Philosophia to Philomythus and Misomythus by pandemonium_213

| | |

Fanwork Notes

MEFA08 Award Banner Poetry

Although I knew from the beginning that I would lose in this duel of song with the great master, I was nonetheless compelled to offer a response to Tolkien's Mythopoeia: science can impart a sense of wonder equivalent to any great mythological tale, and myths and flights of imagination are necessary to spark the creativity which in turn leads to new ideas and theories.

The form used in Mythopoeia is heroic couplet. As noted in the linked Wikipedia entry, this was the preferred cadence of British Enlightenment poets so Tolkien was “attacking the proponents of materialist progress on their own turf.”

The poetic form represents a vast uncharted territory for me. Thus I am indebted to my fellow “smith,” Moreth, who helped to tweak and polish my versecraft. Many thanks!

Fanwork Information

Summary:

For The Duel of Songs challenge: a counterpoint to Tolkien's Mythopoeia.

MEFA 2008: First Place, Poetry, General.

 

Major Characters:

Major Relationships:

Artwork Type: No artwork type listed

Genre: Poetry

Challenges: Duel of Songs

Rating: General

Warnings:

Chapters: 2 Word Count: 1, 311
Posted on 24 April 2008 Updated on 24 April 2008

This fanwork is complete.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Mythopoeia by J.R.R. Tolkien
Chapter 2: Philosophia to Philomythus and Misomythus by pandemonium_213

J.R.R. Tolkien (“Philomythus” - Lover of Myth) wrote Mythopoeia in response to fellow Inkling, C.S. Lewis (“Misomythus” - Hater of Myth) who said that myths were “lies...breathed through silver.” Tolkien displayed his poetic mastery in Mythopoeia. Even though I take issue with some of his views, I cannot deny the verses are lovely nor do I disagree that myth and art are vital to the culture and thought of mankind. My counterpoint, such as it is, is offered here.

 

Comments

The Silmarillion Writers' Guild is more than just an archive--we are a community! If you enjoy a fanwork or enjoy a creator's work, please consider letting them know in a comment.

This is splendidly done, beautiful, graceful and wonderfully written.

It reminds me of the finest pieces of literature and, in a way, of the dispute between the authors of the Age of Enlightement and those of Romanticism. Knowlegde and science, with their magnifying glass and empiricism, versus art and mythology, all those more spiritual forms of exploring the world. They don't oppose one another in my opinion, as you said -- there is no black and white, only, combined, they constitute what we can name one's cultural heritage.

But there is beauty in those numbers, just as elf-patterned and fair
As the myth that drives the Moon upon his chariot of air.

To me, these lines are the essence of your poem. You made me wonder just how much mathematics and poetry may have in common. And yes, they have a lot -- when a poet counts the syllables of a sonnet to see if their work flows nicely :)

Thank you so much for writing the poem. I cannot really express how much I admire it. It's worth paying for. And forgive my rambling :)

All the best,

Binka 

Binka,

Thank you so much for the compliments!  As noted, this is an alien form of writing for me, but I figured what the heck...I was inspired and gave it a shot.  I'm glad the poem "spoke" to you.  Like you, I do not believe that Enlightenment and Romaticism are mutally exclusive.

On the commonality of mathematics and poetry - oh, yes!  I think our brains naturally seek patterns and rhythms.  I confess I know nothing about meter and just kept reading it aloud until it sounded (more or less) "right."  

You're not rambling!  In fact, I don't think I have ever read anything you have written that is not coherent!

Hee!  Yes, my version of the famous golden-tressed Balrog slayer, Witch King repeller and hobbit-rescuer is a math nerd extraordinaire.

And thank you and thank you again for your fabulous betafication.  I'm still chuckling over the notion of this bit of verse being tagged to the Pembroke College door!

Fantastic work! I am humbled! :)

(Of course, also, as you know, I agree with you. ;)

That final couplet is simply stunning; it wraps up the poem perfectly.

And I relate perfectly to the ideas you convey here, as you know. (Many of those rambling emails have compassed this topic! ;) I remember being a little angsty when I was younger because everyone insisted it was "left brain" and "right brain," and you were either practical and scientific or pie-eyed and creative. And ... I was a little bit of both.

My mom compromised for me once by telling me that my brain was in sideways. So, my sideways brain definitely appreciates how understanding the scientific and empirical enhances appreciation for that more nebulous "artistic beauty." Again, a fine piece of work!

Thank you. I am honored. :^)

I love your mother's sideways brain analogy.  Since you introduced me to that concept, I have used the term frequently!  Likewise, art, poetry and myth can enhance technical and scientific creativity.

I'm glad the poem worked for you.  It took some temerity on my part to tackle it, but my dark muse was pretty insistent: "Come on.  You know you want to respond to those tweedy Inkling fellows!"  :^D

Thanks again!

I have been struggling for two days to respond to this. You are so out of my class, lady, that it isn't even funny (or at all fair!). This is absolutely fabulous.

I have always flattered myself in thinking of the Enlightenment as my intellectual heritage, while my writing could itself be characterized in content and style as unabashedly romantic. I would agree with you and Binka that there should not have to be a division or a debate there. Why should seeing the world as it is have to impede either imagination or rapture? I surely hope not.

Congratulations, from someone who considers herself a hardcore materialist while consistently indulging in the unashamed flights of fantasy.

"Congratulations, from someone who considers herself a hardcore materialist while consistently indulging in the unashamed flights of fantasy."

Thank you very much!  And yes indeed your combination of romanticism with the rational is both very appealing and apparent.  I have to say that I see a pattern here:  my favorite Tolkienian fan fic (and beyond) authors possess this admixture.  

Don't be too impressed. I suspect this poem will be one of those "one hit wonders." :^D 

 

 

Well, I have no words for something like this so I'll just say I loved both of these, the first like Shakespeare, the second like William Blake. I don't know how you do it, or where it comes from, but these are just incredible. They're beyond any wordsmithing I can do to even properly praise them. If you need me, I'll just be standing over here in awe.

Great idea, and nicely executed!  I think that Tolkien was not complaining about science (love of knowledge) as such, but of a world view in which that was *all* there was.  He was complaining, in short, against a reductionist materialism in which the tree is only worth what you can learn about it.  He himself was quite knowledgable in botany, so I doubt he was saying we shouldn't be able to distinguish beech and oak! 

But I agree that the opposite danger (only myth, no science) would be just as bleak.  You cannot make true myths about the world if you do not understand natural science.  So, your counter-point is certainly a message worth stating.  I think it is a question of both-and, not either-or, and your poem draws attention to that nicely. 

Good luck at MEFA! 

Thanks so much for the comments and compliments, MithLuin! 

On Tolkien's rather mixed views of science and technology: I emphatically agree that there were aspects of science that Tolkien embraced, loved even.  I'm well aware of his keen interests in botany* and astronomy.  JRRT would certainly want us to understand the difference between oak and beech. :^) He wielded his layman's knowledge in those disciplines to great effect in his legendarium such that his secondary world feels quite real. However, his feelings toward applied sciences and technology were less charitable to say the least. But that's well beyond the scope of an author's response.

Yes, indeed, he was complaining about reductionist materialism!  Addressing that complaint underlies my counterpoint.  I fall solidly in the reductionist materialism camp, but I respect the beliefs of faithful and rational dualists as per Stephen Jay Gould's concept of nonoverlapping magisteria.   Reductionist materialism  does not preclude a tremendous sense of wonder at the natural world and the immense complexity and majesty of the material, that is, the universe.  The journey of discovery of the material worth of a tree is an amazing one.  I hoped to convey that in the little poem.  Mythology (and not just Tolkien's) plays into that sense of wonder (at least for me) beautifully and allows me to trigger my imagination.  

So yes, in spite of my own reductionist materialism, I'm definitely a both-and person!

I suspect more traditional Tolkien-flavored poetry will be favored in the MEFA08, but I'm nonetheless honored that this was nominated and that my neophyte's effort struck a chord with a discerning reader like you.  Thanks again! 

*I received my undergrad degree in botany and in spite of my "mind of metal and wheels," I still love -- and need -- trees. :^)

(I posted this last night on the MEFA Awards site and since posting the same review in an archive doesn't seem to be against the MEFA rules (I'm a newbie to the MEFA's) here it is again)

I have been meaning to review this for more than a week, and at least twice I started to compose a response that I quickly discarded as inadequate.

In short:  this rocks. And you know why I think it rocks, but I must elaborate nonetheless:  thematically *and* poetically your response is tellement parfait.  This is my response to your response to Tolkien's response to C.S. Lewis:

I had never read Tolkien's verse to "Misomythus" (but have now, of course!) and while the words flow beautifully, the binary assumption that myth conveys a truth that is more intimately human, and is therefore more relevant to humans than the cold, hard facts provided by science, is cringe-inducing.  Your response neatly reveals Tolkien's apparent misunderstandings -- not only about the beauty that science itself can reveal, but the way that humanity is an inextricable part of the very natural world that science undertakes to understand.  To shut out scientific understandings from expansive spiritual thought is to rob oneself of a hugely important dimension of life, and one must wonder how expansive such thought can really be. 

It is interesting that humanity has constructed a phantom body of knowledge which re-constructs the real world from its own particular, peculiar vantage (via language, which itself can be examined scientifically).  I am interested in understanding how myths and less formal human narratives inform people's understanding of their relationship with the real world, with each other, with their ancestors, etc. But to assume that real beauty of lasting significance to humans can reside only in the fanciful explanations rendered by murky myth is to hold an impoverished view of the world at large, and of humans in particular. 

That is what your lovely poem brought to my mind.  But you said it much better than I just did!
 

Gwidhiel, thank you.  Thank you so much for this extraordinary review! 

"To shut out scientific understandings from expansive spiritual thought is to rob oneself of a hugely important dimension of life, and one must wonder how expansive such thought can really be."

Exactly.  Exactly!  I am glad to know I am not the only one struck by the binary nature of "Mythpoiea" and the implication that myth holds a superior truth to cold barren facts.  Although I know that JRRT appreciated the sciences (in a pure form), I still can't get past the impression that he really did not quite appreciate the sense of wonder inspired by science and that it does not preclude, to use your words, expansive spiritual thought.  I know that many would argue, "Oh, no, Tolkien was not anti-science, see here..." and would cite numerous and legitimate examples.  Yet those verses in "Mythopoiea" speak of misunderstanding.

"It is interesting that humanity has constructed a phantom body of knowledge which re-constructs the real world from its own particular, peculiar vantage (via language, which itself can be examined scientifically)."

Very interesting!  I love mythologies of all sorts and find their evolution (which I know little about) intriguing. 

"I am interested in understanding how myths and less formal human narratives inform people's understanding of their relationship with the real world, with each other, with their ancestors, etc."

And this reminds me that I have a copy of Daniel Lord Smail's book, On Deep History and the Brain, on my bookshelf and I really should get to reading it!

Thanks again, and as always, you stimulate my brain! :^)

- signed pandemonium, a proudly progressive ape. 

I have to say that I rather love this.

Long ago and far away, I was a theology minor as an undergraduate and one course shy of a philosophy minor (in addition to the chem major, so yep, grossly overeducated). As one professor lectured us about the fact that God had made men to be the stewards of the natural world, I shot my hand up into the air and asked if that didn't mean we should learn as much as possible about how the world *worked* so that we could better care for it. She announced to the class that this was a paid announcement from the chemistry department and should be ignored.

But really - what's wrong with wanting to learn about the way the world works? Perhaps to help others or perhaps just to *know.* There's an elegance about the way the human body functions and a beauty to it that can't be understood without studying it - likewise for the equations that tell you why a bird can soar or why the sky is blue or anything else about nature, really. For me, it's appreciated more by understanding it.

I'll stop babbling now. But I loved this.

Thank you so much for the kind words, SurgicalSteel.  I'm honored that what I wrote "spoke" to you. 

Although your theology professor's tart comment on the "paid announcement from the chemistry department" (heh) must have been frustrating, your point was -- and is -- an excellent one.  Whether one believes that Man's capacity for thought arose entirely from the Touch of the Divine or from millions of years of evolution (as an aside, I love JRRT's allusions to evolution in "Mythopoiea") or a combination thereof, we should use our knowledge to be stewards of the natural world and to do that, we must understand it.

Although C.S. Lewis' remarks that myths are lies breathed through silver has a certain poetry to it, even as a reductionist materialism type, it rankles me that he dismissed them like that.  Myths serve as mankind's metaphors.  As we study the world -- the universe -- we use metaphor to help make sense of it and to visualize the invisible.  I can't help but think of Kekulé's dream of the snakes biting their own tails (the Ouroboros) which led him to think of the planarity and electron distribution of benzene. That story may very well be apocryphal, but it's a great metaphor...and maybe a myth!

OK, now I'm babbling.

Again, many thanks!