Greetings.
I post this seeking knowledge of the theory of the analysis of myth and legend, much as an aspiring Science Fiction writer might ask questions of physicists and other scientists in order to increase the vermiscitude of the work the are creating.
In the story I am working on there is a mystery that draws on many disciplines to solve. These include anthropology, animal anatomy, ecology, and (the purpose of this thread) the study of what stories (myths, legends, historical accounts (many highly biased), etc.) say about the cultures that created them.
I struggle greatly with the balance between brevity and giving all the necessary information. It seems I always leave out something critical, or ramble on at great length. Despite this I shall attempt to practice it here. Please be especially ready to ask questions in case this turns out to be the usual "learning experience" for me.
Here is what I am specifically leaving out of this first presentation:
*Thus "doubly-fictitious"
Context:
This "legend" is of extreme importance to the culture it comes from, to the point where there were legal penalties for its modification. In case it matters, this is despite it specifically NOT having a strictly religious overtone*. The characters in the larger story will likely conclude (correctly) that this is because a major subject of the story is widely known to be the result of the actions of a historical figure who strongly opposed the religion of the society that created this myth/legend/fable.
*The curses of "all the gods" upon any who alter it are prayed for by the author in the opening, but that isn't quite the same thing.
As for its plot:
Here are the more standard aspects of the story:
In any case we have two rival warriors both of great ability in battle, if perhaps not so big in the brains department. They wish to win their ruler's permission for a certain contest between them. They have the contest. The loser murders the winner in his sleep. The ruler sends a bunch of guys to kill the loser, they succeed. The story closes with the ruler lamenting the loss of two such able warriors to their own folly. The End.
And here is what I hope is the "Huh... that's odd" that I've heard more often proceeds a great discovery rather than "Eureka!":
The descriptions of their attempts to win the favor of the ruler so they can hold the contest in the first place is by far the longest portion of the story, and even if it were not, it would still all be outstanding for how BORING it is compared to the rest of the story. The text goes out of its way to repeatedly point out that the tasks they are accomplishing are so far beneath the main character's abilities that they don't even serve as a useful representation of their might. It is like reading a 200 page graphic novel of nothing but Superman beating up street-level mooks, and lacking in any witty or philosophical dialogue on Superman's part.
I am considering stating that the vocabulary and sentence structure are probably repetitive in the extreme and lacking in flavor. The only argument against this is that I also want it to be plausible that a linguistic analysis of the work strongly indicates that it had a single author.
Questions:
1.) What general pieces of information would an analyzer of stories for what they say about the culture they came from wish to seek out to augment the information I have given above to better draw conclusions (especially about question #2 below)?
2.) What hypotheses, if any, would the existence of tedium and "bad writing" juxtaposed with interesting portions lead analysts to draw? I have an especial interest in what it might say about the social role of the legend, and/or the society that created it.
I post this seeking knowledge of the theory of the analysis of myth and legend, much as an aspiring Science Fiction writer might ask questions of physicists and other scientists in order to increase the vermiscitude of the work the are creating.
In the story I am working on there is a mystery that draws on many disciplines to solve. These include anthropology, animal anatomy, ecology, and (the purpose of this thread) the study of what stories (myths, legends, historical accounts (many highly biased), etc.) say about the cultures that created them.
I struggle greatly with the balance between brevity and giving all the necessary information. It seems I always leave out something critical, or ramble on at great length. Despite this I shall attempt to practice it here. Please be especially ready to ask questions in case this turns out to be the usual "learning experience" for me.
Here is what I am specifically leaving out of this first presentation:
- The broader context of the work the fictional characters are studying the myth/legend/fable* I am going to describe in.
- A fuller description of the plot of the story.
*Thus "doubly-fictitious"
Context:
This "legend" is of extreme importance to the culture it comes from, to the point where there were legal penalties for its modification. In case it matters, this is despite it specifically NOT having a strictly religious overtone*. The characters in the larger story will likely conclude (correctly) that this is because a major subject of the story is widely known to be the result of the actions of a historical figure who strongly opposed the religion of the society that created this myth/legend/fable.
*The curses of "all the gods" upon any who alter it are prayed for by the author in the opening, but that isn't quite the same thing.
As for its plot:
Here are the more standard aspects of the story:
In any case we have two rival warriors both of great ability in battle, if perhaps not so big in the brains department. They wish to win their ruler's permission for a certain contest between them. They have the contest. The loser murders the winner in his sleep. The ruler sends a bunch of guys to kill the loser, they succeed. The story closes with the ruler lamenting the loss of two such able warriors to their own folly. The End.
And here is what I hope is the "Huh... that's odd" that I've heard more often proceeds a great discovery rather than "Eureka!":
The descriptions of their attempts to win the favor of the ruler so they can hold the contest in the first place is by far the longest portion of the story, and even if it were not, it would still all be outstanding for how BORING it is compared to the rest of the story. The text goes out of its way to repeatedly point out that the tasks they are accomplishing are so far beneath the main character's abilities that they don't even serve as a useful representation of their might. It is like reading a 200 page graphic novel of nothing but Superman beating up street-level mooks, and lacking in any witty or philosophical dialogue on Superman's part.
I am considering stating that the vocabulary and sentence structure are probably repetitive in the extreme and lacking in flavor. The only argument against this is that I also want it to be plausible that a linguistic analysis of the work strongly indicates that it had a single author.
Questions:
1.) What general pieces of information would an analyzer of stories for what they say about the culture they came from wish to seek out to augment the information I have given above to better draw conclusions (especially about question #2 below)?
2.) What hypotheses, if any, would the existence of tedium and "bad writing" juxtaposed with interesting portions lead analysts to draw? I have an especial interest in what it might say about the social role of the legend, and/or the society that created it.
Comment