Are myths and legends applicable to today?

Also, many of the themes of legends and myths are universal. This particular legend appears in Alaska, Greenland and Canada, only instead of the boy being a shepherd, he beats whale blubber. As in the Finnish equivalent, a knife plays a role and bears help him in gaining revenge.

I think that the whole King in the Mountain thing is probably not applicable to today. Society is becoming more group-oriented (despite it still being very individually capitalist) rather than individual-oriented. Also, there's the whole issue with gossip, PR, political campaigns, the trivialization of the great deeds and not having great liberties to kick some ass and help restore a country or a nation and putting it back in shape.

Your thoughts on this?

To my knowledge, group activities as a whole were on a decrease. At least in the industrial states.

@Cider: That would actually be a pretty good urban fantasy story.

The 'king under the mountain' thing represents golden-age-ism, the thought that the past was better than today, and eventually we'll get back to past glories.

I think that's an actively harmful belief most of the time, but you can't really argue that it has no relevance.

''The king beneath the mountains,

The king of carven stone,

The lord of silver fountains,

Shall come into his own!

His throne shall be upholden,

His harp shall be restrung,

His halls shall echo golden,

To songs of yore resung!''

edited 25th Apr '13 11:24:42 PM by MorwenEdhelwen

Myths are relevant, I think, because people still think in terms of story, myth and legend to a great extent. Our mind works in such a way that it does not interpret other people, events and so on as isolated particular incidents, but rather fit it in the narrative. In this, mythologies are influential in that they organize what kind of narratives are available for our mind to fit events with.

However, I am not sure that they are inherently more relevant than other sources of compelling narratives. They often end up being influential, but not because of their inherent qualities. Rather, it is because of their wide availability. Whether we approve of, say, the Bible or not, we cannot avoid knowing enough about it that it influences how our mind works. But something that is an obscure mythology to us is less likely to have that effect.

As for whether myth and legend can contain some sharp observations about human nature - I think that they definitely can, but are no more and no less likely to do so than most other pieces of literature.

This.

I wish I remember my CS Lewis and Tolkien better, as they had much to say on the topic of myth and legend. :/

One of the things I do remember though is the following: just as not all fiction is myth, not all myth is fiction. To Lewis and Tolkien, what gave a story the status of myth (or legend) is its role in defining a given culture or civilization.

Looking at myth from this perspective, a good bit of history can also become myth. (For example, for any Texan, the Alamo stands both as a historical event and as a part of its state mythology.)

EDIT: Another fun fact— according to one biographer, the impetus behind Tolkien's writings was his desire to create an invented language. His belief was that his language couldn't properly take form unless it had a mythology to communicate. Thus, he set out to write one...

edited 3rd May '13 9:34:01 AM by OscarWildecat

Hence the term "legend". Where mythology meets history and has bastard children.

edited 3rd May '13 8:31:04 AM by Euodiachloris

Re: King in the Mountain. This is so very, very still alive:

"I knew Jack Kennedy, and, Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!"

People are more cynical and less likely to accept any individuals claim to fulfill this particular trope, but don't mistake that cynicism regarding claims for a lack of attachment to the trope itself. How many people compared Obama to Kennedy without irony?

Agreed, but Obama, unlike the Kennedys, has to deal with far greater b*llsh*t today and, therefore, with many more different people and interests.

And, of course, a lot of people remain attached to the myth, always waiting for someone with enough power and charisma to lead their country onwards. But the other lot got too cynical, sadly.

Man, JFK actually got shot (arguably his greatest political manoeuvre, since it allowed LBJ to pass a lot of civil rights legislation in the goodwill of the aftermath). What Obama has to deal with doesn't really compare with that.

Guys, that's not the point. Whether or not Obama or anyone else could actually live up to the trope, the trope itself still has power over the public imagination.

This. The point is not as much whether mythological and legendary tropes are "correct", but that people think in them