Yoiks, and Away!

I've taken a day off so I can try to finish my wip (work in progress). So of course I'm procrastinating. After I finish checking Facebook and all the news sites, then Facebook again and maybe they've updated the news... I can sit here and stare beyond my computer, to the strip of cork and thumbtacked material that runs around my home office.

Behind the computer I have posted the Best of the Best writing advice I've latched onto over the years. Okay, it's just the Best of the Best that I remembered to write down or print out. Most, but not all, concerns writing. So here are some bits of wisdom for your perusal:

(From Elements of Fiction Writing: Scene & Structure, by Jack M. Bickham.) The elements of a scene: Goal, Conflict, Disaster. The elements of a sequel: Reaction (emotion), Dilemma (thought), Decision, in that order.

A long, color-coded listing of how to mark up one's manuscript using the EDITS system. This is from Margie Lawson. She teaches this intense system on how to check your manuscript, and it's pretty darned eye-opening. There's a workshop on it alone, but I ran into it when I took her "Empowering Characters' Emotions" workshop.

A sheet of paper that says:
CHARACTER
CHARACTER
CHARACTER
I'm a plotter at heart and it took me a LONG time to get it through my head that character is the heart of a great book, not plot.

How do they FEEL about that?
Emotion is key to showing character. Otherwise you end up with "characters" like Wonder Woman [see blog below], who have no emotional reaction to anything. They are cardboard cutouts.

What's the story about?
After you finish your first draft, sit back and ask yourself: what's the story really about? Sure, these folks go to the moon and shoot the alien zombie invaders, but isn't it really a story about the importance of family? How can I emphasize that? Which leads to...

As with so many things, YOU HAVE TO EXAGGERATE.
This is not real life; this is drama. In drama there's a purpose to everything. There's a theme. Bring it out. Make your characters and their situation high contrast so that it imprints on your readers' minds and embues the book's theme with more meaning and vitality.

A long quote from Jennifer Crusie, one of my favorite authors:
"It's not that they're [hero and heroine in a romance novel] opposites and hate each other, it's that they're different enough to challenge each other's world views, and because of that, their attraction to each other becomes a demonstration of their characters. Or to put it another way: interesting characters like people who challenge them and make them grow, not people who reinforce them as they are and help them stagnate.

"But even more important is the other half of the key to this dynamic: the opposite character traits give the romance crackle, but they're only skin deep. When you reach the bones of the characters—the stuff that keeps them upright and moving through the story—you find that the lovers are actually two of a kind.

"Your lovers spark because they're opposites on the surface, but they love because they're twin souls at heart. Peel back the surface and find where they connect, and your reader will believe your romance really is forever."

Let's see... Here's a chart from the Plot Doctor, aka Carolyn Greene, who might still teach her method here and there, but I can't find her on the Web.

This is a note from Virginia Kantra, who should know a little something about writing:
"...I have a little mantra:
"If she can think it, she can say it.
"It's better if she says it to the hero.
"It's best if they fight about it."

WHY SHOULD I CARE?
What is it about this situation/character that draws me in? Your primary goal in writing is to get your reader deeply within your story and keep them there. If they care about what's going on, they'll remain.

STORY
is more important than
PROCESS
Oh, how I love showing process! Such a bad habit.

An IDEA
+
EMOTION
=
something readers can relate to
It's all about keeping them in the story.

And some words of general wisdom and encouragement:

From Calvin Coolidge:
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.

"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

From Marianne Williamson:
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."

Whew. I feel like going back to writing now. But first I want to know:

What's on your wall? What do you keep around yourself to keep you on track and motivate you?

The Illusory Wonder Woman

(i.e., Spangles Don’t Make the Wonder)

In recent years DC’s sales continued to fall and according to many articles I read, the Time-Warner people gave them an ultimatum: improve sales or else. So Dan DiDio and his buddies came up with yet another new, company-wide PR event: the New 52. (Referring to how many titles they were coming out with, and trying to play off the company-wide “52” event of a few years back.) This began in September of 2011.

“Not a reboot!” they kept telling us. “This is a relaunch!” Well, it is indeed a reboot of many titles, but some titles aren’t being affected. Someone called it the “Nottaboot,” which is as good a name as any.

What I’m concerned with, of course, is the fate of Wonder Woman. Volume 3 of Wonder Woman was an unheralded new era for WW, like post-Crisis was different from the Bronze Age, etc. After an exciting and promising re-start, the Gail Simone run within it had plunged downhill badly.

I managed to coordinate a “bring back the original numbering” campaign that actually succeeded—but didn’t succeed in getting Dan DiDio to give our favorite Amazon any respect. Instead, as the book reverted to original numbering with #600’s monumental issue, the end of the book also sent Diana off into the much-anticipated “Odyssey” storyline, to be written by none other than J. Michael Straczynski.

Ever since, I’ve been trying to find Wonder Woman, but she’s completely disappeared.



JMS also took over Superman and sent him on his Stroll Around the US storyline, something that was derided by a majority of reviewers, at least that I saw. However, the sales figures for JMS’ Superman: Earth One were coming in, and it was decided that he needed to create a $equel.

Thus JMS abruptly dropped both Superman and Wonder Woman—which actually turned out for the best in Wondie’s case, as the brightness of the dialogue noticeably improved under the pen of Phil Hester.

The “Odyssey” story was some kind of parallel universe/imaginary story/setup for a new mythos kind of thing in which Something Had Changed Diana’s Timeline and now Diana was shown to be a spoiled, reckless princess of the Amazons, only now brought up (albeit in isolation) in the modern world. Of course this made her completely relatable to modern audience, something she had never been before.

Oh dear, is my sarcasm showing?

The story was “only” supposed to last 12 issues, but as the New 52 approached (as they must have known from the start that it would), it was stretched to 14. An interminable story became sheer agony. Once again Diana acted without thinking. Once again, the Amazons around her were slaughtered because of her actions. Once again we saw how self-centered she was, even as her friends died around her. But even the gods bowed before her, announcing that she was their messiah who would set things right. We were told that the “other,” previous version of Wonder Woman was completely inferior to this one, all hail the new.

And that was the reason they had created her: to be relatable, to be better. She was neither. Whenever TPTB say that WW needs to be relatable, I get the distinct impression that they mean she needs to grow a penis. It can be a blue penis, a mutant penis, a fishy penis, a metal penis—just so it’s there.

Well, at least they got a lot of publicity because this version had the audacity to wear pants.

But as Wonder Woman fans all know, even the worst of stories has to end sometime. New 52 came upon us and without internal explanation, many of the characters of the DCU were rebooted or at least significantly changed.

DC promised that this time she’d REALLY be relatable. No, really and truly. With sugar on it. And they were going to go back to her roots, the essence of what made Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman.

Admitting that he didn’t do much research on Wondie, the new writer, Brian Azzarello, declared that the essence of Wonder Woman was mythology because of its richness of source. Now, granted that mythology IS a rich source of creative material, it is not the essence of Wonder Woman.

She is Empowerment. More exactly: Positive Empowerment. Because of her, the world and its people are made better.

Azz also declared that WW would now be a horror book. The DCnU carries a substantial amount of horror in its line. DC as a company has been getting darker and darker since... well, noticeably since DiDio came on board. Now it seems DC wants to be the new EC Comics (and has forgotten the fallout from that).

Besides, Wonder Woman is not a horror character.

She may flirt with horror stories on occasion, but she does not stall out in that genre, preferring to surface in more hopeful and enlightening climes for the majority of her adventures.

Wonder Woman is a star because her readers love her and are inspired by her, not because she’s more badass than the badasses around her.

So far we’ve seen four issues of this new “Wonder Woman,” and have yet to catch any kind of clear (positive) glimpse as to who she might be. She doesn’t seem to be that important to the ambiance or story. She is a skilled fighter who works with ancient weapons (like Hawkman or Xena), and we’ve had one scene in which she’s demonstrated super-breath (like Superman).

But mostly we’ve seen her like Xena, Warrior Princess, with an unsmiling version of Marvel’s Hercules thrown in. That’s why I have to call this character


She is certainly not Wonder Woman.

I have nothing against Xena, but I never cared for her. Her stories never required much thought to watch. In fact the less you thought, the better they probably were. And the costume design of the show was strictly from hunger. (Even though Xena stole her outfit from Diana via a leather tailor.)

The new book is also oddly angled. First, the gods all walk around like normal folks (like they did on Xena and the TV version of Hercules). The DCU already has plenty of gods, but they wear spandex and capes. To not differentiate between gods and capes to me is a serious misstep. In a world where capes are the everyday, gods should be special.

The men gods are all clothed. The women gods are not so much. There has been an effort made to modernize and badass-erize the gods, except for Hera, who is kept in the misogynistic Second Millennium BCE. She longs for love and whines when, again and again, she is betrayed by her husband. Childlike, she lashes at those whom she perceives as sinning against her—except the true villain.

This from the goddess of marriage. Heck, she’s the goddess of women, and women are an important part of the Wondie mythos. If we care to research a bit, Hera was one of the original Earth Goddesses, usurped when non-Goddess-worshippers invaded the area and took over by having their head god honcho wed the local head honchess god, and keep her “in her place.”

Is this kind of depiction really what an edgy, 21st Century DC Comics wants to utilize? Why modernize all the gods EXCEPT Hera?

Apollo (clothed), the god of the sun itself, is a being of darkness. (???) He creates oracles out of three innocent women and then murders them when they’ve done the temporary job he wanted, even though they never sinned against him. Wha?

Hermes (clothed) is in his old position as Jokester Friend to the Amazons/Mankind.

Strife (slightly dressed in teasing strips of cloth; given a rather androgynous look) is an evil, conniving bitch. Good for her.

Hera we’ve already discussed, but she’s naked under a loose cloak of feathers, which hangs open on her. She’s already had one extended “I’m changing my clothing” scene that teases us with nudity and has her winding up in some kind of harem outfit. (Some of the Amazons also like the harem look.)

Zeus is presented naked, but he’s in the act of seduction.

Ares is an old geezer, being set up for further use. He wears clothes.

That’s an awful lot of gods for the book. Was it intended be be called The Olympians (with “Wonder Woman”)? The Percy Jackson fans might be interested in that.

We have the “innocent civilian” introduced who is Zola. For a long time she runs around in just a tank top, open shirt, and seamless panties. Apparently she is a “modern woman,” you know, “sexually liberated,” out for quick sexual thrills, who can’t even recall that she slept with Zeus.

Zeus, king of the gods. Whose stories of conquest were always memorable. Whom Hippolyta describes dazzlingly as “more than a man... a god... THE god.” But Zola can’t pick him out of a crowd of lovers.

When told by Hermes that she is pregnant, Zola says, “Oh, sh--“ That seems to be her only reaction. She, a “free spirit,” is not seen wondering how this will affect her life, if she will keep the baby, if she will raise it, how she will raise it, or even if she can get a home pregnancy kit to find out if any of this is actually true. Wouldn’t one think she was on some kind of birth control to lead the life she loved, or is she just stupid? Or is she just a cardboard character, not thinking in any way like a woman would?

Also, this is another instance of the lack of positive emotion in the book. Sex is sex, with no real relationship or commitment desired except by the old-fashioned ball-and-chain, Hera. It seems a very macho mindset.

Can we get to Diana? We are introduced to her as she sleeps. Naked, of course. Not only naked, but with the sheets drawn up to her hips so we not only have a good look at her her shoulders and back but her legs as well. She also gets an extensive “getting dressed” scene.

Y’know, I didn’t notice any preponderance of “getting dressed” scenes in any of the comics concerning male heroes that I read.

Once we get through the gore of Hera butchering a horse to create two centaurs (not one of the classical techniques to make centaurs. Guess those weren’t bloody enough), Diana arrives on scene to head-butt the one and slice the other’s arm off with her sword. Though she has the lasso at her side, she doesn’t use it—even though lassos and horses go so naturally together.

When we arrive on Paradise Island, we discover that Diana has led a loser’s life there, where no one liked her except her mother and perhaps Dessa (a renamed Philippus?). She’d been mocked as “Clay” as a child because of her clay origin.

Of course the Amazons as a group are quite detestable. They complain about the “putrid musk” of males and necessity of castration, as well as voice their disapproval of all things Diana.

We get a nice action sequence as Diana takes on the loudest of her detractors. The scene doesn’t require any emotion from Diana, which is a good thing since she seems incapable of feeling anything besides despair over being such a loser.

Empowerment. Remember that.

After a (yawn) massacre of Amazons by Strife, Diana and her group return to the outer world, where they visit a club. Zola has now found some short-shorts to add to her outfit, and tells Hermes that Diana’s having a great time, sharing in her community.



Look at that expression of bliss! Diana says, “It did feel liberating to get lost for a while.” Such deep emotion!

To cover such a feminine admission, Diana grinds a broken wine glass into Strife’s hand. (And it hurts the goddess. No, really.)

So Diana is delegated the “I don’t belong” loser role. Joy.

Let’s see. We also get a completely new origin story for Diana, something the creators gloated about. Clueless. Anyway, we see that Hippolyta met up with Zeus, knowing that he was husband to her goddess and to be with him would be the ultimate betrayal (who cares? Immediate gratification is the only goal in the modern world), and is swept off her feet by him as they fight each other. (How macho.) We get 12 panels of Diana’s conception just for shock value. (Perhaps it’s to offset the cliché of the situation. Bad enough when they linked Zeus to Cassie.)

Of course, “real” heroes like Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, and Flash don’t need such extensive conception scenes. (Probably because their creators would like us to forget that they had mothers.) But Wonder Woman does.

It is interesting that when the nu DC couldn’t make Wonder Woman a man, they then inserted a giant, lightning-spewing mythic penis into her origin. “Oh, but everyone has a father,” I’ve heard the argument given. Yet I can think of several male comics characters who don’t have mothers. And none of them has ever been called an icon.

Wonder Woman was an Amazon because that was one of the extremely few venues from which an emancipated female could have emerged in the 1940s and been respected immediately for herself. The addition of the Galatea-like birth elevated Diana’s standing. She was one of very few female characters in comics, made to be a dominant hero. Now she cast off all male chains, both genetic and cultural, to stand up as a symbol of the Possibilities of Womankind. She didn’t have to fight through male prejudice and conditioning to get where she was; she arrived on scene as Uncompromised Woman.

From there she had to deal with a male-centric world, and that was intriguing in itself.

DC says, “Oh, but she should have a father. Everyone has a father.” DC, a reminder: you are creating MYTHS here. Modern-day legends on interstellar scales. A woman without a father falls right into that definition. Don’t make your leading lady ordinary by giving her a father.

Isn’t it already demeaning that you’ve taken away her princess-ly glamour and her pride and accomplishment of being Amazon Champion? Isn’t it bad enough that you’ve stripped the ingrained love from her life, the love that used to shine from her attitude as she helped the world?

Once again, we come back to how false love is, how women look for it to find it’s really a lie. When Hera confronts Hippolyta, for some ungoddessly reason Hera’s convinced that Zeus loves Hippy, which is why she cannot forgive, no matter how abjectly Hippolyta apologizes. (As if. I mean. And Hippy should know that EVERY TIME a god lay with a female, a child resulted. EVERY TIME. My college myth teacher knew that, so Hippy should as well. And Hippy shouldn’t be stupid.)

But I get the impression that women are just a tad dumber than the men in this book, except for Strife, who’s very mannish anyway.

Speaking of familial love, we discover that adopted kids aren’t as loved as blood-related kids. That’s what Diana has believed her entire life. What kind of relationship must she have had with her mother to make her think this?

Gore. Depression. Anti-love. Ain’t those just the best Wonder themes?

Wait, Diana’s over in Justice League, in a story that happens 5 years before the stories the rest of the DCU are experiencing. In this we learn from comments about Diana:

“Just don’t provoke her.” She slit an armed kidnapper’s throat in front of the kids he was holding. She was raised to fight. “She’s skewering people!” “She swings that sword with a smile.” “Diana’s always looking for a fight!”

Diana says that fighting the darkness of the Outer World is what she’s here for. She also relates that all her life she was treated like a child. She’s done with people telling her what to do.

Within the pages of WW in her new outfit—which was supposed to have pants until fans got that plan revoked, at least for a while—Diana comes across as barrel-chested, thunder-thighed, and tiny-headed. Like the others in her book, her limbs are stretched to uncomfortable lengths. Her costume no longer contains the vibrant gold elements, and she wears (in JLA) a silly headband instead of tiara, plus a goofy neckband like you’d see on someone dressed up as a prostitute at Halloween. She carries a sword, but in none of the books I’ve seen so far (and I’m waiting until they go down in price to buy the latest ones), does she carry a scabbard. In one story she didn’t have a way to sheath the sword and so had to use it as an extended hand in dealing with a child.

Classy.

Again and again I get the impression in this book that in order to be strong, a woman has to surrender her femininity. In order to be strong, a woman has to go all the way over: past masculinity to machismo.

I remember a Wonder Woman whose feminine aspects made her memorable. Who gloried in being a woman, and who was able to balance her yin and yang aspects while respecting both sides of herself.

Here’s a piece of wisdom I picked up from a number of writing workshops about what to remember when creating characters and situations. I keep it posted front and center on my office wall:



All in all, there are no characters in this book to care about or like, unless one looks at the uber-sarcastic version of Hermes. Gore and self-loathing drip from each page. Why should I care about any of 'em?

Just because a woman wears some spangles doesn't mean she's Wonder Woman.

DC has done the unimaginable: they have stripped Wonder Woman completely of her self-respect.

It will take a LOT to save this mess. Probably the easiest fix is to reboot—which DC will likely be doing within five years.

In the meantime, I’ll still be searching for Wonder Woman.

---
Before I go, let me point out that I’ve just reissued my first book, a superhero romance, Touch of Danger. It’s available for free from Smashwords in all e-formats, and is 99¢ from Amazon until they figure out that Smashwords is giving it away, in which case it’ll probably be free. As soon as I get to check my sample copy, you’ll be able to buy the print version from Amazon (and other places) for a little over $10.00. Check my website for a contest concerning reviews!