The Johnston Center for Integrative Studies

Well thou dearest Gregonoscovich,

Sir Bakhtin hath much to do with the studious intellectual delvings into the world of myth. The language he uses and the way he talks about stories cover many of the same things that we have spoken of in our dear course this semester.

What hath strucken me most deeply in his essay was the concept of living according to literature. We hath encountered this many times before in our readings and this showeth how closely tied his writing is to mythology.

The readings that come to mind most readily are The Lord of the Rings and Ceremony. In both of these texts, we see characters refering to and living by stories and myths. In Ceremony, we are presented with stories in prose form that parallel Tayo's journey and progression.  Thus the character is living according to those stories and what is told in them.  He is completing the ceremony as it is done in the story and he uses the stories he knows to help him decipher how he must complete the ceremony.  There aren't any stories for the modern ceremony that involves Tayo because until now, there wasn't a necessity to have the ceremony completed by a man not "pure of blood".  Tayo has to live by the old stories and incorporate them into his life as he builds the ceremony and exemplifies the bildungsroman idea that is present in the Magic Mountain.  A central part of this idea is that, "The protagonist must have a reason to embark upon his or her journey. A loss or discontent must, at an early stage, jar him or her away from their home or family setting."  Thus by living according to the ways set out by stories, Tayo completes his journey.

For Frodo and Sam especially, they are living according to stories in the sense that they are doing something powerful and worthy of remembrance just like the great stories they know well.  Sam often ponders if they'll be put into stories and wishes to hear them sung.  This shows that he is plotting his life and actions much on the way the heroes and characters in the stories he know have done.  When he finally hears himself immortalized in story by the minstrel of Gondor, he has turned the Bakhtin around in a way in that a story has been created to reflect his living.

      Bakhtin describes ways to understand language. He emphasizes its ideological nature which is to say that language creates and reflects points of view. Bakhtin examines how people use language to convey value priorities. Bakhtin claims that poetry has been given more value in western culture than has prose. Language is freer in poetry than in prose because the relationship between the subject and the object, or signifier and signified is more distant. If one applied this to myth, myth would appear to be closer to poetry than to prose. In other words, myth has a freeing purpose in which the language used, is not tightly connected to the outer world, but creates a great deal of inner distance. This allows myth to escape from the demands of mundane facts . However, myth is often social, and embraced by hundreds of thousands of persons in a given society. Therefore, myth seems to function as both poetry and prose, or perhaps one could say that it brings poetry both to the individual and to the larger group. Bakhtin supports the realistic prose function of the novel in order to convey the novel’s deep involvement with society. For Bakhtin the language of prose is oriented to social and historical analyses, and is not trapped in the introversion of poetry. Bakhtin uses the term “heteroglossia” to talk about all the different types and styles of speech that one uses in daily life. In this understanding language is a type of layered reality, whose complexity reflects more accurately the world as it is. In regard to myth, it might be useful to talk about the different ways in which myth uses language, or language uses myth. How differently the word myth is used in novel form, or in an epic genre. At what point does a myth become unrelated to the social concerns of the society? How different myths are that enter into dialogue with social realities and myths which are about inner subjectivity and large scale epics. How do mythic meanings change in epics or in novels? How does the relationship between form and content relate to what is, and is not, a myth? Do you always need a grand scale for a myth? 

    When I checked online, only about seven pages showed up for the reading so I'm not entirely sure what it is that we were supposed to read to. From the part that I did read, I'll be honest, I didn't really know what he was talking about because ironically he doesn't convey his message very clearly (To non-theoretical types that is). I know for sure that he focuses on language and I browsed ahead a bit to read what he said about Cervantes and Don Quixote along with the first seven pages. What I take from his argument is that there is a multitude of forms of speech in which the genre of the novel may intermingle. An example he used was the usage of noble speech which the language of Romance employs. In the novel Don Quixote, this language is juxtaposed with other forms, such as the colloquial speech of seventeenth century Spain and the heavily proverbial speech of an impoverished simpleton. Bakhtin meant to highlight the fact that there are many different forms of speech which are expressed on a daily basis. The way students speak to a teacher is likely going to take on a different form than the way they speak to a brother or a close friend. Humans adapt their speech patterns to fit their surroundings. I remember refuting my uncle about this when he was trying to tell me the importance of altering the way I talk when around certain people. I told him I wouldn't, that I would speak the same way to everyone I encounter. In reality, I don't normally take on a professional tone when associating with professors, but I know that I am not as liberal as I claim to be. Over this past school year, I engaged myself in a few interviews, and certainly I didn't talk to the interviewers the way I talk to my dad. In fact, I don't talk to anyone else the way I talk to my dad. I'm certain that people outside of my family who hear me speak with him over the phone have never heard me speak in that manner before. When I adopt a baby talk when I talk to my mommy, my language has changed. It is inescapable because it is unintentional.

    Bakhtin's argument relates to myth because the point of this course has been to show that mythology is a manner of speaking rather than a genre in itself. People mythologize all the time because mythology is as inescapable as alteration of speech. The only truths in life are love and death, all the rest is gray area. Humans fill in these grey areas with mythologies, and because we don't fully understand these truths either, we heavily mythologies about them too. All we really know is that we exist and because nature is self-sustaining, I am confident in saying that nature was here without our intervention. Hopefully my speech was at least a little bit unclear, to fit the theme.

What Bahktin is talking about in “Discourse on the Novel” is language, and language as a living force that is filled with tension, constantly evolving, and changing meaning along with it.  He believes that no matter how complex or personal, all ideas are fundamentally words.  Everything composed of words, including myth, is then inescapably connected to what words they are made of, and every aspect of its context.
 
I believe that there are many cases in the “Discourse on the Novel” where it is possible to substitute the word “myth” for “language” or “dialogue.”  This is especially true when Bahktin talks about the way language changes, spreads, and assimilates.  Bahktin’s essay confirms and expands on many of the ideas that we have discussed in class.  Specifically, his essay applies to our theories about the impossibility of ever experiencing a myth in the way that it was originally experienced, but Bahktin adds a whole new layer to this discussion.  Because language is so closely connected with ideas, myth is only one aspect of the totality of a society’s thought, and so it is altered the more it is integrated.  Bahktin prompts us to look at the relation of myth to society as give-and-take, where both are constantly changing each other.
 
He also discusses the role of language to the individual.  His view is that a language that is invested with authority creates a split in the individual who assimilates it.  What he is saying is that when someone takes in a myth, it creates tension between their own interpretations of the myth and all other interpretations of the myth, especially that of the dominant authority.  While we can chose what myths we adopt for ourselves, Bahktin believes that it is impossible to ever have a myth that does not create an inner struggle.

 i will begin by saying i have no idea who the hero of white noise is.this question has been haunting me. so here is an idea, something i am still chewing on:

the hero of white noise is death, and jack is the villain. jack's lust for an escape, for immortality, his paralyzing fear and his denial are our enemies in the novel. in the end it is jack who must re-imagine his truth, and death achieves and creates and maintains in a way that we do not see in any of the characters. if death is the hero, then fear is the herald (the airborne toxic event). "it's almost as though our fear is what brought it on. (pg. 282) white noise is the enemy. death has few friends, if any. death must fight against all odds in this book, although we know throughout that death will prevail. truth will prevail. as readers, we are faced with our own mortality and asked not to be afraid.

where do we go from here? how do we respond to delillo? how do we escape the white noise? how do we make life meaningful? how do we make death meaningful? or is it all meaningless, is it all this simple and connected and...is the white noise the important stuff? is the coping mechanism the key to free us or the lock to trap us? where does this myth take the reader?

“Technology is lust removed from nature.”

In our world, we often regard mythology as something that is not directly pertinent to our “real lives”; we trust science and reason, and people who actually live according to what we consider “myths” are viewed as primitive, suspicious, and irrational.  Of course, in their dominance, science and reason have themselves become the myths of our age, but their vehement denial of their own status as myth is a very unfortunate step toward reducing their potential depth and meaning.
    White Noise mentions the sense of abandoned meaning that is predominant in the modern world; as humans seeking engagement and meaning, we will always be searching for the sacred and mystical.  In a very paradoxical move, science and reason claim to have eliminated this need, but, as they are themselves the suppliers of myth in our age, they are what we must turn to when we seek these sorts of engagements.  There is meaning to be found in our technological age, but its self-denial negates the potential for great depth.  The absurdity of what we regard as sacred, what signifiers we use for our modern myths in this society, creates a situation that is completely self-parodying.  
    Technology can be viewed as progress in the sense that is new and that it is a continuation of humans creating and dominating nature, but at what point does it become progress for the sake of progress rather than what is desirable and beneficial for humans?  When our myth of science is often proud to remove the mystery from our world and to claim all-encompassing knowledge, yet myth relies on the world’s enchantment, what stance are we to take?
 

     Orpheus is ripped to death and Bacchus turns his killers into trees, immobile forever in their state of guilt.  Death is often the punishment in Ovid, for both large and small offenses and one is left in a chaotic universe of multiple wills with different levels of morality; creating a no man’s land without ethical consistency, with some acts avenged and others not.  The reason is not clear.  The gods do show pity, but it is against the will of other gods, man is the sport of the gods.  There is no clear justice as to who is killed and who is not, This arbitrary realm does not bring solace to those looking for it in the face of death.     We see the pursuit by death most clearly in life where there is a fine line between freedom and understanding of that freedom.  We seem to be free, until we understand that we can die; that we are not immortal and that we are without help from any mortal coil.  The escape from this fear is often a deemed substitute, like a wanted resort, or something that we can fantasize about, but never really understand its roots.  It is ironic that we deem ourselves worthy of something that we cannot control, nor ever could, but it seems that we can relate, live and fantasize about a world in which death did not exist for us.  In White Noise the main character dreams of a world without the anxiety over death.  His anxiety level rises throughout the book; his anxiety explodes into rage against “Mr. Gray” because he feels that he could master another’s destiny through the wielding of death and therein control his own.  His internal rage about his own death is mixed with his outrage of his wife’s infidelity.  He tries to latch onto the false myth (technological pill), his attachment to mankind’s own ability to overcome death, or the fear of it, that will work as a failsafe against his anxiety.  A meaning of life should exist, for him, and he finds the purpose of myth by taking his part in the chain of meaning for life by changing his mind about murder and abstaining from suicide.  The myths and stories of society help one to not feel alone when facing death.  Mythical stories help one to see other situations, over time, in different cultures, from different vantages, and give a creative approach towards life/death.  But they offer no easy answers.  Death is the catalyst to find out what one believes in, it is a demand of life that would not exist otherwise, and it is the acknowledgement of meaning that is supreme in a successful outlook upon life.  Myth is the punishment we choose.

We encounter death quite a lot on our myths.  There are probably very many good reasons for this, but the one that seems to come to mind is that stories are in essence things that transcend time.  Therefore, death has to be within these stries because we can measure time with death.  The native Americans for isntance measured in lifetimes.  Death is present everywhere and we can't escape it no matter what.  It is similar to time in that it will come no matter what.  If we are dreading or anticipating an event, we know that the time will come.  Whether our perveption of time slows or quickens becomes irrelevant in the sense that eventually said event will come to pass.  Similarly with death, some people dread it and others simply accept it as a part of life.  For Jack, death is looming and he can't distance himself from it enough.  He is utterly afraid of it and is worried that he will be left alone by death to continue on until his own death comes.  Beowulf on the other hand accepts death as the end result of dying and is not afraid to die because he knows that we all will die.  He strives to be the best man that he can possiblybe with the time that he has on the planet, and he hopes that his deeds are worthy of remembrance.  The other mention of dying, which I find very interesting is the one that Yoda presents to Anakin in Episode III.  I don't care if you like the movies or not Greg, but the concept presented is the highest ideal of acceptance of death, and I really don't know if anyone can attain that level.  Anakin approaches Yoda and tells him that he has a vision of someone dying.  Yoda responds by saying "Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them do not. Miss them do not."  Now that is quite the concept, and I don't think that it's possible to train one's self to let go entirely.  To be able to rejoice for a dead acquaintance without mourning or missing them would take the highest dedication and discilpine that I don't know if humans are capable of.

In order to protect himself from the knowledge of death, Jack creates plots that give him the illusion of permanence and control.  As Murray says, plots create order and stability, the opposite of death.  In reality, plot is just another word for myth, and Jack’s myths fail when faced with the reality of his impending death. 

Like Tayo, Jack tires to enact a ceremony that will restore his myth giving him authority over death by taking a life.  At first, it appears to be working, and Jack revels in his feelings of power and control.  However, when he is shot, the ceremony is interrupted.  Jack no longer sees others through his purely personal myth.  He views his actions in the wider context of human suffering, and so is motivated to help his former victim. He does not base his actions on any kind of story, but on his feelings of compassion towards an injured human being. 

Although he has moved beyond his destructive myths, Jack has only glimpsed salvation, if it even exists at all.  After his transformation from killer to savior, he is ready to believe in heaven and angels, but is quickly disillusioned.  Although he wants to fit the experience he has had into a myth that he can adopt as his own, the nun will not allow him to find any easy answers.  Without a myth to understand his experience, it is in some ways just more white noise, floating through the air to no purpose. 

Yet even without myth, there is meaning.  Jack is still afraid of death at the end of White Noise.  He has not been able to “say goodbye to himself.”  But what he can do is find is a human connection with those around him as he watches the sunset and wanders in the supermarket.  In the end, DeLillo says, our myths cannot protect us.  The best that we can hope to achieve in the face of death is to enjoy what beauty we can find, and to recognize that we are connected in our mortality.

Communication has always played an essential role in myth. Only through some sort of communication can myth be shared. With new ways of communicating ideas, mythology can only prosper. Oral tradition, while a fascinating way to experience myth, can only share myth with a certain amount of people over a certain amount of time. However, even with the limitations of potential people to experience myth, oral tradition has the benefit of being more fluid than any other mode of communication. One could argue that its fluidity would make it more alive and personal, for every telling and every teller will change the flavor and meaning of the myth told.

Written tradition in its earliest days was not that different from oral tradition in the sense that the audience was very limited. On the other hand, only the myths that were written down in the earliest days were the ones to survive to modern times, because myth can only change so much before it becomes something completely different or forgotten. Thanks to modern technologies like the internet, written myths, among other expressions of myth, are much more accessible as well as being copied and stored in several places.

While the internet may be the most common and obvious method of communicating myth through modern technology, it is the latest of such technologies. From the printing press to the radio to television, myth has adapted to every modern invention. A movie could re-ignite interest in a classic myth or introduce new myths to a wide variety of people. However, even media-related technology is not the only way myth can benefit; things that are seemingly unrelated, things like new modes of transportation or new ways of keeping track of time, can help spread myths or create new myths.

"You spot something out the corner of your eye. Before you know anything else, you know that this thing is very large and that it has no place in your ordinary frame of reference. A flaw in the world picture. Either it shouldn't be here or you shouldn't. Now the thing comes into full view...The sight of this grizzer is so electrifyingly strange that it gives you a renewed sense of yourself, a fresh awareness of the self--the self in terms of a unique and horrific situation...The beast on hind legs has enabled you to see who you are for the first time, outside familiar surroundings, alone, distinct, whole. The name we give to this complicated process is fear." (229) Death is unknowable and that's why we people fear it. We spot it out the corner of our eyes and all we know is that it is inevitable. We can only know that some day it will happen to each of us. It's huge, mysterious, a big event that we look to. It's a ceremonial procession without a set date. It's absolutely terrifying because we don't understand it; we can't grasp it; we can't conquer it. Just like the grizzly before we realize what it is, like Jack's father-in-law before he realizes what it is, like the ominous pounding of metal Don Quixote and Sancho heard in the Sierra Morena before they went to its source. Science has a need to unpack things so that we don't need to fear nature. It labels things and supplements a description to understand. "That's a little more accurate, which means they're coming to grips with the thing." (113) Because death is insuperable like a Joyce novel, it becomes protean within people's minds. They will generate a variety of ideas concerning its nature, one idea no more accurate than the next. The name we give this complicated process is mythology. We can't know death, we can only speculate about it. Death is the end, and awareness of it reminds us that there is an end. This gives us a renewed sense and refreshed awareness of ourselves. It adds meaning to our lives, this fear. If we lacked it, we would have no motivation. "All plots tend to move deathward." (26)

"You spot something out the corner of your eye. Before you know anything else, you know that this thing is very large and that it has no place in your ordinary frame of reference. A flaw in the world picture. Either it shouldn't be here or you shouldn't. Now the thing comes into full view...The sight of this grizzer is so electrifyingly strange that it gives you a renewed sense of yourself, a fresh awareness of the self--the self in terms of a unique and horrific situation...The beast on hind legs has enabled you to see who you are for the first time, outside familiar surroundings, alone, distinct, whole. The name we give to this complicated process is fear." (229) Death is unknowable and that's why we people fear it. We spot it out the corner of our eyes and all we know is that it is inevitable. We can only know that some day it will happen to each of us. It's huge, mysterious, a big event that we look to. It's a ceremonial procession without a set date. It's absolutely terrifying because we don't understand it; we can't grasp it; we can't conquer it. Just like the grizzly before we realize what it is, like Jack's father-in-law before he realizes what it is, like the ominous pounding of metal Don Quixote and Sancho heard in the Sierra Morena before they went to its source. Science has a need to unpack things so that we don't need to fear nature. It labels things and supplements a description to understand. "That's a little more accurate, which means they're coming to grips with the thing." (113) Because death is insuperable like a Joyce novel, it becomes protean within people's minds. They will generate a variety of ideas concerning its nature, one idea no more accurate than the next. The name we give this complicated process is mythology. We can't know death, we can only speculate about it. Death is the end, and awareness of it reminds us that there is an end. This gives us a renewed sense and refreshed awareness of ourselves. It adds meaning to our lives, this fear. If we lacked it, we would have no motivation. "All plots tend to move deathward." (26)

Life is not nearly as concrete as we take it to be. We see the world from our own individual corners, with our own reflective perceptions, within a Leibnizian, monadological framework where there could be no real truth. Subjectivity is clearly not total, as we all share in collective experiences and interactions with things outside of us, but we have never witnessed any kind of real objective truth. What is a table? What are the components of a table, the parts? What are the parts of those parts? Why does the arrangement of quarks in a table lend a table with table-like density, solidity, extension and form? What are the parts of a quark? Could there be something smaller than a quark? Could there be a smallest particle? At the most basic level, we fail to understand the most basic things.

All we can know to be true is the world from our subjective lens, and that life is an art, not a science. We can scientifically hammer down the details of our lives, and create rigid order and Apollinean structure within, but no matter the amount of work we enact, the world will never be totally concrete. Scientifically, we can only be functionally correct. Artisitically, the world is, well, much better, much more enjoyable. Regardless of the fabric, regardless of the basic structure, we navigate our lives, we live our narrative path. The myth of our life--and how can we call our life, in the grand scheme of reality, in terms of the cosmos around us and microcosmos inside us, how can we call that any more than a myth?--that myth is all we've got; our narrative is the world, in certain terms; we only make plot. The art of human life, the art of living from our corner, mentally, metaphysically, the art of living in a human consciousness, it is the direction of that plot. "All plots move deathwards," says Jack on pg. 26 of White Noise, and so too must we recognize the inescapable scientific fact: we die. But right now we are alive, we have a life to live, and that life is never stagnant, for we all are constantly marching towards death. You may as well be a good artist.

In the readings in Ovid, the saddest of all occasions falls upon the fate of Orpheus who descends into the underworld to bring back his wife from the realm of the dead. His song captured the hearts of hell, and earns tears even from the furies who had never wept. Just before entering sunlight whilst climbing out of hell, Orpheus turns to look upon his wife even though he is instructed not to by Pluto and sees his wife fall into the abyss forever. It seems odd that after he has entranced hell with the power of song, that there is still a small command which he fails to keep. When victory is in sight, the ancient belief that no one can leave hell stood firm. It seems that one has to not count on victory until it is in one’s hand. If one wants to create a positive myth to live by, there is a lot of challenges to confront. Some failures occur, but with perseverance, one can achieve some good. This is also seen in the Apuleius, where the donkey/man has to run away toward his greater good, and pray sincerely for change, or be ready to accept death. He was that desperate. Then he sees his goddess/savior. He was ready now for the transformation after so many ill adventures. In Lord of the Rings, Smeagol is initially seen as a perversion of nature, whose warped desire for the power of ring, makes him an enemy of middle-earth. He attacks Sam, biting him, and would have killed him if Frodo had not drawn his sword upon him. But Smeagol is seen by Frodo as having some unknown purpose in the unfolding adventure. Despite his greed for the ring, he has the ability to find his way in Mordor, and he ends up helping the quest to succeed. Because Frodo believes in the purpose strongly, he is able to incorporate the skills of Smeagol. In white noise we find the main character grappling with his own personal defeat upon death and his increasing desire to escape reality through a drug that is a median between his fear of death and his dismal conclusions of life. The drug itself is a rift in reality the idealization of it turns out to be foolish as the drug removes one from  the reality that is, but the internal fear of death remains. Because of this revelation the main character does not take the pill and decides that the escapism from death is unhealthy, he wishes to live on. It is when they are pushed to the brink of despair, that change happens for their potential good. It is at this point that myth serves its purpose, for grand change on a monumental level, and it is the belief in the myth that serves as the adhesive, for if we turn in disbelief to the laws of our own consciousness whether, or not they be gods, or simply a sense of connected sensuality we will end up with only misery and rage as our sanity dissolves away into the abyss, the want for self destruction (or in Orpheus’ case little boys).

The idea of higher wisdom is universal in myth.  Yet the functions and even presence of this knowledge varies widely.  The world of Ovid’s Metamorphoses has oracles that can predict the future with complete precision.  These messages are always correct, and not even the gods can escape them.  However, oracles rarely make predictions.  Most of the time, each person must consult themselves in times of crises.  This is why many characters in the Metamorphoses have lengthy internal dialogues when they make difficult decisions. 

In the Lord of the Rings, transcendental wisdom is delivered through Gandalf, whose knowledge is not of one fate but many possible fates, and he travels with the Fellowship to take an active role in the making of the future.  However, he must also disappear, allowing each member of the Fellowship to develop his or her own wisdom. 

Odin has a similar function in Sigurd.  Odin gives the hero enough advice to complete the quest, but then disappears, and the hero is left to prove himself.  Although the story of Beowulf is closely related to that of Sigurd, there is no Odin figure.  King Hrothgar, the figure of authority, is the one in need of help.  The form higher wisdom takes is of a code of behavior, which is fittingly expressed through the actions of the characters, and only rarely through their words.  When the characters do explain their beliefs, it is to exhort others to action.  In the world of Beowulf, one must earn the right to be a sage by demonstrating that they embody the code of their society. 

It is Lucius who is almost completely without higher wisdom.  What he has is acceptance of the power and unpredictability of the most powerful god of all, Fortune.  Through this knowledge, he is able to make sense of his journey, and see it as the natural course of life.

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

     Beowulf is a powerful myth because of its heavily contrasted themes of doom and hope in the deeds done in a transitory world for the greater good, with the perseverance necessary to become a hero.  The culture was a mixture of pagan and Christian motifs. The theme of hope is found in both the grace of God and the glory of just and honorable deeds in the pagan sphere of Beowulf.  As I was reading the introduction to Beowulf, I was struck by the comment about the beauty of the poetic language in the tale.  “It’s narrative elements may belong to a previous age, but as a work of art it lives in its own continuous present, equal to our knowledge of reality in the present time.”( Beowulf IX,  Seamus Heany).  This helps to answer the question of the difference between a collection of folk tales and a lasting myth. We can take elements from this story and apply them to our lives in our present time because of the existential struggles in our lives.  The world view behind the poem asks to what extent the newly Christian understanding of the world  integrated pagan and Christian values.  This opens a new understanding of hope that the poet has to deal with.  There is already hope in the warrior-hero dying, gaining both prowess in life and after death.  To establish honor in life and to create an inspiration for life after death, Christianity doubled hope for humanity, both for the less fortunate and for those that could defend their honor.  The destruction of evil was more important than death.  Tolkien read Beowulf as a tremendously artistic and poetic accomplishment.  He sees the Beowulf poet as using his imagination to create a brilliant literary poem and not just a collection of folktales.  Tolkien develops the theme of hope in his writing of The Lord of The Rings.  He used these earlier myths as a vehicle to express his modern understanding of hope, which is spiritual for Tolkien, and deals with the huge theme of  hope overcoming the central evil of the world through the power of good struggling against evil.  The brave gathering of different cultures are hopeful of winning against evil.  It is not a single warrior slayer, or ruling lord that allows for the usurping of Sauron, but instead a fellowship that brings down ultimate evil, the true trust and companionship of the world that defeats the misunderstandings of the shadow.  Sigurd’s slaying of the dragon also mirrored the Beowulf idea of a hero, that overcame the greed and tyranny of  hording. It is honor that the Germanic hero hoped to gain in his exploits, and a hoped for better life for the people.  In Ovid, the gods have human emotions such as jealously.  These stories are elevated, as the gods are later stripped of their coarser nature by Greek thinkers, as either higher examples of ethical behavior or philosophical principles.  As the explanations of the gods get demythologized, more hope and inspiration came to followers of the myths,who tired of the exploits of the gods. Hercules is a symbol of hope as humanity is raised up to the level of gods.  In the Appeleus, the Ass is hopeful for a way out of ass-hood, and hopeful for a better life as he is kept with the bakers.  As he could count, he was hopeful that his smartness would be seen and that he would have a better life and the hope of respect for his developmental abilities.  These themes in the Golden Ass begin to ask questions about what is human, compared to what is animal as seen in choices.  A necessity is revealed for respecting both animals and humans in a weary world and add hope for further generations to follow.  

A pervasive myth in America—one that became even more pronounced to me after my time abroad—is the myth of individualism, of the “self-made man.” Americans at large are very lonely and lacking in fundamental communities, and the texts we encountered this week speak to the importance of loyalty and the repercussions and tragedy of betrayal in our human relationships.
Of course, in Lord of the Rings, there is always the question of whether Frodo or Sam is the true hero. If Sam’s loyalty makes him the heroic figure, this compels us to challenge our own myth, one in which we go out into the world and ascend to the top on our own, making ourselves the primary heroes of our own lives. Perhaps it is in our loyalty, in empowering others during their trials and tribulations, that we can truly come into our own and become heroes in a new sense. Wiglaf’s heroism certainly emerges when he is the one to loyally stay behind, to stay true to his word while the others flee and betray Beowulf in their terror. Beowulf and Wiglaf manage to slay the dragon as a team, and indeed the text advises us to “be at hand when needed” (183). Loyalty is certainly a path to heroism, to betterment of the self and the whole.
On the other side of the spectrum, of course, is betrayal, which is not only present in the men who abandon Beowulf when he is in the dragon’s lair, but also very prominent in this week’s readings in The Golden Ass. Deception and betrayal play a very big role in this chapter…the mother, when she feels that her stepson has betrayed her, goes on to deceive and betray her entire family. In the end, however, truth and justice prevail. The woman that Lucius is supposed to have sex with before he escapes has also committed a great deal of betrayals to end up where she is. These betrayers are good contrasts to the loyal figures I mentioned earlier, and it could be interesting to think about where the American myth of the self-made person places us in terms of valuing loyalty or betrayal.

I've been thinking a lot about failed mythology, and whether or not a myth can fail or if we fail the myth.  From the readings this week, I believe that it is more complicated than just deciding who failed who. 

In Sigurd, the hero fails his myth of his true love, Brynhild.  They promise to be married to one another and love each other eternally.  When Sigurd is tricked into drinking enchanted wine, he fails his myth of eternal true love to Brynhild.  While he is the one failing the myth this time, he is only failing his myth because of the imposition of someone else's myth.  So, to add onto Greg's theory of myth and argument, I think that myth fails us when someone else's myth imposes on our myth or collides with our myth and our myth is unable to navigate us in the right direction again. 

 I understood the narrative of this course, Mythologies, to be that of a course that would analyze and appreciate classic stories old and new. We were going to delve into the big names of myth, and then, in so doing, understand all the more story and its power, through example. This class has gone in a very different course, but just as I said in class, it is not that the myth of Mythologies has failed me but that I had failed to understand the myth of myth itself.

Myth is so powerful because it is our lives. Story is all we've got; we're all just plodding along our own individual narrative tracks and we don't even realize it. Just a book provides a narrator with which to portray the story unfolding in front of the reader, we are limited by our narrative perspectives. We see the world from our individual corner, and that is completely unavoidable. No matter the profundity and detail or scope of your corner, your perspective, it will always be limited, and that means we can't fully understand life. We are all travelling down distinct individual paths that we could never hope to share completely, our path itself as incomplete as any great text. Our path can be daunting, and we can try to escape or distract ourselves, and written or oral myth provides a fantastic framework for that. Owning myth and creating myth makes you the architect of a whole world, limited differently from our realities but limited just the same.

    Returning to the claim by Greg made about arguments generally stemming from conflicting myths, I think that this chapter of The Golden Ass really highlights that point. A common thread throughout this chapter is that arguments or rash ire generally stem from misunderstandings. Oftentimes these misunderstandings occur due to the mythologies people adamantly believe in. Take for example the case of the pastrycook and the chef when they couldn't figure out why their food came up missing. Nobody suspected the ass: "They never thought of an ass of pilfering; The ass, they reasoned, the only other occupant of the premises, could not be attracted by this kind of food." Naturally, the pastrycook and the chef turned on each other, because it allegedly is not logical for an ordinary donkey to desire human food, and there is no other explanation for it. Another example is the story of the evil stepmother. She believes that her husband is cheating on her with his own sister, because she doesn't know the actual truth. When people don't fully understand the truth of things, they adopt the language of myth. A very frequent initiative is love interest because much of myth derives from its effects. Jealousy inevitably creates stories within people's minds and causes people to do irrational things. This stepmother killed her husband, her own child, the doctor and his wife because she adamantly held to a fictitious story that her husband was not being faithful to her. How many times have we seen this story? Following this story, other examples include the court case with the murdered son's brother on trial and the many examples the philosophic ass describes for his readers about the corrupt judgments made throughout Greek history. This chapter highlights the value of the trial process. This process is used to counter the potential detrimental effects of the myths we tell each other. The village people were completely immersed in the fictitious story that the servant told them until they heard the actual truth.

Looking at these stories, I notice that in all of the readings at least for this week, reknown is a common thread. It comes about in different ways in all of the stories, but nonetheless it is there.

In Ovid, we have encountered the god many times, and they are all well known in the world.  Many are notorious for exacting revenge on anyone who compares themselves to a god, or who speaks negatively of them.  Other gods are known to passionately pursue humans that they desire to make love to.  No matter the content of the story, there gods are a known and established presence.

The same can be said of Apuleius.  Most often in the stories that other characters narrate, we see the same presence and awareness of the gods.  However, in the case of the section we just read, Lucius becomes famous for his feats of normal hunger.  When we see fame come about, it if most often achieved through one's actions.  In this case, Lucius is lucky because he just happens to receive fame for simply gorging himself and being hungry.

More often, fame is achieved through the completion of a feat of significance.  In both Beowulf and "Sigurd", the protagonist achieves fame by destroying a mosnter previously thought to be unbeatable.  For both of these heroes, the recognition and fame were not necessarily desired.  Neither character sets out to destory the monster simply to win fame for themself.  Especially in Beowulf's culture, one is known by one's deeds, and "boasting" is a normal part of the culture.  These two heroes earn their fame by putting themselves to the test and combating the greatest foe to be found.  They exemplify courage, but are both humble and generous as we might not expect the bst and the strongest to be.  After winning riches, bith chracters are not shy in presenting others with these trophies and making everyone happy.

Lastly, Tolkien's world has much fame.  Sauron is known across the land, not in Hobbiton, but thats a special case.  He also didn't have the idea of fame in mind, he wanted to conquer the world and have dominion over all.  Neither do Frodo or Sam ask or seek reknown, but their quest is certainly worthy of remembrance and fame.  They, as the smallest beings in the land, set out on the most dangerous task out of selflessness and a desire to do good.  The fame that I was most interested in was Aragorn's.  His fame isn't desired or necessarily earned.  As someone who had chosen exile and the life of a wandering ranger, he wanted to stay removed from the fame that flowed through his veins.  He was born into fame, and is the heir to the Throne of Men.  He has been given a task and a burden without setting out to achieve anything.  He simply is known because he's the heir if Elendil.  Many aren't sure if an heir still lives, but regardless, his fame and responsibility were placed on him before he was even born.

Damaged is a story of a mythic journey, in that it takes the narrator far outside the bounds of normal experience to discover hidden truths.  Similar to many other myths, the hero of Damaged finds it utterly impossible resist the call (a concept developed by Joseph Campbell) to begin his adventure. 

There is surprising similarity between this protagonist and Frodo.  Both Damaged and The Lord of the Rings devote time and energy to building their protagonists before they begin their journey, having them experience a period of restlessness, of searching, of seeing the limitations of the everyday yet being unable to transcend them.  When the call finally arrives, it is irresistible, because the entirety of their life experience has been leading them to this task.  This is what is meant when it is said that Frodo is the only one who can complete the quest.  It is not something external to himself that he takes on; it is the next stage of his life.  The anxiety he shows before the quest begins stems from his purpose not yet having appeared. 

Biblyis in Metamorphoses is also consumed by the call.  Yet unlike Josephine Hart, Ovid clearly does not portray Biblyis as sympathetically but rather an example of what happens when we follow the call regardless of the consequences.  Sometimes, Ovid is saying, the price of undertaking a heroic journey is simply too high. However, it is difficult to tell exactly when this may be. 

Lucius’ desire for magic is rewarded with his transformation to an ass.  He suffers many hardships and has frequent narrow escapes with death, but his journey never destroys him completely.  The call is by definition possible to delay, but impossible to resist.  Some of us, the myths seem to be saying, may be faced with the choice between tragedy and being true to ourselves.

 A theme that stood out to me from the texts this week was that of obsession.  This theme is an interesting mix of control vs. loss of control, lust and fixation and fantasy vs. reality.  We see different objects of obsession in the texts, but obsession is always followed by negative consequences, or even the demise of the obsessed. 

In Damaged the narrator is lost to his obsession with Anna from the moment he sees her.  Something deeper than lust, his preoccupation with her takes over the rest of his life. Although he is able to keep up appearances of his normal, hollow life, his fixation on Anna renders him incapable or unwilling to see the impossibility of continuing his existence in the shaky balance it had become. 

In Lord of the Rings we see that the ring has enormous power as an object of obsession.  Just like Anna, it takes over the minds of those like Boromir and Gollom.  Unlike Anna, who seemed an innocent recipient of the identity she was given by others, the evil of the ring is able to exploit the power of obsession to it's larger tasks.  

In the myths of Ovid, we see that obsession is often punished, although more so for mortals than for the gods.  Narcissus comes to mind as a clear example of one who loses control of their life because of obsession. It seems that there are strong tales of morality regarding the loss of perspective or balance involved with dangerous obsessions.  Passion or fixation of too much intensity is presented as a danger and ultimate downfall to men.

<!--[if gte mso 9]>

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><![endif]-->

<!--[if gte mso 10]>

<![endif]-->

     The path, or journey, of both the hero and anti-hero, start from the same point in desiring a better world to exist in. For this goal, there is a series of tasks, both psychological and physical, that are asked of the individual. Whether these monomyth goals include the living of a passion-filled life, or a productive and economically influential life; we can see that the journey of man is to over come their natural inner beast and explore the most primal product of mankind’s existence, the id, in order to reach their goals. The understanding of these primal forces is only, for the wise and true of heart, to overcome. The most basic way to judge the hero, from the anti-hero, is to decide whether, or not, the individual is acting out of fear, or heroic passion. If the latter, then the individual has been able to control his emotions to encompass all of humanity.  He takes all of life into consideration and comes against whatever would prevent it from aspiring to the goal of love. If, out of fear, the individual, seeks a response to his own death in a way that induces anxious fervor, but not benevolence for another, then it is not truly heroic.  He does not stay true to his own needs, since his main motive is the fear that he clings to, in order to survive in his unnatural existence. In the Golden Ass, Appeleus attempts to learn about the witching ways, in order to lead a life of pleasure seeking power. But, he is transformed by his greed into a donkey where he must experience life from a radically different point of view, as a servant of others. In Damage there is a point of heated rage and lust, which the main character finds enticing and real in the suffering of reality as typified by Anna. His sin is that he has been transformed into a beast of want; he longs to be with another, when it is painful and harmful.  He cannot truly betray his personal desire for a greater good, for others, who also claim to love. It is the savage rumor of wicked tongues that leads to a dim life.  The rumor of a successful career and a family over the true life in Damage, is paralleled in Metamorphasis,  as the rumor of a failing love that is anxiously awakened by the angry goddess Juno. She tricks Hercules’ wife into acting upon false information about the skin of the centaur that will burn Hercules. The skin represents that desire to become something more in a false manner; it burns and leaves the victim a shell of reality, begging for death, but granted immortality through the process.

As we have progressed more than halfway through our journey, I have been reflecting on myth and what it means to me now. We continue to see stories about individuals and the way that smaller case myths play roles in their lives.  For instance, when we discussed Damage, we spent time talking about myth in the smaller case.  The myths that the protagonist creates and believes in are personal myths and falsehoods.  He and his lover think that this existence can endure and continue, but they are only placing belief in a myth.  There is no way that they will be able to carry on for the rest of their lives.  Even if her husband gives her space, the truth is bound to be found out eventually.  These myths will fail because they have no ground to stand on, they are placed in a desire.

The type of myth that I am more prone to consider and reflect upon is that of a capital MYTH.  We have discussed which stories fit this category, and the debate has still be ongoing, but it seems that we have found some agreement that there is a consistancy in these MYTHS that involve something greater than the protagonist.  We also seem to have posited that there is usually a journey, very similar to, if not exactly, the hero's journey.  Within this category, I am thinking that the matter of scale also comes into play.  For instance, I consider both The Lord of the Rings and Beowulf to be myths because they both contain forces greater than the protagonists, and involve a journey.  But where I think scale comes into play in MYTHS is that for a story to fit into this category, the scale must be larger than the personal.  Both of these tales fit this because LOTR is presented as the struggle for the whole of Middle Earth, and Beowulf is the story of one man, but within that is the story of the Danes and the Geats.  Additionally, through the stories that we are told, we learn more about the history and the world.  Beowulf the character is a wordly figure.  He travels far and is known everywhere as a hero of legend.

The story that I am stuck on is The Golden Ass.  I am not sure where I think it fits.  There are forces in a way that are greater than the character.  He refers to fate a lot, but there aren't any tangible forces more powerful per se than Lucius.  Additionally, the story is presented as very personal.  We do come across stories though that frame the world and peoples, but the story is comepletely centered around the narrator and his tale.  I can't quite place it yet, it requires more thought, but I feel like the story has all the encessary parts to fit as a MYTH, but it feels like it fits in just below that category.

In The Metamorphoses, Althaea finds herself in a position in which her roles as mother and sister are incompatible with one another. Similarly, the narrator in Damage struggles to negotiate his roles as a family man and public figure with his newfound awakening of love and passion. In this text, his former roles are very consciously performed; it is his passion with Anna that truly consumes him and goes far beyond any calculated action or control. Through language and what he terms ‘rituals’, he attempts to find a way in which his former life and his new awakening can coexist; because of the extent of his passion, however, he fails tragically.
The majority of us who function in society obey Daedalus’ command: we fly in a secure middle region. We regularly restrain passions and callings that have been deemed restricted. The claim that Damage makes is that, in doing so, we are not discovering the true content of our souls. We cannot be comfortable and within society’s bounds while still knowing who and what we are. In discovering ourselves, we are consumed by something that goes beyond the accepted, and in this text, it is clearly a descent of sorts, a pleasure and self-knowledge that has an inherent damnation and excruciating pain linked inextricably to it. The myth that discovering oneself and following that path will lead to a superior moral plane and a place of bliss or tranquility is violently repudiated in this text. Indeed, in order to for Anna and the narrator to do what they do, the two of them needed to create a reality apart from that created by society. They created their own rituals, their own spaces with names and objects…their own creation story and mythology. And in following his passion, in flying too high, this narrator, like Icarus, certainly flew into the sun and perished in a way that even has some parallels to the Faust legends.

Myth frequently consecrates tradition at the expense of the present.  As such, it is not always clear how current myths can be used to move forward.  At the Johnston Renewal, I heard many stories of “the old days,” which raised the question of what the proper relationship is to these stories for a current student.  They give us a connection with our past, but at the same time they provide a potentially detrimental effect on the present.  Myth is not reality, and allowing myth to dominate our perceptions can have either positive or negative results.

In Dostoyevsky’s The Peasant Marey, we see an example of the positive enactment of myth on an individual.  What “really happened,” or even if anything happened at all, becomes irrelevant.  The radical shift of the narrator’s perceptions, “suddenly, through some sort of miracle,” demonstrates just how malleable the perception of the present is.  The narrator is just as full of hope at the end of the story as he is full of disgust at the beginning. However, because his transformation is based only on myth, a different myth could reverse his perception.  We can create myth, but we may not be able to control it.

Kafka’s country doctor is trapped in a nightmare that leaves him helpless.  His fears of being unable to do his job of helping others are magnified into a mythic story that destroys him.  Like Dostoyevsky, his myth changes his perceptions, but unlike Dostoyevsky, the change is from hope to despair.   The most important similarity that can be drawn is that both Dostoyevsky's and the doctors’ myth must have already been in their mind gathering strength before being enacted.   Whatever way we deal with our stories, we must find a way to tell them before they turn against us.

We create our own meaning in the stories we tell, in the ability to transpose the experience of life into meanings.  In the face of death we attempt to escape the hardships of reality by creating purpose in the stories we tell and  purpose there may well be). These stories convey a sense of "betterment" in the author's experience.   They attempt to alter the state of reality in order to get at something more "truthful" to what the experience might be, or could have been.  Even scientific writings attempt to do this by regulating a large amount of facts and figures that ordain connections in the organized world of the senses.  In a way, science is one of the most sensuous and interconnected myths that humanity has yet stated about the nature of things.  Kafka, as an existentialist, has created intricate myths of his own,  portraying in the Country Doctor,  the same existential illness as his patients.  The doctor organizes his brain into short and chaotic pieces of reference.  These idealizations of the  abstract movements seem ordered to portray the lack of an "Almighty" principle, in contending  with the affairs of life.  Whether the Country Doctor portrays the way things are in a mundane non-existenitalist way or whether he critiques a higher power who refused to intervene, is up for debate.  In Metamorphoses we have the gods idling with no higher power to develop themselves under, they attempt to aspire to a code of ethics which is riddled with imperfection, this is the existentialism of the gods.  In Lord of the Rings the king is mentally poisoned by his advisor leading him to inaction upon subjects that would deal with the obviously evil presence of Sauron, corrupted existentialism for the king is concern for his own safety above his people’s.  Dostoevsky, in the Peasant Marey, reflects in prison upon his youth.  When he was younger a boy cried wolf which elicited in the young Dostoevsky a dread fear.  Quickly thereafter, he heard the calming voice of a peasant named Marey say “no wolves live in these  parts,”  and he experienced intense love in the form of  calmness.  This beatific peace contrasted with the ignorant and vicious life that prison offered.  The memory of love, given by Marey, empowered in Dostoevesky  a form of love toward his fellow prisoners and initiated him into a deeper reflection into the Christ myth.

Myth is certainly highly related to the personal. The language that we choose to narrate our lives determines how we conceptualize and remember. In “Wandering Literature”, we often talked about how crucial our narratives are in shaping our existences. In our culture and society, we are wary of sounding pompous or ridiculous by mythologizing our lives through language. But in doing so, what could we gain, what underlying significance and meaning could we derive?
Many of us current students are very caught up in the day to day life here, the struggles of living in this community, the fact that it can never attain our ideals, the fact that we have five awkward encounters each day, and so on. During times such as the reunion, however, when alums come back and mythologize their Golden Ages at Johnston, we engage with those stories and that language, and we become more excited about what we are a part of. In talking with these alumni and seeing that what we are experiencing now is what they still get nostalgic for, the perceptions and language related to our own Johnston experience are altered, perhaps heightened.
Personal myths, or perhaps stories, since myth seems still to be such an elusive term, always help us to engage, connect, re-see. As with Tayo, many of us struggle to find the story that can do this for us. In “The Peasant Marey”, the narrator’s recollection of his own personal story from the past compels him to reevaluate his current situation in the prison. In “A Country Doctor”, we see clearly the overwhelming onslaught of stories about the multiple possible interpretations of his role, of his responsibilities as a doctor and as a person, and so on. Personal stories, or myths, frame our world and affect what it is that we engage with, and often, in the darkest times, a story is what we need to lift us up.

The mythological/personal question relates to something that has been brought up multiple times in class, but never fully discussed: the issue of scope or scale. It has been suggested more than once that one of the defining traits of myth is that it is set on a grand, superhuman scale. That distinction has entered into our discussion as a possibility for why Ovid may seem more "mythological" than, for example, The Golden Ass. Part of what makes the latter seem more like a novel and less like a myth is that it is set on an immediate human scale. 

When it comes to the intersection, there are really two things to talk about. Clearly, people use mythology in their personal lives - Kafka, Dostoevsky, and the alums over the weekend used versions of old stories to explain, to unite, to remind, to evoke...in each case, the story was stylized and exaggerated in order to accentuate its point. This is the "personal mythologizing" that has been brought up a couple of times.

I'm interested also in the reverse - how the personal scale might inform the mythological scale. Maybe one of the functions or characteristics of myth is that it elevates something at the personal level to something grander. Working within the Hero's Journey framework, we might say that heroic tales take the story of an individual's psychological growth and magnify them to something greater. This parallel is made explicit in Ceremony, and shows up in Apuleius as well (Cupid and Psyche as a large-scale myth used within a human-scale story). Taking a more anthropological approach, we might say that such tales reflect the journey of a culture - again, this is explicit in Ceremony, but is an undercurrent of several of our other readings, especially Popul Vuh. I would even hazard the suggestion that part what myths do is to bind the story of the collective to the story of the individual, making one story out of the two and thus enfolding the individual into the culture of the story.

     I really like the idea that we have discussed in class of myths serving as a means for us to understand and see patterns in our lives.  People have myths in common- we have been told similar myths, similar themes and stories resonate with us- and I think this can help us to understand each other's experiences and struggles. 

     Both "The Peasant Marey" and "A Country Doctor" contain this idea of myths and stories serving as a means to convey patterns and understand our lives.  In recollecting his childhood experience with the peasant Marey, Dostoevsky's character comes to a realization about the people around him.  The surreal story told by the country doctor in Kafka's story seems to serve as a means for the character to come to an understanding of his life and his role as a doctor.  

     I think by telling stories of the epic shenanigans that took place while they lived in bekins, or of the guy that tripped too hard and jumped off the roof and only broke an ankle and a wrist, the alums were reconnecting to this place and these people. These small personal myths are pieces of their conception of Johnston and their years here, and serve as a means of communication to others.  I think the way in which these stories are treated and told give them mythic qualities. They seem to have some quality that the myth-teller will never stop telling them, and the listener will not forget them.