Only One Can Wear the Venus Girdle, part 3 (O’Neill/Sekowsky)

Here and here I argued that Wonder Woman is a the result of a particular idiosyncratic, fetishistic vision. Charles Moulton was more like R. Crumb than he was like Jerry Siegel or Lee/Ditko. As a result, Wonder Woman as icon is essentially a decades long disaster; she’s particular, not universal, and every effort to prove otherwise makes both the perpetrator and the character look ridiculous.
_______________

So…I’ll stand by the argument that, outside of Moulton’s work, there aren’t any Wonder Woman stories that I’ve seen which I’d call “great” or even “really good.” There are a couple of takes, though, that are at least relatively unobjectionable. I thought I’d take a post to look at some of them, and talk about why they manage to do better than some of their peers.

(And just to get this out of the way: no, I haven’t read the current Gail Simone run on the Wonder Woman title. I’m willing to give it a go if anyone’ll vouch for it…though, jeez, the internets are not exactly abuzz with news of the series…is she even still on the title? Oh well…anyway…)

______________

First off..the love it/hate it Denny O;Neill/Mike Sekowsky run, where Diana gets to wear a full suit of clothes in exchange for losing all her powers (doesn’t sound like such a bad deal, really.) There’s one of these stories in the Greatest Wonder Woman Stories Ever Told (from before she changed her outfit and lost her powers)…and reading it through the first time I was fairly appalled. Even after reading the Kanigher stories, it’s hard to believe how dumb, dumb, dumb Diana is in this outing. It’s like someone popped her head open and scooped her brain out with a mellon-baller. First of all, she lets some random lech crawl all over her at some random party…and then it’s Steve who bashes his head in, not her. Then Steve cheats on her, and tells her…and she doesn’t notice! Then she’s forced to testify against him in court, is obviously broken up about it…and Steve whines and bitches and tells her she betrayed him…and she just sort of sits there and takes it and feels bad. And then she goes undercover and gets dressed up in fab hippie clothing…and all of a sudden she realizes that she’s good looking! I mean, okay, many lovely women have body issues…but she’s been running around in her underwear for 20 years at this point! The idea that a change to sexier clothes is going to reinvent her self image seems…confused.

But after the initial shock wore off, I started to see some of the appeal of O’Neil’s approach. In the first place, Mike Sekowsky’s art is fantastic.

Photobucket

Really dramatic, off-kilter page compositions, with figures occasionally breaking out of the panels; beautiful giant-eyed faces emoting, almost art nouveau clothing deisgns — it would make me think of manga, if the trippy, psychedelic colors weren’t so central. I don’t think I like it more than Harry Peter’s original art for the series, but these are the only WW visuals I’ve seen that are even in the same ballpark. (And, no, alas, George Perez is nowhere near the artist that Peter or Sekowsky are…I’ll discuss him a bit more below.)

Photobucket

So, yeah…great art can salvage a lot. And even the story…I mean, the story isn’t good. It’s dumb and insulting; the gestures at hipness are just embarrassing, the gestures at feminine psychology are ludicrous; the whole thing makes you wonder if O’Neill ever met an actual hippie, or an actual woman…or an actual human being for that matter.

But all that aside…you do sort of have to admire the way he’s managed to get around the pitfalls of writing a Wonder Woman story. Because, while this is not good, it’s not good in a Denny O’Neill way. The problems here aren’t really the problems Moulton has bequeathed his heirs. Their isn’t any bondage nonsense bizarrely tripping things up. There isn’t the snickering frat-boy snickering at the character’s sexuality. There isn’t the desperate confusion over setting — where the hell does Wonder Woman even make sense? — that is often a problem. O’Neill avoids all that by pretty much ignoring it. His Wonder Woman isn’t Wonder Woman at all, really — yes, she still has the character design (though he got rid of even that a couple issues down the road.) But he treats her pretty much as if she’s just some random chick. I think this panel sums it up:

Photobucket

There she is, at a cocktail party, looking off semi-vacuously as the men talk, the way any woman might in a dumb romance comic. There’s nothing wonderful about her; she’s just some random dame who accidentally put on the wrong duds this morning. Similarly, even though WW spends most of the comic investigating a mystery, and even though she has this magic lasso which supposedly makes people tell her the truth, she never uses it to further her investigation. Magic truth-making lassos? No way; you can’t tell a story and make sense of that! Not unless you’re Charles Moulton, anyway. O’Neill isn’t, knows he isn’t, and wants as little part of the mystic clap-trap as he can get away with.

Of course, at some point, you’ve got to ask…if you don’t want to write about Wonder Woman, if you have not interest in Wonder Woman, if, in fact, you’ve realized that it isn’t really possible to write Wonder Woman — why not just get a new character to put in your mediocre, misogynist story with the great art? Why call it Wonder Woman at all? But such are the whims of marketing.

I do think, though, that this is pretty much the only way a great Wonder Woman story will ever get written, if one ever does. Somebody will come along, say, right, I’m going to create a completely new character, put the name “Wonder Woman” on her, and tell a story that doesn’t have anything to do with the character’s origin, not to speak of her 60 plus years of history. If a great writer did that…well, the story would have at least a chance of being great. Alan Moore’s Promethea is I guess the hypothetical that almost/coulda/shoulda been, except that he didn’t call it Wonder Woman, and it turned into a lame-ass treaty on the Kabbala half-way through. So we’re stuck with O’Neill’s effort instead, which isn’t great, or even necessarily good, but of which is, at least, his own failure. And lord knows, reading those Kanigher/Andru stories, he could have done a lot worse.
___________________

Update: and here’s a discussion of George Perez’s run

Update 2: And part 5.

10 thoughts on “Only One Can Wear the Venus Girdle, part 3 (O’Neill/Sekowsky)

  1. From the website Wonder Woman Yesterday, Today & Beyond:
    “This storyline lasted for two years, with Wonder Woman finally being restored to her powers and costume in the early ’70s. Part of the credit for the revival of Wonder Woman as a superhero was due to a campaign in which feminist Gloria Steinem – who was offended to see the most famous female superhero depowered – had a hand. The 1972 first issue of Steinem’s Ms. Magazine featured Wonder Woman in her 1940s costume on the cover, and contained an essay in appreciation of the character. Ironically, the change in format was originally an acknowledgement of the Women’s liberation movement.”

  2. Hey Inkwell! Thanks for the link and the kind words on your blog, by the by.

    Now I want to know what Gloria Steinem said…though I must admit that I find it hard to take a feminist defense of Wonder Woman all that seriously….

  3. There’s a book call _Wonder Women_, which discusses WW and several other female superheroes (Invisible Girl gets some discussion, for instance) in a Women’s lib context. Lillian Robinson is the author (not Lillia, I think, as the amazon link has it). It’s a pretty bad book, but the opening essay/chapter does make some salient points about the character and her possible “feminism”. I think there is also some discussion of how Moulton’s run is bowdlerized by future creators…(the Noah argument). Also, did you know that Moulton changed his name back and forth a few times in the early years (William to Charles and back…or something like that). He was a pretty weird dude…but we’ve already established that.

    BTW, have you ever read Moore’s brief (3 issue) run on Awesome Comics’ _Glory_. This really _did_ seem to be the Wonder Woman reboot (that wasn’t Wonder Woman) that we all might have wanted…but of course Awesome collapsed and Moore did Promethea instead.

    http://www.amazon.com/Wonder-Women-Superheroes-Lillia-Robinson/dp/0415966329/ref=ed_oe_p

  4. I do vaguely recall those Glory books…. They seemed promising, anyway.

    It’s a little surprising that Moore didn’t do much with WW while he was at DC, in some ways. The two of them shared…um, interests, at least as far as sexual living arrangements went. I’m sure Moore knows that and has thought about it at least in passing….

  5. I was just the right age where the depowered WW _was_ the real thing and the costumed one was the fake.

    I Ching was a fun character and the way those WW stories led into O’Neil’s Superman comics was good stuff.

  6. Greg Rucka’s work on Wonder Woman is, in my opinion, nearly flawless. Do yourself a favor and check out the collected trades of his work or at least The Hiketeia. Gail Simone’s work has been solidly entertaining, if a little shaky, as she is still trying to undo the steaming clusterfuck that Picoult (and to a much lesser degree, Heinberg) left in their wake.

    In any case, there have been several intelligent, well-written stories about Wonder Woman since the era you’re discussing. I dareay you’re just deliberating not looking for them. Dismissing an entire character because of a flawed Golden Age origin is rather short-sighted. It’s akin to ignoring every single effort of someone who was a troubled teenager but reformed to become an extremely respected adult.

  7. I’m happy to check out Rucka’s work. I’ll give it a shot.

    I think you’re missing the point a bit, though. I don’t think WW’s origin is flawed. I think Moulton/Potter’s original stories are great art; odd and idiosyncratic and somewhat politically problematic, sure, but also beautiful and weird and individual and really entertaining. It’s because WW’s first adventures were so good that the character has had troubles since, not because they were bad.

    Also…making fun of a troubled teen would be morally problematic. Making fun of Wonder Woman is not…because Wonder Woman isn’t real.

  8. Great series of posts…!

    If you get a chance, check out where the Sekowsky issues become -written- by the artist as well. Most of the weaknesses people generally point to (especially the overly-groovy dialogue) stem from O’Neil’s scripts.

    Once Sekowsky took all responsibility things were much much better and, to my mind, make his run the best of the post-Golden Age days.

    Rucka came close (better than Perez, I think) and hopefully Simone will continue as -she’s- better than Rucka. Perez good, but not great…

  9. Wow; I had no idea Sekowsky wrote. I do need to check those out…I think they’ve been collected, haven’t they….

  10. Yes, they’ve all been collected now in those Diana Prince, Wonder Woman tpbs — the last of which just came out this week, I believe — though the first three are the only ones with Sekowsky’s writing, pencilling (and editing).

    He’s got other (to my mind) mostly successful writing, pencilling (and editing) projects from the same period which really should be collected some day.

Comments are closed.