# Fantasy or Mythology: what is your favorite and why?



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Mythology appears to be making a comeback these days, after being around for a few thousand years. Yet Fantasy seems to reign supreme. Which genre is your favorite and why?

If I would have to choose, I would pick mythology. It seems to have deeper themes involved than most Fantasy epics, and delves deeper into the character's motives and growth. As much as I love *The Lord of the Rings*, how well does it compare to that other great war epic, *The Iliad*, with all of the personal dramas in it that depend on the outcome of the war for their resolution? How can we forget the sulking Achilles and how his wrath affected the battle when he was out of it? Or Helen's regret at eloping with Paris and becoming the cause of making other women widows?

And can Galahad's search for the Holy Grail compare in scope to *The Odyssey*? Was Galahad's self-denial as grand and unforgettable as Odysseus' being flung around at the mercy of the gods? And was his simple desire to return home to his wife and son more moving than Galahad's search for spiritual fulfillment?

What are your thoughts and preferences?


----------



## Hilary Thomson (Nov 20, 2011)

I'd have to say fantasy.  The best fantasy goes far beyond any myth I've ever read in terms of literary power and quality.  Part of the problem with myth is that too many traditional stories aren't very fleshed out and could benefit from more sophistication.  The art of storytelling wasn't very well developed in ancient times.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

How about a definition of terms here so we know what the difference is? Is mythology just fantasy that's really old? If so, how old does it have to be? (And if so, then we're really just comparing old fantasy versus not-as-old fantasy.) If not, then just what is the difference? 

And do you have any citations to back up your claim that mythology is making a comeback (based on your definition of mythology)?

Anyway, if the choice being forced on me is to read either Lord of the Rings or else The Iliad and The Odyssey, I'll go for the Tolkien, if that answers your question.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

If mythology is seen as religious and traditional tales from more ancient societies, then I'd have to go with fantasy. I've read quite a bit from different European, Mesoamerican, Asian and African mythos but by no means all of it from all cultures. It's been some years since I've visited the Greeks in anything as serious as _The Iliad_ but I have read Greek and Roman mythologies probably in more detail than any other cultural group.

But I find fantasy (in general, since there are so many sub-genres) better reading when I'm looking for casual, entertainment reads. It's more the form of the structure than the actual tale that gives me the preference one for the other. When a mythic tale has been adapted into a more modern fantasy structure or the mythic pantheon itself is incorporated into a fantasy universe, I find that highly enjoyable - I've been reading Mythic Fantasy in various forms for decades.

From your original questions though, are you specifically looking at the Greek and Roman mythos (mythoses? mythoi?) when you consider something to be 'mythology'? I would consider the story of Galahad and all of the Arthurian legends to be part of an English mythology that's a bit Celtic and also early Christian in nature. I wouldn't compare Galahad's tale with Odysseus necessarily but definitely on par with Achilles' tale; I would, however, compare Beowulf to Odysseus in terms of scope and grandeur.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

NogDog said:


> How about a definition of terms here so we know what the difference is? Is mythology just fantasy that's really old? If so, how old does it have to be? (And if so, then we're really just comparing old fantasy versus not-as-old fantasy.) If not, then just what is the difference?
> 
> And do you have any citations to back up your claim that mythology is making a comeback (based on your definition of mythology)?
> 
> Anyway, if the choice being forced on me is to read either Lord of the Rings or else The Iliad and The Odyssey, I'll go for the Tolkien, if that answers your question.


Mythology is a form of storytelling that includes deities such as the classic Greek and Norse tales with gods and goddesses who interact in the lives of mortals. Fantasy, on the other hand is a form of storytelling that features supernaturally empowered mortals such as witches and wizards who can operate in magic but are not immortal like the deities. Rarely are deities or witches/wizards the main character in any tale, however, they merely aid or hinder the hero or heroine, and affect the outcome of the tale as they influence the destinies of the characters by blessing or cursing them.

Rick Riordan has revived the popularity of the genre with his *Percy Jackson and the Olympians * series and has kids returning to the old classics.

And no, you are not being forced to choose between Tolkien or *The Iliad*, I merely used them as an example of war epics in the two genres. Likewise with Galahad and Odysseus; both of them were on a quest fraught with peril. My question is merely for fun to open up discussion, with no right or wrong answers.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I guess I've read more mythology than I thought, since a non-trivial amount of the fantasy I've read has involved direct interaction with/by the gods. A few that come quickly to mind: Moorcock's "Elric" and "Corum" books, Saberhagen's "Swords" books, and Brust's "Dragaeran" books (though to be fair it's not 100% clear whether in Brust's works the gods are truly gods -- which might then raise the interesting question: when does a non-god become so powerful and potentially immortal that s/he then becomes a god?  )

PS: Don't mind me too much: sometimes the inner debater in me cannot be kept totally in check.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Geoffrey said:


> If mythology is seen as religious and traditional tales from more ancient societies, then I'd have to go with fantasy. I've read quite a bit from different European, Mesoamerican, Asian and African mythos but by no means all of it from all cultures. It's been some years since I've visited the Greeks in anything as serious as _The Iliad_ but I have read Greek and Roman mythologies probably in more detail than any other cultural group.
> 
> But I find fantasy (in general, since there are so many sub-genres) better reading when I'm looking for casual, entertainment reads. It's more the form of the structure than the actual tale that gives me the preference one for the other. When a mythic tale has been adapted into a more modern fantasy structure or the mythic pantheon itself is incorporated into a fantasy universe, I find that highly enjoyable - I've been reading Mythic Fantasy in various forms for decades.
> 
> From your original questions though, are you specifically looking at the Greek and Roman mythos (mythoses? mythoi?) when you consider something to be 'mythology'? I would consider the story of Galahad and all of the Arthurian legends to be part of an English mythology that's a bit Celtic and also early Christian in nature. I wouldn't compare Galahad's tale with Odysseus necessarily but definitely on par with Achilles' tale; I would, however, compare Beowulf to Odysseus in terms of scope and grandeur.


I have read mythology also since I was 11 years old when my dad gave me a copy of Edith Hamilton's *Mythology* for entertainment, and moved on from there to an actual study of the genre. So, I was actually introduced to mythology and studied it avidly before I ever read a fantasy book.

I am not looking at only the Greeks and Romans, but mentioned *The Iliad * and *The Odyssey * as prime examples of myth. The Arthurian legends can be either fantasy or mythology depending on which versions you read. Since Arthur was aided by the wizard Merlin and hindered by the witch Morgan LeFay you could call his story a fantasy as he was influenced by supernaturally empowered mortals. However, there are references to his tale in the Welsh mythology The Mabinogian, and the Holy Grail is a great example of the magic cauldrons so prevalent in Celtic mythology. So Arthur is one of those rareties that fall into either category. But that may be due to the fact that it was later versions that contain the tales of the Holy Grail when Christianity became wider spread in England. Correct me if I am wrong on that, but that is what I have always understood. Mary Stewart's *Legacy* series on Arthur is a must to read as she speaks on that very issue, and how Merlin himself states he must fade into oblivion as Christianity takes over the land.

And for me the basic differences between mythology and fantasy is that mythology is peopled with deities who curse or bless the mortal characters, while fantasy is peopled with supernaturally empowered mortals who curse or bless the mortal characters. Mythology emanates from power that is divinity centered, while fantasy emanates from power that is magic centered. Mythology contains gods and goddesses who are all-powerful and all-knowing, while fantasy contains wizards and witches who have limited power and partial knowledge.

That's the way it was presented to me back in my high school days when I studied Myths and Folklore and Fantasy anyways. And to me that definition helps to distinguish the two. Again, there is no right or wrong answer: I am merely asking people their preference to open up a discussion just for fun.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

NogDog said:


> I guess I've read more mythology than I thought, since a non-trivial amount of the fantasy I've read has involved direct interaction with/by the gods. A few that come quickly to mind: Moorcock's "Elric" and "Corum" books, Saberhagen's "Swords" books, and Brust's "Dragaeran" books (though to be fair it's not 100% clear whether in Brust's works the gods are truly gods -- which might then raise the interesting question: when does a non-god become so powerful and potentially immortal that s/he then becomes a god?  )
> 
> PS: Don't mind me too much: sometimes the inner debater in me cannot be kept totally in check.


I can relate as I sometimes have 4 conservations going on at the same time with both of my split personalities chiming in their differing opinions, a la Gollum/Smeagol.


----------



## dkgould (Feb 18, 2013)

I love both, but I think the greater draw for me is mythology.  Not because the stories are better, some of them are just fragments or are just different versions of the same story.  I think I love mythology more because at some point and for a very long time, people believed they were true.  REALLY believed they were true.  Explained natural phenomena that way, explained mortality and virtue and vice that way.  Lived their lives according to what their heroes would have done.    Where fantasy- the author starts out knowing it isn't true and the audience knows it isn't true.  There are some very beautiful fantasy stories out there, and I'm sure some folks try to lead their lives according to their examples.  But the power of myth-  There is something compelling about entire societies telling the same stories for centuries.  It gets mixed up with every day life, becomes PART of what makes that society up.  There is just something really, really powerful about that, something bigger than self.  And I like that.


----------



## Thomas Watson (Mar 8, 2012)

I've studied mythology, and I love reading good fantasy. At it's best, good fantasy is informed, so to speak, by mythology. 

For those interesting in such things, read some Joseph Campbell, if you haven't already. Hero With a Thousand Faces is a good place to start.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Dividing Mythology and fantasy by gods and mortals is one way to do it, but perilous at best. How, then, does one categorize series like Feist's _Midkemia_ novels or McIntosh's _Percheron_ novels that are peopled with mortals who interact heavily with immortals and deities (or some who actually are deities) but ones that are not based on historical pantheons? For that matter, I would consider Lawhead's _Celtic Crusades_ to be Mythic Fantasy set in the Christian Mythos. But, I don't really consider Hearne's _Iron Druid Chronicles_ to be Mythology or Mythic fantasy even though most of the characters and immortals and and most of the secondary characters are gods; I consider it urban fantasy.

I see where you're going with your definitions but I can't get behind them as is. 'Mythology' I would consider the stories and legends that make up the religious and cultural history itself and is of a more scholarly bent. Mythic Fantasy would be the use of these stories and legends in a contemporary fiction format and then Fantasy would be the greater whole that doesn't draw of this same historical record when creating it's magical and/or religious aspects for the universe it's set in.

And thank you for bringing this up. I love splitting hairs over Fantasy and Science Fiction sub-genres. It makes my inner geek all smiley. (OK, the outer one too)


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Geoffrey said:


> Dividing Mythology and fantasy by gods and mortals is one way to do it, but perilous at best. How, then, does one categorize series like Feist's _Midkemia_ novels or McIntosh's _Percheron_ novels that are peopled with mortals who interact heavily with immortals and deities (or some who actually are deities) but ones that are not based on historical pantheons? For that matter, I would consider Lawhead's _Celtic Crusades_ to be Mythic Fantasy set in the Christian Mythos. But, I don't really consider Hearne's _Iron Druid Chronicles_ to be Mythology or Mythic fantasy even though most of the characters and immortals and and most of the secondary characters are gods; I consider it urban fantasy.
> 
> I see where you're going with your definitions but I can't get behind them as is. 'Mythology' I would consider the stories and legends that make up the religious and cultural history itself and is of a more scholarly bent. Mythic Fantasy would be the use of these stories and legends in a contemporary fiction format and then Fantasy would be the greater whole that doesn't draw of this same historical record when creating it's magical and/or religious aspects for the universe it's set in.
> 
> And thank you for bringing this up. I love splitting hairs over Fantasy and Science Fiction sub-genres. It makes my inner geek all smiley. (OK, the outer one too)


I think you have hit on a problem with some books published today that fall into either category, and that is that some authors have never actually studied either genre: they just decide they are going to write an epic fantasy or a new mythology, but they don't really have any background and get the two mixed up. I came across that very question by a new author over on KDP's forum several months ago: he had no idea what the difference was between fantasy, mythology, and fairy tales and therefore did not know how to categorize his book, and asked the forum to tell him what it was. Or the book features many cultures and some civilizations have deities and others do not, so you have a mingling of genres within one series if one civilization operates in the supernatural but have no deities that they call on.

Some classic books have been pegged fantasy when they should be mythology and vice versa. We categorize *The Lord of the Rings * as fantasy although Tolkien wanted to create a new mythology for the British people (because all of the great Anglo-Saxon sagas had been lost with the exception of *Beowulf* and *The Elder Edda* and *Younger Edda * that traveled to England by way of Iceland through the invasion of the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons), but there were no deities in it so why would we call it mythology? The appendices list a character called the One that the Elves called on when the men of Numenor attempted to set foot on the Undying Lands, and the One overthrew Numenor; but that character had no further involvement in the story itself and was never mentioned within the book. The Elves were called immortal but could be killed in battle, and they could diminish, so they were not truly divine: it would perhaps be more correct to say they were angelic. And they did not come to the aid of the main characters through the working of miracles, just gave them practical help like a place to stay or food and water, or gifts for their journey. Granted some of those gifts had supernatural properties, but at no point did any of the Fellowship call on Galadriel or Elrond for help from afar. Even Elrond's healing of Frodo's wound by the Witch King was not complete and restorative, it just prevented him from dying and passing into the shadow world. Frodo had to finally leave Middle Earth to find complete healing from his wounds, which signified that Elrond's healing was not sufficient. *The Chronicles of Narnia*, on the other hand is a book that is usually tagged fantasy and should be called mythology as it revolves around a deity named Aslan who is _very_ involved with the characters in the series, and even includes the classic characters from Greek mythology, such as the centaurs, minotaurs, dryads, satyrs, etc. So the waters get muddied at times and adds to the confusion.

As for books I would categorize as fantasy, I would say they contain characters who can do magic but are not divine. A magician can do tricks but that does not make him divine. A wizard may be able to see part of the future but not all of it, and if he dies he will stay dead. (Unless he is Gandalf, of course! ) The wave of darkness that covered the land in *The Lord of the Rings* was supernatural and produced by the Dark Lord, but he was not a god. And I think that is where some writers get confused between the two genres.

The way I categorize it to myself is that if a fictional book about a fictional civilization lists fictional deities who are involved in the story, interact with the characters, and affect the outcome of the plot, then that book should be categorized as mythology, even though the civilization and deities are all fictional; it is still the interaction of the deities of that particular civilization within the book who have a direct outcome on the story. But if the deities in a book are only mentioned to show what a civilization believes but have no involvement in the story, no interaction with the characters, and no affect on the outcome of the plot then it is not truly mythology. That would be like saying that because a character in a book mentions that they believe in God and even prays once in a while that the book is mythology when all someone did was casually mention their belief in God. To illustrate _that _ point let me use a scene in the movie *Crocodile Dundee * when Mick is asked by Sue whether he was afraid when he was attacked by a crocodile and he said, "I read the Bible once, all about Jesus and God and all them apostles. Me and God, we be mates." That one reference to God and Jesus and the Bible consisting of two sentences in the space of a two hour movie did not make this a Christian movie nor a mythological one, (even though Mick had some heroic qualities like courage and selflessness), because Mick did not state that he prayed and was protected through prayer because God answered it, nor did he say that God was actually involved in his life, nor do we see any evidence of any interaction between Mick and God; all he did was state that he read the Bible once and implied that he had a belief in God. Does that illustration help my definition make sense?

As I said, this thread is purely for fun to open up discussion. Because there does seem to be a lot of confusion even on amazon itself about which books to put in which genre. For instance, you can put a book in the Mythology category on amazon.com, and on amazon.co.uk it is listed in Fairy Tales. Yikes! As for all of the other sub-genres of fantasy that are available, don't even get me started on the confusion they create!


----------



## anguabell (Jan 9, 2011)

Well, for those of us who are more or less religiously illiterate, it would be difficult to make the distinction. I simply don't know enough about religions of various kinds to recognize its presence in the fiction, unless the components are well known. 
Personally, I prefer fantasy built on a certain *cultural familiarity*. Tolkien is a good example because his world is built on Anglo-Saxon and Norse mythology and even folklore. But for me, mythology would be exactly that, something strongly based on generally known legends and oral traditions, as opposed to a pure invention of the author. I am not sure whether any religious aspects cold be used for categorizing the genre. Norse or Greek gods can hardly be put in the same category as rather abstract concepts of deity that seem to be typical for monotheistic religions.

It is an interesting debate but I still don't see the difference between these two genres too clearly.


----------



## Thomas Watson (Mar 8, 2012)

The argument could easily made that much of what we think of as fantasy is a manifestation of the myth-making process into modern times.


----------



## senserial (Jan 29, 2013)

Yes. fantasy is a very broad term. There are many sub-genres within the genre fantasy. Mythology and fantasy have some common features, as said previously, but I personally prefer fantasy.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I would count _The Chronicles of Narnia_ as a Christian allegory written in the form of fantasy fiction.


----------



## anguabell (Jan 9, 2011)

So... how would you classify His Dark Materials?


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Geoffrey said:


> I would count _The Chronicles of Narnia_ as a Christian allegory written in the form of fantasy fiction.


Yes, it is definitely a Christian allegory, but the classification I would put it in is mythology. Narnia has it's own mythology within the story and counts Aslan and his father the Emperor across the Sea as deities, and it also references others as well, such as Bacchus, the river god (who is nameless), and the Calormene god Tash. And the fact that the entire series covers Narnia from its creation to destruction and rebirth further signifies it as a history of that world and its people. There are some Christians, by the way, who hate the fact that Lewis included references to the old gods and the Greek culture in the series, but he wanted it to have a mythological feel to give it an epic scope. His friend Tolkien hated the allegorical aspects of it and it was a huge strain on their friendship that led to a cooling of their relationship as Lewis didn't greatly care for the criticism of it. He wanted it to be clearly allegorical but mythological at the same time.

Again, this is one of those books that is hard to classify as it does cross over into different genres.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

anguabell said:


> So... how would you classify His Dark Materials?


I actually haven't read that series so I am entirely clueless. I do recall reading when The Golden Compass film was released that the author intended it to be the anti-Narnia because he hated that book, but that's all i know about it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2013)

It seems you are manufacturing your own definitions in order to force the conversation into a pre-determined direction.

Mythology is not a "genre." A mythos is a sacred narrative designed to share universal truths as it related to a specific culture. Mythology, at its root, is the study of religious believe systems. Whether or not the mthology is "real" or "fantasy" is in fact besides the point. Mythology specifically is suppose to teach by reinforcing a culture's views.

The Illiad is not mythology per se. It is an epic poem that borrows from its culture's mythology, but the ancients did not read the Illiad as historical fact. It was, in truth, fantasy (ironically, the ancients had no need for a specific genre called fantasy as they had a far better grasp of the difference between fantasy and reality than some modern readers). The Illiad is to classical mythology what Dante's Inferno is to Christianity. A fantastic accounting based on mythological figures. Neither is itself mythology, but both borrow from thw mythic cultures of their time. (The actual term used for these types of books is mytho-poetic literature, literature based on mythology or religious beliefs.)

The problem with modern readers is the tendency to miss the point of mythology in relation to ancient cultures. We assume the ancients interpreted their mythology as "facts" of historical and scientific absolutes.  But they no more interpreted mythology as historical and scientific fact in their time than rational Christians today interpret the Old Testament as a historical and scientific record. The ancients had a far better grasp of allegory and the nuanced nature of truth. A cursory review of their understanding of astronomy and mathematics will tell you that they didn't actually believe Atlas was holding the planet on his shoulders. 

The point is, the differentiation between mythology and fantasy is a false one because mythology is not a genre but a cultural worldview. Reword the question into "do you prefer reading the Bible or fantasy?" and you realize the logical fallacy of the original question.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> It seems you are manufacturing your own definitions in order to force the conversation into a pre-determined direction.
> 
> Mythology is not a "genre." A mythos is a sacred narrative designed to share universal truths as it related to a specific culture. Mythology, at its root, is the study of religious believe systems. Whether or not the mthology is "real" or "fantasy" is in fact besides the point. Mythology specifically is suppose to teach by reinforcing a culture's views.
> 
> ...


The word "genre" that we started this discussion with is based on literary categories, mythology vs fantasy and all of the sub-genres of fantasy. If you check out Amazon's website they are distinct and separate just as you would separate a mystery from a thriller. And the discussion is purely for fun for those who like either or both.

Some of the Greek myths were used to explain origins, such as creation, death, dynastic foundings, etc. Yet the temples to the gods they worshiped are still there today, as are the nine levels of Troy, the city mentioned in that great literary classic *The Iliad*. You can still see the Parthenon dedicated to Athena the patroness of the city/state of Athens on the Acropolis; you won't find any such monument to one of Tolkien's Elves or Wizards. You won't find any temples standing to any figures mentioned in fantasy novels because they never existed in anyone's mind except the author's. That is one very clear distinction between mythology and fantasy. Mythology is based on something that people actually believed; fantasy is not.

This thread is intended to be a fun discussion about _literary_ genres and how two distinct genres can take the same kind of story and present it two different ways. In *The Iliad * the gods favored particular mortals and influenced the outcome of the war. For instance Aphrodite whisked Paris away from Menelaus just as he was about to kill him and saved his life. You don't see that kind of divine intervention in fantasy like *The Lord of the Rings* such as the scene where Boromir faces the orcs and is killed in the battle because no one divinely intervenes to save him.

The original point of this discussion was simply this: which style of storytelling do you like best and why?


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2013)

lmroth12 said:


> The word "genre" that we started this discussion with is based on literary categories, mythology vs fantasy and all of the sub-genres of fantasy. If you check out Amazon's website they are distinct and separate just as you would separate a mystery from a thriller. And the discussion is purely for fun for those who like either or both.


Amazon is a poor reference insofar as what is and is not a genre (or what does and does not belong within a genre).



> The original point of this discussion was simply this: which style of storytelling do you like best and why?


That actually is not what you said. And from a purely STYLE perspective in relation to the methodology of storytelling, there is no fundamental difference between Beowulf, Gilgamesh, The Illiad, and Lord of the Rings. Fantasy narratives, particularly epic fantasy, tend to follow the same Hero's Journey as classical mythology. I'm not even sure, honestly, how you are separating "myth" from fantasy. You mentioned Galahad in your initial post as if it was an epic fantasy. But the Arthurian Legends clearly fall into the realm of mytho-poetic literature, as the purpose of the Arthurian mythos was the same as all mythology: to teach lessons and reinforce cultural expectations.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Amazon is a poor reference insofar as what is and is not a genre (or what does and does not belong within a genre).
> 
> That actually is not what you said. And from a purely STYLE perspective in relation to the methodology of storytelling, there is no fundamental difference between Beowulf, Gilgamesh, The Illiad, and Lord of the Rings. Fantasy narratives, particularly epic fantasy, tend to follow the same Hero's Journey as classical mythology. I'm not even sure, honestly, how you are separating "myth" from fantasy. You mentioned Galahad in your initial post as if it was an epic fantasy. But the Arthurian Legends clearly fall into the realm of mytho-poetic literature, as the purpose of the Arthurian mythos was the same as all mythology: to teach lessons and reinforce cultural expectations.


I didn't say that was what I actually said; I said it was the _point _ of the original discussion. You can refer back to the original post if you like, which simply asked what your favorite genre was and why, and to share your thoughts and preferences. On another early post I ended it with this response to Nog Dog: _My question is merely for fun to open up discussion, with no right or wrong answers. _ 

The Arthurian legends were largely the fabrication of a couple of medieval writers of the 12th century and not tales that the British people handed down from generation to generation as part of their identity as they would in the mythic tradition. One writer was Chrétien de Troyes who based his stories loosely on references that Geoffrey of Monmouth made to a warrior named Arthur in his highly fanciful work *History of the Kings of Britain*. That he borrowed some references from Welsh mythology is open to question, but the Arthur of Camelot that we think of with the Knights of the Round Table and the Quest for the Holy Grail never existed and was never part of the traditions of the British people and do not qualify as mythos if that is what your definition is. Unless you are referring to the older Celtic references that have only a slight resemblance to the medieval fantasy writers fabrications.

In fact, the Holy Grail itself is an invention based on the Celtic love of magical cauldrons that could quench thirsts or satisfy appetites. And Galahad himself didn't appear in the Arthurian legends until the 13th century in the *Vulgate Cycle*, making the Quest of the Holy Grail a complete fantasy fabrication and not a legend handed down by the British people. Britain never had a "high king" over the country during Arthur's time, and it wasn't until the reign of Alfred the Great that the regional kings went to Alfred and asked him to be their leader, bringing a small semblance of unity to the country that had always been divided into sub-kingdoms that were constantly fighting each other.

Arthur is actually a good example of what the imagination of a fantasy writer can concoct. Because no one ever heard of him until a couple of medieval fantasy writers invented him based on a couple of skimpy references in the 12 Battles of Britain listed in the 9th century *Historia Brittonum*, from which Geoffrey of Monmouth based his tale 300 years later.

For the purposes of clarification, Galahad would definitely fall into my classification of a character invented by a fantasy writer as he was not included in the early Arthurian legends or the Welsh and Irish mythology that Geoffrey used to "borrow" characters like Kay, Guinivere, and Gawain. So my first reference to Galahad and the Holy Grail pertains to exactly that: he was completely invented by a fantasy writer and not a character like Odysseus who was part of the oral tradition of the Greeks and finally written down by Homer.

As for the style between the two and the works you mentioned, *The Ballad of Gilgamesh * is simply an epic poem, while *Beowulf* was written in alliterative verse and was a style characteristic of the Germanic peoples, and *The Iliad * is a dactylic hexameter. *The Iliad * when read definitely has its own rhythm due to its meter and that is one of the reasons it is brilliant. Fantasy is usually written in prose. And, yes, *The Lord of the Rings * is a good example of that.

However, I do agree with you regarding The Hero's Journey. That is used in either genre and tells the story of one person and how they come into their destiny after a journey of self-awareness by trial and has nothing to do with an entire people group.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I gotta go with Julie on this one.  I can't classify anything with a god in it as mythology and anything without it as fantasy - that's far too simplistic and does open questions about things like 'His Dark Materials' which as specifically written from an atheistic worldview.  As I've said previously, mythology is the more scholarly of the two and contains the cultural and religious foundations of a group whereas fantasy is more the stories we use to entertain ourselves that often - but by no means always - draw from those mythological foundations.

I understand your distinction between the two, I just can't get behind them.  Further, while I agree that the Arthurian legends were invented, I also can't get behind the concept of a medieval fantasy writer - they didn't exist any more than the bronze age fantasy writer existed.  That is laying a more modern construct over a more ancient time.

I'm not certain I follow your distinction between poetic and prosaic styles.  the more ancient tales are written in poetic meter because they were aural works memorized and designed to be recited before an audience while the more modern tales - those written mostly after the invention of the printing press - are written and intended to be read to oneself and not aloud.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2013)

lmroth12 said:


> I didn't say that was what I actually said; I said it was the _point _ of the original discussion. You can refer back to the original post if you like, which simply asked what your favorite genre was and why, and to share your thoughts and preferences. On another early post I ended it with this response to Nog Dog: _My question is merely for fun to open up discussion, with no right or wrong answers. _
> 
> The Arthurian legends were largely the fabrication of a couple of medieval writers of the 12th century and not tales that the British people handed down from generation to generation as part of their identity as they would in the mythic tradition.


Those fabrications did not occur out of a void. The actual stories pre-date those authors. The "historical" Arthur on which the Arthurian legends are based appears in 5th and 6th century works. The figure upon which Arthur was build (though probably not named Arthur) was historically a Roman-British soldier from the Roman occupation. The Green Knight mythic figure appears in a variety of ancient legends that pre-date the Arthurian stories. But really, the point of mythology is NEVER about historical fact. It is about universal truths. As I already said, the Greeks and Romans didn't actually think there was a man holding the planet up on his shoulders. There is no historical basis for Zeus. Hell, there is no historical basis for Helen of Troy. If we follow your logic that characters who are "fabricated" are automatically fantasy, Homer was a fantasy writer too.



> In fact, the Holy Grail itself is an invention based on the Celtic love


No, the Holy Grail is a Christianization of ancient Anglo-Saxon myths. The Medieval Christian church usurped a host of Anglo-Saxon mythology and Christianized them. There are quite literally hundreds of "saints" that are actually Christianized versions of ancient gods and goddesses. Everything you keep claiming was "made up" by "fantasy writers" actually have strong roots in ancient European mythology and were simply Christianized versions of those old myths.

Geoffrey already pointed out the fallacy of your distinction between poetic meter and prose. Ancient texts were in poetic meter because they were meant to be spoken. Prose is a recent (by civilization standards) invention that came along with improvements to printing methods. The usage of poetic meter versus prose has nothing to do with whether or not something is mythology or fantasy.

I am a student of mytho-poetic literature. It's kind of my thing. I read books like _God Against the Gods_ recreationally. Campbell's _The Masks of God_ series has a dedicated place on my bookshelf. Mythology is a big thing with me. So I apologize if you think I am being annoying about this. But it isn't "fun" to watch someone create an arbitrary definition that flies in the face of all understanding of the nature of mythology and it's role in society. Again, to illustrate the disconnect, if someone started a thread asking "which do you prefer, The Bible or Fantasy" what would your knee-jerk reaction be? Wouldn't that seem like a fundamentally flawed comparison to you?

But I'm through with this for now. I think I'll go over to Yahoo Fantasy Sports and start a thread asking "which is the better football team, The Philadelphia Eagles or the L.A. Lakers" and see what happens...


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Geoffrey said:


> I gotta go with Julie on this one. I can't classify anything with a god in it as mythology and anything without it as fantasy - that's far too simplistic and does open questions about things like 'His Dark Materials' which as specifically written from an atheistic worldview. As I've said previously, mythology is the more scholarly of the two and contains the cultural and religious foundations of a group whereas fantasy is more the stories we use to entertain ourselves that often - but by no means always - draw from those mythological foundations.
> 
> I understand your distinction between the two, I just can't get behind them. Further, while I agree that the Arthurian legends were invented, I also can't get behind the concept of a medieval fantasy writer - they didn't exist any more than the bronze age fantasy writer existed. That is laying a more modern construct over a more ancient time.
> 
> I'm not certain I follow your distinction between poetic and prosaic styles. the more ancient tales are written in poetic meter because they were aural works memorized and designed to be recited before an audience while the more modern tales - those written mostly after the invention of the printing press - are written and intended to be read to oneself and not aloud.


My distinction between the poetic and prosaic styles was simply in response to Julie's comment that there was no fundamental difference in style between Gilgamesh, Beowulf, The Iliad and the Lord of the Rings. I merely pointed out the different narrative styles they were written in because they do have distinct differences.

The term medieval fantasy writer that I used wasn't implying that such a classification existed. I used that term because between Geoffrey of Monmouth and Chrétien de Troyes they invented the King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table legends. It is possible that the correct term for them would be "romance" writers, as that is what they were called at that time, but if I used that word to describe them today we would not think of fantasy but love stories, so I used the term fantasy writer for the sake of placing them in a modern context. I didn't realize that would cause confusion to use a term we would use today as I thought it would create MORE confusion to call them by what they were known as then.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Those fabrications did not occur out of a void. The actual stories pre-date those authors. The "historical" Arthur on which the Arthurian legends are based appears in 5th and 6th century works. The figure upon which Arthur was build (though probably not named Arthur) was historically a Roman-British soldier from the Roman occupation. The Green Knight mythic figure appears in a variety of ancient legends that pre-date the Arthurian stories. But really, the point of mythology is NEVER about historical fact. It is about universal truths. As I already said, the Greeks and Romans didn't actually think there was a man holding the planet up on his shoulders. There is no historical basis for Zeus. Hell, there is no historical basis for Helen of Troy. If we follow your logic that characters who are "fabricated" are automatically fantasy, Homer was a fantasy writer too.
> 
> No, the Holy Grail is a Christianization of ancient Anglo-Saxon myths. The Medieval Christian church usurped a host of Anglo-Saxon mythology and Christianized them. There are quite literally hundreds of "saints" that are actually Christianized versions of ancient gods and goddesses. Everything you keep claiming was "made up" by "fantasy writers" actually have strong roots in ancient European mythology and were simply Christianized versions of those old myths.
> 
> ...


_

My reference to the distinction between poetic meter and prose was in response to your comment that there was no fundamental difference in the style of storytelling between certain works. "And from a purely STYLE perspective in relation to the methodology of storytelling, there is no fundamental difference between Beowulf, Gilgamesh, The Illiad, and Lord of the Rings."_ I merely pointed out the different narrative styles between these works, because even within the poetic there were big differences. It had nothing to do with what classified as mythology and what classified as fantasy. I simply couldn't believe that anyone could read those works and say there was no difference in their narrative styles and I therefore pointed them out.

The characters that I said were "made up" were Galahad and the King Arthur legends that were invented by Geoffrey of Monmouth and Chrétien de Troyes. While you are mentioning Geoffrey, please note that he agreed that they are largely invented.

I already mentioned that the Holy Grail was an invention based on the Celtic magical cauldrons. The Catholic Church has never even credited the existence of such an object; it was a complete literary concoction and not in the same category of the gods & goddesses that were given the names of saints. I could actually tell you the names of the goddesses and the saints they became if you like, Anu became Anne, Birgid became Brigid, and so on and so on.

I studied mythology, folklore, fairy tales and other literary genres, and own several reference volumes of mythology that I read for enjoyment as well as for research, including Bullfinch's Mythology, Edith Hamilton's Mythology, and volumes on Greek & Roman, Celtic, and Norse mythology. I bring this up because, while I don't think you are being annoying, I would like to point out to you that I am sure there are others who have come on this thread who have studied it as well, so please remember that.

And as I said this is intended to be a discussion about literary genres and who likes what and why. You don't need to go off and start another thread; I would miss your contributions to this one!


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Just for the fun of it, is Zelazny's _Lord of Light_ mythology or science fiction?


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

NogDog said:


> Just for the fun of it, is Zelazny's _Lord of Light_ mythology or science fiction?


  I haven't read that one, but I thought of that too; how do you classify a book that contains both mythological and science fiction elements? For instance, C. S. Lewis' space trilogy. Both *Out of the Silent Planet * and *Prerelandra * are clearly sci-fi, but *That Hideous Strength * brings in the element of fantasy. However, that may have more to do with Lewis being so diverse as a writer who liked to mix things up a bit and refused to stay in a box.

And I agree with Geoffrey that there are some books that fall into mythic fantasy or the broader category of fantasy that doesn't draw on mythology.

Hmmm. I have always seen sci-fi as an exploration of what man can accomplish due to advances in technology or the simple desire to discover what lies beyond our own planet or at the bottom of the sea or the center of the Earth and the writer puts his imagination to work using a base of scientific data to build from. I don't read as much sci-fi as I used to but read a lot of Isaac Asimov, Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, and Larry Niven as a teenager.

Perhaps you could share the storyline a bit and someone can jump in who has read it and offer their analysis?


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Spoiler alert! (I'm trying not to give away anything too spoiler-ish, but you never know what some readers may find to be too much, so read at your own risk.)

_Lord of Light_ (unfortunately not enKindled, along with most of Zelazny's stuff) postulates a world that humans emigrated to at some point, but over time has come under the control of a few enhanced individuals, aided by some artifact-like devices. These few have taken on the roles of Hindu gods, and as far as the vast majority of the common people on the planet -- who live in an pre-industrial stage -- are concerned, they _are_ gods. The "hero", one of the original settlers and who could be "god material", becomes, essentially, the Buddha, and tries to disrupt the control of the "gods."

Besides the fact it's a beautifully written book and a joy to read (IMHO) and caused me to learn a bit about Indian religion; I, at least, could not help thinking about the concept of what is the difference between a virtually immortal human with god-like powers and an actual god -- or is there a difference? If we suppose that Vishnu does (or did), in fact, exist on Earth, how can we know if he was truly a supernatural being, or a mortal alien from another planet so advanced beyond us that he is, for all intents and purposes, a god?

PS: Similar themes show up in several of Zelazny's books, probably most notably in _Creatures of Light and Darkness_ (Egyptian mythology).


----------



## Loopy-Lou (Dec 22, 2012)

Although I like the cultural aspects of some Mythology books and the fact that some of the themes are a little deeper and slightly more thought provoking than some Fantasy stories, I still prefer Fantasy books as they seem to have a little more scope and offer a little more in terms of a variety of magical characters with varied abilities, (not just Gods & Mythical creatures) although many of the storylines are the same (good vs evil) I feel that Fantasy stories add that extra spark to ensure the reader is not just waiting for a big battle at the end and theres magic running throughout Fantasy stories but I have found many Mythology novels do not get to the magic until the middle because the beginning is busy setting the scene about the history.


----------



## darkscrybe (Jul 18, 2011)

There's definitely a place for both, I feel. After all, fantasy fiction is derived from myths and legends. Storytelling is one of humanity's oldest traits.

Midnight Echo magazine, produced in Australia, recently released its 9th issue and it has a myths and legends theme. It comes in e-book and kindle formats as well!

http://midnightechomagazine.com/products-page/midnight_echo/midnight-echo-issue-9/


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

NogDog said:


> Spoiler alert! (I'm trying not to give away anything too spoiler-ish, but you never know what some readers may find to be too much, so read at your own risk.)
> 
> _Lord of Light_ (unfortunately not enKindled, along with most of Zelazny's stuff) postulates a world that humans emigrated to at some point, but over time has come under the control of a few enhanced individuals, aided by some artifact-like devices. These few have taken on the roles of Hindu gods, and as far as the vast majority of the common people on the planet -- who live in an pre-industrial stage -- are concerned, they _are_ gods. The "hero", one of the original settlers and who could be "god material", becomes, essentially, the Buddha, and tries to disrupt the control of the "gods."
> 
> ...


This sounds like a fascinating book. I also like to read some books simply for the quality of writing and let them transport me to another time and place. It sounds like this is one of those books.

Does the book specifically speculate that Vishnu was an alien, or is that the impression it gave you? I would think that this book would be categorized based on its main theme. Because I can see where it could be classified as sci-fi if aliens and space travel come into the story and the gods are only used as a form of manipulation by those who declare themselves to be gods in order to control the rest of the population. But if the focus seems to be on the "gods" and the Buddha who tries to challenge them as a way to highlight the Hindu religion, I would be inclined to classify it as mythology although placed in an unusual setting. However, there are some fantasy books that mention gods who really take no actual part in the story and only give a backdrop to the beliefs of the civilization in order to round out who these people are, what they believe, and how it all fits into their history to define their collective identity. So if that is the case it could qualify as fantasy. And there are various sub-genres of fantasy, so it's possible it could be classified in one of those rather than what we usually think of as fantasy.

Without reading it I can't get a handle on what the author intended to focus on as his theme so I really can't offer a definite opinion.

As for the difference between gods and a virtually immortal human with god-like powers and what the difference is, there you can get a little sticky depending on what you read. Norse mythology speaks of the destruction of the gods at Ragnorak (and Baldr is also slain before that event), and Greek mythology contains the story of Dionysus and his death at the hands of the Titans to name just two myths that mention the death of gods. So some civilizations believed that the gods could be killed, and therefore they are technically not immortal if they can die; unless they are killed because they have taken on human form and are vulnerable in that state. (Now we get to splitting some hairs over terminology!)

Several of the classic myths mention gods and goddesses being born, while other mythologies stress the fact of being eternal without beginning or end. In literature where the author has left it undefined, I find it helpful personally to decide based on the following: if someone is immortal with god-like powers that come from within and that is innate to their nature, then they are divine, especially if recognized as such by other deities. If someone has god-like powers but can not call on that power from within and has to seek it from another source such as a god or a familiar spirit, then they are a mortal with supernatural powers who call on gods or demons to invoke their miracles, curses, blessings, etc.

Maybe someone who has read the book will be able to offer more insight, because without actually reading it I can't really offer a definite opinion.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Loopy-Lou said:


> Although I like the cultural aspects of some Mythology books and the fact that some of the themes are a little deeper and slightly more thought provoking than some Fantasy stories, I still prefer Fantasy books as they seem to have a little more scope and offer a little more in terms of a variety of magical characters with varied abilities, (not just Gods & Mythical creatures) although many of the storylines are the same (good vs evil) I feel that Fantasy stories add that extra spark to ensure the reader is not just waiting for a big battle at the end and theres magic running throughout Fantasy stories but I have found many Mythology novels do not get to the magic until the middle because the beginning is busy setting the scene about the history.


I agree that mythology is slower to take off for that very reason. There needs to be time to set the stage and introduce the characters and their backgrounds so the reader is clued in on the action about to take place and the motivation and customs of the protagonists and antagonists.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

In LoL, all the "gods" are from the original humans who came to the world. (I don't recall for sure if some perhaps were from subsequent generations?)

LoL could also make a decent contribution the the "opening line" thread:

_His followers called him Mahasamatman and said he was a god. He preferred to drop the Maha- and the -atman, however, and called himself Sam. He never claimed to be a god, but then he never claimed not to be a god._

PS: I'm a *huge* Roger Zelazny fan, so my opinions are unquestionably biased.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

darkscrybe said:


> There's definitely a place for both, I feel. After all, fantasy fiction is derived from myths and legends. Storytelling is one of humanity's oldest traits.
> 
> Midnight Echo magazine, produced in Australia, recently released its 9th issue and it has a myths and legends theme. It comes in e-book and kindle formats as well!
> 
> http://midnightechomagazine.com/products-page/midnight_echo/midnight-echo-issue-9/


Storytelling is what brings us and binds us together, because it reveals our common fears, desires, and weaknesses we battle on life's journey. And as we relate to the characters in a fantasy or myth we can identify with them and be inspired by them, and find the hope that is occasionally needed to finish our own story and not give up and quit before we reach the finish line.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

NogDog said:


> In LoL, all the "gods" are from the original humans who came to the world. (I don't recall for sure if some perhaps were from subsequent generations?)
> 
> LoL could also make a decent contribution the the "opening line" thread:
> 
> ...


Well, in that case I would be inclined to categorize it as fantasy with the gods being used merely as a device by humans to promote their own power and control over others. It may still qualify as sci-fi, but I have seen few books in that genre that mention gods at all as the emphasis is usually on what man can achieve through the aid of science and technology. And if they are posing as gods in a ploy to gain power, then I would wonder if it can be classed as sci-fi. Isaac Asimov's *Nightfall* speaks of the "fanatics" who have preserved the old book of Revelations (not the Biblical book but one they have recorded with a great deal of data about the last nightfall and how it figures into their beliefs) and warn people about the coming end of civilization, but they are only mentioned as an example of how the citizenry are panicking at the thought of the coming nightfall which only happens once every thousand years or so. And *Nightfall* is placed solidly in the sci-fi category with the emphasis on other worlds and their solar systems and how the structure affects this particular civilization.

And I think that _is_ an intriguing opening line and certainly one that hasn't been used over there. All of my favorite ones had been taken so I used one that hadn't been mentioned just to add variety.


----------



## darkscrybe (Jul 18, 2011)

lmroth12 said:


> Storytelling is what brings us and binds us together, because it reveals our common fears, desires, and weaknesses we battle on life's journey. And as we relate to the characters in a fantasy or myth we can identify with them and be inspired by them, and find the hope that is occasionally needed to finish our own story and not give up and quit before we reach the finish line.


Exactly!


----------



## Cody Kelly (Aug 27, 2013)

You know,

I don't know what exactly "fantasy," "mythology," "science fiction," et all really are. I've labelled my own stuff "fantasy" to pigeon-hole it in the Kindle system here. My own stuff is "out there." But it's not aimless. It's actually pulled taut with conceptual direction.

I've seen terms at Kindle I've never heard of: "urban fantasy," etc. I'm not a devotee of any of these genres and have no idea what they mean. 

In the end, writing works or it doesn't. The tools of "other worldliness" or whatever are basically that: tools to make a point(s). Maybe I'm a purist, but I think that any genre, in the end, is going to tell the same thing.


----------



## JDHallowell (Dec 31, 2012)

lmroth12 said:


> You won't find any temples standing to any figures mentioned in fantasy novels because they never existed in anyone's mind except the author's. That is one very clear distinction between mythology and fantasy. Mythology is based on something that people actually believed; fantasy is not.


Of course, organizations like the Church of All Worlds, which is based in part on Heinlein's novel _Stranger in a Strange Land_, complicate this distinction.


----------

