InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "My flame burns bright."

nevermore999 (nevermore999) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-05-30 18:42:00

Entry tags:

char: captain nazi/albrecht krieger, char: genocide, char: nemesis/tom tresser, char: wonder woman/diana of themyscira, creator: gail simone, publisher: dc comics

The Lasso of Truth
A while ago, while I was picking up links for When Fangirls Attack a couple of people made some arguments about the Lasso of Truth I considered to be faulty. I was busy at the time, and supporting my argument would require scannage, so I filed it away for later. Looking back at blog posts, I remembered I had planned to argue this (for the sole goal of informing the public, of course! :P) and so I'm putting up these scans to support my argument. I'll link them in my blog post arguing this.

Wonder Woman #15:

From Wonder Woman 32:

Okay, so. Basically the lasso of truth uncovers the secrets of the soul. It doesn't uncover what is BELIEVED within the soul, it uncovers the truth.

The original argument suggested that the lasso reveals what someone believes to be true:

Here it is.

Do these scans show that's how the lasso works? I don't believe they do. I believe they show that the lasso goes into the darkest secrets of your own soul. They burn away self delusion, self perception, illusion...they go right to the heart. How does it do this? It's a freaking lasso from the gods. It doesn't matter how it does this. Sure, the lasso can't show you things you aren't aware of (like in the anon's Willie the Snitch example)...but it can show you things you THINK you aren't aware of, but really are. It can show you things that are the Truth. So if Wonder Woman put the lasso to herself and said "Am I abusing my power?" The lasso would be able to answer. Like in these scans, it would sift through the memories and show her ones where she's abusing her power. Because the lasso is the Truth and the Truth would know. If you can't accept it in those terms, then try this: Even if Wonder Woman was believed she wasn't abusing her power, the tiniest part of her would know she was. The lasso would FIND the smallest bit of self doubt, like it did with Captain Nazi, (who also absolutely believed he was right) and bring that to the surface. It would show Wonder Woman her motivation, her reasoning, just like it did here. It would find the deepest secrets of Diana's soul.

Also take a look at these last two panels. Genocide is holding Tom with the lasso, and the lasso is making him see that what Wonder Woman is saying (which is, btw, that she doesn't love Tom) is TRUE. Even though with all his heart Tom doesn't believe it, thanks to the lasso, he sees this truth. He can deny it, but he knows the truth now and that is hurting him. And it's not even HIS truth. That's how the lasso works. It's not about belief. It's about TRUTH. And we have to thanks our stars OUR Wonder Woman (not Genocide) is usually the wielder, because as seen here, truth can destroy. It just sees the truth no matter what, regardless of belief, out of the evidence inside a persons soul. Because. it's. freaking. magic. I can't stress that enough. You can't try to explain it logically. That's what makes it a damn cool and dangerous weapon. Another example of how the lasso works is in this section of Bluefall's excellent "When Wondy was Awesome" series: Golden Perfect . This also clearly demonstrates the lasso is about truth, not belief.

And this is not just Gail's interpretation, as far as I can tell, the lasso's always been like this.

Those are my two cents. You can decide whether these scans make my words the (heh) truth or not. I don't want to get in an argument with anon, a mouse (who seems to read bluefall's blog just to argue with her, I would appreciate it if he didn't argue with me on mine as I don't feel like it, and if he wouldn't take my counterargument out of bluefall) or Noah, but thanks to WFA this argument has been seen, and I thought I'd provide a counterargument. You can judge from our words and evidence, but this is all the argument I'm going to give, whether anon, a mouse counterargues or not. I've said my two cents, I just wanted to give a counterpoint so people can see the other side.

Rambling over. My work here is done. *wooshes away*

(Post a new comment)

	jlbarnett 2009-05-30 06:08 pm UTC (link)
	I dunno. I mean if Diana asked "am I abusing my power" all it could really show her is the exact same things she's experienced. The people she questioned and the ones she broke. If she didn't think it was abusing her power before hand then why would she later? Would it somehow increase her empathy? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	nevermore999 2009-05-30 06:18 pm UTC (link)
	Well, if it was showing her those experiences in the first place, the lasso's answer would be "Yes, these are examples of that btw", and she'd know that. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	queenanthai 2009-05-30 06:16 pm UTC (link)
	You know, now that I think about it, the lasso's a little bit like the Sword Of Shannara, isn't it? (Reply to this)

	bluefall 2009-05-30 06:41 pm UTC (link)
	See also: Why her holding the lasso in FINAL CRISIS and still being Anti-lifed Does Not Work. As a side note, can I tell you how weird it is to me that people read my LJ just to argue with me? Particularly that guy. I was already ignoring him back when WFA was still linking him, and it's not like he's ever come to my journal to argue that I'm aware of. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	aegof.livejournal.com 2009-05-30 08:12 pm UTC (link)
	I just assumed that it meant the anti-life equation was true. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-05-30 08:17 pm UTC (link)

Doesn't work that way. The Truth of who Diana is is not a sadist or a pawn of Darkseid. The Truth is that the things the Furies believe and hold sacred are not things Diana believes or holds sacred, and using the Lasso would have brought that True kernel of Diana to the surface. The only way to change that, to make the ALE!Wondy "true," would be to completely obliterate Diana - to make her, basically, Genocide. Nothing left but the body. In which case, it wouldn't have been possible to rescue or restore her.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	aegof.livejournal.com 2009-05-30 08:37 pm UTC (link)
	I have no problem assuming that if Anti-life can undo Life, then the reverse is also true. (Reply to this) (Parent)

xammax
2009-05-30 08:46 pm UTC (link)

The Anti-Life worked for one simple reason; The Anti-Life was stronger. This was proven by the Greek Gods being ousted, and having their lasso and other powers fail them. I think Anti-Life didn't so much as make Diana a slave and a masochist against herself, but changed the reality of who she was, on a higher level then she had been created on.

Anti-Life was, and with the exception of a very very crappy mini we will not speak of, has always been sold as the almost the source code of will and existence. In Final Crisis Darkseid just was, if you will. It wasn't until Darkseid, that source of the new reality, was physically killed by Batman and wiped away by Superman and his machine that the lasso could star to restore the original truth, because Darkseid had created a new one. One that treated Diana in not the best way.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-05-30 08:53 pm UTC (link)

Ah, but we're not talking about the Olympians, we're talking about the Truth. The lasso is not an Olympian power. The lasso works every bit as well against Olympians as it does against mortals. Their rise and fall is incidental and irrelevant to its effectiveness.

Further, Darkseid can't have re-written reality in the way you posit, for the simple reason that the ALE wasn't irresistible. You can paint shit on your face to stop it from affecting you. You can get kissed by Flash and that stops it from affecting you. You can cut off the transmission before you hear it and that stops it from affecting you. That's not a reality rewrite. If it were an immovable object-irresistible force thing, that would be one thing - it no one is exempt from the ALE, there's almost an argument there. But if the ALE's mind-control can be resisted, the lasso must be one of the things that breaks it, because the lasso is an irresistible force. And the ALE can be resisted, and is therefore not an immovable object. The lasso wins.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

jackissuperfly
2009-05-30 11:26 pm UTC (link)

The real answer is that Grant Morrison doesn't like Wonder Woman. And I don't mean that in a meta way, I mean that's an almost legitimate explanation for what's going on in the story. Everything that Grant Morrison writes of late revolves around the idea of the meta-narrative, stories about stories. The author is actually a force within the story, and bends physics to his will. Grant Morrison is a prick, so the story bends in that particular direction.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	bluefall 2009-05-31 11:43 am UTC (link)
	Well, yes. My screed here is basically "Morrison suffered massive continuity!fail and respect!fail." Whether that's a meta consideration or an actual in-universe explanation is a bit beside the point. ^.^ (Reply to this) (Parent)

	cmdr_zoom 2009-05-31 01:35 pm UTC (link)
	Motto. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	unknownscribler 2009-05-30 10:58 pm UTC (link)
	Okay, is there any reason why Diana should feel compelled to tell the truth when she's not actually bound by the lasso? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	aaron_bourque 2009-05-30 06:47 pm UTC (link)
	The original argument suggested that the lasso reveals what someone believes to be true When has that ever been the case? Oh, right. Golden Glarblargh. But that was when the lasso was malfunctioning. And that story sucked anyway. (Sorry bluefall. It may have good characterization, of one character, but the fundamental logic of the story is fragmented at best.) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	bluefall 2009-05-30 07:02 pm UTC (link)
	Eh. It requires a certain amount of fanwanking in order to make sense, no question. But it can be fanwanked with relative ease, particularly when you're already interested in the tropes Kelly's drawing on, and I prioritize character arcs over plot logic every time (particularly in comics, where a magic ring can make a ray of light into a bludgeoning weapon). (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	aaron_bourque 2009-05-30 09:54 pm UTC (link)
	ray of light into a bludgeoning weapon Arnold Rimmer. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	bluefall 2009-05-31 11:45 am UTC (link)
	I said I gave comics leeway to have silly plots. I didn't say I don't give other forms of sciFi/fantasy leeway to have silly plots. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	aaron_bourque 2009-05-31 01:29 pm UTC (link)
	Even humor? (Reply to this) (Parent)

seawolf10
2009-05-30 07:27 pm UTC (link)

The problem with this take on the lasso (personally, I like it-- it's a brilliant idea, and actually terrifying) is that its very depth makes for meta-textual problems.

Judging by this take, the lasso ought to redeem almost every villain who gets hit with it. That opens up possibilities for characterization involving reformation and possible future heroism, but it also shuts down a lot of possible future plots using those villains as villains. There are a few -- for example, the Gentleman Ghost, Circe, Dr. Psycho, the Joker -- who might get a pass for various reasons, but most villains would become non-viable. Any author who wanted to use those now-redeemed villains as villains wouldn't be able to.

I dislike the comics-status-quo staying the same, but I'm also very leery about potentially stifling authors' ideas like that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

nevermore999
2009-05-30 07:35 pm UTC (link)

Well, a villian who's sufficiently self delusional (and most of them are) could go back to deluding themselves as soon as their out of the lasso's clutches, though a part of them would always know the truth- making them even more tortured.

Also, I think Wonder Woman's usual careful about screwing with people's souls like that. Usually she gets the info and gets out, but here, Captain Nazi is threatening her people and she wants to make sure he never does that again. She knows doing something like this could easily make someone self destruct rather than see the light.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jlbarnett 2009-05-30 07:39 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, if she thinks that would stop Captain Nazi she's delusional. That would just make him seek to wipe out her culture even more. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	nevermore999 2009-05-30 07:44 pm UTC (link)
	Doesn't look like it. He was all catatonic after this and hasn't tried it again so far. She showed him the truth, he didn't like it, he probably won't want to screw with her again. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	perletwo 2009-05-30 11:35 pm UTC (link)
	There we go - I was about to say that if someone that delusional was hit with the Lasso Truth, it could shatter their minds completely. But Gail's way ahead of me, of course. (Reply to this) (Parent)

jlbarnett
2009-05-30 07:37 pm UTC (link)

That's the problem with Truth being so firmly defined. It could in affect brainwash people into it's ideal of truth if what is claimed as true.

To me, if Joker were hit with the Lasso it's entirely fine that he'd suddenly realize he was the worst monster in the world. But his reaction to that should be, well I think if the Joker realized that was really the case he'd break into an Oscar acceptence speech.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	richiedaley 2009-05-30 08:11 pm UTC (link)
	like Zaphod and the Perspective Machine. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	magus_69 2009-05-30 08:12 pm UTC (link)
	... ... ... I have seen it and I cannot unsee it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	unknownscribler 2009-05-30 11:02 pm UTC (link)
	Why? Just because you're shown The Truth doesn't mean you can't be just as much of an evil shit as you were before it was wrapped around you. In fact, it could conceivably make a person even worse once they realise that all the evil shit they've done wasn't just circumstance but because they geneuinely weree evil scrotes and the person goes on to embrace that. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	arilou_skiff 2009-05-31 05:04 am UTC (link)
	Well, there is Granny Weatherwax's "Once you know right from wrong you can't choose wrong." spiel. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	icon_uk 2009-05-31 09:19 am UTC (link)
	Though that's counterbalanced by the Duchess in "Wyrd Sisters" who, on being shown the truth of her many, many, horrible actions, was more or less entirely unaffected except to note that if she were to do it all again, she'd do it more slowly and with hotter boiling oil" (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	shadeedge 2009-05-31 07:17 pm UTC (link)
	I loved that part. She wasn't just unaffected, she was out-and-out proud she was so horrible. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	bariman1987 2009-06-01 12:55 am UTC (link)
	I just finished "Wyrd Sisters" the other week, and I'm halfway through "Witches Abroad." I've read several other Discworld books, and I just spent over a hundred dollars today buying the other books I didn't have (except "Feet of Clay," the bookstore didn't have it). Best books I've read in my life, and I've read a lot. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	nevermore999 2009-06-01 08:39 pm UTC (link)
	Terry Pratchett is made of AWESOME. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	greenmask 2009-05-30 08:50 pm UTC (link)
	That is so DC. In tone and conceit and feeling, I mean. The idea of ultimate TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH that exists as a perfect definite. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	nevermore999 2009-05-30 08:53 pm UTC (link)
	I find it really COMICS actually. And mythology-ish, which fits with Wonder Woman. It's certainly not (heh) true that there is an Absolute Truth For Everything, but in comics and myth, these things are simplified, and usually to good effect to make a point. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

greenmask
2009-05-30 09:06 pm UTC (link)

You may be right, but I also find it a really horrible idea that I don't believe in but nevertheless am threatened by because my imagination is cruel, so I prefer to think of it as limited more to some areas of my joy than others!

Also, because of DC's propensity to pare down their 'verses as much as they can, that whole Crisis thing. DC really does seem to love one true version stuff, though of course it has to allow things like ASBAR and the DCAU for the sake of money. The way that DC seems to (am I wrong on this?)refer to its elseworlds as imaginary stories rather than alternate realities.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	nevermore999 2009-05-30 09:08 pm UTC (link)
	There's a multiverse now though, and even after CoIE there was hypertime. I think the imaginary story thing is a relic of the 60's, current DC elseworlds are just...elseworlds. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	greenmask 2009-05-30 09:13 pm UTC (link)
	Oh really? I do not keep up. I dunno, it still seems particularly DC, but perhaps its just my prejudices talking. (Don't attack me with the lassoooooo this is not an important Truth! D: D:) (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	nevermore999 2009-05-30 09:15 pm UTC (link)
	Heh, I don't care, you have a right to your opinion. I was just considering your words, I have no particular inclination to defend DC. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	cmdr_zoom 2009-05-31 01:39 pm UTC (link)
	They try to pare it down to One Version, but there isn't room for all the creators who want that to be THEIR version. So they inevitably end up having to open it up again so that all of those stories can be true... and then, of course, people start jockeying to make their version of how the whole thing works to be True. Too many cooks. (Reply to this) (Parent)

oddpuppets
2009-05-30 10:23 pm UTC (link)

Hard not to see it that way. DC writers have a trend now of having the dividing line between Good and Evil (capital G and E) as definite, morally diametric, with no middle ground. This is most clear in JSA, which hits us on the head about what it means to be a hero in the DCU. Many, many times.

Look at how they have treated their killing heroes - Cass, Todd, etc. They are constantly flip-flopping, treated mostly terribly, and with the caveat that they are weaker heroes because they have killed. Wondy is sort of exempted, though not really.

Frankly, their editorial seems to be pushing for moral absolutism in heroes. Of course being a hero means having a particularly strong sense of Good and Evil. But the judgment that writers are wreaking on tertiary heroes seems particularly rabid and blunt. No nuance.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

icon_uk
2009-05-31 09:23 am UTC (link)

I think they are shown as being weak not because they have killed, but because they killed, WHEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO, and because they assumed their judgement was superior to the justice system they are nominally charged with upholding. Once you've gone that way it's ahrd to actually BE a hero with the realisation that there IS a societal framework they're operating in.

"I hate having to have someone killed. It's like announcing to the world that you can't handle a problem... creatively." - Lex Luthor - Lois and Clark

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	cmdr_zoom 2009-05-31 01:41 pm UTC (link)
	It's a very simple, black and white morality, and that's comforting to some... unless a character you like winds up on the wrong side of it. And some would say that's still better than the parade of fascists and f*ck-ups that Marvel is calling "heroes" these days. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	pyrotwilight 2009-05-30 11:21 pm UTC (link)
	...I thought Captain Nazi was like Uncle Sam. A literal embodiment of Nazism. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	icon_uk 2009-05-31 09:09 am UTC (link)
	Nope, standard chemically created uberman. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Wonder Woman is a dick. arrlaari.livejournal.com 2009-05-31 06:24 am UTC (link)
	Batman called. He wants his style back. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Wonder Woman is a dick. daningram 2009-05-31 06:52 pm UTC (link)
	Umm...have you read Batman, like, ever? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	gailsimone 2009-05-31 08:28 am UTC (link)
	Wow. Can't respond in detail right now, Nevermore999, but what a cool and thoughtful post. I love it! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	nevermore999 2009-05-31 12:38 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you, Gail! Wow, I'm honored. (Reply to this) (Parent)

shadeedge
2009-05-31 07:30 pm UTC (link)

I'm not sure i'd entirely go for this. But I speak as someone with little general knowledge of Wonder Woman and the history of the Lasso, so I could be entirely wrong.

The way I see it, there's more than one level of knowledge and belief. I can think on the surface that i'm doing something for one reason, but it could actually be for another; I might know that and be consicously lying to myself, or not understand it consciously. And then there's just the actual truth, which may be different from both of these things. It could be the Lasso works within the total realm of knowledge and belief, not constrained by only surface considerations, but still constrained to within that person.

In the first example, Captain Nazi knows the things that are being showed, but is deliberately choosing not to think of them or confront them. The second's less clear - does Tom know that WW doesn't love him, but is trying not to think of it, does he honestly not realise it, or is this entirely new knowledge to him? I think it could be played all three of those ways.

I suppose the question to figure it out is this; what if the deepes secrets of someone's soul were also wrong? What if someone is honestly mistaken even on that level, and have repressed or ignored what they think is true? Would the Lasso reveal the deepest knowledge - the truth according to that person, which is not necessarily what they think on the surface - or the actual truth?

(Reply to this)