Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

16908Re: A Landscape with Dragons

Expand Messages
  • jef.murray
    Aug 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes, but we both know, Mike, that dragons are deceptive.
      _Looking_ benevolent is is not at all the same as _behaving_
      in a benevolent fashion ;-)

      Jef



      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Mike Foster <mafoster@...> wrote:
      >
      > Many readers, including quite possibly Lewis & Tolkien, would know
      about
      > Kenneth Grahame's -The Reluctant Dragon-, and those familiar with Jef's
      > art know he does quite good representations of rather benevolent
      dragons
      > as well: parenthetical observation.
      >
      > Mike
      >
      > jef.murray wrote:
      >
      > > Symbols for a particular culture largely _don't_ change
      > >meaning...Jung's life work underscored this. And regarding
      > >other cultures, O'Brien is basically dealing with occidental
      > >tradition and myth, which consistently (until the 20th century)
      > >depicted snakes and dragons as evil.
      > >
      > > Regarding the notion that anyone trying to make a dragon
      > >good is "committing a sin", I think that overstates O'Brien's
      > >case. He suggests that trying to change the meaning of traditional
      > >symbols confuses and can be hurtful, especially to children. This
      > >is consistent with a pre-modern mindset, which suggests that there
      > >_is_ such a thing as tradition versus "all things being relative".
      > >All O'Brien is doing is pointing out the same things that virtually
      > >any European would have told you prior to about 100-150 years ago.
      > >
      > > And, like Tolkien and Lewis, O'Brien would largely consider himself
      > >pre-modern in outlook, and quite proud of it(!).
      > >
      > > Jef
      > >
      > >
      > >--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Emerson <emerdavid@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >>>While I disagree strongly with O'Brien's conclusions, I must come to
      > >>>his defense that the book was much more nuanced than that. Yes,
      > >>>O'Brien is an extremely conservative Catholic, but his argument is
      > >>>that certain symbols can never change in meaning, so a dragon is
      > >>>always evil and that anyone who tries to make a dragon good is wrong
      > >>>and committing sin.
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>Well, he's got two assumptions there that are open to question.
      > >>
      > >>
      > >One, that symbols never change meaning, and two, that dragons are
      > >evil. Call me a heretic if you like, but aren't there ancient
      > >cultures in this world who view dragons as wise and good?
      > >
      > >
      > >>emerdavid
      > >>
      > >>________________________________________
      > >>PeoplePC Online
      > >>A better way to Internet
      > >>http://www.peoplepc.com
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      > >Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic