Why are some Myths so Perfect?

So the first question I want to ask is, why did some ancient societies create enduring stories, while most others did not? Examples include The Iliad, The Odyssey, King Arthur and Beowulf. Surely storytelling is a universal expression of human imagination, present in every society since the invention of language. It's hard to believe that the Romans didn't tell stories, and yet no Roman story has found its way into popular culture.

The second question is, why does Northern European lore lend itself so well to modern fantasy, while, say, African or Asian lore does not? That is not to say that they did not have "fantasies" of their own, but that no modern genre has been able to grow out of their aesthetics. Thinking about what Tolkien did with fantasy, it seems inconceivable that the same could be done for any other set of lore. I mean, he came up with Barad Dur, Saruman, orcs, elves and so much more. How could something similarly as epic spring out of Native American lore?

I will forward a guess to the second question. European societies were the most erratic and varied on Earth. Europe saw the Roman Empire, Feudalism, Viking raiders, chivalry, Mongolian invasion, romance, renaissance. A whole load of crazy things. Given such an abundance of material, it was suitable for Tolkien when he went to blend everything together. Most other locales seem less interesting and I have not heard of any foreign equivalent to the fantasy genre.

attackfighter said:

So the first question I want to ask is, why did some ancient societies create enduring stories, while most others did not? Examples include The Iliad, The Odyssey, King Arthur and Beowulf. Surely storytelling is a universal expression of human imagination, present in every society since the invention of language. It's hard to believe that the Romans didn't tell stories, and yet no Roman story has found its way into popular culture.

Click to expand...

Well, I think Virgil had a few!

More importantly, perhaps, many of the stories we have, we have only by the luckiest chance. Beowulf is known only from a single manuscript. If that manuscript had not survived we wouldn't have any idea that the story ever existed. This applies to most pre-Christian/Jewish/Muslim societies in the west, where the myths were handed down orally. Beowulf itself is a basically pagan myth, from a pre-literate time, that has been written down by Christians in a later age only after it's been somewhat Christianised. So (a) these things were not, for the most part, written in the first place, and (b) were preserved later only if Christians or Muslims thought them worth preserving. So there's certainly a vast amount of myths and legends that have been lost, no doubt including the majority from some cultures.

Greece and Rome are the major western exceptions to this, being literate pagan societies, so it's hardly surprising that the most familiar pagan myths are the Greek ones. And of course there are other examples from elsewhere in the world, notably China and India, which have masses of myths, not only from antiquity but from early modern times to (think Journey to the West).

attackfighter said:

The second question is, why does Northern European lore lend itself so well to modern fantasy, while, say, African or Asian lore does not? That is not to say that they did not have "fantasies" of their own, but that no modern genre has been able to grow out of their aesthetics. Thinking about what Tolkien did with fantasy, it seems inconceivable that the same could be done for any other set of lore. I mean, he came up with Barad Dur, Saruman, orcs, elves and so much more. How could something similarly as epic spring out of Native American lore?

I will forward a guess to the second question. European societies were the most erratic and varied on Earth. Europe saw the Roman Empire, Feudalism, Viking raiders, chivalry, Mongolian invasion, romance, renaissance. A whole load of crazy things. Given such an abundance of material, it was suitable for Tolkien when he went to blend everything together. Most other locales seem less interesting and I have not heard of any foreign equivalent to the fantasy genre.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the closest example is manga/anime, much of which incorporates old Japanese myths. This is why they sometimes seem so surreal to western readers, who aren't familiar with the cultural background.

Still, Tolkien did make up an awful lot of stuff, obviously. He invented orcs, elves, dwarves, and the rest as we know them. He was inspired by the northern European myths and especially Anglo-Saxon culture, but I don't see why a person couldn't invent different stuff through the inspiration of different cultures - and of course plenty of people have had a go (one might even mention C.S. Lewis - isn't Narnia, with its satyrs and centaurs, more rooted in classical myth than in northern European?). Tolkien just did it very well and had great influence. I think it's also important to remember that he was building on an existing tradition of European fantasy which was based on its own roots, from Chrétien de Troyes all the way to William Morris. So there was a very long literary tradition that he inherited, and this won't be the case in a lot of other cultures.

The answer to most of this is "Eurocentrism". You're drawn towards the Greek and Roman myths because Western society and western literature favors western myths, particularly the Greco-Roman stuff (I agree with Plot, you kind of seriously overlooked Virgil and Ovid in your declaration of the dearth of good Roman myths [also Romulus/Remus and Cincinnatus are other prominent Roman myths that have stuck around) because Europeans have been understandably obsessed with the Greeks and Romans for millennia, and with Norse/Germanic/Old English myths because that is the heritage of the Anglo world. That stuff sticks out because that is just what Western society has focused on for much of time. Japanese lore sticks out as well because the Western world perceives Japan as a culturally/technologically Western nation, at least a cousin if not a brother-in-arms, as opposed to the alien and "oriental" China/Korea/SEA.

There are, of course, plenty of myths existent in the East, in places you noted. We just don't learn about them because the vast majority of Western schooling does not emphasize Eastern literature. We read western literature. And a grounding in Western myths (i.e.: Biblical, Greco-Roman, Germanic/Scandinavian) is critical to understanding the metaphor, themes, and references that litter Western literature. Eastern Literature is full of its own body of myths that it references. A Journey to the West is a good example of a classic Chinese myth (which you should read if you want to properly understand the original Dragonball manga, from which its original story derived), as is Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

Africa is also, obviously full of rich and vibrant myths. Things Fall Apart is a modern work of fiction which draws heavily from Nigerian and West African myth and lore. The film Yeelen was written and directed by a Malinese filmmaker and is an adaptation of a classical Malinese myth.

Native American myths are also fairly omnipresent. Californian myths are scattered, but present, and you can find some very good Anthologies if you look around. I had to read one for my US Literature Class. Great stuff. I feel that Mayan and Aztec myths are fairly well known, perhaps because they are so alien to Westerners and because, as Plotinus noted, they were written down.

The Indian subcontinent has some very famous myths as well, The Mahabharata and Ramayana being, of course, the most prominent. In Arabia you have the 1001 Nights which employs a ton of classical Arabian myths and stories (Djinn play a very prominent role, for example).

So it's not that myths do not exist in places outside of England and the Mediterranean. Nor is it that they weren't very good, nor that they didn't lend themselves very well to modern fantasy. As Westerners we grew up with Western stories and literature. Western literature is inspired by Western myth. Dante's Divine Comedy makes multitudinous references to Biblical and Greco-Roman stories and figures. Shakespeare does as well. Modern Fantasy (read: Western Fantasy) is deeply rooted in Western (most specifically Germanic) mythology because J.R.R Tolkien, who all but invented the genre in its modern form, was a Professor of Linguistics who most specialized in Germanic and Celtic languages and was deeply immersed in their mythology (because for many of these language families that's more of less the only connections we have). Meanwhile C.S. Lewis was a Theologist deeply inspired by and immersed in the classical Biblical myths so it's only natural he used biblical themes and Western metaphors. It's only because the Western world so thoroughly dominates the world media and cultural markets (especially in the West) that Western myth pervades over all others, especially considering how shortly removed (if even removed at all) we are from the unfortunately pervasive belief that Western myths are simply better; intrinsically more universal in their themes and imagery than those lesser peoples that lived in India/China/Africa/America.

Actually, 1001 (or Arabian) Nights was collected over many centuries by various authors, translators, and scholars across West, Central, South Asia and North Africa. The tales themselves trace their roots back to ancient and medieval Arabic, Persian, Indian, Egyptian and Mesopotamian folklore and literature.

Owen - absolutely (although professional pride forces me to say that Lewis wasn't a theologian, he was a classicist who wrote spiritual books in his spare time; he loved classical myths in the same way Tolkien loved the northern ones, which is why he tried to blend them with Christianity). This also is a good point to mention one other massive collection of myths and legends that have become more embedded in western culture even than those of Greece and northern Europe, and that's a collection called the Bible. Those texts are largely from what is to the west quite an alien culture, but there are obvious other reasons for their pervasiveness and familiarity, at least to previous generations. And if you want an example of someone using them as a basis for a tale in the fantasy mode, Milton wouldn't be far off. Or, if you prefer, Pullman.

It's also worth mentioning, on a related note, that the Middle East in general is pretty fertile when it comes to myths; think of Gilgamesh and the related works, as a good example. There too, we know these myths because they were written, although this is an interesting and unusual case because although they were written, the writings were lost and not copied in later antiquity. We know these myths because they were written in media that could survive for thousands of years. If the Sumerians had used paper we'd never know any of their myths.

In addition to Owen's comments on Eurocentrism, I'd add that there are disparities within Europe. Classical myth and Germanic/Norse myth are well-known, but Celtic, Slavic and other mythologies are mostly neglected outside of those countries. Most people in the English-speaking world have heard of Achilles and Thor, but how many will be familiar with Cú Chulainn or Perun?

I want to quick reply to this. I have quite a bit to say but because of lack of time I can't say much.

As noted it it mainly euro centrism and makes some myths more known than others. I don't think for a second that Greek and Roman myth is better than any other. In fact I think other myths are just as good and if you dig around a bit you will find just and many celtic tales, Slavic tales and Chinese tales. But as history is written unfortunately the winners were Spain England France and the United States. As a resent the stories that are important to their culture is what you hear the most often.

As noted myths like the Slavic myths are known in their country. I and an avid smite player, which is a game that is the battle of the gods. Often there is discussion over what God should be in next and Slavic is brought up. Every time it is its always someone from that part of the world. That sums it up there.

It would seem that every popular myth has it's own myriad reasons for existing. If it were not for the Brothers Grimme, Red Riding Hood may have been lost. Tolkien, Lewis, Homer... so often there is a single critical individual we can point to and say "Aha!" But if we expand our search, we find behind each individual several more and so on to infinity.

Knowledge is like a tremendous sea. For every dazzling fact we pull up, there remains an infinite, yawning abyss waiting to swallow our boat whole. Some day all of humanity shall be lost to the waves. Whether nuclear or environmental catastrophe strikes us, it does not matter, for the Sun itself will inevitably be extinguished. All of our accumulated information will be for naught.

But in the meantime, this has been informative. The most valuable thing I've taken away, is that myths matter because we understand the metaphors behind them; not because orcs look cool in Peter Jackson's movies.

Plotinus said:

(although professional pride forces me to say that Lewis wasn't a theologian, he was a classicist who wrote spiritual books in his spare time; he loved classical myths in the same way Tolkien loved the northern ones, which is why he tried to blend them with Christianity)

Click to expand...

Lewis' work was in medieval English literature, not classics (although he read both Lit Hum and English literature as an undergraduate). And it's been argued that his reading of the classical era was strongly informed by the classical-Christian synthesis of the Middle Ages.

ubergeneral said:

I want to quick reply to this. I have quite a bit to say but because of lack of time I can't say much.

As noted it it mainly euro centrism and makes some myths more known than others. I don't think for a second that Greek and Roman myth is better than any other. In fact I think other myths are just as good and if you dig around a bit you will find just and many celtic tales, Slavic tales and Chinese tales. But as history is written unfortunately the winners were Spain England France and the United States. As a resent the stories that are important to their culture is what you hear the most often.

As noted myths like the Slavic myths are known in their country. I and an avid smite player, which is a game that is the battle of the gods. Often there is discussion over what God should be in next and Slavic is brought up. Every time it is its always someone from that part of the world. That sums it up there.

Click to expand...

It's an important distinction to be made, but history is not, in fact written by the victors. Rather history is written by those who write their histories down. Sometimes that coincides with the victors (for example, the Romans), but there are plenty of examples of victors not writing much of anything down (for example we know bugger-all about the original Anglo-Saxons, The Mongols (from not non-Mongol sources), and the Goths/Vandals), as well as examples of "losers" writing a great deal down (Jewish communities, for a prominent example.) Our Eurocentrism derives not so much from the fact that the Romans and Greeks and Germans were "winners" (remember, Rome and Greece "collapsed", and the Britanno-Romans were shunted off to the fringes of the British Isles), but rather that the Church and subsequent scholars put Greco-Roman art and language on a pedestal. We remember Greco-Roman stuff because Greco-Roman stuff was cherished and preserved (...kinda...not really.

I'm reminded of the Shelley poem Ozymandias. There are many great societies and empires we know nothing (or very very little about) because nothing survived of them. Maybe the materials they recorded their history on were flimsy and easily eroded. Maybe they built no permanent structures. Maybe a fire or earthquake or deluge came in and destroyed it all. When you consider the ease with which buildings break down, or are broken down, reused, repurposed or simply buried and lived on top of, it's a marvel to me that we have anything at all of Greco-Roman art and architecture. We have little of Celtic and Germanic legends and myths because very little of it was written down. Do some research into early Germanic linguistic history and you'll find very little hard sources dating before the 7th or 8th century AD. You have Wulfila's Bible in the 4th century, then you have the Peterborough Chronicle which is an 11th century translation of an 8th century document. The earliest Old Saxon stuff we have is 8th century, earliest Icelandic stuff (the vast majority of our historical North Germanic record) doesn't show up until the 11th century. By this time the stuff you're getting is either biblical in nature or things that clergymen found important or valuable, such as Beowulf (which, as Plot already noticed, we are very very fortunate to have at all).

This is slightly off topic, but does anyone know of any good essay or book about the real King Arthur or the time he supposedly lived in (if he lived at all)?

SeekTruthFromFacts said:

Lewis' work was in medieval English literature, not classics (although he read both Lit Hum and English literature as an undergraduate). And it's been argued that his reading of the classical era was strongly informed by the classical-Christian synthesis of the Middle Ages.

Click to expand...

You're right, of course, I misremembered there.

attackfighter said:

This is slightly off topic, but does anyone know of any good essay or book about the real King Arthur or the time he supposedly lived in (if he lived at all)?

Click to expand...

This might be a good place to start!

attackfighter said:

This is slightly off topic, but does anyone know of any good essay or book about the real King Arthur or the time he supposedly lived in (if he lived at all)?

Click to expand...

I never got around to reading it, but Halsall is pretty well regarded.
http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Arthur-Facts-Fictions-Dark/dp/019965817X

If you are interested in a more general overview of the period in northern Europe, Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West is quite good.
http://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Society-Barbarian-450-900-History/dp/0415239397

attackfighter said:

This is slightly off topic, but does anyone know of any good essay or book about the real King Arthur or the time he supposedly lived in (if he lived at all)?

Click to expand...

That would be a very short book: there was no king Arthur.

There was a historical Arthur in the fifth century, but he wasn't precisely important. The myths that came after him made King Arthur matter. King Arthur, more than anything is a British symbol for chivalry and a golden bygone era.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/anglo_saxons/arthur_01.shtml

No-one really knows whether there was an Arthur at all. The earliest source (of reasonably certain date) to mention him is the Historia Brittonum, attributed to Nennius, written in the ninth century. It presents Arthur not as a king but as a military leader working for the kings of Britain, who fought in twelve battles of dubious historicity. It does identify Arthur as the leader of the British forces at the battle of Badon, which probably really did happen in the fifth or sixth centuries (although it's known only from British sources, not Anglo-Saxon ones).

So this is a source from over three centuries after the time of Arthur, if he existed, and it doesn't say much about him. It's hard on this basis to say definitively whether Arthur was wholly fictional or whether there really was a British military leader of this name at that time.

It's striking, incidentally, just how much of the Arthurian legend is surprisingly late. Even Geoffrey of Monmouth does not yet know of many of the familiar bits, including Lancelot, the Grail, Morgana, Camelot, etc. He does include Merlin but associates him exclusively with Arthur's father, Uther, not Arthur himself. His Arthur is king of Britain, not of Camelot, and like most of Geoffrey's other heroes he spends his time fighting battles and invading blameless neighbouring countries. The Arthurian stories as we know them really come from Chrétien de Troyes, who wrote in the twelfth century, and wasn't even British. He created the Grail element and also the character of Lancelot.

What I remember of the latest review on a book on Arthur is that Robin Hood probably has more chance of being historical. But that apart, the Arthur legend is a perfect example of conflation of stories and elements to one central figure. I'm sure that at some point there was a Arthur, but he can't possibly have done all the feats attributed to him and his round table knights. (The Holy Grail, for example, must surely be a late addition; I don't believe it played any part at the time that Arthur is supposed to have been active.) That is very typical for a myth. That, and it being a great story, of course.

The interesting thing about Arthur, I think, is that as the legend gets fuller, it becomes less about Arthur himself. For Geoffrey, Arthur is an all-conquering hero just like the other featured characters in his work such as Brutus and Belinus. He doesn't have much character and the people around him are basically ciphers. But with the later Arthurian legends, especially after Chrétien de Troyes got his hands on them, Arthur recedes into the background and it's more about Lancelot and Guinevere, Galahad and Percival and the Grail, Gawain, and so on.

A Journey to the West is a good example of a classic Chinese myth (which you should read if you want to properly understand the original Dragonball manga, from which its original story derived)

Click to expand...

Hah I always wondered how they managed to stuff entire houses in those little pills.

In answer to the opening poster, the fame of Graeco-Roman myths is essentially due to preservation and transmission. Most of the West got literacy with Roman culture and religion, and the stuff they loved was seen as more prestigious among the literacy castes than native alternatives in Germanic, Celtic and Slavic Europe.

Plotinus said:

Beowulf itself is a basically pagan myth, from a pre-literate time, that has been written down by Christians in a later age only after it's been somewhat Christianised.

Click to expand...

Have you read Patrick Wormald, 'Bede, Beowulf and the Conversion of the Anglo-Saxon Aristocracy'? Basic argument, to simplify considerably, Beowulf is not pagan but good Anglo-Saxon aristocratic Christianity. Guys like Bede who distilled hard-core Roman Christianity were fringe ideologues who had little effect on anyone buy a few fellow monks locked up in monasteries.