I have to admit, I haven't ever taken the time to think about the differences between myth and fairy tales. To me, they've always just been fiction. Myths seem to explain how things in the world came to being and perhaps have some kind of moral baked into their stories. Fairy tales have always been something we read to our children to entertain them and to encourage them to read. But Frye, of course, has taught me that there is a substantial difference between the two genres.
"Myths have two characteristics that folktales, at least in their earlier stages, do not show, or show much less clearly. First, myths stick together to form a mythology, a large interconnected body of narrative that covers all the religious and historical revelation that its society is concerned with, or concerned about" (Frye, 9). Myths incorporate a variety of characters and story lines from earlier myths. As Frye points out, there is a mythology, an entire world of stories, to which each myth clings.
Each subsequent story relies on the other myths for its ethos. "They carry an authority that no writer can command." In that way, each story is simply a tiny piece of a much greater pie, which I believe is what can make mythology so hard to understand. It's almost like being immersed in a culture to which you do not belong - at least in the beginning, everything seems like it's a foreign language. But to the culture from which the myth was born, the stories make perfect sense.
Take, for example, the Illiad. This story starts en media res. The characters all have well-known back stories. Like Homer, "the mythical poet, then, has his material handed him by tradition, whereas the fabulous poet may, up to a point, choose his own plots and characters." Those that would have listened to this story of the Illiad would have known who the characters were, would have understood the context in which they were placed and would have believed the importance of some of the key elements, such as how the gods played a role in the lives of the mortals. It would have been accepted as an explanation for how their society has progressed to their current status.
This brings us to Frye's second point, which is that "myths take root in a specific culture, and it is one of their functions to tell that culture what it is and how it came to be." Myths are more than just stories. They primarily concern themselves with "structures of belief or social concern rather than imagination" (12). Perhaps to the authors of mythologies, the underlying message is of paramount importance. Though I believe that it's the stories that carry these messages that cause the myths to live on well beyond their usefulness. Without the stories, the message would be just that - boring history, social rules and propaganda. Where's the love and suspense and suffering and triumph in that?
Folktales, on the other hand, "lead a more nomadic existence." They cross over between cultures and largely stand on their own as stories. Though they do differentiate themselves from myths in this way, Frye points out that fairytales can also say a lot about a culture that treasures such stories. And, as has been reiterated in class, no story stands on its own. "The fabulous writer may seem to be making up his stories out of his own head, but this never happens in literature...his material comes from traditions behind him which may have no recognized or understood social status, and may not be consciously known to the writer or to his public" (10). Rest assured, though, the fairytales of our childhood came from as rich a tradition as mythology. And, just as do myths, they follow a structure that was handed to them by the literature of the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment