Mythic Hybridity in Fantasy

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The nature of myth is that a people living in a myth are not aware of it's mythic nature. People believing in such things as The Big Bang and Evolution are living according to myths just as much as they who are Creationists. Just because we call something "Science" does not take away it's mythic nature.

Only if you don't understand the nature of science.

Which is the point, and the problem. Humans beings are storytellers, and science draws much of its power from its own stories and explanations. But science shows us the boundaries of what stories we can and cannot consider true, and that's as limiting as it is liberating.

 

[jayaint]

I'd realy like to see a fantastic America roleplaying setting, though, with Paul Bunyan, El Dorado, the island of California, displaced Irish fae looking for work, wealthy Trow philanthropists, Chinese dragons working on the railroads (or perhaps Chinese dragons as the railroads), African spirits haunting the deep South . . . Maybe when Nyambe comes out I'll try to cook up a setting - I've got Deadlands d20 and OA already.

American Gods, by Neil Gaiman. Amazing read.

As far as the rest of this thread goes I think that the molds for mythology surround us comletely. Our sense of justice, beliefs, and how we perceive the world that surrounds us has been shaped by the myths of the past. Any "new" story will slide into and slowly take the shape of the mold that our mythology has created around us. But it is very subjective, each person's mold will be effected differently by the stories their grandparents told, the books they've read, their exposure to other cultures, etc. Therefore, if we encounter a round peg but only have square holes to show for our life-experience it will seem strange and out of place.

Gamers are a wonderful source of information on this subject. We read alot, we exercise our minds & imaginations alot, and we talk alot. *sigh* Our sub-culture's transmission methods of sitting around a table talking, playing, and imagining is very Old World. It is keeping a tradition of Myth and history alive, and not only because the subject matter that we roll dice over (I mean, talk about) is so infused with said myth and history.

There are new stories to be told.. but when stretched against the forms of all the tales told before, there will be congruencies and similarities. This allows us to understand with out knowing, and grasp more quickly the underlying meaning to a story without grasping the nuances of the author's vision. Is it any wonder that the prophets of some of the world's most popular religions and movements spoke mainly in parables?

Thanks for listening.

 

[pensiv]

Close. It's Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus.

Dr. Frankenstein is analogous to Prometheus. The Monster is analogous to the Golem/Adam.

to extremely simplify the matter.

Only if you don't understand the nature of science.

Which is the point, and the problem. Humans beings are storytellers, and science draws much of its power from its own stories and explanations. But science shows us the boundaries of what stories we can and cannot consider true, and that's as limiting as it is liberating.

I'm not certain you're disagreeing with what I said.

Strictly speaking, science is merely a rigourous method for observing and recording phenomena. Any limitations imposed by science are a paradigm of the method.

The Geocentric model of the universe limited how people subscribing to it viewed the world. For example, until Kepler's Laws, all mathematics involving the movement of planets was based on the idea that Earth was in the center, and everything moved in perfect circles.

Mathemeticians were clever enough that they created such concepts as "retrograde motion." With this concept, they were able to create equations that worked. Even though we consider their model flawed, most of the time the math worked out.

Their Science was a myth that they were stuck in and they built walls to hold themselves in. There's nothing to say that even with our scientific innovations we haven't hedged ourselves in too.

As far as I know, there are a couple of popular myths in physics now that don't quite match up together. Namely, the main theories of quantum mechanics and Einstein's Relativity. It's not until scientists forge new myths that they're comfortable with that the system will be reconciled.

At least until the next myth comes along to contradict that.

*EDIT*
Just so we're on the same page here, to me "myth" does not equal "falsehood." And to me "truth" does not equal "fact."

 

[francisca]

Modern fantasy, then, could be a desire to create a mythos for us to live in.

Or it could just be entertainment.

Or a vehicle for political commentary.

Or a crass scheme to rake in money as part of business strategy leveraging RPGs, novels, CCG, videogames, lunch boxes, and who knows what else, all in the name of squeezing every single penny of revenue out of a bad idea.

(And yes, yes, yes, it's called capitalism, so spare me the lecture, I'm just as mercenary as the next guy.)

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Why do we use myths and elements from the real world?

For one thing, because they work. The myths and legends that exist in the real world have often been told and retold for centuries, or even millenia. And this means that they must have a powerful hold on the human psyche - for if they hadn't, they would have been forgotten long ago. So tapping into that font of myths is a chance of making settings, campaigns, and adventures more powerful - and what GM wouldn't leap at such a chance?

For another, because they are familiar. If you make up a totally original culture and history, you need to spend hundreds or even thousands of words to explain it to the GM - and what's worse, the GM has to explain it to his players. On the other hand, if you can hint at its similarities to a place from real-world history or myth, a few short words will suffice. It doesn't have to be exactly the same - but as long as the gaming group has some rough ideas about its real-world equivalent, and they all think on a similar wavelength, they can spend less time on wondering about the setting, and more on playing.

And IMO, that's why Tekumel always has and always will be a fringe setting. Sure, it might be very cool - but who wants to invest that much time to understand the nature of a setting? Remember, not only the GM has to grasp the essence of a setting, but the players as well...

And incidentally, that's why I'm using real-world countries as a basis for many regions in Urbis. Many elements of the setting are pretty wild, so it will help a lot if there are clear analogues to Switzerland, Italy, the Dutch lowlands, Arabia, Africa, Jewish ghettoes, the Industrial Revolution and so on...

 

[Wombat]

Myth, legend, folklore, religion, philosophy ... it is often difficult to untangle these interrelated matters.

I come at the subject of myth/legend primiarly from the Arthurian angle. What is "core" to the King Arthur legend? The sword in the stone? The Grail? Arthur's death/not-quite-death? Camelot? The Round Table? Each of these elements was added at a different time (some are quite difficult to tell when) and yet are all now Canon Features. Were the Arthurian legends based on Welsh/Brythonic tales? Sarmatian legends? The actions of a post-Roman leader? Again, nearly impossible to detail.

Since sometime in the 400s (best guess) there have been tales and/or reports of Arthur, sometimes as king, sometimes not. Each new culture and each shift in the primarly culture has altered the stories. From Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regnum Britanniae (the man who started the King Arthur Craze) to Peter David's One Knight Only, people have told, retold, added, interpreted, and re-interpreted the tales to fit needs of time and place. Arthur as warlord. Arthur as king. Arthur as defender of common people. Arthur are sacerdotal figure. Arthur as Pagan. Arthur as Christian. Arthur as bridge between worlds. Arthur as realistic warrior. Arthur as slayer of giants. Arthur secondary to the Ladies of the Lake.

To come up with a parallel, our main knowledge of Greek mythology comes from Athenian sources. As such Ares comes off as a bully and a whiner. If we have more Spartan sources the view might be quite different; even basic myths can be respun on a minor level to give one figure greater prominence or importance.

Anyway, just more food for thought in a very meaty thread

 

[psychognome]

Dr. Frankenstein is analogous to Prometheus. The Monster is analogous to the Golem/Adam.

to extremely simplify the matter.

Wasn't the Golem originally a part of a Hebrew legend?

 

[pensiv]

Wasn't the Golem originally a part of a Hebrew legend?

Yes. The legends of golems come to us through Jewish folklore, if they're older than that, there is no conclusive evidence that I know of.

 

[herald]

Close. It's Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus.

My wife caught me on that last night. See what I get for trying to look smart.

 

[Vaxalon]

Statues used as guardians, at least in a spiritual sense, are about as old as the concept of statuary.