Posts Tagged ‘Warrior’

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 Problem with Wonder Woman

Sunday, August 2nd, 2009

Every so often readers (and writers) comment on problems they have with the comic book character Wonder Woman.

The Amazon princess, Diana, was created in 1941, by William Moulton Marston.  On the heels of the appearances of superheroes like Superman and Batman, Marston felt that girls deserved their won role model.  His creation was beautiful and strong, and carried the Lasso of Truth.  Detecting truth was a matter of interest to Marston, as he invented the polygraph, popularly known as the “lie detector.”

Wonder Woman has a number of contradictions attached to her — she is a warrior and yet she is also an ambassador of peace from the Amazons to “Man’s World.”  Try as they might to downplay the incongruity of a warrior society such as that of the Amazons also purporting to be more peaceful than the rest of humanity, writers have been stuck with it.  It just will not be shaken off.  Recent writers have shown the Amazons as less than perfect in their adherence to peace.  Yet, “warrior for peace” remains an element in the character of Princess Diana.

The Lasso of Truth also forces an unusual quality upon the nature of Wonder Woman.  By using it, Diana can force a perpetrator to face aspects of his or her own nature that they have been denying.  Even if she doesn’t use this pwoer, its presence with her is a constant reminder of what she could do.  It bestows a certain implacibility to her character.

Molded in clay by her mother, Queen Hippolyta, given life and powers (strength, flight, and apparently immortality) by the Greek gods, Diana is in her origin somewhat removed from normal humanity.  And yet she is not really a goddess (although one writer did have her become the Goddess of Truth for a time).

However it came about, there is something in the nature of Wonder Woman that defies easy pigeon-holing.

She won’t be easily pegged and yet, readers do have a sense when she’s being taken off track, when she is “out of character.”  She is caring and merciful, and yet if she goes too far into emotional territory, something feels “off.”  She’s passionate about her family and protecting those under her care, but romance inevitably seems unbalanced when brought into proximity with the Amazon princess.  (It might be that readers feel she has no peer, so that all possible romantic partners are “beneath” her.)

Some of the factors that create this unsettling nature spring from how closely Wonder Woman’s character parallels that of the Greek goddess Nemesis.  Nemesis was the daughter of Night, which places her in the realm of the mysterious and unaccountable.  We have come to treat nemesis as a negative force, but she wasn’t such originally.  She was all about keeping things in proper balance.  She made sure virtue was rewarded and injustice was brought to balance.  She is, in fact, the figure of Justice we see in courts these days; blind-folded for impartiality (she doesn’t care about your social status), holding both a sword and a balance scale — and she will use that sword to help put the scales in balance.  Nemesis is very unsettling — and Wonder woman, for similar reasons, carries the same effect.

Diana is a “divine hero” — in a community, but not of it, and she brings a boon to society.  We are a bit ambivalent as to whether we want to take the whole of her boon: truth and peace require things of us that are hard to give up.

But one of the other crucial elements that figure in the nature of Wonder Woman is that, unlike Nemesis, she is not a figure of Night.  By nature, with her openness and her commitment to reason and truth, Wonder Woman fits the dynamics of a solar figure.

She’s “a babe,” a confident woman, beautiful and bold.  And yet, Wonder Woman remains difficult to peg.  That is, perhaps, part of her enduring power to fascinate us.  We try to sort her out, to figure what makes her tick, because we don’t really want to deal with someone as completely committed to truth and justice as the Amazon princess is.  She’s not some wild woman who needs taming, nor some insecure heroine who needs coaching.  She is, as she has always been, Wonder Woman and something more than we expect.

Feel free to comment here or on my MESSAGE BOARD.

(Wonder Woman images are copyright DC Comics, or their designates; the character is a property of DC Comics.)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Motifs at work | 5 Comments »