On 23 May 2007 10:55:36 -0700, Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 23, 6:43?am, -T. <stinsonnospam-fam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On 22 May 2007 23:54:42 -0700, Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >By contrast, "Gone With The Wind" is a highly accurate ****trayal of
>> >the American South during the Civil War.
>>
>> It's a romanticized vision of how the south wanted to be seen.
>>
>> -T.
>
>Perhaps. Whatever.
>
>Assuming you're correct on that, it did get place names right and the
>time line right, which the other fables we've been discussing often
>fail to do.
Not even. In GWTW, the time line ****trayed is nothing like the real
time line. Most of the people and happenings discussed were pure
fiction and played no role in the very real history of that period.
***
A myth is "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events
that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a
practice, belief, or natural phenomenon" or a collection of such
myths, according to Mirriam Webster.
***
According to that definition (the main definition) of "myth" I see
nothing wrong with referring to the Bible as a collection of myths.
There is no doubt that the Greek and Roman stories of their gods were
myths. The ancient landscape is littered with Temples and Statutes
that validate that claim. Similarly, the places and remains in the
Middle East validate the claim of the Jewish texts to being true
myths, and the cathedrals and churches all over the world validate the
claim of Christians to the Bible rising to the level of a true myth.
None of those are fables IMHO.
No way do the King Arthur or Paul Bunyan stories rise to the level of
a myth under the definition above. I would say the King Arthur stories
are legends. I would not cringe at calling the Paul Bunyan stories
"fables" although they don't seem to teach much of pur****ted value.
|
