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.

Lost Continent

As I was searching for an image to go with this post, I found a shot of the opening title with some familiar silhouettes in front of it. That should give you an idea about the quality.

Lost Continent doesn't have a bad concept. An experimental missile goes off target and crashes in the ocean. Fearing what would happen if it fell into the Wrong Hands (read: "Russkies"), a mixed team of scientists and Air Force personnel fly out to retrieve the bomb and figure out what went wrong.

They track the missile to a previously undiscovered island (not a "continent" at all, despite what the title would have us believe) that's just lousy with uranium. Ignoring warnings from the natives, the party climbs a huge escarpment (a la Arthur Conan Doyle's Lost World and the Weissmuller Tarzan films) and has to avoid a bunch of dinosaurs to find the missile.

The biggest problem with the movie is that the team doesn't get to the top of the escarpment until two-thirds through. They spend too much time getting to the island, and once they're there, there's also a lot of climbing to do. Getting up the escarpment takes way too long. It does build some tension about what's on top of the cliff, but anyone who's seen the movie poster already knows exactly what's on top of that cliff. It's why we wanted to watch the movie in the first place. Making us wait isn't exciting, it's frustrating.

On the positive side, the ensemble of characters is interesting. One of the scientists is a Russian and one of the Air Force pilots (played by Cesar Romero) begins to suspect that maybe he's got ulterior motives for wanting to find the missile. There's also a half-crazy mechanic who continuously talks to his parachute, an engineer who begins to suspect that he's not cut out for this adventure, a likable scientist who may or may not be the target for murder, and Romero's reluctant, but loyal co-pilot.

The dinosaur sequences are cool, but nothing you haven't seen before in a thousand other dinosaur movies from the same period. Without a better story tying them together, they're just not very exciting. We do get some excitement out of the end except that it comes out of nowhere and makes absolutely no sense. I won't spoil it, but only because I think that there are some positive things about the film and there might be a worse way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

I'm sure it's a way better experience watching the Mystery Science Theater version, but as far as I can tell, that episode hasn't been released yet.

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.)

Movie sequels: mindless repetition or serialized storytelling?

I don't even know where today went. Way too busy to do a real post, so here are a couple of interesting links and a thought or two about them.

Every summer the movie critics dust off their keyboards, crack their knuckles, and get to typing about how sad it is that the summer schedule is full of sequels. It's their equivalent to Minnesotans' complaining about snow in March, even though there's always been snow in March in Minnesota since time began. This year, the first complainer I've heard about is Patrick Goldstein from the Los Angeles Times.

"Is there anyone besides me" he asks, "who is depressed by the news that Steven Spielberg, a great filmmaker with the clout to get any project he wants off the ground, is going off to make … Indiana Jones 4?" Actually, Patrick? Probably not. At least not anyone I want to hang out with.

He goes on to do the usual whining about how sequels are all about money and being "cozy and reassuring" versus good storytelling. He's way too general about the whole thing. Yeah, there are crappy sequels, but there are good, thoughtful ones too. And not just The Godfather Part II.

I'm more in line with David Bordwell and his friends who see movie sequels as just another manifestation of serialized storytelling. As one of the panelists, Jason Mittell, says, "Continuity of a narrative world is a core part of nearly every storytelling form, but the language of 'sequel' is applied predominantly to film. 'Series' seems a more respectable term, as it suggests an organic continuity rather than a reactive stance of 'Hey, let’s do that again!'" And I think that's the key. Does the sequel continue the story (even when, like in the Shrek movies, the first installment didn't exactly cry out for continuation) or just tell the same story over again (like in the Home Alone movies, for example)?

Tarzan Triumphs

I got nervous about Tarzan Triumphs when I didn't see Maureen O'Sullivan's name in the opening credits. Apparently she'd quit the series to pursue more serious roles. After the Tarzan folks had casually thrown out Tumbo in the previous movie, I figured that continuity wasn't really their bag and that we'd probably just see Tarzan and Boy hanging out in the jungle as if it had always been just them. Not so though.

We quickly learn that Jane is off in London visiting her sick mother (whom she's never mentioned before, but oh well) and Tarzan and Boy spend some nice time missing her. We get to see Johnny Weissmuller do some more actual acting as he reads a letter from Jane and grieves her absence. Seriously, Weissmuller was a damn fine actor and he gets to show it a few times in this movie.

The plot is the old Weissmuller-Tarzan formula, but turned up to about thirteen on the Awesome Scale. Yeah, it's about "civilized" bad guys coming to the jungle to take something back with them, but in this case it's Nazis coming to carry off the wealth of a hidden jungle city. And there's a drop-dead gorgeous jungle princess to boot who escapes the Nazis and finds Tarzan in order to ask for his help.

There's some definite allegory going on as Tarzan at first refuses to get involved. As long as the Nazis don't bother him, he's not going to bother them. At one point, the Nazis even refer to him as an Isolationist. It's not until the Nazis directly provoke Tarzan by kidnapping Boy (for a good reason that I won't go into) that he's stirred to action. He draws his knife and snarls a line that had to have had 1943 audiences cheering in their theaters: "Now Tarzan make war!" It's a hell of a moment and Weissmuller nails it.

The war is as cool as any Rambo film. Tarzan uses his jungle skill to sneak around guerilla-style and ambush individual Nazis before helping the citizens of the lost city mount a coordinated offense. Even Cheetah picks up a machine gun and gets into the action (though they've toned her antics way down from the last couple of movies; no more hyper-extended sequences of her just cutting up for no reason).

I only have a couple of complaints. One is a cheap shot at Hitler that's so ludicrous it's unbelievable. Not that Hitler doesn't deserve ridicule, but really it's a terrible joke. Okay, I'll tell it to you, if you really want to hear it. If you think you might track down the movie and don't want to know, skip to the next paragraph. SPOILER WARNING: At the end of the movie, Cheetah's playing around with the Nazis' radio and dials in Berlin. When the Nazis on the other end hear Cheetah's screeching, they realize that they're not talking to their men, but think instead that they're talking directly to Hitler himself. It sounds funny when I read it, but after a whole movie that's been played relatively straight, it's just dumb.

My other complaint is about how the jungle princess, Zandra, tries to convince Tarzan to help her. Boy (who wants to help) tells her that Jane's always been able to get Tarzan to change his mind, so he instructs Zandra to dress in Jane's clothing, go on romantic swims with Tarzan, and cook delicious meals for him. I might be reading into the "romantic" part, but I don't think so. Tarzan lies down next to Zandra at one point and holds her hand. It's a little creepy that he and Boy have not so much forgotten about Jane as they have stopped caring about her in order to focus on the new girl. I kept telling myself that jungle people just have a different way of expressing platonic relationships than uptight Western folk do.

All that aside though, a great adventure film. I understand that there are more Nazis in the next one and I can't wait. I'm especially curious to see how the writers explain that Jane's not coming back at all and how Tarzan and Boy react to it.

Links: Black Canary/Zatanna hardcover, Justice League of Amazons, and Coked-Out Carrie

Man, it's been a long time since I've done one of these. Not gonna get caught up today, but I'll make a dent in it.

Mystery

• About halfway down this report on the Saló International del Cómic de Barcelona, The Beat posts the coolest convention costume I've ever seen: Blacksad. Or if you don't feel like going to look for it, click here.

Science Fiction

• I totally skipped over blogging about the Star Wars 30th Anniversary. I'm not even sure why. But my favorite celebration of it was Kevin Church's "Ten Reasons I Still Really Like Star Wars Despite The Fact I Keep Saying I've Walked Away And That It's Over, Really, So Don't Call Anymore, George." My favorite reason is also his: Coked-Out Carrie.
• I got a nice email from Richard Starkings concerning my review of his comic Elephantmen. It was short, but it was the highest praise I ever hope for from a review: "You got it."

Superheroes

• Illustration on Paul Dini's Black Canary/Zatanna hardcover graphic novel should begin later this year, hopefully out by next summer. Dini's not saying who's illustrating but promises, "It will be worth the wait."
• Ragnell reminded me of what could've been the coolest superteam of all time. And still could again, I suppose, if someone wanted to make another comic about them.

Writing is Hard

• Pub Rants offers some advice on marketing.
• Speaking of marketing, I usually skip over writer interviews because most of them end up sounding like ads for the writer's latest book. Not so with this one with Nancy Kress. Of course, it might have something to do with her latest book, Beginnings, Middles, & Ends, being a book about writing, but still, her interview is full of useful thoughts on craft.

Stuff Nobody Cares About But Me

• Doctor Doom loves the Gilmore Girls: "Doom does not understand much of your attraction with the medium of television, although Doom does confess a certain admiration of Gilmore Girls. Doom has no time or need for romance, but were he so inclined, Lorelai Gilmore, with her sharp tongue and quick wit, is indeed a paramour worthy of Doom."

Captain America: representing what exactly?

Here's an interesting (if kinda silly) article about Captain America and his role as the representative of an entire country. Like Wonder Woman, I've never been able to get my mind around Captain America and -- again, like her -- it's related to this idea of "mission." Now that I've got Wonder Woman figured out for myself, it seems like maybe I should try to get Captain America under control too, but that feels like a daunting task and I don't know that I'm that interested.

I do know this though: I completely disagree with the Brian Michael Bendis quote from the article that says, "If the country is angry, he gets angry. If the country is sad, he gets sad… He doesn’t represent a flag, but a collective emotion." That's a shaky grasp on the character, isn't it? What do you do with him when the mood of the country is generally apathetic or self-involved? Or completely schizophrenic as it was during the last Presidential election? There's no way Captain America can represent the mood of the freakin' country. He's absolutely got to represent the flag. He's got to emulate what's best about the country: it's ideals. Otherwise, maybe he should be sitting around surfing MySpace and YouTube.

I don't know if it's possible to get a good handle on Captain America though. As shaky as his representing the country's collective emotion is already, it's made even less steady by the fact that he's really representing one particular writer's interpretation of the country's collective emotion. If the writer's especially perceptive, that might be possible, but it's still going to get filtered through the writer's eyes. And the same is true if Cap represents American ideals, which vary from citizen to citizen. And writer to writer.

Does Cap represent the American Dream (which, let's face it, is pretty selfish)? Does he represent the spirit of Independence? Does he represent the power of the People to truly make a difference in the adminstration of their government? It's the same problem Wonder Woman has when writers focus too much on her Mission. The writers' personal interpretations change from run to run and makes it very difficult for readers to get their arms around the character.

I think that's one reason why people (myself included) are enjoying Ed Brubaker's work on Captain America right now. Brubaker focuses on the spy drama and the man-out-of-time angle and leaves the "representing America" stuff alone. Kevin has it right: Cap is so much more cool when he's fighting America's enemies than he is when he's trying to figure out her ideals.

Tarzan's Revenge

I've been trying to watch these Tarzan movies in more or less chronological order, but somehow I missed Tarzan's Revenge from 1938. Now I wish that I'd kept right on missing it.

It's a typical Tarzan plot: a bunch of civilized folks come to the jungle to trap animals and get in trouble, so Tarzan has to save them. In this case, the civilized folks are the Reed family: bumbling Dad, complaining Mom, and pretty Eleanor. They've also brought along Eleanor's cowardly husband Nevin who likes to shoot crocodiles from the deck of a riverboat, but gets creeped out if a chipmunk runs across his foot. Actually, Nevin's the best part of the movie. His weaseliness is at least funny.

The conflict comes in when a wealthy sheik decides to add Eleanor to his harem and plots to have her party captured and brought to his jungle palace. Fortunately (I guess), Tarzan encounters the party and falls for Eleanor, ensuring his protection against the evil sheik.

Putting aside for a second the problem with Tarzan's falling in love with anyone besides Jane (who's not in the movie), there are lots of other problems to look at. Glenn Morris isn't a handsome Tarzan, but he also must not have been much of an actor either. He has maybe three lines in the entire movie and they all consist of his pointing to himself and saying, "Tarzan." He was obviously hired due to his being an Olympic athlete and he never played Tarzan (or any other character, for that matter) again.

The movie's only a little over an hour long and most of it is filled with fluff like Tarzan's goofing around in the jungle with his unnamed chimpanzee pal. Tarzan comes across as a Peter Pan type figure who spends his days loafing, swimming, and getting into mischief. When he first encounters Eleanor, she's stuck in a mud pond and he briefly rescues her before playfully tossing her back in.

Of course the plot requires that Eleanor still fall in love with Tarzan even though he's a big jerk, so she does. There's absolutely no chemistry between the two of them though and it's completely unbelievable when she decides to stay with him at the end of the movie. Oops, I've spoiled it for you. You're welcome.

Fingers crossed

We're sending out the pitch for Kill All Monsters! to our first potential publisher today. Wish us luck.

Books and tolerance

Here's an interesting article (from a poker blog, of all places) about how banning books leads to intolerance.

If this lady doesn't want her kid to read (a book with homosexual themes), fine. That is her right as a parent. But to take that option away from all the other parents in the area is just stupid ... Books are ideas, and the more ideas that our young people are kept hidden away from, the more likely they are to be blindsided by these ideas when they get out in the Big Bad World.

It's not necessarily a groundbreaking observation, but it is one that can use repeating.

What makes it doubly interesting to me is the blogger's personal story about how reading Alpha Flight helped him deal with a friend's coming out as gay. As poorly as Marvel's handled Northstar at times (though there have been others when he was handled very well), including a gay character at all in their comics was a benefit. I'm not saying that they should pat themselves on the back or rest easy and think that their work is done, but I do like that even a pulpy adventure comic can have that profound an impact on someone's life.

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.