George R. R. Martin is Writing Modern Mythology

[William_Tell]

This looks rather interesting. I have not read the related essays yet so I can't give you my full opinion on this. As a kind of premise I must say that it will be hard for me to understand the whole scope of the thing as I really disagree with the premise ( as shown in the initial quote by Campbell). Myths cannot have an author and most of all cannot be written.

As Levi-Strauss puts it they are the speculative activity of pre-rational thought. They depend on oral trasmission and ritual to maintain their meaning. Therefore most of the mythological tales we preserve are actually the results of late compilations by scholars such as Snorri or Apollodoros. We can only speculate about how a real myth would have sounded like.

However this is just an opinion and I'm no expert... just took some anthropology classes

[LmL]

Perhaps there's a semantic snare here... does it make more sense if I say that George is using symbolic language, which is also the language that mythology uses? That's part of what I am trying to say, that he in using the same symbolic language that mythology uses. I am making larger points about the importance of symbolism and abstract thinking, but I am also pointing at a specific phenomena regarding ASOIAF - many / most of the important / dramatic scenes in the book are written with metaphors and symbols in heavy use, and that these metaphors which pertain to astronomy are telling a cohesive story about the events of the Dawn Age.

It's possible I am not saying it right - I certainly (as I have said) am not an expert. I haven't studied Campbell for years, and many others on this forum could no doubt treat these ideas with more nuance, eloquence, precise language, etc. I suppose I would suggest that you take a look at my astronomy theory and see what you make of my interpretation of the text. The links are in my signature,take a look at the top two and you will have the general idea.

I'm not sure that I would draw such a distinct line between oral traditions and the moment when they are set down in writing... certainly there is significance there, and of course Snorri was putting his own stamp on centuries old oral traditions, but I don't see how that detracts from Snorri's writings as mythology. Of course, it depends on what sense you're talking about myth in. It seems you are talking about the idea of myth as a public dream, which was of course something that Campbell talked about a lot. Daen Targaryen posted some interesting quotes from Campbell concerning the difficulty in establishing myth in a world that changes so much, but Campbell also talked about how art and philosophy plays the role of myth in certain sense - and this is where I see ASOIAF fitting in as far as literary tradition and cultural relevance. Just look at how popular and contagious Martin's ideas, characters, and themes have proven to be. Not just the show - I have many friends who have tread and enjoyed the books who do not read fantasy.

[Daendrew]

This looks rather interesting. I have not read the related essays yet so I can't give you my full opinion on this. As a kind of premise I must say that it will be hard for me to understand the whole scope of the thing as I really disagree with the premise ( as shown in the initial quote by Campbell). Myths cannot have an author and most of all cannot be written.

As Levi-Strauss puts it they are the speculative activity of pre-rational thought. They depend on oral trasmission and ritual to maintain their meaning. Therefore most of the mythological tales we preserve are actually the results of late compilations by scholars such as Snorri or Apollodoros. We can only speculate about how a real myth would have sounded like.

However this is just an opinion and I'm no expert... just took some anthropology classes

Myths cannot have an author and cannot be written in the sense that this is my copyright and if you want to ask for donations to the Church of Starry Wisdom you need to give me 10%.

Myths do get written. They get written by people. The Deep Ones aren't so prolific, there is no one else to write them.

Myths are bigger than the author, they expand the consciousness of the reader. They make you pause and examine your life, your world, and your place in it. It goes beyond the one or more authors of the work into a collective imagination far greater than can belong to a single creator.

Myths are what we call other people's religions.

When you read a fairy tale you still get the moral of the story without you accepting it is literally true. Most religion is selling us literal stories of what science tells us could have never been. Myths are symbols that point past the words into something greater.

Myths are what we are truly lacking. That's whats worth the reading and what's worth the writing.

[William_Tell]

Perhaps there's a semantic snare here... does it make more sense if I say that George is using symbolic language, which is also the language that mythology uses? That's part of what I am trying to say, that he in using the same symbolic language that mythology uses. I am making larger points about the importance of symbolism and abstract thinking, but I am also pointing at a specific phenomena regarding ASOIAF - many / most of the important / dramatic scenes in the book are written with metaphors and symbols in heavy use, and that these metaphors which pertain to astronomy are telling a cohesive story about the events of the Dawn Age.

It's possible I am not saying it right - I certainly (as I have said) am not an expert. I haven't studied Campbell for years, and many others on this forum could no doubt treat these ideas with more nuance, eloquence, precise language, etc. I suppose I would suggest that you take a look at my astronomy theory and see what you make of my interpretation of the text. The links are in my signature,take a look at the top two and you will have the general idea.

I'm not sure that I would draw such a distinct line between oral traditions and the moment when they are set down in writing... certainly there is significance there, and of course Snorri was putting his own stamp on centuries old oral traditions, but I don't see how that detracts from Snorri's writings as mythology. Of course, it depends on what sense you're talking about myth in. It seems you are talking about the idea of myth as a public dream, which was of course something that Campbell talked about a lot. Daen Targaryen posted some interesting quotes from Campbell concerning the difficulty in establishing myth in a world that changes so much, but Campbell also talked about how art and philosophy plays the role of myth in certain sense - and this is where I see ASOIAF fitting in as far as literary tradition and cultural relevance. Just look at how popular and contagious Martin's ideas, characters, and themes have proven to be. Not just the show - I have many friends who have tread and enjoyed the books who do not read fantasy.

I just want to say that I have started reading the essays. They are interesting but massive! Anyways you are right, it was about using symbolic language rather than reinventing myth. My point was that This kind of language is void out of his original context. I don't know how to explain this better. I'll think about it and keep reading

[LmL]

Myths cannot have an author and cannot be written in the sense that this is my copyright and if you want to ask for donations to the Church of Starry Wisdom you need to give me 10%.

Myths do get written. They get written by people. The Deep Ones aren't so prolific, there is no one else to write them.

Myths are bigger than the author, they expand the consciousness of the reader. They make you pause and examine your life, your world, and your place in it. It goes beyond the one or more authors of the work into a collective imagination far greater than can belong to a single creator.

Myths are what we call other people's religions.

When you read a fairy tale you still get the moral of the story without you accepting it is literally true. Most religion is selling us literal stories of what science tells us could have never been. Myths are symbols that point past the words into something greater.

Myths are what we are truly lacking. That's whats worth the reading and what's worth the writing.

Great comments Daen, especially agree with the bolded. :)

[LmL]

I just want to say that I have started reading the essays. They are interesting but massive! Anyways you are right, it was about using symbolic language rather than reinventing myth. My point was that This kind of language is void out of his original context. I don't know how to explain this better. I'll think about it and keep reading

:cheers: I welcome your feedback on the essays (sorry for the length, just trying to prove things as much as possible), and I also welcome feedback on this particular essay that could lead to refinement or improvement. I'm not trying to own this concept, but rather just point at it as best I can. This essay serves as an explanation of my methodology, which is something I keep on my blog - point being, I fully expect to refine and improve this essay over time. This would be the starting point, my draft. :)

Thanks for reading and I hope it keeps your interest.:)

[DraculaAD1972]

LmL, it strikes me that GRRM's mythology, if that is what it is, seems a Godless one. Unlike Homer or Tolkien, GRRM is an atheist. LotR is steeped in divine belief but George has no such faith. Auden said of Tolkien's LotR that it acts as a mirror to the only nature we know, our own. All great Art does this. So George is apparently using myth to represent human, not divine, nature, in contrast to the spirituality of Tolkien.

But the appeal of fantasy, according to Freud, lies in its power to access the Uncanny, the pre-rational part of the mind. The appearance of the Others in the very first chapter is perhaps an announcement that, despite the realistic human reality of the Game of Thrones, the Song of Ice and Fire is ultimately more concerned with exploring the psychological dimension of the Uncanny. If George is writing a modern mythology, it remains to be seen as to whether he has succeeded. The appeal of the series has thus far rested on the Game, rather than the Song.

[oursisthefury69]

I hope you have an essay thrice as long for Tolkien, because he was actually writing mythology before GRRM was even born, and he did it much better. GRRM isn't writing "modern mythology." I don't think that's ever been among his stated goals.

Tolkien wasn't writing "modern mythology" if you wana define that as its being described and defined here in this thread.

Tolkien was more or less making a fun/interesting/new/magical/fantasy-based way of conveying the themes of Christianity and the Bible, which isn't up for debate as it was his "stated goal". (btw "among" GRRMs stated goals, where's the list that its not included on? And why would he be obligated to make everybody aware of any and all of his goals and desired effects of his work) And that's whats wrong with the very nature of this comment, Tolkien actually wasn't writing "modern mythology," as his goal was to ultimately convey the same themes/values as a previously established religion/mythology.

So the only way you have any sort of leg to stand on in terms of defending that comment is if (as i assume you will) continue to define "writing modern mythology" differently then the term is being defined in the parameters of this very thread: (which isn't yours so you don't define it) As its clearly speaking towards something like a man coming up with fictitious stories and commenting on both human nature/society and the higher mysteries of life through the use of symbols and metaphor, and in doing so conveying his own ideas, i.e "writing mythology" vs. coming up with a cool new jazzy way to propagate Christianity. The only way your comment makes any sense is if you define each scenario (tolkien v martin) as the opposite of what it is and what I just described. Writing mythology does NOT = repackaging a previously established religion. The only way their even similar in this context is both being fantasy series

[oursisthefury69]

LmL, it strikes me that GRRM's mythology, if that is what it is, seems a Godless one. Unlike Homer or Tolkien, GRRM is an atheist. LotR is steeped in divine belief but George has no such faith. Auden said of Tolkien's LotR that it acts as a mirror to the only nature we know, our own. All great Art does this. So George is apparently using myth to represent human, not divine, nature, in contrast to the spirituality of Tolkien.

But the appeal of fantasy, according to Freud, lies in its power to access the Uncanny, the pre-rational part of the mind. The appearance of the Others in the very first chapter is perhaps an announcement that, despite the realistic human reality of the Game of Thrones, the Song of Ice and Fire is ultimately more concerned with exploring the psychological dimension of the Uncanny. If George is writing a modern mythology, it remains to be seen as to whether he has succeeded. The appeal of the series has thus far rested on the Game, rather than the Song.

1. He isnt

2. Whatever that could even possibly mean; Let me get this straight,

LoTR = Mirror to "only nature we know"

George using myth to represent human nature(per your comment), in contrast to Tolkien, who (per your comment) conversely used myth to convey divine nature/spirituality.

So this makes absolute zero sense because A. Divine nature is the nature we know? vs human nature? Really? B. Adding to that same point, its "great art" on the basis of mirroring the nature that we know, which is the nature of divine christian-based nature mirroring? Because thats the nature "we know" vs the only thing we actually do know, human nature, according to you. Way to much ideological issues to get past to even get into that proper.

3. Thats entirely opinion

[The Marquis de Leech]

Tolkien was more or less making a fun/interesting/new/magical/fantasy-based way of conveying the themes of Christianity and the Bible, which isn't up for debate as it was his "stated goal".

Nonsense. Tolkien was developing a world and story for his invented languages to live in. He initially had a dream of a mythology for England, but abandoned that in the late 1920s.

He describes LOTR as a "fundamentally Catholic work," unconsciously at first, consciously on the revision. But the goal of the work was not to push Christianity and Biblical themes. Tolkien hated allegory and authors with an agenda.

[The Marquis de Leech]

As for Martin, he's writing faux history-flavoured fantasy. ASOIAF is I, Claudius meets The War of the Roses. That ain't myth, any more than Twilight is myth (otherwise we are reduced to OMG! Everything is a Myth. Which gets us nowhere).

[DraculaAD1972]

1. He isnt

2. Whatever that could even possibly mean; Let me get this straight,

LoTR = Mirror to "only nature we know"

George using myth to represent human nature(per your comment), in contrast to Tolkien, who (per your comment) conversely used myth to convey divine nature/spirituality.

So this makes absolute zero sense because A. Divine nature is the nature we know? vs human nature? Really? B. Adding to that same point, its "great art" on the basis of mirroring the nature that we know, which is the nature of divine christian-based nature mirroring? Because thats the nature "we know" vs the only thing we actually do know, human nature, according to you. Way to much ideological issues to get past to even get into that proper.

3. Thats entirely opinion

1. My bad then. But please clarify, since I interpret 'interested in supernatural but can't believe in God/afterlife' as broadly atheist.

2. My point is- Tolkien is more spiritual but Audens quote is applicable to ASoIaF and explains much of its appeal. George reflects human nature brilliantly but Tolkien was more interested in the divine.

3. Yes.

[LmL]

As for Martin, he's writing faux history-flavoured fantasy. ASOIAF is I, Claudius meets The War of the Roses. That ain't myth, any more than Twilight is myth (otherwise we are reduced to OMG! Everything is a Myth. Which gets us nowhere).

oh I would agree he is writing faux-history flavored fantasy - no doubt. But that is in no way in conflict with what I am saying about the use of symbolic language and esoteric means of communication. George is doing a lot of things at once.

[Daendrew]

1. My bad then. But please clarify, since I interpret 'interested in supernatural but can't believe in God/afterlife' as broadly atheist.

2. My point is- Tolkien is more spiritual but Audens quote is applicable to ASoIaF and explains much of its appeal. George reflects human nature brilliantly but Tolkien was more interested in the divine.

3. Yes.

Regarding point 2. There was a great line from Gandhi that went along these lines below. I can get the exact phrasing when I get home. It may be from his autobiography, My Experiments With Truth.

"I once thought that God was truth. I no longer believe that. I now believe that truth is God."

George tells the truth. The truth of how ugly, brutal and horrible human nature can sometimes be. But also how beautiful.

That to me, is divine.

But what do I know? I am going to the Holiday Inn Express of the Seven Hells.

[LmL]

LmL, it strikes me that GRRM's mythology, if that is what it is, seems a Godless one. Unlike Homer or Tolkien, GRRM is an atheist. LotR is steeped in divine belief but George has no such faith. Auden said of Tolkien's LotR that it acts as a mirror to the only nature we know, our own. All great Art does this. So George is apparently using myth to represent human, not divine, nature, in contrast to the spirituality of Tolkien.

But the appeal of fantasy, according to Freud, lies in its power to access the Uncanny, the pre-rational part of the mind. The appearance of the Others in the very first chapter is perhaps an announcement that, despite the realistic human reality of the Game of Thrones, the Song of Ice and Fire is ultimately more concerned with exploring the psychological dimension of the Uncanny. If George is writing a modern mythology, it remains to be seen as to whether he has succeeded. The appeal of the series has thus far rested on the Game, rather than the Song.

I feel like your comment is implying a false dichotomy, that of theism and atheism. That's precisely what Campbell was addressing in the quote about atheists and theists, I believe. The beauty of symbolic thinking and esoteric forms of communication is that they give us a way to approach and communicate about divine concepts without falling the trap of trying to decide if a metaphor is "true" or "false."

But what do I mean by divine? Well, I think all life is divine - the spark of life itself must be divine, if anything is. Without it... well. You get the point.

I do not believe there can be a separation between man and the divine, between the divine and nature, or between man and nature. Any such delineation represents an artificial disassociation, and it always comes from the mindset of one who considers man to be separate from those things. This is one of the potential pitfalls of exclusively rationalist thinking - that man can stand apart from nature as an impartial observer. The value of understanding nature, man, and the divine through myth and symbolic thinking is that it places man in a relationship with everything around him, inseparable from the larger whole. I think this is best represented by polytheistic and animistic cultures.

Monotheism tends to run hard in the other direction, where their idea of God is so rational and humanized and fixed that He (and in monotheism it is always a "He") becomes nothing more than a statue built of human dogma. A priestly class which holds the divine keys to heaven is a hallmark of monotheistic religions, which ALSO serves to artificially draw a delineation between man and the divine.

Correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe George has ever called himself an "atheist." I remember him saying he is a "lapsed catholic" and an "agnostic," which is a far cry from Atheism. Atheism is an active belief that nothing like "God" exists, whereas an agnostic covers a wide variety of answers: "I don't know," "I'm not sure I can say definitively" and "I don't think mankind is even capable of accurately describing whatever god is in rational terms."

[DraculaAD1972]

Regarding point 2. There was a great line from Gandhi that went along these lines below. I can get the exact phrasing when I get home. It may be from his autobiography, My Experiments With Truth.

"I once thought that God was truth. I no longer believe that. I now believe that truth is God."

George tells the truth. The truth of how ugly, brutal and horrible human nature can sometimes be. But also how beautiful.

That to me, is divine.

But what do I know? I am going to the Holiday Inn Express of the Seven Hells.

I'm reminded of a line about seeing God in a grain of sand, or Heaven in a wild flower. All nature might be infused with the divine, transcending apparent duality. If George has a spiritual side it's probably along these lines.

[oursisthefury69]

Nonsense. Tolkien was developing a world and story for his invented languages to live in. He initially had a dream of a mythology for England, but abandoned that in the late 1920s.

He describes LOTR as a "fundamentally Catholic work," unconsciously at first, consciously on the revision. But the goal of the work was not to push Christianity and Biblical themes. Tolkien hated allegory and authors with an agenda.

Ok so the only world where "consciously, fundamental catholic work" doesn't = pushing Christian themes is one where he didnt plan on people reading the books

[LmL]

I'd also like to generally remind everyone that we are entering the territory where very smart people can disagree with each other. This is all fairly subjective. Whenever we try to pull down esoteric concepts into rational thought flow, as we are doing in this very conversation, the road is laden with pitfalls. That is precisely why these ideas are beast approached through metaphor.

Ket's all keep that in mind and try to respect each other's ideas about mythology, because mythology is a large umbrella of a concept which encloses several others. I attempted to deal with this by introducing Campbell's four-fold explanation for the function of myth. There are different sense in which people can talk about and use the term "mythology," so I think it's good to keep that in mind and understand that it's a term that can mean different things in different contexts, and that everyone may be approaching this from a slightly different experience.

I am really enjoying the conversation so far. I figured this would pull out some strong opinions, and it has. I think at the least, it's a good sort of macro-level discussion to have about this series, since it has clearly captured all of our attention and the attention of so many people around the world.

:cheers:

[oursisthefury69]

Correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe George has ever called himself an "atheist." I remember him saying he is a "lapsed catholic" and an "agnostic," which is a far cry from Atheism. Atheism is an active belief that nothing like "God" exists, whereas an agnostic covers a wide variety of answers: "I don't know," "I'm not sure I can say definitively" and "I don't think mankind is even capable of accurately describing whatever god is in rational terms."

He never has. "I suppose I'm a lapsed Catholic. You would consider me an atheist or agnostic. I find religion and spirituality fascinating. I would like to believe this isn't the end and there's something more, but I can't convince the rational part of me that makes any sense whatsoever."

But most people hardly discern agnosticism and atheism, shamefully. And you can tell George understands that too just from the nature of how he words the response

[DraculaAD1972]

He never has. "I suppose I'm a lapsed Catholic. You would consider me an atheist or agnostic. I find religion and spirituality fascinating. I would like to believe this isn't the end and there's something more, but I can't convince the rational part of me that makes any sense whatsoever."

But most people hardly discern agnosticism and atheism, shamefully. And you can tell George understands that too just from the nature of how he words the response

'Lapsed catholic' means possibly nothing in this context. You could lapse from the church and become a buddhist. "You would consider me an atheist or agnostic " isn't necessarily an assumption that readers are ignorant. To me it says that George has days when the idea of God seems ridiculous and days when it seems ridiculous but he feels optimistic and dares to hope.

If George believes in a galactic overmind or the oneness of all life he's keeping quiet about it. He certainly has a problem actually believing in a living God and yes atheists can hope they are wrong. Atheists can also believe in the possibility of the supernatural. What the atheist does not believe in is a living God as described by religion.