Monday, August 20, 2007

I am not a hero

Ancient mythology, from the 'heroic era' (3000-1500BCE), deeply influences society today. We play out these same patriarchal myths through so much of our society. Books like Wild at Heart exemplify this. Our concept of heroism, of self, and of what it means to be a (hu)man all depend upon these myths: Heroes only become heroes by killing a she-monster and winning their prize of a female-object.

I have played Dungeons and Dragons since I was 16. I am only now asking myself, can I still play? For DnD is a purposeful reiteration of these myths. My character goes out to kill and to rescue. So I decided to build a character that would no longer kill the monsters that are killed by patriarchy.

However, when I tried to do this, I realised the character was not feasible. Aside from Tiamat, there are a great deal of other 'creatures' in DnD that occur in patriarchy-perpetuating myths. These include Medusa, gorgons, hags, mermaids, dragons, most sea-monsters, snakes, spiders (think of the ultimate evil of the drow with their matriarchal Lolth-worship), harpies, and chimeras. In fact, it goes deeper. The 'types' that DnD assigns to these creatures also stop my sword, for how can I kill such repressed creatures as 'outsiders', 'beasts' (from whose perspective are they beasts anyway?), 'aberrations', and 'monstrous humanoids'?

Indeed, I must consider what 'monster' means, for all these creatures are listed in the 'Monster Manual'. Aristotle wrote, "Whatever does not resemble its parents is already in a way a monster, for in these cases nature has... deviated from the generic type. The first beginning of this deviation is when a female is produced..." (Genesis of Animals). So the female is the start of the monster category, and everything else is lumped in with that, except for the 'generic' man. Interestingly enough, 'human' is not in the Monster Manual, and so may be the only thing the character could kill. Let's reduce that further, to say that men may be all the character could kill.

So it seems that a feminist character is impossible in this game. Squeezed out into obsolescence, a party member that would be worse than useless. For within a patriarchal world, the female has no place. Catherine Keller writes, "'The characteristics most highly developed in women and perhaps most essential to human beings are the very characteristics that are specifically dysfunctional for success in the world as it is' (Miller). And creation of new worlds presupposes, dangerously, some sort of success in the world-as-it-already-is on the part of the would-be creators." (From a Broken Web, 22).

I have already taken issue with playing DnD because of its political and religious naivety (with its anti-pagan witch-burnings, its elitism, and its focus on power-over), and because of the greed of its producers. However, I believe this is the 'killing blow' to the game, from my perspective. For if by playing I am forced into perpetuating a damaging, patriarchal mythology, then I will not play. Playing would go against what I am trying to work towards (and away from) in my life, so I will no longer do so. Edit: (Through the comments I received about this post, I changed my mind and will still play.)

This is my own opinion and my own decision. I do not expect any of my DnD-playing friends to follow me, nor do I wish them to feel guilty because of me. But I'm curious what they think of this post. :)