Thought on Myths

[fluke]

Hello,

In my fantasy trilogy, sometime back I decided to use the Norse mythological gods in a one-to-one mapping with the pantheon of a major character. My question is should I continue using the mapped names or just drop them and use the Norse. I have been trying to stay close to European history and folklore throughout.

I can see ups and downs to either way. The biggest thing I like about using the myths and folklore is that they are already written. My worldbook can just be nations, maps, characters, etc.

Any thoughts?

Frank Luke

[rwley]

For what it's worth; if your world is Earth, no matter the time frame, I'd say go ahead and use the Norse names. If it's some other world, give them their own mythology. Just because it lines up with Norse myth, with different names, it can be different. The Greeks and Romans had similar pantheons just with different names. Even some of the Norse gods were "remakes" of the Greek and Roman ones. Use new ones; give your world its own flavor.

[Jeff Gerke]

I agree with Robi. If it's a one-to-one relationship, as you're suggesting, and you're pretty much staying true to how they were as Norse gods, then what's the point of not calling them what they are? People will be guessing anyway, and you may get comments like, "A shallow but useless disguise of Norse mythology."

Still, there might be a reason to use the disguise. Like maybe you're taking one god from Norse mythology and another from Egyptian mythology and another from Incan mythology and you want to use them without people really knowing what your source material is.

But if you have no compelling reason to try to disguise them, it makes sense to go ahead and call them what they are.

Here again, though, it's entirely up to you. There's no right or wrong to something like this, I'd think.

Jeff

[strangewind]

Neil Gaiman, in American Gods, re-imagines mythology as applied to the United States. The personification of the gods is an attempt to be both new and traditional, and the names are something of a blend of ancient and current uses. I won't even say if the names of those gods works for me or not. I kind of suspect that the initial "guessing" at which god it might be really didn't add much to the story, because it quickly became clear who they were.

On the other hand, the modern names did strip some of the "god names" of both their baggage and their power so it allowed me, as a reader, to approach the characters as if they were real, human characters.

Again, I can't say it worked to change the names, but I think a case can be made to play with the names, but only if you've got a clear purpose for doing so.

Here's a hint: if you have "Otis," "Thurston," "Frieda" and "Lucky" as characters, but are trying to squeeze a "Snotty" past your readers, just give up and use the originals!

(I won't ruin it, but one of the names of Gaiman's major "god" characters was way too on the nose for my tastes.)

[Jeff Gerke]

Strangewind makes a good point. Changing the names of things can allow readers to see them afresh. I'm doing that in my (stalled) epic fantasy. It's a Christian book about Jesus and the Bible and church and stuff, but you'll never hear any of those words in the story. I'm even hoping to change more than just the names to further disguise what I'm talking about.

The idea is to remove all the recognizable trappings, the things that make jaded readers go, "Oh, that's just Jesus and the Bible. Yawn. Been there, done that," and lets them see the power of Christianity without being turned off by its baggage.

Something like that might be a good reason for messing with the names of the Norse gods. But it's the 1-to-1 part that may make it a shallow disguise. Consider working with just the essense of each one but changing the genders, species they appear as, animals they appear with, etc.

Jeff

[Christian Soldier]

It's an interesting concept, but I recommend caution. So much has been done in this area, yet, there is still much to BE done, too.

As for the names, if you change them, I recommend changing them completely. Otherwise I would leave them alone. This is your story; however, an you do as you wish

[Divides the Waters]

Check out Tad Williams' trilogy, MEMORY, SORROW, AND THORN to see how this has been done in a secular market. Karen Hancock's LEGENDS OF THE GUARDIAN-KING series is a good example of how it's been done in the Christian market. Jeffrey Overstreet, author of AURALIA'S COLORS, was pretty good about slipping in spiritual truths without preaching, and has a very powerful scene with "god" that rivals quite a bit of classic and modern fiction. However, if you've read my review on Amazon, you know that he gets away with quite a bit that we, as authors and authors-to-be, are advised repeatedly not to do, so don't take away too much of his style.

[rwley]

I have read both of those trilogies and they were done very well. I like Karen's better simply because of her approach from the Christian viewpoint. I've read some of William's otehr stuff as well and he is definitely secular. Good, but secular. He had one series that had to do with VR and so much the tech stuff in it went so far over my head it was hard to enjoy the story. But, I'm old and tech stuff is usually over my head.

But, as far the Guardian Kings, wonderful stuff. She handled the whole thing very well.

Robi

[Divides the Waters]

I much prefer Hancock, definitely. Just thought that Williams was probably closer to what Fluke had in mind. "Dror's Mallet" instead of "Thor's Hammer," etc. I had to commend Williams for being "equal opportunity" with his religions, but his skepticism towards Christianity shone through loud and clear.


Fluke, in order to answer your question more directly, I'd have to understand your world better. Is this an alternate Earth, Earth with alternate deities, or some other world altogether? If it's the latter, I would recommend not worrying about a one-to-one ratio with your pantheon. It would be more effective to have something that resonated more vaguely, reminiscent of Norse mythology, but not a carbon copy. On the other hand, if it's an alternate Earth or Earth as we know it, there seems to be no reason you couldn't use the actual names. It might be confusing, and even somewhat distracting, to do so.

[fluke]

Thanks, guys. I have been thinking about this a lot over the last week.

My world is called Azuran. If you look at the map of Rishu (the continent everything takes place on), it is reminiscent of Europe but not a carbon copy. I'd call it an alternate earth. There are items of history that line up and even some people. For example, Hanna beth Shimeon often quotes her people's sages. Most of those quotes come from the Talmud and the sages named are actual Jewish rabbis like Shammai and Hillel. The biggest difference in Judaism on Azuran (called Hedaism) and Earth is that most of her people recognized the Messiah and followed him. She is a descendant of Simon the Zealot (1300 years descent, but still descended). Her people were once enslaved by Mitzraim (I suspect you will get that one, Divides).

The gentiles who believed in the Hedaic Messiah call themselves "Children of the Son." They share the whole Sacregraphe with the Hedaic people, and it is identical to the Bible.

That's some background. The group in question for this thread is the Guntherians. They share some characteristics with the Norsemen, and much mythology, but not all. Gunther is landlocked. Technically, Gunther no longer exists. It was invaded and annexed about 10 years ago in the story. The character from Gunther in the party was a noble and diplomat. He is also a henotheist (believes that each land has its own gods and when they war, the strongest god wins). The defeat has thrown him into a crisis of faith. He still gives lip service to the old gods but little more than that. And his lip service is most often swearing by them.

I have shuffled a few things in the pantheon. Instead of Wotenaze, the god of battle, death, and poetry (Odin) being in charge, Blyde, one handed god of justice leads (Tyre). Fakir is based on Loki, but I can see some people mistake Fakir for Thor's counterpart since Fakir carries a staff at all times. Havena is, well if you know anything about Freyja, I don't need to say anything else.

It is with Blyde that I began to have questions. There are statements Shylocke makes or will make that raised them. For example, Shylocke hates the wolf soldiers. This is because the grey wolf bit off Blyde's hand. At some point he will say "The grey wolf even watches the gods." And he uses a hand-and-a-half sword but with only one hand in deference to Blyde.

I don't know if that is too close or not.

Frank Luke

[Teskas]

I hope you won't mind if I share some thoughts on this subject. Some of you may not be aware that most of the mythopoetic material scholars like Tolkien have used as sources are rooted in real history.

For example, before the myth of Odin arose, there was a real-life Odin, a tribal leader in a region of Europe which is now Germany and Denmark. The name of his laager, or home fort if you like, was a real place known as Asgard, made of wood, which burnt to the ground in a nasty attack where a lot of his housecarls were killed.

In the spreading northern European culture, an outstanding war lord's reputation is taken by others and becomes the core from which appears an apotheosis. Around stories, and latterly fishermen's tales, connected with a real person is built a pagan theogony and pantheon.

The reason I bring this up, is that this phenomenon is repeated in a lot of cultures. The reason Tolkien's material works so well is that his world closely follows the saga material he used as a guide. Not to detract from Tolkien, because the guy was a story-telling genius, but most of his stuff is a rip-off of Icelandic saga. Even a lot of the names are a rip-off. The sagas he used are real stories about real people.

It is not only that he uses real names and real stories, either. There is a fabric that holds stories like Tolkien's together, and that is his use of the names he gives regions and inanimate things. He doesn't mix linguistic roots. He (and CS Lewis) both had a considerable capacity as philologists, and were aware of the meanings and roots of words. I suspect a good writer, as he creates his world, has to teach himself some of this, too.

I suspect if a person is going to write an epic tale that really grabs the reader (and not bumble about as one more sword-and-sandals or beer-and-beserker potboiler) he or she needs to find a real story, telling about real people, and transform it into a great fictional tale. He also needs to be aware of the language his characters are using, particularly if their culture is colliding with another in story.

[scintor]

That Odin was a real nordic Chieftain and that Asguard was his villiage and that much of nordic myth was a retelling of his life and circumstances is a nice theory most famously championed by Thor Hyerdahl.

This in fact has never even come close to being proved. It follows the thinking of some ancient Greek philosophers that Greek mythology is simply a retelling of historical events writ large.

Using pantheon names in an alternate earth is an interesting question. My favorite treatment of the subject is to go and archaic alternate spellings of the names in question and use them. It lets people know who is being talked about while giving it an exotic feel that gives you enough distance for literary work.

Scincerely,

[e-mail]