~~ fantasy vs. fiction.

[reenka]

To start with, I'll take pity on those of you who read this lj for an H/D fix (I can only imagine your woe, but)-- I wrote two of the fluffy/snarky marriage(!!) snippets for Aja's the_eros_affair here. One of them -with- Aja. I call it "Untitled Fluffy Snark #2". I wonder if any of you could tell which bits are mine, muwahahaha. ♥
~~

In my creative writing class, we were reading our snippets aloud today, and there was a sentence in one girl's piece: "What is the difference between fantasy and fiction?"

The answer was basically an allegory for how in fantasy, the ugly rough broken spots of reality get smoothed over and swept under the carpet-- basically, fantasy isn't going to be emotionally, empirically 'realistic'.
    You know, I was thinking about this, and I suppose it's actually true of how most people fantasize, how they view fantasy-- as an escape (and I realize that yes, for me also it's an escape). It's also the reason a number of 'realistic' writers look down on fantasy: after all, it can't tell you anything real about the world or the people around you. Fantasy is around to -lie-.

It seems like we have largely abandoned the traditional uses of allegory and myth in art; the way of the fairy-tale, the art of telling-without-telling, of telling obliquely, of showing through symbol and archetype and allegorical truth. I'm naturally of the bent that predisposes me to allegorical rather than everyday or 'mundane', empirical truth, so yes, 'fantasy' is just easier for me-- which becomes clear because only one of the snippets I heard in the class was really fantastical, and even that one seemed to look down on fantasy. We as a culture see truth as so cut-and-dry a lot of times-- at least, whenever we're not collectively being superstitious and idolizing authority and power. Well. I suppose it's always been like that.

Though there's a lot of 'filler' fantasy being published, much more than there was 50 years ago, say, and tons more than 100 years ago, most of it seems somewhat... standardized and unimaginative to me. The same old recycled pseudo-medieval tropes, the same old videogame retreads, the same old theme-park atmosphere. With HP, in a lot of ways it mocks the fantasy tropes it uses, but there's something about it-- something about the sheer inventivess and silliness that does hold a sense of wonder, it seems like. Even though it -should- feel recycled, it doesn't; it seems fresh if only because of that sense of... surprise, I suppose. Possibly this is a result of them being written like detective novels along with the largely innocent protagonist, or perhaps I'm just a chump. Whatever it is, I never know what silly/weird/odd/useful/funny thing JKR's magic will do next, in the Potterverse. It's like a bag of magic tricks, base stuff really, but it sparkles in a way most fantasy books just... flicker and glow dully.

Even in fanfic for a fantasy and fanart for a fantasy series like HP, there's not a lot of truly mythical/fantastical or allegorical stuff going on. Most people just write romance (rather than romantic fantasy, say), and what fantasy is there (not counting use of 'helper' spells like love potions or Veritaserum or Apparating or silly things like Veela!Draco-- I'm talking about actually being creative within the fantasy medium) is very... um, out of place somehow. I've seen 'wicca' (used badly), I've seen old Egyptian magic (omg, no), and at best I've seen creative variations on JKR's existing spells. Regardless, for some reason none of those things read as fantasy to me at the time-- just something with fantastical elements. I dunno... maybe it's not that it wasn't fantasy so much as it wasn't very good.

Anyway, I got to thinking about all this after looking at this Michael Whelan fantasy art gallery, which you should all see if you're interested in fantasy/allegorical art at all. Whelan's really a master at his chosen themes, and looking at it would give you a sense of the sort of thing I like to see dealt with in writing, also (and I guess you could also see why it's so rare that I find what I like on that level). Maybe it's just because I'm desperate for art to really mean something; to speak to me on multiple levels, from the most base (mmm, porrrnnn!!) to the most spiritual (allegory, dammit!)
    In other words, I'm always looking to see the most unreal premise portrayed in a painstakingly realistic manner-- and that's one reason I love Whelan's approach, I think. It's also why I'm so deeply frustrated with nearly all H/D fics, because once the honeymoon glow wore off, no one was really writing them realistically enough, and my desire to suspend my disbelief for anything other than (a deeper) truth really ebbed.

Or maybe I just really like this picture. And this. And this; and this.... Still and always, I hope.

Comments

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hahah, I think it's less that we disagree and more that you're more militant and/or hardcore (...except when it comes to H/D, because in that case I'm the most hardass bitch there is, ahahah). When I said I liked those the realism of all the paintings, I ment the style itself was 'realistic' in terms of-- proper proportion, not cartoony-- surrealism done in the style of landscape art with a difference, etc. I liked the boys pictures best too, 'cause they were also the most personal-- but I do enjoy the allegory itself and appreciate the... um, thought behind it, I guess--? Like-- um, as I was saying, different layers of meaning. So like... I can like in-your-face allegory, it's just that I like Gaiman-style self-aware allegory best, because it acknowledges several layers/levels of reality, if you know what I mean. Or not.

Haha, I don't think good mythic/legend/fairy-tale inspired fiction has to be contrived-- that's just the bad stuff which I don't like. And neither does it have anything to do with nekkid girls or whatever. Good fantasy isn't necessarily postmodern, though it's often more self-aware in the way that a lot of good fiction is self-aware. Sometimes obliquely; but actually, the mythic form itself is self-aware through the conventions it uses... hahaha, though it's cracking me up to imagine fairy-tales as postmodern, I think I can almost do a paper on it, if you're just using that in the lucid-narrator sense, where we sort of often get pulled out of the story by commentary on this-or-that spoken directly to the audience. And basically, it's very clear ('Once upon a time') that you're reading a fairy-tale in the first place.

I don't actually like superhero comics either, but there's a lot more to Western comics. Not like -tons-, but a lot more now than 5 years ago. There's at least 5 decent titles, all without overt fantasizing-- which I don't like either! Most of the interesting stuff is at Vertigo or Slave Labor comics. There's also lots of independent publishers, with everyday stuff like a comic about, literally, Emo Boy, who pretends he's got superpowers a bit and is v. emo and it's all dark parody for realz.... Also stuff like Slave Labor's Courtney Crumrin & omg, the genius that is Johnny the Homicidal Maniac. ♥ There's... a lot of diverse stuff out there.

I mean, there's a difference between stories with mystic elements & myth (which emerges naturally through the collective unconscious and ages of being retold) and religion (which is contrived in order to um, function as a societal force). That is a basic difference between a story & a method of social control in the first place. Also, if you leave all semi-spiritual or 'higher' thought to religion, you're leaving people to their doom in a lot of ways, because we (human beings) naturally ponder things of a deeper nature, and we all get our answers from somewhere. I think myths are actually a better source for questions than answers anyway, since it's not like the vast majority of people actually believe them anymore (unlike religion). In this way, we can attempt to explain the world without wresting it into a shape it's going to resist-- and freedom of thought remains.

Things like James Barrie's Peter Pan books acknowledge they're allegorical in some ways, just not as obviously as Gaiman does, though. I mean, I definitely meant to say, yeah, I like my fantasy more real, but real can mean a number of approaches, I guess...? Urban fantasy is one way to be real....

Er... also, 'weird fiction'/etc don't apply to fantasy so much as they do to sci-fi, and sci-fi is a whole 'nother kettle of fish if it's the pure stuff (not that there's not a deluge of science fantasy in actuality). However, merely being 'common' and 'everyday' or whatever isn't really enough to be 'real' to me, because as I said, reality has different layers of truth (aside from the purely empirical, and no, I don't like 'mumbo-jumbo' any more than the next atheist), and so on. Er.... ^^;;; That's sort of my premise, if you disagree I can't really convince you and vice versa ^^;

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

(...except when it comes to H/D, because in that case I'm the most hardass bitch there is, ahahah)

So true. You just won't let Draco top :P

I'm not militant... I'm just... picky. Really picky. So there.

Or not.

I do. Don't worry. *pats*

And yeah, I know about the Western comic thing, but the good ones are like, 4 times as expensive here and hard to find. Such a bitch. And still, some of them have that excessively contrasted & constrained style that sort of works for noir ones like Sin City and stuff but puts me off a lot of others. Too many box panels put me off comics faster than you can say "Where's my manga?".

and is v. emo

I could never have guessed. XD I just googled it and am going to have to find it somewhere now. It looks hilarious. And I like the art style (v. important).

Er... also, 'weird fiction'/etc don't apply to fantasy so much as they do to sci-fi, and sci-fi is a whole 'nother kettle of fish if it's the pure stuff (not that there's not a deluge of science fantasy in actuality).

Well, I've heard the term weird-fiction applied to stuff that isn't quite SF and isn't quite fantasy but is too dirty and real to be steampunk. It's not pure, but it's not clear cut enough to be magic realism.

That is a basic difference between a story & a method of social control in the first place.

Myah, moot point. Aren't allegories just trying to control people by condensing diversity into homogenity? I mean, if you want questions you turn to science, because by its very nature it has to focus on data and therefore diversity. If you want answers, you turn to allgories and myths and religion.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I hope you know not letting Draco be sappy/gorgeous/perfect in any way is MUCH more important to me than who tops. I mean, of course he can top sometimes; he just can't dominate Harry, totally omg-impress Harry, be a zillion times snarkier than Harry or be better than Harry in like, everything. Not that Harry has to be better; Draco just can't... I dunno, be cool, or I don't like him. Unless you're Maya, in which case there's the Maya clause, aka: because it's Maya, I love it. ♥

I'm v. picky too, y'know. However, allegory/fantasy/myth isn't an object, it's a subject ^^;;

The boxy panelling... I don't even remember what sort of panelling different comics have o_0 I don't think Johnny has boxy panelling. But. I can't be sure. As for knowing what's new, buy Wizard :D

I like any good story with an element of the fantastic, but I also think trying not to call it fantasy by any means possible and invent a new and better label is just annoyingly pretentious to me. ^^; Lots of mainstream books ('The Joy Luck Club') have fantasy elements and are 'weird', but they don't need their own term. But then I'm just bitter ^^;

I don't think all allegories/fables/myths by nature are trying to control people any more than science is trying to enlighten people-- stories just -are-, and people choose to be controlled/enlightened/confused (and/or they just can't help their own reactions, but it's not like you can blame the story). Religion has answers spelled out/fed to you, a (good!) story hints at the answers and allows you to interpret yourself. It's somewhere in between an answer & a question, just like science is also in between, because it always formulates answers while more blatantly referring to the questions. You can't honestly juxtapose any story & science... I mean, you could, but it makes me sad, because... well, I see things as more of a continuum than that, and believe imagination and fantasy plays a large part in the inspiration/philosophy of science.

I think dualismm also makes my head hurt ^^;

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

I don't think all allegories/fables/myths by nature are trying to control people any more than science is trying to enlighten people

Except, y'know, science has had that whole philosophy of the Enlightenment behind it from its coalescence in the 18th centruy (Bacon, Newton's Natural Philosophy, Kant) which we have yet to shake off for better or for worse, and "religion" just happens to mean "to bind". :P

Religion has answers spelled out/fed to you

...By human beings. Even if you argue for divine inspiration, it's still mediated by (usually a class of) people with agendas. A "good" story by literature's standards is not a good story by religious standards, because religion exists to bind thoughts and people into a vaguely homogenous community, not to encourage diverse questioning and freedom of thought.

I'm not juxtaposing any story and science, but specifically science and religious myths. I'm using them because religious myths are the great myths of our society that are the boring allegories that keep on being repeated and are only now starting to be subverted in a major way by Western society: Greco-Roman gods, Genesis/Adam & Eve, the Exodus, Freud's Oedipal myths, etc etc*. They're not necessarily the only stories out there, but those who usually argue for the fundamental need for allegorical myths usually essentialise these babies. Any story an science? No. The major allegorical myths of any society and science? Yes, because 99.9% of the time these are meta-religious-myths.

*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I'm just saying science is a tool, and can be used for enlightenment but doesn't -have- to be; I'm a big fan of the ideals behind the (scientfici) Enlightenment, but I suppose I don't see religion as equivalent to all non-scientific/rational or allegorical thought ^^; I mean, when all else fails, read Einstein's Dreams (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0446670111/103-6263340-7169455?v=glance) for a look at the connection between dreams (in the semi-spiritual belief sense) and the scientific eye. It's all in how you approach the universe. Also I recommend looking into the work of Loren Eiseley (anthropologist, naturalist & poet), who inspires me greatly.

Anyway, I'm not defending religion or even meaning to go into or mention religion, just by talking about myth-- since myth is as it's understood after the fact of it being a religion (like, in ancient Greece). Myths are stories; religions are stories used for a specific purpose to shape people's behavior. Not all myths are creation myths or even religious myths-- the Grecian ones are great examples or rather flippant mythmaking. But you're right in that believing in something like that too strongly stunts the growth of any society; however, society -always- has myths (the capitalist myth, the American Dream myth), it's just a difference in quality and direction, as always. I also am not so sure about there being no story in science. Have you ever read the work of Carl Sagan, most especially, I'd recommend Cosmos. I think you'd enjoy it, and it shows how very human and courageous a thing the scientific endeavor is. Secondarily, I'd recommend Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors heartily.

Superstitions and outdated beliefs aren't the same thing as the literary concept of allegory. Like, the Pre-Raphaelites drew Ophelia to represent doomed love, etc-- this is not an attempt at societal control, you know? Or Maxfield Parrish drew dreamy girls (http://www.artpassions.net/cgi-bin/show_image.pl?../galleries/parrish/dreaming.jpg) and boys (http://www.artpassions.net/cgi-bin/show_image.pl?../galleries/parrish/aircastles.jpg)-- can be taken as allegory, can be taken as dreamy girls-- I dunno, it's just not the same, because I'm not talking about the -current- driving societal myths, but rather the stuff more commonly used for fantasy/fairy-tales. I'm not talking about the 'great myths' but just the vehicle of communal storytelling that explained many things about the world, was fanciful and once deeply believed, but is no more. Is a relic. Is a story, merely, and pretty harmless (I mean, how much stock do -you- put in Ragnarok?).

With Maya's Draco-- I only meant -I- thought he was cute/cool/an exception to the rule with me & a Draco most people seem to find 'cool' but I don't. Though I find him cute. :>

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

I'm just saying science is a tool

True, but tools aren't just random things picked up. They're made with purpose. (Sorry I just really hate this ahistorical, acultural, acontextual and utterly stupid "It's just a tool!" argument. Grrr)

Not all myths are creation myths or even religious myths-- the Grecian ones are great examples or rather flippant mythmaking.

Flippant? I disagree. I think just because we've lost most of their historical context, and what we do have has been tainted by the blurry lens of a rather large stretch of time where the condemnation of Christianity hung over it, you can't simply say they're "flippant". One could say the same of Shakespeare, simply because we've lost a lot of the context of the language, turns of phrase and jokes.

society -always- has myths (the capitalist myth, the American Dream myth)

All, but they're not myths, they're ideals. They have no concrete story. They're hypothesis and desires, but not actual artistic cultural icons that have yet managed to transcend time and culture in a similar fashion to actual (religious) myths. Maybe they will, one day. The connection between Amiercan Capitalism, the "American Psyche" and American Fundamentalism is a fascinating one, but not necessarily one that can be guaranteed to, in the long run, last like actual myths do.

I don't mean there's no story to science - and by your definition of myth in the above paragraph as an ideal, you could argue for a myth in science (ie- the myth of the neverending search for more questions) but as to there being actual allegorical myths and legends, there can't be. Science, at it's most fundamental level, has to not just change but acknowledge and record past changes. It has to remain historical and cultural and contextual. (Religious) Myths and legends, and especially those that make claims to being allegorical, have to be ahistorical by their very nature, because they're claiming themselves as universal. They gloss over changes and pretend they never happen. They hide context to show that their answers are trandscendental over all cultures and life experiences.

I mean, for example, I'm finally getting around to readin the science of Discwolrd III: Darwin's Watch. It's very good, and holds to the Pratchett ideal of the story in everything (narrativium). But the myth in everything is different. A story can just be someone's perception of a data sheet detailing the results of an experiment. A myth would be the allegorical generalisations and "answers" made in conclusions and possible news articles about those results.

Like, the Pre-Raphaelites drew Ophelia to represent doomed love, etc-- this is not an attempt at societal control, you know?

I'd argue otherwise, considering the historical context and the actual love lives of most of the (incredibly talented and skilled) bastards. Some of them were commissioned to draw certain things by "the Establishment" and so had to extend those social myths and controls through their works just to survive. Others worked out their personal psychology and relationship issues through their art (It's funny you should mention Ophelia, since the doomed-through-the-men's-art-and-that-paintng Elizabeth Siddal was the cause of desire & woe for so many of the Pre-Raph circle).

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I wasn't knocking science, man, I'm not a religious nut ^^; By 'tool', I didn't mean 'just' a tool, I meant stupid religious people can use it for nefarious purposes if they wanted.... And Einstein (one of the best) used it to understand the mind of god. Well, it's why I recommended those books-- too add social/historical context, not take it away.

I didn't mean 'flippant' in the sense that they were carelessly created and have no deeper meaning, but rather in the context of being creation myths or dictating moral behavior, some of them seem of questionable value-- there appears to be more with the projecting typical Grecian mores onto the gods and less of the setting them up as ideals. So the gods were petty and cruel and now I'm quoting Xena.... ^^;; Or was that Hercules: Legendary Journeys...?? ^^;;

I think you're right about some myths lasting, I guess, but most of them don't (ala Ragnarok). There are a -lot- of mostly-dead cultures that have very little impact on anyone but historians, except in small echoes (like the Celts), and their myths, at least, have v. little 'reality' for most people-- I wouldn't call them 'religious' anymore, and they're my favorite mythic system, together with the Norse. I really was only talking about allegories/myths as literary devices, as metaphors, and while I admit they -can- exert dark power over people, I meant there's always something metaphorical/ideal-based exerting that power (meaning: American Dream), without implying it's actually a myth, y'know? Just saying there's always that natural human process of idealization/idolization. But that's really not what I initially meant to refer to at all. I think we diverge with the 'ahistorical' bit-- to me, myths/legends/fairy-tales are deeply rooted in the past, or at least, the ones I like/read/think about. They can be updated, but it's an active process of transposing them-- I think when they're -active- & living they're ahistorical, but when the culture that produced them dies, a lot of their strength starts to become more story/metaphor & less memic force. Still about how things should be, but only in the context of that story, with every reader left to resonate with it or not. The story itself doesn't... well, it doesn't -do- anything-- it just sits there. I mean, I've never felt forced to believe in, er, Ragnarok, y'know.

I don't mean to idealize the 'myth' in everything-- by that definition, a myth is indeed an over-generalization, a lie. A myth in the story sense is merely an old story that used to be believed but is now a fantasy, usually about world-creation or some important aspect of the world explained, like seasons or rainbows (ie, we have spring because Persephone rises up from Hades). But the modern interest of Persephone isn't her capacity to explain spring but her story as a daughter of a (make-believe) goddess who descends (cue psychological allegory about descent into madness/depression/dark love) and ascends into the light (cue allegory/modernization about return to sense, family, motherlove, eros, choices, growing up, etcetc). There are no conclusions with a retelling of Persephone, only... I dunno, a depth gained by referring to an old story.

Well, they used Ophelia to represent -their- doomed love, but it was the representation I was focusing on, the transmuting (basic meaning of allegory as I intended it). It's when you mean to do one thing through apparently doing something else. Metaphor on a larger, more complex/symbolic/historically associative scale, or something. That it's spawned from Elizabeth Siddal (which I remember reading, actually), only gives the paintings a richer context, but doesn't take away their other meanings, y'know? I dunno. It's the layering of meanings I'm really talking about.

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

Oh goddamn crapping HTML codes! *shakes fist*

yes, I do suck, and it's really late

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

And Einstein (one of the best) used it to understand the mind of god.

And then revealed in his other less often Christian-quoted quotes that that was impossible, and that he didn't believe in a god in the way religious people do. :P He mostly used the phrase "mind of god" to mean "the universe" and his sense of awe and wonder at its beauty and complexity. Once again, the phrase becomes a myth and the context and details are lost as it's spread by interest groups who want to perpetuate social (theistic) control.

Stupid religious people can't use science to prove their faith - that's logically impossible because of the very definition of faith. Yes, they can still use it for nefarious purposes to build a bomb to attack their religious foes, but it's not compatible with their myths.

No, sorry, I just don't like Carl Sagan.

but rather in the context of being creation myths or dictating moral behavior, some of them seem of questionable value

To us, here, now, out-of-context of their original conception and cultural circulation. Revelations, to me, in the context of my country, now, is of questionable value, but it wasn't during the Pauline years of Christianity and isn't now to a large population of the USA.

Also, I don't think certain myths having more or less value now has anything to do with their intrinsic allegorical-ness, or universalness (cos, y'know, I don't think there's any such thing), but simple ebb and flo of cultural domination and destruction. Empires fall, context is lost, if too much is lost then the myth no longer has universality (ha! paradox!). But they still construct themselves as universal. Otherwise they wouldn't be myths.

I think when they're -active- & living they're ahistorical, but when the culture that produced them dies, a lot of their strength starts to become more story/metaphor & less memic force.

That's... an... interesting... view.

I guess really we're coming at it from different directions - you're into the older, less culturally relevant myths of the Norse and I prefer discussing the ones that are currently active in the culture. I think both are as equally un-universal and irrelvant as each other, and both are flawed attempts at meta-myths that I don't cleave to intrinsically (ie- make myths) even if I enjoy them as stories. Nobody is forcing anyone to believe in Ragnarok anymore (much, I'm sure there's a few nutcases out there somewhere) but the "I am universal, do as I say or there will be consequences" message is still there, because it's myffic.

There are no conclusions with a retelling of Persephone

I think there still is, because of my perception about your readings of the myth and the little brackets you put there with words in them :). I mean, none of the things you've ever mentioned comes to mind when I read it, but I do know that a lot of people (academic and otherwise) do think that's what the story is prescibing. Nobody's forcing me to believe, but it just becomes another purpose-filled tool to be used by invested parties.

I understand the layer of meanings thing, but again, the powerful meta-myths of today (and the past) can't and don't have many layers. Just as an indie band is reduced to shallow visuals when they become pop, something that's complex and people/culture/locale-specific is reduced to basic generalisations when it becomes a prescribing myth, especially in the binds of religion. Even Ragnarok was, back in the day, though it might seem specific now because of the loss of cultural context.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

You're just way more concerned with the possible misuses of stories than I am, whereas I'm just sitting there in my room, going 'this is really neat-o!!' ^^;;;

I agree myths can be reborn and revamped, but... this doesn't seem to happen much--? I have a specific interest in them as stories and reflections on the human psyche & collective unconscious (Jung and Campbell all the way), so, I mean... Well, I read Women Who Run With the Wolves at an impressionable age. I think the myths' power over individuals rather than societies... though funny we keep mentioning Ragnarok, 'cause there's this really cool comic about Ragnarok actually happening and this rock musician becoming a god by John Ney Reiber (oh he of Books of Magic), called Mythos: The Final Tour-- it's all dark and good & apocalyptic. You should like it, maybe :D But yeah, power of myth... I'm all over that, though I love stories that use it to describe rather than proscribe... it's all perverse and yet beautiful in its twistedness.

Anyway, I didn't mean I thought Einstein meant 'mind of god' literally-- as in, the Christian sense-- I just meant a sort of spirituality (Loren Eiseley's like that too) isn't counter to science. A lot of physicists are pretty wacky like that, y'know.... Not with the established religion and more with the looking for signs of the non-empirical in the empirical world.... Well, I guess that's what happens with physics (all those equations, I guess they get to you in the end).

I can see how all myths retain shadows of their universalness (largely hobbled), but this doesn't-- well, it doesn't condemn them, just makes them great relics you can remake-- a bit like ancient Greek temples, except you can mess with them & remake them in your image. A great example of myffic (heh, cute word) storytelling you might have heard of in the pomo circles would have to be John Barth. That (Chimera) is really what I'm looking for-- complex, modern, yet rooted in the myth it's spawned from while recasting it in a totally new light. It's a lot like a funhouse mirror, twisting the old truth into new truth. Or something. Well, that's what makes it -literature- rather than religion ^^;; Invested parties probably wouldn't even know what to do with Chimera :>

I think my Persephone brackets aren't about all that 'really' being there so much as my experience of my own and others' -stories- about it, which is actually my main interest in myth. Different stories focus on different things, but the outlook of a writer & a reader is pretty different. I see these things as a writer, as someone who's being -inspired-, y'know? Myths call to me, saying 'write usssss... wriiiite us... rewrite uuss.... twiiist uuuusss' and so on :>

The layers are added by the story, which is inspired by but doesn't actually replace (remake) the myth. In this sense, I suppose the myth is a (whale of a) tool. I'm not taking myths baldly here, but in the context of art; this is an important caveat, y'know? The (new) -story- is what brings the story/metaphor aspect to the forefront and gives it specificity it may lack with its remaining universalist aspirations; of course, a new story can be bad and generalize and use new myths/ideals to sort of kill/warp/strengthen the poison in the old story rather than give it an interesting new life-- but then that's always a danger. In the end, I just see myths as fascinating soil, something to build with-- because they used to mean so much, and retain some claws onto our collective psyches, because they're powerful and not really dead and they tap into the grand themes-- and with a new story to give it specificity and breath, they can really become a new sort of beastie, I think. At best, of course.

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

You're just way more concerned with the possible misuses of stories than I am, whereas I'm just sitting there in my room, going 'this is really neat-o!!' ^^;;;

I guess I just see the power of stories a lot, and how often that power is misused in the media, in religion, in anything, really.

but... this doesn't seem to happen much--?

How often do movies get remade? How often do books get made into movies? It's just another revamping, though it remains a "story" in these sense. But story-to-myth renovations take longer and take social change to change the context into something that can make a story a myth.

For example: Bra burners never existed. No feminist ever burned her bra. There was a joking story in the media once about it once. But the "myth" of the bra burner was promoted over and over again to belittle the women's rights movement by invested politicians, groups and the media, and now it has become a social myth with massive baggage behind it, even though it was just a fictional story. It was the right story at the right time (context) to become a myth.

I just meant a sort of spirituality (Loren Eiseley's like that too) isn't counter to science.

Oh, I know it can have spirituality, but religion is different from just the person experience of the universe.

myffic (heh, cute word)

Blame Pratchett. ShutupIamnotobsessed.

That (Chimera) is really what I'm looking for-- complex, modern, yet rooted in the myth it's spawned from while recasting it in a totally new light. It's a lot like a funhouse mirror, twisting the old truth into new truth

Well, it's more than that, since pomo is many many stories and myths shattered then put back together in a different way for the context of the now, not just a simple retelling or single twist of an old tale. This is why I don't think they're soil, because they're not a "base" which you work from, in the postmodern sense, but they're more like broken tiles or paint or some other artistic thing that your mush together with all this other stuff and hope it works. In the modern (Tolkien) sense they're more like soil to start from.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, anything powerful will be misused, but the fault is in the use & the people, not the type of story, I guess--? Plus, you seem to substitute 'religious myth' & 'religion' when I'm talking about myth as part of a spectrum of magical tale (fairy-tale, legend, allegory, folktale), and even more specifically in regards to its possible retelling and refashioning. I think that while they're powerful, a lot of them are also dormant or forgotten. It doesn't take much for them to gain new life, though-- I mean, it's fascinating how myths (and legends, even folktales) can redefine themselves for a new era. People keep retelling their stories, reimagining their gods...

I guess I feel it's up to each person to renegotiate their relationship with their culture's current myths (which is why I love books like The Armless Maiden and Women Who Run With the Wolves so much). In the end, in one's own subconscious, it all becomes about the stories you tell yourself, whatever resonates and captures you... I mean, most people identify with some particular sect or religion, but it's just a name... so much of what their beliefs really are has to do with that person's precise family & social context and such.... Though again, I mean, my personal interest is in stories rather than beliefs, y'know. I do see how it's true, about fiction being made into 'fact'-- like with the bra burning and much of the news today-- but I just want to be clear this is less about a genre of story and more about... I wouldn't say it's a different -brand- of story, but even if the nature is similar, the function is so different. If anything because conscious mass belief & subconscious symbologies just occupy different spaces in the psyche, it seems....

With Barth, it's just that I knew he was a postmodern writer, and I read Chimera, and it's both based on the myth and is a hodgepodge (combining Perseus and Sherezade, mostly, and one other Greek myth), but what stuck with me personally was his reimagining of Medusa, which just rung so true and perfect and right. I realize in the lit-crit sense there are separations and stuff, but to me mix-and-matching or merely reimagining-- they're doing similar work, though the mix-and-matching is even more interesting. Now I'm thinking of Emma Donoghue and Kissing the Witch, where she mixed all those fairy-tales into interconnected stories with lesbian themes. Mmm.

But when I think of mythic fantasy, I think more of Diana L. Paxton's The Wolf and the Raven (retelling the downfall of the Norse gods through a more realistic depiction of old Germanic tribes) than Tolkien, who created his own gods. I never really connected with stories about made up gods... I don't know why. I guess to me, it doesn't matter whether the source is in broken pieces or taken whole, as long as I can feel the breeze of history, the resonance of many other stories I've already heard, the sense of the long-forgotten that once was, or could have been. This is why I love elves best when they're related to the actual Sidhe lore, and why Neil just sort of rocked my world with reshuffling dozens of old traditions in a happy mixing bag... mmmm....

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

As I said, so much of religion is bound up in myths, and vice versa, that I don't think we can seperate the two in current society. Maybe in a few thousand years when we've rid ourselves of religion altogether things will be different, but, well, the great myths that are retold, revamped and turned into stories/come from stories are religious myths.

In the end, in one's own subconscious, it all becomes about the stories you tell yourself, whatever resonates and captures you...

Well yeah, but what about if you never tell yourself anything, because you're always being told by someone else, or if you never experience something that actually resonates with you, because of the way the meta-myths have affected the world around you?

but even if the nature is similar, the function is so different.

I don't think it is. Your 'fact' is just another myth, if not a meta or religious one, in this sense.

If anything because conscious mass belief & subconscious symbologies just occupy different spaces in the psyche, it seems...

I don't think they do. Conscious mass belief is just a manifestation of learned subconscious paterns. People believe homosexuals are evil because they've been subconsciously taught strictly imbalanced sexual and gender guidelines and (even subconsciously) they don't want to lose the power those guidelines bring them, or the safety of their own identity. They might consciously believe in certain doctrines that back up those learned subconscious patterns of thought, but the two can't be seperated to easily.

You're right about the could-have-beens sense in stories, but that's what divides them from actual myths - the details that give them a historical context in some form or another, even if it's just a suggestion of one. Myths try to hide that sense of history to pretend they're universal.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Some myths are active, yes, but-- what about that one about the dragon who created the universe--? How much influence is it having on your average Pentecostal preacher--? I mean, not every myth is necessarily equivalent in nature/structure/impact to every other, I guess, nor did it necessarily always have the exact same meaning/place in its originating society (some of them were quite primitive and violent in their relationships to their gods like the Aztecs, some were much more... thoughtful and refined like the Greeks, and then there's the utter mess of the Egyptians), some, so. Also, I'm not sure if you're advocating some sort of quarantine or memic warfare or-- what--? Given, I have a storyteller's interest in the active (Christian) mythos also, and really enjoy things like Joseph Linsner's Dawn comic, which beautifully mixes the Christian god and the Pagan goddess.... And there's my own kink for pairing God and Lucifer... but that's neither here nor there.

They're dangerous as all ideas are, but there's really no getting around the human need for a certain kind of story-- and when you're talking about unused myths, then it's got a different sort of effect altogether. You referred to this, I think, by saying that Greek myths just don't mean to us what they meant to the ancient Greeks. They're not powerless now, but they're metaphors rather than religious standards. Wacky people making sacrifices to Aphrodite and little Cupids on Valentine's Day aside....

While I'm concerned for the people who're easily brainwashed by society into never thinking for themselves, I'm not sure how this should influence my own relationship with these old stories--? I mean, some (most) of the stuff I myself like is pretty obscure, so I would guess that most people haven't been indoctrinated into some specific way of viewing an old Celtic horse goddess, y'know.... Not that it matters, really, for the purposes of reading/writing a piece of fiction, on the one-on-one reader-to-writer level, anyway.

It's like-- my concern is almost strictly with fiction, not with sociological issues, which are constant and hard to avoid. For me, it's not really a contradiction to avoid religiosity or religious propaganda in other people or direct sources, but love stories using Christian or maybe Buddhist themes. In reality, there's not much of a separation so much as a shifting spectrum, but in my mind, the belief/non-belief separation is pretty clear-cut.... I also think if someone's tempted to just believe these things, it's going to be one thing or another, but it'll be something. Mythic fantasy (my only real concern), at least, exists somewhere on the borderlands of incorporating historical fact, psychological archetype, mythic background and pure fiction-- which lends it a lot of its interest to me... so it's not as if I'm focusing on fact vs. fiction (better left to sociologists & historians than to writers), but rather accepting a story that uses many sources.

There's a connection between conscious and unconscious beliefs, sure, as in they feed and direct each other in a lot of ways, but... it's not a direct overlapping--? An actual belief (homosexuals are evil) is one thing-- which may or may not exist in any given individual in a society; taught or learned sexual/gender guidelines are another thing (a background shared by most members of a society); and the vast range of archetypes and symbols that transcend culture and tap into all sorts of sources, modern and ancient-- that's separate but linked & related, it seems like. The symbols are sometimes repressed in our waking life, sometimes perverted, sometimes over-indulged.... I'm not talking about subconscious patterns so much as... dreamscapes, I suppose, symbols not so easily put into specific beliefs or doctrines so much as instincts. There's no one obvious doctrine to dreaming, I guess.

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

How much influence is it having on your average Pentecostal preacher--?

Not much, because it's context isn't right.

Also, I'm not sure if you're advocating some sort of quarantine or memic warfare or-- what--?

Heh, myffic warfare? I mean, not a quarantine per se, but there always has to be a group of people outside the "groupthink" who endorses the myths over and over again who provide stories and diversity and who, in many senses of the word, often have to fight quite hard for that right to expression. Yes, humans need stories but we don't necessarily need myths, anymore. I personally think most myths given credence by society are just getting in the way of actual progress and improvement of the human condition, and have been for a very long time.

not with sociological issues,, which are constant and hard to avoid.

I think that's blinkering yourself and willful ignorance, but *shrug* whatever you want. If you're going to discuss psychological archetype, you can't avoid sociological issues.

it's not a direct overlapping--?

Neurologically, it is. A lot of actions and choices humans perceive to be conscious decisions or "free will" are actually decided and worked out before the will is put into the choice in the subconscious brain. The consciousness really only exists to make us think we're making voluntary and free choices. Any story then is already written in the subconscious before you decide to consciously write it down. That doesn't mean the subconscious is some big meta-connected-dreamscape that isn't affected by external influence though - quite the opposite in fact. It only exists because of all the conscious experiences we don't pay attention to and the 99% of life we experience subliminally.

An actual belief (homosexuals are evil) is one thing-- which may or may not exist in any given individual in a society; taught or learned sexual/gender guidelines are another thing (a background shared by most members of a society);

Anthropology suggests otherise. Societies with certain guidelines for sex and certain kinds of views on gender totally lack homophobia or sexism as we know it. Modern homophobia is a product of the sexist gender views of the West, which privilege heterosexual males and subjugate all others to that privilege. Without the prejudiced environment, homophobia can't exit or grow. Without the subconscious structures already in place, conscious thought and behaviour doesn't occur. I'm not saying that just because a society teaches gender and sexual behaviours that homophobia exists, I mean the subconscious taught subliminal sexual behaviour in certain societies is what allows homophobia to consciously exist in certain societies.

Basically, danger happens when a story claims universality to the unconscious because of some fucked-up Jungian shite (sorry, I just don't buy into all that stuff anymore) that causes stagnation and domination of the conscious storytelling point and represses diversity because the "story" becomes the "myth". Usually said myths then fall only through violent changes in society - eg the actual destruction of a society, or a serious reality check that causes the society to change dramatically (Anglo-Saxon invasion, fall of the Norse peoples, fall of Communism, fall of Rome, Hiroshima bombings, etc etc).

I don't like myths taken out of context like this because they do stagnate and repress diversity in the storytelling of a society. They do this through claims to universality, even though a quick change in society regularly proves that universality is just a lie.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Heh, I'm with you on the wishing for people outside the groupthink endorsing outdated thinking patterns, I'm just not sure as to the relationship between writing about & studying something and using it as source material for storytelling, and endorsing it--? I mean, if I read book on old Egyptian gods and how they were worshipped and then read a comic set in a fantasy Egypt where there was actual magic, say, am I endorsing dangerous groupthink somehow--? I mean, outside of a small overall percentage of pagans, I'm not sure how the myths most commonly used in fantasy are currently threatening social progress. It's not like it's a popular field or anything, you know. We're talking obscure ancient pagan cultures and their lore, not precisely most people's idea of a good time.

So I'm not precisely saying society should be made more aware of myths or I'm about to go around enlightening people as to the Elder Edda's role in the development of early poetry or something and its influence on modern fantasy works. I mean, it's not so much that I want to avoid cultural/social issues, I'm just saying there's a separation between storytelling usage and academic study--? You could say as a writer, one has a responsibility to the people and all that, but I'm uncertain what that responsibility is in regard to something like how I reuse the myth of Sisyphus, say, in a story about a really pissed off Japanese salaryman or something. While I'm -interested- in sociology/anthropology, as a reader of mythic fantasy, given I read for pleasure, it seems there remains a difference between furthering my education & restricting my field of interest or something. So it's not in the context of discussion, I meant in the context of reading/writing, there's only so much I can -do-.

I don't know if I made it clear, but I wasn't specifically meaning the Jungian sense of the collective unconscious, something that links the individual to the overall history of the species and culture and planet, etc. I wasn't trying to say there was this big divide between the conscious and unconscious mind, but rather than there are different aspects of 'unconscious', some of which aren't directly influenced by current culture and is more driven by imagination, hardwired associations, snippets of stories and dreams... though this is more intuition than anything else. I have this feeling like there are different layers/facets of the subconscious mind-- the perceptual framework which handles the brunt of unnoticed perception distinct from though likely connected to and feeding the part which creates more longterm condensed symbols in the id. I dunno what I'm saying anymore. It's impossible to separate the idiosyncratic from the cultural from the archetypal, of course, as there seem to be influences everywhere, but... It's not so much universality or anything so much as repeating patterns, always different in major details but retaining some common thread of story. It's like, similar things evolving naturally, perhaps. It's not 'the story' so much as the raw components at that point; mutated shadows that were once related to experienced reality but took on a life of their own in the unconscious mind-- that become something concrete when put inside a specific context. And these inner shadows have things in common with each other the way people themselves have things in common, it seems like. It's not universality in terms of an over-myth (ubermyth?) so much as interconnectedness....

But since I think in highly symbolic terms, I can't help but feel there are repeating themes that are instinctive to us, often repeated in stories of many different cultures. It's not one story but many, I guess-- it's just that they all share common characteristics. The specific myth inevitably changes, it's only human nature that remains the same. Something like eternal change bringing about an eternal constant. This is more my own observation than any thought-out proof, though :>

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

I mean, if I read book on old Egyptian gods and how they were worshipped and then read a comic set in a fantasy Egypt where there was actual magic, say, am I endorsing dangerous groupthink somehow--?

No, because that's now just a story. Though it was once a myth, that was endorsed through groupthink, mostly for exploitative purposes of the Egyptian upperclass.

I have no doubt there's as much (if not more) mythological bullshit in Paganism as there is in any other mainstream religion.

I dunno what I'm saying anymore.

^^ That's okay. I do. And I agree with you on the facets of the subconsciousness thing you described and uberconnectedness even if I may have been a bit cunty in some of my past replies. Sorry, just boogers running down the back of my throat make me cranky. I mean, you can see similarities in the development of certain pop cultures in certain countries at the same time when the same sort of socio-political events occur. And I mean, ancient cultures that existed at the same time but in different (yet similar) geographical locations in the past were like that too.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I was never saying that 'mythic fantasy' was equivalent to myth-- I mean, it's always got that historical (or fictional) context that separates it from pure myth (though reading the Norse legends... say the stuff about Woden... there's plenty of intersection between historical and mythic). I'm not defending myths as great things to live your life by, no matter what-- it's only that they fascinate me as stories & historical artifacts as well as archetypal reflections on the human psyche. There's definitely a danger of being taken as 'truth' when they aren't, but I'm not sure how that should impact their study or lessen their interest....

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

I just don't think you can study myths as historical artifacts and reflections of perceived archetypes without factoring in their social impact on society. To me it's like studying Einstein's theories and work and then ignoring the whole background and social context that led to his work occuring, other scientists who influenced him, use of those theories to create atmoic weapons, and his consequential issues with that. If you're going to study the discourse of anything, you have to study the whole discourse as far as you can go.

Cont'd

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

I dunno, it's just not the same, because I'm not talking about the -current- driving societal myths, but rather the stuff more commonly used for fantasy/fairy-tales. I'm not talking about the 'great myths' but just the vehicle of communal storytelling that explained many things about the world, was fanciful and once deeply believed, but is no more. Is a relic. Is a story, merely, and pretty harmless (I mean, how much stock do -you- put in Ragnarok?).

I don't, but take a look at the Fundies in the US who strongly factor in their views on when "the Rapture" is supposedly going to happen when voting. I don't, because I'm pomo and over that bullshit. But the majority still does, because fairy-tales and common mainstream stories are still just recycled versions of the supposed meta-myths of our society. Snow White was raped in her original incarnation, but then Disney recycles it into a perfect version of the ideal heterosexual couple and it's consumed en-masse by millions of people. Where do you think "Rumplestiltskin" got his name from? The original German tale was almost porn, but again, suddenly it's a harmless and infantalised meta-myth to feed to children and stupid adults and performed by The East Valley Children's Theatre (http://www.evct.org/rumplestiltskin.html).

Do I even need to mention the seriousness of which not only schools in the US but in my country as well are considering teaching Creationism? Do I?

It's nice to think people are smart and that fairy-tales and meta myths are "just stories" now. The sad fact is, they're not, and even if they were just allegorical, that still doesn't excuse their claims to universalism and "the answers" as allegorical meta-myths do. It's the ones that do try and explain things about the world that are the dangerous ones, because they make claims to being "myffic" even if they don't end up as such.

I think here I need to say I'm not against things that metaphorically describe the world, but ones that either metaphorocially or seriously try and explain or prescribe the world. "Good stories", to me, say "This is how the world is" as a metaphor or as a reality. Bad ones - and all myths come into the category - say "This is how the world should be" in some form or another. Some fairy tales may have just been the former in their past lives. But these days? Nu uh. They've become the latter, most of the time simply for the purposes of marketing and money making. And the same goes for myths as well: There might be a time when someone speaking of a falling star mght metaphorically be trying to describe it to her son and say "It's a piece of the gods", but once it becomes part of the wide cultural context it's warped and turned into a prescriptive piece of myth ("You should do this and this but not that or else the gods will not impart themselves to us and the crops will die"). It's like I said about the difference between an ideal with the current "myths" you suggested and an actual myth - ie when a "story" becomes a "meta", in a way.

Re: Cont'd

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I see where you're coming from, you know, and I do appreciate these concerns and largely agree with you in terms of 'this is bad' and 'this is not so bad'-- it's just we arrange things differently in terms of which is which, or something, I dunno, or what aspects of that thing to look at--? I admit Disney bastardized the fairy-tales it used, but that doesn't mean using fairy-tales means bastardizing them, only that Disney didn't do a good job & yet was popular. Just because Disney is popular doesn't mean the thing it tried to do (fairy-tale retelling) was a bad thing.

I mean, the difference between teaching Creationism in schools & like, uh, reading stories that are inspired by the myth of Ragnarok... I mean, you see the difference, right? One is still actively believed by a large portion of the populace and is publically presented as 'possible', the other... isn't. No one in power goes around giving any credence to Ragnarok coming. So... it is a harmless myth, y'know? The Rapture & Ragnarok therefore occupy different spaces in the storytelling spectrum even if they're both myths.

I agree that good stories describe rather than prescribe-- it's just that initially, myths prescribed, but after they're not believed anymore, they merely describe. It's a shift that happens, I guess--? I'm not talking about stories that are currently in the wide cultural context, which is why I like reading stuff with its heyday in the ancient past-- no danger there. Old stories aren't exactly toothless, but they're eventually dried of poison, and only the metaphor remains. I'm not talking about their most crass possible popularization-- those would be myths I'd discount and/or leave alone anyway, not worth my interest, being so polluted. I mean... in the end, this is all about different types of symbol & metaphor, which is inherently descriptive rather than prescriptive. Or at least, those are the aspects I seek out and enjoy~:)

Re: Cont'd

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

I admit Disney bastardized the fairy-tales it used, but that doesn't mean using fairy-tales means bastardizing them, only that Disney didn't do a good job & yet was popular. Just because Disney is popular doesn't mean the thing it tried to do (fairy-tale retelling) was a bad thing.

No, btu I think it was so popular because it reduced them down to myffic supposed universals and stripped them of their "story" context. Fairy-tale retelling isn't an intrinsically bad thing, by mythologising a lot of things is. I know there's a difference between telling a story inspired by a myth, and telling a myth itself.

But also, just because nobody puts credence in Ragnarok, doesn't mean it couldn't happen with a slight shift in society, and the right PR machine. That's all it took for the fundamentalism to get going in the US. It could be stripped down to its generalisations and warped quite easily into a controlling myth if someone with the right frame of mind wanted. Any story could. That's when stories stop being stories and start being myths - when the falling-star becomes the god of fertillity.

I don't know if I agree that myths describe once they're "dead" (to use a phrase). I just think there's not enough context to prop up their supposed universality - the great paradox of any myth. You know, NO myth is ever truly universal - once you get away from humans, it's all bloody pointless, so "universal" only exists as far as the human ego extends. But anyway, they can easily have their "poison" injected back into them in different parts - the crazy end-of-the-worldism is only a revamp in the most recent centuries to feed the false-victimisation complex of US conservatives. Their context is changed so the danger lies in other "universals" that are projected into/onto them by the controllers of the spreading of the myths.

I'm not talking about their most crass possible popularization-- those would be myths I'd discount and/or leave alone anyway, not worth my interest, being so polluted.

You myffic elitist, you XD. Funnily enough, these are some of my favourite versions of myths, if just to see how they reflect the world around them. A culture is defined by its pop culture, you know?

Re: Cont'd

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I know there's a difference between telling a story inspired by a myth, and telling a myth itself.

Well, of course! I wasn't ever meaning to stories/art that actually takes the -function- of myth or allegorical 'lessons' rather than using the style and conventions/history as an inspiration or genre (like, 'working within'). I don't like stories that prescribe, after all. I've never really felt a danger with actually making a new myth, personally-- I think that sort of happens without volition a lot of times, when stories take on a life of their own, for instance-- like, I dunno, HP in some ways. JKR definitely didn't set out to create a universe people would cling to this tightly-- or at least I doubt it.

I like to see how a myth retelling reflects the current world, but in a more subtle sense rather in a 'watch the car-crash at work' sense. Myths can't help but reflect us, I think that's there innate power. But if one is aware of the elements and metaphors being invoked, they're teaching tools, archetypal storehouses, ways to speak of things which have no other outlet or way of being expressed quite that way. Not everything can be spoken of through the everyday world; layers, layers!! Heh.

I think I'm as interested in the possible concretification (I made up a word!) of the universal as you are in the danger of the universalization of the concrete or something like that. :))

PS. WHY IS MY UPSTAIRS NEIGHBOR BLARING JAZZ MUZAK AT 8AM THAT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR ONE FLOOR DOWN OH MY FUCKING GOD WHY WHY WHY. H8.

Re: Cont'd

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

JKR definitely didn't set out to create a universe people would cling to this tightly-- or at least I doubt it.

I know, which, really, I think is what's given the HP books almost myffic status. She generalises, theres no details, as I've said in my many arguments against the lack of logic in the books. She reduces the typical stories down to their most basic components, just as Lucas stripped Kurosawa's story of The Hidden Fortress down to a basic and added your usual hero story to make his first movies.

There is the exception, of course, of Tolkein, though it's debatable whether his stories are actual socially powerful myths in our society, or whether his stories are just a popular retelling of the Christ myth.