A friend mentioned recently that she had been grading a student’s paper, wherein the student had used the terms “myth” and “folklore” interchangably. She wondered if this was an accurate usage.
I will be the first to admit that I am not of such expert stature that I could make an absolute ruling, but my impulse is to say “No.” It is not accurate to use the terms interchangably. I will try to explain how I see things.
According to Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend
This sort of implies that a mythology is secondary to the folklore connected with it. I’m not sure if that is the case.
To me, folklore tends to be culture specific and it feels as if its subject matter is of somewhat less existential importance than a myth.
For me, myth tends to focus on cosmic meaning, what something means to us as humans. In a society where the environment is chronically dry and flammable, lightning will be considered highly dangerous, which leads to a goddess like Tsetse, vengeful, capricious, malicious and unreliable. In a more temporate climate, or even a tropical one, the lightning in a thunderstorm might be regarded less negatively, while still acknowledging the power of the lightning bolt. This can lead to the image of dancing gods, where one leg strikes down from the sky, creating changes where the foot falls (like Shiva Nataraj). This, to me, is myth.
By contrast, I treat folklore as those manifestations of meaning that can come at one step remove from mythology. Instead of referencing the lightning itself, secondary representations of mythic things come into play. Now we tell stories not of lightning itself, but rather of amulets which invoke the power of lightning. Then there are the dances that might originate as representations of thunder-storms – these are part of the folklore.
But these are distinctions I make for my own usage. How are they helpful in osrting out one type of story from another? I’m not sure. Paul Bunyon? I call that folklore, partly because his origin was commercial, but also because he doesn’t seem to attach to meanings beyond logging in the North American Continent. But another “big guy” by name of Thor? I call him mythic, for his attributes and purposes are recognized outside his culture of origin. But it’s a very fine and subjective distinction. And when talking just about story, I don’t know if there is an advantage to the distinction.
I’m afraid I’m not much lep to my friend. I know the distinction I would make, but would I inflict it on the student?
As for that promised side order about “mythos” – I use this term for the particular cluster of stories, relationships and attitudes that center around a specific character or set of characters: for instance, the Batman mythos, or the Arthurian mythos, or Robin Hood or Spider-Man. When one is mentioned, we immediately recognize a specific grouping that will include many stories. For myself, I don’t use it in broader terms, although I might say that a particular story doesn’t fit “the mythos,” usually because the attitude and outlook in the specific tale may be at odds to the general shape of the rest.
As you can see, the terms run into each other in a less than orderly fashion. It starts to become an issue for specific examples and personal interpretation.
[And let me take this moment to remind the readers of the CONTEST that is due to end on Monday. Hey! Give me something to talk about!]
