For Thursday: Lord Dunsany,
“The Gods of Pegāna” (pp.4-48)
Answer
2 of the following questions…
1. Joseph
Campbell wrote that “No, mythology is not a lie, mythology is poetry, it is
metaphorical. It has been well said that
mythology is the penultimate truth—penultimate because the ultimate cannot be
put into words.” How might we look at
Lord Dunsany’s mythology as a poem that tries to translate some abstract element
about life (or death) into the visible terms of gods or legends? Discuss one of the mini-chapters as a way of
illustrating this.
2. In “The
Sayings of Imbaun,” the great prophet Imbaun claims that “I only know that I
and men know naught concerning the gods or aught concerning men” (42). What does this say about the role of knowledge
in Pegāna? What ultimately separates the
wisdom of gods and men? What does one
know that the other doesn’t? How is
Imbaun initiated into this secret knowledge by the High Prophets?
3. Why
couldn’t this collection of myths and legends work as a unified religion? How does Lord Dunsany make sure we don’t
misinterpret is as literal fact (the way we might an organized religion), but
instead, as a collection of poetic puzzles that remind us, “Their nature is
your nature, and all of these wonderful poetic images of mythology are
referring to something in you”?
4. Discuss the god of Death (Mung) in these works. He is the most recurring character of the divine pantheon, though in THE END, even he cannot escape his own demise. How does Lord Dunsany envision him and his relationship to mere mortals? Why does he write that, “between Pegāna and the Earth flutter ten thousand thousand prayers that beat their wings against the face of Death, and never for one of them hath the hand of the Striker been strayed, nor yet tarried the feet of the Reletnless One” (14). What kind of god is he?
4. Discuss the god of Death (Mung) in these works. He is the most recurring character of the divine pantheon, though in THE END, even he cannot escape his own demise. How does Lord Dunsany envision him and his relationship to mere mortals? Why does he write that, “between Pegāna and the Earth flutter ten thousand thousand prayers that beat their wings against the face of Death, and never for one of them hath the hand of the Striker been strayed, nor yet tarried the feet of the Reletnless One” (14). What kind of god is he?
Rocky Moore
ReplyDelete1. Life and Death seem to go hand in hand as far abstract elements but I think as humans we are much more aware of life because we are in existence but that death is by far the most abstract of the two because we know we cannot come back from death as the same person. That is why I think on page 39 in the mini chapter Pegana, Dunsany writes, "When the wind blows not, where, then, is the wind? Or when thou art living, where art thou? What should the wind care for the hours of calm or thou for death? Thy life is long, Eternity is short. So short that, should thou die and Eternity should pass, and after passing of Eternity thou shouldst live again, thou wouldst say: 'I closed mine eyes but for an instant'" (39 Dunsany). Maybe Dunsany understands that some things in this world cannot be explained therefore the Gods serve as a small purpose for meaning where there may be no meaning at all?
2. Considering that Imbaun is referred to as a false prophet I assume this to be a metaphor for how people are with religion even today. I think it says that knowledge of the prophets cannot be known by man, only assumptions, pondering and false hope for mortal men of this knowledge is to actually come. The prophets know that men will never know this but men will never catch the trick. I think that Imbaun alone is the separation of the wisdom for gods and men as he is the false prophet that leads men in a direction ultimately laden with false hope.
I'm definitely not understanding this book so far... As predicted by Dr. Grasso himself. BUT, I'm going to attempt to answer some of these questions anyway. Bear with me. My responses aren't going to sound that intelligent.
ReplyDelete1. Life and death are inevitable. I think Dunsany is trying to reiterate that death can't be explained; but then again, neither can life. It just is.
3. I would assume it wouldn't work as a unified religion because of the obvious--- it's a collection of poetic images and mythology. Kinda like we were talking about in class on Tuesday. We're unsure of whether or not the ancient Greeks actually believed in the mythological gods. Lord Dunsany makes it apparent, so we don't take this literally.
3. I like this question because I’m not entirely sure of the answer. Whenever I was reading this I felt like I was reading Genesis because it’s so dry and kind of ambiguous. Cayla got the same vibe (haha, I hope she sees this or talks about it). There is the mentioning of the three rivers, the lush garden, the flooding, and the different tiers of gods could be related to the different tiers of angels. But even the beginning seemed almost like a Native American creation story with the idea of this higher god who makes other gods and is lulled to sleep by the beating of drums in order for the world to be able to exist. And if someone could turn The Force from Star Wars into an actual religion, maybe this wouldn’t be so impossible.
ReplyDelete4. I think I like Mung because he seems a bit childish and spiteful. I just picture this petulant little kid wandering around seeing what mischief he can get up to, but his abilities allow him to knock people off. He doesn’t seem to value the lives of humans except where he can exert his control regardless of what they have to live for. The first we hear of him is in “The Game of the Gods,” and he’s jealous of Kib’s creating the beasts in the world so he tries to kill them off. That fails. Yet, after Kib eventually creates man, Mung is said to be “busy among men” (7) which is really ambiguous, but we get some explanation later in “The Deeds of Mung” I guess. The other thing about him was when he toyed with the prophet Kabok for three nights for his words before finally making the sign of Mung at him.
Cayla Odom
ReplyDelete3. I totally read Kim's comment. And I did find that a lot of passages within this text reminded me of specific scriptures in Genesis and other parts of the bible. There were specific parts that also made me think of different parts of Norse mythology. I think that the reason it is apparent that this isn't meant to be read as a true religion is because there is not a definite point to these gods. I mean, the gods are creating worlds and creatures, but there is another god that created them.... and then pulled a Rip Van Winkle. And if he ever wakes up they will disappear. So, I feel like it is set up in a way that makes the mythology seem insignificant. Everything is interconnected, but it feels empty. It can't really stand on its own.
1. I think that the discussion of time in the mini chapter "Concerning Sish" is really interesting. It talks about time as a creature that will turn on its masters, which are the gods. I think this illustrates the idea that time has a way of changing us and our thought processes. With time, these gods will be forgotten. If no one remembers them, then they really have no power. So, I feel like this is a good portrayal of how no one can escape the effects of time.
1. I was particularly intrigued by the story “Of Skarl the Drummer” on pages 4 and 5. The poetic nature of this story is of particular interest to me because the story of Skarl is not necessarily one which tries to explain away a natural phenomenon; rather, Skarl is the pretext for the building of worlds, galaxies, and ultimately the most important invention to us—men. Skarl represents another piece of the giant puzzle of the universe though: time. The rhythm of his drumming entrances MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI and time itself is tricky because readers are unsure of how to measure it without Skarl. While “life” does not exist outside of the gods at this point, time does, and the story “Of Skarl the Drummer” puts the concept of immeasurable time into something that humans in general, especially modern readers can relate to. Not only is Lord Dunsany creating creation stories, he is connecting age old concepts with modern conveniences.
ReplyDelete2. I’m taking a stab at a question I’m ultimately unsure about; Lord Dunsany sure was poetic in regard to Imbaun in my eyes. I think more than anything the role of knowledge lies in knowing structure and having the ability to act according to social constructs. In my reading of “Of How Imbaun Became High Prophet in Aradec of All the Gods Save One” I was confused by his answers in the Hall of Night. It seemed to me like he told the gods what they wanted so desperately to hear and what they told him was expected. In this story, men and gods are alike because they have a desire to belong, but men have not yet gained the proper knowledge to do so fully. I felt a sense of deceit among the gods that wasn’t in Imbaun’s description of men slaying one another on the roadside. There seemed to be some innocence to the men’s actions even though slaying another has the social connotation of being vulgar, hateful, and selfish. Ultimately, it seems that Imbaun is initiated into the order of High Prophets after he betrays himself and what he knows to be true. Again, I could be reading this story in a completely different way than Dunsany intended audiences to, but that’s the ultimate beauty of poetry and reveals something deep inside me (not sure how I feel about that). :o
Shelby Pletcher
ReplyDelete2) The idea of knowledge in this world is much like the idea of knowledge presented in most other religions. Even in the most fundamental of religions, there's still this essence of the unknown within this life. And the knowledge is past our own heartbeat. The gods know the ultimate and have little sympathy for the mortals who don't. And perhaps it's not even necessarily because they're so cruel but because they know that in the grand scheme of things, their anxiety about the unknown isn't nearly as important as what they will know in the future and maybe, their ignorance is apart of their idea of "fate".
3) There seems to be little to no structure to this religion. People kind of live entirely by the idea of chance that one day they may know more or be more. Life, in the world in this book, it seemingly void of any purpose or drive. This doesn't align itself alongside more common and widely practiced religions such as Christianity or Muslim. In these religions, there is a set law, set places of worship, set rules on how to worship, a God you can pray to, and an idea of free-will (depending on your theology) that either coincides with man's will or God's, but either way, there is a definitive will and somebody in charge. This alone gives life meaning even if we can't necessarily see what's on the other side.