Posts Tagged ‘Scribbler’s Guide’

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.
 

 

A Functional Father Figure

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

When I was doing the research and development of The Scribbler’s Guide to the Land of Myth, one thing I discovered was that there is not much literature on parental figures.  Joseph Campbell makes glancing references to Father Figures and Mother Figures, particularly in their negative manifestations, but little else.  So I tackled the problem of developming a systematic structure for just what these figures ought to be, so that I (and of course, other storytellers) would be able to analyse the dynamics when I put one of these figures into a story.

The first thing I realized is that although mentor figures are also representatives of parental figures, they are not completely so.  Thus, while a Mentor may be a Father Figure, a Father Figure is not necessarily, or not only, a Mentor.  So what else is going on?

What it boils down to (if you want a fuller explanation, get the book!) is that a Father Figure has five functions: Protector, Mentor, Priest, Judge, Ruler.  Any particular story relationship might focus more on one function than another, but they all contribute to the over-all picture.

Which brings me to one of the best examples of a Father Figure currently running in popular culture: Leroy Jethro Gibbs on the show NCIS.

Now, because of the bantering and teasing play of Gibbs’ support team, some have called the regular characters a dysfunctional family.  This is a mistake: this group is highly functional.  The sibling-like squabbling and pranking should not be mistaken as dysfunction.  Each team member understands his or her place in the group and delivers on the responsibilities.  Trust runs strong among them and there is very little abuse of position — all signs of effective functionality.  Perhaps we are so used to seeing the failure of functionality that it has become the “standard” and true functionality seems “dysfunctional.”

In any case, the successful functionality springs from the effectiveness of Gibbs as a Father Figure.  So let’s consider it at work.

As a Mentor, Gibbs uses his “strong, silent” manners to demonstrate to Timothy McGee and Ziva David how to be an excellent investigator.  These two, for different reasons, have needed the instruction a Mentor can provide.  And they have learned successfully from Gibbs.

McGee, when sent into a women’s prison to question a possible suspect on a cold case, finds himself the on-scene investigator of a killing.  Because he has learned from Gibbs how to read the evidence and how to read people, he is able to sort it out.

For Ziva, trained in espionage and assassination, learning to investigate and interview has run counter to her impulses.  But because Gibbs by every indication shows her that he believes her capable of the new methods and expects her to act on them, she learns.

The Priestly function of a Father Figure is the aspect that acknowledges the achievement and mastery of “the child.”  And Gibbs always delivers that affirmation when it is really needed.  He has given McGee affirmation that he has become a good investigator at a time and in a way that makes public Timothy’s growth, by saying it in front of Tony DiNozzo, who relentlessly exercises the “superior” priviledges of an older brother to Tim.

But Gibbs has also done the same for Tony: during a case in which Gibbs had given Tony the lead, Tony becomes so frustrated that he begins verbally abusing the team.  Gibbs takes Tony aside and tells him he had been doing a good job … up to that point.  The fact that this is a “priestly” action is shown by the fact that Gibbs addresses DiNozzo as “Anthony,” something he almost never does.  Tony is both chastened and encouraged by this.

As the boss of the team, Gibbs is in fact the Ruler of them all.  But one of the duties of the Ruler is to command the discipline of his subjects, and this is the need Gibbs fills for DiNozzo and Agent Kate Todd.  Although Tony is actually a good investigator, his own impulses are to flake off, chasing pretty women or playing games.  Gibbs enforces discipline and so gets excellent work out of Tony.

Kate, though she came to NCIS from the Secret Service, also had some need of the discipline Gibbs requires.  In the pilot, she is shown as having become romantically involved with a co-worker on the Presidential detail, something that would never have happened if she’d been under Gibbs’ rulership.

As a Protector, we see Gibbs protecting both Abby and Ziva.  When Ziva was framed for the assassination of someone under FBI protection, it is to Gibbs (and not her own father) that she turns to, to get her out of it.  And he does. 

When Abby is stalked by an ex-boyfriend, Gibbs becomes very fierce in resolving the matter.   (As all the team acknowledges, Abby “is his favorite.”)

To all of the team, he is their Judge: he evaluates their work, and they turn to him for his opinion on everything other than romantic attachments (his three ex-wives serving as a warning to them that he is not perfect, especially in that).

So far, the points I’ve made have been about what Gibbs gives to his team, what needs he addresses for each of them.  But what does he get out of it?  What makes it possible for him to continue playing Father Figure to this unlikely “family”?  He gets their nearly undivided devotion.  Abby in particular bestows on him the love of a daughter, which addresses the biggest hole in Gibbs’ own life, since his first wife and only child were killed long ago.  He is not the Father Figure to this group just because they need him.  He is such also because he needs them.

As I said, this team is a highly functional family unit.  If they were dysfunctional, the incidental pains of failure and abuse would be considerably less appealing to the audience.  It is the functionality that propells the show into success and audience affection.

Signing and Selling at Loscon

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

This weekend I will be attending Loscon at the Airport Marriott near LAX, here in Los Angeles.  I attended the first time last year, and kicked myself for skipping it all these years (I have a lot of friends who go regularly).  It was fun.

This year, as a member of the Greater Los Angeles Writers Society (known as GLAWS) I’m taking part in a couple of panels.  One is on Writing Hard Science Fiction When You Are Not a Scientist.  The other is on World Building in Science Fiction & Fantasy.  They both should be great discussions - my fellow panelists are great.

I’ll also be at the GLAWS booth in the dealers room, from time to time (depending on the con schedule).  I’ll have copies of The Scribbler’s Guide to the Land of Myth for sale — with a special discount on the price for attendees at the con.

Everyone is on a Journey

Monday, September 28th, 2009

A lot has been written about the Hero’s Journey.  Even I have tossed in my two cents worth on the matter.  It can be very, very hand for any writer to know the shape of the Hero’s Journey.  But many writers have gotten stuck on a single model, Chris Vogler’s redaction of Joseph Campbell’s outline.   I’m not saying that it is a bad model, for it isn’t.  But the problem of being stuck on it is that the Vogler/Campbell outline is not the only one available.

It is entirely possible for a writer to be on fire for his story, and struggling to get his plot to “fit” the Hero’s Journey outline that he knows — only to dispair because his story doesn’t want to go that way.  It’s possible for that frustratd writer to think that he is wrong about his story (even though he is still jazzed by it, in the back of his head).  So he stops.

Now, it’s my feeling that no writer should give up on a story that excites him.  It may be a mess, plot-wise, and need work.  But no writer should feel she has to give up on something just because it doesn’t fit one outline.  So, that’s why I felt it important in The Scribbler’s Guide to the Land of Myth to mention some of the principal variations of the Hero’s Journey that I have encountered over the years.  The different outlines often have elements not included in the Vogler/Campbell model.  But every writer should also remember that these things are not cut in stone: they are very flexible, and you can move things around a bit, to suit your own story.  After all, you are the storyteller.

Getting comfortable with the Journey your Hero is on is only the first step, however.  If you want to add depth to your story, and to help the other characters take on substance, you need to remember that the Hero is not the only character actually going on a “journey” in your story.  The villain is pretty sure he’s the Hero of his own life.  And your love interest or B Story sidekick is also making a journey.  Do you know the shapes of their Journeys?

This brings us to another reason why there is an advantage in knowing multiple versions of the Hero’s Journey.  Your three principal characters do not have to be traveling according to the same pattern.  In fact, it can be very interesting if they are not.  Nor does everyone’s Journey have to start at the same point.  For instance, your villain’s journey may begin well before the point where you want to start the story.  This could turn into what Blake Snyder called Act Zero material.  The Journey for your B Story character may not be so complicated.

The mechanics of coordinating the different Journeys will reveal how well you understand your plot.  A villain’s high point may be your Hero’s darkest moment, or it may just be one of the trials and tests the Hero meets.  It’s your story.  You decide.  But at this point, index cards or a computer program that has a similar function, where you can shuffle and mix individual story beats can be a big help.

And there can be great satisfaction in looking at the meshed outline, mere you can clearly see where each charcter is on his or her particular Journey.  When you realize you know exactly what the villain wanted as his victory and what is a set-back for him; when you know just what the B Story character’s Journey is, at that point your story become more solid and deeper.

Everyone is on a Journey.  Everyone has a goal.  They may not all be met by the events in your story.  But when you start constructing things this way, you will discover that it is very useful.

As always, if you are interested in talking more about this matter than blog comments allow, visit my MESSAGE BOARD.

Burning Jeopardy

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

One of the many things I talk about in The Scribbler’s Guide to the Land of Myth deals with franchise storytelling.  This can cover comic book series, sets of movies, television shows or a string of novels.  Most such creations are built on what I call the “Incidental Jeopardy” context: that means that in any specific story, your main character (upon whom the franchise depends) has a 50/50 chance of failing to meet his or her goal.  But some other series get set up where the main character is driven by some burning goal.  I call this the “Constant Jeopardy Syndrome,” where the set up is such that if the main character ever reaches his goal or solves the Big Problem of his life, the series ends.

In the book, I discuss the problems encountered with the Constant Jeopardy Syndrome, especially that involved in keeping the characters emotionally realistic.  The point is that when over a long span of time a character fails to solve the Main Problem in his life, he tends to lose emotional credibility, especially if the constant failure doesn’t seem to faze him.

Cable’s USA show Burn Notice is constructed on a Constant Jeopardy Syndrome: Michael Westen used to be a spy and got burned — this means he has been black-listed and rendered an official non-person, no bank accounts, no official records (driver’s license or passport).  The series deals with his attempts to find out who burned him, why, and his getting himself reinstated.  (And if he ever achieves all of these, it’s likely the show would end.)

Since Michael is presented from the beginning as being one of the very best at his job, if he did not make some progress in his quest to solve his Big Problem, we would quickly lose interest.  Fortunately, the series creator and writers address this by giving Michael progressive stages of existence (professional and personal problems) to deal with.

One of the first obstacles he has to face is that he has been dropped into his hometown of Miami, Florida, where he has to deal with his mother.

Madeline Westen is expert at wielding emotional blackmail over Michael — which works because at rock bottom, Michael is a good guy and does love his mother.  Madeline also serves to show that although Michael may be officially a non-person, he also needs to relearn how to be a real person, with a real (ie, emotional) life.

Madeline is assisted in this by the presence of Fiona — the love of Michael’s life.

Fiona’s “official” position is “not his girlfriend.”  Except that she is his ideal partner.  The ups and downs of their relationship ring true, for they are dealing with real issues: the nature of Michael’s old job, what that job requires of his character, how to accommodate another person deeply into your life.

The two characters are alternately obstacles and assistants in Michael’s hunt for information and reinstatement.

First after being burned, he was watched by FBI minders.  He upped the stakes on them, to the point where a special overseer was assigned to keep Michael subdued.

It’s a new problem in Michael’s way, which he removes over the course of a few episodes by creating the appearance that the overseer has been compromised.  This leads to the mystrious organization that burned him revealing itself slightly.

The series very carefully continues revealing obstacles for Michael to overcome.  Each step forward also reveals more of his own character to Michael.  First, he seeks to put a face to his new “manager”, Carla, and in fact draws her out to revealing herself.

She tells him she helped burn him in order to recruit him to the secret organization she serves.  She sets Victor to “manage” Michael.

Victor is like Michael (ie, burned), “but with rabies” (according to Sam Axe, Michael’s friend and sidekick).  Michael transforms Victor from opponent to ally and the pair remove Carla, forcing the organization’s Management to reveal himself.  Michael is offered better conditions in the organization, under the threat of removal of their protections (from enemies and authorities).

Michael opts to reject the protection and the job.  The new set of obstacles in his way toward reinstatement include dealing with a police detective who has suspicions that Michael is behind some unusual occurances in town.

Michael succeeds in turning her from opponent to an at least hands-off observer.  So the next obstacle steps up.  “The Devil” (Strickler) offers Michael assistance at reinstatement, in exchange for Michael working for him.

This is too much for Fiona, who questions what this deal will do to Michael’s character.  This emotional “real person” challenge conflicts with Michael’s desire to be an “official person” again.

Every time Michael progresses closer to his goal, either a new obstacle gets in his way, or the goal becomes slightly redefined and moved.  The writers avoid all the traps of the Constant Jeopardy Syndrome: failure to make any progress toward the goal and/or lack of emotional reality.  The audience is satisfied by the proof that Michael is indeed as competent as claimed (he makes progress), and also maintains a realistic emotional response to both his successes and failures.  The show is a fine example of how to handle the Constant Jeopardy Syndrome.

[I was going to write about Burn Notice in regard to other motifs, but I may come back to them later.]

(Pictures and characters are property of Fox Television and Fuse Entertainment.)

I invite your comments here or on my MESSAGE BOARD.

Welcome to the Scribbler’s Guide

Sunday, June 21st, 2009

I’ve been intending to set up this specialized blog for a long time, but at long last, have gotten it up and running!

I’ll be posting news here about any activities related to The Scribbler’s Guide to the Land of Myth.  But I will also, much more regularly be posting short bits analysing mythic motifs in stories all around us.  Look for fun!

I hope you will find the posts interesting and informative.

Again, welcome!

SLB