In my post about Greg Rucka’s Wonder Woman yesterday, I realized I forgot to sneer adequately at one of the things that most annoyed me in his scripting for WW 196-200. Namely, the gods.
I don’t mind that Rucka turns all his gods into irritating American suburbanites and/or hipsters (Aphrodite as bored housewife; Cupid as stoned California drop-out, etc.) That’s fine; whatever. Some of the dialogue is kind of funny, I guess. I sort of laughed when Ares told Cupid to stop hitting on his great aunt and Cupid says “like that ever stopped anyone in this family from getting game.” I don’t know. I don’t expect a ton from Rucka at this point; I guess I appreciate any indication that he’s trying at all to entertain me rather than educate me or encourage me to fawn over his Amazon paragon.
So, right; updated gods — not especially clever, but par for the course. What really irritates me, though, is the theology. At one point, Ares explains at length to WW that he (Ares) is now more powerful than Zeus, because nobody is scared of the sky but everybody loves war. Putting aside the question of whether Zeus couldn’t somehow piggyback on climate change fears, I just want to say — I am so, so, so sick of the whole “it isn’t the worshippers who get power from the Gods — it’s the Gods who get power from their worshippers” wheeze. It was tired when George Perez dragged it out for his WW series, and after Neil Gaiman picked it up, dusted it off, and then (in his elegantly canny British way) jumped up and down on it for years…well, there wasn’t a whole lot left.
And yet, here’s Rucka, trundling along years later, spouting this crap like it’s actually insightful or meaningful or anything but the tedious ploy of a nonbeliever who wants to have a deity for verisimilitude while pissing on him (or her) too. The logic is patently ridiculous…and as a result it makes the Amazons look like idiots. If they know that their prayers and belief give the Gods power, then, you know, why not think about something else for a while? Why worship a figment of your imagination? Doing so isn’t profound, and it’s certainly not an alternative to man’s world, where everybody is always already worshipping their own immaculate feces. (And, yes, Alan Moore’s worship of his own imagination also irritates me, though at least, unlike Rucka, he actually does have an imagination.)
It seems to me like if you’re going to use gods in a super-hero comic, you can do one of two things. First, you can just treat them as super-heroes, which is more or less what Lee/Kirby did with Thor (at least in all the Thor I’ve read; maybe somewhere they try to build a theology/philosophy to explain the gods, but I mercifully missed that.) Nothing wrong with gods as superheroes; it’s entertaining and goofy and involves people hitting each other with unusual weapons andl/or force blasts, which is what comics are all about.
Or, second, you can actually, you know, have some kind of concept of transcendence and use the gods to explore that. That’s what Marston did in the first WW series. His Aphrodite and Ares are archetypes connected to his ideas about femininity and masculinity and love and war. Aphrodite especially is definitively transcendent; she’s wiser and more powerful than any other character. It makes sense that the Amazons worship her, because she actually seems to know things they don’t.
Of course, the things she “knows” about submission and love and gender roles are things you could disagree with — but Marston believes in them. What’s most irritating about the “gods are there because we believe in them” meme is that it true to some extent — but the truth is vitiated by putting it so clumsily. Yes, fictions do have power, and the power has something to do with belief. But that belief is at least in large part the artist’s belief in his or her own work, and it is created not just through saying, “hey, I believe in that,” but through genius and craftsmanship. Marston’s Aphrodite means something because Marston took the time to make her mean something; she’s transcendent because Marston thought there was transcendence, and thought about how to express that in his work. Rucka’s Ares, on the other hand, just says, “conflict is important,” as if anybody couldn’t have figured that out for themselves. And then he says he’s powerful because people think conflict is important. Just give it up, already. Don’t lecture me on the meaning of existence when you can’t even figure out how to tell a decent comic book story.
The idea that the gods only exist because we believe in them is, as you say, beyond tired. The real problem, from an aesthetic point of view, is the way in which it serves to cut off story options without opening others: it neutralizes the potentially interesting possibilities of the transcendent while making the gods essentially redundant, or at least nothing more than a symbolic representation of their worshippers (warlike people worship the war god! oo!). It's cheap and boring.
Though I pretty much agree with you re: Alan Moore's imagination worship, one instance of the deity being created by the worshippers that actually works is, I think, the digital Quetzalcoatl in Tom Strong. At least there, the created god attains indisputable reality, and just because he's created doesn't mean that he's not a god. Once he exists, he's pretty much unstoppable.
Moore's somewhat more elusive on this point that it initially appears too. Yes, people create "gods"–but then "gods" create people too…It's a bit more circular with him and so, more interesting.
But saying Alan Moore is more interesting than Greg Rucka isn't exactly breaking any news
"Moore's somewhat more elusive on this point that it initially appears too. Yes, people create "gods"–but then "gods" create people too…It's a bit more circular with him and so, more interesting."
I don't recall Moore really doing the people create Gods thing, (though I'm sure there might be a counterexample somewhere). I think he's big on the gods inspiring an evolving humanity and being mankinds "oldest, best friend" (a line I seem to recall from Promethea) or something like that. The gods are in the collective unconscious, which is a real, magical place, and people just give them form, or something.
What I don't get about the worship thing, which didn't even make sense when Gaiman did it, is why don't the Gods promote themselves? Wouldn't Zeus get more worship if he threw some fireballs around? Gaiman just has them rolls into a ball and weep woe is me about not having worship. I don't know that Rucka ever even did anything with the idea, he just puts it there like a ton of comic writers do cause he thinks the idea is neat or something.
Using my nitpick the superhero book powers I have always been bothered by the whole worshippers power goods has been that no one worships Thor or Zeus these days aside from a few neo-pagans.
On the other hand, 10 of millions, if not hundreds of millions of Hindus worship Shiva, Kali et all. It always struck me as Euro-centric that Odin and Zeus are the big players. Given the premise, they should be powerless and the Hindu gods should rule.
But that's just a nitpicking thing. Don't overexplain. The Gods are real in some form. Gamma rays make green and strong, radioactive spiders give you powers. Don't overthink it. Tell fun and exciting stories.
Also, Rucka's stories bothered me because they made Diana a pawn in her own book. The protagonists become Ares and Aphrodite and Diana is regulated to a supporting character. That's not good in my mind.
I don't have much to say except I completely agree with your point. The Greek gods began as transcendent beings that inspired awe and fear, but now they've degenerated into obnoxious relatives that just make WW's life more difficult.
Alan Moore's a smart guy. I dislike his mythology because I think it's immoral and unpleasant for various reasons…but it's interesting and fun to think about and he tells interesting stories using it (I mean, except Promethea, but these things happen.)
If belief is the criteria, Santa Claus could mop the floor with Zeus these days.
I'm fine with "God as somewhat obnoxious, plot-inducing, supporting character(s)"
This strikes me as being closer to their function in actual Greek Myth than either "God as Superhero" or even Marston's take, which seems like a more modern conception of the divine. And the Gods recreated bored suburbanites made me laugh, because it felt appropriate: If we start with the Aphrodite of myth this seems like who she WOULD turn in to.
On the other hand: I forgot all the "power of belief" stuff – It doesn't even sound familiar NOW after reading about it for five minutes, so it didn't make much of an impression on me.
"I'm fine with "God as somewhat obnoxious, plot-inducing, supporting character(s)"
This strikes me as being closer to their function in actual Greek Myth than either "God as Superhero" or even Marston's take, which seems like a more modern conception of the divine."
There's definitely something to that…but I don't know that that doesn't make them end up just sort of functioning as super-heroes; ultra-powerful characters who otherwise behave much as people do, and for mostly the same reasons (envy, hate, fear, love, whatever.) There's not the same anxiety in those stories to distinguish the gods as particularly divine, because everybody just sort of accepted they were divine anyway.
"I'm fine with "God as somewhat obnoxious, plot-inducing, supporting character(s)"
"This strikes me as being closer to their function in actual Greek Myth …."
That's not really true. The Greek gods were often vicious and capricious, but this was because the universe was, from the Greek perspective, vicious and capricious. Describing the gods in fallible, human terms was a means of explaining why the world could be so cruel and unpredictable. But the gods still had to be worshiped because, well, they're the gods.
That's a very different mentality than dealing with the gods as literary characters. In a modern superhero universe, it's hard to think of reasons why anyone would care about Zeus when you have guys like Superman or Green Lantern running around.
I always thought of the Greek gods as functionally closer to super villains than super heroes or supporting characters. Their actions are often arbitrary and spiteful, rarely acting as examples of good behavior. In classical stories, they usually present obstacles that need to be overcome.
Given Rucka's theological construct, are Jesus and Buddha also creations of humanity's collective imaginations in the DCU? I doubt they'll ever go near that question, but maybe someday we'll see Christ and Superman teaming up to battle Darkseid.
Grant Morrison has angels show up, and they talk about "the presence," so that's sort of a God cameo.
Richard, that's a great response, by the by.
Moore's most "human create Gods" moments were in early Swamp Thing (arguably the spawn of Sandman and Gaiman's dithering over this). In the second Annual (where Swampy goes to hell to save Abby), the people themselves seem to decide if they go to heaven or hell (or somewhere else)…and this kind of thinking may or may not extend to "God" himself and his counterpart. Of course, these _are_ the Christian conceptions, not the Greeks, which makes it a bit more "on the edge of acceptable" and (again) a bit more interesting than safely playing around with pagan Gods. Jesus was supposed to show up in the Rick Veitch run of Swampy too…but they censored that mofo so no one got to see exactly what they did with him…
"In the second Annual (where Swampy goes to hell to save Abby), the people themselves seem to decide if they go to heaven or hell (or somewhere else)…and this kind of thinking may or may not extend to "God" himself and his counterpart."
I don't recall that story too well, so if Moore implies it directly, I'll defer to you, but Moore's line in that story that God cannot prevent a human's fall implies God is not omnipotent, but not necessarily that he is a creation of man. I remember a Harlan Ellison story about God "powerless in the world he had created" for example.
Gaiman's use of humans making Gods, if I recall correctly, is influenced by Harlan Ellison short stories on the topic.
The really odd thing about Sandman is Gaiman implies (maybe unintentionally) that the Judeo-Christian God is the real deal and not created by man's belief, since the events in heaven are dated way before mankind existed.
When people complained, Gaiman claimed he hadn't meant to imply that Christianity was more real than any other religion. This is kind of odd, since Dream says that Lucifer is more powerful than anyone other than his creator. But there's all sorts of stuff like that in Sandman that doesn't really make any rational sense.
"But there's all sorts of stuff like that in Sandman that doesn't really make any rational sense."
Or irrational sense either. I think a lot of that stuff just sounds like mistakes, or things Gaiman didn't think through all that carefully.
I know everyone seems to think "Season of Mists" is the best Sandman story…but it always annoyed me that Lucifer can just "leave" Hell whenever he wants. This seems theologically (and logically) unsound and kind of deflated that whole series of episodes for me. The ending was kind of dumb too…
The Kelly Jones art was good though.
I think Rucka was merely picking up the "belief makes the gods weak/strong" bit because it was part of the background of the DC Universe. It was his choice to make the gods prominent in his storyline, but other than that, he just inherited the concepts.
For the little it's worth, I liked that Rucka tried to give WW a background that matched the "mission" she had been established as having, despite only having been portrayed as punching bad guys. I found a fair bit of that mission stuff interesting, though some of it, particularly a story you have yet to eviscerate, did make me cringe. I know that when editorial diktat derailed Rucka’s storylines in favor of … was it Infinite Crisis? The OMAC-y one … I was disappointed.
On Sandman — my reading had always been that Gaiman would have liked to say the Endless were more powerful and primal than anything, and all gods were merely creations of their worshippers, including the Judeo-Christian one, but that DC wouldn't allow it. I base this on the way "inconsistencies" danced around the topic, and the way DC's books have always remained respectfully vague about the dominant religions' mythologies.
I don't blame them for that, as an economic decision and since they're a company with its roots in children's entertainment. Of course, I think that by the time you're doing Vertigo books, there shouldn't be any such limits on creative viewpoints.
That's also why, I think, the theoretically more worshipper-empowered Hindu gods don't show up in comics: They have too many believers that may take offense. I think some Hindu stuff appeared in WW back in Eric Luke's odd tenure as writer.
"I think Rucka was merely picking up the "belief makes the gods weak/strong" bit because it was part of the background of the DC Universe"
Yeah, I tend to think of the rule about believers and god size as having become a default assumption for fantasy entertainment. Don't know what I base that on, since I haven't really kept up w/ fantasy material.
"my reading had always been that Gaiman would have liked to say," etc.
Yes, that paragraph puts into words what I assumed too.
"I know everyone seems to think "Season of Mists" is the best Sandman story"
I'd say "Game of You" and "Doll's House." I mean, leaving aside the one-issue stories. But I liked Seasons of Mist, even with the plot switchback.
"Game of You," even with the obnoxious artist switching throughout. I'd say Endless Nights second, actually, just 'cause the art is several notches above the rest of the series.
Grant Morrison's Vimanarama is Hindu gods related. Like many of his 3 issue miniseries,it had a big build-up that was fun, but the conclusion was somewhat disappointing. I can't remember the degree to which he addressed the ideas of "worshippers create gods" in the story, though.
I agree with Tom's favorite Sandman's– Doll's House and Game Of You–esp. the Shawn McManus issues–were better long arcs…but I prefer the short stories I think.
I thought "Brief Lives" was pretty clever.
On reflection, I think Season of Mists is sort of not even a Sandman story, which explains why it implies the Judeo Christian God is the real one. Gaiman probably just had a story idea and tried to smush it into the book he happened to be writing.
Gaiman did a great novella called Murder Mysteries which is basically a follow up story, set in heaven before the rebellion and explaining why Lucifer fell. It just takes place in the context of Christianity, and has the angels assisting God in creating the earth and whatnot.