Tolkien, story or mythology?

[Jayngfet]

I just bought a copy of the mythic beastiary and saw that orcs got a page to themselves(in the goblin entry, but they still got a page with an image) and I'm wondering if the stories by J.R.R. Tolkien should be considered something like a new legend. It's got all the signs except being old enough. Tolkien invented halflings and Orcs, both of which have been subverted, deconstructed, played with, and played straight countless times, the story itself is increasingly popular, has been adapted into every form of media, and it's popularized it's version of the elf(the same book mentions how pre tolkien elves were how we view gnomes or halflings).

Thoughts?

[averagejoe]

Whatever my personal thoughts on the book are, it definitely has staying power, and people will likely be telling it and retelling it for years to come. Of course, the new techniques we have for transmitting and reproducing information introduce a different paradigm in storytelling tradition, so it's difficult to say what form our remembrance of stories will take a hundred years from now. It might not become a myth in the sense of traditional myths, but it will certainly be remembered for a long time.

[toasty]

Yes, Tolkien did do a lot of things first, but nothing amazingly original. Hobbits were based off himself, orc comes from a Middle English word (that, I believe, appears in Beowulf) that means demon or something like that, and elves, well... he made them tall immortals, we've always had immortals no? His version of elves isn't terribly different than ancient versions. Different yes, but not really different.

In my mind Tolkien wrote the greatest fantasy epic of the 20th century. In my mind Tolkien was the greatest author of the twentieth century (though that one is debatable...)

As for a mythology in the sense of Greek Mythology and all that... I don't think so. It is, for all purposes, quite similar to such a mythology of old. Wikipedia (okay, not the best source, but I do agree with this definition) says mythologies: "refers to a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity."

That's not exactly what LotR is or believed to be for the most part. Most people who read it know that elves don't exist (those who do have issues.). everyone knows that Sauron never existed and hobbits don't live in some far off "shire", etc. I don't think Tolkien was trying to create a mythology or wanted his world to be a mythology (the guy was Catholic, he didn't need a mythology).

[Occasional Sage]

As for a mythology in the sense of Greek Mythology and all that... I don't think so. It is, for all purposes, quite similar to such a mythology of old. Wikipedia (okay, not the best source, but I do agree with this definition) says mythologies: "refers to a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity."

That's not exactly what LotR is or believed to be for the most part. Most people who read it know that elves don't exist (those who do have issues.). everyone knows that Sauron never existed and hobbits don't live in some far off "shire", etc. I don't think Tolkien was trying to create a mythology or wanted his world to be a mythology (the guy was Catholic, he didn't need a mythology).

Eh? Tolkien was fascinated by mythologies, legends, and what he called "fairy stories." Middle Earth was created specifically to explore the creation of myths and legends, and languages to accompany them. He hoped very earnestly that other people would be inspired and add to the body of work, making ME a living and collaborative thing.

[Tengu_temp]

Very influential story, but just a story nevertheless. William Gibson invented cyberpunk, but does anyone call his stories mythology?

[Occasional Sage]

No, but he doesn't create in the same scale. Tolkien worked for decades on a set of interconnecting stories and such, specifically mimicking mythology.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Very influential story, but just a story nevertheless. William Gibson invented cyberpunk, but does anyone call his stories mythology?

Chrétien de Troyes invented the holy grail and people call his stories mythology.

[averagejoe]

Very influential story, but just a story nevertheless. William Gibson invented cyberpunk, but does anyone call his stories mythology?

His stories don't have the same popularity or longevity that Tolkien's have. It's not wholly a matter of influence.

[warty goblin]

His stories don't have the same popularity or longevity that Tolkien's have. It's not wholly a matter of influence.

Indeed. Arguably, given how much of fantasy is more or less Tolkien but not as well written he succeeded. Not fully, because we're not a terribly mythological culture anymore (well, not that sort of myth anyways), but quite significantly.

[Carnivorous_Bea]

I'm not sure if it's mythology, although he certainly captured a lot of the 'feel' of mythology, which few other authors succeed in doing.

However, I do believe that the Lord of the Rings can be included among the great works of human literature, on a par with the greatest authors of the past, and isn't just another bit of cheap entertainment. It's too beautiful and moving to be the latter. :smallsmile:

[Jorkens]

Eh? Tolkien was fascinated by mythologies, legends, and what he called "fairy stories." Middle Earth was created specifically to explore the creation of myths and legends, and languages to accompany them. He hoped very earnestly that other people would be inspired and add to the body of work, making ME a living and collaborative thing.
But people still don't believe it to be true in any sense except on a consciously metaphorical level. To me, being actual mythology rather than a story in a mythological style doesn't just imply having a large and detailed world (come to that, a lot of mythology has a fairly confused and blurry world, cf the sense of geography in Arthurian legend), it implies a certain role in society, and a certain relation to truth and meaning and belief, which at the moment Middle Earth doesn't have.

[Jayngfet]

Yes, Tolkien did do a lot of things first, but nothing amazingly original. Hobbits were based off himself, orc comes from a Middle English word (that, I believe, appears in Beowulf) that means demon or something like that, and elves, well... he made them tall immortals, we've always had immortals no? His version of elves isn't terribly different than ancient versions. Different yes, but not really different.

In my mind Tolkien wrote the greatest fantasy epic of the 20th century. In my mind Tolkien was the greatest author of the twentieth century (though that one is debatable...)

As for a mythology in the sense of Greek Mythology and all that... I don't think so. It is, for all purposes, quite similar to such a mythology of old. Wikipedia (okay, not the best source, but I do agree with this definition) says mythologies: "refers to a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity."

That's not exactly what LotR is or believed to be for the most part. Most people who read it know that elves don't exist (those who do have issues.). everyone knows that Sauron never existed and hobbits don't live in some far off "shire", etc. I don't think Tolkien was trying to create a mythology or wanted his world to be a mythology (the guy was Catholic, he didn't need a mythology).

Mind if I raise one point? Modern people don't believe that people with faces on their chest exist, or that some cow that shoots fire from it's anus is after them.

[Dervag]

But people still don't believe it to be true in any sense except on a consciously metaphorical level. To me, being actual mythology rather than a story in a mythological style doesn't just imply having a large and detailed world (come to that, a lot of mythology has a fairly confused and blurry world, cf the sense of geography in Arthurian legend), it implies a certain role in society, and a certain relation to truth and meaning and belief, which at the moment Middle Earth doesn't have.I agree. Tolkein could become mythology for someone, in theory. It has all the literary qualities of a good set of myths. But people don't believe it the way the ancient Greeks believed in Zeus. And that's the critical difference.

Now, if somewhere out there there are people who really believe that Tolkein was cataloguing the history of the real prehistoric world, for them Tolkein is in fact mythology. Which doesn't mean it's a mythos for anyone else.


Mind if I raise one point? Modern people don't believe that people with faces on their chest exist, or that some cow that shoots fire from it's anus is after them.Yeah. So what? I'm not sure I understand what the point you've raised is.

[kamikasei]

This raises the interesting question of how much the people who wrote down and formulated the myths that we know of actually believed them. To what extent are the versions of various myths that we have every bit as much conscious fictions based on archetypes as Tolkien's work? (And remember then that Tolkien drew on existing myths both for the structures of his stories and for various names and characters...)

[Closet_Skeleton]

I want a third option.

[Jorkens]

This raises the interesting question of how much the people who wrote down and formulated the myths that we know of actually believed them. To what extent are the versions of various myths that we have every bit as much conscious fictions based on archetypes as Tolkien's work? (And remember then that Tolkien drew on existing myths both for the structures of his stories and for various names and characters...)
That's why I hedged my bets with the phrase "a certain relation to". It's not that a myth has to be universally believed, it's that it has to shape and/or reflect the way we act and the way we think about ourselves as a society. And I think it has to do that in a certain way - bits of Tolkein could be said to have influence as an ecological parable, but I think that's a different thing from being mythological.

I suppose bits of his stuff could be seen as contributing to the myth of what it is to be English, though - the nostalgic warm beer and cricket on the village green sort of identity, generally peace loving but capable of being tough if something threatens our way of life. So in that sense he's maybe writing mythology, but it seems like a different sort of mythology from people telling stories about Cuchulainn or Demeter and Persephone, or to give a more modern equivalent the Boston Tea Party or the evacuation of Dunkirk... maybe you'd say he's writing fiction that reinforces a myth rather than writing the myth itself?

I haven't thought this through entirely, but it's an interesting question...

[Evil DM Mark3]

Thoughts?This is exactly what Tolken set out to do.

My own personal views on the style aside I have to say he succeeded.

[Oregano]

Is Star Wars mythology then?:smallconfused:

I think not and neither is Tolkien's work, nor are they any more original that most works of fiction.

[Jayngfet]

Is Star Wars mythology then?:smallconfused:

I think not and neither is Tolkien's work, nor are they any more original that most works of fiction.

Completley different, tolkien's halflings and orcs are found all over the genre in countless forms, while I've never seen a non SW twi'lek in my life, The middle earth stories are also much older.

[Oregano]

Completley different, tolkien's halflings and orcs are found all over the genre in countless forms, while I've never seen a non SW twi'lek in my life, The middle earth stories are also much older.

It doesn't matter how old they are, it's 40 years at most as well and most of Middle Earth wasn't established when the Hobbit was made. And you may not see Twi'leks everywhere but Star Wars is everywhere in culture, maybe moreso than Tolkien's work.

Also people in a census put there religion as Jedi, which means it's got a religion founded on it. And more credibility as mythology.

[Jayngfet]

...You can't expect me to believe that someone takes the jedi religion seriously and didn't do that as a joke.

And tolkien invented several languages spoken(granted, star wars has huttese, but that's no where near as complete).

[averagejoe]

Is Star Wars mythology then?:smallconfused:

I think not and neither is Tolkien's work, nor are they any more original that most works of fiction.

What is this obsession people have with originality? It has no inherent value, yet people treat it as if it does.

Arguably Star Wars is a mythology, as are the stories about our modern day (super)heroes.

Dictionary.com offers two definitions for "myth." (Well, two relevant definitions. The others relate to the use of the word as "lie" or "fabrication.")

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

As I said earlier, the new ways in which we store and replicate information have created a new paradigm when it comes to tradition; however, one can certainly see such stories as analogous to the myths of old. They've been passed down and continually retold for what is approaching one hundred years and show no signs of stopping.

[Oregano]

What is this obsession people have with originality? It has no inherent value, yet people treat it as if it does.


Well people always go on about how Tolkien was so original and everyone copied him.

You can't have it both ways anyway, either they're both myths or neither is. And so what if Tolkien created languages, it means nothing!

Also I think at least a few people follow the ideals of the Jedi so :smalltongue:.

[Jayngfet]

So you want us to agree with you when you say our points mean nothing with no justification?

[Oregano]

So you want us to agree with you when you say our points mean nothing with no justification?

Well how does the fact that he created several languages back up the argument that his universe and works class as Myths? it's irrelevant.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Ok here is the acid test. Name fantasy settings that DON'T have Tolkeinesk elements. Do the same with Star Wars.

[Jayngfet]

Well how does the fact that he created several languages back up the argument that his universe and works class as Myths? it's irrelevant.

What about them putting jedi as religion, irrelevant to me too.

And the jedi ideals exist in several real religions.

[averagejoe]

Well how does the fact that he created several languages back up the argument that his universe and works class as Myths? it's irrelevant.

I don't remember anyone claiming that, and if they have then it certainly hasn't had a large bearing on this discussion. We've mainly been talking about the influence, perception, and reception of his works.

[Oregano]

What about them putting jedi as religion, irrelevant to me too.

And the jedi ideals exist in several real religions.

Well religion and mythology are closely related(aren't they_ so the existence of a real world Jedi religion gives some credibility to Star Wars as myths(even though they're not).

Also because a work is influential does not make it mythology.

It's also not fair to say fantasy stories.

EDIT:

I don't remember anyone claiming that, and if they have then it certainly hasn't had a large bearing on this discussion. We've mainly been talking about the influence, perception, and reception of his works.

Ahem...


And tolkien invented several languages spoken(granted, star wars has huttese, but that's no where near as complete).

[Jayngfet]

But tolkien has influinced stories in ways star wars hasn't, and influinced our notions, even if it's just at the gaming table. You see a good deal of elves wielding bows and dwarves with axes because tolkien did them, Drizzt runs over snow in orc king in a matter that automatically makes you think of legolas. Orcs have this "always chaotic evil" thing because tolkien invented them and never showed a positive side, not to mention all of the parodies of these elements.

[averagejoe]

EDIT:


Ahem...

Whoops, missed that because I was ninja'd. :smallredface:

Edit:


But tolkien has influinced stories in ways star wars hasn't, and influinced our notions, even if it's just at the gaming table. You see a good deal of elves wielding bows and dwarves with axes because tolkien did them, Drizzt runs over snow in orc king in a matter that automatically makes you think of legolas. Orcs have this "always chaotic evil" thing because tolkien invented them and never showed a positive side, not to mention all of the parodies of these elements.

Well, for one you have to appreciate that Tolkien has had somewhat more time to influence everyone than Lucas has. In fact, a lot of the conceits modern space fantasy has come from Star Wars, to the point where many of them seem like things taken for granted. (Maybe SW didn't do it first, but it popularized a lot of these things.) Not to mention that SW itself is still a living work, with stories being created and retold, stories about the old heroes or about completely new ones.

[Inyssius Tor]

Also people in a census put there religion as Jedi, which means it's got a religion founded on it. And more credibility as mythology.

Yes, because those people couldn't possibly have been being facetious. Of course not.

[Athaniar]

Wiktionary defines mythology as


"The collection of myths of a people, concerning the origin of the people, history, deities, ancestors and heroes."

I don't think that's an appropriate definition of Tolkien's work. I would rather call it an epic, but that's just me. Still, I agree with the OP in that it is basically the foundation for modern fantasy.

[Oregano]

But tolkien has influinced stories in ways star wars hasn't, and influinced our notions, even if it's just at the gaming table. You see a good deal of elves wielding bows and dwarves with axes because tolkien did them, Drizzt runs over snow in orc king in a matter that automatically makes you think of legolas. Orcs have this "always chaotic evil" thing because tolkien invented them and never showed a positive side, not to mention all of the parodies of these elements.

Are you serious?

They can both be pretty much summed up with one chain.
Influenced by>The work in question>Influenced.

Nearly all Sci-Fi post Star Wars has been influenced by it, hence the explosion in the late seventies of Space Opera's. Laser Swords? Anything in a Kevin Smith film? The Star Wars RPG? Moon sized death rays?

EDIT:

Yes, because those people couldn't possibly have been being facetious. Of course not.

I doubt absolutely all of them did it as a joke and they still chose Star Wars.

[averagejoe]

Wiktionary defines mythology as



I don't think that's an appropriate definition of Tolkien's work. I would rather call it an epic, but that's just me. Still, I agree with the OP in that it is basically the foundation for modern fantasy.

That's just one definition, though. For example, from Wikipedia:

"The word mythology (from the Greek μυθολογία mythología, meaning "a story-telling, a legendary lore") refers to a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity."

Dictionary.com

"1. a body of myths, as that of a particular people or that relating to a particular person: Greek mythology.
2. myths collectively.
3. the science or study of myths.
4. a set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered: the Fascist mythology of the interwar years. "

You can't just pick one definition and then discount the works as myth. I would argue that, perhaps, it's too early to tell whether they become mythological or not, but there's certainly something there.

[Athaniar]

That's just one definition, though. For example, from Wikipedia:

"The word mythology (from the Greek μυθολογία mythología, meaning "a story-telling, a legendary lore") refers to a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity."

Dictionary.com

"1. a body of myths, as that of a particular people or that relating to a particular person: Greek mythology.
2. myths collectively.
3. the science or study of myths.
4. a set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered: the Fascist mythology of the interwar years. "

You can't just pick one definition and then discount the works as myth. I would argue that, perhaps, it's too early to tell whether they become mythological or not, but there's certainly something there.

I don't find any of these definitions entirely accurate either, to be honest.

[rubakhin]

Uh ... story?

Damn, LotR isn't even that good.

[averagejoe]

I don't find any of these definitions entirely accurate either, to be honest.

:smallconfused: Based on what? I didn't find your definition to be entirely accurate.

Edit:


Uh ... story?

Damn, LotR isn't even that good.

Irrelevant. A lot of myths aren't that good.

[kamikasei]

Nearly all Sci-Fi post Star Wars has been influenced by it, hence the explosion in the late seventies of Space Opera's. Laser Swords? Anything in a Kevin Smith film? The Star Wars RPG? Moon sized death rays?

I think you're looking at a pretty small subset of "all sci-fi". I don't think much of the most notable written SF post-SW was particularly influenced by SW more than by the things that influenced SW in the first place.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I think you're looking at a pretty small subset of "all sci-fi". I don't think much of the most notable written SF post-SW was particularly influenced by SW more than by the things that influenced SW in the first place.

The main influence of Star Wars on Sci Fi is that in convinced executives that it was sellable.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Uh ... story?

Damn, LotR isn't even that good.Maybe not, but it is VIRAL.
The main influence of Star Wars on Sci Fi is that in convinced executives that it was sellable.No small victory however.

[warty goblin]

I think you're looking at a pretty small subset of "all sci-fi". I don't think much of the most notable written SF post-SW was particularly influenced by SW more than by the things that influenced SW in the first place.

Indeed, of the sci-fi I read, the Star Wars influence is pretty much non-existent. I've yet to find a fantasy without some sort of Tolkien influence.

[averagejoe]

Indeed, of the sci-fi I read, the Star Wars influence is pretty much non-existent. I've yet to find a fantasy without some sort of Tolkien influence.

'Swhy I said space fantasy instead of sci fi. I find it something of a misnomer to call Star Wars sci fi anyways, but that's a whole other argument.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Saying Star Wars is influential is like saying "Halo is influential, how many FPS games that involve a characterless military guy killing alien hordes do you see?".


'Swhy I said space fantasy instead of sci fi. I find it something of a misnomer to call Star Wars sci fi anyways, but that's a whole other argument.

The term is Space Opera, though many Space Opera stories were a bit more extreme than Star Wars (eg Lensmen).

[Oregano]

Saying Star Wars is influential is like saying "Halo is influential, how many FPS games that involve a characterless military guy killing alien hordes do you see?".


Or is like saying "LOTR is influential, how many Fantasies that involve Elves and Dwarves and magic Macguffins do you see?".

All three examples are where they haven't created the stuff, they popularised them.

EDIT:
Also, I meant Space Opera more precisely, so not all sci-fi but all space operas(and lots of other stuff).

[Closet_Skeleton]

Or is like saying "LOTR is influential, how many Fantasies that involve Elves and Dwarves and magic Macguffins do you see?".

All three examples are where they haven't created the stuff, they popularised them.

Tolkien did create elves and dwarves though. He just created them out of something that already existed.

[Oregano]

Tolkien did create elves and dwarves though. He just created them out of something that already existed.

Then he didn't create them, he just used them. How can you argue he created something that already existed?:smallconfused:

[warty goblin]

Or is like saying "LOTR is influential, how many Fantasies that involve Elves and Dwarves and magic Macguffins do you see?".

All three examples are where they haven't created the stuff, they popularised them.

EDIT:
Also, I meant Space Opera more precisely, so not all sci-fi but all space operas(and lots of other stuff).

I wouldn't even go so far as to say Star Wars influenced all Space Opera. Look at something like Mass Effect, which is pretty firmly a Space Opera, but is pretty wildly different than SW. Ditto Babylon 5 come to think of it. Double ditto WH40K, because if that's not space fantasy, I don't know what is.

[Innis Cabal]

Then he didn't create them, he just used them. How can you argue he created something that already existed?:smallconfused:

He re-invented them.

[Occasional Sage]

Joseph Campbell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell)'s definition of mythology is the one that makes the most sense to me: myths are a set of stories used to relate man to the mysteries of the world, and to the mysteries of the human condition. The more adventurous myths (as opposed to "why there is fire" type myths) are, he contends, allegories of the human life cycle or condition, and give cultures a template on with which to ground themselves in the face of change.

He claims further that this function is served when the myths are part of the collective belief, as the Greek myths were back in the day, but that they cease to function after that foundational belief is lost. Hence, we all know Greek myths but derive no particular lessons from them, because they are "dead" and are read intellectually by modern people. That doesn't make them any less myths, though.

By that measure, both LotR and Star Wars qualify. Heck, he talks fairly extensively about the original Star Wars trilogy as a modern "coming of age" myth. I'm sure he'd've had plenty to say about the new ones too, had he lived to see them. He was a friend of Lucas's, though, so I'm sure he had a fair amount of influence on the stories long before the movies were made.


Well how does the fact that he created several languages back up the argument that his universe and works class as Myths? it's irrelevant.

I'd argue that the creation of a real language (not just a couple of cool-sounding words, but the full learnable language and it decendants that Tolkien created, analogous to creating Latin and the Romance languages) develops, solidifies, and clarifies the created culture for the readers. This allows them to more fully identify with the characters and situations, whether or not they learn of even know of the fictitious language, and thus to gain value from the stories in a way that can be applied to their own life. Or would, if they weren't read in the same manner as Greek myths. But again, it's the form and usefulness that matters, rather than the actual use.

ETA: I think the "SW vs. LotR" direction this thread has taken is irrelevant; whether either serves better or worse as myth is a red herring. The question is, "does LotR work as a mythology?". For that, the meaning of mythology is fairly key and needs to be at least roughly agreed upon first.

[Oregano]

I wouldn't even go so far as to say Star Wars influenced all Space Opera. Look at something like Mass Effect, which is pretty firmly a Space Opera, but is pretty wildly different than SW. Ditto Babylon 5 come to think of it. Double ditto WH40K, because if that's not space fantasy, I don't know what is.

Mass Effect is pretty much Knights of the Old Repbulic with Jedis and the force(although the TK powers are basically force powers). It's very similar to KOTOR.

Not too familiar with Babylon 5(only seen it like years ago).

Again not too familiar with WH40K, but I'm sure I've heard some things that sound like Star Wars influences.

[Athaniar]

Then he didn't create them, he just used them. How can you argue he created something that already existed?:smallconfused:

I think what he means is that yes, there existed elves and dwarves before, but not in the shape in which we see them most often today. That shape was what Tolkien created.

[Oregano]

I think what he means is that yes, there existed elves and dwarves before, but not in the shape in which we see them most often today. That shape was what Tolkien created.

Tolkien dwarves are just Norse dwarves and his elves were pretty much lifted directly by some other guys book, I'll see if I can find out who(I'm sure he was a Lord but that's about it).

[warty goblin]

Mass Effect is pretty much Knights of the Old Repbulic with Jedis and the force(although the TK powers are basically force powers). It's very similar to KOTOR.

Not too familiar with Babylon 5(only seen it like years ago).

Again not too familiar with WH40K, but I'm sure I've heard some things that sound like Star Wars influences.

Mass Effect is like Star Wars except for the moral ambiguity, the racism, the power structure, the sort of things that characters do, the tools that they use, and pretty much everything else. Arguing that ME is like Star Wars because it shares gameplay similarities with a Star Wars game is more or less equivalent to arguing that all Star Wars novels are like Tolkien because both of them involve words. On a separate note, unlike KoTOR, ME's gameplay did not make me wish I still used a mouse with a cord so I could strangle myself with it.

[Oregano]

Mass Effect is like Star Wars except for the moral ambiguity, the racism, the power structure, the sort of things that characters do, the tools that they use, and pretty much everything else. Arguing that ME is like Star Wars because it shares gameplay similarities with a Star Wars game...

Both are morally ambigious, have rasicm, the power structures are similar(to the republic I mean), they do however have big differences, the character's aren't that far apart, tools(don't really learn much about those spiffy bracelet things to techies have) and the psychic power thing is like the force(both in and out of gameplay), ME strikes me as KOTOR 3 but Lucasarts(or whoever) didn't want to go ahead with it.

[Jorkens]

Joseph Campbell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell)'s definition of mythology is the one that makes the most sense to me: myths are a set of stories used to relate man to the mysteries of the world, and to the mysteries of the human condition. The more adventurous myths (as opposed to "why there is fire" type myths) are, he contends, allegories of the human life cycle or condition, and give cultures a template on with which to ground themselves in the face of change.

He claims further that this function is served when the myths are part of the collective belief, as the Greek myths were back in the day, but that they cease to function after that foundational belief is lost. Hence, we all know Greek myths but derive no particular lessons from them, because they are "dead" and are read intellectually by modern people. That doesn't make them any less myths, though.

By that measure, both LotR and Star Wars qualify. Heck, he talks fairly extensively about the original Star Wars trilogy as a modern "coming of age" myth. I'm sure he'd've had plenty to say about the new ones too, had he lived to see them. He was a friend of Lucas's, though, so I'm sure he had a fair amount of influence on the stories long before the movies were made.

What do you mean by "part of the collective belief"? The most obvious interpretation would be that a large proportion of people basically believe that they're essentially true. Which would rule out both cases, since as far as I know noone believes that either of them is in any remotely literal sense true.

Purely the fact that something tells us something about ourselves and our relation to the universe, nature, stuff etc seems like an excessively loose condition - I mean, practically all 'literary' fiction does that to some extent...

[Jorkens]

And all this stuff about literary influence seems like a different argument, to be honest. I don't really see how influencing other works within your genre really makes something a 'modern mythology'.

[warty goblin]

Both are morally ambigious, have rasicm, the power structures are similar(to the republic I mean), they do however have big differences, the character's aren't that far apart, tools(don't really learn much about those spiffy bracelet things to techies have) and the psychic power thing is like the force(both in and out of gameplay), ME strikes me as KOTOR 3 but Lucasarts(or whoever) didn't want to go ahead with it.

As I said, gameplay similarities are pretty meaningless, and I've never really gotten anything approaching moral ambiguity with what goes on in Star Wars.Rebels good, Empire bad, says so right when the movie starts, and that's pretty much the way it plays out throughout as well. I would note massive differences between the Jedi and the Biotics. I mean I really don't remember Jedi being trained by abusive corporate interests on remote space stations or being the result of mutation from industrial accidents. The powers fill a similar gameplay niche yes, but completely different roles in the fluff, and the fluff is fundamentally the more interesting thing to me when comparing two settings. I mean the guns in Crysis fills the same gameplay niche as the guns in S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but calling the two settings alike is pretty wildly flawed.

[Oregano]

Moral Ambiguity? Han Solo. Plus the whole did Vader killing the Jedi's bring order?

The biotics and force powers have different fluff, but is it not the same utility(both in and out of gameplay) and are they not both fueled by microscopic stuff(not quite sure on this one but I think they are).

The whole abusive corporate thing(may not have happened to many Jedi) but the Sith's methods? and in KOTOR Czerka are pretty much the evil corporation thing.

[WychWeird]

Mass Effect is pretty much Knights of the Old Repbulic with Jedis and the force(although the TK powers are basically force powers). It's very similar to KOTOR.

Not too familiar with Babylon 5(only seen it like years ago).

Again not too familiar with WH40K, but I'm sure I've heard some things that sound like Star Wars influences.

B5 was (IMHO) awesome - but I wouldn't say it was based in SW; it did have echoes of a Tolkienesque epoch spanning story.

WH40K, to me, was just Tolkien's (re)creations in a futuristic setting having evolved out of Warhammer Fantasy roleplay, itself a spin on AD&D which drew from many sources, including Tolkien...

As I understand it, Tolkien set out to create a mythologically style collection of stories - something I feel he created. So for me, a story.

Shame the Subject wasn't 'Hit or Myth?' (I'll get my coat...)

[warty goblin]

Moral Ambiguity? Han Solo. Plus the whole did Vader killing the Jedi's bring order?

The biotics and force powers have different fluff, but is it not the same utility(both in and out of gameplay) and are they not both fueled by microscopic stuff(not quite sure on this one but I think they are).

The whole abusive corporate thing(may not have happened to many Jedi) but the Sith's methods? and in KOTOR Czerka are pretty much the evil corporation thing.

Han Solo is morally ambiguous? Really, not so much. And Vader axing the Jedi might have brought order, but an order that is canonically only slightly less evil than crucifying puppies. There is absolutely no moral ambiguity there, person does bad thing, bad results ensue.

Biotics and the Force actually seem to work pretty differently for the most part. Biotics are just people who have the ability to interact with Element Zero using brain waves, which allows them to alter the apparent gravity of things through the use of a Biotic amp, which is IIRC some sort of amp. The implication is that they have this ability due to in utero exposure to Ezo. The guy voiced by the same dude who voiced Carth in KoTOR who's name I am totally blanking right now basically said he only is a biotic because his mother was near a crashed starship when she was pregnant with him. And I never called the corporation evil, just abusive. It's pretty arguable that doing what they did was the only way to jumpstart the human Biotic program quickly and so maintain parity with the rest of the galaxy.

[Dervag]

Completley different, tolkien's halflings and orcs are found all over the genre in countless forms, while I've never seen a non SW twi'lek in my life, The middle earth stories are also much older.There's a reason for that. Twi'leks are copyrighted, and LucasArts defends their copyrights. Also, Star Wars wasn't a founding influence in its genre because its genre was already around before George Lucas was even born.

Both stories were created within living memory; one is about thirty years older than the other. Neither is widely believed. In my opinion, neither of them qualifies as mythology becasue their origins are well known and they are almost universally considered to be total fiction. There are exceptions on the fringe, sure, but only among people whose grasp on reality is widely questioned everywhere else.

A story becomes mythology when the line between truth, fiction, and religious belief starts to blur. That hasn't happened yet for the works of Lucas or Tolkein, and it probably never will.


...You can't expect me to believe that someone takes the jedi religion seriously and didn't do that as a joke.Actually, its tenets make for a reasonable form of pseudo-Eastern mysticism; it's no stupider than many other religions and not much less artificial.

And while it's surely true that average people will not take Jedi-ism seriously, who takes Valar-worship seriously? This isn't an area where Tolkein has an advantage over Lucas.


Ok here is the acid test. Name fantasy settings that DON'T have Tolkeinesk elements.Conan the Barbarian?

[averagejoe]

As I said, gameplay similarities are pretty meaningless, and I've never really gotten anything approaching moral ambiguity with what goes on in Star Wars.Rebels good, Empire bad, says so right when the movie starts, and that's pretty much the way it plays out throughout as well. I would note massive differences between the Jedi and the Biotics. I mean I really don't remember Jedi being trained by abusive corporate interests on remote space stations or being the result of mutation from industrial accidents. The powers fill a similar gameplay niche yes, but completely different roles in the fluff, and the fluff is fundamentally the more interesting thing to me when comparing two settings. I mean the guns in Crysis fills the same gameplay niche as the guns in S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but calling the two settings alike is pretty wildly flawed.

I haven't played ME, so I can't say you're wrong. However, if you're right then it seems like you're right for the wrong reasons. The existence of moral ambiguities, for example, does not make it automatically separate from Star Wars. That's like saying A Song of Fire and Ice has no Tolkien influences because it has moral ambiguities. It's an extraordinarily different work, yes, and one would be hard pressed to call the two novels comparable, but at the same time those influences are undeniably there.

Again, I haven't played ME so I can't argue its case, but you seem to be confusing a direct influence or derivative work with something that is influenced by a work at all. If this were the case then pretty much the only work influenced by Tolkien or Lucas would be Eragon. :smallbiggrin:

Edit:


Both stories were created within living memory; one is about thirty years older than the other. Neither is widely believed. In my opinion, neither of them qualifies as mythology becasue their origins are well known and they are almost universally considered to be total fiction. There are exceptions on the fringe, sure, but only among people whose grasp on reality is widely questioned everywhere else.

A story becomes mythology when the line between truth, fiction, and religious belief starts to blur. That hasn't happened yet for the works of Lucas or Tolkein, and it probably never will.

As I said before, we live in an entirely new world with different storytelling traditions. We can never have myths like those of old without some sort of huge technological regression. Their precise origins will always be well documented and known barring that. No one believes them to be literally true, yet it is undeniable that these (and others) are the stories of our society. In some ways it's an entirely new thing, but in other ways it's very much analogous to mythology, especially when one manages to put away one's modern prejudices. They may never become religious, but they will be passed down and retold for years to come.

[Jayngfet]

Actually, we know exactly who made up gnomes, same guy who made up slyphs.

[Berserk Monk]

Tolkien invented halflings and Orcs...

No he didn't. Orcs come from the Roman god Orcus, and halflings are just another type of elf or sprite in legends and mythology. Tolkien did however give them a unique back story, an origin, and characteristics which is why he and his Middle Earth kick the crap out of Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling who never invented anything original.

[kamikasei]

And while it's surely true that average people will not take Jedi-ism seriously, who takes Valar-worship seriously? This isn't an area where Tolkein has an advantage over Lucas.

Actually, and without getting into proper religious discussion, given Tolkien's beliefs and how they influenced his works you certainly could construct an entire set of sermons or introduction to theology based around the mythology of Middle Earth. That's not Valar-worship, though, but it probably does less violence to the subject matter than would a "Star Wars guide to Taoism".

[Dervag]

Personally, I think that mythology as it used to be known (legends of the supernatural that supposedly happened in real life) is dead. I think we need a new word for what's taking its place (stories of the supernatural that are known to be fictional but that get a lot of attention and interest anyway).


Actually, we know exactly who made up gnomes, same guy who made up slyphs.The idea of gnomes (little men who live underground) is actually old. Now, the distinction between gnomes, dwarves, kobolds, and so forth may be new. But that's another story.


Actually, and without getting into proper religious discussion, given Tolkien's beliefs and how they influenced his works you certainly could construct an entire set of sermons or introduction to theology based around the mythology of Middle Earth. That's not Valar-worship, though, but it probably does less violence to the subject matter than would a "Star Wars guide to Taoism".Of course you could. But what I'm getting at is something else- that neither Tolkein nor Lucas has managed to get any noticeable religious enthusiasm behind their characters. I'm sure Tolkein would be glad to know that, and almost sure Lucas is, but that too is beside the point.

In ancient times there were actual statues of Hercules and temples to Demeter and such that you would pray to and actually expect to get results. People could die for acts that were believed to offend those gods. There's nothing like that in the modern world with regards to "20th century mythology." The new fiction fills the role of myths in our minds, but not in our society at large.

[Jorkens]

As I said before, we live in an entirely new world with different storytelling traditions. We can never have myths like those of old without some sort of huge technological regression. Their precise origins will always be well documented and known barring that. No one believes them to be literally true, yet it is undeniable that these (and others) are the stories of our society. In some ways it's an entirely new thing, but in other ways it's very much analogous to mythology, especially when one manages to put away one's modern prejudices. They may never become religious, but they will be passed down and retold for years to come.
I think the modern myths are the stories in the newspapers and magazines about the self made millionaires who lived the american dream, the debauched rock stars who lived fast and died young, the villagers who worked together to save their local shop, the brave soldiers who risked their lives for their friends. And on the flipside, the businessmen who spent so long at work they forgot what they were really working for, the PC brigade trying to ban Christmas, the bent coppers, the good kids who got involved with drugs and ended up dead of overdoses.

These are the stories that not only try to tell us something about who we are, what our society is about, what we can aspire to and what we should fear, but which we sort-of kind-of believe to be something close to the truth. I think if you want to see something modern that works like a myth, the news stand is a better place to look than the fiction section.

[Dacia Brabant]

Tolkien's Legendarium (not Lord of the Rings only, the whole corpus of his Middle-earth work) is a mythology in the sense that it's an active, intentional compiling and retelling of the myths, legends and folklore of various European cultures in a format that's accessible to modern readers. It wasn't that he just made references to this material, he recreated the stories and put them all into a unified cosmology, which is what makes it a myth.

Shoot, he even included overtly Judeo-Christian-inspired myths (Melkor/Lucifer, who even gets the blame for the Fall of Man) on the same level as other sources like the Kalevala (Turin Turambar), the Aeneid (Fall of Gondolin) or Plato's Atlantis (Numenor), not to mention elves that are right out of Norse paganism. That's pretty cool that he could see his own religion in mythological terms.

[Texas_Ben]

most of Middle Earth wasn't established when the Hobbit was made.

The Hobbit was supposed to be a stand-alone story similar to many of Tolkien's other shorter works (Farmer Giles of Ham, Smith of somewhere-or-other, etc), and he had been working on Middle earth and the elvish language for quite a while before even beginning the Hobbit.

Wiktionary defines mythology as

The collection of myths of a people, concerning the origin of the people, history, deities, ancestors and heroes.



I don't think that's an appropriate definition of Tolkien's work. I would rather call it an epic, but that's just me. Still, I agree with the OP in that it is basically the foundation for modern fantasy.
Read the Silmarillion then say that it isn't an appropriate definition... It's spot-on.

[pendell]

Point: It's hard to build 'valar worship' out of Silmarillion, because no one worships the Valar in any of the books. Reverence, yes, the way an old-time person might reverence an older brother or a father, but not 'worship'. The Numenorean temple described in Akallabeth is to Eru Illuvatar and to no other. The only Valar and Maiar who go in for worship, making themselves as gods to men, are Melkor and Sauron. They aren't exactly positive role models in the books.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Texas_Ben]

Point: It's hard to build 'valar worship' out of Silmarillion, because no one worships the Valar in any of the books. Reverence, yes, the way an old-time person might reverence an older brother or a father, but not 'worship'. The Numenorean temple described in Akallabeth is to Eru Illuvatar and to no other. The only Valar and Maiar who go in for worship, making themselves as gods to men, are Melkor and Sauron. They aren't exactly positive role models in the books.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
When did I mention Valar worship? Did you even read the list?
Origins of:
The People? Check.
History? Check.
Deities? Check. (He was always there)
Ancestors? Check.
Heroes? Check.

[kamikasei]

When did I mention Valar worship? Did you even read the list?

Other people mentioned it elsewhere in the thread. And that's a point, Pendell, but unless you want to get all universalist on us you can just substitute "worship of Eru Illuvatar" for "Valar-worship" and it makes the same point.

[Jorkens]

When did I mention Valar worship? Did you even read the list?
Origins of:
The People? Check.
History? Check.
Deities? Check. (He was always there)
Ancestors? Check.
Heroes? Check.
Erm, yes, but this is all for a fictional people. It doesn't tell the reader anything about their own history, deities, ancestors etc. It's a story in the form of a fictional mythology, but it isn't a myth in its own right any more than The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings were written by actual hobbits.

[Oregano]

Erm, yes, but this is all for a fictional people. It doesn't tell the reader anything about their own history, deities, ancestors etc. It's a story in the form of a fictional mythology, but it isn't a myth in its own right any more than The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings were written by actual hobbits.

Exactly, just because it's inworld mythology doesn't make it out of world mythology.

[Brewdude]

I haven't played ME, so I can't say you're wrong. However, if you're right then it seems like you're right for the wrong reasons. The existence of moral ambiguities, for example, does not make it automatically separate from Star Wars. That's like saying A Song of Fire and Ice has no Tolkien influences because it has moral ambiguities. It's an extraordinarily different work, yes, and one would be hard pressed to call the two novels comparable, but at the same time those influences are undeniably there.


I'm going to have to call foul here. Back that statement up with examples of tolkien's influence, 'cause I just don't see it. Dragons? predate's LotR. Season issue? Original. Big fight between good and bad? Hello, Bible anyone? Original world with it's own story that isn't related to earth in any way?

Ok, but that's the only thing. Name another.

I'd say D&D had a vaster influence on modern fantastical writing than Tolkien, it's just that D&D stole liberally from Tolkien, but also from Jack Vance (Original magic system is a direct theft from Dying Earth) and others

[Dervag]

Point: It's hard to build 'valar worship' out of Silmarillion, because no one worships the Valar in any of the books. Reverence, yes, the way an old-time person might reverence an older brother or a father, but not 'worship'. The Numenorean temple described in Akallabeth is to Eru Illuvatar and to no other. The only Valar and Maiar who go in for worship, making themselves as gods to men, are Melkor and Sauron. They aren't exactly positive role models in the books.Pendell, you are absolutely right and have completely missed my point.

What I'm trying to get at is that there are zero, or effectively zero, people whose religious beliefs are drawn from Tolkein. Regardless of what fictional religions, fictional legends, and fictional beings exist within the story, no one outside the story believes in them in the sense that people might believe in, say, Buddha. Or Jesus. Or (in another era) Zeus or Thor.

Zeus had a mythology in a real culture. There were actually people who believed that Zeus accomplished extraordinary feats and had been a real factor in the history of the world.

The Tolkein Legendarium does not have a mythology in a real culture. Tolkein created all those legends, and he knew they were fictional, and (this is important) so does everybody else. They aren't mythology if no one believes them, even if everyone reads them and discusses them.

[Athaniar]

Conan the Barbarian?

But Conan is older than Tolkien's works, right?

[WalkingTarget]

But Conan is older than Tolkien's works, right?

Yes. Robert Howard was even dead before The Hobbit was published, so unless Tolkien's personal copy that he lent to friends made its way into Howards hands before publication it's not really a possibility that he was even aware of it.

As for the discussion at large: no, Tolkien's writing isn't, in itself, mythology. It was written with the express purpose of being like mythology, a goal which I think he met.

[RTGoodman]

Ok here is the acid test. Name fantasy settings that DON'T have Tolkeinesk elements. Do the same with Star Wars.

Barbara Hambly's Dragonsbane series; the setting for most of Neil Gaiman's works (American Gods, Anansi Boys, Stardust, and Neverwhere, plus a multitude of short stories); Stephen King's Eyes of the Dragon; Garth Nix's Seventh Tower series; Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell (I assume - I never finished it); T.H. White's Once and Future King; and Piers Anthony's Xanth novels, to name a few. (Some of these may have slightly Tolkien-esque elements, since it's been a while since I read them, but I don't THINK they have many. And if there are, in a lot of a cases it's probably just because the authors drew upon the same source material.)

I can't do the Star Wars one as easily, since I'm not as familiar with sci-fi, but it seems that Orson Scott Card's Ender-Verse novels, his Homecoming saga, probably Hubbard's sci-fi stuff, and numerous sci-fi movies (Sunshine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_(2007_film)), Children of Men, etc.) are not that influenced by Star Wars.




Personally, I think that mythology as it used to be known (legends of the supernatural that supposedly happened in real life) is dead. I think we need a new word for what's taking its place (stories of the supernatural that are known to be fictional but that get a lot of attention and interest anyway).

Er... fantasy literature? :smallwink:


To answer the OP, I think it's a little of both. It's definitely a story to us, and a darn good one. But that wasn't Tolkien's only goal, I don't think. It seems that he set out to create a whole living, breathing culture, and in that sense, he did create a mythology - it's just not OUR mythology, though it includes many allusions to real-world mythology.

[Texas_Ben]

To answer the OP, I think it's a little of both. It's definitely a story to us, and a darn good one. But that wasn't Tolkien's only goal, I don't think. It seems that he set out to create a whole living, breathing culture, and in that sense, he did create a mythology - it's just not OUR mythology, though it includes many allusions to real-world mythology.
While I grasped the OP's meaning, it seems this entire discussion has been bogged down with petty semantics over the precise meaning of "mythology" and people generally being obtuse and stubborn. Not to mention stupid quibbling over who invented orcs, languages, thematic elements, whether or not people really think they are jedi, and other stupid things.

I think a much more concise word for the concept the OP was trying to convey is Folklore. I'll say it again, I'll say it a thousand times: Folklore folklore folklore. And OP is correct, Tolkien created what amounts to modern folklore. Seeing as how he (and a few other authors, as people will be sure to scream in my face) basically invented modern fantasy. No, he didn't do anything terribly original (but guess what, NOTHING is original), he was retelling old myths, but what bearing does that have on his works influence? And yes, the work's influence is very important in considering whether or not to consider it folklore/mythology, etc. Tolkien is more or less the baseline for fantasy... Tolkien's elves, dwarves, goblins, etc, are all the standard by which other are... well I won't say judged, but they are something of a baseline, as I said before. It is virtually impossible to find a work of fantasy that does not show signs of Tolkien's influence (Though I don't read a ton of fantasy)

[snoopy13a]

No he didn't. Orcs come from the Roman god Orcus, and halflings are just another type of elf or sprite in legends and mythology. Tolkien did however give them a unique back story, an origin, and characteristics which is why he and his Middle Earth kick the crap out of Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling who never invented anything original.

Originality isn't necessary for a work to be great. For example, many of Shakespeare's works took their plots from earlier stories or from history.

[hamishspence]

Orcs were originally, in some legends, sea monsters- from which we get Orca. Tolkien himself admitted to this in references on orcs and goblins in LOTR.

[WalkingTarget]

Orcs were originally, in some legends, sea monsters- from which we get Orca. Tolkien himself admitted to this in references on orcs and goblins in LOTR.

Tolkien said, "I originally took the word from Old English orc (Beowulf 112 orc-neas and the gloss orc = þyrs ('ogre'), heldeofol ('hell-devil')). This is supposed not to be connected with modern English orc, ork, a name applied to various sea-beasts of the dolphin order."

Edit - The similarity of the OE word "orc-neas" and the Latin word in reference to whales that orcas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orca) are named after is a coincidence.

Edit 2 - ...or at least that was Tolkien's opinion as a scholar in Old English. Sorry about the numerous edits.

[Dervag]

But Conan is older than Tolkien's works, right?Exactly.

My point is that while Tolkein was a major influence on subsequent fantasy works, there exist fantasy worlds that were created before Tolkein started publishing. In the case of the Conan setting, the fantasy world is still alive and well today; people were writing novels set in it fifty years after Howard's death.

Conan, in turn, was an influence on a number of other fantasy settings that bear little resemblance to the world of Tolkien.

Or we can look at Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword, which has elves and trolls, but bears little resemblance to Tolkien. It's a much 'straighter' representation of the creatures of Norse mythology, and it is not set in a prehistoric past. Anderson's elves are not nice by any reasonable standards. I would argue that it the book is a 'cousin' of Tolkien- descended from the same ancestors, and thus similar to Tolkein, but not significantly influenced by Tolkien.

Again, this story was an influence on many works of fantasy.
____________

So you can point to Tolkien influences, but it's hard to untangle Tolkien influence from influence by the same things that influenced Tolkien (pretty much the entire mythology of Northern Europe).

[Dervag]

Er... fantasy literature? :smallwink:I mean that these are stories with enduring power- the ones that are likely to be around and still discussed long after their authors are dead. Most modern authors, even the good ones, can't say that.

They have staying power like old mythology did, but they aren't taken as literal truth by anyone. That's what I'm trying to get at. I think this phenomenon of stories with staying power and resonance that everyone knows aren't true is a new phenomenon, unique to post-printing press world. It includes not only fantasy like the works of Tolkein, but also more mundane-set fictional works with staying power, like Shakespeare.

Like it or not, Star Wars seems to fall into this category. It's probably going to be around for at least another fifty years, and it may well be around in some form almost indefinitely.


To answer the OP, I think it's a little of both. It's definitely a story to us, and a darn good one. But that wasn't Tolkien's only goal, I don't think. It seems that he set out to create a whole living, breathing culture, and in that sense, he did create a mythology - it's just not OUR mythology, though it includes many allusions to real-world mythology.In that sense, you're right. It's just that the culture he created isn't practiced by any real people.

[Texas_Ben]

Orcs were originally, in some legends, sea monsters- from which we get Orca. Tolkien himself admitted to this in references on orcs and goblins in LOTR.

How does that have any bearing on the discussion at hand? The point is that as of now, the baseline definition of 'orc' is, essentially, Tolkien's goblins/orcs.

[Texas_Ben]

They have staying power like old mythology did, but they aren't taken as literal truth by anyone. That's what I'm trying to get at. I think this phenomenon of stories with staying power and resonance that everyone knows aren't true is a new phenomenon, unique to post-printing press world. It includes not only fantasy like the works of Tolkein, but also more mundane-set fictional works with staying power, like Shakespeare.

Like it or not, Star Wars seems to fall into this category. It's probably going to be around for at least another fifty years, and it may well be around in some form almost indefinitely.
Folklore folklore folklore, I'll just keep sayin it till people pay attention.

[Dallas-Dakota]

I'm not sure if it's mythology, although he certainly captured a lot of the 'feel' of mythology, which few other authors succeed in doing.

However, I do believe that the Lord of the Rings can be included among the great works of human literature, on a par with the greatest authors of the past, and isn't just another bit of cheap entertainment. It's too beautiful and moving to be the latter. :smallsmile:
Seconded. And he ment to.

And also on the latter paragraph, please make that the works of Middle Earth.

Fairly little threads can pull me into Media Discussions, threads about Tolkien can.:smallwink:

[Haven]

I think the modern myths are the stories in the newspapers and magazines about the self made millionaires who lived the american dream, the debauched rock stars who lived fast and died young, the villagers who worked together to save their local shop, the brave soldiers who risked their lives for their friends. And on the flipside, the businessmen who spent so long at work they forgot what they were really working for, the PC brigade trying to ban Christmas, the bent coppers, the good kids who got involved with drugs and ended up dead of overdoses.

These are the stories that not only try to tell us something about who we are, what our society is about, what we can aspire to and what we should fear, but which we sort-of kind-of believe to be something close to the truth. I think if you want to see something modern that works like a myth, the news stand is a better place to look than the fiction section.

Quoted for truth.

re: Texas_Ben: You may wish to consider taking the lack of attention as feedback, and adjust your argument accordingly.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The more I delve into Tolkien's works, the more I discover that he really did create a frickin' mythology. There's a number of interesting points out there on the subject, but I am firmly and truly convinced that it is mythology. Let's take a look at some of the ideas that have gone around in this thread.

Tolkien's works aren't taken as fact in any way, shape, or form, and ergo aren't mythology.
Being taken as fact isn't a prerequisite for mythology, rather, mythology contains within it the remnants of a true thing which happened. Believe it or not, Tolkien's work does contain this. He invented very little of his mythos on his own. Rather, he delved into ancient lore (Finnish, Germanic, and British, mainly), and attempted to reconstruct a primordial story from which all other myths could have arisen. He sets up events in the Silmarillion as predecessors to existing mythological occurrences. He also uses the roots of language to reconstruct mythology, and to examine the peoples who originated these languages. Because words have stories, and dissecting the words reveals the stories behind them.

Tolkien's works aren't old, therefore they're not mythology.
This would be a valid point if Tolkien's work was merely an invention of the 20th Century. This is the reason why, for example, Robert Jordan isn't the inventor of a mythology. Tolkien, on the other hand, saw his work as one of discovery, not of invention. He was a reconstructor of possible origins for myths. Now, he wasn't writing as a pure historian, but if you think of him as that, things become a lot more interesting.

A bit about linguistics and mythology.
Tolkien was, first and foremost, a linguist, and a brilliant one. And he had something very interesting to say about mythology and language. He directly linked the invention of the adjective to the invention of myth. Before the adjective, abstract qualities of an object were tied to the idea of the object. For example, "green" was inherent in "grass". And so, all stories that were told had to be purely natural.

When, however, man realized that "green" was independent of "grass", "green" could then be abstracted out of "grass", and applied to other things. If you had green grass, Tolkien said, you could also have a green sun...or a green dragon. The adjective allowed the human mind to blossom. (This, by the way, is in his essay "On Fairy-Stories")

In Short
Tolkien's masterpiece was really just a tiny part, a tiny scrape, belonging to a gigantic exploration that became his life's work. What he did was so expansive, so impressive, so awe-inspiring, that we still don't have all of his work. Christopher Tolkien is still sorting through his father's notes and papers, and trying to put them in order. Only just recently, we had a version of his legend The Sorrows of the Children of Hurin published in whole. The guy was amazing.

And I'm impressed if y'all made it through this post. Kudos to you. This has been a CG Rant About Tolkien.

[Jorkens]

Tolkien's works aren't taken as fact in any way, shape, or form, and ergo aren't mythology.
Being taken as fact isn't a prerequisite for mythology, rather, mythology contains within it the remnants of a true thing which happened.
Where are you getting this from? Pretty much every definition of 'mythology' that I've seen requires widespread belief in the more-or-less literal truth of the stories by a lot of the people whose mythology it is.

[warty goblin]

Where are you getting this from? Pretty much every definition of 'mythology' that I've seen requires widespread belief in the more-or-less literal truth of the stories by a lot of the people whose mythology it is.

I don't think very many people believe in Zeus anymore (more's the pity), but yet there's Greek mythology.

[RPGuru1331]

Oh come on, people. He wrote the whole thing so he wouldn't waste the languages he invented. This isn't that complex. We'd call it a campaign setting if he'd written it for an RPG. It's just not mythology. It's not written to really explain anything about how our world works. He was too devout a Christian to try to supplant their mythology.


I don't think very many people believe in Zeus anymore (more's the pity), but yet there's Greek mythology.
The difference is that fear and worship of Zeus and his pantheon used to (in part) shape the lives of folks. Nobody ever feared and worshipped... whatever his name is, I don't know the setting, just how it came to be.

[Jorkens]

I don't think very many people believe in Zeus anymore (more's the pity), but yet there's Greek mythology.
That's because it's ancient greek mythology, not 21st century western mythology. The people who originally told the stories evidently did believe in Zeus, at least enough to build huge temples and make a lot of sacrifices to get in his good books... noone has ever at any point (except maybe a few nutters in the sixties) believed that Tolkein's work is anything other than a work of the imagination, albeit one that incorporates elements of things that some people used to believe in the past.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Why does mythology have to be believed at any point? The word "mythology" comes from the Greek words "mythos" (story, legend) and "logos" (writing, word). Nothing there about being believed. That's just the way you define it, because by your observation, people used to believe mythology.

Actually, that's not proven fact. It's entirely possible that much mythology wasn't actually believed, even by its originators. Perhaps mythology originated similarly to when Tolkien did his work. Maybe the ancients weren't as gullible and superstitious as we'd like to think they were.

[Oregano]

Then all books are mythology?

What separates Tolkien from any other writers or creators of the modern era that makes his work mythology and their's not?

or is it just that you like Tolkien?:smallconfused:

[warty goblin]

Then all books are mythology?

What separates Tolkien from any other writers or creators of the modern era that makes his work mythology and their's not?

or is it just that you like Tolkien?:smallconfused:

Intent and structure also comes into play here. The Silmarillion is structured like a myth, it has the same tone, the same style, and the same method of story progression as most (Western) mythologies use. Lord of the Rings is somewhat debatable, since it is rather more novel-like in structure and project, but it is built on the same foundations as the Silmarillion, and can be viewed sort of as a modern re-interpretation of the source myth.

[Oregano]

Intent and structure also comes into play here. The Silmarillion is structured like a myth, it has the same tone, the same style, and the same method of story progression as most (Western) mythologies use. Lord of the Rings is somewhat debatable, since it is rather more novel-like in structure and project, but it is built on the same foundations as the Silmarillion, and can be viewed sort of as a modern re-interpretation of the source myth.

So if you purposely imitate mythology, that makes your work mythology? so if I started going around telling people stories about a hero I made up that would be mythology?

[warty goblin]

So if you purposely imitate mythology, that makes your work mythology? so if I started going around telling people stories about a hero I made up that would be mythology?

If you did so in a mythological fashion, then (arguably) yes. I would not however that Tolkien is the only piece of modern stuff I've ever read that really does use the style of something like the Homeric Hymns or Beowulf.

[WalkingTarget]

If you did so in a mythological fashion, then (arguably) yes. I would not however that Tolkien is the only piece of modern stuff I've ever read that really does use the style of something like the Homeric Hymns or Beowulf.

How about The Gods of Pegāna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_of_Pegana) by Dunsany?

Granted, it's language is more like the KJV Bible than Homer or Beowulf, but it's a series of "myths" about a pantheon that he made up. Beautifully written in my opinion.

[Jorkens]

If you did so in a mythological fashion, then (arguably) yes. I would not however that Tolkien is the only piece of modern stuff I've ever read that really does use the style of something like the Homeric Hymns or Beowulf.
You seem to be restricting "mythology" to a literary style, here. What about australian aboriginal myths or Native American myths or tribal myths from the amazon rainforest - is there something that captures the style of myth even for people who have no contact with western literary forms?

[warty goblin]

You seem to be restricting "mythology" to a literary style, here. What about australian aboriginal myths or Native American myths or tribal myths from the amazon rainforest - is there something that captures the style of myth even for people who have no contact with western literary forms?

I can see how one can get that from my post, but this was not my intent. If one stylistically modeled one's story on the linguistic and literary patterns of these myths, than arguably one would have a myth. What I was trying to communicate was the necessity of doing something in the same style and mode. Superhero comic books for example are not (by this argument) mythology, they don't tell stories in the same fashion, the use of language is completely different, as are the priorities of the story.

[Jorkens]

Why does mythology have to be believed at any point? The word "mythology" comes from the Greek words "mythos" (story, legend) and "logos" (writing, word). Nothing there about being believed. That's just the way you define it, because by your observation, people used to believe mythology.
Etymology =/= definition.

Actually, that's not proven fact. It's entirely possible that much mythology wasn't actually believed, even by its originators. Perhaps mythology originated similarly to when Tolkien did his work. Maybe the ancients weren't as gullible and superstitious as we'd like to think they were.
Well, they built several Wonders of the World and made innumerable votive offerings to honour the gods, so if they didn't believe in them then they put a pretty high value on the importance of metaphor.

In any case, the number of mutually exclusive religions in the world at the moment suggests that if saying that the Ancient Greeks were gullible and superstitous for believing in Zeus then at least 4 billion of the world's population at the moment are equally gullible and superstitious. So I'd be cautious about saying that.

[Jorkens]

I can see how one can get that from my post, but this was not my intent. If one stylistically modeled one's story on the linguistic and literary patterns of these myths, than arguably one would have a myth. What I was trying to communicate was the necessity of doing something in the same style and mode. Superhero comic books for example are not (by this argument) mythology, they don't tell stories in the same fashion, the use of language is completely different, as are the priorities of the story.
So you're saying that stories that people believe and that explain the world are mythologies, but that fictional works deliberately written in the same style as (some of) those stories are also mythologies?

I don't know, defining mythology in terms of its form and style seems kind of odd to me given that the general unifying thing about mythologies is their function...

[warty goblin]

So you're saying that stories that people believe and that explain the world are mythologies, but that fictional works deliberately written in the same style as (some of) those stories are also mythologies?

I don't know, defining mythology in terms of its form and style seems kind of odd to me given that the general unifying thing about mythologies is their function...

I said it was arguable for certain definitions of mythology, not that it was. It's really a matter of semantics, does something fall into some not particularly well defined category? Well, that depends on how you not particularly well define it.

[Dacia Brabant]

Oh come on, people. He wrote the whole thing so he wouldn't waste the languages he invented. This isn't that complex. We'd call it a campaign setting if he'd written it for an RPG. It's just not mythology. It's not written to really explain anything about how our world works. He was too devout a Christian to try to supplant their mythology.

The difference is that fear and worship of Zeus and his pantheon used to (in part) shape the lives of folks. Nobody ever feared and worshipped... whatever his name is, I don't know the setting, just how it came to be.

I keep seeing people say these things but they're just not reflective of the author's intent. Read his prologue and appendices to LotR, particularly the parts on records and translations: he was presenting his book as a translation from Frodo's book, which itself would have been an ancient text written in a language roughly equivalent to Old English (and other languages based on Old Norse, Finnic-Welsh and Hebrew). That, locations and compositions of the peoples/tribes in the stories and the content of their folklore, all point to his intent being to present an alternative mythology for humanity and especially for Northern Europe. It's not what really happened, it's just what might have been--which is basically what Myth itself is, what might have been in the time before History.

And--trying to be careful not to range into forbidden topics, but you brought it up--none of that is incompatible with Catholicism by the way, which understands that myths appearing outside of the Biblical tradition can be "true myths" in the sense that they point to the Truth. Tolkien himself and other comparative mythologists have written about this at length, that the similarities between, say, Dionysius/Bacchus/Mithras and Yeshua, or all the fun little etymological connections between Indo-European religions and Christianity (like Zeus = Deus), point to a True Myth and that cultures outside of Judea intuited as well and that their versions are reflections of it. I'm not saying this is the only way to look at it, but it is how Tolkien would have seen it.

I mean the man took Catholic teachings on love/marriage and the spirit/soul distinction and applied it directly to Elves (who are basically humans who ate the Fruit of the Tree of Life) so they could be true and good.

[RPGuru1331]

Why does mythology have to be believed at any point? The word "mythology" comes from the Greek words "mythos" (story, legend) and "logos" (writing, word). Nothing there about being believed. That's just the way you define it, because by your observation, people used to believe mythology.
Because that's what every o ther mythology was. The only dissimilar contested entry is Tolkien. If everyone else's is like that, then doesn't that tell you something?


Actually, that's not proven fact. It's entirely possible that much mythology wasn't actually believed, even by its originators. Perhaps mythology originated similarly to when Tolkien did his work. Maybe the ancients weren't as gullible and superstitious as we'd like to think they were.

Good sir, the people of India would like words with you. As would, well, a lot of people whom apparently even mentioning isn't kosher.


he was presenting his book as a translation from Frodo's book, which itself would have been an ancient text written in a language roughly equivalent to Old English
Frodo's book isn't real. Slight problem there. He invented it all wholecloth. Inspiration was taken, sure, but he didn't actually translate a real book.

[Poison_Fish]

Why does mythology have to be believed at any point? The word "mythology" comes from the Greek words "mythos" (story, legend) and "logos" (writing, word). Nothing there about being believed. That's just the way you define it, because by your observation, people used to believe mythology.

Actually, that's not proven fact. It's entirely possible that much mythology wasn't actually believed, even by its originators. Perhaps mythology originated similarly to when Tolkien did his work. Maybe the ancients weren't as gullible and superstitious as we'd like to think they were.

I'm going to echo sentiments here. Etymology ≠ definition.

Anthropology has some words with you sir. For instance, we have quite a lot of data from inquisition logs about local european peasants believing things about local gods and many other heretical things. I'm pretty sure I can pull up more examples if I need to.

I think your making a mistake claiming that belief in mythology back then as being gullible and superstitious. To a modern day person, yes, they are viewed this way. But when you are living in that era, and the majority of your culture is based on all this information, is it really just gullibility at work here? I'd say no.

[Jayngfet]

There are a lot of people in japan who still think kappa's are real.

[Dallas-Dakota]

The more I delve into Tolkien's works, the more I discover that he really did create a frickin' mythology. There's a number of interesting points out there on the subject, but I am firmly and truly convinced that it is mythology. Let's take a look at some of the ideas that have gone around in this thread.

Tolkien's works aren't taken as fact in any way, shape, or form, and ergo aren't mythology.
Being taken as fact isn't a prerequisite for mythology, rather, mythology contains within it the remnants of a true thing which happened. Believe it or not, Tolkien's work does contain this. He invented very little of his mythos on his own. Rather, he delved into ancient lore (Finnish, Germanic, and British, mainly), and attempted to reconstruct a primordial story from which all other myths could have arisen. He sets up events in the Silmarillion as predecessors to existing mythological occurrences. He also uses the roots of language to reconstruct mythology, and to examine the peoples who originated these languages. Because words have stories, and dissecting the words reveals the stories behind them.

Tolkien's works aren't old, therefore they're not mythology.
This would be a valid point if Tolkien's work was merely an invention of the 20th Century. This is the reason why, for example, Robert Jordan isn't the inventor of a mythology. Tolkien, on the other hand, saw his work as one of discovery, not of invention. He was a reconstructor of possible origins for myths. Now, he wasn't writing as a pure historian, but if you think of him as that, things become a lot more interesting.

A bit about linguistics and mythology.
Tolkien was, first and foremost, a linguist, and a brilliant one. And he had something very interesting to say about mythology and language. He directly linked the invention of the adjective to the invention of myth. Before the adjective, abstract qualities of an object were tied to the idea of the object. For example, "green" was inherent in "grass". And so, all stories that were told had to be purely natural.

When, however, man realized that "green" was independent of "grass", "green" could then be abstracted out of "grass", and applied to other things. If you had green grass, Tolkien said, you could also have a green sun...or a green dragon. The adjective allowed the human mind to blossom. (This, by the way, is in his essay "On Fairy-Stories")

In Short
Tolkien's masterpiece was really just a tiny part, a tiny scrape, belonging to a gigantic exploration that became his life's work. What he did was so expansive, so impressive, so awe-inspiring, that we still don't have all of his work. Christopher Tolkien is still sorting through his father's notes and papers, and trying to put them in order. Only just recently, we had a version of his legend The Sorrows of the Children of Hurin published in whole. The guy was amazing.

And I'm impressed if y'all made it through this post. Kudos to you. This has been a CG Rant About Tolkien.



Why does mythology have to be believed at any point? The word "mythology" comes from the Greek words "mythos" (story, legend) and "logos" (writing, word). Nothing there about being believed. That's just the way you define it, because by your observation, people used to believe mythology.

Actually, that's not proven fact. It's entirely possible that much mythology wasn't actually believed, even by its originators. Perhaps mythology originated similarly to when Tolkien did his work. Maybe the ancients weren't as gullible and superstitious as we'd like to think they were.
These posts are fully supported and seconded by DD.
Thenks and kudos back to you, I couldn't have said it better.
And also people, please don't let this stray into discussion about religion.

[Terraoblivion]

History does not work like that, CG. Nor does literature or mythology. If you were to go look in a textbook to see the definition of mythology, and you should always use a textbook for these definitions, you will find it described as instructive tales about the foundations of the ethics and metaphysics of the world. It is not a literary genre nor is it something to be created as entertainment. The purpose of mythology is to explain the rules of the society that created it and its place in the greater cosmos.

What Tolkien set out to do with his mythological writing style was varied and will skirt the forbidden topic of politics. A central part of it was something as banal as his own enjoyment of ancient mythology and the style it was written in, however, it was far from the most important part, at least not in analysis of it even if it likely was in his motives for doing it. Absolutely central to this topic is Tolkien's conservatism and disturbance by modern rootlessness and what he saw as the abandonment of history. His mythological style was in many ways meant to remedy that by providing a new instructive history of the past to guide people. Which in many ways provided the irony of a staunchly conservative man, in both politics and literary tastes, embarking on a hugely post-modern project of creating a mythology without any of the underpinnings of tradition and cultural significance that real mythology had.

So while he had the rules and functions of myths in mind when he wrote his books, what he created was firmly modern stories for a modern audience of consumers. At most he can be seen as someone who failed to create mythology whole-cloth, though even that would be stretching it. More realistically he was someone who wrote stories that he hoped would remind people of the splendor of mythology and of its instructive nature.

[Dacia Brabant]

Frodo's book isn't real. Slight problem there. He invented it all wholecloth. Inspiration was taken, sure, but he didn't actually translate a real book.

And I never said it is real. What I said is Tolkien presented it as something that might have been real. The natural question then is, why? Why does he choose that particular literary conceit, framing his fiction within a real-world context?

This is pretty much the answer right here:


Absolutely central to this topic is Tolkien's conservatism and disturbance by modern rootlessness and what he saw as the abandonment of history. His mythological style was in many ways meant to remedy that by providing a new instructive history of the past to guide people. Which in many ways provided the irony of a staunchly conservative man, in both politics and literary tastes, embarking on a hugely post-modern project of creating a mythology without any of the underpinnings of tradition and cultural significance that real mythology had.

Indeed. He wrote his alternative myth-history so that subsequent generations could still become attached to their culture's actual myths even in the era of Progress and Technology.

[RPGuru1331]

And I never said it is real. What I said is Tolkien presented it as something that might have been real. The natural question then is, why? Why does he choose that particular literary conceit, framing his fiction within a real-world context?

But it still fails the basic test of mythology. People don't believe in it. I could perhaps buy that as his motive, but that doesn't make it mythology.


And also people, please don't let this stray into discussion about religion.
Do.. you know what mythology was and is? I mean, the ancient greeks and romans didn't offer sacrifices to their gods for kicks, dude. Quite frankly, we still active mythologies that are believed in. That's what the religious beliefs in the metaphysical are.

[SmartAlec]

But it still fails the basic test of mythology. People don't believe in it. I could perhaps buy that as his motive, but that doesn't make it mythology.

It's because of the age that we live in, which is a very different age to the ancient one. Because times have changed, I would venture that perhaps the definition of mythology should change as well, if it hasn't already. Judging modern mythology by ancient mythology's standards seems to be as wrong as judging ancient historical records by modern historian's standards.

It's quite important here to dissasociate mythology from religious text, because they are not the same. Ancient Greeks believed in their gods, yes - but the stories told about them, and the Greek Heroes, were not told so as to reaffirm belief in those Gods or to spread faith. They were a way to transmit ideals and stories rather than religious beliefs, and build a cultural framework that connected ancient Greek thought.

As has been pointed out, Tolkien makes an attempt to incorporate quite a few of the same heroic ideals and stories, retold. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, the Dollars trilogy - these are the mythologies of our times. For many people, these are the only connection they have to the old stories, and they are points of cultural experience that many of us have in common. These stories, then, fulfil the same function - they are such pervasive cultural phenomena that they do the job that the ancient mythologies did, that of keeping those original ideals and story shapes alive in the collective consciousness of the world. Maybe no-one believes in them, but it's all they've got, and it's all our age has been able to produce.

So, to sum up, I believe that Tolkien's works have enough global influence and touch on the same universal themes (as have been around since writing and stories came to be) to a sufficient extent that I willing to consider them a mythology.

[Dacia Brabant]

But it still fails the basic test of mythology. People don't believe in it. I could perhaps buy that as his motive, but that doesn't make it mythology.

The fact that it's not believed in may actually be further grounds for it to be regarded as mythology--if it were believe in, it would be a religion. We rarely speak of Greco-Roman religion nowadays, it's always viewed as myth because it isn't believed in anymore--at least not popularly. (Though many non-believers in current real-world religions, and even a few believers, are known to call those beliefs myths.)

I see how that's the sticking point for you and others, that Tolkien's Legendarium was created whole cloth as literarure, not something that developed as a religion practiced by some people at some point who eventually ceased to believe in it as truth/reality, which would have made it become myth. That's fine but it leaves modern myths out in the cold.

Well, perhaps instead of mythology we should be using the word Tolkien preferred for his works in this genre, "mythopoeia" (invented myth) or "mythopoesis" (myth-making), but those are rather uncommon and little-known compared to mythology so they're probably best kept to technical discussions. Maybe "mythos" is the better term since it's more commonly known?

[Dallas-Dakota]

Do.. you know what mythology was and is? I mean, the ancient greeks and romans didn't offer sacrifices to their gods for kicks, dude. Quite frankly, we still active mythologies that are believed in. That's what the religious beliefs in the metaphysical are.
Yes I do.:smallannoyed:
And I don't mean that kind of religion, I mean about Tolkien's religion and such and his attitude about it.
I think you misunderstood what I ment to say...

[BardicDuelist]

They are not a mythology because they were never believed in as cultural mythologies were (Greek, Norse, etc).

They are not a story, because they are a collection of stories relating to one literary world with constant characters where the events of one story have influence, both direct and indirect, over other stories that are not necessarily in a linear progression or series (Narnia or Harry Potter).

They are best described as a mythos, much like Lovecraft's mythos.

Of course, this raises the question of things like "are the FR novels part of a mythos?" I would argue that they are, although I do feel that ascribing the same level of description to them as one would Tolkien or Lovecraft feels wrong.

[pingcode20]

Without really having had a chance to read this thread fully, I'm going to chime in with my ideas on the matter (and worry about addressing other opinions later).

Tolkien's works, while not being a mythology in the classic sense, can quite rightfully claim the title for itself, and take its place as one of a few unusual newcomers to the mostly ancient belief systems we call Mythologies. (Lovecraft made it too, IMHO)

To me, it is a mythology in the sense that Tolkien has established a myth that has not only stood the test of time, but has enthralled countless followers who have sought to replicate its legacy, drawing upon it as a mythic base. It's also uniquely advanced for a mythic tradition, but that's more a by-product of it being established well after all the others.

Fantastic stories are built upon the shoulders of giants - every one of them with their framework perched on one or more mythological origins. One story may be assembled atop the thunder and rage of the Greek Gods, while another by way of druidic nature-worship, and a third by way of fairy folklore. In a very real sense, Tolkien's work has taken a place as a mythic foundation for the fantastic, right up there with the ancient traditions.

Heck, our beloved Dungeons and Dragons itself had its foundations in the mythology of Tolkien!

[Oregano]

Heck, our beloved Dungeons and Dragons itself had its foundations in the mythology of Tolkien!

And a LOT of other places.

I just have problems with people's reasonings as it means a vast majority of things are mythology.

Also on the influence of Tolkien, this forum with have a lot of people who have read Tolkien and recognise his influences on this subculture but within society at large, they had very little impact, the majority of people had no idea who Tolkien was until the films came out.

[Renegade Paladin]

Tolkien was actually attempting to write a mythology of sorts; it was his intention from the start. He applied the term legendarium to his background legends, knowing that it couldn't actually be a mythology due to it's nature.

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were secondary to him; he wrote the latter purely at the request of his publisher. He wrote the Lays of Beleriand (later published by his son Christopher as the Silmarillion and other volumes) because he believed that the modern age was lacking in epic legend and wished to fill the gap, at least as I recall it. I shall review his biography and see if I can find exactly what I'm thinking of.

[Jorkens]

The fact that it's not believed in may actually be further grounds for it to be regarded as mythology--if it were believe in, it would be a religion. We rarely speak of Greco-Roman religion nowadays, it's always viewed as myth because it isn't believed in anymore--at least not popularly. (Though many non-believers in current real-world religions, and even a few believers, are known to call those beliefs myths.)
Anymore is the key word here, I think. Most of the things that we think about as myths are ways of understanding the world and its history that were used by people many hundreds of years ago, and which are now known to be, er, not entirely accurate. These days they seem obviously untrue and noone seriously believes in them, hence people now describe something as 'mythical' to mean that it doesn't exist. Thus we expect myths to be obiously magical and outlandish and basically unbelievable. But the modern myths - the stories that fulfill the function for us that traditional myths fulfilled for ancient peoples - aren't going to look like that, because if they were obviously untrue then they wouldn't function in the same way for the people telling them.

That's why I'd say that a lot of modern myths would be things like the story of How The West Was Won, or the evacuation of Dunkirk, or the way people lived in the rural past, or tortured lives of romantic artists or the Oregon Trail or the hard working immigrant who ended up as a CEO. I mean the popular idea of history - political, social and cultural history - that most people pretty much believe but which may or may not hold up under serious analysis, and which tells us about who we are, where we came from, and what we can aspire to acheive.

We're kind of better informed these days, so the myths are probably going to look less obviously made up, but these things are still constructed stories.


Well, perhaps instead of mythology we should be using the word Tolkien preferred for his works in this genre, "mythopoeia" (invented myth) or "mythopoesis" (myth-making), but those are rather uncommon and little-known compared to mythology so they're probably best kept to technical discussions. Maybe "mythos" is the better term since it's more commonly known?
Hmmm, yes, maybe. It seems important to distinguish between the myths of a real people which serve a specific social function based on belief, and a constructed mythology whose social function is based on the general understanding that it's entirely made up.