's rights situations that might make for more exciting adventures, but when he takes this Mission to its logical conclusion, he sees the reason that it would never work for a serialized, ongoing story: "I’d love to see Themyscira take a more aggressive stance on international women’s rights and actually get into armed conflicts with other nations; however, I’m not sure how long that Paradise Island v. the World theme can last, and Wonder Woman’s role in the wider DC universe would be radically altered." He finishes his article by admitting that he doesn't know where the line should be drawn in regard to how aggressively Wonder Woman defends the rights of women.

My own observation is that Wonder Woman probably ought to leave alone real-world issues like the Thai sex trade and the way women are treated by Islamic extremists. That would be as pointless as having Superman capture Osama bin Laden. It might be a cathartic story to tell, but it would ultimately make the DC Universe unrelatable. In an attempt to make comics more relevant, the ironic result would be that they'd become less so.

But there's another Mission that Wonder Woman has that's not only relevant, but has the advantage (for an ongoing series) of being never ending. And it all has to do with this confidence thing. In her post that originally got me thinking about all of this, Ragnell says that "Wonder Woman is supposed to already be the woman other women in fiction learn to be." And that's the Mission, folks. She's the woman that all women want to be. She's the role model.

I'm gonna skip ahead in my chronological examination of Wonder Woman comics and mention Will Pfiefer's fill-in issue between Allan Heinberg and Jodi Picoult's runs. It's a simple, stand-alone tale that was unfortunately overlooked by many in anticipation of seeing what Picoult would do. But it's a beautiful story about the dramatic influence that Wonder Woman has on the lives of women she's never even met. They want to be stronger women thanks simply to the example Wonder Woman sets. She doesn't have to take down the Thai sex trade to fulfill her Mission in Man's World; she does it just by being who she is. If the Amazon's have a philosophy that needs sharing with humanity, it's not all that contradictory nonsense about peaceful warriors; it's that women can and should be strong, confident people. And Wonder Woman's here to show them how. And you don't have to make the comic about that all the time in order for it to be true. It's just background to whatever she's currently doing.

Back to how the comics went though.

In the end, it wasn't lack of clarity about the Mission that made me grow tired of Rucka's run. It was his slow, thoughtful plotting. There just weren't enough big moments in his early issues, which was sort of the opposite problem that I had with Jimenez's run. Somewhere in between is a balance. But more on that in a minute.

I got interested again in Wonder Woman in the build up to Infinite Crisis. DC started playing up the idealogical differences between Wonder Woman, Batman, and Superman, and Rucka was a huge part of making that happen. In a great issue of Adventures of Superman (written by Rucka), Wonder Woman made it clear that, unlike her male counterparts, she would be willing to kill if the need ever arose. I found that fascinating given the usual hardline, "no killing" policy most traditional superheroes take (antiheroes like the Punisher notwithstanding). I also found it profoundly believable considering that she's an Amazon warrior. Her opinions about execution and killing come from an entirely different place than ours and I loved that Rucka and DC were willing to explore that. And explore it they did just a little bit later when they had Wonder Woman kill Maxwell Lord in Wonder Woman #219.

Suddenly I was entranced again and I've been hooked on Wonder Woman's story ever since. Allan Heinberg got off to a great start during his run by not only exploring the consequences of Maxwell Lord's murder, but by balancing Jimenez's big action with Rucka's personal drama. Unfortunately -- though I'm thrilled to have him involved with Gray's Anatomy -- other duties took precedence and he wasn't able to finish what he started.

Jodi Picoult's run, with the return to the fish-out-of-water version of Wonder Woman, was a disappointment. I quit buying it after the first issue of it, but writing these articles made we want to check it out again, if only to keep up with where the character is going, so I've gone back and caught up. It's less annoying than that first issue, but I'm still anxiously awaiting Gail Simone.

I'm trying not to put too much pressure on Gail to be awesome, but as I've said before, I have high hopes for her. I haven't read her take on the character, but she's too good a writer not to have one and I have faith that at heart, her Wonder Woman will be a continuation of the character who grew to maturity in Messner-Loeb's run and we saw in Jimenez's and Rucka's. I also know that Gail has the ability to tell a great adventure story while grounding it in human drama, so I'm not worried on that end either. After all: "She’s punching a monkey off a waterfall on page three."

Gail seems much more concerned with telling exciting stories about "the best goddamned warrior planet Earth has ever known" than she is about the Mission or the dichotomy between Peace and War or any of the headier stuff and that sounds exactly right to me. Jimenez and Rucka needed to explore that part of her to get her to where she is today, but that work's been done. It's backstory now and as long as it remains backstory, there's no need to go over it again. Wonder Woman's ready to punch monkeys (or air pirates, kangas, man-fish, seal men, or Christopher Columbus).

I'm sorry I never got to talking about the Justice League cartoons. That's going to require more research, but I'm at a point now where I'd love to do it. In writing this article, I learned that Greg Rucka doesn't care so much for that version of Wonder Woman, so I'm curious to balance his opinion with Siskoids (who rightly thinks that Wonder Woman was generally done correctly in the JLA comic) and see what I think.

As for Black Canary and Rogue: that'll be a separate post altogether. I'm done analyzing Wonder Woman for a while. I just want to be able to enjoy her adventures now.

You're a wonder, Wonder Woman: part two

In the first part of this look at Wonder Woman, I decided that what I want to see in a Wonder Woman comic is a heroine who is absolutely confident. I talked about the way that she's been portrayed visually over the last 20 years and promised to look at how she's been written during that same time period. So let's do that.

I've already covered George Perez's take on her because his visual depiction of her perfectly matched the way he wrote her: a wide-eyed, innocent, fish-out-of-water who wasn't at all ready to stand next to heroes like Batman and Superman. What I haven't yet talked much about was Perez's reason for having Wonder Woman leave Paradise Island Themyscira.

In the '40s, when Wonder Woman was first introduced, she left the Amazon's to help fight Nazis. It was a admirable reason and nobody questioned it. I don't think anyone today would question it either. But in the mid-'80s when Perez rebooted the concept, there wasn't an easy enemy like that who needed a Wonder Woman butt-whoopin'. So, Perez gave her the Mission.

If Wonder Woman's mission to Man's/Patriarch's World has ever been clearly defined, I haven't read it. I welcome correction if I'm wrong about this, but as far as I've ever been able to tell, it's description is limited to a vague "ambassador of Amazonian ideals." But what those ideals are has never been explained to me. It's been a while since I read the early Perez issues (out of dissatisfaction with whomever was writing Wonder Woman's current adventures at the time), but I remember there being something about living peacefully and somehow trying to line that up with the Amazons' status as a warrior race. I just never got it. And I don't think that any of the writers ever got it either.

Wonder Woman's next writer was William Messner-Loebs and it was about ten issues into his run that I read my first Wonder Woman comic. And it was this cover that made me pick it up. Unfortunately, the majesty depicted on that cover was very different from the struggling-to-find-herself character I read about inside. That character was much more in keeping with the following issue's cover that shows Wonder Woman having to get a job at a fast food joint in order to make ends meet. It was a cute story, but as a new reader to the book, I couldn't make it fit in with what I wanted to see Wonder Woman doing. You'd never see Lynda Carter flipping burgers unless Diana Prince was undercover somewhere. I didn't stick with it for very long.

I'm assuming that Ragnell read more of Messner-Loebs' run than I did. Her description of it is that it's about "a rebellious daughter who ran off to see the world and tried to become part of it." That fits with the whole Having to Get a Job thing, but it also describes why it wasn't the Wonder Woman I wanted to read about. My Wonder Woman would never have to run away from home or try to become a part of something. She'd do whatever she damn well liked and expect the world to conform to her. After all, isn't that the entire idea behind her having a Mission? To try to teach Amazonian ideals to humanity? And what is that if not trying to get the world to conform to her standards? Maybe she'd given up on that by that point, I don't know. What I do know is that she was a floundering character who elicited pity rather than awe. I want to be in awe of Wonder Woman.

I came back to Messner-Loebs' run later on, tempted by the event of having Diana replaced as Wonder Woman by Artemis. Replacing traditional heroes with newer versions was an old gimmick of DC's by that point, but they were making a really big deal about it and remember, I was looking for reasons to read Wonder Woman. And interestingly, I liked it a lot.

Even though her "official" status as Wonder Woman was taken from her, Diana was woman enough to give Themyscira and her mom a big ole "f*** you" and keep on doing her thing in a different costume. That's the Wonder Woman I wanted to see. It looks like maybe Messner-Loebs had a plan all along and was chronicling Wonder Woman's transformation from Perez's innocent to the confident heroine I wanted to see. Too bad DC fired Messner-Loebs right about then in order to make room for John Byrne's return to the company.

I won't go into a John Byrne rant here, but I need to say that even though he's single-handedly responsible for making me a hardcore comics addict, I really wasn't fond of his art in the '90s and couldn't make myself buy any of his Wonder Woman run. As Ragnell describes it though, "Byrne wrote a stiff, formal princess." I don't feel like I missed much.

After a couple of fill-in issues by Christopher Priest that I don't know anything about (though I really like Priest's work, so maybe they were good?), Eric Luke was the next writer. I'm pretty sure that I read the end of his run, but I didn't remember that until I started researching this article. Ragnell describes his version of Wonder Woman as "lost." Wikipedia says that she "was often questioning her mission in Man's World, and most primarily her reason for existing." Maybe that's why I don't remember his issues.

The reason that I read the end of Luke's run (and the fill-in issues by Brian K. Vaughan and Ben Raab at the end of it) was that I was getting ready for Phil Jimenez. I'd met Jimenez at a local convention and been totally wowed by him as a person and by his Wonder Woman pitch (which he was enthusiastically sharing with anyone who was interested). I wish I remembered now what the pitch was because I'm sure it would shed some light on this subject, but all I retained was the feeling of being impressed with how much thought he'd given the character. And for a while, I was impressed with his run too.

Jimenez was on the right track. His Wonder Woman was a strong, confident woman and in hindsight I think a lot of my opinions about what Wonder Woman should be were formed by the way he portrayed her. He gave her a love interest in Trevor Barnes and had her do all the pursuing at first. Trevor initially turned her down, but came to his senses later and asked her out.

There was a lot of controversy about Trevor at the time. Liberals thought that Wonder Woman should be portrayed as a lesbian; conservatives thought that Trevor's being black was overly PC. Jimenez couldn't win that one. My personal feeling about it at the time was nervousness that Trevor was going to be portrayed as not being entirely masculine. If Wonder Woman took the agressive, "male" role, then there was a possibility that Trevor might end up taking a passive, "female" role. I shouldn't have worried though. Jimenez was too smart and too talented to let either character be "weak" or passive. He started crafting a relationship of equals between the two of them. Unfortunately, I never did learn what ultimately became of it.

My dropping Wonder Woman during Jimenez's run had nothing to do with how the character was being portrayed and it had nothing to do with Trevor Barnes. But though I think he had those elements exactly right, Jimenez -- either through his own fault or DC editorial's -- kept presenting plots that I just wasn't interested in. There was the return of some George Perez characters whom I didn't care about. There was a civil war on Paradise Island that resulted in Wonder Woman's losing her crown as princess of the Amazons. Then there was that whole Our World at War crossover in which her mom died. It seemed like we were always going from one big event to the next and I started getting tired. There were some quieter issues, like the one in which Lois Lane spends a day with Wonder Woman for an interview, but the run as a whole didn't feel grounded. I finally gave up on it, but I'd like to go back and finish his run now to see where he ended up taking it.

After Jimenez, Walt Simonson wrote a six-issue homage to the powerless, white costume, spy years. I totally missed that one, but I got interested again when Greg Rucka, who's approach to writing I love, took over.

This is getting long again, so I'm going to cut it short here. Next time I'll talk about Greg Rucka, Allan Heinberg, and Jodi Picoult. I'll also try to mention her portrayal in the Justice League cartoon, but I haven't seen many of those, so we'll see if I can find anything interesting to say about them. But I will put in my two cents about what Wonder Woman's mission ought to be.

I'll eventually get around to explaining what Black Canary and Rogue have to do with this, but that'll probably be a fourth article.

Read Part Three here.

Links: Lost pirates, Han Solo candy bar, and that Mary Jane statue

Pirates

• Just when it doesn't look like Lost can get any better, Grant Gould goes and offers reasonable speculation that it may involve pirates now.
• And speaking of pirates, Disneyland is offering lots of Pirates art and merchandise in celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Pirates of the Caribbean ride.

Mystery

• Looks like there's a new Hawaiian Dick mini-series in the works called Screaming Black Thunder. Good news for fans of pulp mystery, tiki, and horror.

Horror

• Just because Rachel Weisz isn't coming back for Mummy 3 doesn't mean that her character, Evelyn Carnahan O'Connell, isn't. She'll just be played by Maria Bello (A History of Violence, World Trade Center). I'm going to miss Weisz, but I don't know Bello very well. Maybe I'll like her.

Fantasy

• Today is L. Frank Baum's birthday. He would've been 151 years old.

Science Fiction

• You know you've always wanted to know how to make your own Han Solo chocolate bar.

Superheroes

• There's a large brouhaha going on in the comics blogosphere over this statue. And it certainly deserves some hullabaloo. The problem though, as this blogger points out, is that "while it is undeniably offensive, there are too many opinions on why for it to be of any use." For instance, a couple of bloggers find the very notion of Cheesecake demeaning to women and want to prove it by calling for illustrations of men in cheesecake poses to show how ridiculous it looks. My problem with that is that there already is a male equivalent to cheesecake, so there's nothing particularly insightful about turning the tables. Also, I agree with Kady Mae that Cheesecake itself isn't the problem: "Cheesecake has a certain playfulness, a certain light-hearted mischief to it that pandering lacks ... The subject of cheesecake is always a person." That fits girlontheleft's description of Adam Hughes' concept drawing for the statue: "MJ looks cute and human and a bit goofy, and I can imagine she's just teasing an unclad Spidey who's just out of frame." In other words, it isn't that Mary Jane is in a sexy pose that's the problem with the statue, it's that -- unlike Adam's version -- she doesn't appear to be in on the joke. Her eyes are lifeless and her smile is uncomfortable, as if everyone around her is laughing and she's pretending to understand why. Those features, plus the elongated body make the statue look like it's not based on the Hughes drawing, but on a Michael Turner re-imagining of the Hughes drawing.
• The colorist of DC's upcoming Black Canary mini-series is showing the covers to all four issues and there's at least one, huge spoiler amongst them. Go take a look before someone gets wise and makes him take them down.

Stuff Nobody Cares About But Me

• It's official. Studio 60 is done.
• I talked before about how TiVo and other new ways of watching TV are screwing around with the Nielsens and advertisers. According to the New York Times, it looks like the networks and advertisers are getting smart: "'They have control,' (ABC 's executive vice president for marketing Michael) Benson said of viewers, 'and we’re not going to fight that. We want to make it easy for them to get what they want, where they want, when they want.' At the same time, ABC and the four other big broadcast networks are working on methods to hold the attention of TV viewers throughout the commercial breaks that interrupt the shows they want to see ... One way that many networks hope to engage viewers during commercial breaks is by wedging original content into the blocks of advertising time, so that viewers will anticipate seeing something fun if they sit through a few ads." I'm all for it. I don't mind watching commercials at all as long as they're entertaining. In fact, I'll often rewind the TiVo and watch one that catches my eye as I'm fast-forwarding through it.

You're a wonder, Wonder Woman: part one

I've been promising this post for a while now, but have been putting it off, knowing that it was going to be big and complicated to write. It's bugged me for years that I really really want to like Wonder Woman, but don't. At least, not as much as I want to. Pretty much every time DC announces a new writer on the series, I pick it up hoping that maybe this will be the time that I connect with the character. But it hasn't happened yet. I think I've finally figured out why, but it's going to be a long discussion, so I'm going to break it up into sections.

I think that maybe the way for me to approach this is to first figure out why I want to like her so much. I obviously have some connection to her that I want to see strengthened. And even if that connection is just untapped potential at this point, identifying it will mean that I've figured out what I want to see future writers do with her.

Let me start by saying that it isn't that she's hot. Yeah, Wonder Woman is gorgeous, but if all I wanted was to read about a beautiful woman in a skimpy costume, well, there are thousands of other options for me. So, I'm going to start with the postulate that my interest in her is more than physical.

Since I grew up reading Marvel Comics, my introduction to Wonder Woman was through the Lynda Carter TV show. But... I don't think my real fondness for the character started there. I think I liked that show because I was nine and she was a beautiful superheroine in a bathing suit. That was physical. But maybe not only that.

It's hard to separate childhood memories from thoughts I've had in later years, but it's undeniable that the main reason people still think fondly about the show was due to how honest Lynda Carter's portrayal of Wonder Woman was. She completely sold Wonder Woman as a real person and she was every bit as heroic and strong (not just physically, but spiritually and emotionally too) as Superman or any other superhero. And I think the memory of that completely strong, comfortable, confident character is what I keep hoping to recapture in Wonder Woman comics.

Several years ago, before the Wonder Woman TV episodes were released on DVD, I joined one of Columbia House's VHS clubs where every month they'd send me a new tape with a couple of episodes on it. Whenever I'd get a new one, I'd get in touch with my brother-in-law and we'd sit and watch them and laugh at the bad German accents, or the fakey gorilla suits, or especially at how sad of a character Steve Trevor was. He was especially hilarious during the IADC years when his solution to everything as head of an international spy organization was to call the police. But I'm digressing. My point is that we never laughed at Wonder Woman. As silly as the rest of the show could be, she was always an impeccable hero.

I think this touches on what Ragnell was saying about Wonder Woman and confidence. Wonder Woman should be the Sean Connery of her gender: men should want to be with her and women should want to be her. When Connery played Bond, he walked around every setting he found himself in as if he owned the place. Didn't matter if it was his office, a hotel, or the villain's headquarters, he was completely comfortable with himself. That's how Wonder Woman should be.

Not aggressively so. Not, as my friend Alex would say, "strident." Connery never had to convince anyone through aggression that he was competent. You knew it by just looking at him. Wonder Woman should be the same way.

I don't know if this is a secret or not, but men find feminine confidence incredibly sexy. The best, most iconic depictions of Wonder Woman totally get that. Yeah, she's got great hair, big boobs, and long, long legs, but so does every other superheroine. What sets Wonder Woman apart -- when she's written and illustrated correctly -- is that she's able to walk around in a frickin' bathing suit and be completely at ease. She's like Marvel's Sub-Mariner that way, only she's not a jerk about it. Sub-Mariner is another character who oozes confidence and so gets away with swimming gear as a costume. It's not the skimpiness of the outfit that's attractive; it's the way she carries herself in it.

This is why I don't care for George Perez's run on the series. It gets praised a lot for its attention to Greek mythology and its strong characterization, but Perez's Wonder Woman isn't the strong, confident heroine that I want to read about. His Wonder Woman is a fish-out-of-water. She's the new kid on the superhero block. She's wide-eyed and innocent. When Perez draws her flying, for example, she has an expression of joyous rapture. "Whee! I'm flying!" Which I guess a lot of people liked, but seems really... I don't know, girlish? to me. I much prefer this image of her flying. She's still smiling and enjoying what's going on, but she isn't so "yipee!" about it. She's more mature. Comfortable.

I even enjoy this downbeat depiction of her. She's being led away in handcuffs and she's not happy about it, but she is calm and in control. There's nothing happening to her that she isn't letting happen and it gives you the feeling that indeed nothing could happen to her that she doesn't let happen. That's not true, of course. Stuff happens to Wonder Woman outside of her control all the time. It has to in order to keep things interesting. But she creates the illusion that she can handle anything. Just like Bond.

Enough about the art. Next time (whenever that is), I'm going to focus on the writing, starting with Perez and moving all the way up to Picoult. I may touch on pre-Perez, but I haven't read any of that stuff, so my discussing it will be limited to what I've heard other people say and that's going to be limited in its usefulness. In talking about the writing though, I'm reminding myself right now to talk about Wonder Woman's critical "mission" in Man's/Patriarch's World and how that's been (mis-)handled so far.

And as long as I'm reminding myself of stuff: this is a reminder to eventually talk about how all this relates to two of my other favorite superheroines: Rogue and Black Canary. 'Cause it does.

Read Part Two here.
Read Part Three here.

Update: As I've been informed in the comments: Al Rio drew the Header Image for this post, Thomas Mason colored it, and the Wonder Woman Archives owns it.