![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mythcon 42: program
Like most recent Mythcons, this one was about half-populated by first-time attendees. These people are bright and intelligent, and they seem to be having a good time, so I wish more of them would come back for further doses than has been the case. (Certainly my reaction to my first Mythcon was, "I don't ever want to miss one of these again" and I never have.)
Many of these new attendees gave papers, and most of them, at least the ones talking on Tolkien, began by expressing their nervousness about discussing such a complex and pitfall-filled topic to such a formidable audience as the Mythopoeic Society. (What, us, formidable?) They really need not have worried: all the ones I heard - and I got to as many Tolkien session as I could - were at least thoughtful and competent, and some had strikingly original things to say. I particularly liked a papers session organized by Corey Olsen, who podcasts as "The Tolkien Professor". He got together some participants from an online seminar concerning the 1977 Silmarillion to give papers on that book. Laura Berkholtz followed the always-productive technique of studying a minor character in detail, choosing the Vala Nienna. There was a certain unspoken Whiggishly teleological implication that Nienna's sole purpose in life was to teach Gandalf pity and mercy so that he could make his famous comments to Frodo, but the connection is there and was worth noting. And a fellow called - near-identically to someone else I know - Jordon Brown gave a robust description of how the sin of Pride felled both Fëanor and Thingol. His best conclusion about the latter: Don't be rude to Dwarves. Note that the questionable provenance of this episode played no part in the paper; this session was on the 1977 text as a free-standing work of art.
In another session, Alex Taylor found similarities between some of Tolkien's theological concepts and those of classical Hinduism (as well as noting the resemblance, which has been pointed out before, between the early Elvish alphabets and Devanagari). So far so good; where he lost the thread was in casting about to figure out what Tolkien could have read that would have acquainted him with Hindu theology. That turned an otherwise good paper into ritualistic source-hunting. The similarities were striking, but not so much so that Tolkien couldn't have developed the ideas independently, which (as someone else noted) by the arguments for universal morality in C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man, would testify to the ideas' value more than straight borrowing would.
A passing remark in one other paper illustrated the corrosive effects of Jackson's movies on Tolkien scholarship. I don't want to come down too hard on the author of an otherwise decent paper, but when you write that "Sauron is reduced to a flaming eye," that's Jackson's character you're talking about, not Tolkien's. And this was a paper on Tolkien, not on Jackson. It's not the fact that Tolkien's Sauron has a full physical body that's so important (the many references to the Eye are a synecdoche); it's the word "reduced" that shows the harm. Jackson's giant floating eyeball looks diminished and impotent, but before the Destruction, Tolkien's Sauron is otherwise unstoppably powerful, and anything that makes you think otherwise eviscerates his story.
I gave my own paper on Roger Zelazny. He lived in New Mexico for many years, so the con's location was a good excuse to put together some thoughts on one of my long-time favorite SF authors. I described the high desert geographic references in Eye of Cat (also one of his most strikingly mythological novels) and Bridge of Ashes (a much easier book to read than its reputation suggests) and some short stories, and covered some of his other mythopoeic fiction, in particular arguing that the infamous chapter 2 of Lord of Light was not written solely for the sake of the infamous spooneristic pun near the end of the chapter, but that that pun marks the critical turning point generating the rest of the story. It went over well, particularly as I read aloud several long quotations to illustrate Zelazny's literary style. I also discussed "For a Breath I Tarry" (possibly the greatest SF story of all time), repeating the point I made about it here.
Many of these new attendees gave papers, and most of them, at least the ones talking on Tolkien, began by expressing their nervousness about discussing such a complex and pitfall-filled topic to such a formidable audience as the Mythopoeic Society. (What, us, formidable?) They really need not have worried: all the ones I heard - and I got to as many Tolkien session as I could - were at least thoughtful and competent, and some had strikingly original things to say. I particularly liked a papers session organized by Corey Olsen, who podcasts as "The Tolkien Professor". He got together some participants from an online seminar concerning the 1977 Silmarillion to give papers on that book. Laura Berkholtz followed the always-productive technique of studying a minor character in detail, choosing the Vala Nienna. There was a certain unspoken Whiggishly teleological implication that Nienna's sole purpose in life was to teach Gandalf pity and mercy so that he could make his famous comments to Frodo, but the connection is there and was worth noting. And a fellow called - near-identically to someone else I know - Jordon Brown gave a robust description of how the sin of Pride felled both Fëanor and Thingol. His best conclusion about the latter: Don't be rude to Dwarves. Note that the questionable provenance of this episode played no part in the paper; this session was on the 1977 text as a free-standing work of art.
In another session, Alex Taylor found similarities between some of Tolkien's theological concepts and those of classical Hinduism (as well as noting the resemblance, which has been pointed out before, between the early Elvish alphabets and Devanagari). So far so good; where he lost the thread was in casting about to figure out what Tolkien could have read that would have acquainted him with Hindu theology. That turned an otherwise good paper into ritualistic source-hunting. The similarities were striking, but not so much so that Tolkien couldn't have developed the ideas independently, which (as someone else noted) by the arguments for universal morality in C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man, would testify to the ideas' value more than straight borrowing would.
A passing remark in one other paper illustrated the corrosive effects of Jackson's movies on Tolkien scholarship. I don't want to come down too hard on the author of an otherwise decent paper, but when you write that "Sauron is reduced to a flaming eye," that's Jackson's character you're talking about, not Tolkien's. And this was a paper on Tolkien, not on Jackson. It's not the fact that Tolkien's Sauron has a full physical body that's so important (the many references to the Eye are a synecdoche); it's the word "reduced" that shows the harm. Jackson's giant floating eyeball looks diminished and impotent, but before the Destruction, Tolkien's Sauron is otherwise unstoppably powerful, and anything that makes you think otherwise eviscerates his story.
I gave my own paper on Roger Zelazny. He lived in New Mexico for many years, so the con's location was a good excuse to put together some thoughts on one of my long-time favorite SF authors. I described the high desert geographic references in Eye of Cat (also one of his most strikingly mythological novels) and Bridge of Ashes (a much easier book to read than its reputation suggests) and some short stories, and covered some of his other mythopoeic fiction, in particular arguing that the infamous chapter 2 of Lord of Light was not written solely for the sake of the infamous spooneristic pun near the end of the chapter, but that that pun marks the critical turning point generating the rest of the story. It went over well, particularly as I read aloud several long quotations to illustrate Zelazny's literary style. I also discussed "For a Breath I Tarry" (possibly the greatest SF story of all time), repeating the point I made about it here.
no subject
1. The Society is aware of this problem, and Mythcon veterans are publicly encouraged to strike up conversations with newcomers, as that's easier to do than the other way around. Lynn Maudlin is particularly vocal about this, as not only is she the Society officer in charge of Mythcons, she's also one of our few genuine natural extroverts. Which brings me to:
2. You mention that many of the newcomers are introverted. Well, so are most of the oldtimers. I'm one, though I may not seem that way to you because Mythcon is one of my few comfort zones where I can relax and make a spectacle of myself in public. So I try to do my best to be welcoming with the limited social skills in my repertoire. But it's difficult for us too.
3. To me, the two of you are part of the Mythie community, largely because that's where I know you from. I regret you don't feel that way, and it's salutary to be reminded that things can look very different from other angles.
4. There's formal opportunities to communicate with newcomers if they give papers, in the discussion sessions afterwards. (Formally organized communication is easier for introverts.) I had a long talk in the hall afterwards with the author of the paper that mentioned Sauron, and I tried to be complementary about the much that deserved it, as well as lightly noting factual problems that any scholar would want to fix. But I have no idea how well I did at this.
5. I remain kind of puzzled by the "I don't feel instantly assimilated, so I won't come back" reaction of newcomers. There's always a learning curve when one joins an existing group. When I met SF fandom in the mid-70s, it was what the Mythopoeic Society is now, a group of people who'd been having a conversation for over forty years. I felt very much out of it, though some individuals had the social skills to be welcoming. But rather than it driving me away, because I was interested in the ostensible topic of conversation, I was enticed to learn the folkways and get up to speed so that I could become part of that conversation. And it worked.
(My experience with the MythSoc was different. I'd already been in a local discussion group for nearly two years before I attended a Mythcon, so I had a core group of acquaintances, and I'd been poring over publications with such intensity that I felt I already knew anybody whose name I recognized.)
6. I'm in favor of the Society growing and continuing so long as it can do so without fundamentally changing character. It only requires a few people who share our spirit; membership has never been much over a thousand even at our height. If it were necessary to turn the Society into, say, a generic fantasy club in order for it to continue, I'd be in favor of letting it fold. There are plenty of other groups that do that better than we could, but only the Mythopoeic Society that does what it does.