Deconstructing Diana: Greg Rucka

By Tim O'Shea

Greg Rucka is the type of writer that many storytellers wish they could be, both in terms of critical recognition and commercial success—inside and outside of the comics industry. At present, his work is available at Oni Press (Queen & Country), Marvel (Wolverine), and DC Comics (Wonder Woman, Gotham Central, Batman: Death and the Maidens and very soon The Adventures of Superman). Next week marks the release of Wonder Woman 200, an important milestone in the series itself, as well as a pivotal issue in Rucka’s run (which started with issue 195) on the book. With the issue’s release fast approaching, Rucka recently took some time to discuss Wonder Woman, as well as his perspective on other matters. SBC wishes to thank Rucka for his time and thoughts, as well as DC Comics’ Adam Philips for helping facilitate this interview.

Tim O’Shea: What is your goal/agenda (beyond constructing entertaining stories) in writing Wonder Woman, and do you think you're coming close to your goal, so far?

Greg Rucka: The primary goal has been pretty straightforward—to return Wonder Woman to her rightful place in the DC Trinity, and to illustrate why she deserves to be there in the first place. It’s far easier to justify Superman or Batman’s position at the top of the DC heap, but Diana has suffered from, amongst other things, a lack of visibility, as well as an absence of a clear motive and method.

So as far as that goes, I think we’ve done a solid job thus far—the first five issues of the run have really served to lay the foundation for what’s to come, to put all the pieces on the board into play, and to present our characterization of Diana in a clear and comprehensive fashion.

Wonder Woman 199 pretty much finished the job, as far as that goes. With issue 200, we’re off to the races.

TO: A quick visit to the Wonder Woman message board at DC reveals seemingly two responses (not surprisingly), pro and anti-Rucka. In an age where people are demanding more relevant/intelligent comics, are you surprised to read complaints along the lines of "less talking, more action"?

GR: No, I’m not surprised at all. If you write a mainstream comic these days, there are always going to be voices—some of them shrill—with criticism. Some of the criticism is more valid than others, and that just comes with the territory. Every writer knows that they’re never going to write a work everyone likes; it’s a given, and you either acknowledge it and move on, or never show the writing to anyone, ever.

Those people who want to see Diana punching Bad Guys, they’ve got three options as I see it; they can be patient and wait for it, because it’s coming, and anyone who has any sense of dramatic structure at all (meaning, say, that they’ve watched network television) knows that; they can drop the book and pick up one of the 97 other titles out there where there’s a fight every other page; or they can go to the back-issue bins. But I will not introduce a fight for the sake of a fight in any story I write, and I will not pander. I get 22 pages a month to tell the story I want to tell, and I’m going to do it my way. That’s my job, it’s what I’ve been hired to do, and I do it well enough that I can make a living at it.

The criticism that there’s “no action” is bullshit. There’s plenty of action, there’s just not a lot of violence. And considering who Wonder Woman is—the Themysciran Ambassador to the UN, an Amazon trained for war but bred for peace, a near-goddess blessed with the wisdom of Athena—violence is never going to be an ill-considered response. It’s against everything in her character. When Diana goes to the sword, she goes to the sword understanding precisely what that means, understanding just how unpredictable and dangerous violence is.

When Diana goes to the sword, it’s decisive, and precise, never undertaken in haste, nor without care. And to tell a story where Diana fights the Giant Evil Robot simply for the sake of having a fight, well… that’s another writer’s job, as far as I’m concerned. Not mine.

TO: As a character, you've really taken some unique steps with Diana's life/environment and #200 is no exception. Looking back on your approach to the character, as you've gotten to work with Diana over time, how much has your understanding of the character and her dynamics grown from Wonder Woman: The Hiketeia to now?

GR: I’ve always had very definite ideas about the character and her presentation, and those informed all of my early work with her. The more I write about Wonder Woman, though, the more I discover about her, and the more she continues to surprise me. She’s remarkably complex, and remarkably well-adjusted, especially considering the abundance of near-psychotic, neurotic, and generally dysfunctional characters one normally finds in superhero titles.

Hiketeia really only allowed for a very limited presentation of Wonder Woman, in that the story focused on only one facet of the character, and in a very particular, and unique, circumstance, where she was trapped by ritual and her own ethics. It was also written as a tragedy, blatantly so. As a result, she came across as both more ineffectual and somber than I think she normally is.

With the monthly, I have the luxury of putting her in more and more varied circumstances, where we can see all the facets of the character—her compassion and her love, as well as her passion and her strength. Like I said, the more I write her, the more I learn about her. She’s very much alive to me, and each script is—this’ll sound very Grant Morrison—but each script is like hanging out with her over coffee or some such. I’m getting to know her better and better.

TO: If the situation presented itself would you consider doing more mythological stories along the lines of "Stoned", your collaboration with Linda (Castle Waiting) Medley that appears in issue #200?

GR: Oh, absolutely. The mythology is incredibly rich stuff, and so much fun to muck around in. I’d love to do a project at some point that just retold some of the classic myths in comics form, and in an unsanitized fashion.

TO: How much of a framework of Reflections: A Collection of Essays and Speeches did you write for Wonder Woman? Looking at the Media Coverage element of Reflections in issue #200, it appears you've considered the fictional work (within a fictional work) from about every conceivable angle. What real world events influenced your approach toward the Reflections subplot (the public reaction to Reflections honestly reminded me of the response to Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses)? Did your experience with the publicity and promotion of your novels affect your portrayal of the marketing on Reflections?

GR: Before I actually started on the series, Ivan Cohen and I worked out a comprehensive outline of the first 12 issues of the run, and we knew from the start that Reflections would be a big part of the initial story. As a result, I had very detailed notes as to what the “book” contained, including some sample chapter titles and essay excerpts. For a variety of reasons, none of the actual essay pieces were ever published (and that may be for the best, actually), but it served me well, in that I knew what kind of topics Diana would be addressing, and what her “written” voice was, versus say her “speaking” voice in the comics.

The idea behind Reflections was less Salman Rushdie than the whole glut of right wing/left wing books that’ve been pouring onto the market since the Clinton administration. Al Franken on one side, Bill O’Reilly on the other, and where books used to be about ideas, now they seem to be about attacks, even if they didn’t start that way. As we imagined it, Reflections wasn’t anything but a book of ideas, a new way for Diana to promote her mission in the Partriarch’s World. But looking at it at all realistically, there was no way to justify not having a polarizing response. Wonder Woman published a book? It was guaranteed that she’d piss someone off, someplace.

My own publishing experience hasn’t been anywhere near as traumatic. The only real bits that I’ve drawn from my own experience were in the marketing, production, and promotion aspects, and even then, Diana is a much bigger name than I am. For her, a 40 city tour is a given; for me, if I do 10 cities, that’s enough, thank you. But the actual process of publishing a book, that I’m familiar with, and it certainly informed the writing.

TO: Injecting politics in a comic book, even when not taking a clear political stand, runs the risk of alienating the more knee-jerk political loyalists (on either side of the political equation). Did you hesitate at all when plotting WW, about utilizing political/philosophical themes? As important as the mythological aspects are to your treatment of the character, I sense her political duties/motivations are more crucial to you--am I right? Or are the mythology/real world politics in fact inextricably linked?

GR: They’re very much linked, if for no other reason than, in the context of the book, Diana herself is linked to both. And they provide both a contrast and a relief for one another.

Writing Diana as a political character has been a challenge, but I honestly can’t imagine any other way of writing her. She was created, way back when, to be political—in a way that no other character ever has been, at least, not to my knowledge—and I honestly think that’s one of the reasons that character has suffered in the past, that people have shied away from that fact.

It’s like anything else, though, in its own way. Every opinion breeds a counter, and that’s as it should be. We all knew that the moment Diana took a stance on anything, there would be people who would object, and shout and kick and scream. But one of the things we’ve tried to make clear, at least in the book, is that for Diana it isn’t about “I’m right, you’re wrong,” but that it’s about the debate, the discussion, the exchange of ideas and points of view. She’s a character of great conviction and integrity, and she is going to be passionate about what she believes; as a result, she’s going to be as passionate about the right to divergent opinion, and the need for all sides to be heard.

With all this in mind, though, there’s nothing quite so boring as a polemic, and that’s the last thing Wonder Woman should ever be. Her politics are a major element of the character, but that’s not all there is, and that’s not what the book should ever solely be about.

TO: How vital is Drew Johnson's art to the success of your Wonder Woman?

GR: That’s like asking if printing on paper is vital to publishing a comic book. Without Drew, there’s no book, honestly. I could write ‘til the cows came home, and it wouldn’t mean a damn thing if Drew couldn’t take the scripts and breathe life into them, to make them the visual delight that they are.

The fact is that we work very well together, and we keep setting the bar higher on each other, and that in turn helps the book.

TO: When 2003 began, did you ever imagine in 2004 you'd be writing all three DC icons--Superman, Batman (Death & the Maidens) and Wonder Woman? And as an aside, do you think you're the first comic creator to use Ariel Dorfman for inspiration in the Batman universe--or was the use of Death and the Maidens actually inspired by Franz Schubert (1797-1828 Austrian composer)?

GR: It was a bit of a shock, actually, when I was informed that I’d managed the hat trick. It was just blind coincidence, honestly; one that I’m still somewhat awed by. But I have to say, it’s a hell of an honor to be able to touch all three icons at once, to leave a mark on them, however slight.

The Death and the Maidens inspiration came from the Schubert first, actually, and I didn’t realize the can of worms I’d opened until much later, after we’d decided on the title. Has a lovely ring to it, though, doesn’t it?

Discuss this interview on the Feature Fiends Forum!