BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


'Fictional' vs. 'Real' magic

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Quantum
18:12 / 07.06.06
I don't hear anyone tittering at that concept

Only because I have no no audible tits.

Never heard of DWJ

Diana Wynne Jones is a brilliant children's author.
 
 
Cat Chant
08:49 / 08.06.06
... and I've been meaning to start a thread on DWJ here for a while. Oh the synchronicity. I'm going to see her in a rare public appearance on Saturday, too, so I might start the thread after that if no-one's beaten me to it.

(From stuff that I hear, by the way, I get the strong feeling that Diana Wynne Jones is a practicing magician in at least some sense, while I am a million billion percent sure that Rowling's not.)
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:09 / 08.06.06
I get the strong feeling that Diana Wynne Jones is a practicing magician in at least some sense

Deffo, whether she knows it or not. I honestly see the books she writes as a very serious act of magic, with a lasting positive effect.
 
 
Seth
09:35 / 08.06.06
There's a thread here somewhere which talks about the depiction of magic in Hayao Miyazaki movies, which is amongst my favourite in film. No sign of him being a practitioner in the self-defined sense, although most of the best magicians I know wouldn't call themselves one.
 
 
Quantum
09:57 / 08.06.06
"LONDON (Reuters) - JK Rowling was voted the greatest living British writer in a survey published on Thursday.
The Harry Potter creator whose stories of the young wizard have sold over 300 million copies worldwide received nearly three times as many votes as Discworld author Terry Pratchett in second place."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

I was going to start that DWJ thread and link to the DWJ wiki, but the news there of her rare appearance depressed me because I can't get to Bristol. I thought I'd leave it to Deva.
 
 
Unconditional Love
11:56 / 08.06.06
Something struck me this morning while doing some devotional work to the sea. I started to bite into the other half of the melon i hadnt given as an offering, and perhaps because of the prior devotion singing of songs etc, the melon was water gushing around my gums, i began to get pictures from memory and experience of the sea washing over cliffs and into ravines (probably my missing teeth). Then something uncomfortable happened, amusing but uncomfortable the theme from a childrens program appeared portland bill.

After a time a rationalisation appeared. Associated memory and experience. The tv programme had mixed into my personal memories of seas and oceans and all they ment to me. But the tv programme wasnt my experience, in the sense that i had not been there experiencing it. The tv programme was acting as a substitute for actual experience.

It made me think of this thread and feel a little worried by the idea of magical practice based on media products alone without any real personal experience, magic that is not guided by others communication, but by personal interaction with the magic.

For example say sitting in a room with charts and diagrams and authors and books about yesod for instance, and not actually going out to meditate on a full moon, or notice the characteristics of moon light, or how a full moon makes your body feel say compared to a waning moon or no moon.

The looking at books etc can make you feel all very educated about your thing, but is it actually the same as the experience that is talked and communicated by books or programmes or music?

Am i actually doing anything by consuming information?
I am beginning to think i would be far better off getting more devotional practice done, meditation, prayer, being among the things i am devoting myself too.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
13:07 / 08.06.06
Quantum

Going back to your original posting:

Truth can be disguised as Fiction. (e.g. 'Promethea', Alan Moore)
Fiction can be disguised as truth. (e.g. 'Witch Cult in Western Europe', Margaret Murray)

Firstly, I'd take issue with these examples as given. Promethea provides a compelling portrayal of Modern Qaballah, Tarot etc., as is familiar to many of us who have experience with those schema, but "Truth" with a big 'T' - perhaps if one is an avowed qabalist, but if not .... ? Similarly, I think it's a bit much to describe "Witch Cult" as fiction. Granted that Murray's scholarship has been thoroughly critiqued, yet "Witch-Cult" had a tremendous impact on contemporary notions of witchcraft - Murray wrote the entry on "Witchcraft" for the Enyclopedia Brittannica in 1929 (which stayed unchanged for 40 years) and presented her theory as tho' it were universally accepted. Jacqueline Simpson, writing in the journal "Folklore" suggests that Murrays' ideas are "so entrenched in popular culture that they will probably never be uprooted." Her works are still accepted as "factual" by a great many people.

Secondly, what links both Promethea and "Witch Cult in Western Europe" is that they are both compelling narratives, which for me is of more interest than any debate about real v. fictional. Over the years, a goodly portion of the magic I've engaged with has been inspired by fiction which I have found compelling: reading Dion Fortune's The Sea Priestess directly inspired me into performing a nine-month devotional "working" to Isis; reading Illuminatus! was instrumental in me getting involved with Eris; reading Lovecraft moved me in the direction of the so-called Cthulhu Mythos, on and off, for about a decade.

I think that a point that is sometimes missed is that in these interminable debates about "fictional v. real" magics is that practitioners (at least most of the ones I've met) rarely stay within the 'boundary' of whatever approach they are using. So for example, whilst my initial impetus into Lovecraftian magick was provided by Lovecrafts' poetic descriptions of wild, lonely places and their brooding presences, it wasn't long before I'd moved on from his portrayal of the Great Old Ones and began to understand them in different ways.

You might find Wolfgang Iser's article The Significance of Fictionalizing useful in this regard:
Fictions, then, are not the unreal side of reality, let alone the opposite of reality, which our 'tacit knowledge' still takes them to be; they are, rather, conditions that enable the production of worlds whose reality, in turn, is not to be doubted.

Also Redefining our Understanding of Narrative:
Compelling narratives push us to act upon the world. They challenge us to understand and reckon with the implications and consequences of our actions and lack thereof. Moreover, compelling narratives encourage us to risk life-to strive to understand and experience the world differently. Such narratives assume that no understanding of the world can be achieved outside of being. Compelling narratives push us to look holistically at the world by urging us to make connections and identify complex and nonlinear relationships. They also force us to understand how our ways of being bear upon the condition of the world. In this way, compelling narratives end the disconnect between epistemology and axiology, which is to say that ethics and politics (justice) are no longer seen as merely the fallout of our Truths-matters to be dealt with by ethicists, theologians, jurists, academics, and legislators.
 
 
illmatic
13:43 / 08.06.06
Good post. Indeed, a certain "compelling narrative" provided the inspiration for this site....
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:48 / 08.06.06
If a magical system based around the gameshow "Bullseye" or the sitcom "On the buses" happens to float your boat, then go for it and see where it gets you.

Could one of you more-magicky-than-me types try one of these, perleaze? I'd love to know how it goes. Especially "Bullseye".
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
16:15 / 08.06.06
The Mysteries of Societe Bullseye are not for open discussion. Those of us who have attained to Bully's special prize must not divulge its secrets to outsiders lest they be condemed to forever gaze mournfully over what they could have won.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:13 / 08.06.06
...it was a speedboat, wasn't it?
 
 
Quantum
16:42 / 10.06.06
Trouser- thanks for the links, the compelling narrative was kind of where I was going with the thread (3 yrs ago mind) and I clumsily hinted at it in that post;

Postmodern theorists tell us we understand the world as a narrative, a story, what we think of as Reality is in fact a story we tell ourselves or our brains make up for us out of the flood of sense data.

I'd certainly agree with you the thing itself is more important than it's provenance. For example a bit of research into Castaneda convinced me you simply cannot unravel the exaggeration from the fiction from the fact in his work, and I'm fine with that (now). It's still great stuff.
I'm becoming convinced history is largely fiction and the best way to disseminate ideas is through fiction, that the text itself is what's valuable. Maybe I'm just catching up with literary theory.

I had an excellent example I meant to post which I will try and find, a comparison of text from HPL and Crowley...
 
 
Z. deScathach
09:34 / 11.06.06
I think that the thing about fiction is.... what sort of fiction are you talking about? Harry Potter may be fun....(don't kill me....PLEASE don't kill me.....), but the magic partrayed there is about as shallow as a puddle. There are authors, who, through their imaginations, seem to have hooked into the archetypical themes that we all have buried within us. IMO, it's those works of fiction that lend themselves to magickal work.

RPG's were mentioned. To be honest, I've never played them, but going through some of the books, there do seem to be some possibilities. I'm not talking about the "throw fireball" variety, however, because I'm very VERY skeptical about snapping the laws of physics. I came across an RPG book along martial arts lines, (I was leafing through it at a book store). It had an "enchanted blade" power, with some instructions that seemed like they could easily be transfered to a successful ritual. One of the reasons for that success, though, is that the mythology of the "enchanted weapon" is buried deep within us. When we hear about struggling to a mountain top with a katana to have it blessed by the powers of the heavens, that scenario resonates deep within us, as it represents the tempering power of difficulty and struggle, as well as forces that are greater than our egos.

As far as the pop culture magic thing, I personally can't imagine utilizing fictional characters that have no intended connection within that fiction to archetypical themes. I can't imagine using Boss Hogg as an archetypical symbol, simply because I believe it's a stretch to attribute those qualities, when Boss Hogg's creator probably had no such intention. Dukes of Hazzard as representative of the mysteries of life is hard for me to grasp, and I suspect that having to stretch and reach for those characteristics would sap the magic. Now if I were a person who looked at the Dukes of Hazzard and saw the great mystery, if I fell backwards crying out, "It's all there! The Great Archetype of the Eternal Struggle!", (I would have to be on LSD, surely), then maybe that would work out OK, (the problem is that the acid wears off....). There have been fictional works that have cracked something open, whose authors wanted to portray the mystery of being alive, and those are the ones that I suspect have real value.
 
 
Quantum
13:06 / 11.06.06
Boss Hogg's creator probably had no such intention.

Does that matter? Lovecraft was a materialist and wrote his work as fiction, but people have used the Mythos for magical work. Lobsang Rampa was a fraud, but many people derived great benefit from his work.

Remember it's possible the entity we know as Boss Hogg existed before Man, and will outlast the stars themselves, and made itself incarnate through 1970s television by possessing Gy Waldron, using it as a microcosmic stage to act out the macrocosmic struggle between the bipartite servants of the Good Gods Bo&Luke and the Nyarlathotep-like Roscoe P. Coltrane.
Uncle Jessie is a mask for Zeus, Daisy is Venus, Castor and Pollux drive their 1969 Dodge Charger to fight the system and root out the corrupt practices of Hazzard County Commissioner Boss Hogg (Hades)...

It's possible.

Just sayin'.
 
 
Z. deScathach
02:33 / 12.06.06
Yes, but it's been argued, (successfully I believe), that Lovecraft's materialism was his bulwark against the non-material. Lovecraft's work contained a mythos, where one needs to be applied to the Dukes of Hazzard. Why spend the work to apply a mythos where one does not exist, unless of course The Dukes of Hazzard strikes deep to the core of one's being. Hmmmm, there are two Dukes of Hazzard clone cars in my locality. Perhaps you have a point.
 
 
Quantum
12:02 / 12.06.06
Do they have the General Lee's horn though? THE HONKING!
 
 
Z. deScathach
19:42 / 12.06.06
I've never stood out in front of one to find out. They must, though. To do otherwise would be unimaginably lame.....
 
 
Quantum
21:38 / 19.11.06
Bumping this thread, as American Gods and RPG supplements are in conversation elsewhere.
 
 
EmberLeo
07:59 / 20.11.06
I think it all depends on how shallow the fictional stuff was intended to be in the first place, and what it's being drawn from. I mean, there's an awful lot of allegory in Lord of the Rings, for example. It's referencing a lot of real stuff that has all kinds of depth to it. So Lord of the Rings is, in effect, adding a new layer of modern mythology to an existing pile of cultural folklore, rather than being a shallow pool in isolation. Most really useful magical fiction is, really.

Also, the biggest Mysteries are often apparently quite simple, and can be summarized with few words. No amount of more detailed, in-depth explanation will reveal the Mystery any better. Only experience can do that, because the words are not what make them Mysteries.

I find all kinds of depth to Lewis Carrol that Carrol himself likely never intended.

I would go so far as to say that a robust faith is a flexible one, which allows for adaptation.

Absoloutely. A living tradition is a growing tradition, even if the change is gradual. Only dead languages, dead cultures, and dead traditions are truely static.

I think atheist secular humanism needed to reinvent religion and spirituality in other forms, i think it does this through what it calls fiction.

I don't think that's a reinvention, honestly. Look at Greek Drama, and compare it to modern Fanfic. Take a cast of familiar characters and use them to tell a story that you feel a need to tell. How human is that? How many European folktales are about a guy named "Jack", who has the basic traits of a fortunate fool? Before the Victorians re-paganized them, those stories had a lot of Baby Jesus and Mother Mary and the Devil in them doing things that had only a vague relationship to Biblical content.

Is everything a story?

Yes! For me, anyway, because the way I grok things is pattern based, and Patterns in Time are Stories.

the map is not the territory

Agreed, but we do not contain the territory, only the map with which to reference it. The whole point of stories, then, is to expand our maps thus allowing us to cover more territory.

Some personal examples of "fiction" working entirely too well in fact:

* Somebody Else's Problem (SEP) Fields are a commonly accepted model for wards and shields in my experience.

* After years of playing NERO (a High-Fantasy LARP) I got really good at visualizing the effects described. Sometime later, when I was learning to cast "snap" circles, I discovered that I could use that to my advantage. I made myself a little ball of energy "spell packet", and hurled it at the ground just as I would have in game, and sure enough, the visualization I had practiced for purely fictional reasons worked just fine when I put serious energy behind it. (Thankfully I didn't have to say the silly incant to make it go.)

* Before I started working with Ghede, I created a Vodouisant Toreador for a Vampire LARP. After I started working with Ghede, I played that character one last time at a game event held at a Halloween Ball. Between the headspace I was in for the character, the clothing I had worn for the game, and the music being played, Ghede decided He wanted to dance, and all but knocked me on my ass. Thankfully, the storyteller knew just enough about my religious background to take my indisposition in stride. I no longer play that character.

* A teacher of mine tells the story of friends who called her for help after they jokingly swapped "Darth Vadar" in for the name of a god when they were just practicing the form of the ritual for performance, and actually got him. We attribute that to "Some spirit showed up perfectly happy to be addressed as Darth Vadar", but of course we can't prove that it wasn't the result of Darth Vadar being a community thoughtform with enough energy poured into it to get a serious bit of power to him, eh?

* Growing up with spiritually significant nightmares that I have since had to work through in Journey, I was rescued from the Bad Monster by the likes of She-Ra and Rainbow Bright. Try telling a four year old that her favorite cartoon heroes are less effective than real mythological beings when it comes to kicking monster ass!

--Ember--
 
 
Mario
10:58 / 20.11.06
Well, in Pop Magic! Morrison talks about summoning Orion. Not the mythical hunter, the New God. Now, there are a couple of ways to interpret this...

1. In the realms of magic, all fictions are true.

2. Grant didn't summon Orion so much as summon a thoughtform resembling the fictional character.

3. There exist fundamental spiritual archetypes out there, and each appear in a multitude of forms. "Orion" is simply a new form for the archetype of War. (This appears to be the idea Grant was using, given the context).

But I'm not sure it matters. For magic to work for us, do we really need to know exactly how it works "under the hood"? Does it matter if we are discovering or creating it?
 
 
Quantum
11:41 / 20.11.06
I think it all depends on how shallow the fictional stuff was intended to be in the first place Ember

Well, I'm not sure how that tallies with your later examples. The mythopoeic work of Blake seems to have more depth to it than Star Wars yet both have been used successfully.
Tolkein and Lewis were mates (The term Mythopoeia (virtual Greek μυθοποεια "mythos-making") was coined by Tolkien as a title of one of his poems, which was written as a reaction to Lewis' statement that myths were "lies breathed through silver".) and both wrote stories for children which draws them closely together, but Lovecraft's mythos written for adults has had a far-reaching influence (despite his strident materialism).
The tricky part is often making the distinction between fiction and fact IMHO. For example, Lewis' work is strongly based on Christian symbolism so you could say working with Aslan is just a veiled working with Jesus, and conversely Crowley was influenced by Blake so you might argue Thelemic workings owe a debt to the poet.
I've got a great example I will dig out when I'm at home of a passage from HPL that's ripped from Levi and almost identical to a chunk of the LBRP. Does the use of it as a prop for horror fiction because it sounds spooky invalidate it, or does it show that the LBRP is as contrived as The Color Out Of Space?
 
 
EmberLeo
18:51 / 20.11.06
Well, I'm not sure how that tallies with your later examples.

Oh, sorry, that's addressing two different aspects.

In terms of picking up visualizations for energy constructs I don't know that it matters all that much, as long as it's effective for you.

In terms of picking up deeply significant symbol sets with which to explore the mysteries of the Universe, initial depth certainly does matter.

--Ember--
 
 
Papess
11:44 / 21.11.06
Gosh, I did have a giggle about the Darth Vader story, EmberLeo.
 
 
courier5
19:24 / 21.11.06
i'm of the opinion that magical systems in and of themselves are arbitrary--it's personal connection/resonance/belief in the practices that allow the Will to extend through the specifics in order to manifest desired effects. this foundation lends a scavenger's perspective.

a strength of fiction is that the reader (or listener) is often in a state of suspended disbelief, which allows pure transmission of Image. if a practice develops from resonance with this Image, the specifics arise from an enlivened source the practitioner has authentic connection to (i see this as more a function of the reader's telos than the author's intent). this will strengthen any work done from this stance.

of course, this can be true for anyone who has a strong personal connection with any of the more "traditional" forms of magic, as well.

combination of methods seems to provide the best balance. on the one hand, there is guard against shibboleth-worship. on the other, there is grounding in "proven" modalities.
 
 
EmberLeo
19:06 / 22.11.06
I think I agree at least with the idea that the strength of connection between the symbol set being used (regardless of where it's derived from) and the practicioner is what matters most in this context.

--Ember--
 
 
Alice Bastable
03:27 / 26.11.06
I agree with courier5 and Ember, with a caveat: I think the author's "intentions," shallow, deep, or otherwise, are completely irrelevant to whether a story is successful, as entertainment, philosophy, magical system, or whatever. The lit crit term "intentional fallacy" applies here: it's basically impossible to know for certain exactly *what* an author was thinking when s/he wrote something -- even for the author -- so making authorial intention a major building block in your interpretation is a dodgy proposition. I think, especially when one is talking magic, the *practitioner's* intentions are what matter. (Magic as reader-response!)

Re pop culture systems versus more traditional magical systems: I've spent too much time hanging around SFF fandoms to doubt the power of pop culture systems. Traditional systems have worn deep historical grooves, but really fierce devotion and personal resonance may make up for perceived "shallowness" of the system's source material; it might even get better results, for a serious fan. There's a reason fandoms are often compared to religions.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
09:40 / 28.11.06
I've spent too much time hanging around SFF fandoms to doubt the power of pop culture systems. Traditional systems have worn deep historical grooves, but really fierce devotion and personal resonance may make up for perceived "shallowness" of the system's source material; it might even get better results, for a serious fan.

Yeah, but it's a different kind of power and its a different kind of set-up. People may be really passionate about Buffy or Blakes Seven, and really involved in its mythos. But that mythos does not bore directly into the survival needs of the species in the same way that other traditions do. If you look at living traditions like Voodoo or Tantra, people don't relate to them in the same way as fanboys and fangirls relate to their favourite programme on the telly. It's a different kind of investment. For instance, Voodoo was a driver behind a fierce bloody revolution that freed people from generations of slavery.

People have fought and died for it. People relate to these traditions as transformative, empowering forces that help them to survive in extremely adverse circumstances as well as provide a sense of direct communion with the fundamental building blocks of human nature and the world at large. I imagine that the older pagan traditions like the Northern Mysteries, Celtic Mysteries and so on - back in their day - would have operated in much the same way. Do obsessive Star Wars fans have exactly the same relationship to the focus of their fandom?

I don't think they do. I think it's largely a recreational pursuit rather than a survival strategy, and that is an important difference. Writing fan fiction on the internet and dressing up like Darth Vader twice a year is not equivalent to the experience of giving the entirety of your being over to direct communion with the Divine. It's not equivalent to having turned to your deities when you've lost everything else and finding empowerment and support and magic enough to turn things around. It is not equivalent to daily devotional work that changes and transforms you, forces you to face your shortcomings and take a long hard look at yourself, presents you with challenges and helps you to grow into all that you can be. Watching Star Trek and being really into it is not the same process. If you think that it is, then I would speculate that you probably haven't really experienced the sort of full-on, long term, direct contact deity work that I'm basing my frame of reference on in this post.

I've never met anyone who has this sort of dynamic going on with their fictional magic. I've never met anyone who has genuinely put their heart and soul into a relationship with Batman in the same way that people I know relate to, say, Odin or Erzulie Freda. It's just a different process at work. I'm not saying that you can't interact magically with fictional and pop culture archetypes. You obviously can, and you can get results and something on the other end that is prepared to come through that filter, but I don't think it's exactly the same process as what people get from deity work and where it tends to take them. Yeah, you can call on Bugs Bunny as the trickster archetype and ask him to do some magic to play tricks on your troublesome boss. But is Bugs Bunny going to act as the gateway to a unfathomable ocean of mysteries that it would take you a lifetime to explore even a fraction of, in the same way that a deity like Legba might?

I haven't seen anyone get the same sort of stuff working for them from fictional magic that I've seen come alive when they explore stuff like Voodoo, Tantra or the Northern Mysteries. It doesn't seem to grab you and take you off into a lifetime of discovery. It seems to be fairly limited to shallow end of the pool sorcery, a bit like working with functional spirits - which is fair enough on its own terms, but sorcery is not the only reason that Magicians hang out with deities. I don't know. The proof is in the pudding, for me. If I come across someone who is doing really impressive stuff with fictional magic, with that ocean of depth behind it, and in a way that it permeates and informs every aspect of their lives, in a way that puts them in touch with the core mysteries of the human organism and has led to fundamental transformative growth in their lives - then I would happily revise my opinion on this matter in the light of new evidence.

However, so far, all I have seen is along the lines of "Hey, lets call on Wolverine to make the girls fancy me!" and I am not too impressed or excited by that sort of stuff.
 
 
EmberLeo
12:41 / 28.11.06
I think it's largely a recreational pursuit rather than a survival strategy, and that is an important difference.

Actually I'd say Fandom is indeed a survival strategy, but on a different level. It's not a context where the issue is physical survival, it's emotional and social survival. Fandom tends to be filled with people who come from severely dysfunctional families and/or who are social outcasts. I've seen more than one incredibly depressed, suicidal person turn around because they found their Fandom, and through it the congregation (so to speak) of people who can understand who they are.

I've never met anyone who has genuinely put their heart and soul into a relationship with Batman in the same way that people I know relate to, say, Odin or Erzulie Freda.

Well, I'm not sure I'd say I have, but I'm sure I can say that the fact that it's socially acceptable in Paganism and Vodoun, respectively, to have that kind of relationship, wheras even in Fandom it's not generally acceptable to behave as though you think Picard is a real person.

That said, Fandom is far more than a twice-a-year thing for those who are heavily involved. Schedule-wise, I'd say it's about the same as most religions. Weekly social meetings, monthly planning meetings for major events on the scale of NeoPagan festivals or Christian revivals, and daily interaction with the community.

So in many was Fandom does function psychologically as a religion.

But there's a reason folks say Religion != Spirituality.

If I come across someone who is doing really impressive stuff with fictional magic

... you will wonder why they didn't find something else with more depth sooner in their process, because it's thoroughly socially unacceptable to treat "fiction" that way.

Which raises an interesting question about A) Scientologists and B) The Church of All Worlds. The latter is taken wholeheartedly from a novel that admits it's intended as fiction, and yet there are all kinds of folks who derive actual spiritual growth from it's existence as a real organization.

I think the real answer is somewhere in-between.

--Ember--
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
12:51 / 28.11.06
I have trouble accepting the idea of Star Trek as a survival strategy.
 
 
EmberLeo
13:00 / 28.11.06
I have trouble accepting the idea of Star Trek as a survival strategy.

In what way does your trouble prevent other people from experiencing it?

More specifically, though, the Bible isn't a survival strategy either. It's a set of stories from which to learn a survival strategy, and around which congregations are formed - community itself is a MAJOR survival strategy, and Fandom absoloutely provides that.

--Ember--
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
13:03 / 28.11.06
But so does darts and bingo and a friday night down the pub. Does that make them exactly the same process as Tantra or Finnish shamanism or whatever?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
13:21 / 28.11.06
In what way does your trouble prevent other people from experiencing it?

From experiencing what? So far you have given the example of fandom providing a sense of community and belonging, in the same way that religion does. Fair enough, I can't dispute that and I wasn't trying to. But lots of things provide community and belonging - and that doesn't also automatically mean that they lead to the same magical processes that living relationship with deities tend to, which I was talking about in my previous post. If you gave me a solid example of someone who is having that kind of fully immersive transformative magic stuff going on in their lives through a fictional context, as opposed to simply finding community with other people who share their hobby, then I'd be happy to revise my opinions on this. I haven't come across it. Hence my post above.

I don't buy the whole "fictional magic is totally unacceptable" thing either - since this thread and countless others like it illustrate how hugely prevalent this idea is of Gods and fictional characters being directly equivalent to one another. The success of Scientology would also suggest a wide level of acceptability of fiction as the basis for religion. I can't remember the last time a million dollar Hounfor was opened in central London by Tom Cruise, for instance...
 
 
Ticker
13:40 / 28.11.06
Pardon me for wading in on this but there's something that's bothering me. In fact it's been bothering me for a while now and I have been struggling to frame it.

Two-headed:
Yeah, but it's a different kind of power and its a different kind of set-up. People may be really passionate about Buffy or Blakes Seven, and really involved in its mythos. But that mythos does not bore directly into the survival needs of the species in the same way that other traditions do. If you look at living traditions like Voodoo or Tantra, people don't relate to them in the same way as fanboys and fangirls relate to their favourite programme on the telly. It's a different kind of investment.

Ember:
That said, Fandom is far more than a twice-a-year thing for those who are heavily involved. Schedule-wise, I'd say it's about the same as most religions. Weekly social meetings, monthly planning meetings for major events on the scale of NeoPagan festivals or Christian revivals, and daily interaction with the community.

So in many was Fandom does function psychologically as a religion.


Now I'm not trying to blow the coals betwixt ya or annoy anyone or cast judgements about instead I'd like to speak about something that has been troubling me when interacting with many neopagans of late.

I've been finding a discomfort in observing many neo-pagans treating their religion exactly like fandom. To paraphrase Two-headed they are relating to their deities like something on the telly.

It's not so much about shallow vs deep to me as it is about scope. Our beloved modern myths have a certain breadth if you will, and what is freaking me out is watching people relate to the older Gods using the same lense of perception.

The Slayer becomes the footprint by which someone measures Artemis and that is making me cringe... because the casual attitiude which makes sense in relation to fandom is becoming apperant in the way people are interacting with the Divine systems.

I remember very clearly what life was like before I was in the Presence of a Deity. It was full of imaginings of Them and shadows of my imagination dancing on the wall were much like beloved characters from fiction. The Mystery of my Gods was that dive into the oceans Two-headed is talking about. The cthonic deep endless vista of Their durshan, the shared intensity of Their awareness of me.

Of course it makes sense that so many people would welcome the ranks of modern generated myth into their pantheons, they are already viewing the shape of reality through that telly shaped hole. Their divinties are exerting as much influence in their lives as any superheroine and the worship they offer is the same mix of passion and adoration they feel in gratitiude for the escapism of a great story.

I'm not saying it's wrong or bad or shouldn't be happening but I do think it is a huge divide in perceptions. As long as your operating system is working for you that's great keep it up. However when it becomes restrictive or frail it's important to know the relationship is bigger than the box you put it in.
 
 
Haloquin
14:15 / 28.11.06
I have an example of someone who relates to a modern character as she would a deity, and does in fact. A lovely lady called Oak is a priestess of Elvis. She has many years of experience in magical fields, mostly neo-paganism, and is a very active political activist. I have worked with her in ritual with the greek gods, specifically Hades and Persephone and their mythology, and Oak showed great depth and understanding of them. In comparison, she showed exactly the same type of relationship with Elvis, who I have also had opportunity to work with her with... In her bearing towards him, all her behaviour, it is exactly what I would expect from someone's relationship to a deity, and she claimed it was the same. She has called on Elvis as she would a deity, for the same kind of support.
Does this example help?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
14:28 / 28.11.06
Possibly, but is Elvis a fictional character from a story or a "Sainted" human being – a dead spirit who has been remembered and venerated for having certain qualities? Does Elvis have the ability to act beyond the remit of a dead spirit? Does Elvis have the same kind of power that Gods like Loki or Ganesh have? Does he encapsulate a certain core mystery of the universe like fully fledged Gods do?
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply