This first appeared on Comixology.
_________________
As NBC gears up for its new Wonder Woman series, the internet is abuzz with one burning question. What dastardly villain mugged our heroine with a casino? And does Adrianne Palicki get combat pay if that bustier ruptures and her cleavage assaults her noggin?
Okay, so those are two questions.
To be fair, NBC has also released pics of an updated (or possibly additional) costume, which isn’t quite as tragically latexy. Here are some action shots:
She looks so darned serious there…and brave! Looking at her face alone, you’d never realize the extent to which her boobs pose a danger to herself and others.
Oh for the days of Lynda Carter!
We miss your shapeless grandma-bottom bathing suit with the hint of camel-toe, Lynda!
Live-action super-hero costumes are often awful (I’m looking at you Styrofoam-muscle Batman), but Wonder Woman seems to bring out the worst in what I suppose, for the sake of brevity, we must call “fashion-designers.” What, in short, the-hell-is-wrong-with-these-people? Why, lord, why?
I actually have a theory. It’s all the fault of William Marston and Harry Peter.
For those not in the know, Marston was the creator of Wonder Woman. Harry Peter was the original artist on the series — hired by Marston himself. And their version of Wonder Woman looked like this:
Yes, that’s Wonder Woman with her hands tied behind her leaping backwards to attack a saber-tooth tiger. Which is fairly bad ass.
But the thing to focus on is what isn’t here. Specifically, there is not a whole lot of cleavage visible. Instead, Peter’s supple line dwells lovingly on those back muscles…and on WW’s super-butch shoulders. This was typical: even when the chest is visible in Peter’s drawings, he tends to focus interest on other areas:
Marston and Peter, in other words, put WW in that skimpy bustier so that they could look at her shoulders flexing, not so they could look down her front. Part of the problem with later iterations of Wonder Woman’s costume, then, has been a simple confusion of erotic focus. The costume wasn’t really designed for large amounts of cleavage. When you put a large amount of cleavage in there to propitiate our breast-obsessed culture, the results tend to be more silly than heroic.
Even putting aside the breasts, though, there would still be problems. Wonder Woman’s costume just was never imagined with real people in mind. You could argue that this was true for super-hero comics in general; drawings are different than living, breathing bodies, and Kirby clearly wasn’t thinking too hard about how an actor would look in Thing-face. But with Peter’s Wonder Woman…well, look at this, for example.
That doesn’t look like a drawing of a real woman. It looks like a stiff, posed picture of a doll.
And I think that really was the point. The rigidity and unreality of the drawings is not a bug; it’s a feature. Girls who read those early WW comics were encouraged to see themselves not just as the characters, but manipulating the characters, moving them about like toys. This is part of the pleasure of a sequence like the below, where Wonder Woman’s body is first duplicated (like a reproducible doll) and then inhabited by her friend, Etta Candy.
Etta and WW are both tied up in the picture above too, of course. Marston and Peter were obsessed with bondage. In their stories, WW often gets tied up every three panels or so. For Marston, this was linked to his odd ideas about feminism and submission; he believed women were superior to men because they were more comfortable with submission. Men, he felt, needed to learn submission from women. Wonder Woman was part of his effort to teach boys and girls the joys of “loving submission” to a wise matriarch.
So Marston was kind of a kook. But he was a kook whose kookiness dovetailed nicely with the interests of his audience. Sharon Marcus, in her book Between Women, noted that dominance and submission have long been an important part of literature for children, and particularly for girls. In the Victorian era, in particular, there were many books which featured “Fantasies of girls punishing dolls, and being punished by them appeared regularly in fiction for young readers.”
Whether Marston and Peter were deliberately referencing this type of story is unclear…but what is clear is that their comics worked with a similar dynamic. The frozen postures of the figures and the bondage themes are of a piece.
So, for example, the above picture shows the outcome of an Amazon game in which some women dress as deer so that their Amazon sisters can catch them, truss them up, put them on plates, and pretend to eat them. There’s certainly kink here…but it’s not especially focused on a stereotypical male appreciation of scantily-clad, realistically depicted female flesh. Rather, it’s embedded in a narrative of dominance, submission, and play. The kinky frisson is tied (as it were) to the artificiality of the doll-like poses.
Since Marston and Peter, lots of Wonder Woman artists have tried to rework the costume…to turn it into something that appeals to the typical erotics of older guys rather than to the B&D doll-playing interests of Marston and (Marcus suggests) young girls. As a result you get images like this, by, (I believe) Mike Deodato.
Wonder Woman’s costume was meant to be sexy. But it was meant to be sexy in a particular way and for particular kinks. Those kinks don’t map particularly well onto current mainstream interests or tastes. Efforts to make WW cater to those mainstream interests and tastes tend to be, at best, self-parodic. So if NBC’s costume looks ridiculous (and it does) it’s because they’re trying to squeeze a Playboy fantasy into a costume that was never meant to hold it.
_____________
All posts in the series on post-Marston iterations of Wonder Woman are here.
Do we know if Peter followed marston’s kink or was just following his directions?
The blue tights look stupid
Marston chose Peter specifically to be the artist…so I think it’s probably more that Peter’s work fit into Marston’s kinks, than that Peter shared them exactly? Or at least that’s my sense (there’s not a whole lot of evidence as to what Peter thought about this stuff as far as I can tell.)
Happy Birthday Noah!
But when running, it’s important to have top support–oh, but why ask why. I swear that first picture looks like a 1.99 Halloween costume stuck on markdown. *peers through fingers* Yes, it still looks like one.
Pingback: Comics A.M. | Zapiro lawsuit dropped; Jose Luis Ferrer passes away | Robot 6 @ Comic Book Resources – Covering Comic Book News and Entertainment
… maybe you forgot Byrne’s one?
No Noah,
Marston chose Peter because Peter was a fellow Venusian who knew “what life was really all about”.
That doesn’t contradict what I said, as far as I can tell. The “fellow Venusian” thing actually seems to confirm it. Though…what’s your source for that? I haven’t seen anyone say anywhere that Peter shared, or even cared about, Marston’s philosophical interests.
And it’s the discussion of Marston’s sexual interests that you don’t like, right?
————————–
Noah Berlatsky says:
Marston and Peter, in other words, put WW in that skimpy bustier so that they could look at her shoulders flexing, not so they could look down her front.
————————–
Yes! Though she was beautiful, their Wonder Woman’s body was athletic, with a sleek, coiled-spring physique, rather than the juicy, voluptuous build of pin-ups in later times.
Moreover, her slim build recalls the liberated (if hedonistic) “flappers” of the 20s, who flattened their breasts with a bandeau to acquire a more boyish silhouette, rather than the hourglass shape of their corseted predecessors.
And, the character was intended to appeal to girls, with a message of liberation, rather than the lubricious (what a splendidly sleazy word!) interest of males.
But, here we read:
————————–
Although Wonder Woman was ostensibly a comic book for girls, editor Sheldon Mayer commented that Marston “was writing a feminist book but not for women. He was dealing with a male audience.” It is infrequently acknowledged that about 90% of the readership of Wonder Woman has always been male, despite the adoption of Wonder Woman as a strong role model for girls by feminists such as Gloria Steinem.
—————————
http://www.uky.edu/Projects/Chemcomics/html/ww_21_cov.html
This “Internet” thing sure is amazing! Here’s an early Wonder Woman costume design from Peter, with a note starting, “Dear Doctor Marston, I slapped these two out in a hurry…” and Marston’s response: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/10/birth-of-wonder-woman.html
Evolution of WW’s costume: http://dccomicsartists.com/goldage/WonderWoman.htm
This “stub” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Peter — mentions, “His most lasting work came when the 61-year-old artist brought William Moulton Marston’s heroine Wonder Woman to comic book pages.”
Peter was old enough to remember those “flappers”; and he started rendering WW in 1941, when the pinup style was, if not 20s boyish, still somewhat sleek. Samples from ’41:
http://img1.etsystatic.com/000/0/5668105/il_fullxfull.247808149.jpg
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Jean-Arthur-sexy-vintage-leggy-1941-pinup-photo-in-her-swimsuit-/00/s/MTAwMlg3OTE=/z/sZcAAOxyW1NRESu6/$%28KGrHqZHJEcFEKvLTBKnBRESu6DOrw~~60_35.JPG
Although, even in the same year, we see things starting to “bust out.”
From Vargas: http://media.picfor.me/001105112/by-Alberto-Vargas—1941-Paintings–pin-up–no-1–Nenalove–pin-ups–pinups–drawings–hot-art_large.jpg
Rita Hayworth: http://dyn2.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5B8/3/9/8/8398755%5D,sizedata%5B450x2000%5D&call=url%5Bfile:product.chain%5D
Some modest-bosomed pinups from the 20s for comparison:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gatochy/1464349255/
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nXBD7NnVW9w/T38GBpzbN-I/AAAAAAAAF-Y/GiQGECE5_zM/s1600/arcade-card-exhibit-supply-company-pin-up-woman-standing-in-sheer-veil-hands-clasped-bobbed-hair-1927.jpg
Flappers!
http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/his1005spring2011/tag/flappers/ (Um, that movie image of the women with the apple is, well…)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flapper
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/threaded/2013/02/the-history-of-the-flapper-part-1-a-call-for-freedom/
That 90% male audience figure is…not very solid, as far as I can tell. I think Gerard Jones says he saw it in a survey, but there’s no info about what the survey was or where he saw it or how it was conducted, or anything. I don’t think it’s reliable.
I think the truth is that WW was for boys and girls. Marston was very committed, in fact, to the idea that boys should identify with and imitate girls; he was pretty consciously going not for a female audience, or a male audience, but for both.
“The “fellow Venusian” thing actually seems to confirm it. Though…what’s your source for that? I haven’t seen anyone say anywhere that Peter shared, or even cared about, Marston’s philosophical interests.”
See? THAT’S the problem! You rely too much on PUBLIC sources only. To get your opinions of Marston from. Whereas the Marston scholars actually STUDY it in the proper CONTEXT and have a scientific FRAMEWORK. Not to mention, their use of sources that are NOT public, such as letters written by Marston that haven’t been published anywhere, or interviews with people who have personally known Marston.
This is too complex to discuss here. You should email me.
My advice for you now: LEARN FROM THE SCHOLARS! DON’T DO IT ON YOUR OWN!
>>>>Etta and WW are both tied up in the picture above too, of course. Marston and Peter were obsessed with bondage. In their stories, WW often gets tied up every three panels or so. For Marston, this was linked to his odd ideas about feminism and submission; he believed women were superior to men because they were more comfortable with submission. Men, he felt, needed to learn submission from women. Wonder Woman was part of his effort to teach boys and girls the joys of “loving submission” to a wise matriarch<<<<<>>>>>Wonder Woman’s costume was meant to be sexy. But in particular way Those kinks don’t particularly well on current mainstream. Efforts to make WW cater to those mainstream interests and tastes tend to be, at best, self-parodic. So if NBC’s costume looks ridiculous (and it does) it’s because they’re trying to squeeze a Playboy fantasy into a costume that was never meant to hold it.<<<<<
Again, more CRAP coming out the mouth of those who don't know any better, but present themselves AS IF they knew what they're talking about!!
WW's outfit was meant to be alluring. Period. So whatever that means to the current times, then its perfectly valid.
>>>>Etta and WW are both tied up in the picture above too, of course. Marston and Peter were obsessed with bondage. In their stories, WW often gets tied up every three panels or so. For Marston, this was linked to his odd ideas about feminism and submission; he believed women were superior to men because they were more comfortable with submission. Men, he felt, needed to learn submission from women. Wonder Woman was part of his effort to teach boys and girls the joys of “loving submission” to a wise matriarch<<<<<<
You see Berlatsky? This is what I'm talking about! Statements like the one above show how much people DON'T know what the fuk their talking about.
Marston did NOT believe women were superior because they were more comfortable with submission! Where the heck did THAT idea come from?!?!?
Its just like the false propaganda about the lie detector being the inspiration for the Magic Lasso. WHERE DID MARSTON EVER SAY THAT?!?
Its bullcrap!!!
People just talk and talk and talk, without really even knowing what they're talking about!!
Without checking their facts.
They just spew and spew and spew CRAP!
Such bull shows how the person in question NEVER really studied Marston's theories.
This is getting ridiculous.
I’m happy to have a talk with you. But if I ask a question and you start shouting, I’m afraid that doesn’t really make me want to talk to you by email, or at all.
Okay…that’s it man. You’re shouting, you’re abusive, and you’re clearly also kind of crazy. Please don’t try to post here again.
It was entertaining up to a point… but anytime someone keeps trying to assume a superior position by citing SEKRIT MISTIK GNAWLEDG, it’s time to back away slowly…
But…some of us do have “secret mystic knowledge”… *sob!*
(OK, it’s Google…)
Re that PBS documentary I’d mentioned earlier:
————————-
Yesterday, my local library had a showing of Wonder Women!: The Untold Story of American Superheroines, a documentary covering the origin of the first female superhero, her legacy as an inspiration, and the necessity of powerful fantasy figures for women and girls….
————————-
More details at http://comicsworthreading.com/2013/03/17/wonder-women-the-untold-story-of-american-superheroines/
————————-
Noah Berlatsky says:
That 90% male audience figure is…not very solid, as far as I can tell. I think Gerard Jones says he saw it in a survey, but there’s no info about what the survey was or where he saw it or how it was conducted, or anything. I don’t think it’s reliable.
I think the truth is that WW was for boys and girls. Marston was very committed, in fact, to the idea that boys should identify with and imitate girls; he was pretty consciously going not for a female audience, or a male audience, but for both.
————————–
Certainly Marston was aiming at a “gender-integrated” audience; as to how successful he may have been in achieving something close to parity, that’s another matter.
Dunno about that specific survey Gerard Jones saw; certainly in WW’s heyday, comics were not the capes-and-tights-dominated virtual “monoculture” they are nowadays; there was a far greater availability of all-ages and girl-friendly fare.
(Must…use my Google’ing powers!)
—————————-
A 1944 report by the Market Research Company of America showed that 95% of boys and 91% of girls aged 6-11 read comics; 87% of boys and 81% of girls aged 12-17; 41% of males and 28% of females aged 18-30; and 16% of males and 12% of females over the age of thirty. The younger girls and boys were reading a dozen comics a month on average. These statistics don’t include the daily newspaper strips or Sunday funnies.
Girls might not have been as interested as the boys were in superdummies punching each other in the face, but there were alternatives available in abundance: Archie and other teen humour comics; funny animal comics; romance comics; and career girls, like Millie the Model, Tessie the Typist and Katy Keene.
——————————–
A ton of utterly charming old-time “girls reading comics” follow, at http://junglefrolics.blogspot.com/2011/03/girls-read-comics.html . (Plenty of the young ladies shown reading hardly “girlish” fare, BTW.)
Alas, nowadays — aside from parts of manga — comics readership is overwhelmingly male:
——————————
Last year, a DC and Nielson ratings report on the series “The New 52”—where the storylines of Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and others were revamped—found that a whopping 93 percent of readers were male.
——————————–
http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/04/13/we-want-wonder-woman.html
Which probably accounts for the detestable “de-feminizing” of Wonder Woman and her comic: she was born ’cause Zeus screwed her Mom, rather than as a unilaterally female creation; the Amazons kill men after having sex with them, and kill male babies; ad nauseam.
More modern-day stats, with manga included: http://www.comicvine.com/profile/foxxfireart/blog/challenge-of-the-demographics-men-and-women/87487/
There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that women read the series. And…it was just hugely successful, in a way I don’t think you can really manage without appealing to lots of different kinds of people.
“Aaron White says:
It was entertaining up to a point… but anytime someone keeps trying to assume a superior position by citing SEKRIT MISTIK GNAWLEDG, it’s time to back away slowly…”
Who said anything about “MISTIK GNAWLEDG”??
And you can’t spell, btw.
The facts I am impressing on this site is not secret at all! Its open to all who care to learn.
Its your destructive ego (as Marston called it) that blinds you (& Noah) into saying such things.
“Marston and Peter, in other words, put WW in that skimpy bustier so that they could look at her shoulders flexing, not so they could look down her front. Part of the problem with later iterations of Wonder Woman’s costume, then, has been a simple confusion of erotic focus. The costume wasn’t really designed for large amounts of cleavage.”
You are SOOO right. I’m going to bookmark this page as well. I hadn’t thought about that before, but that is one of the major problems with post-Marston WW costumes.
The standard Marston/Peter era WW costume is essentially flat and compressing in front, like the forms of “breast binding” which were still done for intense sports at that time. Today the equivalent would be a standard flattening/compressing sports bra. This looks good with a decoration like an eagle in front — which a “lift and separate, show off cleavage” bra does *not*.