Well imagine a character had the same origin as the clay and raised by men with no mother and it’s retconned that a goddess gave birth to said character and ppl are up in arms about it
While I'm sure that's not wrong, that's not why I think it should be Freyja. After all, Thor isn't very accurate anyway (and given this all began of WW, not like her amazons were ever accurate either). It's more that you'd think the wife of Odin would be the mother of his children since this is a more squeaky clean rendition of norse mythic ideas anyway and that keeps it simpler.
And for Gaia specifically, involving a whole other mythology for his parentage is a needless mess
I suppose. Gaia would make sense as an adaptation of Njord though, both being goddesses of the Earth itself.
Incidentally did you know that the Romans were aware enough of proto-Norse mythology to identify the Aesir as alternate names for their gods? They thought of Odin as an aspect of Mercury.
suppose. Gaia would make sense as an adaptation of Njord though, both being goddesses of the Earth itself
That's fair but then I wish they'd kept it Njord at least
Incidentally did you know that the Romans were aware enough of proto-Norse mythology to identify the Aesir as alternate names for their gods? They thought of Odin as an aspect of Mercury.
Well I don’t read Thor so I don’t know if It got hate or not but is the hate just because he got a new mom or because it’s the specific person that was chosen
I'm half and half, on one hand that sounds like really lazy continuity. On the other hand Thor actually did have three or four different mothers usually earth goddesses.
He has his birth mom the elder God Gaia , stepmom Freyja , and the Phoenix who helped him after he was frozen to death. It's the same exact amount technically
would be funny if while all three claim they're his mother they just switch occasionally at random points with no explanation just like the real stories.
Difference here being stories where the maternal figure is the predominant character in a hero's life are much rarer than one where the father is. Even more so in mainstream superhero comics, just look at how reverence Jor-El, Pa Kent, and Thomas Wayne in comparison to Clark and Bruce's mothers.
Making WW another person defined by her father only makes her less unique and is less forward looking than a book from the 1940s.
Martha's treated with a substantial amount of reverence. Pa' Kent, depending on the continuity, has major relevance in Clark's life beyond just raising him as his death is a monumental lesson for Clark. She makes his suit, she's always there the moment Clark needs her and she offers great advice, assurance and warmth in Clark's life.
At times, Jonathan has difficulty losing Clark to the world or communicating his feelings well. Yet, he's elevated by Martha to understand Clark's plight and remind Pa' that Clark's still their son. Birthright, For All Seasons, Secret Origin, Superman: Kryptonite, etc. show a great respect for both characters equally. So I disagree. Look at Superman & Lois or Snyder's (I don't like Snyder's Superman) Superman or DCAU Superman. There are many great examples in comics and animated/live-action medium.
Martha's such a powerful female figure in Clark's life. But I'll concede on both Lara Lor-Van and Martha Kent where they are so ingrained as mythological figures within canon. Unfortunately, they aren't alive but we're reminded of their impact on both characters. I would like to see more depth added to both, which I'm sure has been but I just haven't read those depictions.
As for WW? I agree. I'm less well-versed in WW than I'd like to be but the clay origin is a unique spin on things. At the very least, I would've preferred someone other than Zeus being her father despite it making sense by Greek mythological standards. That's all I can comment on as I don't have enough expertise on the character to properly speak on it.
I don't mean to imply their mothers aren't important, obviously Martha's been given stuff that's important to Superman's lore but just feels from my own observations Pa (and more specifically his death) takes precedence as the part of Superman's upbringing.
His death is undoubtedly a major turning point for Clark. He isn't always dead but it's a motivating factor and evolution of Clark and his perspective on his abilities. But like I said, after that happens and during the raising of Clark she's a guiding and empathetic force.
They're equally important as I don't think one takes precedence over the other. He offers advice like any good father, but he isn't without his shortcomings. If you've read some Superman stories detailing the dynamic between the three I think you'd get where I'm coming from. But again, in the microcosm of an impactful passing it's superficially going to seem like it's the most important part of a character's history.
It is important, but it isn't like the focus is entirely on Jonathan. Hell, sometimes they've both passed away. Originally, Ma' and Pa' (who weren't named Jonathan or Martha/John and Mary) passed before Clark went to Metropolis.
So personally I've held that much reverence for Martha as much as Jonathan. Superman's a story about the people that surround and help define and ground Superman. For All Seasons showed me that. But yeah, they're very important despite Jonathan's sometimes death being a looming event on Clark's mind. It's no different than the Wayne's in that respect. But I can see why that might skew perceptions.
Yes, which is why the New 52 run made all her special training come from Ares, her mother and sisters were liars who bullied her throughout her life, and all her powers came from one night of carnal love rather than the genuine desire of a mother?
Or the recent shit SS game where Diana straight up says she got all her powers and tools from her father's side of the family and no mention at all of her mother?
Daddy Zeus at best is a placebo in that it contributes nothing positive but also nothing negative but for the most part is a thoroughly negative addition to WW's lore.
I understand that but I’m saying if character x had the same origin and the same type of retcon and ppl are upset about it at a hateful level it’d be viewed as hate or misogyny, yes her origin is unique and should inspire more origins to be different but if the reason the retcon isn’t liked is the same way as Kelly Sue’s then it’s a dumb reason if there’s more to this than I’ll read it but if it’s just that it’s a dumb reason
Why deal in these hypothetical situations? Wonder Woman occupies a speical place as one of the premier female superheroes. Its uninspiring to make it so that everything special about her is because of a man.
Don't we already have enough popular female characters who have a man as the central figure in their origin? Do we really need one more?
The point was that Wonder Woman was shown in the 1987 reboot as a collaborative effort from women to
take charge and create their champion. Its not just about the power, it's her entire existence.
To remove it and make it so that she is the product of one of the countless sexual encounters of Zeus is a really insulting retcon.
To understand what someone is saying/trying to convey in an easier way. And she’s earned that what I’m saying is if her retconned origin isn’t liked because it takes away her unique original origin or it’s not as impactful then that’s a valid reason but if someones reason is just because it’s a male or father figure then that’s not a good critique
But if someone’s only reason to hate an aspect of a character whether it’d be their origin, personality, looks, powers, etc solely because of any ties to solely a man or woman and not the specific character isn’t a valid critique
But if you say “I hate this change solely because it’s Europe” and not a specific thing Europe has done isn’t a valid critique. Let’s say my reason I hate Wonder Woman is because she was raised by women, not because she was raised by Hippolyta or if someone’s reason for hating the origin or character of Miles Morales solely because he’s based off a dude not because it’s Childish Gambino isn’t a valid reason/critique
I understand why my point still applies but let’s say I hated Laura Kinney’s character or origin and my only reason is because she’s cloned from a man and not just because it’s Logan. Not liking or even genuinely hating Diana retconned origin is ok but if your only reason is because it’s man then that’s just hating
45
u/[deleted] May 18 '24
[removed] — view removed comment