Diana writes a Book! Part 2

[espanolbot]

Continued from here,
http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/1945582.html?#cutid1

Issue 197
Back on the publicity trail!


While this is going on, Veronica Cale is a'schemin',



The action then cuts briefly to a public relations company in New York, where they are assembling a fairly large document detailing how Diana's book can be deconstructed to critise her for a group called "Protect Our Children", who believe that Diana's out to corrupt the youth of America.

An empolyee of the PR company that is sympathetic to Diana hands the document to her embassy staff instead, who use the notes in a debate that I will be posting shortly.

Diana is distracted from the campaign trail by a blue bird telling her about a large forest fire in Colorado that the Flash is having difficulty dealing with, so she take a break to go and give him a hand. Unfortunately for her, "giving a hand" means allowing the forest to burn so that the new plants would have a chance to grow, and these supposedly apathetic words are caught by a near by TV crew.

Wonder Woman goes back on the promotion circuit,





Issue 198
Fallout from Diana's comments regarding forest fires reaches her staff as it's used to fuel the furnace of the criticism against her book,




Hm, firing point. Any relation to a certain "debate" show that Jon Stewart got cancelled a couple of years back? Or his equivalent in the DCU, maybe that stand-in they had for him in the 'Public Enemies' DVD movie they made?

Anyway, the debate between Diana's head of staff and Keyes, the head of the protest group that have been campaigning against her book,




And that's pretty much it for the things in the series regarding Diana's book, except her the two group of protesters being turned into a violent mob by Dr Psycho anyways.

Basically both the Amazons and the US government end up with a lot more things to worry about than just someone's book of essays, which I'm sure that Bluefall or someone could explain a lot more coherently than I can.

There are however, a couple of pages from the back of the trade this storyline was collected in, 'Down to Earth', that had opinions and fake articles regarding 'Reflections', Diana and the Amazons, but I'm not sure if I can fit them in under the work count as the trade doesn't specify if they're trade-only things.

If someone let me know if they're in the issues or not it'd be great, as they're interesting and I'd like to post them if the rules permit me to.

Title: wonder woman
creator: greg rucka

Comments

[sailorlibra]

I object to the accusation that atheism is "flat-out wrong" in the DCU. Just because Gods exist does not mean that people are obliged to worship them. Not to mention that what makes one a god is relative. Superman and Zatanna are not gods, though they are as powerful as some of those who are gods.

I don't think the existence of "real gods" is common knowledge in the world outside of Themyscira either. Hermes has traveled there, as has Hades, but neither did anything sufficiently impressive, IIRC, to establish them as being more powerful than a superhero/supervillain.

[halialkers]

Atheism states flat-out that there are no gods.

Mortals are not required to worship them, but Strong Atheism is definitely wrong as regards the DCU, because not only is there God, but there's umpty-dozen pantheons running around.

I thought that Big Barda, say, was considered a Goddess. As is Darkseid. At least Big Barda does interact with people on a daily basis.

Atheism in the sense that Gods don't exist is completely and utterly wrong in the DCU. That's not the way it is in real-life but in Real-life Darkseid doesn't appear and take over the world in a matter of days, either.

[sailorlibra]

None of those pantheons ever seems to come in contact with "real" people. Big Barda, who does, does not broadcast the fact that she is a demi-god. I don't believe Darkseid tends to be open with that fact either, but no one would believe him if he was.

There are so many powerful beings in the DCU that it's hard to decide who is a god and who isn't. For real godhood, it basically comes down to who has the most worshippers. I don't really think the average person in the DCU would consider Darkseid any more of a god than Superman. The only gods who really are considered gods are those with worshippers, really.

The pantheons seem to have limited amounts of worshippers--the Greek one having perhaps a few thousand Amazons at most. And the Greek one is probably the largest one. Most people do not believe in the existence of these gods. Most people do not know about them. They have an effect on the lives of very few people. Why are people wrong to disbelieve in gods whose existence has not been confirmed and who will probably never affect their lives, even if these gods do exist?

[seriousfic]

...I would worship Barda.

[espanolbot]

On of the parts that I had to cut out here included the Greek pantheon reading Diana's book, and Zeus throwing a hissyfit because he's only mentioned once whilst Hera and co. are mentioned dozens of times.

Plus it's implied that the Greek Pantheon are getting increasing numbers of new worshippers because of Diana's book, but Zeus is using the opportunity to boink unknowing teenage girls in Minnesota, who attracted his attention by praying too much.

Generally the way that the likes of Mr Terrific, Batman and co. justify their atheism in the face of being on the same teams as Magog, Zauriel etc. is exactly that there are so many equally powerful beings in the DCU, that the angels, God and co. could just be another bunch of superadvanced interdimensional aliens.

[halialkers]

Except that atheism states that there are no gods. Full-stop. In the DCU, there is a massive number of pantheons. Both atheism and monotheism really should not have been possible to rise from the perspective of the DCU itself.

[kamino_neko]

No, there are a massive number of incredibly powerful, long lived beings who claim to be gods.

Nothing in their claim means they have to be believed - especially in the face of equally, or more, powerful, and long-lived beings who DON'T claim to be gods.

When Zatanna can do anything you can do with a couple backwards words, your claim to be a deity gets severely weakened.

[halialkers]

Yet in Final Crisis Darkseid is both revived by prayer and kills the Universe by merely existing. So yes, Gods not only exist, they achieve full-fledged mind-control and reality-warping. So I mean, if Darkseid and Imperiex are both present and witnessed, the case for atheism in the DCU becomes the mirror opposite case to what would be the case in Lovecraft's Universe, where the "gods" really *are* uber-powerful aliens.

[jlbarnett]

doesn't Atheism literally mean without gods? It could therefore mean the atheist is without gods rather than the universe itself.

[halialkers]

Like with every other philosophy save solipsism atheism tends to assume it holds true for more than the individual human being that adopts it.

[sailorlibra]

And I don't really think that Christian people have any contact with their god at all--at least while still living. I mean, yes, there is the Spectre, but he could easily be considered an over-powered superhero/supervillain. Other than that, they have no contact with their god or any reason to believe that he exists. Though he does. So why is it "flat-out wrong" for atheists to not believe in him? Most believe have had little contact with gods, other than by word of mouth from those who have--such as Diana. Which makes them not really any different than those in our world who are atheist despite the claims of some that they have felt/seen/smelled a god.

TL;DR - I don't think atheism is any worse in the DCU than it is in the "real world."

[halialkers]

Because if atheism requires that there are no Gods but then there's the Wrath and the Mercy of God running around, then it becomes rather problematic to believe that the world is entirely bereft of supernatural forces as Strong Atheism states. If Hercules is walking among men in day to day life, then it becomes rather problematic to say there are no Gods when Gods are fighting crime in the street.

[aegof]

Only if you believe people when they say they are, or work for gods.
And with Superman and Green Lantern about, being pretty emphatic about not being gods, there's no reason to.

[halialkers]

And when one of the JLA actually *is* an archangel of Heaven?

How exactly does one qualify Zauriel and Asmodel as metas? What kind of meta would deliberately pattern him or or herself after the angels and demons of Medieval theology?

[espanolbot]

Maybe they're very long-lived and it's the other way around? In Marvel, for example, angels and demons of myth are/were allegedly based on the original mutants whose appearence inspired people's ideas of what those mythic beings looked like.

[halloweenjack]

Daredevil?

[aegof]

"Why should I believe he's an archangel of Heaven? He just looks like a dude with wings and body paint to me. I mean, don't get me wrong, he's got a nice style and all--put him in a line-up of wing dudes and I can pick him out in a second--but that doesn't mean he's an angel."

And I can't figure out what might be stopping a meta from modeling him or herself after angels and demons. Those things are awesome and we've been basing things on them for ages.

[khamelea]

Believing in the existence of a specific god and not worshipping it still excludes atheism, I would say. Atheism isn't synonymous with the absence of religious practice.

As for the thing about recognizing a supernaturally powerful being as a god, well I always thought that was an interesting question. I guess in a universe where these things are established fact, the position "but they're not gods" is the equivalent to atheism... but it's different. I think the question just moves to a different level where the concept of atheism isn't relevant.

The Athar in Planescape had pretty much that position.

[khamelea]

To be clear, when I say "not relevant," I don't mean "wrong." I mean it doesn't apply as well to what is possibly a whole different question. It's true, though, that just because some supernatural being shows up that any of its claims to authority, creatorship or to any specific nature aren't in question.

[halialkers]

In strong atheism there can't be a supernatural to start with.

[karthzon.livejournal.com]

You are wrong.

[halialkers]

Except strong atheism means that supernatural beings cannot exist full-stop.

So, if the supernatural *is* real, then Strong Atheism is disproven by virtue of that simple fact.

[khamelea]

That's really not the definition of "strong atheism" that I'm familiar with, and not one that I think is very useful. I've always seen "strong atheism" used as a synonym for "positive atheism:" belief that gods don't exist, as opposed to "negative atheism" which is the simple absence of belief in gods. Nothing to do at all, in fact, with extending what is not believed in to the entire range of the supernatural (whatever that is defined as at the moment.)

It seems counterintuitive to take atheism and extend it well beyond some opposition with "theism" just with appending a qualifier.

In any case, the same considerations I was trying to present about "what is a god" in the face of a godlike being in a fictional universe also apply to apparently supernatural elements.

[halialkers]

Except that Gods very much do physically exist in the DC and Marvel Universes, which is where the problem comes in, full-stop. When Thor's on the Avengers and wields Mjolnir and fights the Midgard-Orm, how can anyone claim with a straight face that there is no God or that there is one God?

Monotheism itself is as discredited in a world where Gods run around willy-nilly as atheism is. So these kind of Fundies themselves are problematic from another POV.

[khamelea]

"When Thor's on the Avengers and wields Mjolnir and fights the Midgard-Orm, how can anyone claim with a straight face that there is no God or that there is one God? "

Like has been said earlier: by questionning the godhood of these beings. That someone is going around calling himself Thor doesn't necessarily means that he is THE Thor and that his father Odin is THE Odin, the all-father, who has the same origin, standing, role and authority that old Scandinavian mythology ascribed to him. Godhood or just godlike powers?

We, the readers, are told that these are gods, and there's an Asgard and so on. Someone in the actual fictional universe, with a slightly lesser vantage point would be remiss if they were to take any claims of godhood and of mythological identity at face value (the same thing is true of human beings making these claims about themselves in the real world, but the addition of manifestly superhuman powers make the claim less extraordinary, but not necessarily that credible in a world with powers coming from many different sources.)

What I was saying earlier is that I don't think that this fictional skeptical position is exactly atheism, but it's the equivalent. I don't think I'd agree that a Thor and an Athena showing up disproves atheism, but that sort of thing would shift the considerations of all sort of philosophical position somewhat. But it's the equivalent of atheism, there's no break.