Theory and Practice of Myth

First off, I’m sorry for not posting last week, it totally escaped my mind, so I’ll try to make up for it here.

The last question on the midterm threw me off a bit, I still really don’t fully understand that essay on Artemis. Though, I’ll admit I only read through it twice, and really it was only once in depth. But I didn’t really see why it would make sense that she would demand human sacrifice in the sense that people are killed for her. I can see the whole the youth both human and animal belong to her and to pass on to adult hood they in a sense have to surrender themselves to her and die, but other than symbolic deaths, I don’t see Vernant’s point… It makes sense that death has to do with her per say, seeing as she’s the goddess of the hunt and all, but why she would be so darn bloodthirsty is beyond me. Is that what Vernant was saying? Is that she really only called for symbolic deaths, as a part of her subjects growing into the next phase of their life, rather than an actual human sacrifice? I mean, I know there are instances where she is given sacrifice, but aren’t most of the gods and some point? Is it perhaps okay for her to want a human sacrifice because she looks after both young humans and animals? The other gods are offered sacrifices of animals quite a lot, so why not humans for Artemis, that’s really the only way I can string it together.

I’m quite open to opinions on this one!

A while back Alex suggested that this class should follow up on the Jeff Bridges theme by discussing Tron at some point.  I concur, though it’s a tougher target than Lebowski.

We could start here: Jung in Tron.

I’ll add for now that the 20 year paternal absence is reminiscent of Odysseus/Telemachus; and the linked piece’s suggestion that “the grid is allegorical to the collective unconscious” seems worth thinking about.  One the other hand, the piece also demonstrates pretty effectively how quickly one can start to see connections everywhere (everywhere!), especially when applying an eclectic or all-encompassing philosophy (Jung and Buddhism, amongst others).

Still, since we now exist to a disorienting degree as digital beings (I’m serious about that), a technological understanding of myth might be the most important aspect of a class like this.

Tron also has the merit of connecting the discussion to what will soon be the dominant global story telling medium: the video game.

And then there’s the question of whether technology gives rise to a new mythology, or whether we still see things according to the same old patterns.

We went and saw the new 300 and figured, hey this should be relevant for a blog post….nope, there’s no Greek mythology or really any mention of anything mythological in it. Within the narrative of the movie, there is a belief in Eastern magic and religion that allows Xerxes to actually become the giant and hairless god-king. But that is about it…..

soo…….

We decided since we have been watching some Harry Potter films lately because Dawn-Eve is movie-illiterate, that those are more relevant in terms of modern mythologies.  The serious actually has a pretty Sirius (heh) mythos of its own.

The bogarts, the things that turn into your worst fears are shapeshifters, because magic. They are one step further than Proteus in his wrestling-shapeshifting-powerstruggle, the bogarts shape themselves into something different for each person while Proteus does not have the ability to specialize his shifting for each person he is still pretty much trying to intimidate Agamemnon.

There are centaurs, unicorns, a phoenix, and a hippogriff which is not directly out of mythology but it is a combination animal (a horse and a bird), and random creatures like elves, pixies and trolls. Magical creatures like this are common throughout mythology and our class, obviously.

The giants are a little more important to this class because of the land of Cyclopes in book 9 of the Odyssey, especially Polyphemous. The giant in Harry Potter is not a cyclopes, but he is a big dumb monster with an inherent desire to hurt humans. Apparently that comes across better in the books than the movies, since Hagrid’s brother is kind of “sweet” once he gets to know the three musketeers there. In the books and to a degree the last movie there are “evil” giants though that oppose the heroes and help Voldemort.

Snakes are an important evil symbol in the series. They symbolize evil and its association with the Slytherin house and Voldemort, especially with his pet snake. Serpents are the bearers of evil, throughout mythology they bring destruction and/or death. For example, Medusa’s snake-hair turns people to stone just like the basilisk in the second HP.

Numbers are important to mythology as well as HP. There are other examples like the four houses, but the main one in regards to evilness is the 7 horcruxes that Voldemort’s soul was spilt into, making 7 an evil number here. Although it isn’t entirely clear why Voldemort chose that number, it is shown that he had picked it out at a young age, suggesting that it has some special meaning.

As mentioned in class i think we could have a lovely time discussing the different interpretations of Zombies?

Dictionary Definition:

The first and original concept of Zombies comes from Haitian folklore of corpses reanimated by means of magic.

The first modern thought of Zombies that comes to mind are the swarm-like hordes in movies like Dawn of the  Dead, the George A Romero classic: Night of the Living Dead, etc. These types of zombies are often slow moving, often limping, “lame” zombies we know and wish to fight one day.

Now, however, in the current times, there are new breeds/classes of Zombies. There are:

-Sprinter Zombies (think Call of Duty, World War Z)

-Explodey zombies (A la Left 4 Dead/Diablo)

-Smart zombies (Resident Evil, I am Legend) The kind of zombies which at any time a displays cognitive function to pursue an enemy such as rudimentary flanking maneuvers or finding new ways to enter a building.. that type of thing)…

There are new additions to the traditional zombie lore. I understand how these may not fit the original folklore of a reanimated corpse, but i still think they are legitimate zombies because of the way the people in zombie depictions are utterly devoid of humanity and more or less dead by concept.

Because this is a Theory and Practice class, it would do us well to think of reasons why Zombies have “evolved”. What I mean by Zombie evolution isnt that they are adapting to better kill us, its more that their lore has been altered to fit the fears of this century.

Think about it: Back before the 1900’s, the greatest fears in cultures (especially fledgling Christian cultures) was Magic. Hexing, Curses, Black Magic, Spellcraft, etc. All of these seen as the weapons that practitioners of Witchcraft employed. So the connection between zombies and magic is befitting of the fear of that age.

Nowadays our zombies have evolved to become the product of modern fears like Bio-engineering (Resident Evil), Viral diseases (Zombieland), Radiation (Fallout, Night of the Living Dead), Fungal Zombies (Last of Us, the actual “Zombie Fungus” known as Ophiocordyceps Unilateralis (be careful Googling that because it is utterly terrifying).

As you can see, the concept of Zombies is changing to meet the current fears of our day in age. I think the reason they change is the same reason we find different interpretations of Myths. It is to keep zombies, and the fear of what we don’t yet understand (like magic, bio-engineering, etc) fresh in our minds and to keep us cautious. in the 16th Century, the warning was: Necromancy could be used to bring back a loved one but that same loved one will probably try to eat your Brainz, so don’t dabble in the Dark Arts. In the 21st Century, our warning is: Bio-engineering could save the world, but it could also turn the world into zombies, so be careful.

What say you?

~T

I don’t have anything insightful to say that hadn’t already been said in class on Wednesday with the whole myth and ritual discussion, but here’s my contribution to myths: Bettermyths.com!
If ya’ll go here  http://bettermyths.com/387-2/#link-for-greekroman  you’ll be directed to the category of Greek and Roman myths on a website called BetterMyths by a guy named none-other-than Ovid. He’s hilarious, like me, which is why I like him.
Also because he retells all the important (and not so important myths) in hilarious and straight-to-the-point ways.

For example, this is pretty much the best description of Oedipus ever:

“Because when Oedipus was born the Oracle at Delphi was all like: You know what your son is going to do? kill you and then sex your wife. Basically every prophet in the entire goddamn universe knew this shit was going to go down. So the king did what any greek king does and he stapled Oedipus’s feet together and sent him to the top of a mountain to die, only the guy who was supposed to take him there actually took him to some foster parents instead cause he felt bad. And then Oedipus heard a prophecy that he was gonna kill his dad and rape his mom so he left his foster parents so as not to rape and murder them and just charged STRAIGHT INTO the real rapemurderfest.

So obviously when Oedipus hears about this he gouges out his eyes and then his mom kills herself and everybody is fucking miserable forever despite the fact that all anyone was trying to do was avoid raping each other. The end.

Thanks a lot Oracle.”

Myth v Legend

Hopefully the link works here.

I was watching some modern myth making aka the nba playoffs and I saw this commercial. Apparently we have been going about the comparison of myth and legend all wrong and the real difference is a cape. I don’t really have much intellectual to say about the add. I guess this question is vexing to people outside of the class as well.

So I’ve been playing around with ways to organize my paper, I think I’ll go with the Menelaus/Odysseus topic. What would be a good way to go about it? I’m thinking the best way would just to use the good old expository method, get my point across simply and directly, but I’m open to other ideas! Perhaps more of a compare and contrast side of writing things would be the best way to go, but I don’t want it to come out as just a list, because that’s lazy and really quite boring in my opinion. Maybe talk about the ways we think Homer himself was trying to present the two characters? They ways he wanted us to see them as different and similar? Shapeshifting in a sense is present in both stories, though indirect. Perhaps our Ovid or Apollodorus have interesting things to say on that? Well anyway, any helpful snippets on how you all might approach it are welcome!

Rather than write about the same post here is a joint post, also spoiler alerts…lots of them. To those who haven’t seen the show, fix that and sorry for the wall of nonsense to the uninitiated

We keep talking about the show in class for super academic reasons, but just in case we needed more justification here is some while tonights episode is downloading. Also this is a super broad subject so this post will bemostly limited to the Odyssey as a mythological comparison.

There are some interesting comparisons to be made between the protagonist of the first section of the Odyssey, Telemachus, and arguably the protagonist of the last season of Game of Thrones, Rob Stark. The Telemachia is all about Telemachus’ coming of age during the absence of his father. He is forced to assert himself in order to respect the honor of his house, his fathers name, and his mother as the suitors bid for her hand. Just as Telemachus must become the man of his household while his father is on his journeys, so too must Rob become the head of his house (and the north) while his father is off in King’s Landing then (SPOILER) even more after his father is beheaded. Rob’s narrative is arguably the most prominent of the third season so it is an important plot-line to analyze in the comparison. In that section of the plot, there is a heavy emphasis put on the transition of Rob from a boy to a man. But not just any man, a man that is expected to be the replacement of a very prestigious and respected father who headed a powerful household. In both stories, the young man has to deal with confrontations from within his own camp as well as attempts to use the vulnerable transitionary period to take power. Although coming of age stories aren’t unique to mythology, there are some common traits that can also be seen in Game of Thrones. For example, war/fighting is often the catalyzing event that causes the young boy to become a man. For both Telemachus and Rob, their fathers are taken off by a power struggle of sorts and both boys are then forced to act with violence in order to protect their families.

There are a variety of other connections between the Odyssey and Game of Thrones, both thematically and in the characters themselves. Both of the stories put heavy emphasis on metis (cunning) as well as the brute force that one expects from a hero. Odysseus is only able to get through his ordeals because he is able to outthink situations. Whether or not you want to think of his stories in books 9-12 as true (probably not), the stories rely heavily on his mental capacities to serve as tools to help him to make it back to his home alive. There are several characters in game of thrones who are both interesting to viewers and able to survive in the narrative because of their ability to outthink opponents. The most notable is probably Tyrion Lanister, but others like Lord Varys and Lord Baelish. Not only is cunning shown to be important, but it is actually more important than physical strength or fighting capabilities even during times of violence. For Odysseus, this is shown in almost every encounter on his adventures where he is forced to outthink people rather than simply outmuscle them. Even at the violent climax of the story, he is only able to defeat the suitors because of his meticulous planning and cunning in addition to his skills as a soldier. This is probably even more pronounced in Game of Thrones by Tyrion, who unlike Odysseus is completely inept when it comes to warfare. The same goes for the two lords, who don’t even participate in any fighting in the show but despite these flaws these three characters are amongst the most influential and powerful figures in the series. This is because these characters learn about their enemies and figure out their weaknesses and how to come out on top before any confrontations, just like Odysseus with the suitors.

Both the Odyssey and Game of Thrones involve magic and how it interacts with reality. Both of the stories deal with topics of faith in the God/s and a general disbelief in stories of monsters and magic. Readers of the Odyssey are expected to question the stories of both Menelaus and Odysseus, primarily because of their fantastical nature and the clear personal motives of the teller in fabricating the narrative. This is a theme that can be scene within the first few minutes of the first episode of Game of Thrones, when the man of the Knight’s Watch is punished after his run in with the white walkers (zombie dudes). Ned stark doesn’t trust the story told by the boy both because of the magical basis of his story and because he had a clear incentive to tell it, which was to get back to civilization. This is a similar incentive to that of Odysseus, and depending on interpretation, is received with similar disbelief by the lead of the Phaeacians. There isn’t total disbelief in either case though because both of these stories are based in worlds that blend what we as modern readers/viewers would consider to be logic and magic. Both of these universes don’t have such clear distinctions however. In the Odyssey the idea of a god preventing the return of Odysseus or the existence of cyclopses seems not particularly fantastic to the characters. Similarly, dragons and human regeneration become accepted by both the characters and viewers as part of the reality existing in Game of Thrones.

Martha and I had a good conversation about the possibility that Lamarck might have been right (that characteristics we pick up during our lives can get encoded into our DNA and passed on to our offspring).  Remember, this is important for Freud’s take on the Oedipus myth: that it’s an expression not just of a psychological pattern, but an actual historical trauma in our shared past.  There’s plenty more to say here, but perhaps this BBC documentary would be a good way to get back into it:

I know this is from week 1, but it’s been eating at me. So the more I’ve thought on this, the more I do see similarities between the Dude and Sisyphus. Neither really care. Sisyphus is fine, I dare say happy, with pushing his boulder up the incline. And the Dude, well he just “abides”. Both just “roll” with life. Sisyphus has hi boulder, and the Dude has his bowling ball. And the more I’ve watched the movie, the more I’m starting to think that it’s a movie about nothing in a sense. Like how Walter is always clinging to the past. I feel like it’s a movie about how nothing really means anything anymore, given our main character’s attitude. And the cowboy. He is like the embodiment of America. He talks like he walked right out of the 1800’s. He is a piece of the past hanging onto the past, and so is Walter. While the Dude, well he’s just the Dude, so he doesn’t care what happens, just as long as he’s working, or at least thinks he’s working, toward getting his rug back. Which he never does. Sisyphus never gets the boulder to the top, the Dude never gets his rug back and he enjoys bowling. A boulder and a bowling ball, both round, both in a sense never ending. A task that will never actually be completed. Both are stories about how nothing really means anything anymore to the main character, they only need a mindless task to be content with life. That was my take on it anyhow.