Movie: Immortals (2011)

(Image from IMDb)

To be completely honest, I am not entirely sure where I should begin discussing the movie Immortals (2011). I suppose I should preface it by saying that I have only seen it once and refuse to see it again (at least in theaters, with only a slim chance of watching it again on DVD). I have no idea what happened to my sensibilities, since I thought that being a Classics minor had pretty much shocked everything from my system. However, I am so completely repulsed by the character of Hyperion and the torture he inflicts on his own army, not to mention his enemies, that I cannot imagine watching this film again; I almost had to walk out, I was so disgusted.

**SPOILER ALERT: reading farther may spoil the movie**

Anyway, on to discussing the actual content of the movie. I went into the theater understanding that this movie does not attempt to tell any particular story from Greek mythology, but instead is drawing characters and pieces from it to tell a “new” story. I do not feel that it managed to tell any story well, however, since I am still baffled as to many of the characters motivations. I of course understand that Theseus wants to kill Hyperion for murdering his mother and razing his village, but I do not understand Hyperion’s motivation for wanting to create as much destruction as possible on his quest to find the Epirus bow and release the Titans in order to kill the gods. I also fail to understand who the gods are (other than the obvious Zeus, Poseidon, and Athena) since they were never addressed directly. More to the point, none of the gods (except Poseidon) had appropriately defining weapons or symbols to identify them; Zeus did not have his thunderbolt, Athena did not have her spear and shield, and I do not know of any god who fought with a hammer in Greek mythology. Looking at the character list is not very helpful either, since the names listed do not necessarily make that much sense for the six gods who play a role. I would have liked to hear more about the war the gods had with the titans, why there are so few gods, and why they are forbidden from interfering in the action on penalty of death. The choice to make the gods not actually immortal is an interesting one as well and I want to hear more about the consequences of that for the order of the universe, especially since the movie put so much emphasis on the idea that every man’s soul is immortal, but the souls of the righteous are immortal and divine. I did not feel as though that aspect, which lies at the very heart of the movie, was well fleshed out and understandable.

For not being the story of Theseus as we know it in mythology, the movie still does a decent job of keeping enough reminders in the story. Theseus still hooks up with Pheadra (although not a daughter of Minos) and she gives birth to their son Acamas. They even managed to cleverly work in the story of Theseus and the Minotaur, which is the only part of the movie that I actually liked. It was a very different take on the creation of the Minotaur (since he was actually just a human wearing a bull helmet), but it worked very well as one episode in the larger battle against Hyperion’s army.

However, the presence of these reminders of the original story beg the question, why did they choose Hyperion, who in mythology is a titan of the sun, as the mortal king who tries to get revenge on the gods? Why not choose the figure of King Minos, who is actually part of the original story of Theseus? Perhaps having too many figures from the myth would cause academics to rip it apart as failing to tell the story properly, but a more complete reimagining of the story would have been better than what was very poorly pieced together in the film.

Similarly, the choice to use the Sibylline oracle is an interesting one, because although the title of Sibyl belonged to many different prophetesses of Apollo, it was primarily associated with the Sibyl of Cumea who played an important role in Roman history. The Greek equivalent (and predecessor) was the oracle at Delphi, which Apollo was very protective of. Despite Zeus’s prevention of the gods interfering in the affairs of mortals, Apollo would have been perfectly justified in going after Hyperion with a plague or shooting him from afar for destroying the Sibylline monastery if Apollo was really itching for the fight that all of the gods seemed to be. Above all else, the gods were justified in mythology for taking out those who dare to defile their temples and priests/priestesses.

Overall, I was not thrilled with this film. The story is too thin and lacks enough internal logic to make up for the truly grotesque violence. If they really wanted to tell a story about the immortality of the soul and the relationship between humans and gods, there is a lot more they could have done with the story to make those issues clear.

For more information on Greek mythology please refer to the following.

Morford, M. P. O and Lenardon, R. J. (2007). Classical Mythology (8th ed.). New York; Oxford University Press.

Show: Curiosity episode 01 pt. 2

I apologize for taking so long to post this, but here is the second part to my discussion of the first episode of the series Curiosity, which addresses the question, did God create the universe?

Where science seeks to be a universal, measurable and quantifiable explanation of how our world works, religion steps in where science cannot reach to explain those things that cannot be measured by science. The big questions such as who/what created the universe, who/what created us, and our purpose on this earth cannot be answered with cold, hard, scientific fact. Any answer to those questions, by necessity, crosses into the realm of religion and personal belief. The big bang theory is just one more story among many others that can be used by people to explain why we are here.

Most creation myths are cosmogonies, narratives that describe the original ordering of the universe based on observable facts and contemporary ways of thinking. They describe a cultural group’s sense of its past and significant relationship with the deeper powers of the surrounding world and universe, traditionally through symbolism and metaphor (Leeming & Leeming, vii). Just because science has given us a new way of viewing ourselves in relation to the wider universe, it does not mean that there cannot be alternative perspectives on how we came to exist as we are. Science and religion are perfectly capable of existing side by side in people’s perceptions of the world, especially when they believe in an ultimate reality that can transcend science (Leeming & Leeming, vii).

Over the years, science has not actually been able to contribute much more than religion in terms of understanding the ultimate origins of the universe. Leeming & Leeming (1994) credit Philip Freund and other cosmologists with pointing out that “many creation theories of modern science are marked by the myth of a ‘beginningless beginning’… a pre-creation universe in which something existed as a basis for the form eventually taken by the cosmos” (“Creation in Science”, p. 61). In Hawking’s story, this is the singularity that is created from nothing and spontaneously explodes to create the universe.

While the “beginningless beginning” may not sound like much of an explanation for the creation, it can have a profound effect on beliefs about why humans exist. The clearest evidence that Hawking’s program is at its heart just another creation myth comes from his own concluding statement, where he extrapolates the effect of not having a creator god.

We are each free to believe what we want. It is my view that the simplest explanation is, there is no god. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; there is probably no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that I am extremely grateful.

For Hawking, his belief in science as the ultimate guide for the way the universe works means that humans have no explicit purpose, but were instead an accident, a natural consequence of the progression of matter over time. The laws of nature are an impersonal, unconscious creator that cannot care about or interfere with what it has created.

The assertion that there was no god that created the universe, however, does not necessarily exclude the possibility of a god that created humans, as Hawking claims. There are many creation stories in which the gods that create humans come along after the world is created. Take the Greek creation myth the Theogony for example, which says that Gaia, the earth, was spontaneously born from chaos, but went on to create the Titans who yielded the Olympians, of whom Zeus was instrumental in the creation of woman (man had been spontaneously generated somewhere in the midst of the story). Other stories have the creation of the universe and the creation of man as having little if anything to do with each other, because the earth is often a given before the creation of people, such as in many native American stories.

If Hawking had truly set out to explain the Big Bang Theory as scientific fact, then he could have easily left his concluding statement out and still had an engaging explanation of a scientific concept that is sometimes difficult to understand. However, since the purpose of his program was in fact to answer the question, “Did God create the universe?” Hawking needed to tell a story, not present scientific fact.

For more information on creation myths from around the world and their commonalities, please refer to:

Leeming, D. and Leeming, M. (1994). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. New York; Oxford University Press.

Movie: Thor (2011)

(Image from IMDb)

I interrupt your previously scheduled entry, the second half of my discussion of Stephen Hawking’s episode of Curiosity, to bring you a post about Kenneth Branagh’s movie, Thor. I have never read the graphic novel that the movie is based on, so I cannot say what aspects of the story and characters are in the original story and what was created just for the movie. However, the story of Thor stands out amongst its fellow Marvel superheroes for its charm and depth, which I attribute to the mythology upon which it is originally based.

Surprisingly, for a story that is not supposed to be related to Norse mythology in any way other than using it as a source of characters and places, it does a good job maintaining some of the appropriate characteristics of the more important characters that it uses. Odin is still the wise All-father who may seem a little cruel and stands in opposition to the brash physicality of Thor, his son. Loki, although here raised as Odin’s son instead of his bonded brother, is still a trickster, the son of giants, who is essentially neither good nor evil in the strictest sense, despite how Thor’s companions wish to portray him.

Of course, since the story bears no real resemblance to Norse mythology, the characters are updated to fit into a modern world and sense of heroism. Thor actually learns to see beyond his limited sense of self and image of the world and eventually begins to understand some of the reasoning behind Odin’s actions. By the end of the movie, Thor proves himself to be a well-rounded leader, as one would expect from this type of hero film.

As in most movies based on mythology, whatever it may be, there are a few questionable character choices and decisions that I will never understand. Why maintain the lady Sif as one of Thor’s companions, since she is his wife in Norse mythology, while creating three brand new characters as his warrior friends instead of using his other known companions, such as Thjalfi and Roskva? And why on earth does Asgard look like a pipe organ? I cannot take it very seriously and I really cannot take Loki or Heimdall seriously either, with their utterly ridiculous helmets. Loki in particular looks more like an insect than anything and it just makes me want to laugh in his face. Again, I assume these are all aspects of the original graphic novel and thus do not need to make any sense from a mythological standpoint, but I cannot help but wonder.

Overall, the movie is not a particularly magnificent piece of storytelling. Very little actually seems to happen and is almost entirely predictable from start to finish for anyone familiar with hero tales. While, as mentioned previously, I do like their treatment of Loki, keeping his character ambiguous rather than evil, I think there could have been more of his development as well as Thor’s. I understand that Thor is the primary hero, but I have always found Loki to be much more interesting and would have liked to see more happen with both Loki and Odin. This film serves its purpose well as the introduction of the hero Thor for use in the upcoming movie The Avengers, but does not seem to have that much merit on its own. This does not mean, of course, that it is not an enjoyable movie, because it is still cute and humorous in its own way, but I expected a bit more from director Kenneth Branagh. On the whole though, Thor is a fun movie that does much better than most in keeping the spirit of the mythology upon which it is based.

For an introduction to Norse mythology and many of the characters mentioned in the movie, please refer to the following.

Sturluson, Snorri. (2005). The Prose Edda. (J. L. Byock, Trans.). London: Penguin Classics.

Show: Curiosity episode 01 pt. 1

Also known as The Benefits of a Liberal Arts Education pt. 1

Discovery channel’s new show Curiosity explores some fundamental questions about human life. In the first episode, aired Sunday August 7^th at 8 pm, Stephen Hawking set out to answer the question, Did God Create the Universe? As a cosmologist who has been investigating the origins of the universe for the majority of his life, Hawking is certainly the right person to explain the current scientific theories about how the universe began. Over the course of the 48 minute long program, he gives an excellent, easy to understand explanation of his perspective on how the universe works. He begins by making the argument that the universe is governed by the laws of nature, such as gravity and other laws that dictate motion and force which are exerted on all matter universally. After explaining some of these fundamental laws of nature he then goes on to explain the big bang theory, and the idea of the singularity, from which the universe began. The singularity, infinitesimally small and infinitesimally dense, a primordial black hole, spontaneously generated (the way protons can according to quantum mechanics) and spontaneously exploded to create the universe. Hawking argues that according to the laws of nature, there did not need to be a creator because the laws of nature allow for the spontaneous generation of matter and that all of the matter (positive energy) and space (negative energy) in the universe adds up to zero, and thus cancels itself out to a perfect balance. Furthermore, Hawking argues that time, which stops in a black hole, was simultaneously created along with space and matter, and thus there could be no time before the singularity. If there was no time before the singularity, then there was no time within which a creator god could have created the universe.

Having watched the episode again, listening much more carefully, I can find no fault with any of Hawking’s logic. I grew up in a household with two organic chemists and have maintained a passion for science ever since, so I am able to understand what Hawking is saying and follow him to the appropriate conclusions. The big bang theory makes a lot of sense as an explanation of how the universe began. However, I do have a problem with Hawking’s assertion that his explanation of how the universe began is scientific fact.

In my understanding, science is supposed to be the quantifiable, measurable study of something. There are the soft sciences, such as anthropology and sociology, which struggle with the ability to meet scientific standards of quantifying and measuring human behavior, and then there are the hard sciences such as chemistry, biology, and physics, which are almost entirely numerically based. In order to be considered a true scientist by today’s standards, there are many procedures that must be followed and carefully detailed records written that chronicle all observations of any scientific study. The whole point behind such careful record keeping is that all scientific experiments are supposed to be repeatable by other scientists, and it is only when they have been repeated enough times that the conclusions drawn from the data can be considered fact, or scientific truth.

When it comes to explaining the origins of the universe, there has to come a point when the science stops being science. By its very nature, the origin of the universe is not something that can be observed or repeated; thus, it cannot be quantified in terms of science. I will not argue that by observing the laws of nature and through careful calculations, conjectures can be made about how matter behaved long before the earth was formed. But even if all of the scientists repeat the same calculations based on the same data, it still remains that the big bang theory is just that, a theory. Until the spontaneous generation of a universe can be observed today, there is simply not enough data to conclusively prove how our universe started.

This raises the question then, can science study god? My answer, which I think many spiritual people will agree with, is that no, science cannot study god because god is not measurable and quantifiable. Hawking’s assertion that there is no god because there was no time for god to exist within prior to the big bang, rests on the assumption that god is subject to the laws of nature. However, for most people that I know who believe in some kind of higher power, the whole point of believing in god is believing in an entity that exists outside of the laws of nature. If god is not subject to the laws of nature, then god does not have to work in ways that can be measured according to our current understanding of nature and science.

If what Hawking describes within the program is thus not considered to be science, because it is not observable and quantifiable, then what is? The entire episode is, in my opinion, a prime example of storytelling. It is the creation myth for the scientific age, beautifully explained and endlessly engaging. It is amazing to listen to the language that Hawking uses to explain his theory, because it sounds remarkably similar to the language that is often used to describe religious beliefs and other creation myths from around the world. In place of “god,” the “laws of nature” is repeated often enough as the ultimate explanation. For Hawking, science has become his religion and nature is his god.

To be continued.

Book: The Secret Life of Bees

(Image from C/W Mars Catalog)

The Secret Life of Bees By Sue Monk Kidd may seem like an odd book for me to be mentioning in a blog about mythology and folklore and to be honest, it is. Set in 1964 South Carolina it is a novel about a young white girl, Lily, who escapes her abusive father and leaves town with her black “stand-in mother”. They are taken in by three black, bee-keeping sisters who have an elusive connection to Lily’s dead mother. Even though the three sisters introduce Lily and Rosaleen to the religion of the Black Madonna, the story is not overtly religious in nature, but chronicles Lily’s coming of age.

I am mentioning it here, however, because I think it makes an excellent example of something I hope to be talking about again later this week: the importance of stories in the construction of identities. The religion of the Black Madonna is not particularly well defined or all that strict, but it plays an important part in building the community of the Daughters of Mary, who become Lily’s adoptive family of sorts. At the heart of the religion lies the story of how a particular statue that fell off the bow of a ship washed up on shore and got taken in by a group of slaves as a symbol of the virgin Mary, and their hope for salvation.

The story’s importance is highlighted by the introduction that August, eldest of the three sisters, gives the tale at the first meeting of the Daughters that Lily and Rosaleen attend. August astutely observes, “Really, it’s good for all of us to hear it again… Stories have to be told, or they die, and when they die, we can’t remember who we are or why we’re here” (p. 107). This is an idea that is especially apparent when talking about mythology and folklore, but here it also highlights the importance of everyday happenings. All experiences can be recorded and mythologized over time, since every experience plays a part in building history and identity.

Another way this is illustrated is through a short instance later in the book when Lily’s friend Zach gets arrested. Since Lily wants to become a writer and English professor, she keeps a notebook of stories where she fictionalizes many of her experiences since she’s come to live with the sisters. When she visits Zach in jail she says, “ ‘I’ll write this all down for you… I’ll put it in a story.’ I don’t know if that’s what he wanted to ask me, but it’s something everybody wants – for someone to see the hurt done to them and set it down like it matters” (p. 185). Again, this highlights the idea that all experiences, especially trials of opposition, play an important role in shaping identity, especially when written down and shared in the form of a story. It is through the sharing of stories that experiences are shared and common ground can be found.

Although these pieces do not play major parts in the overall story and message being told in The Secret Life of Bees, I thought it was important to highlight that sometimes themes can be found in stories even when we least expect them. I suppose that storytelling is naturally going to be a theme that is part of all books on some level, but I honestly was not expecting to find much about storytelling and identity when I picked up this book. The idea that all experiences can feed into stories that shape identity is an important one to consider carefully before I jump into my next subject, which might come as even more of a shock (but you will have to wait to find out what it is).

Kidd, Sue Monk. (2002). The Secret Life of Bees. New York: Penguin Books.

Book: Mythology

(Image from C/W Mars Catalog)

Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes by Edith Hamilton (1942) is really one of those books that you should not judge by its cover, metaphorically speaking. When I first began reading it, I was horrified by some of the statements being made about the gods and ancient Greek culture. Things like leaving Demeter and Dionysus out of the list of the twelve Olympians (p. 25-26) and claiming “The terrifying irrational has no place in classical mythology. Magic, so powerful in the world before and after Greece, is almost nonexistent” (p. 18) immediately struck me as odd and against Greek mythology as I learned it. It seemingly ignores the supernatural abilities of the gods and their often irrational behavior in rewarding and punishing mortals; not to mention the existence of Hecate, goddess of witchcraft. Other statements such as,

If Hesiod did write [the Theogony], then a humble peasant living in a lonely farm far from cities, was the first man in Greece to wonder how everything had happened, the world, the sky, mankind, and to think out an explanation. Homer never wondered about anything.

p. 22

are downright dangerous for anyone just learning about mythology for the first time, since it incorrectly portrays the development of classical mythology in its written form.

It is not that I fault Hamilton for anything that she says. The most alarmingly wrong statements come from the introduction and the first two chapters that identify the gods and their relationships, but throughout the book there are little cultural statements and interpretations that reflect the scholarship of the time. It is very important to keep in mind that this book was written in 1942 and scholarship has changed in the intervening 60+ years. The way we interpret most of these stories and our understanding of ancient Greek society has changed so that some of the ways Hamilton summarizes the stories leaves out important pieces or presents facts that are now considered incorrect. Normally, this would not be a big deal, but I know that this book is used as summer reading for AP European History in New York, which is often the first introduction for high school students to Greek mythology. Without proper instruction, this book has the potential to give students the wrong impression about some of these tales and Greek society.

With proper instruction, however, this book is actually much better than the alternative “Age of Fable” in Bulfinch’s Mythology by Thomas Bulfinch (1855). Hamilton includes a brief introduction to each of her tales where she identifies the original sources that she draws upon. She also covers the stories as completely as possible by sometimes referring to multiple sources rather than following any one account. Bulfinch, by comparison, primarily summarizes Ovid’s Metamorphoses and does not go into detail about alternative versions that may have existed. The one up side to Bulfinch’s work is that he references modern works of poetry and fiction that make allusions to the Greek tales, broadening the reader’s understanding of why some of these tales remain important today.

On the whole, the fact that this book is still being taught in schools as an introduction to Greek mythology drives me crazy. However, I understand that there is no other alternative that I know of that works as well at giving a brief introduction to the tales of Greek mythology that is still easy to read and understand. I know that not all high school teachers have studied classical mythology extensively, so this book makes an excellent addition to the curriculum. I can only hope that this book, despite its inaccuracies, does its job well of getting more students interested in Greek mythology so they can gain a more rounded understanding of our modern culture and literature.

Bulfinch, T. (1998). Bulfinch’s Mythology. New York: The Modern Library.

Hamilton, E. (1942). Mythology: Timeless tales of gods and heroes. New York: Grand Central Publishing.

Note: I have chosen not to address the second section of Hamilton's book which is on Norse mythology because it is too short (only 17 pages). Although it does a similarly good job of giving a brief introduction to Norse mythology, I feel that it is too brief in its treatment of the material and simply reading The Prose Edda would itself provide a better introduction.

Book: Ireland

(Image from C/W Mars Catalog)

Ireland: A Novel by Frank Delaney (2005) is one of the best novels I have read in a while. I will admit that I am usually not that interested in historical fiction but I picked up this book on the recommendation of a family friend who said it was a tale about the last traveling storyteller in Ireland. On the most superficial level, that is what the story is about, but it also has so much more to say about the art of storytelling and the history of Ireland itself.

The book follows a young boy, Ronan, growing up in Southern Ireland in the 1950’s, after a travelling storyteller visits his home and changes his life forever. The storyteller’s vibrant tales of the history of Ireland inspire the boy to learn all he can from the mysterious man, sparking a life-long journey of discovery of both his own history and that of his country. Through a mastery of the art of storytelling, the book switches back and forth between Ronan’s journey and the stories that he hears and tells along the way.

Almost every character Ronan encounters has their own story to add, demonstrating the pervasiveness of storytelling across all walks of life. Everyone has their own piece of history to share and their own style of storytelling. Those humanistic elements are part of what help weave the history of Ireland together into one narrative that is meaningful to the characters as their own story progresses.

What I love most about this book is the way that it makes history fun and accessible. As I said before, historical novels are generally not my favorites, but hearing history through the voices of storytellers who are able to give life to the events and bring a distinct perspective makes it all much more interesting. The use of a storyteller’s voice gives the history a bit more depth, connecting the vast past to the present in a way that cannot be conveyed through a single narrative the way most novels are written.

The history of Ireland is itself a very interesting subject, considering the number of times it has been invaded. As the boy’s history professor in college explains,

… all history is a matter of interpretation, mostly by the victors. In the case of our little island it has been rather different, because the history of Ireland was also written by the vanquished – the repeatedly defeated, the hung, drawn, and quartered, the kicked and beaten. And haven’t we made the most of our victimhood?

p. 231

It is this perspective of the vanquished yet proud and vivacious Irish that is given throughout the book, especially in the stories that are told. These tales run the gamut from stories of mythical events, romance, and heroism to religious and political battles that all helped shape the country. They tug at your heartstrings while making you laugh and truly demonstrate the ability of storytelling to transport you into another culture and lifetime.

On the whole, Ireland is a must read book for anyone interested in the history of Ireland or the traditions of storytelling that have survived there. Although I cannot speak to the veracity of the stories that are told, it is not really something I care to research because it is much more about the meanings and artistry behind the stories that matter. It is easy to get swept away by this enchanting book, just as easy as it is to get swept away by Ireland itself.

I had the wonderful opportunity to spend a week in Ireland in October 2008 and experience the land and the culture for myself. It was the kind of experience that is difficult to describe to others because it is nearly impossible to find the words to describe the majesty of the land and the warmth of the culture. However, Delaney’s book comes pretty close to conveying just some of what makes Ireland so special.

Delaney, F. (2005). Ireland: A novel. New York: Harper.

Book: Pendragon

(Image from C/W Mars Catalog)

Pendragon: The definitive account of the origins of Arthur by Steve Blake and Scott Lloyd (2002) is a fascinating academic book that puts forth the theory that there was a historical Arthur, a 6th century Welsh warrior, whose prowess on the battlefield spawned a tradition of legends in Wales which was later adapted and expanded into the legends of King Arthur that are so familiar to audiences today. Using textual evidence from early Welsh poems and histories, as well as current place names and archaeological evidence associated with Arthur and his family, Blake and Lloyd build an argument placing Arthur in North Wales, possibly as the warlord under King Maelgwn (p. 180). Additionally, Blake and Lloyd point out that that the Welsh traditions never have Arthur fighting Saxons or Picts as he does in later Latin texts, but instead is focused on fighting enemies of local, British origin (p. 161).

The book is focused on presenting, in detail, the Welsh materials that support this theory of the origins of Arthur. The way the evidence is laid out and built up, going from the birth of Arthur, through his family and battles, all the way to his death, makes for a very convincing argument. Anyone interested in the historical origins of the Arthurian legends should absolutely read this book.

However, the importance of this book does not necessarily lie in the argument it ultimately presents, but more in the perspective that it gives on the generation and growth of Arthurian legends themselves. Blake and Lloyd are not concerned with the later romances that have become the standardized versions of Arthurian legend, such as the work of Chretien de Troyes and Malory. However, they continually reference these tales, and especially the Historia Regum Britanniae by Geoffrey of Monmouth, in order to illustrate the differences between the Welsh Arthurian tradition and the elements that were added for propaganda and entertainment as the stories were adapted for British and French medieval audiences. Ultimately, Arthur is proven to be the perfect example of the way in which legends and heroes can be created and their exploits expanded and adapted generation after generation and across various cultures, to the point where any historical remnants are greatly obscured by time.

This book really opens the doorway for some new interpretations of Arthurian legend. It gives us the opportunity to explore the story of the warlord under a (potentially tyrannical?) king’s command, who through his skill and leadership is able to build his own reputation up to eventually eclipse his king, either during his own lifetime or in the pages of history. As an aside, this seems to be one of the goals of the BBC television series “Merlin,” which tells the story of how a teenaged sorcerer Merlin and prince Arthur grow into the legendary men of the romances while under the rule of Arthur’s father, King Uther Pendragon. I will admit that at first the show seemed rather ridiculous for taking this approach, but having read this book, it actually makes much more sense (even if I do not agree with everything that happens).

This book also makes me think that the story of Geoffrey of Monmouth and the political situations that caused him to develop his version of Arthur’s life would make an interesting example of the process of storytelling. It would be wonderful to see more exploration into the history and social implications of the various Arthurian traditions, especially as they pertain to political and cultural identities that have grown around the figure of Arthur as a hero.

All in all, Pendragon is an important book for anyone interested in understanding more about the origins of Arthurian legend, both in terms of the historical man and how the legends grew over time. It provides some great points of reference for looking at current incarnations of Arthur, such as that on BBC’s “Merlin” and other movies.

Blake, S and Lloyd, S. (2002). Pendragon: The definitive account of the origins of Arthur. Guilford, Connecticut; The Lyons Press.

Introduction

Hello, hello!

Welcome to my new blog all about mythology, folklore, and storytelling. My goal here is to share my thoughts and perhaps spark some debate about various figures and stories from mythology and folklore that are currently used in movies, television shows, and books. I will be looking at works of both fiction and non-fiction, integrating history and social studies into what is hopefully a bit of a broader look at the way storytelling is done today, and how myths and legends are treated and retold.

For me, storytelling is an essential part of life and understanding the stories that we tell is a doorway into understanding a person, society, or culture. Mythology and folklore are those stories which have survived the test of time in various formats and are told over and over again from one generation to the next. By looking at these stories and trying to understand why they were originally told and then why and how we are still telling them today, a lot can be learned about our current culture.

You will probably notice pretty quickly that I have some favorite topics, such as Arthurian legend, Greek mythology, dragons, and of course feminism. As a mythology and folklore major at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, I minored in Classics and also focused on Norse mythology, even spending a semester abroad in Denmark. My studies focused primarily on creation myths and storytelling, touching upon Hinduism, Native American mythology (especially the Iroquois), and various other cultures from around the world. However, I understand that it is difficult to cover any topic thoroughly in a blog post, so I will mostly be approaching these issues on a book by book, movie by movie, or tv show by tv show basis, overlapping when I can.

I encourage people to join the discussion at any point and contribute their thoughts and opinions on the issues being discussed. Storytelling is an art that is in constant fluctuation and multiple perspectives should be considered when discussing any figure or story.

What are some of your favorite myths or folktales?

PS The title for my blog does come from the opening sequence of the BBC's "Merlin". I love the show and will probably be commenting on it at some point but I would like to say that no copyright infringement was intended, it just seemed like and appropriate title.