The so-called "Last Godlearner" (actually sounds more like an obstinate sage from Nochet) wrote:
>The Monomyth is an attempt at defining the Truth of
>Glorantha and is thus useful even if it is not 100% accurate.
You're not a scientist or an engineer by trade are you? As a lawyer, I view the Monomyth as more of a RESTATEMENT OF GLORANTHAN MYTH, FIRST EDITION. In other words, you have a bunch of blokes trying to codify and reconcile Gloranthan Myth into a tidy, universal package. Unfortunately for them, relying on the Monomyth is about as useful as relying solely on the Restatement of Contracts (or whatever) when you are arguing before the Washington State Supreme Court - as an attempt at a universal INTERPRETATION of myth, it misses many subtle nuances and local aberations which aren't that theoretically important but they can be the whole burrito in practice.
>The myths of a specific region are useful for that area, but how do they
relate to the total Gloranthan >Truth?
Who cares about the total Gloranthan Truth, even assuming there is one! Sure, Greg has various literary themes throughout his material (Rebellious Youth v. Mature Authority) but are Greg's literary themes particularly relevant in your game? In Taming of Dragon Pass, I happen to have a whole different host of literary themes that I rely on - just ask my players.
In stuffy academic circles, the Monomyth refers to Joseph Campbell's rather Jungian attempt to find a series of "universal myths" repeated in culture after culture. Some of it is rather good, much of it is rather forced. When I write local heroquests and myths, I'm glad that I've read Campbell's monomyths, but I'm even more glad that I've read the Edda, the Tain, god knows how much Greco-Roman mythology, etc. A player armed only with Campbell's Monomyth would be able to fumble around many of my Orlanthi myths, but some don't fit into Campbell's structure (or Jung, for that matter).
As for the Science=Monomyth, I don't think so. The Monomyth was not a falsifiable hypothesis a la Karl Popper. Rather, it appears the Jrusteli had a theory of myth which was compatible with their conception of the Invisible God and they fit other peoples' myths into theirs. Then they "proved" to the barbarians that they were right. Sort of like the early Spanish missionaries in Mexico proving that the local fertillity goddess is "really" an aspect of the Virgin Mary.
>This is important if they're going to be interacting with peoples from
outside that area; heck, isn't that >pretty much the whole basis behind
Arkat and HeroQuesting? I don't buy any notion that every
>people's world concept can be totally different and unrelated and yet
everyone is still the Truth. That's >the logic of "The Monomyth is
Science"; it's the truth of the world to the extent that an objective
observer >can determine them as opposed to the what each group's myths say.
Unfortunately myth is simply an interpretation - reconciling all interpretations doesn't determine the Truth, but just a new macro-interpretation.
BTW, three cheers for Nick Brooke's comments on Gloranthan history. Hip hip hurrah!
Yours truly,
Jeff Richard
Powered by hypermail