Encyclopedia Mythica
Today I came across this website called the Encyclopedia Mythica. I don't know how I have overlooked this website before. I must have stumbled upon it some time ago, but it probably did not leave much of an impression.
I kind of find resources like this interesting. What it seems to be is a collection of definitions of various creatures and dramatis personae from mythologies the world over. It's good for people like me, people who can't keep names straight.
However, this kind of work also annoys me to no great end. It seems to be what the layperson believes folklore to be: the study of nymphs and leprechauns. It sets up folklore as a lexicological endeavour. It's like the folklore section at Barnes N Noble - especially in the discounted remaindered books in the front section - basically reprints of nineteenth century omnibuses - always very solarist - whose copyrights have enterred into the public domain.
Works like this consciously avoid the present. They treat folklore as some quaint relic, it's as if the whole twentieth century never happened.
Take the Encylopedia Mythica's definition of Paul Bunyan for example:
A legendary hero of the lumber camps of the north-western U.S.A. His feats are many, and one of the most famous is perhaps that he cut the Grand Canyon by dragging his pick behind him. His stories are told and retold with embellishments by the lumbermen. Some of those stories are collected in Paul Bunyan Comes West.
I don't understand how an entry on Paul Bunyan could a) treat it as real folklore, and b) not mention any of Bronner's (or is it Dorson's, I should look this up in my notes before I blog and rant) work on fakelore. Paul Bunyan is an example used by Bronner (Dorson?) of manufactured lore. At least make some mention of this.
I kind of find resources like this interesting. What it seems to be is a collection of definitions of various creatures and dramatis personae from mythologies the world over. It's good for people like me, people who can't keep names straight.
However, this kind of work also annoys me to no great end. It seems to be what the layperson believes folklore to be: the study of nymphs and leprechauns. It sets up folklore as a lexicological endeavour. It's like the folklore section at Barnes N Noble - especially in the discounted remaindered books in the front section - basically reprints of nineteenth century omnibuses - always very solarist - whose copyrights have enterred into the public domain.
Works like this consciously avoid the present. They treat folklore as some quaint relic, it's as if the whole twentieth century never happened.
Take the Encylopedia Mythica's definition of Paul Bunyan for example:
A legendary hero of the lumber camps of the north-western U.S.A. His feats are many, and one of the most famous is perhaps that he cut the Grand Canyon by dragging his pick behind him. His stories are told and retold with embellishments by the lumbermen. Some of those stories are collected in Paul Bunyan Comes West.
I don't understand how an entry on Paul Bunyan could a) treat it as real folklore, and b) not mention any of Bronner's (or is it Dorson's, I should look this up in my notes before I blog and rant) work on fakelore. Paul Bunyan is an example used by Bronner (Dorson?) of manufactured lore. At least make some mention of this.
posted by Christopher Franz | 11:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home