Archive for the ‘Musings’ Category

Is the Myth of Wonder Woman a Lie?

Sunday, June 6th, 2010
One of the interesting things in having a website is checking the search strings that bring people to the site. In January this year, one of those search strings caught my attention. Someone was apparently investigating the question “Is the myth of Wonder Woman a lie?”

 

The first thing that crossed my mind was why anyone was still asking whether any myth is a lie. But of course, that “still” is more a reflection of how much time I have personally spent studying myths and how they affect our lives. Not everyone else in the world has done that. There remain many who contend that anything talking about apparent divinities which is not about one’s personal deity is ipso facto “a lie.” So I guess I should address that aspect before starting out.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Myth is about meaning, it is not about fact. Not scientific fact, not historical fact. Because of this distinction, regardless of what one’s personal religious beliefs are, it remains possible for anyone to gain understanding by considering what a particular myth means, either in a cultural context or a personal one. Thus, it is basically a non sequitur for anyone to ask if a myth is a lie. A lie about what?

Previously, I had discussed Wonder Woman and how difficult she is as a character: difficult for writers to get a full grasp on her. You can find those observations HERE. I won’t repeat the whole.

So, then I ran across the question of “Is the myth of Wonder Woman a lie?” That got me thinking some more.
I spent a lot of time in The Scribbler’s Guide to the Land of Myth looking at archetypal patterns that are specific to women, among all the other things I was analysing. But even those patterns are not completely gender exclusive. Most archetypes can apply to either men or women. I’m not going to repeat all that: it’s easily found in the book. Please, check it out in the book.

We have to first ask what is meant by “lie”. Are we asking whether something is congruent with scientific and historical fact? After all, lies are about what is untrue. Or are we asking whether something reflects a genuine emotional state that many people experience? Or an ideal that would be an actual improvement over current conditions? When we get to discussing whether emotional states or imaginative and idealistic considerations are “untrue”, we move into more ify territory. How do you tell someone that their subjective emotion response to something is a lie? How can that be a lie?

Secondly, we have to ask (again) what really is the myth of Wonder Woman? I point back to my previous post on the character.
But let’s look at the details, giving the whole question a detailed consideration.

Are Amazons (warrior women, not residents of the Amazon river basin) real? As a race or society in the modern world? No, they are not. Were the mythic Amazons real? That’s uncertain, and more a question of archeology and cultural anthropology. We do have many women serving as warriors, though, and doing so with competence and honor. So, we could call those female soldiers (and sailors and marines and members of the air force) “Amazons”. Which would make “Amazons” real in fact, and so since they exist, they wouldn’t be “a lie.”

Are the comic book Amazons real? No, it’s fiction. Within the “universe” of DC Comics, sure they exist there. But in our flesh and blood world? No. So the next question is whether Wonder Woman as we get her in stories exists or not? And since she is a fiction, her stories exist, as fiction.
But does any of that make “the myth of Wonder Woman” a lie? No.

What is it that we look for, when we look at heroes and their stories, their myths? What is the truth we seek in these things? We seek models, ideals, inspiration. We seek models of behavior that can help us cope more successfully with the world around us. We seek ideals that we can aspire to, the “best of the best” that we would want to be like. We seek inspiration that can help us in difficult times, just that spark of determination that will help us over the last difficult slope.

Wonder Woman is a high profile figure – the most widely known female superhero. Since her creation, she has held that eminent position.
So where does the question come from, that asks whether “the myth of Wonder Woman is a lie”? Is this a male versus female matter? Where male chauvinism seeks to suppress any independent female?

In the 1970s, when modern feminism came to the forefront, there was certainly a lot of discussion of how men “kept women down”. Even as circumstances were changing, the debate went on (and, actually, still does continue). So it is interesting that in that era, the editorial decision was made to “de-power” Wonder Woman.

 

At that time, “de-powering” her was a way of making this role model more accessible to the “average woman”. She became a martial artist and still continued to help people, especially other women. Of course, male superheroes don’t get “de-powered” for that reason. So, even in attempting to make her “more accessible”, a cultural double standard was in action: women need a more “realistic” role model, something they can actually achieve, while men can be inspired by improbably powered heroes because they understand how fictive heroes work as inspiration. (Okay, so I’m being snide about this. But the double standard was a little bit in effect.) Mind you, this “de-powering” was not done at the behest of the feminists. In fact, it was feminists who led the call for a return of “classic Wonder Woman.”

She got her powers back in an inevitable ret-con. But Princess Diana has still been challenged in her position. In the 1990s, she lost her title as Wonder Woman.
 

But in this case, it was a matter of a specific story arc (wherein her mother was actually trying to protect Diana: it had been prophesied that “Wonder Woman” would die, so she orchestrated a substitution, but Diana was not told until Artemis, the substitute, died). However, one of the key things about this story arc was that it affirmed Diana’s position as a leader, not just of women but of her heroic peers. At the time, Diana had been the leader of the Justice League: when Artemis attempted to claim that position as well (as an extension of her duties as “Wonder Woman”), the League members made it clear that they followed Diana, not a title. Although she had “lost the right” to the emblems of her title, she continued in her heroic ways.
She regained her title, of course. Because she is Wonder Woman.

So, what would it be like without Wonder Woman in our imaginative field?

Certainly, there have been heroic women in the history of the world. Joan of Arc, for instance, who led the French to reclaim lost territories from the English, and who inspired a timid prince to claim his royal title of king. Elizabeth I may not have led on the battlefield, but she battled the chauvinism that claimed that women could not rule, outwitting men left and right (even her own advisors) in order to hold the power herself. There are historical models of strong, heroic women.

And yet, to have such a model in fiction, is an important thing.

She was a ground-breaking character when her creator Marston introduced her. He specifically intended her to be a role model and inspiration to girls, to parallel the inspiration the male superheroes were to boys. He had hit on a crucial thing: yes, girls and women do need a mythic or imaginative role model. But it goes beyond that. By accepting this strong female character into the imaginative field, all readers gradually accept the right of female characters to even be in the field. These days, of course, Wonder Woman has been joined by a whole force of female superheroes, each touching some chord in the audience (and no, they aren’t just sex-fantasy figures, no matter how frequently the male artists draw them as such).

So, this brings us back to our original point. What makes a myth a lie? Is it even possible to do that? If the myth speaks to something important in the audience, to the degree that it is communicable and durable, then there is truth in it. Not factual truth, perhaps, but emotional truth and truth in meaning.

So what’s the answer? The answer is: No, the myth of Wonder Woman is not a lie.

 
 

Images are the property of DC Comics.
As always, talk back here on on my MESSAGE BOARD.
 

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Musings | No Comments »

A Game for Tricksters and Shapeshifters

Monday, May 24th, 2010

We don’t often think of mythic archetypes as something we would apply to our daily lives.  And yet our own little personal mythologies can shape our social interactions.

I’ve been thinking about this lately, while wathcing Season 20 of Survivor.  Twice a year, this show sends a bunch of people off to some remote location, puts them through a variety of contests and then makes them vote each other out of the game.  Because the players are all living together in rough camps, the nature and quality of their social behavior can have a big effect on how far an individual may last in the game.  And the game is designed in such a way that merely getting to the Final Two or Three is not necessarily an indication of good gameplay on your part: it could be because other players know you are so disliked that if given a choice between you and themselves, the jury (players previously voted out) will not give you the big prize.

Over the years, there have been those who believed that winning at challenges is the key to winning the whole.  Or making big plays to dump athletes or very social players.  Some have believed that controlling all actions of their alliances is the winning way.  Others choose to stay under the radar, not being too outstanding, or too obnoxious, or too visible in any fashion.

But all of these approaches are affected by the presentation each player makes of his or her self.  This seemed particularly evident in Survivor’s Season 20, which was labeled up-front “Heroes Versus Villains.”  In this case, the players did not really self-select these designations.  And yet, some embraced the labels, some rejected them, and some didn’t care.  On an obvious level, Rupert deeply embraced the designantion of “hero,” to the degree that he was very reluctant to ally with a so-called “villain.”  Colby as well clung to his perception of “playing with honor.”  Russell gleefully plowed through players as chief villain (calling himself “king” several times).  Coach, who seemed disconcerted to be classed as a villain, set out to play with what he perceived as honor and warrior ethics.

The problem with all this is that the game of Survivor is not designed to accommodate such self-perceptions.  The social aspect of the game ends up ruling the final decisions of the jury, the people who will choose the million dollar winner.  Thus, insisting that just being “athletic and winning challenges” won’t help someone who doesn’t get along with his or her tribe-mates.  For those who believe they can “play with honor,” the reality is that they will have to breakk a promise at some point if they want to stay in the game.

The game of Survivor favors those who can operate in the modes of the mythic figures of Tricksters and Shapeshifters.

The Trickster, let us remember, is one who punctures illusions, works from the position of being an underdog, and who keeps the sense of humor at hand.  Not that the ojbect is to be the “class clown,” but rather to keep the sense of balance in the face of incongruity.  Tricksters keep an eye toward the best opportunities for bringing down “the big guys.”  A Trickster knows vividly he or she is at a disadvantage at all times, and so never lets down the guard.  If switiching alliances or just one vote serves the Trickster, that person will do it.  And all the while, the Trickster will work at maintaining public humor, in order to keep the social situation from turning against him.

The Shapeshifter, by contrast, is the one who keeps secret some key piece of information.  In Survivor, that could be a hidden alliance or possession of a hidden Immunity Idol.  A Shapeshifter will change voting targets as the game changes.  A Shapeshifter will change social activity as circumstances change: such as letting someone else “provide food” for a long time, until that person is no longer needed for strategic purposes; as soon as it is an advantage, the Shapeshifter will become a “provider” (assuming possession of that skill).  Another Shapeshifter might hold off in physical challenges until late in the game, when individual immunity is most important.

The way to deal with a Shapeshifter is either change shapes with that person or to hold onto them until they reveal their “hidden truth.”  When applied to Survivor, I suppose that means “be in an alliance with them.”

But note, of all the mythical archetypes, these two are best adapted to changing circumstances.  They are not the ones who come into the game and stick to a rigid personal mythology.  “Heroes,” “villains,” “warriors,” “honorable player,” “pure athlete,” all those personal labels end up tripping the players who cling to them.

As I said, applying mythic motifs to our “real world” lives takes some careful consideration.  Real lives tend to be more complicated than “story lives.”  And yet, because myth is about meaning, we do, in the end, tend toward the mythic shapes that best convey our “personal meaning.”  It’s an interesting prospect to consider.  What mythic forms are most important in your life?  And how do they become manifested in your lifte?

I’m going to have to go think about this some more.  I’ll be interested in anyone’s thoughts about it.

As always, feel free to comment here on the blog, or visit my MESSAGE BOARD for more free-form discussion if you want.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Musings | No Comments »

The Hero Quest and Society

Monday, January 4th, 2010

I’m going to add a new feature category to this blog, called “Musings” (to join “Mythic Motifs at Work” and “Writing Tips”).  These will be more general considerations, rather than specific analyses or writing advice.  It is inspired by the search strings that get used to bring people to my website (that is, both this blog and my main website — www.scribblerworks.us).  The search strings often have interesting twists tot hem.

The one I’m musing on today was “how the Hero Quest affects society.”

“Interesting,” I thought.

Okay.  So, first off, which “society” are we talking about here?  The society inside the story, or the society of the audience?  There wasn’t really a way of determining that from the search string, of course.  So why not look at both?

So, let’s start with “inside the story”.

Inside the story, how does the Hero Quest affect society?

Let’s say that the “society” involved is, in terms of the Hero’s Journey, the Hero’s home or starting community.  The one where his interests are engaged.  Either he starts out as a misfit and has to go on his adventure in order to fit, or something is missing in the society and he has to go find it to repair the lack in the society.

The first possibility means that the Hero’s Quest takes someone who doesn’t fit in the community and changes that character to one who will be a benefit to the community.  A ne’er-do-well who becomes a strong leader (Han Solo in Star Wars).  The over-looked pigherder who becomes a king (Taran in Lloyd Alexander’s Chronicles of Prydain).  A rogue computer programmer who frees others from machine mind-control (Neo in The Matrix).  So the end of the Hero Quest in that case certainly has a positive effect on the society of the story.

The second possibility means that whether voluntarily or not, the Hero’s Quest will be a real benefit to the community of the story.  If it is involuntary, our Hero may not have sought out the quest, but he will certainly see it to the end.  Dr. Kimble (in The Fugitive), in trying to clear himself of a murder charge, discovers that a colleague has concealed the real (damaging) effects of a drug in order that he make a fortune.  Kimble’s quest saves the medical community from disaster.  In Deja Vue, an ATF investigator, thinking he will not be able to change the course of a large disaster instead focuses on trying to prevent one murder.  Yet in doing so, he ends up preventing the large disaster, a definite benefit for the society in the story.

This reveals that even though the Quest itself may focus on an individual, there is a community in the background that will be affected.  As the poet Donne put it, “No man is an island.”

So, what about the Society outside the story?

When we move to that level, it becomes a matter of why we tell stories at all.  Soemtimes it is to relate events that have happened, so we won’t forget them.  soemtimes it is to consider what we wish would happen.  Sometimes it is to try and understand why a person would behave in a certain way.  Sometimes it is to hold up a model of what we want to be like.

As a consequence, when we tell a story of a Hero’s Quest, we are, basically, trying to inspire ourselves.  We want to be a resistant to peer pressure as the Hero in The Prisoner (the original, that is).  We want to believe we can be as inspired and committed to our craft as Mozart is in Amadeus.  We want to believe that we too can be as faithful in hardship as Sam Gamgee in The Lord of the Rings.

Indeed, in The Lord of the Rings, at a dark point in the quest Sam shares with Frodo, Sam muses about the stories he had heard and that fueled his imagination — and he takes heart and determination from them.  He does not claim the high level of his “story-book” heroes, but rather that he be like them in even just a little way.  And he succeeds.

That is what society outside the story gains — inspiration, moels, the belief that we can change and improve things around us.  So… let the questing never end.

Feel free to comment here on the blog, or on my MESSAGE BOARD.

Tags: ,
Posted in Musings | No Comments »