So this is really interesting to me, though I've not read the book yet. My superficial reaction to this book is, well, a little dismissive. Wonder Woman is the key to understanding why the current feminist movement is troubled, really? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the thesis, but I'm pretty sure the creation of Wonder Woman is actually proof that the feminist movement in 1940 was *already* troubled and complex. Margaret Sanger is a hero in the fight for birth control, but she was also a racist who supported eugenics! Early feminists wanted to earn rights at the expense of black men. The feminism in early Wonder Woman is questionable to say the least, rooted as it in in ideas of men's loving submission to women, who are superior, and Wonder Woman was never far from her boyfriend. And surprise, the creator of this feminist character exploited his privilege and appears to have profited from the uncredited labor of his female partners. I'm shocked! I think from a biographical perspective, probably all of this is interesting--particularly, perhaps, for the queer history elements--but to try to tie all that into some larger point about feminism over the decades seems a difficult exercise to me.
Selfishly, I'm also weirdly tired of this new fascination with Marston. This is the third book in as many years in that vein. (See also Tim Hanley's and Noah Berlatsky's upcoming). This bugs me for exactly the reasons you say: I don't really see it as all that relevant to why she has resonated (or not) with women across the decades, or to what the character means now. But at least Lepore's book seems to be trying to reclaim women's contributions, instead of analyzing Marston's psyche?
It seems to me that "Wonder Woman" is almost metaphorical in Lepore's thesis? Like, Wonder Woman obviously did not remake feminism, but perhaps some of the ideals that Wonder Woman is supposed to represent (which were only sometimes in the actual stories) did? And it's certainly true that that the character often reflected the remakings of feminism, both good and bad? But that's just saying that...feminism remade feminism. Which, well, obviously? Like it seems like there are two ideas here: Marston, Holloway and Byrne and their biographies and histories, and the actual cultural and feminist relevance of the character herself. And this book focuses on the first, which is fine, but is pretending to have something to say about the second, which is a stretch?
I should read the book before having so many reactions probably, oh well! :)
tl;dr!
Selfishly, I'm also weirdly tired of this new fascination with Marston. This is the third book in as many years in that vein. (See also Tim Hanley's and Noah Berlatsky's upcoming). This bugs me for exactly the reasons you say: I don't really see it as all that relevant to why she has resonated (or not) with women across the decades, or to what the character means now. But at least Lepore's book seems to be trying to reclaim women's contributions, instead of analyzing Marston's psyche?
It seems to me that "Wonder Woman" is almost metaphorical in Lepore's thesis? Like, Wonder Woman obviously did not remake feminism, but perhaps some of the ideals that Wonder Woman is supposed to represent (which were only sometimes in the actual stories) did? And it's certainly true that that the character often reflected the remakings of feminism, both good and bad? But that's just saying that...feminism remade feminism. Which, well, obviously? Like it seems like there are two ideas here: Marston, Holloway and Byrne and their biographies and histories, and the actual cultural and feminist relevance of the character herself. And this book focuses on the first, which is fine, but is pretending to have something to say about the second, which is a stretch?
I should read the book before having so many reactions probably, oh well! :)