Look What They're Doing to Wonder Woman!

[Rob Staeger (Grodd Mod)]

JMS is doing a complete timeline reboot/overhaul, as announced at The Source. There's a more in-depth interview at CBR.

I was planning to drop the book at 600, but I have to admit I'm intrigued.

[Figserello]

I had a flick through WW #600 in the shop, and was amused to see they've added straps the bustier to ensure nothing pops out during her more physical encounters with her foes.

[Alan M.]

ClarkKent_DC said:

Here's a post from the Womens Media Center, very much against the new look: "Wonder Woman in Pants Is Not a Feminist Win".

My favorite part of this story is the first paragraph:

Actually, the new duds are not an act of self-determination by the woman (formerly) in red, white and blue. According to the New York Times, the new head writer of the series, J. Michael Straczynski, wanted to “toughen her up and give her a modern sensibility.”

In other words, "Wonder Woman didn't choose this new costume for herself; it was the idea of the writer." I read that, and I felt like saying to the article, "Um....you know Wonder Woman isn't actually capable of making any acts of self-determination, right? That everything 'she' does is because a (generally male) writer chose it?"

[Mark Sullivan (Vertiginous Mod)]

Figserello said:

I had a flick through WW #600 in the shop, and was amused to see they've added straps the bustier to ensure nothing pops out during her more physical encounters with her foes.

Thereby robbing her of the awesome hypnotic power of the Wonder Breasts.

[Jeff of Earth-J]

I bought issue #600 with no intention of buying #601, but after reading it (and for reasons entirely unrelated to the costume) I must admit that I am intrigued. I like that JMS included an introductory essay introducing his approach up front. (I like it when writers do that!) I'll stick around for a while.

[Luke Blanchard]

I think how we relate to a character matters, and how the character looks influences how we relate to him/her. For example, comic A might have a scene where the hero carries a beautiful woman to safety in his arms. Comic B might have a scene where the big, butch heroine saves a wimpy-looking guy the same way. Scene A would be a type of scene we’ve all seen somewhere. A male reader might identify with the hero and enjoy the scene for its positive image of masculinity, and because he likes to imagine himself carrying beautiful women. Scene B would be a similar scene with the genders reversed. A male reader would be less likely to read the scene thinking “This is the kind of guy I’d like to be”, but he might be amused by the scene’s reversal of the expected roles.

If the second scene instead had a slightly-built heroine saving a guy who looks like Sgt. Fury, it would read differently again. The heroine’s strength might seem more magical, the man’s rescuee role more at odds with his tough appearance. Likewise, a scene where an off-duty policewoman stops a robbery while wearing an evening dress and high heels is one thing, and a scene where she stops a robbery on duty and in uniform another.

Wonder Woman’s new look is more like something that someone might actually wear, so it situates her differently. The straps help the costume seem more real. The costume might also work with a portrayal of Wonder Woman as angry and fierce better. The violence in the alley scene has a more realistic feel to it. Although she’s supposed to be super-strong, it reads a lot like a scene in which a woman defends herself from attackers using martial arts.

[Jeff of Earth-J]

Interesting thoughts, Luke. The costume itself narrows our perception, but the only way to known for sure how we'll perceive her (i.e., how JMS presents her) is to read WW #601.

Or we could just look at the costume and vomit. ;)

[Philip Portelli]

But we all know this new costume is temporarily. Sure they may tweak an outfit now and then but the iconic (heck, even the non-iconic) characters usually change back to something close to their original duds.

Also, Diana was always portrayed as a beautiful, physically fit woman with class and dignity. The size of her costume reflected both her self-confidence and her belief in feminine strength. The D-cup fantasy look is the result of the last "Bad Girl" fad that only proved that some of us were really lonely! I use Lucy Lawless or Catherine Zeta-Jones as examples of what WW should be: beauty, grace, style and an inate, almost oblivious to it sexiness!

[Luke Blanchard]

If a new version of a long-established character were lastingly successful, I could see it replacing the old version. But I don't know that could happen in today's market. Everything seems to hit sales doldrums eventually. When that happens to a redesigned character or replacement hero, one way forward is restoring the traditional version of the character. Aquaman reverted to his old look partly because the volume with the Peter David version ran out of steam, for example.

I think it's unlikely this version of Wonder Woman will permanently replace her old look because it's less iconic,(1) which makes her seem less special, and less superhero-y, which suggests it's unlikely to be more popular in the longer term with superhero fans.

(1) I think there are two senses in which characters might be spoken of as iconic. Firstly, that they're extremely well-known and popular with superhero fans. Secondly, that they come across as embodying certain values or ideal qualities, as Wonder Woman (as traditionally depicted) and Captain America do, but Green Lantern and the Flash don't. It's hard to justify the patriotic element in Wonder Woman's design in post-Crisis in-story terms - it made sense originally, when she was an anti-Axis/WWII heroine - but it's part of what has made her iconic in this latter sense.

[Dagwan]

I don't think the new look will stick around permanently either, but when was the last time WW's sales weren't in the doldrums? The 1960s?

---

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -Groucho Marx

Check out the Secret Headquarters (my store) website! It's much better now!

Listen to WOXY.com, it's the future of rock-n-roll!

---

[Luke Blanchard]

Here's what I can say about her sales:

-She got her own title quickly. Her run in Sensation Comics started in Nov. 1941 (following upon the appearance of her debut story in All-Star Comics #8 the preceding month), her own title in July 1942.
-Wonder Woman started as a quarterly, and became a bimonthly with its third issue, from Dec. 1942.
-She was also included in the line-up of Comic Cavalcade from its Dec. 1942 debut issue. It started as a quarterly and became a bimonthly from Feb. 1946.
-During the 40s she also regularly appeared in All-Star Comics as a member of the JSA.

-She and the other superheroes were dropped from Comic Cavalcade after the issue from August 1948.
-Sensation became a bimonthly from July 1949.
-The last Golden Age JSA story appeared in Dec. 1950.
-She lost her slot in Sensation after the issue from Sep. 1951.

-Her eponymous title went up to an eight times a year schedule from Sep. 1954.

-According to Comichron, the title’s statements of ownership reported the following paid circulations in the 60s:
1960 213,000
1961 230,000
1962 215,000
1965 209,918
1966 220,168
1967 175,000
1968 166,365
1969 171,197
-She didn't get any annuals or reprint giants during the 60s.
-The title went down to bimonthly status from May 1967.
-The “Diana Prince” period started mid-1968. According to Carmine Infantino (in this interview) the version initially sold well, and then bombed. Infantino seems to think the success might’ve been sustained, but I wonder if the jump wasn’t purely due the novelty of the makeover and doomed not to last.

-The title became a monthly with the transition issues into its adventures-of-the-Earth-Two-WW-during-WWII period at the end of 1976. This was a tie-in to the initial format of the Lynda Carter TV series. The first Carter special appeared in late 1975, but from what I can tell the programme only begin to appear as a regular series, as opposed to irregularly, in the latter part of 1976. So the title's adoption of this format lagged the show's debut, but followed fairly quickly upon the start of its regular appearances.
-The switch to a monthly schedule coincided with Denny O'Neil's taking over as editor. So it could be sales had risen sufficiently to justify it as a result of Schwartz's efforts(1), but he was too busy to take it to monthly status. Alternatively, the earlier appearances of the show may have given its sales a boost. Alternatively, DC may have been anticipating a sales leap/hoping for more success through tying the comic to the show.

The dates above are on-sale months, according to the Mike Amazing World of DC Comics website.

(1) Most of the issues from the year before the start of his run featured lacklustre retellings of Golden Age stories. Conversely, the issues from the first two-thirds of Schwartz's run all featured JLA- or JLA-member guest appearances.

[Luke Blanchard]

According to Comichron at the end of Greg Rucka's run the title had estimated Diamond sales in the 40-something thousands. The first issue of the new series which followed (set after the then newly-underway 52, and so set one year later) did amazingly well, with estimated Diamond sales of 132,586 issues in its debut month.(1) Allan Heinberg wrote, Donna had the WW role in the first issue. The second issue had estimated Diamond sales of 84,457 the month it came out, but the title's sales declined at a slower rate after that. My recollection is the volume was plagued by delays early on.

(1) Those are sales to retailers, of course. It's possible the title was over-ordered by some. Reorders (in the low thousands) kept it in the top 300 for the next three months.

[PowerBook Pete, the Mad Mod]

On the second page of the story in WW #600, there's already a mistake in the drawing of the new costume.