« Here it is Thursday* | Home | Tired of the Myth Talk? »
The Puzzle Tapestry of Myth
By Corvus | October 20, 2005
My last thoughts on myth involved the role of the storyteller in the propagation of myth. In that post, I sketched out a brief overview of the evolution of myth keepers into diverse social roles: priest, political advisor, and actor. Well, it’s not just the myth keepers and storytellers who went their separate ways, they each took a function of myth, and therefore an actual portion of myth with them into their respective fields.
Let me explain something quickly. I tend to express the energy of a concept such as, say, myth or clowning, as if it were an actual body of energy, capable of being diverted, or even shaped. It’s a useful metaphoric expression of trend… at least for me. For example, I believe that the reason modern circus clowns (or K10wn5) are creepy is that they are hollow shells, devoid of true clowning energy: the Clowning Undead, if you will. The cause of this situation is that the great clowns, by and large, left the circus for vaudeville, and then the movies, taking the true, satiric and poignant, clown energy with them. We’re starting to see a resurgence of true circus clowns, with troops like Cirque de Soleil understanding the importance of clowns.
So when I say that they took an actual portion of myth with them, I really mean it: they tore the fabric of myth into pieces, hid them in their stories, histories, and ideologies. Mythology, as a map with which a culture explains the world around them and their place in it, exists in fractured form within our media (as people have most consistently suggested in the comments on this very blog), our religions, and our history/politics. Each piece provides us with a small portion of our cultural mythology. Each, when viewed alone, is shallow and incomplete. Only when we re-weave the three portions back together, do we have a functioning myth.
Media is the most obvious place to go to find myth. Our media are acknowledged storytellers, after all. The writes who add layer of psychosis upon layer of psychosis to Batman’s cowl. The directors who create new mythic archetypes with guns that sound like cannons and phobias we can relate to. The game designers who produce characters we interact with, and control the destinies of. It’s pretty easy to see the mythology underlying these expressions of story, particularly since these people often publicly admit to using classic mythology as a narrative device in their creations.
The issue I have with this is the following: we, as a culture, have redefined myth to mean something untrue.
Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: ‘mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society (seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs) b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths
Even that first definition from Merriam Webster online is pretty pejorative, showing a strong tendency to disregard classic myths as false interpretations of reality. Ostensibly, indeed. Relate something that isn’t true today and chances are that someone will pipe up dissmissively with, “That’s a myth.” We even have a whole subculture dedicated to recording and debunking these Modern Myths, or Urban Legends. If, as Marshal McLuhan suggests, we view a mythology as a condensed metaphoric expression of a larger pattern that occurs over time, shouldn’t we be regarding mythology as an expression of truth? Not literal truth, but contextual, conceptual truth.
Chris pointed out that over time Shakespeare and Homer (the blind poet, not the safety engineer*) have worked their way into our mythic structures. I couldn’t argue with him on that at the time, because some part of me feels he’s right. I’m not going to argue with him on it now, but I want to point something out. Initially those works were meant for entertainment. As such, they were not part of a mythic structure. Over time, however, thanks to the beauty and complexity of the writing and themes, we have analyzed Shakespeare’s plays, finding new points to identify with, layering a historical awareness, adding modern political and religious interpretations onto the text. In other words, we have woven the torn pieces of mythology back together, with those classic works as the primary pattern.
So it isn’t that media is myth now. Only that it has the potential to become myth, when rewoven by critics, academics, historians, and even priests. In that context, I can agree that James Bond will be an appropriate part of the myth of the 20th century. I also feel that the myths of the latter part of the 20th century will not, by and large, be as enduring as the myths of the early 20th century, and certainly not as enduring as the myths of the previous centuries.
I also feel, thanks to storytelling tools such as free (or cheap) game engines, mod-able games, blogs, and affordable digital camcorders, we are in a much better position to create strong mythic structures for the 21st century.
Hey look, I ended a post about myth on an up note! Perhaps I should move on to the next topic now, eh?
*Although, as he also points out, that Homer Simpson is quickly becoming a mythic figure in his own right.
Tagged:Mythology. | 3 Comments »
October 21st, 2005 at 4:27 am
Many of Shakespeare’s stories, and all of Homer’s, were established myths by the time they were written. Yes, they were meant for entertainment, but they were just the next step in the propagation of their mythology. (In fact, one of Shakespeare’s plays – Troilus and Cresida – is based upon Homer!)
Although I feel like a heel plugging Shakespeare because it’s such an *obvious* thing to do, and I don’t like being obvious, Shakespeare was a massive step forward in combining mythology and entertainment – but of course, mythology had always had an entertainment aspect as well. I don’t imagine that people sat around a fireside listening to the oral traditions were not entertained by the tales that were spun.
I personally feel the biggest threat to our mythological heritage is the prevalance of literalist materialism coupled with the trivial rejection of the relevance of religion. There is an undercurrent of “Science is Truth, Religion is Lies” pervading the West right now which manages to miss the point on two counts. But I am aware that there is probably nothing that can be done to raise the philosophical bar on this one. The best I can do is to actively resist this tendency and thus ensure we do not end up being swallowed up by what Robert Anton Wilson pejoratively termed “the New Inquisition”. Einstein said it best: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Our myths are still there. We have just lost touch with them because their cultural relevance has been lessened. At its core, perhaps, is the loss of our tribal identities. Something new is at the horizon, I feel, but what it might be I cannot say.
October 21st, 2005 at 9:45 am
Yes, but their place in our lives now is a new mythology in a way. We’ve reanalyzed the stories so that they hold value for today’s world.
I don’t know that I agree that Shakespeare was a massive step forward. I suspect he was a massive step backwards into a time when a culture’s mythology was the primary form of entertainment (I realize that’s a semantic argument, we’re saying pretty much the same thing). As much as I hate to compare the two, Star Wars did the same thing. A return to a very simple, mythic, story helped turned a mere science fiction movie into a cultural phenomenon.
What gets me is that we are still religious creatures, even if we have turned our back on “religion” proper. People still band together into groups of belief, whether they be physicists, psychologists, sci-fi geeks, or sports fans. I’ve had people argue that point with me, claiming that science doesn’t wave it’s hand in the air and mutter some mumbo jumbo when faced with a difficulty of reality. To that, I can only say ‘ADHD’ and ‘Ritalin.’
Our old myths are still here. Our new myths are slowly being born. Tomorrow’s myths have the potential to be unlike anything we can conceptualize and I suspect they’ll be amazing!
October 21st, 2005 at 12:50 pm
You might be interested in this highly related publishing commentary:
The mythless society: Science has not fulfilled its promise, and new fiction provides no more solace than reality television. We desperately need myth again. Can Canongate’s new publishing venture provide it?
Nice teaser quote: “As Armstrong rightly notes, the ritual quality of myth requires that it lead to imitation or participation, not passive contemplation.”