Narratophilia

[Grant Barrett]

On Monday, March 13, 2000, emckean at ENTERACT.COM wrote:
>Can I offer a bounty for this scholarly (or not-so-scholarly) paper? I'd
>love to print something on this for VERBATIM!

and

> >arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)
> >not to deny this, exactly, but to put a slightly different (but still
> >positive) spin on it: humans love explanations that are *stories*,
> >with *characters* in them.  (mythological and religious explanations
> >largely fall into this category.)

I'd like to encourage anyone who writes what is bound to be an interesting paper not
to overlook the use of creation myths in novels, screenplays, etc., as
representations of "narratophilia." It's a standard, conscious device, and regular part of a
writer's block-breaking tricks: when stuck, write a character profile outlining background
and temperament. That invented life story will lead you to motives and possible
future actions of the character. It amounts to creating and solving your own mysteries,
which has lately been my belief in the cause of spurious etymologies (the mystery is
created by willfully ignoring things like dictionaries and libraries).

I tend to define "creation myths" broadly. I think cross-over television shows (in
which characters from two different shows share a character or overlapping plot) and
fictional historical adjustments also fit the term. Think of the movie "Forrest Gump."
It was filled with the kinds of he-was-there-when-it-happened stories: the speech on
the Mall, Apple Computer, I dunno what all. J. R. R. Tolkien in "The Hobbit"
mentions that Bilbo's grand-something-or-other knocked the head of off an orc and created
golf. (It stands out as somewhat of a blight, in my opinion, as his only obvious
attempt to connect his fantasy world with the real world. The non-obvious attempts are the
ways in which he borrowed from old languages and legends to flesh out his invented
world).

Creation myths are hard to resist on the part of writers, and like regular folks,
they like most of all to integrate their characters with known-true events and people
and places. This also, I think, explains a lot of fan-fiction and even legitimate
extensions of such literature as the Sherlock Holmes stories. Habitually, the non-Conan
Doyle additions to the Holmes stories are simply trying to explain some oblique line
in the original stories at length. They are defining the undefined and borrowing
credibility. Urban legends, too, fit this pattern: "My friend's brother said..."

Which leads me to my main point, and reflects something that Ron Butters said a
while back in response to a lazy query to the list: these mysterious "undefined" terms
seem to arise because of fear of the library. It's easier to invent and a hell of a lot
more fun, or, failing that, get somebody to do your research for you.

Anyway, that's my Sackie's worth. I should be writing a paper about proposed zoning
changes in New York rather than babbling here.

--
Grant Barrett
gbarrett at americandialect.org