~~ 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

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

I think a problem I have with a lot of fantasy is that thing I had with HBP - it's so badly contrived, so recycled, and it glosses over just too many details for it to be believable make-believe. I mean, out of those pictures you posted, I liked the ones with the little boys in them best because they were believable. Your typical fantasy book cover with a half-naked chick with long hair just isn't believable to me anymore. It's so cliche, and, in the context of modern femininity and feminism, doesn't fit with what's believable related to reality. It's like my resistance to Western comics: too many allegories, too many similar things to the allegorical fantasy I don't like, too over-saturated and over-exaggerated to the point of almost being a parody of itself. Like most of those paintings - they're too symmetrical and oversaturated.

I'll admit there's a place for this contrivedness, but...well... I prefer it kept in the confines of religion. Where all that contrived bullshit can live in its happy fanastyland and not have to interact with reality. I prefer my fantasy/fiction to be more real. That doesn't mean it can't be allegorical, but in fictions I've read that are both real and allegorical (eg- Pratchett and Gaiman) the text acknoledges that the myth and fantasy is allegorical. You know, postmodernism and all that.

It's interesting though about the difference you say between fantasy and fiction. A lot of people like to call certain genres of fantasy and SF "speculative fiction" or "weird fiction" and this implies, in some way, it's closer to reality than traditional, allegorical "fantasy".

You're right about the detective-novelness of the HP books though. They are very much "Ooohhh what's the big mystery this time? Malfoy!" books, which is a common thing in a lot of kids books, no matter what the meta-genre they are.

[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 ^^;

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Haha, man... I dunno if the HP books are good 'fantasy' or they make sense in realistic terms or... whatever (well, they're not and they don't), I'm just... saying that there's something about her brand of magic that evokes my sense of wonder-- nothing to do with whether that makes sense, everything to do with the how rather than the what or why. Well, a little bit of the what, but no why. :> Of course, I like my whys taken care of too, but..... Actually, HP is nowhere near my favorite-fantasies list, so I was only mentioning it to humor people.

[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.

[balfrog.livejournal.com]

hahah
I read through the whole thing and picked it out (4th from the bottom) - yup - only Reena would have "You can't torture me into agreeing to marry you,"
:D

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hee :> Well, there was one other one I wrote just by myself, but that one's the one I did with Aja, and that's one of Aja's lines ;) ;) But-- she -was- working with my characterizations/first lines to start with :))

[balfrog.livejournal.com]

so... did you do the "I promise to sleep with you soon" fic, yet?
*taps foot impatiently*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

er.... *looks shifty* ^^;;;

[balfrog.livejournal.com]

:D
eee- make me wait around for the one I want...
:D

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

...you want them to sleepsleep together?? :>

[balfrog.livejournal.com]

heehee.
whatever suits... the prompt stuck in my mind. and I so wanted to do it, but opted for the Snape one the second time around.
:D

[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 ^^;

[parthenia14.livejournal.com]

I loved this essay. That's exactly the problem with HP fanfic, and maybe why i'm a bit bored with it - most of it, with honourable exceptions (Shadow of his Wings comes to mind) don't really even attempt the magical side of things. Hell, they often don't attempt the plot side of things.

I think JKR's world works because it's 3-dimensional and solid, and within that the characters have an incredible psychological reality. As a reader, you think it's easy until you look at something else. and it's the balance of those things plus the mega-plot, I think, that keeps people so involved.

I read an adult novel which could be classed as fantasy in some respects, The Vintner's Luck (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099273896/qid=1126081592/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-3917622-7370213), and again it's that balance of the real with the fantastical that's so hard to get right.

PS I don't usually like fantasy art - for all the reasons mentioned - but those are lovely.

[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've heard many good things about The Vintner's Luck (read a good review of it when I was looking for gay-themed fantasy books, maybe, ages ago, not sure), but never got around to it, probably because of the angel thing. Heh. And the not-too-happy ending thing. Possibly reviews have a downside sometimes ^^;;;

I'm just doomed with HP fic 'cause I'd -like- plot and fantasy elements and things, but not as much as I'd like the 'right' H/D relationship (I think I have something like a list in my head of the 10 zillion things I'd like a fic not to do with Harry and/or Draco). Although I sell out big-time for snark, smut and Maya um... snarky!Draco -in- smut :D I did like Transfigurations for the magic bits and the Harry, even though the Draco was... oh maaannnn ><;;

I do think most people 'buy' into the Potterverse for the characters, but I actually really like things like the Department of Mysteries, the love room, horcruxes, the zombies in the water, etcetc. Not so much that it keeps me involved (it's really just Harry who keeps me), but it evokes a sense of the fantastic, that childlike excitement of 'oooh, shiny!!'-- but maybe that's just me, not saying it isn't.

And I'm so happy you like Michael Whelan! Though the realm of fantasy art is in itself huge & multifaceted :>

[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. :>

[parthenia14.livejournal.com]

I was recommended The Vintner's luck by my pal ravurian and I didn't read it for a while because, angels, yuk. But everything else he recommended was good, so I got round to it, and enjoyed it thoroughly. In fact, the angel part works very, very well indeed. It's helped by the setting in nineteenth-century France, and the way it can then draw on beliefs about heaven and hell.

It's not a tragic tale, although in the sense that you're left musing about life, age and death, it's not a barrel of laughs either. Melancholy, I think. 'Lucifer has theories.' Guh.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Anything that seriously mentions Lucifer and his 'projects' is good in my book :D :D :D (*has a slight obsession, probably*)
I will get around to it! Well, mostly it's the lack of actual gay consummation/romance. I dunno. So few books in the fanfic ouvre, it is sad. Or perhaps not, actually :))

[parthenia14.livejournal.com]

'gay consummation'? (sounds like a sandwich)

There's some of that, too. Mwahahaha.

Have you read Mary Renault's The Charioteer (modern, set in wartime England)? Not fantasy, but the most fabulous romantic story, which happens to be gay - and for once, it's all about the relationships/the romance, and not really about coming out/being struck down. I haven't read any of the ancient greek ones, but this was wonderful. The first chapter or two are practically in code (it was written in the early 1950s), and then it opens up into a complex, gripping tale.

[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).

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.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Now I'm curious about The Charioteer! I mostly just... uh, passed on my phase of looking for gay-themed books, mostly. Unless you count manga... well, it's hard to count that. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised in passing, but.... Currently I'm semi-reading As Meat Loves Salt (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/015601226X?v=glance), an English wartime historical, and it was gripping (but then I went on break). Besides being gripping, it's also raw, sexually charged and hardcore (just up my alley, hahahah). There seem to be a lot of wartime gay-themed fantasy/historical books (not too surprising, I guess). I sort of like it (ooh, male bonding!) and sort of am wary at the same time (battles... strategy... politics... arg).

I was also thinking about renting a (gay-themed) British movie about a professor and a boxer, ahahahh. Oh man.

[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.

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~:)

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

Oh goddamn crapping HTML codes! *shakes fist*