Element Books, 1998
Reviewed by Kym ní Dhoireann (copyright © 2004 Kym Lambert ní Dhoireann, all rights reserved do not republish anywhere)
Well, this is half a book review, actually, as that's as far as I got...
Back when I got Lane and Wurt’s book, In Search of the Warrior Woman, it was obvious that, well, it wasn’t the sort of thing I really want to focus on in my studies. I don’t go for the Jungian archetype thing at all, it rather annoys me, actually. I find that most of the so-called "universal archetypes" are really based solely on Western ideals...something these authors, in fact, admit by noting right up front that they only are dealing with Western culture in this. Of course, by doing so they are missing a wealth of other woman warrior material, much of which would call into question their assumptions about their theories, of course.
Then there is their oversimplified Amazon/Anti-Amazon theory. Well, this "Anti-Amazon" thing is similar to much of what Antonia Fraser notes about some female warriors supporting the patriarchy, often describing themselves as being more male than female and so on. But the over extend it to mean any woman who takes the warrior role within a patriarchal framework, stating that that NEVER can circumvent the patriarchal hold. This includes women in the service and such, they say, it includes all the Rosies of WWII. Well, actually, we have seen a great deal of circumvention of the male-dominance thought in the arguments about women in combat, so while some involved might be all for the dominant paradigm, they are STILL disrupting it. And while some of the Rosies left their jobs and went happily back to the kitchen, some refused and after WWII several male-dominated roles gave way to being women-dominated (many of these are now considered low status and are lower paying than they would be if men kept them, most likely, but it was a disruptive step at the time). So, sometimes the "Anti-Amazons" may not be so easily defined. But I think Fraser did a much better job with this..and by including non-Western examples, such as the Dahomey warrior women, who are usually refered to as "Amazons" but indeed were a good example of "warrior woman" is not "woman" but instead "like men" and they maintained the status quo of the patriarchal culture they belonged to without changing the lives of the other women within it.
And I don’t at all go for the “spiritual warrior” thing…the sort of empowerment that comes without, well, any real power…that is so common among many who use the term “warrior.” Well, I won't bother going into that here, as I've already gone into it a bit at this page. So, just from skimming through it I knew this was a pretty bad book, even for such a one…but I decided I should read it anyway. Or try anyway.
From the start it was obvious that they happily fudged facts, whether in myth, history or archaeological theory. Okay, I can put up with some of this, if it's very small quantities and small fudgings...that is, more of a oversimplification with a dose of idealism. And most of what they were fudging was stuff I’m not an expert on, so I wasn't sure how much was oversimplification-with-a-dose-of-idealism and how much might be out and out falsehoods, in some of these cases.. But some of it was glaring. But, of course, once we got to the Celts, that was that for me.
The Morrígan is the Celtic Minerva, you see. That is the PAN-Celtic Minerva. Oh, yeah, the name which is “simply” “Great Queen” (there is NOTHING simple about this, people with much greater etymological skills than I have been in a never ending debate on it) is very much the same in “Gaelic, German, Norse, Slavic and Latin,….” Uh, huh. Sure. There is a lot of bullshit here and I won’t cover it all, so if you have seen this and I’m missing something, it’s just that I’m overwhelmed.
Of course, there is the typical crap about Her being a Moon Goddess and Maiden/Mother/Crone and that she’s linked to Avalon. Well, with the latter, as she is Pan-Celtic, as well as Germanic, Slavic and Latin I guess that works, right? *rolls eyes* Now at this point I looked through their bibliography. Oh…big surprise, there are really no books on Celtic mythology except for one, Kinsella’s version of The Táin, which we’ll get to in a moment. So…at this point I am thinking that other than The Táin they probably got most of their information from teenage Witchlets in chat rooms or the same’s websites (they do have a lot of online discussion lists and such listed in their bibliography as well as noting they did a lot of this based on feedback from “modern women warriors on the web.”
Let’s move on to The Táin. Okay, so good they read that, right? It's in the bibliography. Well, apparently no and this is where it gets really bad (from my knowledge base). They could NEVER have read any version of the Táin Bó Cuailnge at all. Again, I am suspecting this came from extremely ignorant online sources.
First of all, they are very clear that the Morrígan is totally and absolutely on the side of Cú Chulainn throughout the tale. *blink* Medhbh’s forces are disheartened when they see him talking to Her, a vision in Red (which actually is a version not used by Kinsella, and in the versions that have her appearing as such it doesn’t take place in this tale at all but is in the Táin Bó Regamna and only refered to, in the version Kinsella uses She is dressed in many colors and does appear in this tale speaking with him). Uh, yeah, reality is in both versions She attacks him during battle, as he has greatly offended Her, either just then or in the earlier tale. So where are they getting this “She is on his side” shit? She did intend to be, but he rejected Her help.
THEN they say the worst comes when “Fergus, Cuchulainn’s friend and another of Morrigu’s favorites, receives the magic sword, Excalibur, from the Amazon Scathach (who had also been Cuchulainn’s teacher), making him invincible.” (pg 172) Okay, now. EXCALIBUR?! From Scathach? Let’s start there. Apparently they are referring to Caladbolg, the sword that Ailill, Medhbh’s husband gave Fergus. Well, there has long been speculation the name “Excalibur” is derived from “Caladbolg”…but really it’s NOT the same thing and Ailill and Scathach are not in anyway the same person. I guess they had to change it to a woman so that it would fit with the Lady of the Lake/Excalibur thing? Let us also ignore the problem that while Fergus was reluctant to fight his foster-son, and never really did, he wasn’t helping him either… he was Medhbh’s man, whether he was happy about it or not.
So, as we go on, they note how it does all come about that with the Morrígan’s help Cú Chulainn defeats Medhbh and she has to give up the battle to steal the bull by trickery. Never mind that Cú Chulainn had dropped out from exhaustion and let the recovered forces of Ulster fight the battle, and Medhbh got her bull. Cú Chulainn came back and for reasons as sexist as any in the story (and it’s a very misogynist story, indeed) didn’t kill Medhbh. At least they did get the part that she DID get the bull and that it killed Ailill’s then died pretty much right…even if told really badly.
I do not at all get where these people got these ideas from. Other than, possibly, some little Witchlets on the web.
I am sure I am missing several points that could be brought up, but I’m tired of looking at this thing. Absolutely sick of it. I won’t even start in on the “pop culture” misses that they made, a section I skipped a head to when I first got it I am NOT finishing it, I just can’t. Aaron suggested I sell it, but I figure keeping a copy out of circulation is a good thing. However, it will end up in my bibliography ONLY if I find some point in it that I really want to bring up and refute. There is a chance of that.
I do NOT recommend this book. But if you wish to buy it here you go
Return to index or the bookstore
Copyright © 2004 Kym Lambert ní Dhoireann, all rights reserved. Do not post anywhere and that means YOU!