Search

Search only in certain items:

40x40

Rob P (30 KP) rated Mythos in Books

Jan 22, 2019 (Updated May 6, 2019)  
Mythos
Mythos
Stephen Fry | 2017 | Religion
10
8.7 (10 Ratings)
Book Rating
Accessible (2 more)
Simplified
Incredible insight into how much the modern world has taken from Greek and Roman culture
A lot of pretty complex names to remember (1 more)
Constant footnotes (usually at least one per page) to explain certain aspects, or highlight an interesting fact.
Mythos - The Greek legends retold
Ah, what a great read. Stephen Fry writes exactly how you would expect him to, if you've ever heard him speak. He understands the subject matter, and more importantly, realises how easily a reader will be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of players in these myths and answers that problem without condescension.

The book reads as a quasi-novel, from the birth of the universe to the third and fourth generations of immortals (this includes the creators, the titans, the gods, and mythical creatures/characters, spawns of titans and gods, gods and creatures, gods and men and all sorts.) and their adventures, each following on from the other.

I have always had an interest in the Greek myths and gods, and as I suggested above the really interesting part of these stories, beyond the very human nature of the immortals (jealousy, unreasonableness, duplicity, rage, deceit and pride) which makes for so much more of a believable creation theory, is the myriad ways they have influenced English language (any many others I'm sure). To give an example (I'm showing my own ignorance flagrantly here) a simple thing, the alphabet. It never occurred to me, in my own self centered existence, this simply come from the first and second letters of the Greek alphabet. Alpha and Beta. So simple, so obvious, yet I never made this connection.

The stories themselves are wonderful, and the best thing about them is they all tie in with a creation theory. Something, whatever it is, is learned, or created. Some paradigm is set, some moral conundrum is answered, or something in the world is explained by the end of every story told (the tides, the moon, wine, love, soul, war, sex, the seasons, humanity itself just to name a few). It's such an entertaining read, and I find myself telling anyone who will listen some of the revelations I find in this book page on page on page.

As an end note, don't be overwhelmed by the prospect of reading about these stories, this installment ONLY covers from creation, to the establishment of the twelve Greek gods, and their children. It stops before the even greater amount of legends stemming from human demigods (Hercules, Perseus etc) and these are picked up in Fry's most recent offering, Heroes (which I am yet to read).

If you have any interest in the Greek mythology, or etymology, or even history as a whole, this is absolutely one for you.

- Rob
  
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
1968 | Classics, Sci-Fi

"I kind of briefly threw The Shining out there, so that gets its own due, which means I can fall back on 2001, I suppose? I think that film speaks for itself, if I could explain that film to you, then I’d be… I don’t know what I’d be, one in ten who could explain it to you, but there was a followup called 2010 with Roy Scheider, which wasn’t a great film, but if it did anything, it helped explain 2001 a little bit, but 2001… I remember my father took me to see that in the theater, and that was so awe inspiring, and just to see where the imagination and creativity could go on screen as an 11-year-old kid, or however old I was. And to have seen that film over and over and over again and ask new questions every time I do, it’s been a pretty profound staple in my house for years. Then you get into all the conspiracy stuff. You attach the lunar landing — Kubrick shot the lunar landing stuff in it, and the rear screen projection that was used in the space scenes and in the ape scenes in the beginning, and how conspiracy theorists surmise that that’s what he used to shoot the moon landing. Did you hear all that? The theory is that NASA got a hold of the footage from 2001, saw it, and got Stanley Kubrick to shoot all the moon landing stuff in his studio and broadcast it across the country. Now, they’re not saying that we didn’t go to the moon, they’re saying that what the people in America saw was shot in a studio, because at that time we didn’t want to broadcast to the world what we may or may not have found on the moon — which actually makes more sense then it just being… It’s not, “We didn’t go.” We went. But we didn’t want the Russians to see, or we didn’t want Japan to see, or China to see what we’re discovering, you know? In case there’s anything there, or anything that we could weaponize, so Kubrick shot all this stuff in a sound stage, and that was the agreement. That’s why NASA gave Kubrick a super, super special space lens that he used for Barry Lyndon, because Barry Lyndon wasn’t shot with any lights. It was all natural light… candles, or sunlight, or whatever, so he used the lens, and that’s what allowed the light to get in for the film process, but there’s so many layers to the Kubrick stuff and I just, as a conspiracy theory fan, I like to have that in the back of my brain while I’m watching those films."

Source