Theatre and Culture from Scotland, starring The List's Theatre Editor, his performance persona and occasional guest stars. Experimental writings, cod-academic critiques and all his opinions, stolen or original.
Greece. I somehow got the idea that a legend was a story based on historical fact, but that was probably exaggerated in the telling, while a myth was just a big load of bunkum. I considered Herakles a legend, because it seemed plausible to me that some hunky bloke had stomped about Greece, knacking lion and cleaning up horse shit. But Pegasus was a myth because a horse with wings feels pretty unlikely.
There's something in this, in common usage. Calling Hulk Hogan a legendary figure in wrestling reads well, but calling him a mythical figure... like he doesn't really exist. But he does, and he's even got a sex tape which I'd rather give a miss. What I didn't consider is how the mythical and the legendary are weaved together: parts of The Twelve Labours of Herakles feed on the bunkum: that business with his dad being Zeus? The snakes in his cradle? When I studied Religious Education as part of my teacher training, I came across a new definition of myth. Myth was 'a story with meaning'. For the first time, I claimed I had a methodology, and that was to use an idea until it breaks, then build a new idea with the left-overs and bits of the idea that broke it. This version of myth makes no claims about the 'truth' of a story,
merely that it has meaning, and that meaning might be found in its use. A myth is a narrative, and so has structure, and it also structures experience.
Hulk Hogan is still a legend, but now there is a myth of Hulk Hogan. It's probably got a moral of some sort - maybe that it's not a good idea to say racist stuff if you are a celebrity. The difference between my two definition of myth isn't necessarily commonly recognised, and the idea of myth as a bogus story is often how it is used by people who aren't trying to be smart-ass post-modernists. I prefer another word for that kind of story: bullshit. But when I say 'myth', don't be insulted. I am saying that it has meaning, but I am making no value judgement about whether it is 'true' or 'false'. Or whether it means anything to me. This'll give you a headache, while I think about why I have this definition of myth, and why it matters...
There is no law, whether natural or not, which forbids talking about things. Roland Barthes, Mythologies Barthes says that myth is a type of speech, then goes on to explain what he means by speech (an image can be speech). Everything, pretty much, can be myth: this is where I got the idea that myth is a story with meaning (as opposed to being a bunch of nonsense, or a story for kids, or an easy way to dismiss anything that I don't accept). Barthes uses red roses as an example: I use them to signify my passion. Then he breaks it down, to show how the roses have been passionified.
Here are some lovely red roses, just for you. Barthes divides the experience of the roses (let's not get into whether ceci n'est pas une rose) into two parts: the experiential level and the analytical. The experiential part is being in the world and seeing the roses - and feeling the emotional rush that I hope they bring, smelling them, seeing them - and the analytical part, which is a bit like sitting in Morpheus' ship and watching the roses as information on a screen. You know what, I've just remembered, I have given real roses to people and they have appeared not to know what I was trying to say. Because I consider giving someone roses (with a big shit-eating grin) to be telling a story, a myth. And that story is I love you. Barthes says the roses are a sign. He's obviously wrong about that - a sign has less flexible interpretations, and if my rose giving has been repeated read in different ways (ranging from he's a bit creepy to what a nice gesture), it can't have the weight that Barthes reckons a sign has.
Wait, I think I'm getting lost in romantic bitterness, again. Okay, I am giving you some roses, and this is a myth. The myth is communicated by the associations of the roses. Myth is about communicating. I am communicating the stirrings of my libido. Or maybe the love of which I speak is a yearning to share higher experiences with you, like Plato says. They are red, the colour of blood, of passion, of desire, of Eros... I'm assuming that we share a language, a mode of speech, in which red is sexy and roses correspond to desire and if I had gone for white roses, the desire would mean something else, but red, look, it's libidinal, for Aphrodite's sake are you getting the message?
If these roses were to decay and we could see things as they are and not through a glass darkly then perhaps they would dissolve into remains of a physical object and a detritus of the passion promised by the myth, which is made by the shared mode of speech, implied in bud and colour and not existing except on that higher plain, the analytical one where Barthes sits and reads, sits and judges.
ROSES PLUS PASSION EQUAL A SIGN. Well, I though it was nice gesture, and a bit easier than actually saying the words. No, I haven't got any wriggle room to back down, but I'm also saying I'm the kind of person who gives you roses, and wouldn't it be nice to hang out with that kind of person? I am weighting the roses with meaning. The rose is a sign that points to me. Whatever. Anyone want to buy some roses? I've got some going cheap.
