Talk:Mythopoeia

merge suggestion
I am suggesting merging "artificial mythology" to this article (a) they cover similar if not identical genre (b) the word artificial [root word artifice]] is at worst NPOV, at best confusing. (c) mythopoeia means myth-making. Goldenrowley 05:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes please. --Quiddity 07:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I also support. I would also like to add that this article may also be linked to literature and epic poetry as related subjects.--Scorpion451 06:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge is complete. This makes the article not quote all of its sources, as the old article did not quote its sources. I marked those statements from the old article, which seem to need verified citations. Goldenrowley 20:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Campbell Hogwash?
I would question the validity as a source of an author who refers to the well established and respected work of Joseph Campbell (and by implication Carl Jung) as hogwash. The work of these and other researchers have lead to a greater understanding of the stucture of the human mind and the nature of society and cultural memes. What credentials does this critic have?--Scorpion451 05:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know but his quote wwas added just for balance and proof that not everyone beleives in mythmaking and Star Wars. I added that he's a film critic today althogh I dont know his credentials he does represent a whole slew of critics who say whatever the want to say. Goldenrowley 20:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I had never heard of him, makes more sense if he's a film critic. I respect his right to say what he wants to say, but that gives me the right to say he's wrong(lol). I can live with the counter argument for the sake of NPOV, as long as his backround is noted, as it was it made me bristle.--Scorpion451 03:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidently the critic Steven Hart does consider much of Joseph Campbell on myth to be hogwash. But the main point is that George Lucas on the mythic or epic roots and pretensions of Star Wars is hogwash (and probably that Star Wars is pseudo-mythic). Those three words are only a part of Hart's title: "Galactic gasbag: Beneath all the pseudo-mythic Joseph Campbell hogwash, the roots of George Lucas' empire lie not in 'The Odyssey' but in classic and pulp 20th century sci-fi."
 * I added to the head of the section a quotation of Lucas by Bill Moyers, and in turn by Hart. I rewrote the end of the section (one paragraph that should be split, probably in three) to make the main point.
 * --P64 (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You'd be wrong to question their validity. His ideas are not taken seriously in many academic circles. Sorry. 64.85.243.248 (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling
Has anyone seen anything published that would put the Harry Potter world into this category? If anyone can find anything cite able I think she would be an important addition to this article. She is the leading author of this kind of work and is know world-wide. Karisuestokes 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * She did not build a mythology, really, just a series of juvenile fiction fantasy books. -- Nils Jeppe (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree in seeing no "artificial mythology" in Harry Potter. And HP is a mismatch for much of what this article says about "mythopoeia". But I find this article incoherent.
 * Rowling is now named in one of the incoherent sections, 5.6 other modern literature. (not my doing; I rearranged approxly in chron order without changing the sense)


 * The Mythopoeic Society did confer the Mythopoeic Fantasy Award upon "The Harry Potter series". But the set of awards cite "the spirit of the Inklings" and the children's literature award cites "the tradition of The Hobbit or The Chronicles of Narnia." --not mythopoeia. (Our article Mythopoeic Society does not make clear any specific sense of the society name. Your contributions are solicited.)
 * --P64 (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikia
Hello, I am Mighty Erick, a ConWorlder from Wikia, I have added a link to a Wikia's Myth-Building Wiki.

Questions?

Talk me at imagine.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Mightyerick

Thanks

Mightyerick (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have removed it again, because I really do not see how this is representative or generally helpful to the topic at hand; it smells an awful lot of (self-?)promotion. -- Nils Jeppe (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Lord Dunsany?
I am not sure that Lord Dunsany is actually an author that fits this genre. Yes, he wrote fantasy, but did he create the sort of elaborately detailed worlds we associate with Tolkein and Lewis? I am asking because I am honestly uncertain, but the article here gave me no indication that he fits this genre. Thoughts? --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Gods of Pegana and follow-up works are precisely the sort of thing this term is meant to describe. They're literally a sequence of quasi-mythological creation and "just-so" stories about a fictional world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.243.248 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Burroughs, Howard, Smith, Herbert, Moorcock
(quote) The pulp works of Edgar Rice Burroughs and Robert Howard contain imagined worlds vast enough to be universes in themselves, as does the science fiction of Frank Herbert, E. E. "Doc" Smith and Michael Moorcock.


 * Several years later, I revised this paragraph, striving to provide section 5.6 with some chron data and approximate chron order --without changing the sense.


 * (quote same paragraph now) ''The pulp works of Edgar Rice Burroughs (from 1912) and Robert E. Howard (from 1924) contain imagined worlds vast enough to be universes in themselves,[citation needed] as did the science fiction of E. E. "Doc" Smith, Frank Herbert, and Michael Moorcock one or two generations later.[citation needed]
 * --P64 (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Burroughs did not create an artificial mythology, as far as I can judge, I guess Robert E. Howard's Conan kind of fits the bill, as it is set in a fictitious past age, I am guessing Herbert's stories do include a mythology, but it's not a mythology for "our" world, it's a "future history mythology", so I am not sure this counts, and I am really not sure about Doc Smith and Moorcock. Either way, citations are probably not a bad idea here. -- Nils Jeppe (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: To precise my objection: Does having created a "large universe" count as Mythipoeia? I think it does not. -- 85.10.193.6 (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. People are confusing fiction writing/wordlbuilding with mythopea. Writing a fiction novel does NOT count in and of itself...it has to be far more than that, including a religion, full creation narrative history, etc. --Noodleguy


 * I don't know whether to disagree, largely because the passage which reads "As distinguished from fantasy worlds or fictional universes aimed at the evocation of detailed worlds with well-ordered histories, geographies, and laws of nature, mythopoeia aims at imitating and including real-world mythology, specifically created to bring mythology to modern readers" contradicts this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.70.183.93 (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction
The passage which reads: "As distinguished from fantasy worlds or fictional universes aimed at the evocation of detailed worlds with well-ordered histories, geographies, and laws of nature, mythopoeia aims at imitating and including real-world mythology, specifically created to bring mythology to modern readers, and/or to add credibility and literary depth to fictional worlds in fantasy or science fiction books and movies."

contradicts not only itself but also the following passage which reads:

"Mythopoeia are almost invariably created entirely by an individual, like the world of Middle-earth."

Middle-Earth does not "bring mythology to modern readers" 194.70.183.93 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Cannot understand sentence
The intention of the sentence, "It is invented mythology that, rather than arising out of centuries of oral tradition, are penned over a short period of time by a single author or small group of collaborators." is not clear. I think it is supposed to mean, "Mythopeia is invented mythology that, rather than arising out of centuries of oral tradition, is penned..." The initial "it" and the "are" are confusing. Wakablogger2 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Source of Crowley/Blake connection?
The section describing Blake's influence on Crowley needs a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.84.204 (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing Information?
The section on Tolkien should contain additional reference to his theory of sub-creation, which consists of the poem Mythopoeia, the short story Leaf by Niggle and the essay On Fairy-stories. The section on recent authors using mythopoeia should also include Terry Pratchett and Tad Williams. EugealCrayfish (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mythic or mythological fiction?

 * first of multiple sections posted at once

Is there a literary or literary/cinematic genre that comprises the retelling and/or adaptation of myth(ology), as in The God Beneath the Sea and its sequel? What about legendary material, as in Here Lies Arthur? Those two articles do not classify their novels concisely as a generic label does. Their current WP:CATegories, re the matter at hand, are for The God; i'm not sure about "popular culture". and for Here Lies Arthur; both clearly appropriate in my opinion. (For what it's worth, I'm the author of their {infobox} Genre(s) and some of their lead prose. Not of their relevant categories.)

Two other instances are Prince of Annwn, which retells Welsh myth as a high fantasy novel for adults, and The Owl Service, which adapts Welsh myth as a low fantasy novel for children. The latter is rather realistic among low fantasies, I think, and its story recognizes the mythical material as living legend. "Huw tells him of the power that exists in the valley, how those of the blood have to re-enact the legend each time, and how Blodeuwedd always comes as owls instead of flowers because of the hatred." --quoting our ultralong plot summary

FWIW i don't know anything about the study or theory of compilation, translation retelling, and any other production of "versions". I know that the Brothers Grimm retold folklore stories in a sense (reconstructed?) and every English translation of their work is further from the traditional material, not to mention any contemporary American picture book edition of one tale. Every prose edition of the Odyssey (even in Greek) retells Homer's literary work, which removes it further from whatever legendary material he used. The Mabinogion that I could read but haven't is Charlotte Guest's 19th century translation (version) of about 800-year-old literary material that was a version of material that was at least partly traditional then. --P64 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mythopoeia v. mythic, etc

 * second of two sections posted at once

It's illuminating that artificial mythology redirects here,
 * See section above. -P64

as mythopoeia is created (authored, for those who accept the term). Does it, should it cover all literary and cinematic work that is "mythic(al)"? or "myth-making"? I doubt it. Perhaps that's the nub of the debate about George Lucas and Star Wars.

The Mythopeoic Fantasy Awards of the Mythopoeic Society recognize fantasy that "single-author fantasy that 'best exemplifies “the spirit of the Inklings”'" (quoting our nested quotation!). That leaves much to the judgment of the annual committee (I suppose): what relation, if any, does the designated best work have to mythopoeia or to mythological or legendary material.

If I understand correctly, none of the works I have mentioned in the preceding section qualify as mythopoeia because all are modern "versions" of traditional material rather than fictional traditions, so to speak. --P64 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Mythopoeia (genre) → Mythopoeia – The disambiguation in the title is completely redundant, and  redirects to , anyway. Crucially, the genre is the primary meaning, while the poem is fully derived from, explains and defends the notion. Note that the term as such definitely predates Tolkien, and according to the article, its application to a literary endeavour or genre predates the poem too, as the article says that the poem popularised the concept, it did not introduce it. The disambiguation in the title is present only for historical reasons: The page at Mythopoeia originally treated both subjects, but instead of exporting the poem to its own article and leaving the genre there, the article was split, unnecessarily so in my opinion. Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment was cut and pasted to  in 2007, so needs histmerging. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the history merge has been completed -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.