The Capturing of Myth

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

I think that by and large this is true, there are many echoes in Tolkien from English mythology and folklore, but there are some elements which do not appear, the darker, less 'wholesome' aspects.

For instance ravens, which have very dark connotations in Northern myth, associated with battlefields & the Dark Goddess & with Odin himself, yet this primal image & symbol of 'northerness' only makes a brief appearance in the Hobbit & not at all in the Sil or LotR - it seems that there were some symbols Tolkien felt it was as well to leave 'sleeping'!

(I think Lalwende may understand what i'm getting at here, even if no-one else does!)

[Bêthberry]

Lalwende wrote:

I think that by and large this is true, there are many echoes in Tolkien from English mythology and folklore, but there are some elements which do not appear, the darker, less 'wholesome' aspects.

davem wrote:

For instance ravens, which have very dark connotations in Northern myth, associated with battlefields & the Dark Goddess & with Odin himself, yet this primal image & symbol of 'northerness' only makes a brief appearance in the Hobbit & not at all in the Sil or LotR - it seems that there were some symbols Tolkien felt it was as well to leave 'sleeping'!

(I think Lalwende may understand what i'm getting at here, even if no-one else does!)

Well, I think I understand as well. Does that make us witches or something?

I wonder here if Tolkien was not consciously doing something similar to what happened with the modern editions of fairy tales. Certainly Red Riding Hood and Cinderella are nothing these days to what they are in the original versions. Did this represent a sense that the fairy tales were the province of children and so should be censored of any dark frightening fears? Such an attitude is wrong on both counts, I think. (reasons forthcoming if you wish, but I hesitate to steer off -topic)

Why do you think Tolkien omitted the darker aspects of mythologies?

[davem]

*********** to anyone who reads the following *************
This was written in response a post which Bethberry has just removed, but is intending to to reinstate. I have included all of her important points in my quotes, though.

Originally Posted by Bb

Does that make us witches or something? ....Why do you think Tolkien omitted the darker aspects of mythologies?

(Is Bethberry trying to get davem to break his vow of secrecy - 'To Know, To Dare, To Will & To Keep Silent', reveal the sacred secrets & bring the wrath of the Sisters at the Back of the North Wind down on himself? )

There are certain 'mythic' images & symbvols which can't be used freely.RJ Stewart gives some images relating to the Goddess in her 'dark' aspect-

Black Crows flying over White Ice.
A flowering Broom plant within a cloud of fire.
The cry of an owl within which is the voice of a young girl.

We could add to that the image of ravens feeding on the corpse of a slain warrior.

None of those images could fit comfortably within Tolkien's mythology. If Tolkien had tried to fit them in there he would have been forced to take the mythology in a different direction, change its mood completely, or they would have stuck out like sore thumbs. This is because some images & symbols communicate particular ideas & psychic 'experiences', & cannot simply be taken by a writer & used as he or she wishes. The 'darker' aspects of northern myth communicated through these images weren't something Tolkien wanted to go into - for various reasons.

Of course, he did make use of numerous 'pagan' themes & images, some (the ones he felt comfortable with) he did take up 'straight' into his mythology - the wise old man, the once & future King, etc. Others he would use in his own, 'non-traditional' way, but some were difficult to make use of - the figure of Odin appears, but with his 'good' qualities given to Gandalf, & his 'bad' qualities shared among Saruman & Sauron.

So, its not just a matter of excising certain things so as not to upset the children & frighten the horses, its more a matter of wanting to retain some degree of control over what is communicated to the reader, & over what the reader is put in touch with, & how he or she is affected.

Of course, if you don't believe there is any objective, underlying 'reality' beyond the one we experience in our waking lives, then none of that will make sense.

(Now, who felt they'd been given a 'glimpse' of something by my first comment about 'sacred vows' & 'the Sisters at the Back of the North Wind'? - see how certain images affect you & can spark off that sense of something half glimpsed?)

[Bêthberry]

None of those images could fit comfortably within Tolkien's mythology. If Tolkien had tried to fit them in there he would have been forced to take the mythology in a different direction, change its mood completely, or they would have stuck out like sore thumbs. This is because some images & symbols communicate particular ideas & psychic 'experiences', & cannot simply be taken by a writer & used as he or she wishes. The 'darker' aspects of northern myth communicated through these images weren't something Tolkien wanted to go into - for various reasons. ...

Of course, if you don't believe there is any objective, underlying 'reality' beyond the one we experience in our waking lives, then none of that will make sense.

And I suppose that if you believe symbols and images cannot change meaning, you end up with this argument that a writer cannot use certain symbols and images, as they are beyond his power as a writer. Yet the Church regularly and frequently incorporated--some might say appropriated--pagan symbols into Christian iconography. And writers regularly and frequently take images and ideas and reclothe them as part of their argument, particularly when they want to say something about those previous meanings.

*********** to anyone who reads the following *************
This was written in response a post which Bethberry has just removed, but is intending to to reinstate. I have included all of her important points in my quotes, though.

Just to clarify, I deleted my post half an hour before davem posted his reply,--over an hour before I saw his reply. My reason? It seemed to me that my comments about fairy tales, which davem alludes to but does not quote, were taking the thread off-topic. (That's the reason I gave when I deleted it.) In fact, his post does not consider the kind of things I had in mind about extirpated modern editions of fairy tales--the degree, for instance, of physical violence meted out to the characters. I was here thinking of how vague Tolkien is about the experience of Celebrían, Elrond's wife, at the hands of orcs.

(Now, who felt they'd been given a 'glimpse' of something by my first comment about 'sacred vows' & 'the Sisters at the Back of the North Wind'? - see how certain images affect you & can spark off that sense of something half glimpsed?)

Not I. But then I recall some of your very early posts here on BD where similar points were suggested.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

How does this idea of LotR as adopting/adapting folkloric motifs (rather than 'being' myth) impact on the discussion of its translation into film? I would suggest that insofar as the book seeks to include a number of different elements from folklore (and it is thus 'mythic') I think it would be hard to draw a definite line between book and film in this regard, insofar as the film not only uses many of the same elements introduced by Tolkien, but even introduces a few of its own (e.g. the films greatly expand upon Arwen's role, and with the death and 'resurrection' scene of Aragorn in TT it lends him an Arthurian aura of the King who will 'come again' -- not sure from which folklore we get shield-surfing Elves, which I still think was entirely cool).

I imagine that for many people the book is preferable to the film in its presentation of these elements for many entirely valid reasons: they prefer textuality to visuality, there is a more coherent moral 'purpose' to the book, the book is what they are more familiar with, the text allows a more nuanced thematic apprehension than in film, the movie -- as a film -- is having to work through the 'veil' of Hollywood action-film tropes and expectations, etc. . .but these reasons, good as they may be, are all subjective and personal. Which would seem to buttress my point that the apprehension of the 'mythic' in book or film is simply a subjective attribution made by the reader on the basis of which experience was more meaningful for him or her -- and if it is subjective, then there really can't be any objective reality to this idea of the 'mythic' in these works.

Oh, how I love a syllogism!

A good comparison is to the Star Wars movies. Those films were quite consciously made to reflect mythic 'archetypes' -- Lucas went so far as to have Joseph Campbell comment on the script of each film and offer pointers for the heroes' journey! For millions of people, there is a magic and, yes, a mythic feel to the films that is lost when they are translated into other media (I am one of those: I adore the films, but the books, the few that I have read, leave me utterly cold). This is the same process we are speaking of in regard to Tolkien, but in reverse. For LotR, the 'feel' of the book is more mythic than the 'feel' of the movie (for most readers/viewers); for Star Wars, the 'feel' of the movie is more mythic than the 'feel' of the books. So apparently that sense of myth can survive in either media, it's just that the first time we encounter it in each is different - textually or visually. It's not the medium that makes it mythic, but the memory of our first time reading or watching it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

And I suppose that if you believe symbols and images cannot change meaning, you end up with this argument that a writer cannot use certain symbols and images, as they are beyond his power as a writer. Yet the Church regularly and frequently incorporated--some might say appropriated--pagan symbols into Christian iconography. And writers regularly and frequently take images and ideas and reclothe them as part of their argument, particularly when they want to say something about those previous meanings.

Certain symbols cannot be manipulated easily, & some not at all. If Tolkien had used any of the images I quoted earlier he would have had to change the mood of the story & probably its outcome. Some images & symbols are 'primal' & resist manipulation, & if they are used by a writer they tend to take over the story & move it in a new (or 'old') direction. If you take any of those images & mediate on them you will experience specific reactions, which are not manipulable.

This is the reason why the Church only took [i]some/i] Pagan images over - some images they simply couldn't manipulate in the way they wanted - not even to demonise 'them', so they set out to intentionally remove any reference to them. This is also partly why certain things were removed from children's versions of fairy tales. Some images 'transform' - religious iconography is designed to produce a specific 'effect'.

If we take the Tarot images what we find is that they recur throughout myths & legends from all over the world, & it is very difficult to impose a different meaning on them than the traditional one, & if as a writer you make use of one of those images in a story, you will find it almost impossible to impose a new meaning on it & make the story seem 'real'. Basically, the story will go its own way. If you want to use a tarot image in a story you'll have to find one that fits the story you want to write.

But this is too complex a matter, & too far off topic, to pursue here.

As for Fordim's points re Star Wars, while I enjoyed the movies when I first saw them, aged 17, when I came to watch the 're-done' versions in the 90's (not to mention the latest two disasters) I found them to be empty & formulaic, not 'mythical' in any sense. Perhaps the reason for that was Campbell's influence. Campbell alsways seemed to me to have this tendency to want to reduce myth to its constituent parts, it building blocks - to break it in order to see what it is made of.

The difference for me between Tolkien's myth & Lucas' is that Tolkien's comes across to me as having its roots in the living earth, while Lucas' hovers in dead space. For me Lucas myth is not a conflict between good & evil so much as between machine & machine. It is a 'myth' for the machine age, where both sides use machines & 'machine' thinking, & so, not a 'true' myth at all. I know some will throw in the 'Force' as an example of the story's 'mythic' aspect, but for me it was simply a cop-out, a deus ex machina of the most blatant & unconvincing kind, or at best a clever trick which the hero performs to outsmart the baddies.

Or maybe I'm just a backward looking inhabitant of the Old World with an aversion to technology & its promise of 'salvation'.

I just hated all the dirty, oily, smelly machines all over the place - & as for that planet in film 1 which is completley urbanised, I have to admit the idea of it made me feel sick. (Though if I'm being honest, Lucas actually lost me back in '83 with those damn Ewoks!).

[Encaitare]

And I suppose that if you believe symbols and images cannot change meaning, you end up with this argument that a writer cannot use certain symbols and images, as they are beyond his power as a writer. Yet the Church regularly and frequently incorporated--some might say appropriated--pagan symbols into Christian iconography.

Yes, the pentacle, a popular pagan symbol, was used for a time by the Church. And (although the two symbols are hardly connected), the swastika was a symbol of peace, once used by the Hopi (I believe) until the Nazis inverted it and took it for their own, drastically changing its meaning.

For the sake of staying on topic, I'll shut up now.

[Bêthberry]

Thanks, Encaitare, for your example of a symbol with radically different, if not opposite meanings. The swastika has indeed a long tradition of postive worth among many cultures, not only the Hopi, but the Hindu and Buddhist as well. Here is a link to the Wikipedia entry on the swastika . I discovered this myself with surprise one day as I walked by a Buddhist meeting hall (not a temple), where the sign was worked into the features on the door and window.

davem wrote:
The difference for me between Tolkien's myth & Lucas' is that Tolkien's comes across to me as having its roots in the living earth, while Lucas' hovers in dead space. For me Lucas myth is not a conflict between good & evil so much as between machine & machine. It is a 'myth' for the machine age, where both sides use machines & 'machine' thinking, & so, not a 'true' myth at all. I know some will throw in the 'Force' as an example of the story's 'mythic' aspect, but for me it was simply a cop-out, a deus ex machina of the most blatant & unconvincing kind, or at best a clever trick which the hero performs to outsmart the baddies.

Or maybe I'm just a backward looking inhabitant of the Old World with an aversion to technology & its promise of 'salvation'.

There are two ways in which I think this argument is misguided. First, I don't think Lucas did produce a conflict between machine and machine. And, second, I don't think that cultures stop producing myths.

There is indeed a great deal of emphasis on technology and dashing light sabres and cool X-wing fighters in Star Wars. However, there is also a very strong element which rejects totalising, militaristic power and its machine-dependence. The end of the 'first' Star Wars movie, now called "A New Hope' (I think), is a case in point. All the imagery there of the scene where Luke and Han are awarded their honours by Leia suggests grandiose displays of power and propaganda. (To be honest, I am reminded of 'Triumph of the Will'.) Yet as I also recall the scene, there are shadows which call into question the Alliance's manner here. It is similar, to me, to the scene in the first Indiana Jones movie where Indy is ready to walk into the bar where he meets his ex-girlfriend in a drinking match: he looks at his shadow on the wall before he walks in. I don't think the suggestion in A New Hope is as strong as that, but I think it is there to suggest that the Alliance has not understood how much it is in thrall itself to false forms of power, and that includes a worship of machine. This movie ends with, to me, a pyrrhic victory. (To be honest here, I am indebted to Professor Anne Lancashire for this reading of ST:ANH. I cannot find any online articles by her, only this link to her course outline on SF and Fantasy films.

But secondly and more significantly, I don't think one can limit 'myth' to elements of the good green earth. (AndI don't think one need to class oneself as an inhabitant of the Old World to make this point. ) Cultures produce myths, as Fordim has argued, and there is no logical reason why cultures which are more divorced from their ancient roots will stop creating myths. It is true that one definition of 'mythology' is "a religion or religious explanation of the world which is no longer actively believed in", but that definition strikes me as severely limiting the role of myth in the cultural imagination. One need only think of 'urban legends' to be aware that the story-making faculty is a defining element of human beings.