Elements in Myth-Making
I regard every endeavor to communicate ideas as the building of myth. Making a movie, composing a song, writing a science text, performing a magic act, building a diorama for a museum... all of these acts are conveying a story. Below I list what I think are the four essential keys in making a myth regardless of what "mode" one is working in.
Key 1: Put the audience in a place that’s unfamiliar, even if only in a small way.
- Objective: Neutralize biases and prejudices in order to open the mind to new ideas.
- Note: Whether or not the audience knows this is a device that is being deliberately employed is not relevant as long as it’s cleverly done. Those “in the know” will simply (rightly) think they are in on the game and will willingly suspend disbelief as a gratuitous response to your ingenuity. This is the area where those who work in non-fiction and/or realism can really get creative.
- Tool: Irony (the driver of existential angst, the foundation of Humor and Paradox, the substance of comedy AND tragedy, the element that makes magic and illusion possible, the invoker of the laugh/cry/awe response.)
- Irony Scale:
Absurd-----------------------------------------Satirical-----------------------------------------Hyper -Logical
“Absurd” environments are ironic in that the more utterly bizarre, whimsical, foreign, and chaotic they are the more like real life they seem.
“Satirical” environments are ironic in that certain elements are expanded to the unreal extreme in order to reveal flaws that those same elements possess even in their actual proportions in the real world.
“Hyper-Logical” environments are ironic in that they are full of unreal objects that nevertheless follow the rules and logic of the real world. All non-fiction literature fits into this category, as even non-fiction literature consists of idealized objects (especially science texts). Magic tricks fit in this category as well, since it’s known that ordinary science and logic are at work even though the eyes insist otherwise. Realistic sculpture also fits into this category, as the joy in viewing such sculpture is partly in how one’s brain struggles to let go of the notion that what it is looking at IS real.
Key 2: Introduce relatable characters.
- Objective: Help each listener place her or himself within the unfamiliar environment.
- Note: Variations on themes, composite characters, and ambiguous characters can be very effective if used with care. For historical and/or scientific narratives the characters are given, but the listener still relies on the narrator to give those characters life. (Thankfully, truth actually is stranger than fiction!) For performance artists (like magicians), this is where one’s stage mystique comes in.
- Tool: Archetypes
- (See Archetype List)
Key 3: Invoke a compelling cause.
- Objective: Implant motivation to listen.
- Note: This becomes the plot, with all twists, surprises, and subtexts (which you’ll need in order to keep the audience guessing). The cause can be given life by way of monsters that most reflect the spirit of the cause, i.e. the cause is restoring wealth to a village, so a dragon that hoards wealth (and threatens enslavement to poverty) is the object of the quest. Keep in mind, though, that sometimes the cause is just the sharing of factual knowledge (in which case the monster is simply ignorance that threatens slavery to lies). “Factual myths” are those that attempt to explain natural phenomena (such as a science text). In such narratives, reminding the listener of the importance of gaining knowledge (and the dire consequences of willful ignorance) will often increase interest in the narrative. For performance artists, the monster to be defeated is the trick or feat that nobody has accomplished before.
- Tool: Existential Threats
- Existential Threat Types: Exile, Bondage, Torment, Oblivion
- Monster -- that which possesses human-like intelligence and/or desires but is nevertheless not human, where this state of affairs predisposes said intelligence to initiate various kinds of destruction upon human beings:
The cursed:
Vampire – any being that is highly intelligent and physically powerful but must feed on the spirits of others in order to survive. That is, the being is mentally and physically alive, but spiritually dead. The stealing of blood is typically the manner by which spiritual power is transferred from the victim to the vampire. It is usually important that vampires can turn others into vampires and that vampires can assume other shapes. A vampire might also be portrayed, however, as an extremely negative (and probably verbally abusive) person.
Therianthrope – a being that is part human and part beast. The human element might simply be human-like intelligence or desires within a recognizable beast (such as the dragon in our example above… other fantastical creatures can be called upon, including creatures from other planets), but it can also be physical features that are human-looking combined with animal features (such as the body of a man but the head of a bull). When these beings are portrayed as monsters, it is typically in order to highlight a beastly appetite for flesh coupled with human-level cunning. In fact, these creatures are usually exceptionally intelligent and physically powerful, but they are also consumed with rage and an unstoppable desire to slaughter and rape. The ability of this creature to sometimes appear as a normal human being is often important, as is the ability of some versions of the creature to turn victims into one of its kind (especially werewolves). Such a creature might also be portrayed as a human who is mentally abusive, possibly even a serial violent abuser (killer/rapist).
Undead – a being that seems to be dead in spirit and in higher brain functions, but who nevertheless lives physically and is, therefore, fixated upon the “need to feed” (movie zombies are a classic example). Undead wander around aimlessly searching for those who have the warmth of life. It’s usually important that the remains of their victims can take life and become undead. Undead might also be portrayed as intensely co-dependent people who are frequently physically abusive. Stalkers might fit here as well.
The exiled:
Phantom – being already dead and therefore no longer fearing death, incorporeal spirits are the most inhuman of all. A phantom is such a spirit who is visible to others, but who, for our purposes, does not engage others. The frightening aspect of a phantom is in its utter dissociation. Perhaps we see it as it performs the same task over and over, usually some mundane thing it was attempting to complete before it died. We are chilled when we experience such a being because we imagine that it suffers from a kind of hellish insanity; we are terrified by the thought of what might happen if we disturb it. Phantoms represent our deepest regrets. A phantom might also be portrayed as a person just going through the motions of life, bereft of hope, mostly unnoticed, and utterly alone.
Poltergeist – for our purposes, an angry spirit. They’re frightening in all the ways that incorporeal spirits normally are, except these in particular are very unpredictable. While not typically empowered to do harm they are very convincing in threatening it. This monster can also be portrayed as an otherwise quiet person who has frequent and unpredictable outbursts.
Revenant – for our purposes, a vengeful spirit. They’re frightening in all the ways that incorporeal spirits normally are, except that these in particular wish someone harm and have the power to deliver it. (Vengeful mummies, though not strictly ghosts, probably fit more into this category than in the “Undead” category, but it obviously depends upon the perceived intelligence of the mummy.) This monster can also be portrayed as any person who is obsessed with revenge.
The damned:
Wraith – for our purposes, a sprit whose presence can be “felt” but not heard nor seen. They’re frightening in all the ways that incorporeal spirits normally are, except that these in particular induce paranoia. You know it’s there, but you don’t know what it wants or what it’s doing. As a result of its absolute isolation it may desperately take to using its only subtle influence to drive people mad. Recently, this monster has taken the form of shadow governments or corporations. It might also be portrayed as an “invisible” person who nobody notices but who copes with their loneliness by keeping a secret hand in everyone’s lives.
Golem – a living and usually sentient thing constructed out of non-living material (including dead tissue, such as Frankenstein’s monster). Usually the frightening thing about such a creature is that it has no sympathy for humankind (not really being human itself) and therefore has no compunction about destroying it. Robots are a classic version of the golem. When the golem is a human character, it’s typically someone whose psyche has been shattered somehow and then poorly reconstructed. The result is a period of normalcy or even exceptional calm that lulls others into a false sense of security until the person “snaps” and sets out on a rampage of destruction.
Demon – for our purposes, a hateful spirit. They’re frightening in all of the ways that incorporeal spirits normally are, except that these in particular are bent on the torture of all they meet and they have the power to deliver it. The motive for this behavior is not revenge and the demon is not murderous, per se. The demon simply enjoys seeing others suffer as painfully and for as long as possible. Particularly distasteful are its methods: the possession of one’s mind and/or body. If human, this monster can only be portrayed as a person of exceptional skill in manipulation and possessing a talent for heartless cruelty.
Key 4: Utilize the proper medium for the message.
- Objective: Select the most appropriate manner in which the story will be conveyed and/or disseminated.
- Note: The medium shapes the message. Will the story be told most potently in a poem? In a novel? Is it a story that is best served in the intimate confines of a playhouse? Should it employ puppets? Will it only work as a comic book or a high-budget film? Utilizing the proper medium is very important. In fact, many times the medium is selected before any other key to the story is fleshed out.
- Tool: Narrative Type
- Narrative Type Scale:
Authentic---------------------------------------Intimate-----------------------------------------High Fidelity
“Authentic” narratives use stylized and/or impressionistic expressions. They are poetic and lyrical. What makes them authentic is that each listener can experience the narrative in the most unique way. (Music, songs, poetry, abstract art.)
“Intimate” narratives are less stylized than authentic ones, giving the listener less latitude in how the narrative is interpreted and a greater glimpse into the mind of the narrator. (Certain kinds of literature, plays, art that is not realistic but has a realistic element or quality.)
“High Fidelity” narratives use strong, unambiguous symbols that suggest or even insist upon a very specific interpretation, conveying very faithfully the precise vision of the narrator. (Realistic cinema, realist painting or sculpting, non-fiction literature.)
There is something to be learned, a lesson, within every myth. If these keys are executed properly, then the lesson can be taught in a manner such that the listeners might not even realize they’re being taught. The listeners won’t have to be coaxed into hearing the lesson, but will beg to hear it over and over again. This is the goal of myth, to open hearts and minds so that they might receive the lesson, whatever it may be.
re: Shadow Work
I've read and listened to several books by Jon Kabat-Zinn on Meditation and his teachings seem in accord with that site. This page gives one of his illustrations of what happens when we "stuff" our shadows into a bag because we've been told they represent some unacceptable part of ourselves: "It may have started out at home with our parents when we were infants and young children and were given messages about what pleased them and what didn't...Over time our bag gets longer and longer, and heavier and heavier as we stuff more of ourselves into it: our anger, our impulsiveness, our spontaneity, our softeness, our strength, even our intelligence, in our sometimes desperate efforts to be likeable, accepted, or well thought of, or to fit a certain framework we believe we are called upon to reflect--the stoic, the martyr, the wise one."
And this blog entry more generally talks about his connection to Jung and to archetypes.
Dangerous Driving
Language use can be dangerous.
As can modern art generally.
myth-making
Well, I've said it before, but GC your theorizing is both so concise and so encompassing--especially here as story-telling is really about being human.
I had a few thoughts/questions.
The Absurd environment vs. the Hyper-Logical environment. The Absurd is realistic by drawing attention to the gap between symbol and reality--emphasizing the illusion by not following the rules, while the Hyper-Logical is realistic by doing the opposite--distracting from the illusion by following the rules? Is that right? The way I connect the environments to the narratives is that the Absurd environment is drawing attention to our awareness--our subjectivity, so would tend to encourage narratives focusing on inner states (the Authentic) while the Hyper-Logical is drawing attention to objects (High Fidelity). Beginning in the 20th century I think these two poles represent most fictional narratives, and they are both done in extreme ways (theatre of the absurd, stream of consciousness vs. schools of realism--Hemingway, detective fiction). Because they represent alienatied individuality on the one hand and the reification of objects on the other, I connect the extremes to capitalism.
Science as a factual myth. That is an awesome description. The line between Science and Religion erased in 5 words.
Vampires--the fact that vampires lack only spirit otherwise looking completely human, and that they turn others into themselves. Again it seems no accident to me that our age is so fascinated by them.
Re: myth-making
I think you've understood my points perfectly, jaz.
Indeed it can be difficult to imagine how a hyper-logical narrative could be conveyed effectively in an authentic medium, but books are definitely an "intimate" medium insofar as bare words lend themselves to so many varying interpretations. It strikes me that those who truly strive for a hyper-logical narrative would naturally gravitate toward documentary film-making as having much more potential in bringing fidelity to the story. Truth is, though, that film is recognized for its exceptional utility in delivering absurd narratives as well, and is thus often perceived as being too evocative, not demanding the kind of reflection required to really grasp certain kinds of concepts.
For examples, though, of how hyper-logical narratives are sometimes conveyed in authentic mediums, one need only look toward songs and verses composed to help children remember scientific or mathematical (or even historical) concepts, such as those employed by Schoolhouse Rock. In fact, for pre-literate cultures these kinds of "oral technologies" were utilized to preserve all kinds of information over vast stretches of time. The conventional wisdom that believes information couldn't survive so long only in oral forum (i.e. the information was more easily corruptible for not being written) has been proven false by certain anthropological findings. David Lewis in his book We, The Navigators demonstrated how South-Pacific islanders navigated the seas using knowledge passed down only orally for thousands of years, the kind of navigation that is so complex in that part of the globe than any other sailor must have very detailed charts and maps or else become hopelessly lost. The accuracy of these oral records had to remain extremely sharp over a relatively vast stretch of time. So... a hyper-logical narrative in an authentic medium (verse) can be very useful.
myth-making
What you said about film--I think those two impulses are there from the beginning. There's the Lumiere Bros. film (might have been the first film shown?) of a train which had people in the theatre screaming because they thought an actual train was about to crash into them. And at the same time Georges Melies' "Voyage to the Moon" which shows a rocket hitting a man in the moon face in the eye.
Interesting about crossing the narratives and environments. I think a high fidelity narrative in an absurd environment describes things like surrealism. But the hyperlogical in an authentic environment--I can see how it's used in teaching children, but are there many current, Western examples of that which would be seen as for adults? My impression would be that the West would have a certain contempt for that crossing.
Another thought about the monsters--the cursed seem dependent on the human to me in a very twisted way while the damned have a human feature that's become inverted. I guess in the human version I would see the damned generally as sociopaths. The exiled-well they seem most disconnected which makes sense.
Re: myth-making
Well, I think the business world in the US is more and more often attempting to convey hyper-logical myth in an authentic way. Evocative acronyms and catchy aphorisms (the kind you hear from many business-oriented motivational speakers) follow this pattern somewhat.
In general, though, I think all of your observations in the above post are spot on.
Semantics
OK... I follow, I think. I admit, at first I didn't. So I have no problem with you telling me to stay out of this. ![]()
I never read the term "semantics" in your post. And I was wondering if that term applies to any of the essential keys you talk about. Like hyper-logical linguistics.
But the reason I decided to trump in was because you mentioned the business aspect. In my reading semantics and business "slang" can go hand in hand. But in relation to hermeneutics the theme recognizes that words don't just mean things literally but they also carry emotional coloring. And using emotional force of words is a big deal in the use of advertising, propaganda, and biased journalism.
And then of course, you have the political side. The political aides finding meaning in interpreting events so as to support their candidate.
I think I might be mixing up the keys. *sigh*
Re: Semantics
I don't find your comments to be an intrusion at all.
The outline I provide here doesn't really address the selection of particular words or phrases in myth-making, only the overall structure of the narrative. Certainly, though, once the structure is set semantics and syntax both become very important.
You pose interesting questions in regard to propaganda, though. What kind of myth-making is it? Well, it can be any kind in terms of medium, monster, and motivator, but it seems to me that propaganda of every stripe is satire. I say this because the creators of propaganda are consciously uninterested in presenting a "realistic" picture while they certainly wish to avoid coming off as "ungrounded". Indeed, propaganda seems to aim to "dupe" its targets in much the same manner that satire does (it's typical for an object of satire not even to perceive being made sport of). I do think recognizing propaganda as satire properly reflects the distain the propagandist has for the target of the satire.
semantics & propaganda
I see that propaganda is as you say a form of satire--probably see both forms dominating at the same historical period (well like now I would think). Kat's question about semantics got me thinking though, about how a narrative structure might be described in those terms. If a word has little connotation then I think you're naming objects in a hyper-logical evnironment, but if you start to give those words emotional weight its as if there is this authentic narrative packed into the word giving it subjective meaning. And I think in both advertising and propaganda the authentic narrative is deceptively hidden by the appearance that the object is in a hyper-logical environment. As an example--Pres. Bush's appearance on the aircraft carrier with the mission accomplished banner. Just taking one part of that appearance--his wearing of a uniform. The effectiveness of the uniform has to depend on its being seen as an object in a hyper-logical environment, but then it has this whole emotional story behind it of heroism, which, if the story comes to the forefront, can be easily taken apart.
Advertising as h-l in the authentic--plays on the same power of this kind of combination in oral culture or teaching children--gives it a real hook into memory.
Just thinking that in some ways quantum physics/string theory might be another example of the absurd environment with a high fidelity narrative. "Absurd" because of the way objects no longer seem to obey the rules of logic, and in fact the whole idea of what objects are is challenged--and yet they are high-fidelity narratives in the goal of describing something real about the way the world works.
re: semantics & propaganda
Yeah, I like that jazysics.
So, String theory is limited to 11 different dimensions based upon a math equation. So is math, in this context, considered a high fidelity? The determined possible invalidation of String theory plus mathematics equals "science factual myth..."?
string theory/quantum physics
Yeah katativity--I would say math is high fidelity and I think the number of dimensions has to do (I think--my understanding of this is very shaky) with calculations involving the necessary masslessness of the photon and the energy of the string. I think 10, 11 and 26 dimensions are the results of different versions of the calculation.
Here's an illustration from quantum physics--There's an experiment (the Aspect experiment) in which two photons emitted from the same atom will have a correlation in their spin, and if you measure the spin of one of them it affects the spin of the other and this cause and effect happens no matter how far apart they are. I think what quantum mechanics says about that is that by measuring the particle you cause it's probablity wave to collapse--and that probability wave affects the entire universe in that by finding the particle at a particular location you are determining that it is nowhere else in the universe. So that collapse of the probability wave is going to affect the correlated photon and its spin no matter how far it is from the photon that you are actually measuring. That just seems to go against any logical ideas of causality--it can't for instance be thought of as a cause which has to travel because then it would be limited by the speed of light. So to me quantum mechanics looks "absurd" in that way that it just doesn't fit with our notions of how the world works and yet it's a high fidelity narrative
re: string theory/quantum physics
Yeah, jazzitude that makes sense.
Upon my ponderings about the universe and all within
I've wondered if there is something bigger than gravity that could tend to the workings of the universe that gravity itself does not have a role in. I've read a little on the relationship between relativity, quantum mechanics, chaos and string theories and I've found that all have been discovered on the nature of matter revealed "by the tunneling scanning electron microscope" that can actually be seen as supporting a Jungian model of the psyche and the natural world. Such as the subject of symbolic math and the relationship between geometry and religion.
I know if that's true, it's more elaborate than the Essential Keys GC talks about... but I thougt it was interesting.
physics & Jung
Katnicity,
That reading sounds intriguing. Why don't you start a thread on that in the Science forum--hmmm maybe we'll have to add scarab beetles into the katerpillar diet...mmmmm grubs=brain food!

delicious
digg
Shadow Work
I found an interesting site related to this somewhat... but also in relation to Jung's archetypes and using them as a sort of self reflection and therapy.
Shadowwork.com