Wonder Woman #35 SPOILERS

[brettc1]

Hermes says Zeus appears to women in disguise to father children.

But he does not appear to Hippolyta in disguise. Does this mean she is not a woman?

In any event, he is the father of Ares. AND the Firstborn! Did he disguise himself to get together with his wife?Ther is no evidence he tricked her into either pregnancy.

The logical explanation, which satisfies both Hermes words in book and the stories that Azzarello references multiple times, is that he disguises himself when appearing to MORTALS. There being no contradictory statement or implication in the book, there is no rational reason to believe that Apollo and Artemis were not the children of the immortal Leto.

Evidence and dispassionate logic.

[Silvanus]

Hermes says Zeus appears to women in disguise to father children.

But he does not appear to Hippolyta in disguise. Does this mean she is not a woman?

Nah--that would be a wildly illogical conclusion (though it's an imaginative straw man. My compliments.) First of all, I don't think Hermes knew that Hippolyta and Zeus had been together, and he wouldn't have told Zola if he did. Secondly, I've already said the story doesn't exclude the possibility that Zeus appeared to other women as himself; but it doesn't present that possibility, either. The story sets up and highlights a contrast between Zeus' typical extramarital affairs, described in issue 2, and the affair with Hippolyta, described in 3. Other exceptions, besides Hippolyta, are possible but never featured or referred to in the story.

In any event, he is the father of Ares. AND the Firstborn! Did he disguise himself to get together with his wife?

No. Hermes is clear about that: "When Zeus consorts with a woman other than his wife, he chooses a form that will inspire an uncontrollable lust...."

The logical explanation, which satisfies both Hermes words in book and the stories that Azzarello references multiple times, is that he disguises himself when appearing to MORTALS

Or, he does it when he wants to "inspire an uncontrollable lust" in order to seduce them (or "to curry [their] favor," as Hermes also puts it on the same page). Hera didn't need to be seduced; sadly, as a representation of a typical traditional queen, believed it was her privilege and duty to make love with Zeus. Remember the desperate way in which she asked Hippolyta (in #4) how to make Zeus love her. I think it's pretty clear that "absolute control...given up" is not how Hera or anyone else would describe Hera's relationship with Zeus.

In Hippolyta's case, he was apparently able to inspire lust--and, according to her, something more than that--without need of disguise. (And even before he knew how passionate she could be about him in his own form, he most likely appeared as himself in order to "answer her prayers" by giving her a child--albeit the old-fashioned way.)

Incidentally, though to me it's besides the point, not all those old stories support the conclusion that Zeus employs disguise only with mortals: "In the Orphic myths, the maiden goddess Persephone was seduced by Zeus in the guise of a serpent." ( http://www.theoi.com/Khthonios/Persephone.html#Zeus )

Also, "MNEMOSYNE The Titaness of Memory was seduced by Zeus in the disguise of a shepherd." Not very exotic, and more like the disguise he supposedly wore with Zola--but a disguise nonetheless. ( http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/ZeusLoves.html )

There being no contradictory statement or implication in the book, there is no rational reason to believe that Apollo and Artemis were not the children of the immortal Leto.

No--and there's no reason to assume that they were, either. If I had to guess, I'd guess that if their mother is ever revealed, it will indeed be Leto; but if I were writing biographies based on what we know about the New 52 gods so far, I'd say that their mother is unknown. And it doesn't really matter. Even if she is immortal, Zeus may have appeared to her in disguise to inspire an uncontrollable lust in her. Even if he did not disguise himself, he may not have given her reason to believe, for decades afterwards, that he had loved her or surrendered control to her. In any case, it simply isn't part of the story, which simply contrasts the affair with Hippolyta to the description in the previous issue of Zeus' typical affairs with "women other than his wife."

[Awonder]

You're citing myths that haven't been alluded to in this book--maybe because the evidence in the actual book doesn't suit your purpose. I'm looking at the book--

WAIT a minute - you're complaining about not sticking to what's in the book? Are you feeling ok?

... I'm sure I'm often not as logical as I'm sure I am. (Even that sentence wasn't very logical).

Finally, something I can agree with.

[brettc1]

Nah--that would be a wildly illogical conclusion (though it's an imaginative straw man. My compliments.) First of all, I don't think Hermes knew that Hippolyta and Zeus had been together, and he wouldn't have told Zola if he did. Secondly, I've already said the story doesn't exclude the possibility that Zeus appeared to other women as himself; but it doesn't present that possibility, either. The story sets up and highlights a contrast between Zeus' typical extramarital affairs, described in issue 2, and the affair with Hippolyta, described in 3. Other exceptions, besides Hippolyta, are possible but never featured or referred to in the story.



No. Hermes is clear about that: "When Zeus consorts with a woman other than his wife, he chooses a form that will inspire an uncontrollable lust...."



Or, he does it when he wants to "inspire an uncontrollable lust" in order to seduce them (or "to curry [their] favor," as Hermes also puts it on the same page). Hera didn't need to be seduced; sadly, as a representation of a typical traditional queen, believed it was her privilege and duty to make love with Zeus. Remember the desperate way in which she asked Hippolyta (in #4) how to make Zeus love her. I think it's pretty clear that "absolute control...given up" is not how Hera or anyone else would describe Hera's relationship with Zeus.

In Hippolyta's case, he was apparently able to inspire lust--and, according to her, something more than that--without need of disguise. (And even before he knew how passionate she could be about him in his own form, he most likely appeared as himself in order to "answer her prayers" by giving her a child--albeit the old-fashioned way.)

Incidentally, though to me it's besides the point, not all those old stories support the conclusion that Zeus employs disguise only with mortals: "In the Orphic myths, the maiden goddess Persephone was seduced by Zeus in the guise of a serpent." ( http://www.theoi.com/Khthonios/Persephone.html#Zeus )

Also, "MNEMOSYNE The Titaness of Memory was seduced by Zeus in the disguise of a shepherd." Not very exotic, and more like the disguise he supposedly wore with Zola--but a disguise nonetheless. ( http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/ZeusLoves.html )



No--and there's no reason to assume that they were, either. If I had to guess, I'd guess that if their mother is ever revealed, it will indeed be Leto; but if I were writing biographies based on what we know about the New 52 gods so far, I'd say that their mother is unknown. And it doesn't really matter. Even if she is immortal, Zeus may have appeared to her in disguise to inspire an uncontrollable lust in her. Even if he did not disguise himself, he may not have given her reason to believe, for decades afterwards, that he had loved her or surrendered control to her. In any case, it simply isn't part of the story, which simply contrasts the affair with Hippolyta to the description in the previous issue of Zeus' typical affairs with "women other than his wife."

So.

Wonder Woman has a serial rapist for a dad.

[Silvanus]

WAIT a minute - you're complaining about not sticking to what's in the book? Are you feeling ok?

Heh. At least Ceto, unlike Leto, was in a book featuring Wonder Woman--it just happened to be Batwoman.

[Silvanus]

So.

Wonder Woman has a serial rapist for a dad.

I don't know about "dad"; more like "sperm donor," don't you think? But anyway, we've known since issue 3 that she had a father who, according to Hermes, seduced by wearing irresistible disguises. If we take "irresistible" literally, then yes, that sounds like rape; or, even if irresisitble just means really, really attractive, he did a very bad thing by deceiving this women about this identity.Hopefully, his sexual sins are among the reasons he got sick of being himself; and I'd love to see it confirmed someday that he started to see the light at the moment of her conception, so that that she starting reforming people (in a way) at the very, very beginning of this life. Anyway,, for me, she's defined by her own actions and personality, not by the actions of her father.

[Awonder]

Heh. At least Ceto, unlike Leto, was in a book featuring Wonder Woman--it just happened to be Batwoman.

I still love your Ceto theory; it's part of my head-canon. It's not your fault Azzarello wasn't smart enough to include it.

[brettc1]

Also, Hera never asks how Hippolyta got Zeus to love her. As I recall, Hera asked what Zeus said to make Hippolyta love him.

Fair question considering the number of women he has god roofied and then assaulted.

However, I notice that the website you cited for the legend of Persephone also names Leto as a "bride" of Zeus, and another website

http://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/...Leto/leto.html

notes that Zeus impregnated Leto before his marriage to Hera was initiated.

So where does that leave us?

One thing which is perfectly clear is that nobody, not even Athena, is sure what the hell Zeus has in his head when he put his master plan into motion. She knew the details, but not the motivation. So all this talk of learning loving submission at the gentle hands of one of the few women he has sex with and [presumably] not raped is really speculation to fill in gaps of the story with something purposeful. The idea that Hippolyta could actually fall in love with a man with a well known tendency to disrespect his wife and use other women as disposable pleasures is, quite frankly, utterly hateful to me.

We do know that Zeus was apparently so in love with Hippolyta that he decided he had to have sex with his own daughter, and that this is at least two decades after his infidelity with Diana's mother.

[Silvanus]

Also, Hera never asks how Hippolyta got Zeus to love her. As I recall, Hera asked what Zeus said to make Hippolyta love him.

Fair enough, and thanks for pointing that out; but, after asking what Zeus said to make Hippolyta love him, she asks "What can I do to make him...?" That sentence trails off, but I think it's fair to guess that she wasn't going to say "what can I do to make him the world's best eggs benedict?," but "what can I do to make him love me?" In any case, it's clear that Zeus doesn't give up control to Hera; therefore, his encournters with Hera are unlike the encounter Hippolyta describes.

However, I notice that the website you cited for the legend of Persephone also names Leto as a "bride" of Zeus, and another website

http://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/...Leto/leto.html

notes that Zeus impregnated Leto before his marriage to Hera was initiated.

So where does that leave us?

Right where we were, I think. If Zeus was married to Leto, he might have appeared to her in his own form; but again, that by itself doesn't mean she ever would have said he loved her or believed (after 23 years for reflection) that he gave up control to her. And in any case, none of that is alluded to in this story, so I don't think it can have much, if any, bearing on an interpretation of this story.

Anyway, as you pointed out before, Artemis and Apollo are referred to as as children of a "dalliance," and, elsewhere in the story, as bastards; this seems to imply that Zeus and their mother weren't married in this continuity.

One thing which is perfectly clear is that nobody, not even Athena, is sure what the hell Zeus has in his head when he put his master plan into motion. She knew the details, but not the motivation. So all this talk of learning loving submission at the gentle hands of one of the few women he has sex with and [presumably] not raped is really speculation to fill in gaps of the story with something purposeful.

I already acknowledged that it's left somewhat open-ended and open to interpretation. We have circumstantial evidence: Zeus gave up control (according to Hippolyta) in a moment of passion; later, according to Athena, he wanted more for Hippolyta's young daughter; just a little more than three years later (a blink of an eye to the gods), he started to gave up control (albeit manipulatively) in a larger way by started a process that would leave him as a mortal's infant. That's quite suggestive to me, but, as I said, it's not definitive proof.

The open-endedness is a little frustrating, I grant you, but in this case it seems totally deliberate. There may be other cases where Azz was a little sloppy and didn't get around to explaining something he might have meant to explain--Strife's pin, for example, might fall into that category. But in the case of Zeus' motives, he has Athena speculate about them but explicitly say she doesn't know for sure. If the ambiguity were accidental, it probably wouldn't be foregrounded so explicitly and featured so prominently. Frustrating as it may be, I can understand this choice; being too clear about Zeus' motives for this would probably not ring true--of course his motives would be obscure and mysterious. It reminds me, tangentially, of a poetic turn I quoted in the thread on the Lepore book; Lepore says "Much about any life is impossible to record. Every marriage, each love, is ineffable. And the ways of mothers and fathers remain, to every child, mysterious."

Despite that, I'd love. as I said before, to have it confirmed one day that "giving up control" to Hippolyta inspired Zeus' desire for rebirth. Until then, I can only say why I find this interpretation more supportable and satisfying, though not definitive.

The idea that Hippolyta could actually fall in love with a man with a well known tendency to disrespect his wife and use other women as disposable pleasures is, quite frankly, utterly hateful to me.

I understand. To me, however, it seems that love--especially in stories and legends--can be capricious, and good people can fall in love, at least for a moment, with people who have done very bad things. It would be wiser and better, I'm sure, if everyone could only fall in love with the right people; but, in my view, falling in love with the wrong person--even a very, very wrong person--seems like a pretty ordinary and human imperfection.

And the idea that there is something lovable and redeemable in everyone seems pretty deeply ingrained in Wonder Woman comics. That doesn't mean, at all, that Hippolyta or Diana has to fall in love with every bad man; most of the time, the love they express for evil people should be platonic, as with Hades. But if Hippolyta's love did influence Zeus to try to become a "new man," so to speak, then, even though he went about it in the corrupt and manipulative way to which he had been accustomed, the basic idea is love influencing someone to seek to become better--and that's pretty much at the heart of the Wonder Woman ethos.

[brettc1]

Deleted post.

What's the point.

[Vonter Voman]

About Athena's line again, I think Zeus got to know about Ares interest in Diana when Athena was watching them as an owl in issue #0.

[Silvanus]

I was in the middle of replying to Brett when he deleted his post. So, without quoting what he decided to remove, I'll still say a couple of things I was going to say. Brett, if I accidentally leave in any references to your post and you want them out, just let me know, OK?

First, Zeus's choice to be reborn as a helpless infant wouldn't be my choice. But then, I'm not an immortal who has spent millenia exercising power over himself and others and have found myself regretful and/or extremely bored. That's an extreme situation for which he concocts an extreme solution, god-style. I think his idea is pretty much to start from scratch, and he might have believed that to start from scratch, he had to give up everything. He's too much of a control freak to really get that right, though, so even as an infant, Zeus/Zeke has some power, and the plan is extremely manipulative.

Like it or not, the idea that there is pleasure something both pleasurable and constructive about yielding power over oneself is pretty central to the philosophy Marston expressed in Emotions of Normal People, several comments about Wonder Woman, and elsewhere. Zeus's way of doing this is so manipulative that, in Marston's ways of thinking, it's probably a perversion of the idea of submission; paradoxically, Zeus is aggressively bending people to his will even in the act of giving up control. Marston does talk about this kind of thing, in a way; he finds the selfish or ego-driven use of love's influence very unhealthy. But i don't think we're meant to approve of Zeus' methods, even if we can recognize a possible desire for redemption(or at least a second chance) in his motives.

What I really like about issue 3 is that I think it gives us an image of mutual submission--not unilateral submission, which is what the word "submission" usually makes us think of, but two people sharing power with each other (if only, in this case, for a fleeting moment). I hope Morrison will have followed a similar course (philosophically, not plot-wise) but expanded on it, in finding a way to do what he said he wanted to do: work with Marston's ideas without pretending to accept them whole. Turning submission into mutual submission, or cooperation, seems to be the way to go.

I wanted to take the quote I keep using from Hippolyta in issue 3 and put it in context:

givenup.jpg

I think the language of mutuality--"strength supporting strength"--is really important there; to me, it suggests that while, sure, they are yielding to their desires, these two sovereigns are also yielding to and with each other. For sovereigns, that's probably a big deal. If submission is "faith in the strength of another" (as Diana says in the finale-- then yeah, I think that by saying each supported the strength of the other with their own, Hippolyta's saying that she and Zeus submitted to each other.

Sadly, they did so in the context of adultery. They each betrayed Hera. That's wrong--there's no doubt about it. But it appears that, as Hippolyta remembers it, there was something "glorious" mixed in with the badness. I think like is like that--some good is often mixed in with bad--and there's nothing wrong with fiction being like that too, in my opinion. We know that some good came out of this sinful relationship: Wonder Woman was conceived. Maybe some other good came out of it: Zeus, by contrast with this one meaningful moment with Hippolyta, sees the meaninglessness and lovelessness of his life, and he decides to give himself a second chance (though he goes about it in a perverse way).

[brettc1]

It's 1am here, but since I can't sleep I might as well type.

Firstly, the idea that throwing the Firstborn into a pit for another 7000 years of torture in the hope he will learn more compassion has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen in print. The idea that Wonder Woman would deliberately condemn someone to such horrific punishment out of love is horrifying. It would actually have been more compassionate to kill him.

But more importantly, Zeus, in this story, is a disgusting, utterly vile creature. He mentally tortures his wife, has sex with any woman he thinks he wants and presumably justifies it by calling it love, and fathers children by them, who I suppose are then expected to be grateful. He does nothing about showing them the least love or affection, and if he or his designated messenger were to turn up one day and say "Hey, your dad wants something more for you" the correct response would be "That's nice, please tell him to go straight to hell."

The idea that a sane woman could know what he is and yet somehow blind herself to it and fall in love with him anyway is incomprehensible.

This thing that abandons his children after he has planted his seed and gone on to his next conquest has no right to be called a father, or a man, or indeed a good thing of any kind - certainly not glorious! He deserves no forgiveness and can achieve no redemption, and a story about how this creature manipulates his way into achieving it is sickening. I would rather find out that I was formed from a patch of dirt than have any genetic link to him.

[Vanguard-01]

Firstly, the idea that throwing the Firstborn into a pit for another 7000 years of torture in the hope he will learn more compassion has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen in print. The idea that Wonder Woman would deliberately condemn someone to such horrific punishment out of love is horrifying. It would actually have been more compassionate to kill him.

I'm inclined to agree.

If Diana wanted to trap the First Born and give him time to contemplate his misdeeds and learn compassion, she should've found a way to bind him in some other way.

The mere idea that Diana would think that the First Born will learn ANYTHING from another 7000 years of torment is ridiculous. The fact that she gave him this "opportunity" through an act of deception only makes it worse.

But more importantly, Zeus, in this story, is a disgusting, utterly vile creature. He mentally tortures his wife, has sex with any woman he thinks he wants and presumably justifies it by calling it love, and fathers children by them, who I suppose are then expected to be grateful. He does nothing about showing them the least love or affection, and if he or his designated messenger were to turn up one day and say "Hey, your dad wants something more for you" the correct response would be "That's nice, please tell him to go straight to hell."

The idea that a sane woman could know what he is and yet somehow blind herself to it and fall in love with him anyway is incomprehensible.

This thing that abandons his children after he has planted his seed and gone on to his next conquest has no right to be called a father, or a man, or indeed a good thing of any kind. He deserves no forgiveness and can achieve no redemption, and a story about how this creature manipulates his way into achieving it is sickening. I would rather find out that I was formed from a patch of dirt than have any genetic link to him.

This is an excellent summary of why I never supported the idea of Zeus as Diana's father. I like the idea of giving Diana a father, but I was never onboard with that father being Zeus. This is a good summary of why I don't support that idea.

[Silvanus]

He deserves no forgiveness and can achieve no redemption...

I do understand why you feel that way. I find him perverse and sickening too, and I think the book has been telling us that about him since issue 1. (The oracles sounded pretty disgusted with him and his plan.) But it seems to me that a central, recurring theme in the Wonder Woman books since Marston has been the question of whether redemption is a possibility for everyone. Whether "redemption for all" is possible or not, it's a lovely idea--and perhaps it is loveliest when found in the midst of greatest ugliness. It's easy to cheer when Wonder Woman forgives the Baroness for what she did when she her daughter's life was being threatened by the Nazis, right? But when Diana offers a second chance to someone who we find truly disturbing, that might test our faith in the universal possibility of redemption.

That he manipulates his way into his second chance is something that I'm a little uncomfortable with, as I said above (in the second post on the thread, if I remember right). I expected Zeus' plan to be something Diana would resist, not help to complete. At the same time, though, I expect good writing to often leave me a little uncomfortable, and I can understand that "the good guys simply won, the bad guys simply lost" would have been a little simplistic for Azzarello.

Your post does help me better understand why you might not want the affair with Hippolyta to have led Zeus to seek a second chance, even if (hypothetically) the evidence would support that interpretation. Obviously my perspective is different, but I appreciate knowing yours. Thanks. And I hope you were able to get some sleep. I was up late last night too. Insomnia sucks--perhaps we can agree on that, at least!