nomadic myth
New Member
Here's something that I've been thinking about lately. When I teach and discuss books with my middle school students, sometimes they say - "That book is OK, but it's too unrealistic." Then I ask them what book they would rather read and they say - "I don't know. I like fantasy books, so maybe something in fantasy." I guess they want one or the other; they either need PURE make-believe, or PURE reality. I guess I won't recommend One Hundred Years of Solitude.
And we read some First Nation's mythology, and my students talked about how the stories are good, but they can't believe any sort of man-god (in this situation he is named Glooscap) actually existed, so it takes away from their enjoyment. Now for me, I think that Glooscap is real. Not flesh and blood, but as real as anything. I mean, if he wasn't real, I wouldn't be talking about him. I guess I have a non-materialistic view of what is real or not. I also often think that the character Hamlet is more real than Shakespeare, after all, I can probably quote more of Hamlet's speech.
Another issue, one that I haven't had the chance to talk about in class yet, is where do stories actually take place. This would be in the field of neurobiology, I guess. I mean, when I'm reading A Christmas Carol, where do the snowy streets of London actually exist, and where are the black chimneys? We create fiction in our heads, and what is it we create?
Hmmm. It's a little hard to explain what I think exactly, but I guess what I'd like to suggest is that bookworms might have a higher tolerance to what is "sooooo faaaake", and may even find the "unreal" to be more useful than some material things.
If anyone is a neurobiologist or a philosopher, feel free to weigh in with as much technicality as you want.
And we read some First Nation's mythology, and my students talked about how the stories are good, but they can't believe any sort of man-god (in this situation he is named Glooscap) actually existed, so it takes away from their enjoyment. Now for me, I think that Glooscap is real. Not flesh and blood, but as real as anything. I mean, if he wasn't real, I wouldn't be talking about him. I guess I have a non-materialistic view of what is real or not. I also often think that the character Hamlet is more real than Shakespeare, after all, I can probably quote more of Hamlet's speech.
Another issue, one that I haven't had the chance to talk about in class yet, is where do stories actually take place. This would be in the field of neurobiology, I guess. I mean, when I'm reading A Christmas Carol, where do the snowy streets of London actually exist, and where are the black chimneys? We create fiction in our heads, and what is it we create?
Hmmm. It's a little hard to explain what I think exactly, but I guess what I'd like to suggest is that bookworms might have a higher tolerance to what is "sooooo faaaake", and may even find the "unreal" to be more useful than some material things.
If anyone is a neurobiologist or a philosopher, feel free to weigh in with as much technicality as you want.