Amazons Attack ended Wednesday, and I got a look at the last few pages even though I dropped the miniseries long ago. A number of readers have proclaimed that “Will Pfiefer killed Wonder Woman” and I’ve taken it upon myself in my personal blog to tell them (in a few admittedly not very polite posts) that they are overreacting a bit. The usual fighting has commenced, and it leaves me thinking about exactly why I dropped the miniseries. Strangely enough, it wasn’t for any of the more prominent criticisms.
(Yes, I am about to nitpick this miniseries after I just spent two days telling people they were overreacting to it.)
I started out happy that Hippolyta was back to life, and looking forward to seeing the issue play out. The continuity didn’t bother me because despite Jiminez’s reform storyline, the two tribes of the Amazons were still in character. The Themiscyran half (Hippolyta’s tribe, these are the benevolent peacekeepers who spent 3000 years on the island) of the Amazon population was very very used to following a monarchy and the Bana Migdall half (Hippolyta’s sister Antiope’s tribe, a group of bloodthirsty Egyptian Amazons that moved onto Themiscyra sometime during either Perez or WML’s run) was extremely bloodthirsty and had continued to be so. Hippolyta actually did, and still does, come off as better than she did in the William Messner-Loebs run. There was, as always, the serious chance of mind control or magical manipulation, but the series had all of the setup of a classic “Diana intervenes and makes peace between her birth-home and her adopted home” plot. The writing wasn’t very good in either the main Wonder Woman series or the Amazons Attack miniseries, but it had the beginnings of an interesting plot.
Except in the first few pages of the second issue, I lost all interest in buying the rest of the book. It had nothing to do with how the nameless Amazons were written, or how Hippolyta was written, or even how Diana was written. It actually came down to a few background characters.
The first two were in the first issue, the two male tourists in Washington DC. Pfiefer showed us a sweet little scene of a father teaching his son, and then had the Amazons kill them both mercilessly. I’ve actually defended this scene in the past, because it could have been both in and out of character. There was still a mind control option, and it also had me thinking back to the Perez era where the Banas were shown to be in the wrong because they were so brutal towards men. Pfiefer didn’t differentiate between the two tribes, but not every writer handles their exposition in the first issue. The Amazons intended target in this issue, the President of the United States (a man, just in case you doubted it), was saved by Black Lightning.
What got me here was the second issue. In the first few pages of that issue, a fighter pilot is getting chastised by her superior officer over the radio for not paying attention to the radio. You can tell the pilot is female, because of a lock of blonde hair that hangs over her forehead and later when we get a look at her breasts beneath the flight suit.(I’ve seen women in USAF flight suits by the way, and that uniform does not have that sort of definition around a female chest.). She gets hit in the throat with an arrow (yes, an arrow breaks the glass and goes into the cockpit) and pulls the ejection lever. You can lands in front of a group of Amazons. In a blatant violation of the Law of Armed Conflict, the Amazons execute her. The Justice League shows up after the pilot dies Two pages later, the Jefferson monument is falling on a tourist. This tourist is a woman wearing pink and purple, with a feminine haircut. She gets saved by Green Lantern, who gives her a winning smile and a joke about how fragile she is.
I dropped the story there. At that very page. I found out the rest through friends spoiling the events and the clerk in the comic book store showing me the last few pages to see if I’d get angry. (I find out a lot through the guys in the comic book store pointing stuff out to see if I get angry. I’m apparently as entertaining in person as I am online.)
I can see, for narrative purposes, no one saving the tourists in the first issue. But that fighter pilot? The JLA had to arrive just two panels too late to save her? What was the point of that? Why couldn’t she be saved too? Why is only the “good woman” saved?
I’ve touched on this before, but the bottom line is that two issues into this we see two people who are subverting gender roles (a caretaker father, a military woman) murdered brutally. On its own, that probably wouldn’t bother me. Its that the people who were fitting into their assigned gender roles (Male world leader; female innocent bystander who wears pink and cries for help) were saved by superheroes. The symbolism was just plain bad. It seemed too much like they were punishing people for stepping outside the box there. (No, I don’t think this was on purpose, but I’m a little freaked out by the idea that they can conform to existing social roles so perfectly without meaning to — that woman was even wearing pink for heaven’s sake!)
And the actual storyline in the foreground just wasn’t good enough to overlook the unsettling messages in the background. It can’t be refuted at the end because where women and men belong is not an idea that was brought up verbally in the story, but one that was put there in the plot. The universe supports this setup. It was part of the rules of the story. I don’t want to read “Be a good little girl and a handsome man will save you” stories, especially not when I pick up a Wonder Woman event. That’s not what Wonder Woman is for.

August 31st, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Wow…I’m not sure I agree with your take on the symbolism of gender roles here but it is certainly food for thought.
August 31st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I just think the book was badly written, period.
August 31st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
It was like a puzzle with pieces from other puzzles that they forced together. The only interesting thing about the entire series was the last page.
August 31st, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I didn’t realize the writing was so deep, but what you said makes a lot of sense. I just was disappointed that the Amazons made no distinction between the civilians and the soldiers–all males were enemies. That’s a terrible tangent to how even Iraqi civilians are treated as hostiles, and how the US bombed civilian areas in Iraq for just a chance to get maybe one Iraqi leader.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:59 pm
I drown my sorrows in Kingdom Hearts videos, for some reason.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
My letter to Will Pfeifer (left on his blog):
Dear Mr. Pfeifer,
Word on the Internet is that you were basically handed this story pre-plotted by DC editorial, and that you basically scripted the plot points. I don’t know how true that is, but since I am a huge fan of your H-E-R-O, CATWOMAN and AQUAMAN, I’m hoping it is indeed true. You couldn’t have possibly conceived AMAZONS ATTACK.
My issues with it are legion, but my biggest gripe is that the story, as a premise, is highly illogical—even in the magical universe of serialized fiction.
First, the Amazons would have never attacked the U.S. preemptively—even if prodded to do so by a Circe-infected Hippolyta. Why wouldn’t they? Because:
1. They’ve been down this road before and they know where it leads.
2. They have prior experience with Circe and know her to be a master manipulator (Circe has done something incredibly similar to the Amazons before). They wouldn’t have trusted her, no matter what she claimed. They also know that Diana can take care of herself, so they wouldn’t have feared for her safety.
3. The Amazon nation was no longer a monarchy. Hippolyta and Diana abolished that system of government before Hippolyta perished. Thus, Circe-infected Hippolyta’s demands held no political weight.
4. Phillipus and Artemis, the representatives of the true and current democratic nation of Themyscira, would have never allowed this. They would have certainly done more than say to Hippolyta, “This isn’t the Amazon way” as she chopped the head off of an innocent camera man.
5. The excuse that the U.S. wanted their Purple Death Ray technology also falls flat as a reason for war since the Amazons, and their nation, were removed from this reality. The U.S. had no way of making good on any efforts to obtain the Purple Death Ray since Themyscira-and its technology-was in another plane of existence.
This story actually would have made a tad bit of sense if the Amazons were being told to fight this war by Granny-Goodness-Athena since Athena is their patron goddess and they would have been compelled to obey even if they disagreed. But Granny-Goodness-Athena was actually against the war from the very beginning and made her position clear from the very beginning.
AMAZONS ATTACK was obviously a means to an editorial end, satiating corporate desire to rid Wonder Woman of those aspects of her mythos deemed “unprofitable” or “impenetrable.” I’m not sure why the human intellect is so vastly underrated at DC (or perhaps, particularly when it comes to Americans, I DO understand), but I for one loved all of the things that made Wonder Woman different from traditional superheroes: her intellect, her politics, her feminine strength, her mythology. Maybe I was in the minority.
Nevertheless, I believe a grave injustice was committed with this mini-series. It’s been careless and thoughtless—except for its loyalty to the almighty God of profit (but even that hasn’t being mindful of the long term). It’s been a cannibalization of sorts: Amazons that no longer know that they’re Amazons dispersed throughout the world (didn’t DC similarly anesthetize the White Martians in JLA?); Olympian Gods of vast power conveniently and mysteriously defeated off-panel by second-rate New Gods who have never displayed the level of power required to accomplish such a feat; psychotic, murderous Amazons who live up to every misogynist, fear-baiting, misguided thought that has ever been held of them. And I think it’s a shame that someone of your talent is associated with it all—and of course the poor, brilliant Pete Woods.
I used to think that DC had it in for Wonder Woman (and this mini-series has done nothing to dispel the thought); that there was just a blatant disrespect and disregard for the character that was so engrained in the corporate mindset that it became hidden in plain sight. And I thought that resentment stemmed from—besides the obvious “What’s this ‘girl’ doing in our Men’s Club?” mentality—the fact that DC HAD to publish Wonder Woman, whether they wanted to or not, or lose their rights to the character altogether. But I’ve taken a peek at what they’ve done (or more specifically, what they haven’t done) with Superman and I see that they have enough disrespect for their properties to spread around. The only character that seems to escape their machinations is The Bat-God (also evident in this mini-series). I wonder if that’s because Bob Kane and (presumably) his known relatives are dead and there’s no one left to sue DC for custody.
What’s worse is that the powers-that-be at DC will probably analyze the negative feedback that this series has garnered—and its less-than-spectacular performance on the sales charts (as well as its effects on the sales of the tie-in issues)—and view it as a result of the “inherent flaws” in and “disdain” for the Wonder Woman character herself, when nothing could be further from the truth. If they would simply look at Allan Heinberg’s debut issue of the current series, or Greg Rucka’s final issues of the previous series, they’d see that it’s possible to sell a WONDER WOMAN comic without destroying everything that makes Wonder Woman wonderful. What the powers-that-be consistently fail to realize is this: you can’t bake a delicious chocolate cake, cover it in feces instead of frosting, put it on sale, and then, when it doesn’t sell, come to the conclusion that people must not like chocolate cake.
Respectfully, what I believe people must not like is feces.
Cordially,
Bobby
August 31st, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Dear Robert “Bobby” Jones, Jr,
While I appreciate that your letter was meant for Mr. Pfiefer, I feel I must answer it because it was used in response to my own essay.
I touched upon most of your numbered points in the post above but your letter format makes it difficult to engage what you said without simply repeating what I already wrote.
I also find your last few paragraphs to be a bit tangential, but that is probably because I have already addressed them (and similar theories) on my personal blog. May I please refer you to here, here, and here for a more in-depth conversation on those topics? Please note that any comments to those posts are best made on the comment threads for the posts themselves and not in this thread.
Thank you,
Lisa
September 1st, 2007 at 8:43 am
I’m sorry. It won’t happen again.