![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Wonder Woman Historia
Feb. 4th, 2025 10:49 amYesterday I read Wonder Woman Historia. I loved it. I'd almost go as far as saying it's reconcilled me with modern comics. Now whenever DC Does Some Bullshit I'll just hold my physical copy of it (it'll arrive in June) and touch is infinitely beautiful artwork and all will feel right in the world.
The point is that the third issue made a choice that might, would have likely bothered me in another context, by another author. but it wasn't the case here, and I've been thinking about why that is.
(spoilers for #3, ig).
Trying to keep it brief: in Wonder Woman (1987) #1, we're told the story of how Herakles and his men tricked the Amazons, drugged them, and slaved them. How they raped them, how Herakles took Hippolyta's girdle as a war prize. Hippolyta prays to the gods, who free her and ask her that the amazons don't violently retaliate against their captors, and when that doesn't happen, the Amazons are punished for it.
The writing even makes a point of it, saying that we, the audience, might've heard different stories of how Herakles "got" Hippolyta's girdle.
I didn't sense any of it here, first of all, because of the way the story as a whole writes women; all women, from the goddesses (including Hera, who Zeus explicitly abuses and batters), to the thirty original Amazons born from the souls of women murdered by men, to most importantly, the seventh tribe, Hippolyta's. All made of mortal women who escaped some horror by men; women like Hippolyta, who barely escaped murder, or who were about to be sold as slaves. Wronged, hurt, mutilated women. They're all upheld as entire entities, by and for themselves, not defined let alone made less by the actions of others.
The story highlights patriarchal misogyny as the primary wrong that it is (Hera's desperate fury when she says women won't get justice a thousand years from now was !!!); something that men, mortal and gods alike, utterly dismiss as unimportant. It never handwrings about the wrongs of revenge and retribution or trying to tell us they're remotely equal. Its simpathy is firmly located with the women, even when they make dubious or difficult choices. The (male) gods's punishment upon them is framed as an injustice.
The other important bit is how it writes Herakles. When I think of other stories that go out of their way to remove rape from the picture I think of cases like this, like the endless romantic retellings about Hades and Persephone.
The choices made in those are always about the Hades of the tale. About cleaning up his image, in the end. But Historia doesn't even come close to doing this with Herakles: it's very clear what he would've done to the Amazons if he'd gotten the chance (Hippolyta puts it explicitly into words, when she says he would've defiled them). Hell, the version of canon where he indubitably raped Hippolyta romanticises them a lot more (George Perez turn on your location so I can tell you how much I love your comics AND endlessly berate you for this).
But also, ngl. As DC's Herakles #1 hater... I just loved seeing him be torn to pieces. That was very cathartic, honestly. It's exactly what he deserves <333
Anyway. Wonder Woman Historia is a fantastic comic and you guys should read it and give it attention so DC greenlights the rest of the run (which otherwise stands on its own), but that's not the point of the post.
The point is that the third issue made a choice that might, would have likely bothered me in another context, by another author. but it wasn't the case here, and I've been thinking about why that is.
(spoilers for #3, ig).
Trying to keep it brief: in Wonder Woman (1987) #1, we're told the story of how Herakles and his men tricked the Amazons, drugged them, and slaved them. How they raped them, how Herakles took Hippolyta's girdle as a war prize. Hippolyta prays to the gods, who free her and ask her that the amazons don't violently retaliate against their captors, and when that doesn't happen, the Amazons are punished for it.
This one goes differently; there's no mass rape and enslavement (the way the Amazons are robbed of their freedom happens in a different, quite interesting way, btw). Herakles, sent by the gods, attacks, and the leader of each Amazon tribe fights him, subduing him and killing him all together. Hippolyta's "girdle" here is a mere rope she had around her waist, now used to tie the bag holding Herakles's dismembered body as it's flown towards Olympus (which was meant as a more respectful gesture than what the Amazons did to other men they killed to save and avenge brutalised women).
The writing even makes a point of it, saying that we, the audience, might've heard different stories of how Herakles "got" Hippolyta's girdle.
I think in a different story, this change would bother me. I would wonder (and in some cases I would different sense) if there was an implication than the rape of the Amazons makes them lesser in the eyes of the author, when it says absolutely nothing about them as people. It's just something that happened to them, and that's how I think it should be treated.
I didn't sense any of it here, first of all, because of the way the story as a whole writes women; all women, from the goddesses (including Hera, who Zeus explicitly abuses and batters), to the thirty original Amazons born from the souls of women murdered by men, to most importantly, the seventh tribe, Hippolyta's. All made of mortal women who escaped some horror by men; women like Hippolyta, who barely escaped murder, or who were about to be sold as slaves. Wronged, hurt, mutilated women. They're all upheld as entire entities, by and for themselves, not defined let alone made less by the actions of others.
The story highlights patriarchal misogyny as the primary wrong that it is (Hera's desperate fury when she says women won't get justice a thousand years from now was !!!); something that men, mortal and gods alike, utterly dismiss as unimportant. It never handwrings about the wrongs of revenge and retribution or trying to tell us they're remotely equal. Its simpathy is firmly located with the women, even when they make dubious or difficult choices. The (male) gods's punishment upon them is framed as an injustice.
The other important bit is how it writes Herakles. When I think of other stories that go out of their way to remove rape from the picture I think of cases like this, like the endless romantic retellings about Hades and Persephone.
The choices made in those are always about the Hades of the tale. About cleaning up his image, in the end. But Historia doesn't even come close to doing this with Herakles: it's very clear what he would've done to the Amazons if he'd gotten the chance (Hippolyta puts it explicitly into words, when she says he would've defiled them). Hell, the version of canon where he indubitably raped Hippolyta romanticises them a lot more (George Perez turn on your location so I can tell you how much I love your comics AND endlessly berate you for this).
But also, ngl. As DC's Herakles #1 hater... I just loved seeing him be torn to pieces. That was very cathartic, honestly. It's exactly what he deserves <333
