Categories
Blog Assignments

3.5 :: In the beginning….

What are the major differences or similarities between the ethos of the creation story or stories you are familiar with and the story King tells in The Truth About Stories ?


“Personally, I’d like to hear a creation story, a story that recounts how the world was formed, how things came to be, for contained within creation stories are relationships that help to define the nature of the universe and how cultures understand the world in which they exist.”

(King, 10)

I chose here to discuss the story of Charm alongside the greek myths, and a condensed version of the biblical account. This is because I have already discussed the Biblical story of creation in another post, so I felt that it would add little to the discussion. In addendum, I have analyzed a bonus creation story in addition to these two, which I think blends the philosophies found within the Biblical and Greek accounts very nicely.

There was Chaos.

The Battle Between the Gods and the Titans by Joachim Wtewael.

 

There are different accounts and different interpretations of the early days of Greek myth and theogony. But the most well known and highest regarded is the works of Hesiod, specifically The Theogony, which details the genealogy of the Greek Gods, all descendants of six gods, the most powerful of which are Chaos, Gaia, and Eros. (II 116-138)

For most of the Homeric mythology that we are most accustomed to, these three gods have largely left the story, as have most of the others before the arrival of the Titans on mount Olympus. However, in the early days of the myths, they were responsible for the birth and creation of the world, and the many gods and creatures who would later rule it. Gaia created Uranus (the sky), Ourea (the mountains), and Pontus (the sea); as well as the many Gods and Goddess that would form the Titans. (Hesiod, II 116-138)

The Titans, no longer bound to Gaia, began taming the world, and adding more gods to it. These gods were in charge of their own domains: Epimetheus and Prometheus respectively created animals and humans, and gave them each different qualities distinct from each other; Athena was the goddess of wisdom and reason; Hades was the God of the underworld, and his “wife,” Persephone, was the goddess of spring.

As such, the creation story of Greek mythology is an explainer for how the gods that look after all that we know in the world came to be, which is not entirely different form the creation of the world, itself.

God Created the heavens and the earth.

The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo

Around the same time in region of Mesopotamia, another group of gods were being worshipped. One god, particularly holy to the Canaanites was the god who would come to be known as Yahweh. (Held) The exact origin of this god is contested, but the general understanding is that Yahweh was one god among many within the region, with stories and artifacts that have since been lost to time and conflict and the changing politics of history.

In the Judeo-christian tradition, the world started without form, and void. It was God, Yahweh, who brought the world into being, and through a symbolic passage of 7 days, Yahweh on his own created everything as it is. Through his will, Yahweh created light, the sky, the sea and dry land, vegetation, plants, fruits, and trees, the sun and the moon, birds and fish, and land animals and humans all within that week.

Adam and Eve, the first humans were in charge of the garden of Eden, and all the animals that lived within it. The two gave each of the animals names, following gods will. However, when God asked the two not to eat from the fruit of one of the trees in the garden, as it would give them knowledge of good and evil, the curiosity got the better of them and they denied gods will. As punishment for eating this fruit, Adam and Eve were sent out of the garden to fend for themselves in the wilderness.

The world we know as earth was nothing but water.

“In the beginning of imagination, the world that we know as earth was nothing but water, while above the earth, somewhere in space, was an older more ancient earth.

(King, 10)

In this older world, a curious, pregnant woman named Charm was going for a walk. While on her walk she encountered a hole in the base of a tree that she became curious about, wondering if it had something for her to eat. So she stuck her head in, and fell through. Because this older world sat above the newer world of water, she was surprised to suddenly find herself in the sky, falling towards a vast, endless ocean.

The flying animals of this world flew up and caught her, and rested her on the back of a sea turtle. Immediately all the animals started to look for a solution, because they knew that she couldn’t live on the sea turtle forever. So, Charm asked the swimming animals to get her some dirt that she could use for magic. Many animals dove down as far as they could, but only the otter managed to go down far enough to bring back a clump of dirt.

Charm thanked the animals, and used her magic and this dirt to create land, just in time to give birth to a pair of twins. These twins started shaping the land, making it flat, and building up hills and mountains, digging trenches to make rivers, made trees and flowers, the seasons, and the sun.

Analysis of Greek and Judeo-Christian Gods

The Ancient Greek Mythology paints a picture of a world that is ruled by character, where the attributes of the world are anthropomorphized. It shows how the world is made by people. People who are seemingly all-powerful, undying, and who have dominion in a way that we cannot understand. But still, people, with human emotions, and human flaws, and interact with each other as humans.

In comparison to the Biblical account where Yahweh alone exercised power and agency, an understanding of creation that incorporates the imperfections and trivialities of human personality within these conflicting sources of power is strikingly different. The world of greek mythology is also inherently political, focusing on the ways that different powers conflict. But because the world of judeo-christian creation does not feature a number of gods with conflicting interests, all the power and will is focused on one, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good creator.

Because of this focusing in power, the idea of morality is thought of largely different as well. the Ancient Greek world is constructed from deities who are just trying to find solutions to their problems — sometimes to the detriment of human kind, sometimes to each other —humanity does not hold the same communal expectations towards the deity of the Canaanites. Instead, humanity is subject to God, and the morality that is taught is that you can be a good person by following Him, alone.

Charm

You may have noticed that the way that I wrote the summary the Biblical creation story and the creation in Greek Myths is significantly different from how I wrote the summary for Charm. Where for the former two I focused on the general state of things, the facts of these particular histories — who had power, what did they do with it, how did they delegate — Charm’s summary focused on the journey that Charm took. This is because Charms story resists compression in a very unique way. Where the former two revolved around the systems at play, who had power, and how do you access it, Charm’s was focused on not on the systems in the world, but on the decisions of a character within it. It was a story!

This may be an artifact of King’s unique style. We can tell from his writing in Green Grass Running water that his work is character-driven, focusing on the intricacies of these interacting characters, the unique qualities of ‘I says’ and Coyote, and the mystery behind the Old Indians throughout. But even with this in mind, there was not a nice and easy way of dissecting this story into its main parts the way that we can in Genesis and the Greco-Roman Pantheon.

Throughout this story, too, is the confusion of time in various ways. In the beginning Charm only has suspicions that she might be pregnant, but by the time she is on the the newly created land, she has given birth to her twins. The passage of time unfolds without the characters or the audience really being aware of it. Perhaps it took the animals a really long time to find the dirt underwater. Perhaps she was just falling for a long time. Perhaps time simply did not behave the same way on an earth without a sun. What is left with the audience is a sense that time is flying.

Further, this mystery of time also alludes to the cyclical nature of time within stories in the indigenous worldview that King is discussing. In the colonized worldview there is an expectation of an absolute beginning to time. This may come from the religious idea of God creating the heavens and the earth, as discussed above, or from the Aristotelian and pre-socratic philosophies of an unmoved mover, but engrained in the European worldview is the idea that not only is the the past is finite, but there also has to be a cause for this finite past. In the modern worldview focused on the capabilities of science, this spiritual understanding of a limited past is embedded in cosmological concepts such as the Big Bang Theory.

However, many cultures around the world have had, and continue to have, an understanding of an infinite or cyclical past without concern. In many indigenous cultures, this past is signified by the cyclical concept of time, where all things have four overlapping phases of life. This is perhaps why King starts the story of creation by having Charm standing and living on a completely different world. In any other kind of story, this would beg the question, of where that world came from, too. But this way of telling the story allows for the audience to understand that this may have happened before, and it may happen again. This philosophy of embracing you curiosity even when it may not give you the answers you are looking for is echoed by Charm’s conversation with the moose at the beginning:

Hello, said the Moose. Aren’t you that nosy woman?

 

Yes, I am, said the woman, and what I want to know is why you are so much larger than me.

 

That’s easy, said the Moose, and he walked into the lake and disappeared.

(King, 11)

First People’s Principles of Learning

This interaction, and the unanswered questions of cosmology fit in with the indigenous ways of knowing and being, and specifically echoes the First Peoples Principles of Learning, specifically, the concept that “learning involves recognizing that some knowledge is sacred and only shared with permission and/or in certain situations.” This story not only teaches us about the concepts of community and cooperation, or the structure of indigenous storytelling, but also about the expectations of what kinds of things can be learned, and what kinds of questions demand answers.

Conclusions?

The worldviews of these three cultures informs and is informed by the stories that they tell. One could imagine the world of Greek myths and the Judeo-christian religion being told early on by people living in an area that was being surrounded by conflicting powers and wars, and trying to make sense of the chaos in various ways. And trying to find meaning in the damage being done around them by seemingly cold and impassive rulers. Where the greek mythology embraced the chaos in order to understand it, the judeo-christian belief attempted to find order within it.

But the world of Charm seems to be told from a community who finds their own survival to be determined by cooperation and respect, where people work together to find a shared understanding of how they can make the world better for others. It comes from a culture that embraces a continuance of nature that has existed through time immemorial, and must continue to exist eternally. It comes from a culture that encourages growth and learning and curiosity, but also puts limits within that to ensure the focus is remains on the world before them.


“Aristotle’s Prime Mover Explained” YouTube, uploaded by Philosophy Vibe, 26 Apr 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE8OPfCh2iY

The Bible. The New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. Hendrickson Publishers, 1993.

D’Aulaire, Ingri. “D’Aulaires’ Book of Greek Myths” Random House Children’s Books. 1992. Print.

“First People’s Principles of Learning.” First Nations Educational Steering Committee, http://www.fnesc.ca/first-peoples-principles-of-learning/ Accessed 19 Mar 2021

Held, Shai. “How YHWH Became God.” The Wall Street Journal. 11 Mar. 2016. Web. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-yhwh-became-god-1457732366

Hesiod, “The Works and Days and Theogony,” ReadHowYouWant. 2008. eBook.

Joachim Wtewael. Battle Between the Gods and the Titans. 1613. Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago. Art Institute of Chicago. https://www.artic.edu/artworks/105466/the-battle-between-the-gods-and-the-giants

King, Thomas. “The Truth About Stories.” House of Anansi Press. 2003.

Michelangelo. The Creation of Adam. 1512. The Sistine Chapel, Rome. https://www.museivaticani.va/content/museivaticani/en/collezioni/musei/cappella-sistina/volta/storie-centrali/creazione-di-adamo.html

 

4 replies on “3.5 :: In the beginning….”

Hello Zac,
Your post this week was captivating. In particular, your varying summaries – and your reflection on how you differed – was very reminiscent of King’s description of his storytelling. Your comparison of mono- and polytheism draws excellent parallels to the varying worldviews that accompany the varying religions, and which drive the creation of stories.
Two of your sentences really stood out to me. You mention that “engrained in the European worldview is the idea that not only is the the past is finite, but there also has to be a cause for this finite past.” I think this is a excellent point, particularly in context of ‘Green Grass, Running Water’: the four creation stories that the narrator tells have similar plot points to the story of charm, showing the idea that there is more than one cause for the past. An opposite to the Eurocentric view.
You also state King’s “way of telling the story allows for the audience to understand that this may have happened before, and it may happen again”. This immediately brought to mind Lee Maracle’s recounting of the role of Salish oratory (82): stories contain knowledge and wisdom that we can return to time and time again.
Lastly, I also enjoyed your addendum, and thought that the creation story you analysed had a bit of the “cooperation and respect” you mention is present within the story of Charm. I wonder, did you make any comparisons between Charm and The Silmarillion?
Have a wonderful week!

Hi Samantha, thank you for your kind and thought-provoking response! I’m glad that you made so many connections to it.
I made a few connections, but I hesitated to compare the story of Charm to a work of fiction, which is ultimately why I decided to leave it to the side. But I do feel like the story in the Silmarillion is closer to the story of Charm than the creation story from Christian faith is.

The Silmarillion is a huge mythology that encompasses millenniae of changes and creations within the world. It talks about the angelic beings that were in charge of different aspects of the world like the wind, the air, the water, the light, emotions, and many many more. It talks about the importance of story and art, and how they relate to the people and the magic that exists in the world that Tolkien built. And for a large part it talks about fellowship, and about being involved in the change that needs to happen in the world through cooperation and duty.

Some aspects of this are very similar to the story of Charm, and to some extent, indigenous nations and communities, too. Like the Valar that are in charge of nature and emotions. Both of these beings are seen more as caretakers, having strong sense of empathy for the things that they maintain. Even the Maiar (like Gandalf, if you are familiar), have powers that operate through the care that they have for beings, like Gandalf’s tendency to pull people to care for things that are bigger than themselves, and Radagast, who has a particular proclivity to care for nature and wildlife.

But these comparisons are largely superficial. I would say that one of the defining features of the story of Charm is its approach to community and cooperation. But where the Silmarillion has a sense of cooperation in it that feels absent in the christian faith and the stories of the Greek Myths, there is virtually no sense of community written into it. Instead, the bigger part of the story of the Silmarillion has to do with the hierarchy that is built into it. Like the Christian faith, the mythology of the Silmarillion has all beings ultimately in service to (whether they know it or not) Eru, the one. The Valar, the Maiar, and all of the life that spawns from their power are dependent on this one greater god, and as such, there is a sense of this hierarchy that is built into the narrative, not just of the Silmarillion, but of the Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings, too.

Since the Silmarillion was crafted by Tolkien, a British man working in Oxford university during a state of crisis in the colonizing world, it is no surprise that many of these colonial values became embedded in his writing.

What my dive into the world of the Silmarillion did for me was give me a sense of the major ideas of what constitutes a culture, a mythology, and a creation story that were taken from the mythologies around Europe. But, again, the Silmarillion is a work of fiction, written by one person, at a single point in time and as such is not really comparable to cultural stories that it doesn’t take influence from. What we’ve learned from this class in terms of the stories that help to define a culture, is that they are not the sole work of one author, but many; and they do not start at one single point in time, but they change over and over again over generations of retellings, becoming more and more relevant as they are told. This is not something that I could say about the Silmarillion, but it could at least capture the idea of what a hybrid of mono- and polytheistic mythology could look like.

This is a great perspective on the question, particularly with the incorporation of an analysis on the polytheism of Ancient Greece. I think King, whether unintentionally or not, is signalling a subversion of scripture through his appropriation of God/Yahweh/Jehovah. King is being rather sacrilegious with this, dissecting the oneness of Godhead and splitting the Christian deity across multiple characters and allusions. He is bringing us rather close to what you analyze to be the anthropomorphic, human-centric conceptualization of deity of classical antiquity. This is in rather stark contrast to, say, Harry Robinson, and the (perhaps self-aware) reverence with which his “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England” treats God as an omniscient, omnipotent, singular power whose word, or voice, is final. The God(s) of “Green Grass, Running Water” is/are foolish, limited in their knowledge, egotistical, and mocked.

In the first pages of “Green Grass, Running Water,” it is “Dog Dream” who aspires to, and is eventually granted, Godhead. There is also Coyote, another animal or animal-like, as well as deific, being. Many Native American/Indigenous deities are animal in form. Perhaps in this animal spirituality there is an understanding of the significance of the earth and nature, just as in ancient Greek religion there was a focus upon the virtues and foibles of humankind. What do you think King is trying to convey with the transformation of Dog Dream into God? Is King bringing together Christian monotheism and the Indigenous spiritualization of nature and animals?

Hi Leo,
Thank you for your comment! This captures a lot of the ideas that I’ve had about God in King’s stories, some of which I discussed in last-week’s post: https://blogs.ubc.ca/englitwithzac/2021/03/12/32-storytelling-is-a-gift-from-dog/

I think that God is constantly being humbled in King’s stories, and this is no different in the case that you are bringing in. For one, the Dog/God mixup joke is legitimately funny, and King loves to use confusion and misunderstanding to bring out his sense of humour. And for another, God is ALL POWERFUL in the christian religion, so I think that King is jokingly checking God’s ego within his story.
But ultimately, yes, I believe that you are correct, that King is bringing together Christian monotheism and the Indigenous spiritualization of nature and animals. Or rather, that King is describing the god of Christian monotheism through an indigenous storytelling lens.

Leave a Reply

Spam prevention powered by Akismet