That Peter Metcalfe - once he gets an idea into his head you just
can't shake it. I realise that this discussion is getting dull, so I think
if Peter (or anyone else) wants to take it further, it should go to email.
I'll try and be brief and to the point.
I said
>Being God of the Dead is about ruling the Underworld, not at all
>about killing people (everyone dies in the end anyway, why bother hurrying
>it). I see the two roles as quite distinct, and I see ZZ and Monster Man
>both fitting clearly into the two different roles.
and he said
>I think this distinction is quite pedantic.
My opinion is this - ZZ and Monster Man have many superficial
similarities (death, darkness, living in Hell), but have completely
different mythic roles (one is a War God, and the other an Underworld god).
That is the main point here. I don't think the distinction is pedantic at all!
Their myths are completely different (the main Monster Man myth is about his defeat at the hands of Lodril, I can't remember a single real defeat for ZZ). They are from wildly different cultures. ZZ spends all his time rushing about on the surface world killing things, Deshkorgos spends most of his time chained in hell by Lodril. ZZ is the rebel who wants to destroy or conquer all authority - Monster Man is the old bad king who becomes the servant of the new good king. I really can't see WHY you want to identify them, myself.
Dave Dunham enters the fray
>>Deshkorgos and Derdromus are both called Monster Man; I'm not convinced
>>that all gods who have this title are necessarily the same, given how
>>generic it is.
The title is not enough to convince me alone. That the Monster Man cult is associated with Lodril, that both are rulers of at least part of the Underworld at some point, that Deshkorgos is subservient to Lodril while Derdromus is defeated by him (thus giving a reason for his subservience), that both rule over the worst parts of Hell, all this is much better evidence for assuming that they are the same being than a mere shared title. Their stories are a little different, but enough that it is the work of a few minutes for a God Learner to combine them without the seams showing.
Peter further interestingly adds
>I really see the Monster Man Cults as one of those pre Lodril Earth
>cults who were forced into the Dark Places by the appearance of a
>Lodrilite Hero (with the beginning of volcanic activity in the area).
I think that the myth can stand on its own as a Lodril myth of life conquering death, rather than reflecting a societal change. Not all 'bad' deities are demonised earlier religions, sometimes they are just demonised representations of the unpleasant parts of life.
I see the mythic pattern here as pretty classic. There is the old king of the underworld, an old lifeless creature, and a fearsome and cruel and horrible one, and he steals life away (the earth goddesses). Then the hero comes, full of life/heat. The old king steals almost all of it away, but does not break the heros spirit, and so the old kings wife decides to aid the hero, because she wants life as well. He defeats the old king, and takes his place. Now, we need no longer fear the afterlife without reason - the hero has gone there and defeated its worst parts.
A nice classic myth story, neatly following the heros journey, without being a cliche. Why mess it up with identifying the old king with the previous shamnic culture (the whole point of Monster Man is that he rules the land of the dead, not this world), and why mess it up by identifying the villain with a troll god of completely different mythic position, and completely different in style?
Cheers
David
The Gods only know how to compete or echo - Gilgamesh
He whose face gives no light, shall never become a star.
-William Blake
------------------------------
Powered by hypermail