THE WOMAN WHO PRETENDED TO BE WHO SHE WAS - WENDY DONIGER

Are mythologists inherently conservative? The crypto-fascism of Joseph Campbell (one needs only look at the reactions to the more recent Star Wars films, consider the nature of these criticisms and Campbell's role in the Star Wars universe to see how this dynamic is still at play) or the more recent and less “crypto” fascism of Jordan Peterson. I’d toss J.R.R. Tolkien in this category as well. Is there something about myths that are conservative? They do tell us, often, why the world is the way it is and is supposed to be, implying they cannot and should not be changed. The time of great men (and tho these people it’s always men) has passed id, all we can do now is imitate them and deliver tribute unto them.  Depressing for sure, but Doniger disproves this (or, to use a phrase I’ve never totally understood, she’s the “exception that proves the rule”). She’s the rare mythologist who expands one’s understanding of what is possible and reads myths in a way that complicates and rearranges power dynamics instead of merely reinforcing them. In fact, she’s come under fire from right wing Hindu nationalist groups who object to her commentary on Hinduism and Hindu mythology. When I lived in India, her and her books (especially the then recent THE HINDUS: AN ALTERNATIVE HISTORY) were a popular topic of conversation. I think she’s a fucking genius and she knows so much about so many mythological traditions that her books are overwhelming. I’ve also read THE BEDTRICK and this book before (years ago, in LA) but they certainly benefit from multiple readings. This book is about myths that involve people pretending to be other people, adopting a persona so to speak. Doniger includes Hindu myths of course, where gods and reincarnation gives ample opportunity for this sort of trickery but also includes lots of American pop culture, especially B-movies in the screwball or sex-comedy genre. “We call them mythemes when they occur in myths, cliches when they occur in B-movies,” as she puts it. It gave me a long list of old movies to watch. These sorts of stories can be hard to follow given how many double backs and alternate IDs people have. Here’s an example of the way a character in the wonderful THE AWFUL TRUTH is described: “Irene Dunne(Kentucky)-as-Irene Dunne(Hollywood)-as-Lucy-as-Jerry’s sister-as-Dixie Belle-as-Southern Belle-as-Ellen-as-an-old-friend from the South (Kentucky)” so yeah, not the easiest to understand. While Doniger is a genius, she’s an old genius. The most interesting play of persona and mask and face-becoming-mask and infinite regression in identity takes place on reality TV, which, despite the book being published in 2005, Doniger ignores. Where else are people playing versions of themselves while also taking into account the archetypes developed by previous stars. Especially when the stars people seem to gravitate to on these shows are the ones who seem most “authentically” themselves and the least like they are acting or putting on a persona. So this game where you’re trying to figure out who this person is , really, by judging the persona they’ve allowed to be filmed (plus the added obstruction of the editors who are also trying to impose narrative and character, who of course listen to fan-feedback which is now almost instant thanks to social media) and how “real” it is and what sort of individual would do create and wear this mask. It’s hard to hear the phrase, “the woman who pretended to be she she was” and not think about Kim Kardashian. Likewise, social media generally encourages this sort of thinking, where one is trying to look like a version (typically a better/happier version, though performative sorrow/depression is also rampant online) of themselves. It’s a human issue that’s as old as these Vedic myths and as new as the concept of “catfishing”. Anyway, this book reminded me that I don’t know enough about Hindu mythology and gave me lots of new movies to watch. A total success. 108 persona.