Talk:The Golden Bough/Archive 1

Publication date
I believe the 1900 date is incorrect. The first appears to be:

Frazer, J.G. The Golden Bough : a Study in Comparitive Religion in Two Volumes Macmillan, 1890

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.3.7.239 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 November 2003


 * COPAC concurs ; 1890 looks correct. Shimgray 20:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was a second edition with 3 volumes published in 1900: I have added this to the article. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/metabook?id=goldenbough3 KPOK (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"Menace to civilization"
Reference 1 is made to sound as if Frazer were referring to religion as a menace to civilization, when actually it is quite clear from the previous sentences that he is referring to magic:

"If the test of truth lay in a show of hands or a counting of heads, the system of magic might appeal, with far more reason than the Catholic Church, to the proud motto "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus," as the sure and certain credential of its own infallibility. It is not our business here to consider what bearing the permanent existence of such a solid layer of savagery beneath the surface of society, and unaffected by the superficial changes of religion and culture, has upon the future of humanity. The dispassionate observer, whose studies have led him to plumb its depths, can hardly regard it otherwise than as a standing menace to civilization." (Chapter Magic and Religion, Wordsworth Reference edition, p. 56)

194.94.96.198 (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The reference is meant to illustrate that Frazer considered his analysis "dispassionate". But even so, the whole book is about magic and religion - Frazer's point is exactly that there is no clear cut dividing line. Tomixdf (talk)


 * Imho Frazer is referring to both - religion and magic. Also because they really cant be separated. Its only the single religion that differes between good (in accord with a particular religious tradition) and bad magical practices (which are not in accord).-- 178.113.179.44 (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Video game
Okay, seriously, is the reference to a video game necessary or relevent here? You'll have to provide a lot more works in which the work in question is referenced (I've no doubt there are many) before you can start pointing to kid's games, if you want this entry to be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.33.85.166 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 5 October 2005


 * I dont think it's too bad, as a ahort abstract. As for popular culture, The Golden Bough also makes an appearance in "Apocalypse Now" where the book is seen, open, on the night table of Colonel Kurtz, played by Marlon Brando. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.233.193 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 29 October 2005


 * How are video games less of a legitimate media than the other sources listed? I think that you're being unfairly biased. That the Golden Bough would be referenced in such an outlet shows how far its influence has really reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.122.44 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 26 October 2006

Political correctness
The passage "He is uninterested in understanding the religious practices of 'savages' from their own point of view" is demonstrably false and amounts to a calumny against Fraser. He analyzes every such belief and ritual from first principles as he perceived them to be, and over and over explains one or another belief or practice by explaining what he believed to be the underlying assumptions held by those who held these beliefs. The political incorrectness of his conclusions has no bearing on their factual accuracy.

The fact that he found it to be all of a piece, and all equivalently a crock of dingos' kidneys, from Etruscan rituals of human sacrifice to the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus (which latter topic brought him death threats for the rest of his life), and was willing to say so publicly, strikes me as evidence of tremendous intellectual courage on his part.

Whoever wrote the article seems to have gone out of his way to paint Fraser as some sort of smug and smirking apologist for Victorian modernity, but I think there was rather more to him. And I would also say, flatly, that if the wealthy cultures of the West, enriched by science and rationality, view more primitive and ignorant cultures with a certain pity, this is entirely reasonable, politically correct or no. And if such forthrightness is not is not fashionable among today's (almost entirely Marxist/PoMo and completely politicized) cultural anthropologists, that does not mean that it must ipso facto be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.68.254 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 February 2007

Star Wars
I just read that, "Star Wars was a true reflection of who George was at that time...he had two books on his desk: A collection of "Flash Gordon" comic strips, and "The Golden Bough." And that's where Star Wars came from, those two sources."

Source: http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/05/23/the_secrets_of_star_wars/page6.html

Is this enough to warrant adding something about Star Wars? I haven't heard of this book before, until just now from reading that Star Wars article. Modul8r 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A claim
He is uninterested in understanding the religious practices of "savages" from their own point of view, but rather concerns himself with simply describing (through the eyes of a Western European) their practices.

No analysis of folklore practices can be made without trying to understand "their point of view". So he does analyze that point of view, and he sees it as the result of primitive forms of thinking, and/or regards the practice as a re-analyzed motive whose original meaning the natives themselves don't understand any longer. He does that within the framework of his own, somewhat weird, theory. But it's clearly wrong to say that he just looks at it "through the eyes of a Western European", because that would mean he has no theory at all. --91.148.159.4 19:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I altered this paragraph and took out the offending sentence, as it's clearly just that pomo perspective, articulated in an ironically "essentialist" voice, bereft of concrete examples. The Frazier-critique here looks like boilerplate from a Stalinist pamphlet. Frazier, as far as this reader can tell, is precisely interested in their practices from their own point of view. To be honest my inclination is to say some instances of pomo whooping should be treated precisely like the harrangue of a vociferous scientologist. Their influence has waned, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.184.37 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 July 2007

"Reception" and "popular culture"
I suggest that these two sections be combined into one new section to be entitled "Literary impact." This would require a good deal of work, including adding references (of which there are currently none), removing a lot of junk (many of the items in "popular culture" amount to little more than passing references to the book), and basically making it more readable. Anyone have any thoughts? --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it really referenced in The Mangler as a demonology text? It's been a while since I've read that story (although certainly parts are still etched in my brain) but it seems like The Golden Bough would be relevant in the section where they're trying to identify the possessing demon. Isn't it just one of a list of books that they're using to do the analysis? If so, and if it doesn't specifically say "it's about demonology" then the implication is that its relevant to the analysis because it's a discussion of magic (which it is) rather than a demonology text (which it isn't). And I can't believe I've done a paragraph to complain about one line, here. If I had a copy of Night Shift around, I'd just check it and update the entry...Patrickbowman (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Force fire"
The "see also" section contains a link to an article on the old Scottish custom of force fire. While interesting, neither article explains any connection. I'm reluctant to excise it as I haven't read the GB, but suggest that someone add an explanation in the text. Scottwh (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis and The Chronicles of Narnia
Surely worth a mention is the influence of The Golden Bough on C.S. Lewis's writings. The sacrifice of the god-king is the central theme of the Chronicles of Narnia; Frazier arguably inspired Lewis to mythologize the story of Christ. Rather than muck with the page, I'll defer to an editor more familiar with Lewis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.184.224 (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely not. The Bough influenced far more important folks than Lewis, and inspired far more significant works than Narnia. You need to get out to the library and read more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.42.220 (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph
I've removed this again:

"The comparisons between vastly different regions of the world exemplified by The Golden Bough and The Mystic Rose are no longer pursued today in any academic discipline. The famed anthropologist E.E. Evans-Pritchard in Theories of Primitive Religion described these works as "haphazardly" constructing a "caricature" of foreign cultures. (citation: Theories of Primitive Religion, 8)

(a) It's absurd to claim that "comparisons between vastly different regions of the world" are "no longer pursued today" (see for example human universals). If this absurdity is claimed in a text, we need a reference, at least. (b) The second part refers to "these works". What works? This is vague, and seems to be OR. What did Evans-Pritchard says about the Golden Bough *specifically*? Tomixdf (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Read it yourself... it should be in any good library. "These works" refer to both of those books. IIRC he wrote something like "old Victorian fantasies with titles like The Golden Bough or The Mystic Rose". Shii (tock) 18:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Judgement of Paris
Is "The Judgement of Paris", as included in the article, ever actually referred to in "The Golden Bough"? I have searched through several editions, and cannot find any mention of it.

If it just an illustrative example, it probably needs more ellaboration or an external source. If it is included in some edition of the book, can someone supply a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.65.124 (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)