Marston published his one novel, The Private Life of Julius Caesar, in 1932, nine years before he started his Wonder Woman series.
It’s…pretty bad, honestly. Marston’s cloying prose, which can be kind of charming when sprinkled about amongst pretty pictures, is well-nigh intolerable over 300-plus pages.
“I love you dear,” she said simply, “it’s an awful funny feeling — as though you were blown up with feathers that tickle you inside from head to foot! I never felt that way before. Do — you love me — a little?”
See? Even a sentence or two is too much.
Moreover, the Mary Sue aspect of his version of Julius Caesar is gag-worthy, not to mention deadly dull. Caesar sleeps with this slave girl, Caesar saves that slave girl, Caesar fights off twenty men, Caesar pardons that evil-doer, everybody hails Caesar, and on and on. The ruthless, battle-hardened, ambitious tyrant ends up as a invincible do-gooder, motivated mostly by chivalric gallantry towards the fairer sex.
That chivalry gets at the heart of why this early Marston vision is so much more irritating than his work on Wonder Woman. In “Caesar”, as in WW, Marston is devoted to showing the superiority of all things female. Caesar himself is repeatedly described as effeminate (high voice, delicate, etc.), and that effeminacy is clearly meant to demonstrate his superiority) Further, Julius Caesar (like WW after him) is a worshipper of the God of Love (Venus, in this case), and Marston’s goal is to show that all the great things Caesar did were inspired by women. For instance, Caesar broke the strength of the pirate fleets because they captured one of his loves; he made Octavius his heir rather than Brutus at the behest of his female political advisor and lover, a British barbarian princess, etc. etc. There are other girl-power notions tossed about…for instance, it’s revealed that women are more disciplined and effective (and perhaps even stronger) galley slaves than men (is that girl power exactly? well anyway…)
But, of course, effeminate or not, and lover of women or otherwise, the protagonist is still male, and the whole “man is inspired to great deeds by woman” narrative is just a lot more tired, and a lot less feminist, than having women cut out the middle, er, man, and just do the great deeds themselves. Marston very much wants to turn chivalry into feminism — to make the case that love of and fetishization of women translates into power for women. Unfortunately, that’s just pretty much nonsense; love and fetishization are as likely as not to translate into oppression, not power…and if that weren’t true, you’d have a Julia Caesar on the throne, not a Julius.
The historical setting, in other words, is a real problem. The feminist and imaginative strength of WW, I’d argue, is that it’s aspirational — it’s a utopian vision. That freedom is what gives it its ideological force (“women can do anything!”) and its vertiginously nutty dream logic (flying octofish! gorillas evolving into apes! peace-bestowing venus girdles! etc.) In writing about actual people and events, though, Marston is more constrained…to using a male ruler, for example, rather than the numerous female ones he would sprinkle about in his WW stories. (He does have a female barbarian princess, but we don’t get to see her do much ruling.) And, you know, no seal men, or magical lassoes, or invisible airplanes, or space kangaroos, or…well, you get the idea.
Perhaps even more importantly, the historical setting is bad for Marston because dealing with the real world simply isn’t his forte. As a thoroughgoing crank, he’s best when expounding the nuttiness occurring between his ears. When it comes to real gender relations, or how people actually interact with each other in any situation, or how power actually works — he kind of doesn’t know jack. Visionaries can certainly make great visionary art…but you don’t want Henry Darger writing “The Prince.” Oh, sure, it sounds kind of fun in the abstract…but the Private Life of Julius Caesar demonstrates pretty conclusively that, in practice, it doesn’t work out so well.
Though it is a failure in most senses (aesthetically, entertainment wise, etc.), “The Private Life of Julius Caesar” does provide a couple of interesting insights into Marston’s thinking. He doesn’t like eunuchs, for example…and the utter absence of male homosexuality from a milieu in which it did in fact exist suggests, perhaps, a level of discomfort there as well. Most telling, maybe, is the lesbianism, which is a lot more explicit in this than in the WW stories. For example…
“Woman is made for love. She knows how to love, and how to be loved. Consequently, if a loving couple is composed of two women, it is perfect.”
There are several examples of such loving female couples in the book…and though there aren’t sex scenes, per se, there is at least one instance of impassioned canoodling. After reading this, it becomes very, very difficult to believe that Marston was unaware of the lesbian implications of Paradise Island, or of his other female-only communities in general. And, yes, it also suggests fairly strongly that the polyamorous relationship between Marston, his wife Elizabeth, and their live in friend Olive Byrne was a triangle that was, shall we say, aware of lesbianism as a possibility.
So there's nothing about the bisexual Caesar — "A man to every woman, a woman to very man"?
About the Marston-wife-girlfriend setup — it reminds me of why Alan Moore wrote "Mirror of Love." The Thatcher government was making trouble for gays, and Moore decided that no one was going to mess with his wife and her girlfriend, who was also his girlfriend.
The eunuch hating is interesting. I've read Chinese works where eunuchs are portrayed as effeminate schemers who pursue wealth and power to compensate for their sexual loss.
I guess hatred of eunuchs is one of those universal traits that even Marston shared.
Yeah, that's the stereotype Marston used too for the eunuchs. And, no, Marston doesn't touch on Ceasar's bisexuality (though Neil Gaiman did if I'm remembering aright.) In WW, too, there's little mention of male homosexuality. I wonder what Marston thought about it. My guess would be that he felt that love without women was pointless, and that all-male communities (of whatever size) were just a bad idea…but that's just speculation.
Did Marston said something about Kleopatra in the book?
Yes; botht he quotes I've picked are by Cleopatra. She falls in love with him like everyone else…though she's a little more jealous than most of his girlfriends.
Cleopatra is full of feathers and it tickles … I think the Gaiman bit is from "August," a story in Fables and Reflections. it turns out Julius Caesar raped Augustus back when Augustus (or Octavian) was still a teen, and as a result Octavian has rigged it so that the Roman Empire must wither and die. Not one of Gaiman's more persuasive twists, but the story is still fun.
Kind of weird to bash the idea of women inspiring men as less feminist. Didn't one of his wives have major influence on his creation of Wonder Woman?
Both Elizabeth Marston and Olive Byrne are supposed to have been inspirations, to one extent or another.
There's just nothing particularly feminist about woman-as-inspiration, though. It's a very standard, thoroughly partriarchy-approved trope. Women aren't artists themselves; they just inspire art/are works of art/create babies/etc. It's part of standard chivalric rhetoric; put women on a pedestal and say your honoring them while forcing them to stand still exactly where you want them to be.
Marston pushes on the edges of the idea to some extent; his women function as political advisors and offer practical suggestions in a way that isn't quite the standard "just sit there and inspire me" narrative. But in the end it's all about Caesar, and it does come across as a (slightly-odd, but still) relatively straightforward male wish fulfillment fantasy.
"And, yes, it also suggests fairly strongly that the polyamorous relationship between Marston, his wife Elizabeth, and their live in friend Olive Byrne was a triangle that was, shall we say, aware of lesbianism as a possibility."
Gee, you think? Liz Marston adopted both of Olive Byrne's children, and the two women lived together for the next forty years after William died. (Elizabeth survived Olive by about a decade, and passed away at the age of 100 in 1993.) So yeah, just maybe there's a possibility they were intimate.
I know that, and you know that…but the only semi-official biographical accoung I've seen (Les Daniels') skirts the issue determinedly. Nor have I seen any critical discussion which links Paradise Island at all directly to the fact that Marston was living with two lesbians at the time he wrote the stuff. (Such critical discussion may exist, of course….I haven't read everything written on WW by a long shot.)
Noah,
Don’t go around professing to know Marston or his mindset behind WW.
You read one book on Marston and you think you’re an expert? There are (very few) people who’ve spent half their LIVES studying Marston’s works. And only THEY can claim to know Marston and his philosophy.
Sure, you’ve read his Caesar book. But you can’t form conclusions, or even smart hypotheses, from it without the proper sexual psychology FRAMEWORK.
And since you don’t have that, I don’t know why you’d waste time posting blogs on your reviews of Marston’s work. I’ve already read your other blogs on the WW comics. Its pathetic, uninformed…even moronic.
Hey Upstander! I’ve actually read a ton about Marston and by Marston, and have completed a ms on the original WW comics out from Rutgers UP. So I’m currently probably one of the world’s Marston experts! FWIW.
Are you a Marston scholar? I’d be interested to hear why or how your interpretation differs. I’m not really sure why you feel the need to be abusive…or anonymous, if you’re a scholar? But either way, I’m always happy to chat about WW and related matters.
No, I’m not a Marston scholar. But I am a Marston student, currently learning from two scholars who’ve spent their lives studying WW and Marston.
And their (& my) position is that they’re sick & tired of all these disrespectful comic book geeks (such as those, especially, on CBR) who spout off things about Marston that they really know nothing about.
I am supporting these scholars (mine & the few others out there) in rallying against anyone on the internet who talks about Marston without the proper CONTEXT.
….Because it gives Marston & his teachings a bad reputation. It has for YEARS.
As a student of Marston, I know the true value of his teachings. Live love and laugh, and all that. Did you know that a lot of his philosophy comes from Biblical teachings too?
Marston’s bad rep comes mostly from people who take superficial looks at his works, then make false comments about them. All this while the man is DEAD and unable to verbally defend himself!
That is just LOW. No WONDER the Marston family are closed-lipped about their family!
My Marstonian teachers are sick of the bad rep, as well as the process of its propagation. Namely people who make conclusions based on a LACK of psychological foundation and FRAMEWORK. Framework that only comes from INDEPTH study of Marston’s teachings.
As a student learning from these few scholars, I am offering my support by speaking out against it.
And denouncing CBR (comicbook resources.com) for the crap spewed out by many of their disrespectiful, ignorant, comicbook reading geekers.
Period.
If you or anyone else wants to learn about Marston…I mean the real TRUTH…then I could try to recommend some of those few scholars who exist.
I…really doubt that they would thank you for anonymous internet trolling in their name.
What scholars are you talking about? I’ve read most of the major published discussions of Marston at this point, I’m pretty sure, so I may well know who they are…and if not I’d certainly like to read their work.
My take is quite similar to Ben Saunders, who is a professor and published the excellent book “Do the Gods Wear Capes?” His chapter on the early WW is fantastic. Ken Alder’s *The Lie Detectors* is the standard work on Marston’s lie detector work at this point, I think. Geoffrey Bunn’s piece in the History of Human Sciences is an excellent biographical essay.
You’re not working with Bunn or Alder, are you? I’ve emailed several times with Ken…haven’t spoken to Professor Bunn, though.
And just to be clear, I think Marston is a genius. One of my absolute favorite creators of anything ever. A passionate, bizarre, beautiful writer. I’m not sure why you think I don’t respect him?
Oops; just saw your second comment.
Like I said, I’d love to hear which scholars you’re talking about.
But…Marston was an artist. He put work out their publicly. People are going to talk about it. The idea that his beautiful comics need you to rush around defending them, or him, is just silly. Have some faith in the man, will you?
I’m not putting ALL the blame on you. I happen to know that there are characters out there in comicbook community who are far WORSE that what you’ve posted online.
You just happen to be one that I came across today. My position is that I’m challenging ANYONE who thinks they know Marston without the proper context & framework.
Its because these false conclusions HURT Marstonian philosophy. A philosophy that I (& my teachers and any other Marston scholar out there, I’d think) find very enlightening and beneficial.
We can discuss this more some other day when I have time. You have my email.
Oh, btw:
Without giving you the names of MY personal Marston teachers, here is a list of some OTHER Marston scholars that I know of out there:
Francinne Valcour
Brett Jett
Gregory Bunn
(There are actually a few more that I know of, but I’d have to check my notes)
Okay; that’s Geoffrey Bunn, I think, not Gregory. Haven’t heard of the other folks, but I’ll check them out. Thanks!
Hmmm…here’s a piece by Brett Jett. It’s focused on WW as icon rather than on Marston’s particular iteration, it looks like, which is fine but not really where I’m coming from.
Francine Valcour’s dissertation (I think?) looks fascinating. I’m going to ILL that now. Thank you for referencing it.
Could you tell me what your research focus is, if you have time?
>>>>My take is quite similar to Ben Saunders, who is a professor book “Do the Gods Wear Capes?” His chapter on the early WW
Ken Alder’s *The Lie Detectors* is I think. Geoffrey Bunn’s piece is an excellent bio
You’re not working with Bunn or Alder, are you?
I think Marston is a genius. One of my absolute favorite creators of anything ever.
beautiful writer.<<<<
(My name's Jerry btw)
(And the reason for the UpStander moniker is so that I can visually see myself CLEARLY amongst the other dozen names)
I'm just logging online briefly, then I have to go back to work.
But for now I'll just say that Ken Alder is NOT a Marston scholar or authority, nor is Ben Saunders. But Geoffrey Bunn is, as are the other schoalrs I've mentioned.
I'M not a scholar, just a student learning from two excellent Marston scholars who live in my area.
I'm not working with Bunn or Alder. Not sure if my teachers have, but they have learned from Brett Jett, Francine, and others during their studies.
Francine has written more than one paper on Marston/Wonder Woman. The article you linked to Brett Jett is not his only piece of work. He has manuscripts and dozens of articles. His focus is more all-encompassing, covering Marstonian philosophy, psychology, feminism, mythology, etc, and how its been used to create Wonder Woman. Geoffrey has two relevant written pieces.
I think you got the wrong idea about the topic. I'm not rallying against anything related to art or creative writing. I'm rallying against the misinformation regarding Marstonian philosophy that has been going on for decades. Such misinformation comes from individuals who spew forth uninformed OPINIONS about Marston & his work (whether those opinions are negative or, in your case, positive), and yet present them as matter-of-FACTual. Not good. Such ignorance comes from a lack of framework, and people's egos thinking they have the answers at their fingertips. Of people's egos unwilling to do the research or learn. Of people's egos jumping to conclusions so quickly.
Among the primary offenders is a guy on the internet who goes by the screen name "SLVN". This moron has just abused his freedom of speech to act like an authority on Marston while spewing forth crap that he has NEVER studied. I've learned that other students of Marstonian philosophy are aware of this SLVN moron too. He seems to be notorious.
The result is you get all this build of of misinformation, and now nearly NO ONE knows the TRUE Marston mindset. NO WONDER the Marston family remains silent to comments made about them!
I gotta go. we can discuss later in the week. Or you can email me. You have my email.
(Logging off now)
It’s kind of weird to argue that Alder isn’t a Marston scholar. He’s the primary expert on lie detector research at the moment, and has done a ton of archival work.
I’m mostly approaching Marston’s work in terms of his comics from a literary and art critical perspective. But I’ve read a bunch of his philosophy. I’d be interested to hear where you disagree with what I’ve said. I don’t really think accusing folks of lying or spreading misinformation is especially helpful…but if that’s where you’re at, I guess I can roll with it.
BTW, did anyone see this PBS special: http://www.usatoday.com/story/popcandy/2013/04/15/wonder-women/2084459/ ? Was it any good?
(I might’ve accidentally taped it, but haven’t had the chance to check…)