Someone asked about this recently ~ Ditko did do Wonder Woman at least once, it was several pages (not the entire story) in DC Special Series #9 from 1978. Inked by Vince Colleta. I can't find this in my collection, could someone post a scanned example from this comic?
I don't have the book in front of me, but I'm almost positive that Colletta didn't ink Ditko's chapter. I believe that Ditko inked himself on that one. I'm also not sure if Ditko actually drew WW. I recall his chapter featuring Amazons, but WW might not have been featured.
I'll double check when I dig the issue out. Don't forget, Linda, this is Dr. Graves you're talking to! I rarely make mistakes when it comes to Ditko issues. (on other things I make plenty of mistakes!)
Not questioning you, Nick. The info about Colletta was from the checklist at the Ditko Looked Up website. It says "Ditko draws pages 18-23, 33, 34, 43, 44, 47 w/ Colletta inks."
I just went through the Caputo Archives and yes, Ditko did ink the story. Colletta inked all the other segments pencilled by Jose Delbo, Dick Ayers and Russ Heath. Ditko's section of the book takes place off earth and deals with the gods. Ditko only draws WW in one panel, as a chess piece, but he does draw Hercules (from DC's then current Hercules Unbound) in a few panels, which I completely forgot. Ditko shows off with some nice two page spreads here and the art for this period looks better than usual, although it is hampered by the very poor printing process (as so much work was in this period). One can tell that Ditko enjoyed working on the Jack Harris story. I would have loved to have seen Ditko draw the whole 64 page story, and wish these pages could either be seen in black and white or in color with good printing.
I hope someone has the story besides me and can send a scan. Thanks for making me go look for this forgotten gem.
She's back! I thought Darin Wagner drove her away from here? That's why I quit this place, too. But I just decided to see if this board was still open since I know the JBF has moved (did y'all see my picture?) & here I see good ol' LB still hangin' out. Kewl. I see Darin's last thread was deleted, has he been banned from here too? Whattaguy.
Moving along: This is a bit off-topic since it doesn't involve Ditko, but it is about Wonder Woman. I see there's a recent thread on the new JBF (yeah, I still lurk there, sue me) regarding WW, & an article that reviews her publishing history, which is pretty critical of JB's run on the title. (http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/comics101/index.html)
As some of y'all know, I aspire to a professional career as a comic-book writer (although I've recently wondered if, at 31, I'm getting too old for this) & that, in particular, my ultimate goal is to write a Captain Marvel (Shazam version) series. Well, my 2nd choice is Wonder Woman. I love Wonder Woman. Like Captain Marvel, I feel she's a character that is only rarely been handled "right." While she's been portrayed well in other media (the T.V. show & the cartoons), it just seems that few comic-book writers really "get" her.
Admittedly, she's not the easiest character to write. LB mentioned how she couldn't relate to WW as a kid, because she seemed aloof. I can understand that. Like Superman, she's definately larger than life & superior to us mere mortals, which makes her less relatable. So it's understandable that a preteen girl like Linda Burns would find a character like Batgirl as more of an inspiration, as that is a character that seems more attainable. It's for similar reasons that I think Captain Marvel outsold Superman back in the 40's & 50's. He was a kid who becomes a superhero, so more kids could imagine themselves as him than as an alien like Superman.
That's why I'd most want to write Captain Marvel & Wonder Woman (with Captain America a very close 3rd on my list), because of the untapped potential of the concepts.
IMO George Perez truely understood WW. I loved his 62-issue run on the title & I quit the book when he left. I came back to the title when Byrne came aboard & then quit when he left too.*
*Incidentally, I typically do that. Buy books regularly for a certain period of time, & then drop them for various reasons, like if it just starts to get boring or if a particularly good creative team leaves. I usually take that as a sign to drop the book too, although I may look through & pick up random issues afterwards. I've heard of people who've been buying certain titles for 10 or more years & have complete runs on a title. I've never understood that, because those are the same people who complain online about the creative teams & I'm like, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Batman's my favorite superhero, but I'm not currently buying any of his books.
I hadn't bought X-Men in years until Grant Morrison came aboard, & I've dropped it after his final issue (although I am a bit curious as to what Whedon will come up with, but I'll probably wait for the trade on that one).
Anyway, I enjoyed Byrne's run on Wonder Woman. It wasn't as good as Perez, but it was close. It definately had it's pluses & minuses.
On the minus side: I wasn't as happy with some of the art as I typically am with Byrne. I just didn't think he drew Diana sexy enough, which was surprising to me since he usually draws good-looking women (see She-Hulk & Babe, for example), but Diana's face always seemed a bit "hard" to me. But of course that's not the most important thing. I didn't like the new Wonder Girl, that costume just looked stupid to me, sorry. I know some of y'all complain about the new "Barbie/skank" version, but I did think she was handled better in Young Justice (I'm not reading Teen Titans, though). And the Donna Troy mess was just so unnecessarily convoluted. She was an orphaned girl found and raised by the amazons. Period. End of story. What's with this "mirror/clone/reincarnated/multiple lives/spirit" nonsense?
On the plus side: I loved Gateway City. WW deserves to have "her own" city, like Metropolis & Gotham. Art-wise I liked the bigger braclets. Having Hyppolyta go back in time & become the WWII Wonder Woman was also a good move (like Byrne, I'm a sucker for time travel stories). But the absolute best thing he did was when Diana died (that hospital issue with the various JLA members visiting her was just heartbreaking) & became ressurected as Goddess Of Truth. Brilliant! I should point out that as a kid the only things I loved to read as much as superhero comic-books were Greek and Roman mythology books. This is probably why WW & CM hold such appeal to me, since they both combine mythology with superheroes. But by making WW an actual Goddess I just felt that that could take the book to a whole 'nother level. Now Diana could be having adventures beyond those of standard superheroes. The potential for exploration was now enormous.
After Byrne left,Christopher Priest wrote a couple of fill-in issues that I later bought which were enjoyable. But in the very first issue of the new regular creative team they stripped WW of her Goddesshood, and a few issues later they moved her out of Gateway City. So she was back to being a mediocre character. I picked up several issues of Phil Jimenez' run. It was decent, I liked his new version of Paradise Island, but it wasn't good on a consistant basis. Too many weak storylines. I picked up the first two Greg Rucka issues, but it didn't click with me, so I stopped, although supposedly sales have been rising since he took over, so that's good I guess.
But Byrne said he thinks there's a conspiracy among the PTB at DC to keep WW down. Unfortunately that sounds quite plausable to me (I've often suspected the same about Captain Marvel). I remember reading on Newsarama when Dan Dido said Green Lantern should be DC's #3 franchise after Superman & Batman. Now, I love Green Lantern, but Wonder Woman is DC's #3. EVERYBODY knows that. At least, everyone except the Editor In Chief of DC Comics, which is disturbing, to say the least.
But it's still not hopeless. See, Diana is STILL Goddess Of Truth. In one of Byrne's last issues, Zeus wanted to revoke her Goddesshood, but didn't because it was revealed that doing so would result in Diana's death, & Ares revealed that she was actually a direct descendant of Zeus, so Zeus couldn't allow her to die. So how is Diana still alive if Zeus stripped her divinity?
Well, Zeus actually only blocked her from accessing her Goddess abilities because he felt she wasn't ready for them. But it's still deep inside her, waiting for the moment when the Universal Pantheon (Zeus, Shazam, Highfather, Ganthet, & Phantom Stranger, as seen in "Kingdom Come") realize that the biggest threat reality has ever faced is coming, & that only the Goddess Of Truth can stop it.
So what is this threat? Well, you'll just have to wait until the first issue of Wonder Woman written by J.R. LeMar hits the stands to find out!
(In other words: I have no idea. But I'll think of something...)
___________________
Edited to fix link ~ LB
This message has been edited by lindakburns on May 9, 2004 6:12 PM
I've always liked Wonder Woman, but I honestly feel that for all of her perceived role as the "number 3" member of DC's "Trinity," that she's never really had her place in the sun. Perez made great strides with the character, and Byrne did a good job. I remember how disappointed Perez was when "War of the Gods," which was intended to be a celebration of her 50th anniversary, turned into just another DCU crossover. To make matters worse, it was eclipsed by "Armageddon 2001," another crossover that was going on at the same time!
The prospect of what stories Ditko would have told with Wonder Woman is intriguing. Something tells me that she wouldn't have been a diplomat or a teacher.
You're absolutely right about WW not having her place in the sun, Kevin. That's why Byrne's comments about DC's attitude towards her ring true to me. I remember "War Of The Gods," it was a great story (Captain Marvel was prominately featured in it as well) & it should have been a bigger deal. Maybe if a big budget feature film gets made that'll convince DC to push her more (although I hear Charisma Carpenter is out of the running now because she posed nekkid).
And it would be very interesting to see how Ditko would write WW. If you check my old thread where I asked which superheroes would make good Objectivists you'll see that I mentioned WW as a possibility. The black & white, no grey areas outlook would definately work with her IMO.
The mythological Amazons were deadly warriors, man. They scared the heck out of most men. So that's how WW should be portrayed. A true bad-ass who would certainly not have any compunction against killing an opponent when necessary.
Of course, Amazons also chopped off their right breasts so that they could use a bow & arrow more efficiently, so I don't think we need to go there...
What I liked best about the whole "goddess of truth" angle was that it didn't really change Wonder Woman a bit. She was still the exact same character. What a disappointment that the next writer didn't see that. Okay, maybe you want to strip her of the goddess bit. That's okay because she'd still be the same character. But why waste the idea in a single panel? Why not make it a whole storyline? Mighta been cool...
Yes, that's the point, James. If a writer (Eric Luke, where is he now?) didn't like the Goddess Of Truth angle they could've just ignored it and continued to write Wonder Woman as a standard superhero. Then if a future writer wanted to use the Goddess Of Truth angle in order to push the creative direction in a new and exciting way, they would have that option.
I'll even accept your idea that if they simply felt they must remove that aspect, it should have been done in a major storyline, not just a few panels at the end of the book. Especially since, as I said, it had been established that Diana would instantly die if her Goddesshood was revoked. Sheesh. What kind of writer doesn't do his homework & at least read the last few issue of a title before he starts writing it? Again, this just proves the lack of respect from the PTB at DC.
-J.R. LeMar,
High Priest of the Church Of The Goddess Of Truth
It'd be nice to see Superman defeated during one major crisis, his powers unsuited to save the day -- and only the distinctive power and character of Wonder Woman can save them all.
Has this happened?
It would be nice to see the people of the DCU Earth recognize her as its ultimate hero for a change.
"The mythological Amazons were deadly warriors, man. They scared the heck out of most men. So that's how WW should be portrayed. A true bad-ass who would certainly not have any compunction against killing an opponent when necessary."
--
You think we could use a Frank Miller "dark" Wonder Woman? Sort of a Punisher-ess type? Hmmmm...
THE SPACE KIDETTES must be my altime least favorite HB cartoon. Man, I just hated it.
But I liked one thing about it.
You had the evil space pirate Cap'n Skyhook and his Smee-like first mate. And every time the Space Kidettes fristrated the Cap'n's evil scheme, the first mate would suggest something like: "We could aim the sonic disruptor at their ship, Cap'n, and blow them out of the sky."
Skyhook, aghast, would yelp, "'Blow 'em out of the sky'?? I may be evil, but they's just li'l kids! We can't blow little kids out of the sky!"
Not to play Skyhook, but of all the superheroes in comics history, wouldn't Wonder Woman be the wrong one to turn into a brute and a killer? Amazons in the DCU are classical idealists and paragons of virtue. Their existence argues that the military ideal is readiness TO PROTECT THE PEACE, not to thirst after blood.
BTW, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to introduce the term "to play Skyhook" to mean to appeal to competitors to exercise some degree of humane forebearance despite high stakes and despite earnest intentions.
As in, "Not to play Skyhook, but shouldn't we distinguish the innocent bystanders from the conspirators before we torture them for information?"
DADDIO: That is my basic idea. Some truly cosmic threat is nigh, the standard superheroes (including Superman) are powerless before it, and only a God can stop it. But unfortunately none of the current DCU pantheons are able to, since they are no longer worshipped as they once were in ancient times, their power is limited. So the Goddesshood of Wonder Woman is reawakened so that she can face this threat alone,* and the world is indeed aware of Wonder Woman's ultimate victory.
In the wake of this crisis, The World Church Of Truth is formed, with members all over the world who worship Wonder Woman as a Goddess. Diana's not comfortable with this at first, but the church seems relatively harmless and do a lot of good deeds. However, she soon discovers that, like all Gods, the more worshippers she has, the more powerful she becomes. And when members gather to have prayer rituals, she finds herself with a sharp increase of power and energy that's almost addictive.
In fact, she starts to worry that she IS becoming addicted to it, so what does she do now?
Well, I'm still working on that...
*Actually I've been thinking I might have Zauriel, the fallen angel from Morrison's JLA run helping her out, and he might be a potential romantic interest later on. Think about it, a Goddess and an Angel, talk about a match made in Heaven!
But what happens when the Angels of Heaven and the Gods of Olympus find themselves on the brink of war over this "forbidden" relationship?
I'm still working on that too...
MARK & MIKE: Please don't take what I said the wrong way. I assure you, I have no interest at all in turning Wonder Woman into some sort of grim & gritty vigilante. I will admit, I do want to eliminate the "Ambassador of Peace" image she has, as I think this is the one things that holds her back. Recall the thread on the new JBF and what Byrne said about those official DC X-Mas cards. Superman is also meant to be an inspiration to others, but no one objects to him kicking some buttocks when he has to.
I guess what I mean is, she doesn't have the same rigid code against killing that Superman has, but that doesn't mean she's going to start whacking drug dealers or bank robbers. But she does understand that sometimes warriors must take drastic action. An example would be in the classic Bryne issue where Superman executed the 3 phantom zone villians. Wonder Woman would have done the same thing, the difference is she wouldn't have been so racked with guilt aftewards that she began suffering from a split-personality the way he did. They killed 5 BILLION people, they forfeited their right to live. End of story.
I thought KINGDOM COME did a good job in its characterization of Wonder Woman.* She believed in Superman's basic principles of justice, and shared his disgust with the new breed of "heroes" who had no respect at all for the value of human life. But still understood that in some ways they were at war, and a war can't be fought with kid gloves, as the final battle at the prison certainly showed.
Just for the record, I don't believe in killing either. I'm against the death penalty and abortion, and I'm for very strict gun laws (it should be 5 times as hard to get a gun license as it is to get a drivers license IMO). But if I were drafted into the army and sent to Iraq or Afghanistan and found myself in a shootout with some guerillas or Al Queda I can assure you I wouldn't be aiming for anybody's kneecaps, if you catch my drift. I think that was Wonder Woman's viewpoint in KC.
So no, Wonder Woman wouldn't take it upon herself to kill Osama bin Laden, for example, because he is ultimately just a human being. She would be perfectly capable of disarming and caputuring him and then turning him over to the proper authorities to deal with as they see fit, but if she were in a battle with DARKSEID, well, that's a whole different story.
That also brings up more about how I would handle the series. If you buy my run on Wonder Woman looking to see her fighting The Cheeta or The Silver Swan, then you'll be quite disappointed. I wouldn't write this as a superhero book, but more like a superMYTHOLOGY book. I'm taking The Illiad and The Odyssey, with a liitle dose of Aesop's Fables, and wrapping it up inside a comic-book.
The threats she'll be facing and the adventures she'll be on will occassionally require that fatal blows be struck, but it will not be a blood and guts book by any means.
Y'know, rereading this post I've just realized how ambitious this all sounds. I hope I know what I'm doing...
*KINGDOM COME also did a pretty good job in its handling of Captain Marvel. I loved the scene where he's just walking around with a big smile on his face and all of Batman's team are looking at him: "No one breaths in his presence. 'What is he thinking?' they wonder. 'What will he do next?' To them he is a shark trawling for prawn."
I have no idea what "prawn" is, but I thought that was a brilliant line. He's THE WORLD'S MIGHTIEST MORTAL, for cryin' out loud. Darn right people should be a little uneasy around him. But he never stops smiling. I swear, I'd sell my soul to Alan Moore to write Captain Marvel.
And the scarey thing is, he might actually be interested in buying it (at least that's what I've heard).
Sometimes I feel as though we Ditkophiles float in a bathyscaph, breathing Objectivism as if it were each other's stale breath.
But along comes you, JR, who always releases some new kind of gas into our atmosphere. It ain't Objectivism, not by a long shot, but it's refreshing in its novelty. Your epic instinct and your strong enthusiasms help me think about Objectivist heroism by serving as a counter-example -- heroic, thoughtful yet conspicuously [i]not[/i] Objectivist.
I'm never one to tell a person what ideology he must follow; I think people develop their ideas through a process, over time. "Nobody is born [i]knowing."[/i] With that in mind, I gotta suggest you go back and re-read FOUNTAINHEAD or ATLAS SHRUGGED, not because I want you to agree, but because I think it'll help you clarify some of the ideas you're already developing on your own. That includes the possibility you'll read Rand and think, "I get it now: I specifically DISAGREE with Objectivism. I believe this other thing."
Are any of us here true Objectivists? I don't recall anyone ever mentioning they were. Do any of you guys even know someone personally that does consider themselves one?
Nope. I like the way Larry put it once upon a time ~ "objectivist flavoured". It's an appealing philosophy and I've found much in it to apply to my own life, especially as I get older and see more value in basic black & white truths than the angsty, overly complex greys of youth. But I doubt I could ever be a genuine objectivist.
I can't claim to be Objectivist. I have a couple personal convictions based on experience that I just can't match up with Objectivism absolutely. And -- this being Objectivism -- if it ain't absolute then its no soap radio.
The "WWOD" games we play here are great exercise, though. And I use the term "exercise" because it seems to work a lot like weightlifting. You work like hell, pushing harder than day-to-day life seems ever to demand, and you push to collapse. Then after you recover, you find yourself stronger, and you find it much easier to apply the same powers to everyday problems.
Objectivists or no, most of us do seem somewhat informed about the topic. The "WWOD" games may be play, but we all do seem to play in earnest. That is, you don't see any trolls stopping by to mock us for pursuing moral absolutes!
Not to sound elitist, but I doubt most trolls that stop by here can comprehend enough of its content to base their remarks on.
Probably should have answered the question myself since I asked. I don't know any Objectivists, but I'd like to meet one just to see what their lives are like. Myself, I think my morals and particularly my politics are very Objectivist, but there are a lot of places where I come into conflict with it philosophically, and I think a lot of Objectivist ideas, while noble, don't play out so well in real life. I find Buddhism (in its purer and simple forms) to be a much more life-applicable and emotionally realistic way to live, but I can't bring myself to fully embrace it either because of some of its weaknesses.
But if they can prove I'll get the virgins, I'll convert to Islam right now.
This message has been edited by chazervin on May 13, 2004 5:16 PM
Mayhap some battles might be decided on the ebb and flow of her worshippers frenzy? It could make for an excellent Elseworld tale. That way you could incorporate any pantheon you liked, just borrow from whatever stage of DC necessary...
The pose of that picture is impressive, but the face is ugly. Why is it so hard for some guys to draw Wonder Woman with a pretty face? Just use Linda Carter as a reference point.
DADDIO: Again, that's the basic idea. When her worshippers start gathering for their regular prayer-rituals, like they get together in some temple they built for her to join hands and pray, sing songs, sacrifice sheep, or whatever they did in ancient Greece for their Gods (I'll have to do some more research on that) she gets a sudden burst of energy that doubles her, already impressive, abilities. It lasts as long as the ritual does, then wears off when the ritual is over. That's how she starts to slowly become addicted to it.
I don't see why this needs to be an Elseworlds tale , (although if that's the only way DC would allow me to do it, I'd go for it) since the DCU already has an impressive group of pantheons. Along with The Olympians, The Asgardians and various Egyptian and African dieties have appeared in Wonder Woman during Jimenez' run (they helped rebuild Paradise Island). Not to mention "Heaven" and The New Gods (I've gotta have Wonder Woman vs. Granny Goodness). So it should all fit in seamlessly (I hope).
MIKE & LINDA: I haven't actually read the Rand books yet, but I've read alot about her and Objectivism on the net (LB posted some links when I first joined here). Before that I had been reading about this philosophy called Stoicism, which has a bit in common with Objectivism, in terms of relying on the rational mind instead of on emotions. I find a lot of it fascinating, and strive to learn more, but I know I could never completely adopt the philosophy.
The fact is, I find myself having the exact opposite experiance as LB. The older I get, the LESS black and white I become. Like I said, a part of me wishes I could be that, but it doesn't seem possible for me anymore. Life was much simpler when I was a teenager and thought I knew everything and was smarter than everyone else (although I still sometimes feel like that, especially when I watch one of those "reality" T.V. shows), but now I see the grey areas in life more than ever. I recognize that things aren't always as simple as some people think they are, and that sometimes "right" and "wrong" are very subjective terms. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter," and history is always written by the winners.
Y'all remember that scene in "Dark Knight Returns" when Gordon talks about the rumour that FDR knew about the bombing of Pearl Harbor in advance? Well, that's kind of what I'm talking about, in terms of how I often look at things. Even the various political opinions I've expressed here aren't always so extreme. I may be against the death penalty, but you'll never see me at one of those candlelight vigils outside a prison when someone's being executed, or trying to block the entrance to an abortion clinic, or joining PETA to go out and splash blood on people wearing fur. Hey, I accept that my opinions may not be for everyone, so I don't try to shove 'em down anyone's throat.
But yes, it is a fun mental exercise to debate certain issues here every once and awhile.
CHAZ: I'm telling ya, man. That 70 virgins thing ain't so hot if you think about it. Wouldn't you get tired of constantly having teach those chicks everything? They're laying there, scared and nervous, not knowing what to expect, what fun is that? Wouldn't you rather have some girls who'll wrap their legs around you, dig their nails in your back and just...well, you get the idea.
There's a reason I've always gone for older women. Experience counts, trust me.
JR wrote: "Life was much simpler when I was a teenager and thought I knew everything and was smarter than everyone else ... but now I see the grey areas in life more than ever. I recognize that things aren't always as simple as some people think they are, and that sometimes 'right' and 'wrong' are very subjective terms. One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter,' and history is always written by the winners."
JR, you describe part of an ongoing process of intellectual maturation -- not the particular path everyone takes, but one good example of many possible paths. I say if your current perspective seems justified by your experience -- if you now find "greys" more truthful than "black/white," then it would be hypocritical and dishonest for you to cop to Objectivism. But I do suggest you read some Rand.
She does insist that moral decisions -- ay, all rational decisions -- are absolute, black-or-white, yes-or-no. But it's not as though she says ALL absolutes are therefore necessarily truthful or rational. In other words, if you find that your "grey" vocabulary makes it hard for you to make moral decisions that strengthen or satisfy you, you might use Rand to distinguish when absolute decisions are possible.
Often, I find it helps me distinguish real rational decisions from mere meaningless quibbles.
And besides, once you adjust to her language, Rand's books are downright thrilling. No, really!
It's not necessarily that I find greys more truthful than black and white per se, it's just that I find that things aren't always so simple, that good things sometimes have bad consequences, and vice versa. Like, a month or so ago there was a thread on Millarworld about what would you really do if you had superpowers? The two main options where either the powers of Superman or a Green Lantern power ring, since with either of those you'd pretty much be able do whatever you wanted. Among my various goals I mentioned turning the deserts into gardens. Then some guy gets on & starts explaining how doing such a thing would upset the ecological balance of the planet & do irreperable harm to the environment, yadda yadda yadda. I'm like, "Okay, nevermind, it was just a thought."
Or what if you suddenly had the ability to wave a magic wand and cure all diseases and end all illnesses, would you do it? Sounds like a good idea, but think of all of the people who would suddenly be out of work if that happened. Not just the doctors and nurses, but all of the peripheral people. From the janitors & cafeteria workers who work in hospitals, the mechanics who work on the ambulances, the manufacturers of various medical equipment, etc. And don't forget about all of the drug companies, the makers of aspirin, nyquil, vics vapor rub, even tissues. From the executives who run the companies, to the guys in the warehouses who pack the medicine and ship them to the different drugstores. And the people who work in the drugstores. I could go on, but you get the point. Millions of people would be out of work, our economy would be in shambles, so would it be worth it? Sure, to the people suffering from cancer, aids, kidney failure, blindness, deafness, severe physical deformatives and other ailments life would be better, but society in general would be f-cked.
That's obviously just an extreme hypothetical situation, but it basically illustrates the way I often look at things. Like I said, I sometimes wish I could be like the guests on all of those political shows you see on Fox, MSNBC, & CNN. You know, the "talking heads" who always stick to their party line, whether liberal or conservative, no matter what.
I used to buy into a lot of relativism, and complex answers to what are really rather simple questions in life. That's what I mean by my outlook becoming more black & white as I get older. It's like the way technology moves forward ~ simpler and more straightforward ways of accomplishing larger and more complex tasks. Or science in general, looking for the one basic formula which explains everything in the universe.
I have a theory about life. You spend the first 25 years accumulating thoughts, objects and people, then spend the rest of your life stripping your "collection" down further and further until your philosophies, pursuits and surroundings are exactly right for you and have nothing to do with altruism, guilt, righteousness, greed, vanity or anything else. You end up with just the pure You. That's the goal, I think. Don't know that I'll ever get there, but I'm pretty sure that's where I'm supposed to go. (And I'm also pretty sure they serve excellent burgers there.)
The Pulse recently posted the sales of various comic-books. They track the sales of titles over the course of the year to see how much they've gained or lost. Here's the one for Wonder Woman, along with their final analysis. (Note that Greg Rucka's first issue was #195.)
"Following the short-lived increase for #200, WONDER WOMAN resumes a decline, apparently. Looking at the long-term comparisons, it's still a more than solid book by any standard. And, quite remarkably, similar to BIRDS OF PREY, it hasn't needed any gimmicks to achieve that."
*********************
Well, I personally find those numbers a bit depressing. Or more like frustrating, since I know it could be doing much better. When I see various Ultimate Whatever books selling 70,000-100,000+ copies a month I can't stand that Icons like Wonder Woman (& Superman, for that matter) are hovering in the low double-digits.
I see that a lot of people, like me, came aboard with Rucka's first issue, but weren't impressed enough to stick around (again, like me). But the huge jump with #200, and the immediate drop with #201 is the worst part. This just proves that people are willing to buy Wonder Woman, you just have to make sure to give them a story that makes them want to come back next month.
... Linda.
