How Important Is Fidelity To The Myths?

[Agent Z]

I've complained about Hades being used as a villain and I'm fine if Ares isn't a villain in future stories. Then again, I'd be lying if I said I also had no problem with the Amazons not being evil misandrists. So how important is fidelity to the myths? How far can we take artistic license?

[Vordan]

I've complained about Hades being used as a villain and I'm fine if Ares isn't a villain in future stories. Then again, I'd be lying if I said I also had no problem with the Amazons not being evil misandrists. So how important is fidelity to the myths? How far can we take artistic license?

So you want them to be evil misandrists? (I’m assuming you mean to say you’d be lying if you said you had no problem with them being evil misandrists).

Fidelity doesn’t matter at all. Marston was actually all about subverting the myths, with the Amazons being portrayed as highly advanced peace loving philosopher warriors rather than barbaric backwards warrior women. So it’s fine if the way the Greek myths work in the DCU don’t match up with how the “real” myths work. The Norse mythos over at Marvel likewise aren’t very accurate to the “real” myths. Loki is Odin’s blood brother not Thor’s. Thor is married and has two sons in the myths. Changes are made to suit the nature of the character and the shared universe.

[Gaius]

Even the Greeks had competing or different versions of the same myths. So differences from the actual myths don’t bother me for the most part.

[Tzigone]

I think fidelity to the concepts of the fandom (which has good Amazons, evil Mars/Ares, etc.) is more important than fidelity to the myths. I could understand if a, for a new fandom altogether, someone was not interested in something that went against the myths. Really, subversion is just an overused trope as the original things that were subverted these days (Cinderella-is-evil, heroes-are-bad-people, villains-are-woobies, etc.). But when dealing with a fictional mythos that already exists, staying true to its mythology is more important than a real-world one. That doesn't mean it can never be changed, of course. Just that the priority always lie with what's established in this universe.

[Agent Z]

So you want them to be evil misandrists? (I’m assuming you mean to say you’d be lying if you said you had no problem with them being evil misandrists).

No I absolutely mean I don't want them to be evil misandrists. I may have needed to phrase that better.

[kjn]

Fidelity to the myths is not necessary. But I think it's very important that Wonder Woman writers have a great understanding of both the myths and of the theories used to interrogate the myths. The writers (and editors) should be able to understand what they are doing with the mythical material, and why.

[Tzigone]

But I think it's very important that Wonder Woman writers have a great understanding of both the myths and of the theories used to interrogate the myths.

I honestly just don't think that matters. Good stories and consistent representation of the myths/mythological figures within the fiction is enough.

[kjn]

I honestly just don't think that matters. Good stories and consistent representation of the myths/mythological figures within the fiction is enough.

For a character like Marvel Thor, I'd agree. But Wonder Woman was born out of ideology.

[Perseus]

I'm of the general belief that fidelity to the myths should be placed were it can be that doesn't take away from the Wondermythos. For example: Herakles can keep all his adventures while still enslaving the amazons because actual myth Herc did similar things, its not OOC for him. I don't even mind Hera being an antagonistic character, so long as she has redeemable qualities, which she does for the most part.

[Stanlos]

I've complained about Hades being used as a villain and I'm fine if Ares isn't a villain in future stories. Then again, I'd be lying if I said I also had no problem with the Amazons not being evil misandrists. So how important is fidelity to the myths? How far can we take artistic license?

Fidelity to the myths is not a necessity. They are the backdrop and can serve as a rich source of inspiration. However I fully expect the continued evolution of the myths a la Marston and the way he portrayed Hippolyte. Rucka thus far has been the only forward thinking writer aligning with that idea

[hgzip]

I was familiar with the Greek myths before I learned about Wonder Woman, so I do have some issues with the 'artistic license'. I just know how the gods are related and what their responsibilities are, and it rubs me the wrong way if there are significant deviations. For example, in the first Rucka run, when suddenly Demeter was shown with bow and arrow, because the goddess Artemis could not be used to avoid confusion with the amazon Artemis. (Did DC think their readers are imbeciles?)

[kjn]

I was familiar with the Greek myths before I learned about Wonder Woman, so I do have some issues with the 'artistic license'. I just know how the gods are related and what their responsibilities are, and it rubs me the wrong way if there are significant deviations. For example, in the first Rucka run, when suddenly Demeter was shown with bow and arrow, because the goddess Artemis could not be used to avoid confusion with the amazon Artemis. (Did DC think their readers are imbeciles?)

Yeah, that is another angle at this, but I think a lot depends on what the focus is, and why there is a change.

Things like the attributes of the mythological characters should be largely left unchanged. You can probably add or remove some responsibilities or areas of influence for some gods, but nothing too big, and any such change should be motivated by the story. Their familial relations should largely be left unchanged, though you also have some room to fiddle (like that Circe and Medea should be related, but it doesn't matter much if they're aunt and niece, or sisters, or something else).

But if a change—or perhaps better put, reinterpretation—is motivated by story, then I see no reason to hold back. Achilles as a trans woman and her mother an Amazon could make for some great reinterpretation of both his time on Skyros and of the Illiad. If Odysseus comes off as an ass in that story rather than someone admirable, it would still be fine.

[Gaius]

Yeah, that is another angle at this, but I think a lot depends on what the focus is, and why there is a change.

Things like the attributes of the mythological characters should be largely left unchanged. You can probably add or remove some responsibilities or areas of influence for some gods, but nothing too big, and any such change should be motivated by the story. Their familial relations should largely be left unchanged, though you also have some room to fiddle (like that Circe and Medea should be related, but it doesn't matter much if they're aunt and niece, or sisters, or something else).

But if a change—or perhaps better put, reinterpretation—is motivated by story, then I see no reason to hold back. Achilles as a trans woman and her mother an Amazon could make for some great reinterpretation of both his time on Skyros and of the Illiad. If Odysseus comes off as an ass in that story rather than someone admirable, it would still be fine.

Worth nothing there's a precedent for stuff like Odysseus being reinterpreted along those lines as how Roman writers viewed him more negatively for largely the same traits the Greeks honored him for. So going back to how even when Hellenism was widely worshipped there were varying views on it.

So something like that could work in a franchise where Circe is a prominent character.

[Korath]

i'd rather writers stop ascribing Judeo-Christian motifs to the Greek myths would be great and if they have a problem with Patriarchy, then Diana should tackle Monotheism far more than any Pagan myths.

But then again, I think that marston idea of warrior-philosophers who loves peace is incredibly dumb and simply can't work. Either the Amazons are a warrior people who lives secluded and hate the rest of the world and we have the New 52 Amazons which made sense, or they are peace-loving people who actually don't spend all their time training to fight a war against something or someone or whatever the **** they are supposed to be doing and actually pursue higher knowledge, philosophy and beliefs, with Diana the outlier who actually wants to make use of what her people have achieved for the whole world to grow into a better place.

Marston infused so much of his own kinks and ideology in the characters of the Wonder Woman's comics that doing so would probably not work with readers however.

[SiegePerilous02]

i'd rather writers stop ascribing Judeo-Christian motifs to the Greek myths would be great and if they have a problem with Patriarchy, then Diana should tackle Monotheism far more than any Pagan myths.

But then again, I think that marston idea of warrior-philosophers who loves peace is incredibly dumb and simply can't work. Either the Amazons are a warrior people who lives secluded and hate the rest of the world and we have the New 52 Amazons which made sense, or they are peace-loving people who actually don't spend all their time training to fight a war against something or someone or whatever the **** they are supposed to be doing and actually pursue higher knowledge, philosophy and beliefs, with Diana the outlier who actually wants to make use of what her people have achieved for the whole world to grow into a better place.

Marston infused so much of his own kinks and ideology in the characters of the Wonder Woman's comics that doing so would probably not work with readers however.

They're not really ascribing Judeo-Christian motifs to Greek myths though. Aside from pitting Aphrodite vs. Ares as a God vs. Devil figures (which has been downplayed in modern times), this has never been an actual thing.

Stuff like criticizing Zeus for being an abusive misogynist is right out of the myths based on his behavior.