My problem when I’m reading non-fiction is that I keep getting distracted by things I want to Google. I’m not sure what flavour of meta- or intertextuality that is.
Anyway, I’m reading an English Lit treatment of the alien abduction folktale. So far, the prof author is looking at the narrative conventions, and which conventions serve to make the narrative more acceptable to its audience. The idea is that we are witnessing the formation of a new myth. To the abduction narrative I’d add things like haunted houses, Amityville and Skinwalker Ranch and the like, as well as the satanic abuse stories of the ’80s which were later proven false. Like many abduction stories (apparently), the abuse stories involve a lot of hypnosis and repressed memory. And how about The Three Face of Eve-esque multiple personality narratives? I’ve got one on my book shelf that was as fun a read as Fingerprints of the Gods (okay, much less fun, since Fingerprints of the Gods didn’t involve child abuse). And there’s another one – In Search Of…-style ancient mysteries and conspiracy stories.
What they all have in common, to my mind, is the importance placed by the authors on the demand that their stories be believed. It’s not something the prof author has discussed yet – I’m holding out hope for the conclusion – but as far back as Herodotus, alternate explanations have been offered for the myths such authors were treating. I remember Livy suggesting that Aeneas, rather than attaining apotheosis, was brutally murdered by his followers. Even Ovid subverts his mythical stories with ironically prosaic alternatives. (My reading only covers two related mythologies, but it does include period editorialising. Anyone know whether this comes up in other ancient mythologies?)
Why, as we witness the formation of new myths, is it so important now that the stories be accepted as literal truth?
prelapsarian
advancedclass
