For 19 issues so far, this has been one of the most polarizing takes and the story feels like a regression rather than an evolution of Diana’s mythos. Tom King’s narrative choices raise questions about whether he truly understands the essence of the character.

King expressed that George Pérez’s run was the definitive run, however, his self proclaimed challenge seemed to serve as a critique of Pérez’s defining take that fundamentally alters & contradicts the themes & dynamics established making Pérez’s run such a landmark interpretation

Pérez’s Wonder Woman emphasized Diana’s Amazon heritage, the importance of Themyscira, and her mission of peace. He notably redefined Steve Trevor, removing him from the role of love interest and instead positioning him as a supportive, older-brother figure married to Etta Candy.

This allowed Wonder Woman’s story to focus more on her relationships with her fellow Amazons, the gods, and the larger world rather than being tethered to a romance.

King seems to be pushing the idea that Steve Trevor’s true and only role is to be Wonder Woman’s love interest and central motivation. In doing so, he contradicts the direction set by Pérez and reintroduces a narrative where Diana’s story revolves around a man.

Instead of mourning the tragic fate of her sisters, many of whom were murdered, imprisoned, or trafficked, Diana’s grief is entirely centered on Steve’s death. This shift reduces & sidelines key elements that made Pérez’s run so impactful.

Pérez emphasized the strength & wisdom of the Amazons, King has largely treated them as disposable. The narrative has depicted their brutal demise & systemic oppression, yet Diana’s response focuses more on avenging Steve than truly honoring or seeking justice for her sisters.

Pérez built a world where Wonder Woman’s relationships with her mother, her Amazon sisters, Julia and Vanessa Kapetalis and even the gods were integral to her character. His run explored deep philosophical and feminist themes about power, womanhood, and agency.

Despite King’s past criticisms of past runs that centered too much on her love interest and/or villains, his own story has placed Steve and Sovereign as the defining factors. Initially, as an attempt to challenge and break away from those tropes, King has doubled down on it.

Elizabeth “Lizzie” Marston Prince, is less of an organic development and more of a way to tie Diana’s legacy and prioritizes the narratives of male heroes over Wonder Woman’s own. Her only real connection in the larger DC Universe is to Jon Kent and Damian Wayne.

This reinforces that she was created to fit into the Super Sons dynamic rather than as a natural extension of Diana’s story.

Although this is a future to be prevented, the implication that Diana & the Amazons must be wiped out so that Trinity can be the last Amazon feels like a blatant erasure of Wonder Woman’s legacy, reducing her people to nothing more than a stepping stone for the next generation.

The execution of this idea is neither earned nor emotionally resonant. It simply feels like an editorial mandate and obviously King’s pet preference designed to create a new character at the expense of everything that makes Wonder Woman who she is.

The method of Lizzie’s conception is deeply problematic. Rather than being a child born out of Diana’s own desires or agency, Steve Trevor effectively coerces her into creating a child because of his death.

This robs Diana of personal choice, making it seem as though her motherhood exists only because of a man’s dying wish.  
Additionally, using the clay origin,  a deeply symbolic and feminist aspect of Wonder Woman’s mythology.

Tying it to Steve Trevor is a blatant disrespect to its original meaning. The clay origin was meant to emphasize Diana’s divine and independent creation, but King warps it into yet another moment where Diana’s story is dictated by a man.

Sovereign falls flat as a villain, failing to rise to the status of a Joker or Lex Luthor, lacking the depth and complexity necessary to fulfill such a role. The climax in issue #19, intended as the culmination of their conflict, was disturbingly confusing and anticlimactic.

Diana’s grief over Steve overshadows her duty to her people, making it seem as though her motivation only exists because a man was killed, rather than the destruction of her entire sisterhood.  
This fundamentally contradicts what has historically made Wonder Woman a unique hero.

She is not defined by loss in the same way that Batman is, nor by personal relationships in the way Superman often is. Her mission has always been greater than any one individual, yet King reduces her to an avenging lover rather than a champion of peace and justice.

The fact that her mourning is directed so singularly at Steve, rather than at the thousands of fallen Amazons, is not only a mischaracterization but also a dismissal of Wonder Woman’s core values.

Another glaring contradiction is how Diana continues to honor a man who dedicated his life to the U.S. military, even after the U.S. government enacts the “Amazon Safety Act”  (A.X.E.) to systematically oppress, hunt, and kill her people.

This raises an uncomfortable question: Why is Wonder Woman glorifying a nation that has turned on her so violently?  
On paper, the set up should provide an opportunity for a compelling critique of government overreach, xenophobia, and the systemic oppression of outsiders.

However, instead of fully committing to these ideas, King’s portrayal of Diana falls into more contradictions, as she is still used as a symbol for American propaganda and glorification.

Steve Trevor, despite his personal virtues, was a soldier who continuously aligned himself with the U.S. military. Even if he supported Diana, his life’s work was tied to an institution that, in this story, has become the very oppressor of the Amazons.

Diana’s continued devotion to him, while she largely ignores the suffering of her own people, makes her seem detached from the true stakes of her situation.

She doesn’t grapple with the betrayal of the nation she once protected, she is written as if her greatest loss is not the destruction of her people, but the death of one man.

Despite being hunted by the government & witnessing the brutalization of her people, Diana is never truly framed as an outsider challenging the system. To not meaningfully address her exile or using her role as a diplomat to advocate for justice, she remains disturbingly passive.

Rather than rejecting the nation that has betrayed her, Diana continues to act in service of it, as if the systemic violence against her and the Amazons is merely an inconvenience rather than a deep betrayal of her mission.

Wonder Woman has historically been depicted as someone who does not pledge allegiance to any one country but instead fights for global justice and peace. Yet, under King, her exile & battle against corruption does not lead to a re-evaluation of her relationship with America.

She does not take a stand against the structures that oppressed her people, nor does she reassess whether the nation she once allied herself with was ever truly just.

King’s Diana is also emotionally distant, almost robotic in her speech & actions, rarely engaging in diplomacy or seek meaningful dialogue, even though the premise of this story should have provided opportunities for her to challenge their oppression with words as well as actions

One (of many) most baffling moments is Diana forcing Sovereign to brand himself as punishment. Regardless of his villainy, this action contradicts Wonder Woman’s entire ethos. She has always been a hero who fights with love and seeks to be above unnecessary violence.

For her to force an act of self-harm upon someone, even an enemy, is wildly out of character. This moment reinforces the fundamental misunderstanding of Wonder Woman that permeates this run so far.

King tries to portray her as both a loving, peaceful hero and a ruthless warrior, but he does so in a way that makes her seem inconsistent rather than complex. She is also written as a reactive figure.

The attempt to present a story about oppression, government overreach, and the resilience of a persecuted people ultimately falls flat because Diana’s characterization does not align with the gravity of the situation.

She is neither the defiant revolutionary who rejects a corrupt system nor the hopeful diplomat who works to change it.  
She exists in an in-between space where she is both a fugitive and a symbol of the very system that oppresses her, making the narrative feel disjointed.

This also makes her blind patriotism all the more frustrating and the entire premise of her fugitive status feels like a shallow plot device rather than a meaningful exploration of what it means for a hero of her stature to be criminalized.

To truly explore the consequences of being labeled as an enemy of the state, it needed to show her grappling with what that meant on a fundamental level. Yet, so much remains unaddressed in favor of a plot that treats Diana as a plot device than a fully realized character.

Tom King’s Wonder Woman run ultimately does more harm than good to the character. It reduces her motivations, ignores the true stakes, introduces an underwhelming villain, and forces a legacy character at the expense of Diana’s own development.

The contradictions, emotional emptiness, and forced narrative decisions make this one of the most frustrating Wonder Woman runs in recent memory, one that serves neither her character nor her legacy.

[Discussion] Tom King ruined George Perez's writing of Wonder Woman by making Wonder Woman into a Pro-Patriarchy American Nationalist that only thinks of Steve Trevor and what he wants. A Regression Disguised as Reinvention. Wonder Woman #8 by Tom King and Daniel Sampere.