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

Re: A Landscape with Dragons

Expand Messages
  • jef.murray
    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 ... about
    Message 1 of 15 , 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]
      >
    • Mike Foster
      Never laugh at live dragons was one of the first proverbs Bilbo coined, after all. Mike ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 15 , Aug 28, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        "Never laugh at live dragons" was one of the first proverbs Bilbo
        coined, after all.

        Mike

        jef.murray wrote:

        > 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]
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Berni Phillips
        From: Matthew Winslow ... Most likely his own books. He has several several novels out, which I ve seen in Catholic bookstores (and
        Message 3 of 15 , Aug 28, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          From: "Matthew Winslow" <bluewoad@...>
          >
          > For O'Brien there is some redeemable fantasy,
          > but that list is extremely limited. I haven't read the book in a
          > number of years, so I can't recall what he found redeemable.

          Most likely his own books. He has several several novels out, which I've
          seen in Catholic bookstores (and nowhere else). I read his FATHER ELIJAH:
          AN APOCALYPSE, which was at least better than the LEFT BEHIND books.

          Berni
        • Diane Joy Baker
          Actually, it s one I d like to read. ... From: Matthew Winslow To: MythSoc Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006
          Message 4 of 15 , Aug 28, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Actually, it's one I'd like to read.

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Matthew Winslow" <bluewoad@...>
            To: "MythSoc" <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:39 PM
            Subject: [mythsoc] Re: A Landscape with Dragons


            > On 27 Aug 2006 07:21:31 -0000, John wrote:
            > > Has Michael O'Brien's A LANDSCAPE WITH DRAGONS: THE BATTLE FOR YOUR
            > > CHILD'S MIND (previously published as A LANDSCAPE WITH DRAGONS:
            > > CHRISTIAN AND PAGAN IMAGINATION IN CHILDREN'S LITERATURE) been
            > > discussed on this list before? And if so can somebody point me toward
            > > that discussion? Just got a copy, but don't want to bore folks if
            > > it's already been thoroughly hashed out before I joined the list.
            >
            > John,
            >
            > I don't recall it being discussed here.
            >
            > Jonathan Michael Reiter wrote:
            > > > Haven't heard of it before, but from the updated title, I take it
            this is one of those fundamentalist "fantasy is anti-Christian" screeds??
            > >
            > > That would be about right.
            >
            > 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. (Dragons, of course, being related to serpents,
            > whom the Bible depicts as symbols of evil, not to mention the evil
            > dragon from Revelation.) For O'Brien there is some redeemable fantasy,
            > but that list is extremely limited. I haven't read the book in a
            > number of years, so I can't recall what he found redeemable.
            >
            > --
            > Matthew Winslow
            > mwinslow@...
            > www.xreal.org
            >
            > Currently Reading: The Mayor of Casterbridge by Thomas Hardy
            >
            >
            > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > --
            > No virus found in this incoming message.
            > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
            > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/430 - Release Date: 8/28/2006
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.