What Would Wonder Woman Do: Canon Events

Often, when I engage with superhero media, I find myself thinking about Wonder Woman and how it—the story or characters or concept—could apply to her. How would she respond to a certain conflict or deal with a particular character? What would she do or contribute if she was in a given story?

Naturally, watching 2023's Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse sparked a lot of thoughts and questions for me.

As discussed in the previous post, I wondered what would be considered her Canon Events.
But going further down that road, the question of what Wonder Woman would do if she was faced with the dilemma Miles, Miguel and the Spider-Society faces in the film regarding Canon Events—namely, are they as set in stone as Miguel insists? Are they worth preserving, even if the Event in question is painful? Where would Diana stand if confronted with these questions?

Thinking about it, when considering her character and backstory, I actually believe Wonder Woman would have a very interesting perspective on the matter.

To recap, Canon Events are—according to Miguel O'Hara, the Spider-Man of 2099 in the film—particular events or patterns that occur to every variant of a given person, uniting them through the multiverse. These are moments that will or should "always" happen to every version of someone no matter which universe they exist in.

Crucially, also according to him, if these Canon Events are disrupted, then the binds break down and the multiverse could potentially collapse. And this is the heart of Across the Spider-Verse's conflict, where Miles Morales wishes to save his father from dying even though it is allegedly a Canon Event.
There are meta-textual questions involved with the dilemma (what defines a Spider-Man, regardless of iteration), but at its core, it's a matter of whether it's right to let bad things happen because that's the way it's supposed to be? Are the consequences of trying to "save everyone" worth the potential risk? Can a hero "do both," as Miles insists, and save their loved ones and the rest of the universe at once?

It's the heart of a lot of time travel stories: if you could change the future/past to save a loved one or prevent a tragedy, would you? What if there were consequences?
As of this writing, the final film in the trilogy, Beyond the Spider-Verse, has yet to be released. So we don't yet know who will ultimately prove to be right or wrong and to what extent.
But for now, I'd like to discuss what Wonder Woman's position on the conflict would be if she was faced with it.

To begin, although they are not exactly the same thing, there is definite overlap in the concept of Canon Events and fate. What Miguel is telling Miles when he says his father is going to die is essentially that it is fate and should not be fought or changed.
And fate was a big, recurring theme in Greek mythology and theater, which would definitely influence Diana's point of view since her origin is tied to Greek myth.

Smarter people than me have written plenty on the portrayal of fate in Greek theater. To (overly) simplify it: foreseeing one's fate or the future was kinda dubious business. Visions and prophecy weren't merely devices to kick-start a plot, but potentially deadly things that could easily lead to the hero's downfall. Oracles spoke in cryptic riddles and trying to combat one's fate often led to disaster.

The most famous exploration of the theme is arguably the story of Oedipus and how his efforts at escaping his fate ultimately led to him tragically fulfilling it. There's also the mythical Cassandra, who could foresee the future, but for her, it was a curse as much as a gift because her warnings and prophecies were doomed to always be ignored.
Fate was the domain of gods and best left to them. To see what they had in store for you was dangerous.

When you factor this history, plus the fact Diana routinely deals with the Greek gods, and that she seems like someone who believes in destiny and fate, it would appear very likely she'd side with Miguel when it came to Canon Events.

BUT...

Wonder Woman is someone who is supposed to challenge the status quo. She left Themyscria, not just to fly around and fight bad guys, but to improve the world and make it a better place. She was always meant by her creators to stand against and oppose broken systems.
She was also created to subvert the original Greek tales and myths. The foundation of Wonder Woman is built on turning patriarchal beliefs on their head. She is a rebel by nature.

And as said, she's dealt with the Greek gods. She knows from experience they are fallible and can (sometimes should) be defied. She is driven by her idealistic outlook. She is someone who would believe, like Miles, she can "do both."

This is what I mean when I say Diana should have a potentially interesting perspective on the conflict.
On the one hand, she is someone born from Greek myth and knows the dangers of meddling with fate. But on the other, she would not meekly sit aside and let innocent people suffer "just because." She would see and understand both sides and be genuinely torn.
Assuming she was written properly. Put a pin in this. 

There have been stories that featured Diana contending with fate and prophecy, with varying approaches to how she responds.

On one hand, we have an issue of The Brave & the Bold, written by J. Michael Straczynski, where Zatanna has a vision of Barbara Gordon's eventual paralysis in The Killing Joke. The catch is her vision is vague and unclear. She knows it will happen, but not when or even the specifics of how. She considers warning her, but Diana advises against it, pointing out that, like Oedipus, trying to prevent Babs' fate might only guarantee it, or make it worse.

On the other side, we have something like A League of One where Diana is presented with a prophecy foretelling the Justice League's demise, so she tries to loophole it in order to change their fate.

In both stories, we see Diana taking fate and prophecy very seriously, but each offers different views on how she would handle them. In one, she seems to take the stance that it's best not to meddle. In the other, she strives to change it.
Which is more true to the character? Well...

I feel I would be remiss not to acknowledge the purely narrative reasoning when it comes to stories like these, where there's a genuine "both sides" dilemma that divides the characters. In things like Across the Spider-Verse...or Marvel's Civil War, among other conflicts...there will always be the element of protagonist-centered morality, where the writer decides (sometimes arbitrarily) who is "right" and who is "wrong," leaving all related characters to fit into roles in relation to that.

I see this often come up when people on message boards or social media speculate on who would take which side if DC ever had a Civil War like Marvel: who would be pro-registration and who would oppose it. The truth is comic book characters are so fluid, you can make a strong case either way for just about anyone. In the end, the creators will decide who lands where in order to serve the story they're telling.
And almost invariably, when fans are asked, the answers can be boiled down to: "the cool characters I like would be sexy, anti-registration rebels against the MAN, while the lame, loser characters I don't like would be pro-registration government stooges."

It's worth pointing out some fans were unhappy that Miles was the only Spider (aside from Spider-Punk) to even question Miguel in Across the Spider-Verse, thus leaving just about every other Spider-Man and Woman as goons for him to evade or defeat.
Spider-Man, regardless of universe, is supposed to be a hero, and few want to see any version of him stand aside and accept innocent people dying just because Canon Events say so.

Wonder Woman has absolutely been burned by this sort of thing in the past more than once. The most glaring of which being the Injustice video games, where she not just goes along with evil Superman's fascism, but actively encourages it—proving far more vile than him with even less motivation. Too often, Diana gets saddled into the antagonist side of a story whether it suits her or not.
And by the by, that issue of The Brave & the Bold mentioned was somewhat controversial when it came out with some fans disliking Diana just accepting Barbara's fate. Speaking for myself, it never sat right with me either.

So, where would Wonder Woman stand if faced with Canon Events...assuming, she was allowed to act in character and not just an antagonist for Miles to evade?

Personally, I believe Diana—being someone with her background and beliefs, and as seen in stories that have dealt with the subject—regards prophecies and visions of the future with extreme caution. She wouldn't blindly believe them, but also wouldn't dismiss them outright. Although she may believe in fate, saving lives will be her priority, and she would definitely at least question, if not outright oppose, any system that allows or requires innocent suffering.

She might agree Miguel's theories have merit, but I don't think she'd go along with him. The clincher, I feel, is the distinction between fate as she understands it, and what he insists Canon Events are.

To put it this way: "fate" is saying Vanessa Kapatelis WILL become a Silver Swan and that can't change. "Canon Event" is saying Vanessa MUST become a Silver Swan in every timeline/reality/universe because that's the canon and it must not be changed.
While a case could be made for Diana grudgingly accepting the former, I think she'd be very skeptical of the latter.

I also believe she'd see his fixation on preserving "the Canon" as unhealthy and potentially dangerous. Because, when you think about it, by enforcing "Canon," he is still meddling with fate in a way. And like Oedipus, his efforts might only make things worse.

In regard to Miles...I don't think she'd try to stop him from saving his father. But she would urge him to be cautious in his efforts—again, warning him that Oedipus' attempt to change fate only made it happen—and if she felt he needed to be stopped, she would certainly approach him far more gently and with more compassion than Miguel had.

Ultimately, Wonder Woman is supposed to challenge the status quo. She's naturally curious. She's rebellious. And her first instinct in a conflict—especially one between heroes—is to find the diplomatic solution. So, although her background and history should certainly make her wary of fate, destiny and the meddling with both, I think above all, she would at least seek a solution that preserves the multiverse while also preventing unnecessary tragedy. She, like Miles, would believe they can do both.

Would she be successful in that endeavor? Would circumstances escalate to where she would have definitively to choose one side over the other?
Given that, at the end of the day, these are stories and stories run on drama, things would likely not go so smoothly if Diana found herself caught up in the Spider-Society's dilemma. But I do think her perspective on the conflict would be more nuanced and interesting than some might assume. Past that is for the fan fic writers of the world.

I guess we'll see how it plays out for Miles and Miguel when Beyond the Spider-Verse finally comes out.