Alea jacta est. With Swords of Sorrow #4 we reach 2/3 of
the planned run of the series, and the point of no return for whatever story
Gail Simone had in mind. Issue four is, indeed, the most momentous up to this moment,
not least of all, because it’s the only issue thus far where something happens. Which, with fifteen
books published, is a feat of abject proportions. It’s as if we’ve been
watching the piano player cracking his fingers for almost two hours before
flipping his coattails back and finally sitting down on his bench. However, what happens, and above all, how it happens, underscore the fragile
structure of the story and the poor talent of the musician.
I never saw
Simone as a good storyteller, but her performance on Swords of Sorrow is way
beneath amateurish: everything that happens, every slow step of story building,
happens by omniscient fiat of a deus ex machina
narrator. And the most baffling result of this is how passive all the main characters are.
Case in
point: Swords of Sorrow #4. After three books of banter and fighting
each other, our women warriors finally find the generals they were looking for
(Dejah Thoris, Red Sonja and Vampirella, as established in issue #3). How do
they do this? They ask Dracula, who knows “where
the portals are”. That simple. Obviously, it begs the question: if what’s
in stake is the existence of the Universe itself, and if Dracula has that kind
of knowledge, why isn’t he doing
something? Why will he leave the destiny of all existence in the hands of a
bunch of girls that, as the story thus far has shown us, are utterly incapable
of doing anything by themselves?
It may seem
as a harsh appreciation of the series up till now, but really, Simone and her
cronies haven’t shown us a single instance of relevant action by any of their
heroines. Truth be told, the case is almost the same towards her villains: both
the Traveller and The Prince do little else then sit and grumble and bemoan
their respective minions lack of results. This reduces all the action on the previously
published fourteen books to an unrewarding movement for movement’s sake.
And that,
to me, is quite jarring, for I still don’t understand what’s the point of all
this frenetic red queen(s) racing all over the place. According to the series’s
one-shot prequel, The Prince’s minions should prevent the Traveller’s minions
of perturbing the former’s ritual, a ritual that would hand him supreme power
over all of reality. However, the Prince does little more than sit in his
throne room “nowhen”, and one fails to see what kind of menace our girls may constitute
towards his plans. In reality if Purgatory, Mistress Hell, et al. weren’t constantly goading them on, or trying
to bribe them with promises of absolute power, Sonja, Thoris, Vampirella, etc…
wouldn’t have a fucking clue to what was going on, or where, or when. All the
heroines have done so far is being handled gifts and pushed through one portal
or another without reason or rhyme.
And with
the revelations operated on issues #3 and #4, where we learn the true identity
of The Traveler (the only genuine efficient moment in the series so far), it
becomes patently obvious how absurd the whole enterprise is. If The Traveler
knows the identity and whereabouts of The Prince, and despite being an entity
of extraordinary power, still needs generals and soldiers, why didn’t she tell
them who the adversary was, where he is, and what they had to do? Doesn’t seem to
me the brightest idea, on a countdown to annihilation (or “the end of days” as is put on the current issue), to let the foot-soldiers
to figure out for themselves what’s going on.
And that –
what’s going on – brings me to what I believe is the most incredible of plot
contrivances: the identity of the Prince himself. That he was Prince Charming
was not a red-herring, alas. And this attempt by Gail Simone to build up such
an innocuous fairy-tale character to the stature of Myth is the most ridiculous
bid for relevance I’ve read in recent times (maybe only the coup by J. Michael
Straczinski to make Wonder Woman his own in The New 52 comes close to it
in the 21st Century).
In a publicity
interview for the series, Gail Simone referred to Prince Charming as “a
character of legend (…) of massive power”, an idea that is hinted at at several
instances all through the books already published, infusing the reader with the
notion that Prince Charming is a being with the grandeur beyond that of a
Galactus. But how to support such a proposition? Former reporter Lucy Freeman
and psychotherapist Kerstin Kupfermann (who has worked of famous Freudian fairy-tales
specialist Bruno Bettelheim, much in
at the time of writing) write in their book The Power of Fantasy
(Continuum, New York, 1988), that what they call the “Prince Charming” Fantasy is, in essence, the fantasy if
idealized perfect love, a fantasy that cannot stand the quotidian reality of a
longstanding relationship. Being a book
of Freudian bent, the authors cannot free themselves from the centrality of
oedipal interpretations, and thus, the Prince Charming fantasy is one of
longing for maternal love. However, its nuclear tenet is very close to Simone’s
view: “Seeing a wife of several weeks in
hair curlers or brushing her teeth may fill a husband with disgust. Watching
her husband clip his toenails or hearing him pass gas in the bathroom may bring
feelings of revulsion to a bride” (p.62). Snow White was not repulsed by
Prince Charming passing gas, but by him deriving joy on revenge for what was
done to her. For “Snow White was of kind heart, and could not
bear to see his cruelty, even to the witch”, Simone tells us, through The
Traveller. In this, if the extrapolation is allowed, we can see a mirror-image
of Simone retconning Sonja’s origin, so as
to wipe out rape. In both instances, Snow White’s and Simone’s, there seems to
be a disgust in dealing with reality, an attempt to stay in an idealized infant
state. For a rabid feminist writer, it must be close to anathema the thought
that a raped woman could gain power, strength and wisdom from her ordeal. That
she could transcend such an ordeal. That she wouldn’t be forever defined by it
as a victim.
So now
consider the motivation of the character. Disgusted by Prince Charming’s revenge
(to burn the witch’s feet with molten lead shoes, as in Grimm’s original
telling of the story), Snow White leaves him, and, in return, he intends to
destroy the Universe. For want of a good fuck, all the universe was lost… But
then again, consider: if Prince Charming has the power to open rips in Time, of
manipulating the Universe at a quantical level, couldn’t he just travel back in
Time and undo his revenge? Could he not seek redemption through other means and
so regain his lost love (although I bet something like that will happen in the
end)? And really, what kind of immature man cannot abide to lose a loved one
and go on with his life?
Anyhow,
back to Prince Charming as figure of Myth. Feminist scholar Catherine Orenstein
has this to say about him in her book Little Red Riding Hood Uncloaked: Sex,
Morality, and the Evolution of a Fairy Tale (Basic Books, New York,
2002): “It’s no secret that today’s
best-known fairy-tale protagonists are female: Cinderella, Snow White,
Rapunzel, Sleeping Beauty, and Red Riding Hood, to name just a few. These
heroines act amongst a cast of banal male foils. The men are simply fathers,
beasts, dwarfs or princes, all interchangeable and usually illustrated as one
and the same from tale to tale. In Stephen Sondheim’s Broadway musical Into
the Woods, the Prince Charmings of two interwoven
fairy tales swap places without so much as a ripple in the plot” (p.121). That’s because Prince Charming has no relevant
role to play in these tales, whose center belong entirely to women. “In these fairy tales, the heroines make
decisions that illustrate the expectations of women in real life, while the
male figures are simply metaphors for punishment (misbehave and you’ll meet a
wolf) and reward (a prince in the end – if you’re good!)” (idem).
So what
Simone is doing here, is creating a big paper tiger that her female heroines
can disintegrate with their magic swords, as if in a pajama party for women that
refuse to grow up (and how apt it suddenly feels to have Sonja revert once more
to the Simone-simpleton that refers to herself in the third person and looks as
dim as a burnt bulb). I was enveloped on the above musings (I admit, a little collateral
to the review at hand) when in the double spread by the end of the book, where
all the heroines are amassed against Mistress Hel, I got a sad glimpse of how
Simone and her readers may see the world (or may fantasize the world as it
should be).
Interesting review, particularly on how the men have fared in light of the Red Sonja series which I'm more familiar with than the Swords of Sorrow material. In the main series men were limited in appearance in the first arc, the king who'd called Sonja for aid was a father figure of sorts who was otherwise negligible to the story. The others were the villain king who pops up out of nowhere at the end and the first king's son who turns out to have been in cahoots with the villain. Overall, a dull lot.
ReplyDeleteIn the second arc, the depiction of men becomes even more one sided in that they are harmless and neutered in sexuality in order to be the punch line to Simone's stumbling run of a joke about Sonja being unable to get laid. She does at last in the end with the sex slaves from the brothel that were trafficked by the city guard. It is a bizarre story choice in an arc about freeing slaves but it's the kind of weird story logic Simone does.
The next arc, which is a mess of a story, doesn't do much better in its four issues in showing men being anything but passive bed partners in the young mage. The other men of the village the story revolves around are equally passive characters who swing about in anger support due to the curse McGuffin that drives the story. The villains spend their time describing Sonja as a slut and such and are otherwise one dimensional and provide no real threat to Sonja in the story.
The other male which could have made an interesting forgiveness tale was one who had been among the men who destroyed Sonja's village and family. Unfortunately, he's just an exposition machine so the telegraphed ending of Sonja forgiving him has no feeling of catharsis for the reader following Sonja through the story.
The last issue, 17, is just naff with an opening with an orgy, Sonja hitting on some nuns, then later being asked if she wants her usual courtesans sent up at a bar she frequents. Sonja's main lays are women with Simone, from Annissia to this it seems or men who entirely let her do the driving. This is underlined by the lone man in the series propositioning Sonja in issue 17 and she knocks him out.
Simone's idea of sexuality for Sonja is juvenile. Sonja has sex when she wants, but her partners are almost universally passive actors who perform when Red wants them to and never act on their own to proposition her especially men. As put in your article, 'sex-reversing what she saw in comics: a male medium, populated by male characters, aimed at male readers.' but I'd posit the relationship roles in Conan comics and books were never so simplistic as Simone is playing them out here. She is envisioning set of gender roles that never existed in the bad old days of the industry. Simplistic and limited they may have been in the 70s and earlier often more due to the comics code than sexism, but they were not the rank gendered stereotypes Simone has created in her Red Sonja run.
Hi there,
ReplyDeleteThanks once again for your comment. And what an interesting and perceptive summation you've done of Gail Simone's run.
Reading your comment, I'm drawn to notice as the villain King and King's (usually feeble) son is another of the narrative crutches Simone resorts to too frequently. They are once more the motor of the story in the Simone co-written mini-series "Conan / Red Sonja" (2015).
It is undeniable that Simone's worldview inspired by her biased conception of "gender" roles (I hate that term, as it applies only to language: in biology man and woman belong to the same genus - homo - but have different sexes) is infantile and simplistic. And her storytelling technique is obviously inspired by an idea of "lets do to them what they did to us", although what "they" (men) did to "us" (women) is totally fabricated and discards the most simple explanations provided by reader demographics and sales imperatives.
So, she proceeds to take a strong female character like Sonja and turns her into what Thomas has had the care to avoid: a female Conan. Sonja, in Simone's hands, is not a female warrior, but just a male warrior with tits. A Conan with breasts.
Even in feminist terms is a simplistic model of "gender" equality, one that simply eschews every biological, cultural and natural difference between man and woman. It is not the best way to go for a writer, but one cannot expect much from someone who, on reading the announcement of the roster of authors for a certain comics line (in the case it was DC's New 52, but it could have been Marvel or Image), and instead of evaluating merit and quality, is just concerned with the simple question of counting males vs females. Guess she's having her revenge for imagined wrongs in Swords of Sorrow.
Anyhow, hope that you keep adding such insightful comments as this one (although I can't see why don't you join the blogger roster here in Red Sonja: She-Devil with a Sword. I believe you would be a valuable contributor).
Cheers,
Sherman