I guess the difference for me is that "convention" by defintion is intended to be broad, for example

while "myth" as you defined it (and I define it) is a much more narrow concept. Myths are full of elements that are or have become literary conventions, but just because Superman uses a number of those conventions, does not make Superman rise to the level of myth.

I agree that "myth" as Gene has defined it and "convention" are both, as you say "relatively vague qualifications". My problem is that "convention" as it's typically defined IS relatively vague, but "myth" is not.

It's really that simple.

Instead of "mythical or mythic" when referring to things "relating to" or "based on" myth, I'd suggest we use "myth-like" or "containing conventions found in myth".

I'll give you a lot of credit though Madget, you were able to articulate the entirety of Gene's position in a single post. Something he hasn't been able to do in a few thousand words.

I will give Gene's authorities credit for one thing though, givent that the dicitonary defitnion of "mythical" is much broader than the one suggested by "myth", it may be that the dumbing down of the term myth advocated by Gene has already seeped into the language, and that it's been picked up on by the lexicographers. I'm hopeful though, that the defintion Madget sited is atypical in its sloppiness, and that the language hasn't been permanently dumbed down.

I note that there's a difference between saying 'a convention' or 'by convention' and 'conventional.'

Consider:

Particularly number 3 as it applies most directly to the discussion here. There's nothing funny about the way I've been using the term. Now look at:

'Conventional' has a pejorative use, which I scrupulously avoided through this thread, insisting on 'by convention' or 'a convention.' That most Superman stories or stories using something like Superman suck is not because Superman is a convention, but because they use the convention in a conventional manner. Thus, I don't have a problem with saying something like "the Superman saga is conventional," but this evaluation should be kept separate from the debate about whether or not the pop structure known as 'Superman' is a convention. Any fan of genre has to see the merit in using conventions; conventions are what defines genres.*

And I'd prefer to call 'convention' more inclusive than 'myth'. What Gene attempts to do is make myth the more inclusive category, but doesn't show why this a good idea (at least he tries to do this when he's talking about myths and archetypes as not universal necessities; at other times, he's arguing that they are universal structures which shape the way man tells stories). Calling some concept a convention doesn't do anything but tell us that it's not a necessary way of performing an action, but one agreed upon, either implicitly or explicitly. This applies to conventions in law, politics, games, story-telling, et al.. As best I can tell, everything Gene suggests is due to modern myth-making can be more simply explained by people applying conventions. Superman isn't so recognizable because of some mythic resonance, but because of his being widely dispersed as a convention for how to create superhero genre stories. Jones does a good job in detailing how he became the prominent template for the superhero genre.

*here's a good grammar question: should 'what,' as a pronoun referring to a plural noun, be singular or plural? I say singular.

Dean: it may be that the dumbing down of the term myth advocated by Gene has already seeped into the language, and that it's been picked up on by the lexicographers.

It's like the description 'awesome,' which is much over used. What happens when you want to talk about something truly awe-inspiring, "even more awesome than the dollar bill I found yesterday"? Kind of loses its potency. One has to wonder how Gene defines genres, since all of what the rest of us see as regularities are now mythic, and all myths are inventive. How would one group a set of stories into a fairly consistent category without regularly used conventions? What's a genre without rules?

Gene,

Thanks for taking the time to compile all of those quotes. And sorry for the delay in responding -

It seems to me that sometimes, when you use Jung for example, you seem to locate the mythic in something greater than both the story and the reader. A transcendent, collective imaginary that we tap into.

Other times, you seem to locate it firmly in the attributes of the character and or the story – the degree to which those things seem to be elevated, ie., Superman’s “amped up” powers. The mythic mode is a heightened, ‘superlative’ mode, one that’s usually at odds with what happens in most of our lives. This is what you say in your response to my Little Lulu example.

I suggested earlier that I thought this mode would be too pedestrian for you – this would remove any kind of inherent power to a story. It wouldn’t help you to explain why S&S should be taken more seriously and it strips the idea of myth of any transcendent qualities.

And I don’t see why myth has to be associated with romance-adventure stories, usually of the fantasy type, as you do. I can see why you make this connection, but for me it seems arbitrary. And more importantly it denies the reality of myths in our everyday lives by confining them to the world of fiction and fantasy.


When you talk about the mythic potential of all stories, this seems to be odds with the empirical, descriptive approach above – can a story be mythic only in potential? Doesn’t it have to have certain explicit features? To use the idea of potentiality seems to bring back the transcendent in some way. Or else it locates the mythic largely in the reader's desire to make something 'grand and allegorical' out of the story, a move that you don't seem to want to embrace, given your focus on genre.

I guess I would be in the camp of Barthes in that I see in myths a language other than the one that is readily on view, a language that is connected to a number of things—such as hiding from the reader truths about the world that might be disconcerting, and trying to erase history by making things that are neither timeless nor natural appear so, and thus to be beyond the need for questioning. So in one example, Superman, who claims to represent “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” actually represents none of those things. Cark Kent lives a lie, lying to all of those around him – lies that aren’t necessarily in the service of any greater good. Superman is a vigilante, too, at odds with justice -- usually acting outside of the bounds of our legal system. Numerous DC stories try to set up Batman and Superman in opposition, as if the former is a vigilant and the other isn’t. But this isn’t so. Both are often un-American in the sense of violating the legal rights of others.

All of that said, I don’t really care about the meanings that Superman might have for others – the stories that feature him that I like best tend to be the most un-mythic that have “wacky problems” and “wacky solutions” – that really seem to have little to do with romance/adventure tropes or quests/heroism in any meaningful way. Perhaps that’s why for me, the Batman TV show of the ‘60s is a kind of pinnacle of superhero culture.

"Ken didn't convince me that he was right, but it was a fair try." Fair enough . . .

double post deleted

Since Gene was picking quotes, I thought I'd bring the first quote I made in this thread back up along with the quote to which I was responding:

Is there anything but poor reading comprehension which could render such a view as favoring the impersonal and socially deterministic conception of genre stories? How might I view the creation of genre stories? Well, as I said, "I prefer to think of it as interaction of an individual with his milieu. Nothing comes from nothing, after all." Now, even though Gene denies agreeing with the transcendent creation of his "archetypes" and "myths" (i.e., literary conventions in the ordinary lingo), he asks me:

Reece again tries to prove that baseball is a convention in order to prove that an archetype is a convention. But maybe both were created by the Gods Above, Reece? Ever think of that??

So, evidently in an argument with Gene, we can't even accept that baseball is a set of conventions. No, we have to consider the possibility that it, along with archetypes, was "created by the Gods Above." So much for a non-deterministic rebuttal to my supposedly deterministic stance. Regardless, to answer his question about whether I considered the possibility of these things I call conventions being transcendentally, non-personally, and deterministically derived from the will of Gods, I can only quote myself many, many days prior to his asking the question, which applies just as well now as it did then:

So, is the following an accurate description?

The difference between us remains, of course, that I believe that the set of associations are accrued through human creativity, while Charles favors their creation through impersonal cultural forces.

Obviously not.

The rhythm of Gene's vacillation is sounding more like an Aphex Twin tune than an old pop song by this point. Throw a pebble at your opponent, Gene, you'll discover that the water ripples.

Madget,
Only time for one quick post today:

As I understand your post with the dictionary definition of "myth," you don't favor importing new definitions of the word, and suggest using the word "mythic" to describe things that are myth-like. The second part is clear enough, but I'm not sure why you are directing the first part only at me, since Charles has on this thread referred to this or that pop-culture item as a "myth," in such a way as to agree with Barthes' idiosyncratic reading of the term, despite his later attempt to define myth only in a believed story.

And lest you ask, I don't think any of Barthes' uses of the term parallel "idealized conception," "fictional person or thing," or "untruth." I glanced briefly at MYTHOLOGIES this morning and in one section he denies that myth is "untruth." He calls myth "an inflection" of language, and whatever that proves to be, I don't think it will fit any of the above.

I don't ask you to argue with Charles on the matter but it does seem to me that if you disavow my Campbell-esque reading of the word "myth," that you should disavow the equally-idiosyncratic Barthesian reading Charles has put forth.

Seems sensible to me; less confusing than "mythical."

Just glancing through for now, back later sometime.

K

Gene, you'd have to provide or remind me where to find a specific example of Charles referring to this or that pop-culture item as a myth (non-ironically.) I thought that usage was exactly what Charles was arguing against.

K

I don't think you or Gene or anyone else will find one. Best I can tell, Gene brought Barthes into the discussion and Charles first comment on Barthes was

I see Dean now that we can pick the Definitions of Myth that we want I have a few as well

By Definition Gilgamesh, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Iliad, and The Odyssey would be conventional -- formed by agreement or compact, according with, sanctioned by, or based on convention lacking originality or individuality; according with a mode of artistic representation that simplifies or provides symbols or substitutes for natural forms of traditional design.

I have yet to see how that while Myths may have conventions how myths are constrained to being only conventions. Convention or a kind of collective work?

Does that mean favoring the impersonal and socially deterministic conception of genre stories? I guess that depends on whether one considers the "necessarily conscious connection of each individual genre work to the category in which [it] belongs." the defining characteristic of art; or if like all thought new ideas and conventions pass though consciousness alike.

In the case of Myth "between the images of the unconscious and the language of conscious logic." For me that is as good a definition of "unaware" as we have gotten in this discussion.