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

Re: Star Wars as Mythopoeic art

Expand Messages
  • Stolzi@xxx.xxx
    So, Ted, what do you think of the criticism that by introducing in PHANTOM MENACE the microscopic blood particles (?) which make a Jedi, Lucas has made the
    Message 1 of 29 , Jun 23, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      So, Ted, what do you think of the criticism that by introducing in PHANTOM
      MENACE the microscopic blood particles (?) which make a Jedi, Lucas has made
      the Force material and changed its spiritual aspects as known to us in the
      earlier film/s?

      Mary S
    • Matthew Winslow
      ... The Force itself is still immaterial. The midichlorians allow one to manipulate/use the Force. That would seem to me to keep the Force as spiritual
      Message 2 of 29 , Jun 23, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Stolzi@... [Stolzi@...] wrote:
        > So, Ted, what do you think of the criticism that by introducing in PHANTOM
        > MENACE the microscopic blood particles (?) which make a Jedi, Lucas has made
        > the Force material and changed its spiritual aspects as known to us in the
        > earlier film/s?

        The Force itself is still immaterial. The midichlorians <sp?> allow one to
        manipulate/use the Force.

        That would seem to me to keep the Force as spiritual as ever: it's still the
        energy binding all life, but now it's only certain bits of life that get to
        partake of that great Force. (Gosh, that sounds Calvinist <g>.) Of course, in
        the original trilogy, some were 'strong' in the Force, so now we know *why*
        they are, but there's still a lot of mysticism left.

        --
        Matthew Winslow mwinslow@... http://x-real.firinn.org/
        "No passion in the world is equal to the passion to alter someone else's
        draft."
        --H.G. Wells
        Currently reading: The Death of Adam by Marilynne Robinson
      • Jim Bohannon
        ... And books aren t??? Even Tolkein & Lewis & Dickens wrote for money, and they had to put out something that the market would pay to see/read. Blessings,
        Message 3 of 29 , Jun 23, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          > From: FrMacKen@...
          >
          > Ted and Jim,
          > Although I see what you mean, the fact of the matter is that every
          > movie has to made to sell.

          And books aren't??? Even Tolkein & Lewis & Dickens wrote for money, and
          they had to put out something that "the market" would pay to see/read.

          Blessings,
          Jim
        • Jim Bohannon
          ... Mary, I m not Ted, but I ll take this one. This is a pretty strong allusion to the incarnation story in Christianity. In Christianity, God, who is
          Message 4 of 29 , Jun 23, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Stolzi@... wrote:
            >
            > From: Stolzi@...
            >
            > So, Ted, what do you think of the criticism that by introducing in PHANTOM
            > MENACE the microscopic blood particles (?) which make a Jedi, Lucas has made
            > the Force material and changed its spiritual aspects as known to us in the
            > earlier film/s?
            >
            > Mary S
            >


            Mary,

            I'm not Ted, but I'll take this one. This is a pretty strong allusion
            to the incarnation story in Christianity. In Christianity, God, who is
            Spirit, becomes incarate (takes on flesh) in the form of Jesus Christ.
            In Christianity this is looked at as the strongest evidence of the love
            of the Creator for the creature. Through the incarnation God identifies
            with the plight of humanity and all creation.

            In Phantom Menace, George Lucas weaves in an astonishing variety of
            world mythical and religious tradition!

            Blessings,
            Jim (who, by the way, is a Christian minister)
          • Ted Sherman
            Ron, How can I disagree with anything you ve written? You re correct on all counts. Tolkien similarly had to deal with editors and publishers (Rayner Unwin)
            Message 5 of 29 , Jun 23, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Ron,

              How can I disagree with anything you've written? You're correct on all counts.
              Tolkien similarly had to deal with editors and publishers (Rayner Unwin) who were
              interested in not only a good story, but also in how much money the story would
              make for the firm. No publisher agrees to publish a work if they think the work
              will not sell. Remember, Tolkien wanted to publish TLOR as one book, but it was
              the publisher who suggest (required/demanded) the book be divided. Was that
              decision made for aesthetic reasons or because of the production costs associated
              with such a hefty volume? Or was there perhaps a marketing idea involved that by
              issuing the book in three volumes, the publisher would create a "captive
              audience" that would keep coming back for more?

              Both film creators/directors/producers and authors are hindered and obstructed
              when they attempt to manifest their works. And the same holds for all other
              artistic or creative endeavors. While still in our minds, the works we create are
              perfect and flawless, but in the transition from pure thought and image to very
              limited words on pages or images (concocted by actors interpreting words on
              pages) on screens, those works get muddied. That's why painters are never (or
              almost never at least) satisfied with their works. It's also why authors revise
              and edit ad infinitum. Dorothy Sayers' The Mind of the Maker has much to say on
              this (and similar) issues.

              Thanks for keeping me on my toes and for making me think about some things I've
              not thought of in a while.

              Ted
            • Ted Sherman
              Mary, Great question. Let me attempt an answer by referring to a recent discovery/announcement that Einstein s brain physically differs from ordinary brains.
              Message 6 of 29 , Jun 23, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Mary,

                Great question. Let me attempt an answer by referring to a recent
                discovery/announcement that Einstein's brain physically differs from ordinary
                brains. One part of it, if my memory is correct, is larger than usual. So, does
                this physical anomaly account for Einstein's genius and his ability to come up
                with theories that still defy scientists (and that are gradually being proven
                true)?

                I thought the testing of young Anakin's blood for the midichlorians (sp?) was
                an interesting twist. We learn that the presence (or lack thereof) of these
                organisms in the blood affects one's ability to feel and use the Force. Young
                Anakin, we are told, has a higher reading than even Yoda, who, it is implied,
                has the highest level recorded.

                Thus, the midichlorians aren't the source of the Force, but they are what allows
                one to use the Force. In essence, they are like the red fast-twitch muscle
                fibers that allow certain people (my brother for instance) to be sprinters, or
                the white (?) slow-twitch muscle fibers that allow others (like me) to be
                distance runners. Luke obviously has a high midichlorian count, but I would bet
                Han Solo does not.

                None of this undercuts the spiritual/mytstical quality of the Force or of
                Lucas's vision. The vision is not Christian, per se, though it does incorporate
                Christian elements, just as it incorporates elements of other religious
                traditions.

                Yours,

                Ted

                Stolzi@... wrote:

                > From: Stolzi@...
                >
                > So, Ted, what do you think of the criticism that by introducing in PHANTOM
                > MENACE the microscopic blood particles (?) which make a Jedi, Lucas has made
                > the Force material and changed its spiritual aspects as known to us in the
                > earlier film/s?
                >
                > Mary S
                >
                > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
                >
                > We must be crazy! We're practically giving our books away! Doubleday
                > Book Club� offers the best sellers and more! Get 5 books for just $.99
                > + 1 free with membership! Go to http://www.onelist.com/ad/doubleday8
                >
                > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
              • WendellWag@xxx.xxx
                In a message dated 6/23/99 6:21:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, FrMacKen@aol.com ... studio ... If you re talking about _The Phantom Menace_ here, then Lucas
                Message 7 of 29 , Jun 23, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 6/23/99 6:21:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, FrMacKen@...
                  writes:

                  > Who could foresee how good Star Wars could be if Lucas had no demands from
                  > the studios? I'm sure as legendary as he is, he still had problems with
                  studio
                  > heads getting all his ideas to film.

                  If you're talking about _The Phantom Menace_ here, then Lucas didn't have to
                  worry about any demands from the studios. The movie cost $120 million and
                  George Lucas put up every cent of it himself. It was of course distributed
                  by a studio, but no one other than Lucas had any say in the making of it.

                  Wendell Wagner
                • Diane Baker
                  ... It was a real clunker if you re writing myth. The Force needs no explanation. It simply IS. ---djb.
                  Message 8 of 29 , Jun 23, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Stolzi@... wrote:
                    >
                    > So, Ted, what do you think of the criticism that by introducing in PHANTOM MENACE the microscopic blood particles (?) which make a Jedi, Lucas has made
                    > the Force material and changed its spiritual aspects as known to us in the
                    > earlier film/s?
                    >
                    > Mary S
                    >
                    It was a real clunker if you're writing myth. The Force needs no
                    explanation. It simply IS. ---djb.
                  • FrMacKen@xxx.xxx
                    Ted, Wendell, and Jim, I was referring to the first Star Wars film. Here is something to ponder: Filmmakers have images to portray their ideas, whereas writers
                    Message 9 of 29 , Jun 23, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ted, Wendell, and Jim,
                      I was referring to the first Star Wars film. Here is something to
                      ponder: Filmmakers have images to portray their ideas, whereas writers use
                      mere words to invoke their ideas. After all, a picture is worth a thousand
                      words.
                      Yours in creative discussion,
                      Ron
                    • Jim Bohannon
                      Ron, You are absolutely right. And as we discussed, the media are different. I for one am rather partial to words. There is a richness in imagery crafted in
                      Message 10 of 29 , Jun 23, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ron,

                        You are absolutely right. And as we discussed, the media are
                        different. I for one am rather partial to words. There is a richness
                        in imagery crafted in words that visual images can't attain. Words also
                        offer a depth of enrichment for the soul that is, in my opinion,
                        unreachable by even the most gifted film producers.

                        Yes, a picture is worth a thousand words, but I think you will agree, we
                        can chew on the words and digest them slowly. In the long run, they may
                        be more nourishing than the images. Still, as a visual artist, I can
                        still appreciate the unique and wonder-filled gift of being mesmerized
                        by a painting, a sculpture, a movie image, or even a cartoon.

                        I don't think there has to be a battle over which is superior. It is
                        all of them working in harmony that makes the world sing. I want you to
                        know, Ron, I always appreciate your input.

                        Wishing you peace,
                        Jim

                        FrMacKen@... wrote:
                        >
                        > From: FrMacKen@...
                        >
                        > Ted, Wendell, and Jim,
                        > I was referring to the first Star Wars film. Here is something to
                        > ponder: Filmmakers have images to portray their ideas, whereas writers use
                        > mere words to invoke their ideas. After all, a picture is worth a thousand
                        > words.
                        > Yours in creative discussion,
                        > Ron
                        >
                      • FrMacKen@xxx.xxx
                        Jim, I think that this would be a rather boring world if everyone agreed on everything. I think that opinions, when stated thoughtfully, can stimulate the
                        Message 11 of 29 , Jun 23, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jim,
                          I think that this would be a rather boring world if everyone agreed
                          on everything. I think that opinions, when stated thoughtfully, can stimulate
                          the mind. I am glad that no one was offended by my opinion.
                          Pax Vobiscum,
                          Ron
                        • Matthew Winslow
                          ... I d like to point out that the virgin birth idea (or rather, the God impregnating a woman idea -- which is what TPM is more likely, since we don t know
                          Message 12 of 29 , Jun 24, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Jim Bohannon [bohannon@...] wrote:
                            > I'm not Ted, but I'll take this one. This is a pretty strong allusion
                            > to the incarnation story in Christianity. In Christianity, God, who is
                            > Spirit, becomes incarate (takes on flesh) in the form of Jesus Christ.
                            > In Christianity this is looked at as the strongest evidence of the love
                            > of the Creator for the creature. Through the incarnation God identifies
                            > with the plight of humanity and all creation.
                            >
                            > In Phantom Menace, George Lucas weaves in an astonishing variety of
                            > world mythical and religious tradition!

                            I'd like to point out that the virgin birth idea (or rather, the God
                            impregnating a woman idea -- which is what TPM is more likely, since we don't
                            know that Shmi had not experienced, um, 'carnal knowledge' of a man) is common
                            to many world religion and myth systems besides Christianity. Since Lucas is
                            following Campbell's idea of the hero, this would seem to point less to a
                            Christian reference (after all, if we say it's a Christian reference, then we
                            would have to follow to the conclusion that Lucas is saying Vader is Christ)
                            than to a mythological reference.

                            (And, btw, I'm also a Christian.)

                            --
                            Matthew Winslow mwinslow@... http://x-real.firinn.org/
                            "A man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't
                            read them."
                            --Mark Twain
                            Currently reading: The Death of Adam by Marilynne Robinson
                          • Diane Baker
                            ... You may have a point; if you watch the films in the order of the six episodes, you see some of the difficulties of starting out a project, and without 2
                            Message 13 of 29 , Jun 24, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Ted Sherman wrote:
                              >
                              > From: Ted Sherman <beohilde@...>
                              >
                              > Star Wars (all the films) are very mythopoeic, if one takes them in their
                              > entirety. The newest installment, though panned by many/most critics as not
                              > being up to the calibre of the earlier films, fits right in with the earlier
                              > films and begins to set the context for them. That, of course, is one of the
                              > reasons for the film's being panned.

                              You may have a point; if you watch the films in the order of the six
                              episodes, you see some of the difficulties of starting out a project,
                              and without 2 and 3, we don't have the whole tale.

                              > Another is the thesis of the film: that there's a wicked trade federation that the > noble Jedi warriors must combat. [snip] . . . Lucas uses the trade dispute
                              > issue to set up the reasons for the fall of the republic and the setting up of the > empire.

                              I tumbled to this one, and had no problems with the story being about a
                              trade dispute, once I gave it a moment's thought. I admit my first
                              reaction was negative, but then I thought: "Well, of course; what
                              better way to show a political system than to show how they deal with a
                              trade dispute?"

                              One of the major complaints I have about the Trek universe is that they
                              often create stories without any reference to a viable and working
                              economy (except when it's convenient, and you're working with the
                              Ferrengi characters). JRRT does not make this mistake in LOTR; you get
                              the idea that there's a real economic and political set-up in Middle
                              Earth. You needn't do a lecture on economics, but in the background,
                              one has to feel that some commodities are valuable, and that the
                              majority of the inhabitants of your mythical worlds have jobs and
                              perform services of some sort. One quibble I had: it would have been
                              nice to see a scene in which we get a glimpse of the average inhabitant
                              of Naboo, and have some sense of how the blockade affects them. (BTW,
                              Naboo was not a name I would have chosen! Are the inhabitants
                              "Nabooki," "Naboos," "Naboosians," or something else entirely?)

                              > In my fantasy lit courses, I regularly refer to Star Wars because I know the
                              > students will understand the connection between, say, Gandalf and Obi Wan, or
                              > Shea Ohmsford and Luke.

                              I'm afraid I don't remember who Shea Ohmsford is. I take it he's a
                              young quester, but in which book does he appear? Wait a minute. Isn't
                              that the hero of *Sword of Shanara?* I seem to remember that name
                              before I threw the book across the room. When I cane across the name
                              of Alanon the wizard, I said "That's it." THUNK! Do you use *this* in
                              your fantasy lit course? Say it ain't so! (Or is my memory playing
                              tricks again? A situation very likely.) ---djb.
                            • Diane Baker
                              ... Now, the question is, what s serious art? That s a can of worms we would have a hard time getting out of if we open it. The fact that we *need* another
                              Message 14 of 29 , Jun 24, 1999
                              • 0 Attachment
                                FrMacKen@... wrote:
                                > I doubt if Star Wars can be called serious art. Star Wars is our futile attempt at > forging our own myth. Ah, that is another problem in our society. However that is > not for this time or place to discuss.

                                Now, the question is, "what's serious art?" That's a can of worms we
                                would have a hard time getting out of if we open it. The fact that we
                                *need* another mythology (however thin) is a sad statement. For me the
                                traditional Christian one works just fine, and the SW myth takes a lot
                                from it (along with other religious and spiritual elements.) Yet
                                another can of worms!

                                > P.S. Diane: Ron ydw i.
                                > Rdwy'n dsygu Cymraeg tipyn bach.
                                > (I think that is how it's spelled)
                                >
                                The Welsh looks right to me, and I can say the same thing, with the
                                accent on "tipyn bach." ---djb.
                              • Ted Sherman
                                ... The question why we need another mythology is very powerful. Why have the old myths failed (if they have) and how can new myths replace them??? The
                                Message 15 of 29 , Jun 24, 1999
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Diane Baker wrote:

                                  > From: Diane Baker <dianejoy@...>
                                  > Now, the question is, "what's serious art?" That's a can of worms we
                                  > would have a hard time getting out of if we open it. The fact that we
                                  > *need* another mythology (however thin) is a sad statement. For me the
                                  > traditional Christian one works just fine, and the SW myth takes a lot
                                  > from it (along with other religious and spiritual elements.) Yet
                                  > another can of worms!
                                  >

                                  The question why we need another mythology is very powerful. Why have the old myths failed (if they have) and how can new myths replace them??? The popularity of the SW films, of Tolkien's (and the other
                                  Inklings') works, and of fantasy lit in general all attest to the power of myth (and mythopoeic artistic endeavors) to move people, to offer hope to the hopeless, to brighten and enliven dark and deadened lives.
                                  But how does these works accomplish these things? Moreover, Diane mentioned the need of myth in our lives--why do we need it? What function or purpose does myth (and the mythopoeic arts) serve, especially at the
                                  end of this millenium and the beginning of the next? Hmmmmm.

                                  I have been asked to guest edit an issue of Mythlore for this fall, so I am requesting article submissions on the works of Lewis, Tolkien, and Williams, but also on other mythopoeic writers and artists: G.
                                  MacDonald, Susan Cooper, Philip Pullman, Terry Brooks, RE Klein, Stephen Donaldson, George Lucas (just to stir things up a bit), etc. I'd like to focus this issue around the theme(s) I've raised above. What is the
                                  value of these authors' and artists' works for our everyday lives, for our inner selves, our perspectives on and understandings of the world around us? In short, what is the value of their mythopoeic art in our
                                  society (or societies for those living outside the US) today? What does the popularity of these authors' works say about our need for myth?

                                  Please send hardcopy submissions to:

                                  Professor Theodore Sherman
                                  Box X041
                                  Middle Tennessee State University
                                  Murfreesboro, TN 37132

                                  Or you may email your submission (in either plain ASCII/text format or as Word 97 or WordPerfect or Microsoft Works for Windows formats) to me at the following two addresses:

                                  tsherman@...
                                  beohilde@...

                                  Please note that my home email address will change tomorrow (Friday afternoon), when I switch to a cable internet connection and change ISPs.

                                  Yours,

                                  Ted
                                • Ted Sherman
                                  ... Yes, Shea Ohmsford is the protagonist in The Sword of Shannara, which I do teach in my fantasy lit courses. I use it because of the wonderful twist at the
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Jun 24, 1999
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Diane Baker wrote:

                                    > FI'm afraid I don't remember who Shea Ohmsford is. I take it he's a
                                    > young quester, but in which book does he appear? Wait a minute. Isn't
                                    > that the hero of *Sword of Shanara?* I seem to remember that name
                                    > before I threw the book across the room. When I cane across the name
                                    > of Alanon the wizard, I said "That's it." THUNK! Do you use *this* in
                                    > your fantasy lit course? Say it ain't so! (Or is my memory playing
                                    > tricks again? A situation very likely.) ---djb.

                                    Yes, Shea Ohmsford is the protagonist in The Sword of Shannara, which I do teach in my fantasy lit courses. I use it because of the wonderful twist at the end of the
                                    story (involving the true power of the sword), and also because it's a wonderful book to use in discussing intertextuality. Brooks' world is our world after a nuclear
                                    catastrophe, and there's all sorts of political intrigue that one can easily see is borne out of the period in which Brooks was writing the novel (early-mid 70s).The
                                    intertextuality part involves comparing the figures in TSOS with those in TLOR. There's almost, but not quite, a one-to-one correspondence between the nine walkers in
                                    TLOR and the band that eventually go in search of the Sword in TSOS. I've not read any of Brooks' other works though.

                                    One final note: another great (or at least very good and believeable) mythopoeic writer is Stephen Lawhead, whose Song of Albion trilogy is, I think, a great story
                                    and a wonderful conglomeration of Celtic materials. His Athurian sequence ain't bad either, though I almost prefer Jack Whyte's no-nonsense (meaning no magic and
                                    mysticism) Chronicles of Camulod series.

                                    Ted
                                  • FrMacKen@xxx.xxx
                                    Diane, I understand your feelings about Star Trek, although the Next Generation was an excellent series. And yes, they did discuss monetary matters aside from
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Jun 24, 1999
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Diane,
                                      I understand your feelings about Star Trek, although the Next
                                      Generation was an excellent series. And yes, they did discuss monetary
                                      matters aside from the Ferengi society. I happen to think that Star Trek: The
                                      Next Generation was one of the best television shows in it's day. (Can it be
                                      five years since that show went off the air?)
                                      I do not believe that even my beloved Star Trek came remotely close
                                      to Tolkien's world. My feeling that Star Trek was akin to a morality play set
                                      in the future. The best episodes were character driven and often exposed
                                      certain faults (i.e. the episode after Picard was returned to the Enterprise
                                      after being held by the Borg. That episode exposed Picard's fear at his
                                      inability to control his situation..one of my favourite episodes).
                                      It was not as grand as the Star Wars myth, but remember: without Star
                                      Trek, there would be no Star Wars.
                                      Yours truly,
                                      Ron
                                    • FrMacKen@xxx.xxx
                                      Diane, I fear that I didn t state myself clearly. This society is much too preoccupied with financial concerns to care about the fanciful. It is deemed a waste
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Jun 24, 1999
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Diane,
                                        I fear that I didn't state myself clearly. This society is much too
                                        preoccupied with financial concerns to care about the fanciful. It is deemed
                                        a waste of time. All but select few (such as us) explore our imagination and
                                        let it take us whither it will. We as a country only have time for myth if it
                                        is on television or the movies. I really believe that the act of storytelling
                                        (from whence myths began) is a lost art. I think that is one of our ills
                                        today. We don't take time to read or read to our children. Instead we set our
                                        children in front of a television set or a video game and leave them alone.
                                        Does that stimulate their minds? I think not. And as good as Star Wars is, it
                                        is not as good as reading a book; letting the author take our imaginations on
                                        a wonderful trip, forcing our minds to create images out of mere words.
                                        Ah, but there is another can of worms.
                                        Ron
                                      • Diane Baker
                                        ... OK, I can accept that. I ve never quite had the stomach to return to Brooks. I just had this vision of Alanon the wizard getting up before a small group
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Jun 24, 1999
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Ted Sherman wrote:
                                          >
                                          > From: Ted Sherman <beohilde@...>
                                          >
                                          > Diane Baker wrote:
                                          >
                                          > > I'm afraid I don't remember who Shea Ohmsford is. I take it he's a
                                          > > young quester, but in which book does he appear? Wait a minute. Isn't
                                          > > that the hero of *Sword of Shanara?* I seem to remember that name
                                          > > before I threw the book across the room. When I cane across the name
                                          > > of Alanon the wizard, I said "That's it." THUNK! Do you use *this* in
                                          > > your fantasy lit course? Say it ain't so! (Or is my memory playing
                                          > > tricks again? A situation very likely.) ---djb.
                                          >
                                          > Yes, Shea Ohmsford is the protagonist in The Sword of Shannara, which I do teach in my fantasy lit courses. I use it because of the wonderful twist at the end of the
                                          > story (involving the true power of the sword), and also because it's a wonderful book to use in discussing intertextuality. Brooks' world is our world after a nuclear catastrophe, and there's all sorts of political intrigue that one can easily see is borne out of the period in which Brooks was writing the novel (early-mid 70s).The intertextuality part involves comparing the figures in TSOS with those in TLOR. There's almost, but not quite, a one-to-one correspondence between the nine walkers in TLOR and the band that eventually go in search of the Sword in TSOS. I've not read any of Brooks' other works though.

                                          OK, I can accept that. I've never quite had the stomach to return to
                                          Brooks. I just had this vision of Alanon the wizard getting up before a
                                          small group and saying, "Hello. My name is Alanon and I'm a wizard
                                          alcoholic." Figured a writer that careless with names can't be too
                                          great, and every time I came across that name, I'd snicker instead of
                                          getting into the meat of the story. And with fantasy, that wizard
                                          usually sticks around until at least a third of the way through the
                                          book. I've had other people tell me that they like the function of the
                                          sword, and that Brooks does have some interesting points. Maybe I'll
                                          have to give him a second chance.

                                          > One final note: another great (or at least very good and believeable) mythopoeic > writer is Stephen Lawhead, whose Song of Albion trilogy is, I think, a great story
                                          > and a wonderful conglomeration of Celtic materials. His Athurian sequence ain't > bad either, though I almost prefer Jack Whyte's no-nonsense (meaning no magic and
                                          > mysticism) Chronicles of Camulod series.

                                          Ohhh, yeah! I like Lawhead fine. He does very careful work, and knows
                                          his Celtic mythology. Have you seen his *Byzantium?* And yes, I have
                                          *all* of Jack Whyte's *Chronicles of Camulod* series. Excellent. I've
                                          enjoyed it greatly. ---djb
                                        • Diane Baker
                                          ... I agree; I love Trek; please don t get me wrong. ... Absolutely right. It s more like a morality play than epic or myth. The best episodes were character
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Jun 24, 1999
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            FrMacKen@... wrote:
                                            >
                                            > From: FrMacKen@...
                                            >

                                            > I happen to think that Star Trek: The
                                            > Next Generation was one of the best television shows in it's day. (Can it be five years since that show went off the air?)

                                            I agree; I love Trek; please don't get me wrong.
                                            >I do not believe that even my beloved Star Trek came remotely close
                                            > to Tolkien's world. My feeling that Star Trek was akin to a morality play set in the future.

                                            Absolutely right. It's more like a morality play than epic or myth.

                                            The best episodes were character driven and often exposed certain faults
                                            (i.e. the episode after Picard was returned to the Enterprise after
                                            being held by the Borg. That episode exposed Picard's fear at his
                                            inability to control his situation..one of my favourite episodes).

                                            Another agreement; no quarrel here. That was a very good ep. Another
                                            fave was the one where he was held prisoner by the Cardies. I also
                                            liked a good number of Deep Space Nine eps.

                                            > It was not as grand as the Star Wars myth, but remember: > without Star Trek, there would be no Star Wars.

                                            And without Trek, there'd probably be no 2001 or other great SF films.
                                            My only point is that there were some economic holes in some of the
                                            tales. ---djb.
                                          • Paul F. Labaki
                                            The Inklings (I think correctly) would likely have taken the position that we have our own mythology; for Christians, the names and stories can be found in a
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Jun 27, 1999
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              The Inklings (I think correctly) would likely have taken the position that
                                              we have our own mythology; for Christians, the names and stories can be
                                              found in a book we call "The Bible." The fact that there are people who
                                              believe the mythology to be true and act accordingly does not invalidate its
                                              mythic nature.
                                              --
                                              Paul Labaki

                                              ----------

                                              >
                                              >> Star Wars is our futile attempt at forging our own myth.
                                              >
                                              > Thank God we are still making the attempt! Woe be unto us the day we
                                              > stop!
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Respectfully,
                                              > Jim Bohannon
                                              > Milledgeville, Georgia
                                              > USA
                                              >
                                              > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
                                              >
                                              > The Literary Guild� offers you half off publishers' edition prices on
                                              > the books you love to read. Get 5 books for only $2 + 1 free with
                                              > membership. Go to http://www.onelist.com/ad/doubleday7
                                              >
                                              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                                            • Diane Baker
                                              ... I would certainly agree. Mythology does seem a bit tinged with the notion a story, which for the most part, should be disbelieved, but has to be
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Jun 28, 1999
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Paul F. Labaki wrote:
                                                >
                                                > From: "Paul F. Labaki" <sheik@...>
                                                >
                                                > The Inklings (I think correctly) would likely have taken the position that
                                                > we have our own mythology; for Christians, the names and stories can be
                                                > found in a book we call "The Bible." The fact that there are people who
                                                > believe the mythology to be true and act accordingly does not invalidate its
                                                > mythic nature.
                                                > --
                                                > Paul Labaki

                                                I would certainly agree. "Mythology" does seem a bit tinged with the
                                                notion "a story, which for the most part, should be disbelieved, but has
                                                to be respected for PC's sake." I prefer the term "mythos." JRRT and
                                                CSL do subscribe to this "mythos," of course! ---djb.
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.