I'll give credit for one thing here. On this page, anyway, he didn't do his "aren't I naughty?" thing of using swear words but replacing some of the letters with wingdings. Either use the word or don't, you cretin.
I mean, it's possible they want to set up that she's got an overblown ego and her initial arc will teach her humility. But if that's the way they're going with this, they sure aren't signaling it, for example having Damian and Jon react with frustration to her (even just little signs of it).
I know you're no fan of Damian, but when they launched the New 52 and slid his character back into more arrogant territory, it was the stuff of an arc and it made sense. Working with Bruce was nothing like working with Dick, and Damian was used to Dick as the perfect encouraging big brother, not the closed-off difficult-to-please father figure you get with Bruce. The first issue was clear that the two were butting heads and it was an actual problem to be resolved. And indeed, by the end of the first arc, they'd at least made progress, even if they hadn't fixed everything.
So, where are the signs that Trinity's hubris is a problem, at least in the writer's eyes? It's not a good sign when the readers are picking up on a problem that needs fixing, but the writer isn't.
Not really on-topic, but it occurred to me that Greek mythology has several trios -- the Fates, the Graces, the Hours, the three aspects of Hecate, the Furies (although some myths present them as four) -- so having Wonder Woman's daughter named "Trinity" isn't *necessarily* as WTF as it might initially appear.:-)
I suppose that it might turn out that she kicks off this whole "Wonder Woman: Outlaw" story by traveling back in time, in order to carry out a murder spree, due to a fit of teenage pique.
Of course, this could turn out to be the story that we end up reading...
I live in DC. Our principle exports are legislation and regulation. And it teaches you something. Most legislation/regulation isn't about making something happen; it's about preventing something from happening. It's not proactive; it's reactive. And that why most of it has unintended adverse consequences or fails.
The same could be said of characters created mostly To Be Different.
"The same could be said of characters created mostly To Be Different."
I am 100% for introducing diverse new characters with outlooks that are otherwise underrepresented. BUT, you've got to do better than saying, they come from this background or that. Their background has to meaningfully inform what you're reading, and that probably means, you need to flesh out their non-heroing life.
What I mean is, let's say you want to create a Tyrolean-American superhero. Okay, that's fine. Does that mean you're going to have him go heroing in lederhosen and a Tyrolean hat? Well, I hope not; the superheroing part of it is likely to be pretty culture-independent. So that means his Tyrolean representation is going to mostly be seen in his personal life.
The characters who get this right - the Jaime Reyeses and Kamala Khans - people love them. The characters where the representation is only skin-deep, don't fare so well.
As a Marvel fan, I think all a Tyrolean character needs to do is say "Griaßenk!" once an appearance and occasionally call someone a "Schmotzgoggl" or a "Lugntschippl" and the box is checked for the Tyrolean community.
12 comments:
Is the intent that this is a new hero we're supposed to like? Or the start of an arc where Supes and Bats take down an arrogant new villain?
I'll give credit for one thing here. On this page, anyway, he didn't do his "aren't I naughty?" thing of using swear words but replacing some of the letters with wingdings. Either use the word or don't, you cretin.
I mean, it's possible they want to set up that she's got an overblown ego and her initial arc will teach her humility. But if that's the way they're going with this, they sure aren't signaling it, for example having Damian and Jon react with frustration to her (even just little signs of it).
I know you're no fan of Damian, but when they launched the New 52 and slid his character back into more arrogant territory, it was the stuff of an arc and it made sense. Working with Bruce was nothing like working with Dick, and Damian was used to Dick as the perfect encouraging big brother, not the closed-off difficult-to-please father figure you get with Bruce. The first issue was clear that the two were butting heads and it was an actual problem to be resolved. And indeed, by the end of the first arc, they'd at least made progress, even if they hadn't fixed everything.
So, where are the signs that Trinity's hubris is a problem, at least in the writer's eyes? It's not a good sign when the readers are picking up on a problem that needs fixing, but the writer isn't.
- HJF1
Not really on-topic, but it occurred to me that Greek mythology has several trios -- the Fates, the Graces, the Hours, the three aspects of Hecate, the Furies (although some myths present them as four) -- so having Wonder Woman's daughter named "Trinity" isn't *necessarily* as WTF as it might initially appear.:-)
Can someone explain why Black Panther is wearing a Jessica Rabbit dress and a tool belt?
- HJF1
The shelf life on this one will be even shorter than Yara Flor's unremarkable tenure.
I suppose that it might turn out that she kicks off this whole "Wonder Woman: Outlaw" story by traveling back in time, in order to carry out a murder spree, due to a fit of teenage pique.
Of course, this could turn out to be the story that we end up reading...
why Black Panther is wearing a Jessica Rabbit dress and a tool belt?
"
tee-hee!
Poor Yara Flor.
I live in DC. Our principle exports are legislation and regulation. And it teaches you something. Most legislation/regulation isn't about making something happen; it's about preventing something from happening. It's not proactive; it's reactive. And that why most of it has unintended adverse consequences or fails.
The same could be said of characters created mostly To Be Different.
"The same could be said of characters created mostly To Be Different."
I am 100% for introducing diverse new characters with outlooks that are otherwise underrepresented. BUT, you've got to do better than saying, they come from this background or that. Their background has to meaningfully inform what you're reading, and that probably means, you need to flesh out their non-heroing life.
What I mean is, let's say you want to create a Tyrolean-American superhero. Okay, that's fine. Does that mean you're going to have him go heroing in lederhosen and a Tyrolean hat? Well, I hope not; the superheroing part of it is likely to be pretty culture-independent. So that means his Tyrolean representation is going to mostly be seen in his personal life.
The characters who get this right - the Jaime Reyeses and Kamala Khans - people love them. The characters where the representation is only skin-deep, don't fare so well.
- HJF1
As a Marvel fan, I think all a Tyrolean character needs to do is say "Griaßenk!" once an appearance and occasionally call someone a "Schmotzgoggl" or a "Lugntschippl" and the box is checked for the Tyrolean community.
This reads like an audition in front of Kathleen Kennedy. You sure this isn't a Marvel character?
-- Jack of Spades
Post a Comment