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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: A Landscape with Dragons

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.