For some reason every time I hear that comics represent our modern mythology in this "secular capitalist society" (I beg to differ about the first word) for some reason it just does not gel with me. I mean yeah, it seems like an easy choice because comics actually CONTAIN characters from mythology such as Thor and Hercules. Still nobody really believes in comics and a big part of the mythology analogy is belief (hence the offense many take to the term Judeo Christian Mythology).
So does anybody else here think that comics are very much the modern fable/parable?
QuoteA fable is a succinct story, in prose or verse, that features animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature which are anthropomorphized (given human qualities), and that illustrates a moral lesson (a "moral"), which may at the end be expressed explicitly in a pithy maxim.
A fable differs from a parable in that the latter excludes animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as actors that assume speech and other powers of humankind.
This would explain the one thing that comics never really cast off, their need to teach a lesson while entertaining. That's why when a comic does not entertain or has no lesson readers often feel hollow, asking stuff like "why did this character die?" or "He didn't deserve that!". You know, some karmic currency is always expected to be at the core of all fate transactions in comics.
Examples are Scrooge learning a lesson about greed or Peter Parker learning lessons about responsibility. Even when somebody sets out to deconstruct comics you often see this karmic currency exchanged, for example in Preacher with a really bad guy being constantly punished (Herr Star) while others die horrible deaths. Also lessons are taught such as "don't trust your government" (V for Vendetta) or "when you fight monsters you may very well become one" (Watchmen, DKR).
So any thoughts on the topic?
Quote"when you fight monsters you may very well become one" (Watchmen, DKR).
Sorry, I had to add in "Do you die a hero? Or live long enough to see yourself become the villain?"
*heh*
This Section Reserved For More Later - For Your Reservation sign, please leave $50 in the fax machine
I think the problem here, lugaru, is that you seem to be making use of a limited definition of both mythology and belief systems. Whoever said that mythology was limited to the genres of fable and parable? Mythology is perhaps most broadly understood as a form of discourse that conveys a cultural value system, more commonly (and negatively, I might add, with no thanks to the idiot news media and illiterate politicians) known today as "ideology." I'm taking a page from Roland Barthes' brilliant essay "Myth Today," which I would urge everyone to read. In his essay, Barthes classifies myth as a "second-order semiological system," which I understand as a series of signs that stand on the shoulders of other signs. Allow me to supply you with a relevant example.
A 19-year-old college student is on his way home from the library with a load of books late at night when he decides to cut through some back alleyways to save time. The alleyways are dirty, dimly lit, and seemingly deserted. The student is watchful, but soon he finds himself being accosted by a group of tough-looking men in leather jackets. The men taunt the student and then demand his wallet, brandishing knives to drive their point home.Let's pause here to analyse the signs we have encountered thus far. At our current historical moment, this scenario should be familiar enough. In fact, 'tis a common example of what comic book readers might refer to as "the encounter" (which will ultimately lead to what, in literary criticism, is known as the
agon): a seemingly innocent but unfortunate citizen meets with criminal others who mean him ill will. Already we see how the particulars of this scenario depend upon the history of comic book stories, which, I might add, rely upon, e.g, the pulp fiction/noir genre, which relies upon the gothic tradition, which relies upon Christian morality tales and the Bildungsroman, which relies upon ... which relies upon Classical Greek and Roman mythology, which relies upon ... and so on and so forth.
We can also demonstrate the signification of ideology by examining the particular signs of this sequence. As Barthes reminds us, the sign, as understood by Saussure and others, can be broken down into two analytical components: the signifier (roughly put, the sense datum) and the signified (roughly put, the semantic value). Let's identify a few of these components in the above scenario. Please note that the terms I use to identify the values signified by various signifiers are by no means absolute or exhaustive:
| SIGN | SIGNIFIER | SIGNIFIED |
| young college student | 19-year-old | youth |
| library books | student |
|
| thugs | tough-looking | potential danger/criminal activity |
| leather | |
| knives | |
This is a rather simplistic example of a first-order semiological system. Myth or ideology builds upon this first-order system to exchange
signs of signs by using the signs of the first-order system as the signifiers of a second-order semiological system (again, the values used in this table are by no means absolute or exhaustive):
| SIGN | SIGNIFIER | SIGNIFIED |
| Virtue (specifically, knowledge as virtue) | young college student | innocent seeker of knowledge |
|
| Threat to a lawful, just social order (unlawfulness, injustice, chaos, lack of virtue, etc.) | thugs | criminality |
Let's take an example from classical mythology to show how this second-order semiological system has always already been in place within discourse, broadly considered:
| SIGN | SIGNIFIER | SIGNIFIED |
| Threat to exogamous social order | Oedipus | Incest |
To put this in other terms that lugaru was using, the main idea or moral of the fable, if Sophocles' Oedipus cycle can be understood in these terms, can be understood as equivalent to the ideological value (shared social belief, which may be either secular or religious) expressed by the tale: incest is a social evil that threatens to undermine the foundations of an exogamous social order.
If we trace our commonplace comic book scenario to its agonistic scene, we might witness these familiar events unfold:
Just as the ruffians lay hold of the trembling college student, a costumed individual arrives, demands that the thugs unhand the youth, and then engages them in hand-to-hand combat. The costumed crusader exhibits superior strength and agility by quickly disarming and subduing the thugs. As the hero is in the process of detaining the criminals (who will be apprehended by the proper authorities), the student emerges from his safe hiding place to thank the mysterious vigilante for rescuing him from danger. The hero claims that this service is all part of his job, and, as quickly as he arrived, he departs.
| SIGN | SIGNIFIER | SIGNIFIED |
| superhero | costume | unidentified person |
| engagement in combat | heroism |
| subdue | to neutralise without killing |
We could add more to this analysis, but, for brevity's sake, let's move on to the second-order analysis:
| SIGN | SIGNIFIER | SIGNIFIED |
| Maintenance/restoration of a lawful, just social order | superhero | just righter of wrongs, protector of the weak |
Granted, this analysis is a bit rough and ready, but I hope it gets the point across, which is this: to call comic books "our modern mythology in this 'secular capitalist society'" is both correct and reductive. 'Twould be more accurate to call comics books
a modern mythology (expression of ideology) amongst others, which is a form of discourse within capitalist (secular or religious) society. I could talk about the history of collaboration and antagonism between religion and capitalism in modern times, but that would be another discussion altogether (and, of course, ideology, itself, deserves its own discussion, for various theorists and historians have treated it differently; c.f., for instance, Louis Althusser).
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning
Very interesting question. I tend to feel that in general, beyond any specific form of media, mythology is not needed and not effective today as it was 1,000 years ago. The main reason being that we have evolved cognitively to a deeper understanding of any process.
Now im gonna mention here the "scientific method" but this has nothing to do with scientific discovery itself and certainly not a science versus religion (which of course is not debateable here). When i say the "scientific method" i am referring only to the objective analysis of any topic. Using logic and reasoning we have come to analyze things in this way. Conversely, 1,000 years ago, this thought process was not come enough to be widely or usefully applied and so we had mythology to explain things.
And thats the key point that leads me to argue against comics as the new mythology. Not because they arent mythology themselves, but because we don't require a myth to tell a story or explain a concept. Its and interest of mine since my teacher and I have been discussing (and hence striving to put to practice) the ability to speak the truth clearly without using analogy. Can you explain a macrocosmic conept without referring back to a microcosmic example; e.g. without using the word 'like' or painting a picture thats is easy for the audience to imagine. Its tought because the human mind is fundamentally grounded in comparisons, so it is often hard to escape.
Quote from: Camma on July 11, 2008, 09:18:12 AM
[W]e don't require a myth to tell a story or explain a concept. Its and interest of mine since my teacher and I have been discussing (and hence striving to put to practice) the ability to speak the truth clearly without using analogy. Can you explain a macrocosmic conept without referring back to a microcosmic example; e.g. without using the word 'like' or painting a picture thats is easy for the audience to imagine. Its tought because the human mind is fundamentally grounded in comparisons, so it is often hard to escape.
[Slightly OT]Good luck with that (IMHO, impossible) endeavour, Cam. Whether one is discussing subatomic particles or elementary arithmetic or Henrik Ibsen, language insists upon the use of metaphors, a form of analogical reasoning.[/Slightly OT]
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning
Quote from: ow_tiobe_sb on July 11, 2008, 09:25:01 AM
Quote from: Camma on July 11, 2008, 09:18:12 AM
[W]e don't require a myth to tell a story or explain a concept. Its and interest of mine since my teacher and I have been discussing (and hence striving to put to practice) the ability to speak the truth clearly without using analogy. Can you explain a macrocosmic conept without referring back to a microcosmic example; e.g. without using the word 'like' or painting a picture thats is easy for the audience to imagine. Its tought because the human mind is fundamentally grounded in comparisons, so it is often hard to escape.
[Slightly OT]Good luck with that (IMHO, impossible) endeavour, Cam. Whether one is discussing subatomic particles or elementary arithmetic or Henrik Ibsen, language insists upon the use of metaphors, a form of analogical reasoning.[/Slightly OT]
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning
In other words: Everyone sees something differently. Uh, right?
EDIT: I'll add stuff as soon as I'm home from work ><
EDIT2: Not really much to add, as Ow mentioned...a lot, but in defense of Comic books 'replacing' mythology, I find it funny that superheroes are now more accepted and believable than, say, traditional mythology, such as Aesops fables, the Norse gods, the story of Moses, Mohammad, Buddha, etc etc which included a lot of things that are now considered 'superpowers'. A line from Ultimate Thor to just clarify:
"You go to church every Sunday, Captain. What I've got to say is no stranger than that"
In a world full of beings that can do the impossible, gods from Norse mythology was a little too 'out there'. Hmm.
Is there really a debate here? If comic books aren't the new mythology then what would be?
-MJB
Quote from: MJB on July 11, 2008, 10:33:56 AM
Is there really a debate here? If comic books aren't the new mythology then what would be?
-MJB
I'm over-simplifying things a bit here and painting with quite broad strokes... but I would say mass media (and the conventions and outgrowths of mass media that have evolved over time) in general have largely supplanted mythology/the divine explanation as the primary means for modern society to define and express, as ow_tiobe_sb says, a second-order semiotics that reflects cultural and ideological mores.
As a somewhat crude example, one can look at televised sporting competitions in the major markets (Premier League soccer, the NFL, etc.) and the rivalries and shared histories that they engender among fans as fulfilling some of the functions generally attributed to myth and folklore. Popular literature (including comics), music, film, television, fashion, internet phenomena, and even the "celebrity culture" do the same thing to varying extents for other segments of the population.
When I think of modern mythology I think of conspiracy theory, that is very much making up almost impossible to disprove theories about the way you think things work, and by the time you get into aliens, witchcraft and clones of Jesus your conspiracy theory is pretty much the same thing as Hydras and Thunder Gods.
Still I agree with Ow in that it is still a mythology in a way, although I still prefer the idea of it being a fable (positive or twisted) where the author tries to impose his values on the reader (even if the author is Grant Morrison and his values are anti-establishment).
Quote from: zuludelta on July 11, 2008, 01:00:46 PM
Quote from: MJB on July 11, 2008, 10:33:56 AM
Is there really a debate here? If comic books aren't the new mythology then what would be?
-MJB
I'm over-simplifying things a bit here and painting with quite broad strokes... but I would say mass media (and the conventions and outgrowths of mass media that have evolved over time) in general have largely supplanted mythology/the divine explanation as the primary means for modern society to define and express, as ow_tiobe_sb says, a second-order semiotics that reflects cultural and ideological mores.
As a somewhat crude example, one can look at televised sporting competitions in the major markets (Premier League soccer, the NFL, etc.) and the rivalries and shared histories that they engender among fans as fulfilling some of the functions generally attributed to myth and folklore. Popular literature (including comics), music, film, television, fashion, internet phenomena, and even the "celebrity culture" do the same thing to varying extents for other segments of the population.
That pretty much sums it up from my point of view. The Paris Hilton's, New England Patriots and Spider-Mans of today have become the Helen of Troys, Argonauts and King Arthurs of the present. I feel dirty comparing those in that way, but it is essentially the course our "mythology" has currently decided to pursue. What Spider-Man is to us, the latest celebrity sleaze is to some 15 year old girl, and some NFL team is to some 40 year old guy in Texas. Pointing to comics and stating them as the new mythology is not a new argument, and one North American's have stated for probably 30 years.
What I wonder is, will students 2000 years from now be cracking open Tolkien, Vonnegut and Kirby in place of Homer, Shakespeare and the Bible?
Department of stating the obvious here.
First up, Wikipedia:
"The word mythology (from Greek([μυθολογία] (help·info) mythologia = mythos + logos)[1]) refers to a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. The word can also refer to collective or personal ideological or socially constructed received wisdom."
Generally, then, myths are or were widely believed to be true. And specifically, a myth will pertain to a God or Deity of some kind, unlike legends, folk stories etc, which may have human or supernatural components rather than Gods.
I think that the lines between Religion, Mythology, Folklore, Legend and Entertainment have always been somewhat blurred.
Humans look for Meaning, we look for patterns and information codified within words, and the world. We shape stories and narratives, and experience and describe linear time, often in arbitrarily discrete chunks. Some of our most basic thinking is story-like. The idea of cause and effect, central to western science, is almost the essence of what a story is. Reductionism, and considering things and events in a bubble, be that 'the story' or 'the experiment' is seemingly built into us. And it could hardly be otherwise. The alternative, to consider all time, and all things in the universe without limit is clearly not practical, even if it's somehow possible.
Our lives are as we experience them, a linear sequence of events that have a beginning, middle and end. We live in a story, and our entertainment, our religions and myths tell us other stories that mirror, echo and illuminate our own lives.
So, finally to the question: Are comics the new mythology?
No.
They are part of entertainment. And other forms of entertainment (TV, books, films, radio, videogames) also deal with More Than Human often enough that they too could and should be part and parcel of any New Mythology.
I doubt many, if any, people believe in Spider-man as a real man, or Batman. And I know of no-one worshipping them in the organized religion sense, though you could argue that posters and statues and obsession fit the general criteria for worship.
But the main reason why I answer 'No' is that there is no 'New' Mythology. There is just Mythology, and superhero comics are a part of that, in it's broader meaning, and it's specific meaning of concerning Gods. Nothing in comics is new, not super strong and fast beings, not alien cultures, not artifacts of power. The stories and ideas are just the same tales people have told for a very long time.