the timboucher experience

I’m looking around for a nice definition of mythology which I can “hang my hat” on, but the more I find in this area, the less I seem to agree. I mean, they aren’t horrible, but for somebody trying to split hairs (such as me), they don’t stand up to the kind of treatment I want to put them through. So, with that in mind, I’m going to go through some that I found for the purposes of “negative inspiration” in the hopes of coming up with something which - to me - is more useful.

Myths are generally stories based on tradition and legend designed to explain the universal and local beginnings (”creation myths and “founding myths”), natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself. Not all myths need have this explicatory purpose, however.

That’s from Wikipedia, which usually has great content. This one sucks though, I think. Firstly, I take issue with this prevailing concept that myths are basically equivalent to “explanations” of phenomenon and of customs. That feels like too rational of a path to understand what is really going on. More on that as I develop it though…

Google’s definition feature offers up a batch of other possibilities. I find the first one to be the least objectionable, but also not terribly informative:

the body of stories associated with a culture or institution or person

But we quickly move back into very traditional breakdowns of mythology such as this:

A system of stories about the Gods, often explicitly religious in nature, that were once believed to be true by a specific cultural group, but may no longer be believed as literally true by their descendents. Like religions everywhere, mythology often provided etiological and eschatological narratives (see above) to help explain why the world works the way it does, to provide a rationale for customs and observances, to establish set rituals for sacred ceremonies, and to predict what happens to individuals after death. If the protagonist is a normal human rather than a supernatural being, the traditional story is usually called a legend rather than a myth. If the story concerns supernatural beings who are not deities, but rather spirits, ghosts, fairies, and other creatures, it is usually called a folktale rather than a myth (see folklore, below). Samples of myths appear in the writings of Homer, Virgil, and Ovid.

I’m not terribly interested here in the differences they are delineating between myth, legend and folklore. There’s something wrong or missing there, but I’m not yet sure what it is or how to express it. And then there’s stuff like this…

Age old stories of humanity’s concepts about the universe, including their relationships to their deities. They differ from legends in that they convey a deeper truth.

Whenever you try to nail down this whole idea of “myths providing deeper truths” it starts to get very squishy and New Agey. Certainly I agree that stories contain deep truths, but again, somethings missing here in how it’s being looked at and talked about.

About.com’s Urban Legend section has a bit different of an approach to defining mythology. They start from the notion that mythology more has to do with answering certain types of questions (basically metaphysical ones). I think this section has the best kernel of what I’m looking for so far though:

The student/professor will at the same time proceed to apply analysis to the myths or stories, coming at them from varying perspectives, comparing them, interpreting them, enjoying them, and frequently sharing them with others.

Well, I haven’t found anything I love here so far, but this is a start at least. And there’s always Joseph Campbell’s “10 Commandments of How to Read Myths“. I like a few of these, but feel like some of them are especially vague. I see a lot of areas in this which could do with some expansion into practical application. More on this to follow…

• Norse Mythology
• Creative Violence
• There’s no such thing as uncensored writing
• Nailfarer
• Ananse, Keeper of Stories