Wondy 33

[bluefall.insanejournal.com]

Four pages from today's Wondy.

So, the sea monsters from the preview attack the island. The amazons fight back. Ares shows up.



WHUT. She won't kill Genocide, but she will kill Ares? She can kill Ares? Since when? He's the god of war. The whole point of him is that he outclasses her as much as Clark outclasses Jim Gordon.

They're on Thalarion at this point, and Zeus shows up and is all "be a wife and mother, and oh I killed Kane."





When WML does a better Polly than Gail, something is badly wrong with the universe.



... yeah.

On the plus side, I've had to cut back on luxuries recently and I've been waffling over what titles to cut, and this makes that decision easier at least..

Comments

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

So Diana is now defined by subservience?

That strikes me as more wrong-headed, IMO.

Furthermore, I think you're missusing the term Avatar here. It's been a while since I've gone over your excellent series of posts on Wondy, but I don't recall her being explicitly stated as a true avatar before.

And if she has, who's avatar was she? Athena's? And then there's the whole Cosmological Kitchen Soup that gets tossed in with having Greek Dieties use the abilities of Hindu dieties...

Divinely Created Messangers are not Avatars. That's an angel. Western tradition has corrupted the term to suit its own preconcieved notions. Most of my research leads them to be something between the videogame use of the word Avatar and...well, Jesus.

[bluefall.insanejournal.com]

So Diana is now defined by subservience?

No, this is wrongheaded. "Subservience" and "worship" are as much synonyms as "love" and "sex."

She's not a Divinely Created Messenger, she *is* Amazon Jesus. She's Pandora returned to life (http://asylums.insanejournal.com/scans_daily/95830.html). She ascended to godhood on her death, in proper Herculean tradition, and she is the living, divinely-born goddess-made-(mostly)-mortal embodiment of the values and duties of her patrons and people in proper Eastern tradition.

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

But...Pandora wasn't a...

Nah, I'm not gonna try to apply real world mytholigies to this. I'll just hurt my head.

I stand corrected on that point.

However, there have been effectively Atheistic avatars in the past. At least, in some traditions, Buddha was an Avatar of Vishnu created to lead Atheists astray. Ergo, the concepts are not wholy seperated.

Still, jerk behavior, no?

As for the Subservience and Worship?

In Christian traditions (Catholic) worshipers kneel before the alter several times during mass. In Muslim traditions, bowing whilst praying is part of the worshiping ritual. Others involve the act of bowing, a universal sign of submission and therefore subservience. I am stressed to think of a diety-centered religion that does not involve subservient worship. If you know of any, do enlighten me.

And before you say Buddhsim, because it is not diety centered, it does not have the subservient worship ascribed to it.

[bluefall.insanejournal.com]

Again, submission and subservience are not the same thing. And you may note you're pointing to monotheistic, Abrahamic religions there, which are wildly different in scope, perspective and to some extent even purpose than the elemental pantheonic religions of the greco-roman or egyptian types that Diana and the amazons are heir to.

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

Without specific examples, I am disinclined to belief you. No offense, but that's just the skeptic in me. That and I yern for more data.

Okay, let me rephrase this.

Meriam-Webster's 4th Definition of Worship will be important

4) extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

Part of the worship of a diety often includes the acknowledgement of greatness over the worshiper, correct?

Many a greek fable is wrought with the woes of those who do not show the gods their respect (IE: their greatness). Arachne comes to mind.

The very act of acknowldging one as greater than onesself is an act of subservience and that is the core of worship. Ergo, the two are inseperable. It's analogous to a wolf pack where one wolf goes belly up and behaves as a pup to show that the leader is boss.

And if you want an eastern example, may I point to various asiatic "demigod emperors" whom few people of low station could not even look at? Yeah. Bowing was the least that could be done.

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

Ya know whaat sucks? Realizing you've overextended your argument after the fact.

I wish to retract the statement in the 7th paragraph regarding the merest acknowledgment of something greater than yourself constitutes subservience.

However, I am at a loss to think of behaviors which express that difference in stature that are not also signs of subservience. If you can think of any, do mention them.

tl;dr 1 of 2

[bluefall.insanejournal.com]

Specific examples of what?

Part of the worship of a diety often includes the acknowledgement of greatness over the worshiper, correct?

Yes. But "greatness" is a ridiculously vague word. Greatness of what? It varies vastly. To take the two examples most relevant to Wondy:

In Christianity, one worships God, because He deserves it. (Well, in the proper form of Christianity. There are those who worship God because of the whole "burn in hell otherwise" myth, but I pity those people and they're missing the point.) One submits oneself to the will of God, because He knows *better* than us what the best thing is, not being limited and mortal as we are. One loves God because God loves and takes care of us. There is a reason we call God the Father and it is not because Jesus is His son. It's because the relationship is a paternal one. A child with a parent. Submitting to a parent is normal. Subservience to a parent is unhealthy. I know you know this distinction.

In Greco-Roman pantheism, one worships the gods becuse they Are. That's all. Full stop. They are immensely powerful, insanely dangerous, and less moral than us because they have no choice. Check out the recent INCREDIBLE HERC for a really sharp take on that. We can make our own destinies; the gods are slaves to their natures. They are elemental forces given personality, and Poseidon can no more stop being an asshole than the ocean can stop being dangerous during storms. And so one worships them, because they're gods, that's what they're for. They are incalculably *more* and *other* and there's only one appropriate response. To some degree, as well, there's a sense of placation and supplication - respect and obey a god as you respect and obey your king, and like your king, the god may favor you and help you out or at least stay his wrath - but like your king, mostly you just respect and obey because he's a god, and that's the natural order of things. There's no "earning" worship, no being "deserving" of respect, and there's no "subservience" any more than there's "subservience" between a frequently crappy but more-fair-than-not boss and his wary employees. It's just how things are, and you deal with it.

Re: tl;dr 1 of 2

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

As to specific examples, I am refering to patterns of worship/behaviors within the concept of worship that do not involve submission to the worshiped icon/entity.

To refine greatness, lets use the phrase "Superiority in status/power."

And, come to think on it, I should have used the word "Submissive" instead of Subservient.

They are elemental forces given personality, and Poseidon can no more stop being an asshole than the ocean can stop being dangerous during storms.

So, they're Godzilla?

Sorry, I had to make that analogy!

And so one worships them, because they're gods, that's what they're for. They are incalculably *more* and *other* and there's only one appropriate response. To some degree, as well, there's a sense of placation and supplication - respect and obey a god as you respect and obey your king, and like your king, the god may favor you and help you out or at least stay his wrath - but like your king, mostly you just respect and obey because he's a god, and that's the natural order of things.

And to me, both forms involve submissive behaviors. Even saying the phrase "Please don't hurt me" is a submissive stance.

There's no "earning" worship, no being "deserving" of respect, and there's no "subservience" any more than there's "subservience" between a frequently crappy but more-fair-than-not boss and his wary employees. It's just how things are, and you deal with it.

*headdesk*

Submissive behavior is a defense mechanism designed to placate. We behave in a subservient manner to avoid retaliation or to meet ends. So yes, you totally are expected to behave in a subservient manner to your boss. The act of reffering to said boss as "Sir" is both an acknowledgment of station and a submissive jesture -- especially because he does not return the phrase. Submission, in part, is the acknoweldgement or rank.

Another part is fear of reprisal. People with guns tend to illicite submissive reactions from those they point them at.

Re: tl;dr 1 of 2

[abbadie.insanejournal.com]

For one specific example, as a practising polytheist of a Scottish-rooted belief (an odd mix of norse/celtic/maybe pictish stuff) I have found that my religion's concept of the Gods is that, while they are certainly immensely more powerful than us, they expect nothing less from us than that we look them in the eye, so to speak, and disapprove of any submissive attitudes; as their creatures and children, we are expected to stand up to that legacy instead of humiliating ourselves before them.

So, they're Godzilla?

Damn you. I've got to go out now and I'm gonna go around laughing by myself and looking dumb thanks to you!

Damn, I haven't even visited S_D much in the last few very messy months, and I had to find Diana turned into Xena.

tl;dr 2 of 2

[bluefall.insanejournal.com]

This idea is obviously completely alien, even anathema to the Western mindset. Worship someone who doesn't deserve it? Pay tribute to someone who can be an utter asshole? Allow power to remain in the hands of those who use it irresponsibly? Our religion's not like that (at least it's not fucking supposed to be), or politics aren't like that, our whole society is about rebellion and individual rights and sticking it to the Man. How can we accept it in our heroes? This has a weird effect on Wondy, who therefore inherited a lot of Abrahamic, specifically Christian trappings - foremost among them, the idea of genuniely virtuous patrons (though the five Patrons collectively are the closest to benign the ancient greeks had on offer, Athena and Hestia in particular), and also a greater degree of submission, fealty and trust than is standard for Olympians. Athena becomes the Mother to correspond to the Father that informed Perez' culture (and Marston's, though Marston treated Diana's religion like he did her royalty; just a story prop rather than an intrinsic character point, much like, say, Clark's alien heritage, and the intrinsic value of it developed over time).

But that's still Mother, not Owner. She knows better than Diana and she's the boss of Diana, and they love each other as parent and child. Thus Diana submits to her will. That's a great deal different than any kind of subservience, just like Tim's regular submission to Bruce's will is a great deal different than any kind of subservience.

Re: tl;dr 2 of 2

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

Yeah, I Really should have used the word "Submission" instead of "Subservient".

My bad.

*kicks thesaurus*

Re: tl;dr 2 of 2

[bluefall.insanejournal.com]

Well, if you had, I'd have just stared at you blankly and said, "yes, of course, why on earth would that be a problem?" I mean, by your definition, find me a hero who is not submissive to anyone. Clark's never tipped his hat to Perry or his parents? Bruce has never placatingly backed off and put his hands up to talk a guy off a ledge, or stepped back and let Jay Garrick do his thing with the Speed Force? Dinah and Helena have never made a point of long-term employment by and the corresponding ceding of authority to Babs?

Bruce stands for, for the most part, being Big Strong Answerable-to-no-one Man, and that's supposed to be a sign of strength. Diana, on the other hand, explicitly draws strength from community. (Clark is inbetween, answerable to society and the people but not in the concrete way Diana is or to the same relevance). Order and hierarchy are a big part of her, whether it's Marston's bondage-funtime or Perez' mythic gods&royalty, and that's a direct and deliberate answer to the (masculine) "lone do-my-own-thing wolves are better" philosophy (see also: Buffy). Trying to frame that communal paradigm where a hero can allow other people to be superior to her (be it in rank, skill, or anything) as somehow bad makes no sense to me.

Re: tl;dr 2 of 2

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

To which I would then have to clarrify as "Unwarrented or undesrved submissiveness."

It's like, to use an Anime Troupe--the honorable Dragon of the bad guy who works for him despite his honor due to another moral pillar he must obey (IE: lifedebt type stuff) leaving the heroes flummoxed (if they're the idiot shoenen type) or saddened by the course of that character's life.

I keep picturing Diana as a feminist/freedom icon, and to my mind it does not quite jibe with submissiveness, especially undeserved ones. Perhaps this is the influence of the Rebelious Princess take popularized by the DCAU's Diana.


I understand the connection of her with community. Her helpful and supportive nature is one of the reasons I find her interesting. But I don't equate it to outright submissiveness. To me, that's a step to far. To use an analogy, I'm pretty sure that if the emperor was naked, she'd tell 'em (possibly descritely, unless the emperor decided to be obstinant about it).

Re: tl;dr 2 of 2

[bluefall.insanejournal.com]

To which I would then have to clarrify as "Unwarrented or undesrved submissiveness."

Which doesn't, at all, apply to Diana's relationship with her gods.

Again. Do you consider it unwarranted when Dinah follows Barbara's orders in the field? Do you consider it undeserved when Dick turns to Bruce for guidance, or when Tim obeys Bruce's dictate to not reveal his name to his YJ friends? Do you think it's a sign that he's weak or unheroic when Clark defers to Lois? Does Bruce's relationship with Alfred make him less an independent self-reliant alpha male?

Re: tl;dr 2 of 2

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

I'd say "They haven't proven themselves to be violenetly insane" but Bruce has had his moments and Tim isn't looking to good at the moment.

Generally, when I see a heroic character following an negative or even villainous leader, my brain usually jostles between "Something's up in that relationship" or "That hero must be a goddamn idiot."

The later only occurs when the former does not (though I bet there are other alternatives that I haven't thought of ATM).

I'd rather see a character filter orders through their own morality than mindlessly follow. Especially from a flawed source. One of my favorite films, Ran does a great job with that when a Samurai is ordered to kill and bring back the head of a young Buddhist nun the Daimyo's wife feels is a threat to her (because she's evil). He instead says he did it but brings back the severed head of a Fox Statue and says "She must have been a Kitsune who tricked me!". The cultural background gives it levels of awesome.

Re: tl;dr 2 of 2

[bluefall.insanejournal.com]

You seem to making the same failure in distinction here that Diana is. Zeus != the Patrons.

Re: tl;dr 2 of 2

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

Ah crap, I forgot the better sumation part:

I see Diana not submitting to others. Instead, I see her treating absolutely everyone as an equal.

Re: tl;dr 2 of 2

[jlbarnett.insanejournal.com]

personally if Diana's going to be about order an hierarchy why not put her at the head of a hierarchy forming an order of her choosing.

Bruce and Clark have done all those things you said, but none of the people you mention function as their version of Charles Xavier, or Niles Caulder or...Zordon of Eltar. Hell, just seeing those versions of the SUperman mythos where Clark has a functioning Jor-El AI to ask questions, never mind taking orders from, seems very wrong. They're above that. And Diana should be above that as well.

Re: tl;dr 2 of 2

[bluefall.insanejournal.com]

Okay, there's the problem right there.

It's not something to be "above." Respect and obedience to someone you love and trust is not a bad thing.

Re: tl;dr 2 of 2

[majingojira.insanejournal.com]

But does Diana Love and Trust the Gods? That doesn't appear to be the relationship you described from the Anceint Greek Sources nor that from the comics with only a handful of notable exceptions.

And aren't the Gods, by definition, "Above" in the sense of having a higher station? (And being on Mount Olympus helps illustrate it just a bit).

Re: tl;dr 2 of 2

[bluefall.insanejournal.com]

Diana loves and trusts her patrons, yes. Because as I said, she's always had this amalgam of modern sensibilities and her ancient greek heritage, which includes a maternal (well, more of a paternal, actually) relationship with her patrons, particularly Athena (cf Rucka, Perez, even Byrne, and if Byrne noticed you *know* it means something).

Kind of tangential and all over the place, but...

[parsimonia.insanejournal.com]

Diana, on the other hand, explicitly draws strength from community.

You know, there are many reasons why that aspect of Wonder Woman can cause discomfort, I realize. Not only the political/cultural differences between modern Western society and Amazon culture, but as you mentioned somewhere else in the thread, it goes against the ideas of individualism, independence and answering to no one but yourself.

On top of that, everyone has the mental baggage of Marston's bondage and submission themes, and general confusion over just what feminism is exactly. But she has the burden of being the big-name female superhero, so she's got to be feminist and represent feminism, otherwise it's sexist. And perhaps because feminism, and the feminism that most of us know, is rooted in modern Western culture, it's hard to separate feminism from the ideas of individualism, independence and answering to no one but yourself.

If Diana is all about community, then submitting to her mother or her sisters or the gods, any instance when she does what someone else asks, there's an argument somewhere in there about that submission being anti-feminist.

The problem with DC's Trinity is that Wonder Woman automatically becomes The Girl, and by extension represents all girls and women. So anything she says or does or anything that happens to her is automatically subject to so much more scrutiny that doing something her Zeus or Superman or whoever asks of her is arguably a Big Deal.

I can't help but picture Wonder Woman as Atlas, with the world on her shoulders. She carries such a burden, because she's almost always the only one seen and assumed to be carrying it.

(My solution of course is to promote Oracle to being up there with, and equally important and influential as, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. More choices in heroes and heroic styles, and do away with Wonder Woman being forever stuck with being The Girl and the only one who can represent feminism. Of course, there's no reason why Clark and Bruce can't be feminists, but having another woman up there allows for variety in feminism and femininity as well.)

(And really, I'd argue that putting community first above individualism is often beneficial to everyone and promotes equality and thus can be seen as more feminist. E.g. public healthcare.)

that's how we like it here.

[bluefall.insanejournal.com]

If Diana is all about community, then submitting to her mother or her sisters or the gods, any instance when she does what someone else asks, there's an argument somewhere in there about that submission being anti-feminist.

Well, that's always been a tricky balance for me personally, because certainly, it's incredibly important to me that the people Diana submits to are her mother and Athena and Aphrodite, and not Clark and Zeus and Poseidon, or whoever. I mean, even assuming Zeus was a legitimate patron and not a spazzball of ruination and woe. Because while it's very true that submission to a legitimate authority whom you love and trust is a good worldview to have in the mix on an absolute level, when offered up in the form of a female submitting to a male, it carries all kinds of nasty problematic cultural baggage that absolutely does not need to be anywhere near Diana.

But on the other hand, the communal aspect of her character is, to me, central to her feminism (which is again, to me, central to her character). Community is a very feminine-gendered thing - whether by nature or nurture may be up for debate, but is also entirely beside the point - and that feeds off of and into a dismissal of community as something relevant to a hero. Asking for help is feminine, having a support structure is feminine, admitting the need for a support structure is feminine, being nurtured is feminine. Coincidentally, these are all also signs of weakness. I think it's important that Diana is a refutation of that, because it's a refutation of the idea that a woman has to be *like* a man, has to discard all things feminine (I would even go so far as to say authentically feminine, to delineate this argument from the "women who don't shave" bullshit), in order to have achieved equality with men. Because if the only way to be as badass as a male hero is to give up everything that makes you different from him, is that really equality?

Not that, as you say, this should be a universal conceit. A phrase that can pretty much without fail get my teeth grinding painfully is "men with breasts," because who the fuck are you to tell me Renee Montoya is not a "real" woman, and why don't you come say that to the face of the five women I know who are exactly like her? But I do think that "women who are heroes in traditionally masculine ways" are fairly well represented, comparatively, while "women who are heroes in traditionally feminine ways" are bare on the ground like snow in March, and we need Diana out there carrying that banner.

Which is of course much easier if you've got another woman up there carrying the other banner so people stop trying to give it to Diana,* making your suggestion of Oracle a pretty awesome one, because Babs very much *is* the tough loner from tragedy who makes her own calls and answers to no one, so there's your perfect demonstration right there that both paths are valid and important to maintain. (Also, Babs has a far more legitimate in-universe claim to a place in the center of the spandex universe than Bruce does, but the DCU has always been much more metatextual than not.)

* Whoa damn did I just have an interesting thought about Geoff Johns' writing habits.

Re: that's how we like it here.

[parsimonia.insanejournal.com]

Coincidentally, these are all also signs of weakness

It's funny how not being able to ask for help is also a huge weakness, but someone who doesn't ask for help always retains that veneer of being tough guy.

because it's a refutation of the idea that a woman has to be *like* a man, has to discard all things feminine

Yes! It took me forever to realize that if I liked or wanted to do traditionally feminine things, that didn't mean I was buying into sexism or sexist culture.

(I would even go so far as to say authentically feminine, to delineate this argument from the "women who don't shave" bullshit)

Not quite sure I follow you, there.

But I do think that "women who are heroes in traditionally masculine ways" are fairly well represented, comparatively, while "women who are heroes in traditionally feminine ways" are bare on the ground like snow in March, and we need Diana out there carrying that banner.

Agreed. Suddenly I'm picturing a superhero in a bright pink costume. Misfit could totally pull that off.

You know, I would really like to see a scene where Babs and Diana meet for the first time. Probably set during her Batgirl years. I can see a younger Babs being less of a feminist than she would become later on. I mean, obviously, she's not going to buy into anyone's "she's just a girl" bullshit, but in terms of dealing with other women, I can see there being a touch of misogyny on her part. I think it's the part in Batgirl: Year One, when she's at the costume store and the store clerk says he has a WW costume, and her reaction is a condescending "Please..." or something similar, that's influencing me on that.

Especially if they got onto the topic of feminism for whatever reason, I can see Babs being all "Psh, I took Women's Studies 101, I know everything about feminism." And then Diana would make some observation that would make Babs think twice and re-examine.

[parsimonia.insanejournal.com]

I'd like throw in the word "reverence" here. One can revere God, gods, nature, a person, or a particularly tasty piece of cake, even. You can honour something, be in awe of it, and respect it without worshipping, being submissive or subservient.