Beginning of the Essay for Karen

[alanajoli]

All right, Karen, here's the rough start. We'll try conversational at first, rather than formal essay, because this is a blog and because I don't have a formal introduction or conclusion, just an opinionated thesis. ;)

Topic: Use of Mythology in Fiction (and what elements of mythology actually count)

Why this came about: I was speaking with a friend about the seventh Harry book (for which I, finishing on the Sunday after the Friday midnight release, was one of the slowest readers among my friends). One of our mutual friends had called J. K. Rowling a "master of using mythology," a comment I bridled at a bit. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy the Harry Potter books. I think Rowling is amazing at handling the development of her characters from eleven-year-old children to seventeen-year-old adults (which they arguably are by the end, despite still being teens). I think her invention of Hogwarts is wonderful, though the rest of the Wizarding World is less well developed. I find her incredibly clever. But as for her use of mythology...

"She only really uses magical creatures," I rebutted. "That's not using mythology." I didn't at all mean this as a criticism of the books--I don't really think she needed the greater depth of mythology that I demand for my definition to tell the stories she was telling. But the statement was out, and now I had to figure out how to defend it. This turned into a drawn out conversation of what using mythology actually *did* mean, and who's out there doing it now. To qualify in my definition, a writer can use either mythology or fairy tales as a basis, the distinction between the two I expect to be following up on in this journal in days to come. Magical creatures are a part of mythology, certainly, but such a small element in my mind that they do not make up mythology all by themselves. Here are some examples of topics that do:

a) Use of societies and cultures. The treatment of the faerie courts as societal groups qualifies as a good use of mythology in a fantasy novel. Melissa Marr (melissa_writing) did a marvelous job with this in Wicked Lovely, going so far as to include excerpts from texts where faerie behavior is recorded at the beginning of every chapter. Stephenie Meyer, in New Moon particularly, drew on both werewolf legends and the folklore from the Quileute tribe to develop her shape-shifting heroes. So while faeries/fairies, vampires, and werewolves are all creatures, to a certain degree, because they also have their own cultures (and are used as main characters in the works I mention), use of them based on real-world legends counts as integrating mythology into fiction.

b) Use of actual characters from myth, legend, or fairy tales. This usage is actually far more common, but shows up in anything from very young children's lit (the "Sisters Grimm" series) to YA ("Percy Jackson and the Olympians") to graphic novels for adults (Fables). Some are done better than others; as much as I enjoy the "Sisters Grimm" books, I don't think they're nearly as sophisticated in their use of fairy tales as the "Percy Jackson" books are at tailor Greek mythology to the modern world. In part, I think, their purpose is different; Rick Riordan was a middle school teacher of mythology. When I interviewed him awhile ago, I didn't ask if part of his goal was to encourage more young readers to get into Greek mythology. But since I actually remember my Greek myths better from reading the "Percy Jackson" series (much to my chagrin) than even Edith Hamilton's Greek Mythology, I have to suspect that ulterior motive on Riordan's part.

c) Hidden usage of mythology as a template for characters/plot. I suspect this one's out there quite a lot, but it's harder to recognize, particularly if it's done well. I suspect that Orson Scott Card's "Alvin Maker" series fits in here, and if you read the wikipedia entry on the "Wheel of Time" series, his use of mythology is pretty darn evident.

My general thesis is that there's a lot more to mythology than monsters, and in fact, monsters are such a small part of mythology that it's a shame how many people consider them the whole of it. Don't get me wrong, I love a good dragon tale. (The Book Dragon is my very favorite, and I'd love to find it again.) But just because a book has dragons doesn't mean it's using legends or mythology as a background. And even if the books, like the Harry Potter series, use legends as the background for how mythical creatures act, if that's not a major part of the tale, then the mythology is just an aside. For some stories, that's absolutely how it should be. For others, like Wicked Lovely and the "Percy Jackson" books, the mythology is so integral to the tale that the stories are seeped in it. Both are valid techniques, and both are completely enjoyable.

But if you want to talk about using mythology, it's the latter category that gets the gold star.

Comments

[alanajoli.livejournal.com]

You've definitely caught something here that I felt, but wasn't sure how to phrase. I talk about this same thing with writers who are using fantasy to have their characters ponder the "big" issues: the nature of the soul, the limits of faith, and how far you can bend your ideals before you've betrayed them. I do separate that out a little bit, because issues of faith don't necessarily feel cosmological to me, and that feeling of the whole cosmology being there, and being important, is part of what I identify with the mythic.

Which again is why I'm skeptical about the Harry Potter books as great mythology, despite the fact that you could argue Harry as a Campbellian hero. (I won't, but it could be done.) (Aside: hmmm... maybe Campbell's idea of the hero should be part of my essay topic that I was talking to you about--if only I'd taken that Campbell course in college!) The way that Dumbledore argues with Harry in book six about the nature of destiny makes it much more about *choice* rather than about fate. I love how this works for the series, but the emphasis of personal choice humanizes the cosmic--which may a part of my assessment that I overlooked before.

[kstoddardhayes.livejournal.com]

I wonder if your feeling that "issues of faith" don't feel cosmological, is a result of the very specific conservative Christian definition that now dominates our culture's use of the term? They seem to mean faith as obedience to a narrowly defined God and a similarly narrow set of dogmas. That takes all the wonder and mystery out of faith, which is not at all the way Jesus actually used the concept. But that's a different discussion!

The Harry Potter books don't seem to me to be at all mythological in effect or intent (and that's not a criticism, I'm a big Harry fan). There's magic, but virtually no metaphysics, except for a few little bits here and there like "Kings Cross Station" in the last book, and the way Harry's mother's love protects him from Voldemort. Rowling's use of magic is notable mainly because she never gives the smallest indication of exactly how it works or where it comes from. It seems to be a simple human talent, like artistic ability, not a cosmic force as it is in most other fantasy. You either have it or you don't. The only thing that seems to affect it is emotion, your magic gets stronger when your feelings are stronger.

Fate, choice and destiny--that's another whole essay, isn't it? I don't agree that emphasizing personal choice humanizes the cosmic, if by that you mean it makes it less mythological. Even the grandest proponents of fate (eg the Greeks, the Irish and Norse) put a strong emphasis on personal choice: the hero could always turn his back on his destiny, but if he was a hero, he chose not to. In modern mythopoeic fantasy, no one is more emphatic about the importance of personal choice than Tolkien throughout the Ring. Yet the weight of destiny is also there, every step of the way.

[alanajoli.livejournal.com]

Fate would be a different essay, so I won't get too deeply into it. My feeling is that in Greek mythology, those who defy their fate often bring it about in their attempt to defy it. Fate seems overpowering for mere humans. I'm less sure about that in the Irish and Norse; I'd have to reread instances of fates/wyrds being used there, as I don't remember too much of that with Cuchulain, and am sadly lacking in my Norse.

As for the issues of faith: in many ways it's the difference between Williams and Tolkien. Charles Williams makes no bones about his books having Christianity as a force for good, and those who embrace logic also embrace Christianity (which in itself is interesting). His books are incredibly metaphysical, but in a philosophical way that, while drawing on elements of the supernatural like Tarot and the Philosopher's Stone, seems to draw on myth only where convenient. I don't mean to say that Williams moralizes; in fact, I think he's brilliant. But his mysticism is--dare I say it?--more modern seeming. Even where he introduces ideas like coinherence, it doesn't have that sense of the largeness--the epic scale--that backs up my concept of using mythology in fiction.

Then again, it could be because I'm a bit prejudiced about Christianity, having grown up inside of it. I truly enjoy what I consider Christian Mythology (see anything relating to Glastonbury, England), but personal faith that goes along with a religion seems to fall in a seperate category from even that. If this feeling is caused because I'm further inside of Christianity than other mythologies, then I'm a bit wrong, and faith really is a matter of mythology. But it may be that difference between personal and epic/cosmic that conjures up some boundary for me.