ParanetOnline

McAnally's (The Community Pub) => Author Craft => Topic started by: Dresdenus Prime on August 04, 2011, 06:45:45 PM

Title: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Dresdenus Prime on August 04, 2011, 06:45:45 PM
In the book series I'm planning a lot of the back story has to do with people and creatures popular in mythology. There will be Wizards, Vampires, Valkyries, and more.

My question is what would your opinion be on using these types of creatures versus original created creatures.

Take the Dresden Files and The Twenty Palace Society novels. Jim uses a lot of mythology for his books, but he adapts it and makes them fresh, for example taking the Vampires and splitting them into courts, or having multiple types of Werewolves. Harry Connolly on the other hand in his first two novels as far as I know creates the creatures that threaten his hero's world.

So does the reader jump to the new ideas because so many of the mythological ideas have been played out? Or is mythology so enticing that it actually has a better chance at luring a reader to see how loyal or how much of a risk you took with the source material?

I'm going to attempt to do both. I'm going to try and keep the mythological creatures as faithful as I can while at the same time adding my own twist to their origins, but I hope to create a couple new ones in the process.

I just thought I'd ask for everyone elses two cents, and see how many dollars I can get from that  8)
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Nickeris86 on August 05, 2011, 06:33:21 AM
I love mythology a great deal and defiantly pull from it by the hand fulls for inspiration in my own works. However I never completely copy said myth unless my story takes place in the setting of that myth.

Like you I am writing a novel that is heavily inspired from vampire myths, however the being in my actual story are not classic vampires, and no they do not sparkle that is not anywhere close to a real vampire. Instead they are a completely different species from humans who have completely different anatomy that relies more on magic than science to actually be fees able.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Figging Mint on August 07, 2011, 04:02:14 PM
Mythology mining is horribly convenient if you want to launch into action or emotive conflict sequences without a lot of world setup.   

 I don't enjoy that sort of thing, to be honest.  I prefer *enormous* world setup, on the order of Dan Simmons' Ilium, Drake's Northworlds (for an example of enormous world setups with mythology pulls),  unless there is a very detailed exploration of the state of being of  the mythical critter.   (Brust's Agyar and CJ Cherryh's Rusalka pop into mind here).

If you're good at descriptive pacing and infodumps, create your own.   Write the next Amber.    Nine Princes in Amber is a perfect example of zero explicit mythology pulls with an absolutely fascinating, gripping pacing of reveals.   Heck, if you're really good at reader hooks, you can have a Belgariad.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: newtinmpls on August 09, 2011, 01:13:03 AM
"If you're good at descriptive pacing and infodumps, create your own.   Write the next Amber.    Nine Princes in Amber is a perfect example of zero explicit mythology pulls with an absolutely fascinating, gripping pacing of reveals.   Heck, if you're really good at reader hooks, you can have a Belgariad."

Lovely point about Amber.

Belgariad? Had it's flaws. I have yet to meet a male reader who could stand Polgara. I did love the storytelly intros that had nothing overt to do with the plotline.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Figging Mint on August 09, 2011, 01:01:36 PM
"Lovely point about Amber."

Thanks.   I like to use Amber here because Binder/Siddharta in Lord of Light gives us another version of the Corwin character in a world with explicit mythology pulls (and told in third person).     
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: trboturtle on August 11, 2011, 12:12:24 AM
Belgariad? Had it's flaws. I have yet to meet a male reader who could stand Polgara.

*Raises hand*

You found one......

Craig
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: newtinmpls on August 11, 2011, 12:37:20 AM
So Craig, what was your take on her relationship with Garion?
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Beefstew on August 11, 2011, 01:27:48 AM
I think readers love well told stories.  It doesn't really matter, to me at least, if authors use old stuff or make up new.

Creating your own world is great, but it can take away from the story a bit, as the focus becomes more about the world you're building, and less about the story that you're trying to tell.  That's not always the case, but it can happen.  I don't know if you've ever built a world, but it's a whole lot of work to make sure your world is not flat.

Borrowing/stealing myths and changing them a bit can be easier, and a little less strain on the reader.  They don't have to learn new stuff and the story can really start straight out of the gate.  Look at the Dresden Files, all kinds of action, very little explaining what's going on.

I do think built worlds are more memorable.  There is (or was I'm not sure anymore) a group of people trying to live by the standards of the White Tower in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time world.  Look at how many Star Wars fans are still running around, and they haven't made a good movie since '83.

In the end I think it depends on what genre you're going to write.  If you're going for fantasy, create your world.  Fantasy readers usually have the patience and maybe even the desire to see big and complex worlds.  If you want to write another genre, go with the borrowing of myths and changing them to better fit your world.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on August 12, 2011, 03:42:21 AM
I don't know if you've ever built a world, but it's a whole lot of work to make sure your world is not flat.

yeah, and the oceans leaking off the edges is such a pain.

Quote
Borrowing/stealing myths and changing them a bit can be easier, and a little less strain on the reader.  They don't have to learn new stuff and the story can really start straight out of the gate.  Look at the Dresden Files, all kinds of action, very little explaining what's going on.
I do think built worlds are more memorable.  There is (or was I'm not sure anymore) a group of people trying to live by the standards of the White Tower in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time world.  Look at how many Star Wars fans are still running around, and they haven't made a good movie since '83.

I think the difference between venerable-enough built worlds and myths is kind of blurry.  I mean, references to Sherlock Holmes are at least as recognisable as references to Hercules.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: AdamPepper on August 13, 2011, 02:42:40 AM
As writers we should always strive to invent and create.  In my novel, I created my own monster.  Dont get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a fresh spin on an old favorite, and there's always a market for that too.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on August 13, 2011, 01:11:31 PM
As writers we should always strive to invent and create.  In my novel, I created my own monster.  Dont get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a fresh spin on an old favorite, and there's always a market for that too.

As writers, there's pretty much noting we should always do except get the words set down.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: AdamPepper on August 14, 2011, 03:19:06 AM
As writers, there's pretty much noting we should always do except get the words set down.

Words on a page is a good start. 
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on August 14, 2011, 03:38:21 PM
Words on a page is a good start.

Well, speaking just for myself, I don't physically print the things out until and unless a publishing professional wants it in that format, so "words on a page" is not strictly accurate and I'm just OCDish enough not to use it.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: newtinmpls on August 14, 2011, 03:45:55 PM
The word processing programs I use all utilize "page" functions for display purposes (and fancier for print veiw) so for me, "words on a page" is accurate for paper or screen.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Figging Mint on August 14, 2011, 05:53:04 PM
Words on a page is a good start.

Quote from: Mark Foley
How DO you get the silly youngsters to stay still long enough?
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: OZ on August 15, 2011, 12:49:16 AM
Quote
I have yet to meet a male reader who could stand Polgara.

I have sometimes wondered if Polgara was the inspiration for Jordan's obnoxiuos women. Of course none them bother me as much as some of Modesitt's horribly self centered females.

For what it's worth, I like both authors. That is why I find the obnoxious creatures invading the stories and causing all sorts of problems for the characters that I like so disturbing.

Back on topic. I love either adaptations of myths or new creations as long as they're done well. My personal gripes are adaptations of myths that pretend to be new creations or new creations that pretend to be myths.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: newtinmpls on August 15, 2011, 04:14:45 PM
AdamPepper: Words on a page is a good start.

Mark Foley: How DO you get the silly youngsters to stay still long enough?

My brain is still warped from gaming last night, so I read it as "wards on a page" and it makes me think about using some innocent as carrier for a magical effect. Does "purloined letter" count as mythical? Probably not, only archtypal or cliche at best.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Figging Mint on August 15, 2011, 04:32:51 PM
Eh.  Sorry.  I was being terrible.     That should probably have 3 rs in it.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: AdamPepper on August 15, 2011, 11:42:27 PM
Well, speaking just for myself, I don't physically print the things out until and unless a publishing professional wants it in that format, so "words on a page" is not strictly accurate and I'm just OCDish enough not to use it.

How about words on a screen?
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Figging Mint on August 16, 2011, 01:26:41 AM
Well, speaking just for myself, I don't physically print the things out until and unless a publishing professional wants it in that format, so "words on a page" is not strictly accurate and I'm just OCDish enough not to use it.

It might be time for this link   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdpudWL5i68  again. 
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Snowleopard on August 16, 2011, 02:17:52 AM
Polgara was a very strong woman.  I've got no problem with that.  (But then being a lady I don't think there are enough good strong women characters.)
The one who drove me nuts was Ce-Needra - talk about spoiled and self-centered.   Grrrrrrr.
A male who could write strong female characters that didn't make you grit your teeth was
James Schmitz.  The Witches of Karres (the first one not the second one done by someone else), The Tuvela also known as The Demon Breed.  And the women in a number of his short stories.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: OZ on August 16, 2011, 02:39:36 AM
I have read ( and enjoyed ) The Witches of Karres. I am not familiar with The Tuvela. Is it worth checking out?
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Snowleopard on August 16, 2011, 06:47:17 AM
I have read ( and enjoyed ) The Witches of Karres. I am not familiar with The Tuvela. Is it worth checking out?

I think it is.  The main character is a woman who has to deal with an alien incursion on a water world in the midst of a giant storm that will keep her from getting any outside help for awhile.  And the aliens under cover of the storm have messed up communications in that area.
Her only help is her pair of giant bio-engineered Otters - they can speak and are fairly smart.  (One reason why I love the story - I love otters)
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: OZ on August 16, 2011, 07:24:59 AM
Thanks. I'm always looking for something new to read. I will have to check it out.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: newtinmpls on August 16, 2011, 01:28:40 PM
Polgara was strong, but I perceived that she had reasons (and good ones) for the things that appeared to be cruel - which many folks I knew didn't think were 'enough' or she was 'too mean' or something like that.

As for C'Nedra, she was so in character, I didn't care so much what the character was, if that makes any sense.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Snowleopard on August 16, 2011, 07:39:37 PM
Yeah, Ce-Needra was in character but I really, really don't have much time for that kind of character.
Hey Oz, don't know if you've read it but do try Roger Zelazney's - A Night in The Lonesome October.
 The premise being that on those Halloween Nights when there is a full moon a group of people will meet - some to open the door to Lovecraft's Elder Gods - some to keep the door closed.
The chief closer down through the ages is a man named Jack who is under a curse involving a knife.
All the closers and openers have animal familiars and the story is told by Jack's familiar a dog named Snuff.
It's a hoot and a half.  Dracula, the Wolfman, Frankenstein and his monster, and Sherlock Holmes are all running around London.  I do highly recommend it.  In fact I wish someone would turn it into a movie - would be very cool.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: OZ on August 17, 2011, 03:31:01 AM
I actually have read that one. I like Zelazny and that one was really fun. It sounds like there is a lot of overlap in what we like to read. Thanks Snowleopard.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Breandan on August 17, 2011, 06:22:52 AM
I would say it depends on how it fits into your storyline. The setting and background I have been tasked with writing for another RPG- and the contract also stipulated a minimum of three novels should they option them- is based directly in existing ancient legends and lore. So, I have to do extremely detailed and extensive research into those pre-Christian religions and cultures that I am unfamiliar with (since the setting involves several European, African, Asian, Oriental, American- north and south- and Australian indigenous religions, and my expertise is on the European ones) and get it right. The last thing I want is a ton of nastygrams from thousands of angry Hellenes in Greece because I screwed up something basic about the Olympian Gods. If the core of the storyline is not based in a specific mythology or requires precise accuracy, get creative. A good example of a blend of legends throughout history that has been "tweaked" with significant creative license is Feist's Fairy Tale.

A second point to remember- and I touched on this a bit above- is that a lot of those ancient religions and their attendant mythologies are STILL practiced today, and many of the followers of those ancient faiths- or their derivatives- are likely to be in your target audience. Granted, not all of them are thin-skinned purists who will show up on your doorstep if you bugger up a deity's name. Hell, I went to see Thor with a couple of Theodisc (Norse/Germanic heathens to whom Thor IS one of their Gods) fully expecting them to burn the theater to the ground and blood-eagle somebody. I was surprised, they loved it (granted, largely because it showed their Gods in a pretty positive light, and never specifically said they weren't Gods), so if you get the gist right and are flattering or fair, they will likely let the details slide. I know a lot of Ásatrú and Theodisc Dresden fans who
(click to show/hide)
, so there's room for fudging without irking the followers of the indigenous faiths. Now that he
(click to show/hide)
So, you can even hook readers in by working into it little by little over the course of a novel or series of novels.

My $0.02 anyway :D
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Snowleopard on August 17, 2011, 06:57:31 AM
I actually have read that one. I like Zelazny and that one was really fun. It sounds like there is a lot of overlap in what we like to read. Thanks Snowleopard.

Great minds run in the same rut??? ;D
Seriously, glad to help.  I love turning people onto books that I enjoy.
While it's not fantasy if you like snark and history you might check out
Lindsey Davis - Marcus Didius Falco series.  Really quite good.
Stories are set in ancient Rome in the time of Vespasian.
Marcus is basically a PI but they have a different name for it and are very
looked down on in Roman society.
The first book is _ The Silver Pigs.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: The Corvidian on August 17, 2011, 10:15:29 PM
I would say it depends on how it fits into your storyline. The setting and background I have been tasked with writing for another RPG- and the contract also stipulated a minimum of three novels should they option them- is based directly in existing ancient legends and lore. So, I have to do extremely detailed and extensive research into those pre-Christian religions and cultures that I am unfamiliar with (since the setting involves several European, African, Asian, Oriental, American- north and south- and Australian indigenous religions, and my expertise is on the European ones) and get it right. The last thing I want is a ton of nastygrams from thousands of angry Hellenes in Greece because I screwed up something basic about the Olympian Gods. If the core of the storyline is not based in a specific mythology or requires precise accuracy, get creative. A good example of a blend of legends throughout history that has been "tweaked" with significant creative license is Feist's Fairy Tale.

A second point to remember- and I touched on this a bit above- is that a lot of those ancient religions and their attendant mythologies are STILL practiced today, and many of the followers of those ancient faiths- or their derivatives- are likely to be in your target audience. Granted, not all of them are thin-skinned purists who will show up on your doorstep if you bugger up a deity's name. Hell, I went to see Thor with a couple of Theodisc (Norse/Germanic heathens to whom Thor IS one of their Gods) fully expecting them to burn the theater to the ground and blood-eagle somebody. I was surprised, they loved it (granted, largely because it showed their Gods in a pretty positive light, and never specifically said they weren't Gods), so if you get the gist right and are flattering or fair, they will likely let the details slide. I know a lot of Ásatrú and Theodisc Dresden fans who
(click to show/hide)
, so there's room for fudging without irking the followers of the indigenous faiths. Now that he
(click to show/hide)
So, you can even hook readers in by working into it little by little over the course of a novel or series of novels.

My $0.02 anyway :D

Technically, I think he has already introduced them, or at least two of them; Mother Winter, and Mother Summer.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Breandan on August 18, 2011, 07:48:43 PM
Those are daoine sídhe, though, not Gods. The Túatha de Dannan consists of between twelve and thirty primary and secondary deities, including Nuada Lámhairgid (king of the Túatha, alternating with Lugh periodically), Lugh Lámhfada, the Ildánach or many-skilled, Danú, the mother-figure of the Tútha de Dannan and, among other aspects, the Goddess of motherhood, Eochaid Ollathair or "an Dagda", a wise and boisterous God of masculinity who revels in feasting, fighting, acts of strength, harping, chasing women, etc., Brighíd the Goddess of poetry, fire, smithing, and inspiration of musicians and bards, Áine the Beautiful, an Mórríghan, "the Great Queen" who rules over the battlefield and governs prophecy, Goibhniu the smith, Creidhne the artificer, Macha, the Goddess of horses, war, sovereignty, and the sacral bond between a rí (king) and the land, Oghma the god of knowledge, warrior-poet natures, and eloquence, Manannán Mac Lír the Waverider, God of the seas and guardian of the gateways between this world and the otherworlds, Badb Catha the Lady of Victory and contemporary of the Brythonic Andraste, Dian Cécht the physician of the Gods, Cromm Cruach the Old Man of the Hill, and many other regional Gods and Goddesses such as Bóann who governs the rivers and waters inland, etc.
(click to show/hide)

The Túatha de Dannan were relegated to "fairies" by Christian missionaries who met with stiff resistance in their conversion efforts in Ireland. In order to ease the transition, they first put the Christian God in as the king of the Gods, and then- over time- reduced the Irish Gods to fairies to allow the Gael to continue venerating them without impinging upon Christian conversions. This created a unique blend of foreign Abrahamic beliefs- which originate in the Middle East- and indigenous Irish beliefs that culminated in what is referred to as the Celtic Church. It was this "heretical" faith that in the 12th century caused Pope Adrian IV- using the so-called Donation of Constantine (a document purporting to be written by Emperor Constantine giving complete control over the Empire and it's lands to the Pope, a document later proven to be an 8th century forgery by Pope Stephen II or someone within his papal court used in a power-grab against the Franks- to give Ireland to King Henry II in exchange for the Angevin king forcing Ireland to come in line with the Roman church. The adherence to "pagan" traditions and elements was unacceptable to the Roman authorities as they sought to consolidate and homogenize the Church, and the continued veneration of the Túatha de Dannan- even in a degenerated and watered-down form- smacked of pagan idolatry to the Pope. So, the veneration of the Túatha de Dannan underwent even further degeneration into folk customs and traditions in which 99% of the Irish forgot the origins of who they were venerating. Only a few instances- most of which involved Badb Catha or Áine- occur in later years wherein they are remembered as deities rather than fairies. The most notable was Badb Catha's appearance before the Battle of Dysert O'Dea, where she granted Clan Turlough victory. After the battle she was honoured in the Caithréim Thoirdhealbhaigh, or The Triumphs of Turlough- as "a war-goddess woman-friend".

It was only in the late 19th century with the works of Lady Augusta Greggory and W.B. Yeats that the Túatha de Dannan were once again written in literature (Greggory's Gods and Fighting Men most notably) as Gods and not fairies. That was the beginning of a resurgence of indigenous Gaelic faith that still continues to this day. Many folks out there pray to the Túatha de Dannan and follow the faith and customs of their Ancestors, just as many worship and honour the Æsir and Vanir, the Olympians, the Häme-Karjalaso Gods, the Gods of the many American peoples, etc. As a result, it is important that- as authors- we get it right if we wish to avoid the upset or outright angry emails and rantings :)
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: newtinmpls on August 18, 2011, 07:57:53 PM
"You know, the sad part is, that whole Combat Teddy Bear Robe incident was done while sober... *facepalm* "

To momentarily cross genres and universes - people see a man dressed like that and they know he's not afraid of anything.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Figging Mint on August 18, 2011, 08:04:12 PM
To momentarily cross genres and universes - people see a man dressed like that and they know he's not afraid of anything.

Did anyone else have a The Number of the Beast moment while reading this?
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Breandan on August 18, 2011, 08:25:51 PM
In my defense, it was done for a friend who wanted a humorous take on a zombie hunter. Granted, that's the ONLY defense I have, cause I love that robe and wear it often :D
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: trboturtle on August 18, 2011, 11:33:09 PM
So Craig, what was your take on her relationship with Garion?

A very protective mother. Been a few years since I read Eddings, but As I remembered it, Polgara was a stable point around which Garion grew up. She didn't smother him, but let him grow up as a normal boy.

She probably chose the best place for a boy who would be king to grow up in -- Sendars are pratical, hard-working types.....

Craig
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Nickeris86 on August 20, 2011, 04:17:53 PM
What I like to do, primarily for urban fantasy stories, is role up particular mythical creatures  into one race that humans have called many things depending one where they were seen.

In a short story series I am formulating  where 13 simultaneous cataclysms have brought myth and magic back into the world there are a race of creatures who were the foundation for the myths of the Manticore, Cerberus, Worgs, Fu dogs, and just about any other animal based mythical creature. Because their race is prone to various mutations and the panic that they induced by their mere presence their legends got blown way out of proportion with their actual abilities.

This method allows me to pull from myth while still creating an entirely new and interesting creature that is all my own.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Figging Mint on August 21, 2011, 09:58:52 PM
In a short story series I am formulating  where 13 simultaneous cataclysms have brought

 :o :o :o :o
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Nickeris86 on August 22, 2011, 12:23:29 AM
:o :o :o :o

<.<   >.> What. 13 major disasters around the world that happen at the same time.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Figging Mint on August 22, 2011, 12:27:39 AM
13 major disasters around the world that happen at the same time.

Oh, I understood that.   Saying it the other way seems ... apocalypticalier.   

And begging of belief that they are connected, which would tend to fuse the separate events into a single cusp of significance.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Nickeris86 on August 22, 2011, 05:32:56 AM
Oh, I understood that.   Saying it the other way seems ... apocalypticalier.   

And begging of belief that they are connected, which would tend to fuse the separate events into a single cusp of significance.

Lol yeah I know but you seemed confused by my statement of 13 cataclysms.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Figging Mint on August 22, 2011, 05:41:12 AM
Lol yeah I know but you seemed confused by my statement of 13 cataclysms.

That wasn't "confusion" so much as "open-mouthed staring at something so totally, unabashedly, over the top that it just might work, Cap'n"
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Breandan on August 22, 2011, 05:52:49 AM
I have a toddler who is stronger than a four year old and smarter than some high schoolers. 13 simultaneous cataclysms has NOTHING on her :D
hmmmm... "Toddlergeddon" has a ring to it.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand- another option you might want to look at (the original poster I mean) is to take extant mythological beings, and evolve them in step with how humanity has evolved. Jim has done this to a great extent within the Dresden Files, and I think that is what makes urban fantasy so appealing- making ancient boogeymen and creatures of legend somehow closer to us. Counterpoint to that, if you have a situation where the critters haven't had any exposure to the mortal world in millennia, imagine how badly they would wig out when the hairless monkeys they last saw wielding spears are now coming after them with assault weapons and MBTs :)
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Nickeris86 on August 22, 2011, 04:51:16 PM
I have a toddler who is stronger than a four year old and smarter than some high schoolers. 13 simultaneous cataclysms has NOTHING on her :D
hmmmm... "Toddlergeddon" has a ring to it.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand- another option you might want to look at (the original poster I mean) is to take extant mythological beings, and evolve them in step with how humanity has evolved. Jim has done this to a great extent within the Dresden Files, and I think that is what makes urban fantasy so appealing- making ancient boogeymen and creatures of legend somehow closer to us. Counterpoint to that, if you have a situation where the critters haven't had any exposure to the mortal world in millennia, imagine how badly they would wig out when the hairless monkeys they last saw wielding spears are now coming after them with assault weapons and MBTs :)

Lol that makes me think of a character a friend of mine created. He was a Raw Head Bloody Bones (old world Freddy Kruger type) but was also a heart surgeon.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Figging Mint on August 22, 2011, 04:54:52 PM
Lol that makes me think of a character a friend of mine created. He was a Raw Head Bloody Bones (old world Freddy Kruger type) but was also a heart surgeon.

THAT made me think of that series 'The Kingdom'
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Bearracuda on August 22, 2011, 08:28:40 PM
I have yet to meet a male reader who could stand Polgara.

Honestly, I struggled to get through the entire story.  I found just about the entire cast to be obnoxious, with Polgara simply leading the charge.  They expect Garion to save the world, but then they grab him by the ear like a naughty boy (even though he's by far the most behaved young character in the whole damned series) and haul him across the land doing everything for him and telling him to shut up.  The vast majority of them just abused him for the hell of it and if he tried to respond in ANY way that wasn't silence, (I seem to remember a couple moments where he even got punished for subservience) they'd berate him for his immaturity.  It reminded me of my family. -_- 

There was nothing Garion could do to prove himself to them, and they found it beneath themselves to even talk to him about what they had planned for his future.  I honestly cannot comprehend why he didn't just walk off into the forest one night while they were all asleep and go build a life of his own.  I know that's what I did when I was put in his situation, and now only 2 years later, I have stock options.  I own a car.  I have a job.  A rather well paid job considering I only have a high school diploma. ($15/hr)  I have my own place to live.  I'm doing pretty damned well for myself, and Garion had twice the sheer willpower and motivation I do.  It boggles the mind to think what sort of life he could have made for himself, especially when you consider the fact that by following them blindly like a deaf, dumb, and mute slave, he still ended up becoming a king.

And on that note, I hated how Polgara and Belgarath constantly got off to telling Garion how immature he was.  All he wanted was basically human rights, and everytime he tried saying something about it, they'd administer a swift and sudden guilt trip to him before he could even finish the sentence.  Whereas they not only had human rights, but the fate of the universe in their hands and enough power to make anyone shit themselves if they blinked twice.  Yet, what do they do with it?  They go save the world, yeah, but they do it in their own completely disrespectful, uppity, high-horsed, narcassistic, abusive ways.  All the while using Garion as their punching bag everytime they feel a little frustrated about how it's not working out.  Dear god, these are SUPPOSED to be the mentor characters.  They're supposed to teach Garion the ways of the world.  All they give him is a direct and stunningly clear view into the wide world of Stockholme Syndrome.  I mean, every once in a while Belgarath would redeem himself marginally by showing some mild kindness to Garion, but then you turn the next page and he's back to diddling his own peenie and ignoring everyone who wants to know what his plans are.  If a character's going to be secretive and mysterious, he has to save the day in the end.  Not just save it, but do it in a way that makes everyone's jaws hit the floor so hard they leave skidmarks.  Like Dresden, or Sherlock Holmes.  And let me tell you, Belgarath was no Sherlock.

I mean, I guess it's a note in the authors favor that I could truly HATE these characters so much.  It means they're realistic.  You can't hate a cardboard cutout.  But if I wanted to double my blood pressure and practice my anger management methods, I'd just show up for Thanksgiving Dinner.  I deal with that enough in my real life to read a book full of it. 

... And yet, I finished the whole series.  >.>  I'm not sure if that says more about me or the author...  Definitely not gettin' started on that sequel series, though.  I'll tell you that much.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Figging Mint on August 22, 2011, 08:46:10 PM
You can't hate a cardboard cutout. 

Well, give me enough space to swing and watch me give my durnedest.  ;D
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Bearracuda on August 22, 2011, 09:27:18 PM
Many folks out there pray to the Túatha de Dannan and follow the faith and customs of their Ancestors, just as many worship ... the Gods of the many American peoples, etc. As a result, it is important that- as authors- we get it right if we wish to avoid the upset or outright angry emails and rantings :)

Not offended, just tossin' this out there.  I am american.  Not native, but there is a certain standard of learning to which we are imparted on the traditional native american beliefs and really I got the impression that Native Americans don't -have- any gods.  They certainly have godlike beings.  Most often what gets interpreted as gods in the Native American culture is a generalization of animal stories in which said animal has supernatural traits and human characteristics, such as with the trickster coyote.  He will speak to other characters, deceive them, pop in and out as if by magic.  The Native American beliefset is more centered around the worship of earth and the cycle of life rather than deities.  It emphasizes building a harmonic link between the land and all forms of life.  It is extremely important by Native American beliefs, for example, that if a man is to kill an animal, he MUST make use of ALL of its body.  He can't just take the skin or the meat.  He went out of his way to take that animal's life to help better his life, and each and every life is of utmost importance.  It would be disrespectful of him to only take one piece of the remains.  Ironically, if you're interested in a little current day media based on Native American beliefs, your best bet would be Avatar (yes, the one by james cameron)  The na'vi are based off of Native Americans, and in fact the entire movie is just a science-fiction rehash of the settling of America by european immigrants.  The only difference being the fancy spaceships, holograms, false bodies, and of course, the Na'vi winning.

Totally random thought, often Native Americans who still live by the old ways are offended by the term "Native American," they prefer to be called indians 'cause that's what they've been called for the past couple hundred years, and to their way of thinking, it's the English word for their peoples.  The term "Native American" only recently cropped up because wanted to be politically correct.

Also, I just wanna say, your post earlier was very informative.  I just recently took a bit of a look into traditional Celtic mythology because I was fascinated by Butcher's world, and I didn't even find as much as you just posted.  I'd love to hear a little bit more about it in PMs if you've got the time.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: OZ on August 22, 2011, 10:58:19 PM
Quote
It is extremely important by Native American beliefs, for example, that if a man is to kill an animal, he MUST make use of ALL of its body.  He can't just take the skin or the meat.

We are venturing into TT here but this is not necessarily accurate. There were multiple tribles and they all had their own beliefs although many of them overlap. The use of the entire animal had more to do with necessity than religion. In places where there was plenty many tribes were wasteful just as people now days that have plenty tend to be wasteful while those that don't learn to get the most out of what they have.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Breandan on August 23, 2011, 01:21:53 AM
I will admit my experience is limited to NW tribes, as my stepfather is Haida and I grew up around Haida and Tlinget. My knowledge of plains and Eastern American tribes is limited by comparison
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Dresdenus Prime on August 23, 2011, 12:41:56 PM
Breandan what would you suggest as the go to book to understand Irish Mythology? In particular I'm looking for as much information as I can on Morrighan, but as a whole I'm fascinated with it all.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Breandan on August 24, 2011, 06:02:36 AM
For a direct source, Lady Augusta Greggory's Gods and Fighting Men. It's a bit sterile, as she cleaned up a lot of the sex and violence in it (it was written over a century ago), but it is one of the best compilations of the old lore I have found. It's hard to read, as its written in a particular archaic dialect, though. If you can get access to them, there was a Time Life series of books called The Enchanted World which has excellent- if abbreviated- retelling of tales and lore from all over the world. Legends of Valor is a good one to start with.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Dresdenus Prime on August 24, 2011, 01:53:34 PM
For a direct source, Lady Augusta Greggory's Gods and Fighting Men.

So whether it was a crazy coincidence or meant to be, I went to amazon.com to look up this book, and there, under the Kindle edition, it said:

$0.00

Thanks for the suggestions Breandan! I'll check out those other ones too, but that was just too funny when I saw that!
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: The Corvidian on August 25, 2011, 12:12:59 AM
Brendan, I ment Grandmother Summer, and Grandmother Winter. Grandmother Winter has to be the Cailleach Bheur.

Nickeris86, worgs are just dire wolves.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Nickeris86 on August 25, 2011, 03:33:04 AM
Brendan, I ment Grandmother Summer, and Grandmother Winter. Grandmother Winter has to be the Cailleach Bheur.

Nickeris86, worgs are just dire wolves.

Worgs, according to my research, were wolves of a evil and monstrous nature, the also refer to Fenrir and his sons. They are in a lot of myths but are always vile nasty and very intelligent spirit like beings.

Dire wolves were the ancestors of modern wolves and were actually shorter and thicker set than modern wolves. They are not the giant spike covered monstrosities that modern fantasy has made them out to be, I'm looking at you Wizards of the Coast.

Why spikes, honestly.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: The Corvidian on August 29, 2011, 03:22:03 AM
Worgs, according to my research, were wolves of a evil and monstrous nature, the also refer to Fenrir and his sons. They are in a lot of myths but are always vile nasty and very intelligent spirit like beings.

Dire wolves were the ancestors of modern wolves and were actually shorter and thicker set than modern wolves. They are not the giant spike covered monstrosities that modern fantasy has made them out to be, I'm looking at you Wizards of the Coast.

Why spikes, honestly.

You can learn something new everyday. I always though worgs were created by Tolkien, and then appropriated by TSR.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: black omega on August 29, 2011, 10:16:31 PM
You can learn something new everyday. I always though worgs were created by Tolkien, and then appropriated by TSR.
I'd have trouble counting all the things D&D appropriated from Tolkien, even if Gygax did hate being reminded of that, and often vehemently disagreed.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: The Corvidian on August 30, 2011, 02:02:12 AM
I'd have trouble counting all the things D&D appropriated from Tolkien, even if Gygax did hate being reminded of that, and often vehemently disagreed.

Wasn't TSR taken to court by Tolkien's heir(s)?
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Snowleopard on August 30, 2011, 02:34:53 AM
Er...isn't it wargs not worg?
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Nickeris86 on August 30, 2011, 05:17:35 AM
Er...isn't it wargs not worg?

I think you might be right snowleopard, though i think there are several correct ways of spelling it.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: Snowleopard on August 30, 2011, 08:51:46 AM
Ah, okay, I just wondered.
Title: Re: Adapting Myth or Creating New?
Post by: black omega on August 30, 2011, 02:49:58 PM
Wasn't TSR taken to court by Tolkien's heir(s)?
They were.  And based on some of his interviews and Q&A, Gygax held a grudge on it right up to the very end.