Talk:Mythopoeia

message: I am suggesting merging "artificial mythology" to this article (a) they cover similar if not identical genre (b) the word artificial [root word artifice]] is at worst NPOV, at best confusing. (c) mythopoeia means myth-making. Goldenrowley 05:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Yes please. --Quiddity 07:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support.  I would also like to add that this article may also be linked to literature and epic poetry as related subjects.--Scorpion451 06:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge is complete. This makes the article not quote all of its sources, as the old article did not quote its sources. I marked those statements from the old article, which seem to need verified citations. Goldenrowley 20:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: merge suggestion

message: Hello, I am Mighty Erick, a ConWorlder from Wikia, I have added a link to a Wikia's Myth-Building Wiki.
Questions?
Talk me at imagine.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Mightyerick
Thanks
Mightyerick (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have removed it again, because I really do not see how this is representative or generally helpful to the topic at hand; it smells an awful lot of (self-?)promotion. -- Nils Jeppe (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikia

message: I am not sure that Lord Dunsany is actually an author that fits this genre.  Yes, he wrote fantasy, but did he create the sort of elaborately detailed worlds we associate with Tolkein and Lewis?  I am asking because I am honestly uncertain, but the article here gave me no indication that he fits this genre.  Thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gods of Pegana and follow-up works are precisely the sort of thing this term is meant to describe. They're literally a sequence of quasi-mythological creation and "just-so" stories about a fictional world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.243.248 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Dunsany? 

message: The passage which reads:
"As distinguished from fantasy worlds or fictional universes aimed at the evocation of detailed worlds with well-ordered histories, geographies, and laws of nature, mythopoeia aims at imitating and including real-world mythology, specifically created to bring mythology to modern readers, and/or to add credibility and literary depth to fictional worlds in fantasy or science fiction books and movies."
contradicts not only itself but also the following passage which reads:
"Mythopoeia are almost invariably created entirely by an individual, like the world of Middle-earth."
Middle-Earth does not "bring mythology to modern readers"
194.70.183.93 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: The intention of the sentence, "It is invented mythology that, rather than arising out of centuries of oral tradition, are penned over a short period of time by a single author or small group of collaborators." is not clear. I think it is supposed to mean, "Mythopeia is invented mythology that, rather than arising out of centuries of oral tradition, is penned..." The initial "it" and the "are" are confusing. Wakablogger2 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannot understand sentence 

message: The section describing Blake's influence on Crowley needs a source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.84.204 (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of Crowley/Blake connection? 

message: The section on Tolkien should contain additional reference to his theory of sub-creation, which consists of the poem Mythopoeia, the short story Leaf by Niggle and the essay On Fairy-stories. The section on recent authors using mythopoeia should also include Terry Pratchett and Tad Williams. EugealCrayfish (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Information? 

message: : first of multiple sections posted at once
Is there a literary or literary/cinematic genre that comprises the retelling and/or adaptation of myth(ology), as in The God Beneath the Sea and its sequel? What about legendary material, as in Here Lies Arthur? Those two articles do not classify their novels concisely as a generic label does. Their current WP:CATegories, re the matter at hand, are  for The God; i'm not sure about "popular culture".  and  for Here Lies Arthur; both clearly appropriate in my opinion. (For what it's worth, I'm the author of their {infobox} Genre(s) and some of their lead prose. Not of their relevant categories.)
Two other instances are Prince of Annwn, which retells Welsh myth as a high fantasy novel for adults, and The Owl Service, which adapts Welsh myth as a low fantasy novel for children. The latter is rather realistic among low fantasies, I think, and its story recognizes the mythical material as living legend. "Huw tells him of the power that exists in the valley, how those of the blood have to re-enact the legend each time, and how Blodeuwedd always comes as owls instead of flowers because of the hatred." --quoting our ultralong plot summary
FWIW i don't know anything about the study or theory of compilation, translation retelling, and any other production of "versions". I know that the Brothers Grimm retold folklore stories in a sense (reconstructed?) and every English translation of their work is further from the traditional material, not to mention any contemporary American picture book edition of one tale. Every prose edition of the Odyssey (even in Greek) retells Homer's literary work, which removes it further from whatever legendary material he used. The Mabinogion that I could read but haven't is Charlotte Guest's 19th century translation (version) of about 800-year-old literary material that was a version of material that was at least partly traditional then. --P64 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythic or mythological fiction? 

message: : second of two sections posted at once
It's illuminating that artificial mythology redirects here, 
:: See section #merge suggestions above. -P64
as mythopoeia is created (authored, for those who accept the term). Does it, should it cover all literary and cinematic work that is "mythic(al)"? or "myth-making"? I doubt it. Perhaps that's the nub of the debate about George Lucas and Star Wars.
The Mythopeoic Fantasy Awards of the Mythopoeic Society recognize fantasy that "single-author fantasy that 'best exemplifies “the spirit of the Inklings”'" (quoting our nested quotation!). That leaves much to the judgment of the annual committee (I suppose): what relation, if any, does the designated best work have to mythopoeia or to mythological or legendary material.
If I understand correctly, none of the works I have mentioned in the preceding section qualify as mythopoeia because all are modern "versions" of traditional material rather than fictional traditions, so to speak. --P64 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythopoeia v. mythic, etc