Ooh, yeah, it seems a couple of those were just me misreading you-- in particular I'd just like to point out your claim that "it's a mistake not to keep these things in mind in the 'analysing the myths' part of the process of turning myth into narrative, not that it's a mistake to do so at the writing stage", because this breaks down a dichotomy I hadn't realized needed to be broken down until just now, but it totally did need breaking and I hadn't grasped at all what you were saying until you rephrased it.
And your account that "I was also thinking of a specific incident where I had to explain to someone that to the people who built the pyramids was not a waste of ressources because, even though the concept felt ridiculous to him, to them it upheld the proper order of the universe and prevented the end of the world (/gross oversimplification)." Yeah, see, that is not what I thought of when I thought of things that would count as making fun of myth, and I agree that you should at least understand why people think the things they think. (Or thought the things they thought.) If you can't sympathise, you can't really handle writing about it, right?
On to substantive points that aren't just "yeah, I see now".
So, I disagree that anyone who doesn't believe in a thing shouldn't make fun of it, if you are also extending the definition of making fun of things to include things more like what I'm thinking of (I'm thinking more along the lines of snarky nicknames, irreverent jokes, all that stuff, not "your entire worldview is wrong and that's hilarious"). On the other hand, that discussion would take us way off topic because the reasons for this stem from watching the misuse of similar concepts developed for social justice that end up instead hurting the very people they're supposed to protect. So, I get maybe a little twitchy about "only X can say Y" for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
The heart-eating thing: all of that is so very unclear, of course, and trying to reconcile it with other parts of the myths is not really workable. However! I don't think this incident makes him LGBT for three reasons: 1. The closest I've seen to a coherent narrative here (we need a narrative to conclude anything about Loki's desires or identity, which is what defines LGBT for us, even if it doesn't define fairy/argr for vikings) is that Gullveig shows up to try to *handwave handwave something ominous* and the Aesir try to kill her, but she revives, so they try again, but she revives (from her intact heart), and also now she's really angry, so it occurs to them to do something about that heart that she's regenerating from, so Loki eats it. Not quite coerced in the same sense as Sleipnir, but not really recreational cannibalism, either. The only motive it sheds light on is not dying, which is not related to LGBT. 2. In fact, there's nothing we would consider related to sex or gender in there at all. This is not a typical means of getting pregnant, after all. It might well make him a fairy by their definitions, but it doesn't make him LGBT by our definitions. 3. What about the argument that if he uses male pronouns and a masculine name and gets pregnant he's a trans man? Well, for one thing, this incident would be a particularly poor one to use for that argument if you wanted to make it, because getting pregnant from eating someone's heart is just as unlikely as a cis man getting pregnant at all.
(More hypocrisy: the trans guy because male and pregnant argument is one I thought of because I've made it before. :P)
And thank you for taking the time to respond to such a long comment!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2015-05-11 06:52 am (UTC)And your account that "I was also thinking of a specific incident where I had to explain to someone that to the people who built the pyramids was not a waste of ressources because, even though the concept felt ridiculous to him, to them it upheld the proper order of the universe and prevented the end of the world (/gross oversimplification)." Yeah, see, that is not what I thought of when I thought of things that would count as making fun of myth, and I agree that you should at least understand why people think the things they think. (Or thought the things they thought.) If you can't sympathise, you can't really handle writing about it, right?
On to substantive points that aren't just "yeah, I see now".
So, I disagree that anyone who doesn't believe in a thing shouldn't make fun of it, if you are also extending the definition of making fun of things to include things more like what I'm thinking of (I'm thinking more along the lines of snarky nicknames, irreverent jokes, all that stuff, not "your entire worldview is wrong and that's hilarious"). On the other hand, that discussion would take us way off topic because the reasons for this stem from watching the misuse of similar concepts developed for social justice that end up instead hurting the very people they're supposed to protect. So, I get maybe a little twitchy about "only X can say Y" for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
The heart-eating thing: all of that is so very unclear, of course, and trying to reconcile it with other parts of the myths is not really workable. However! I don't think this incident makes him LGBT for three reasons:
1. The closest I've seen to a coherent narrative here (we need a narrative to conclude anything about Loki's desires or identity, which is what defines LGBT for us, even if it doesn't define fairy/argr for vikings) is that Gullveig shows up to try to *handwave handwave something ominous* and the Aesir try to kill her, but she revives, so they try again, but she revives (from her intact heart), and also now she's really angry, so it occurs to them to do something about that heart that she's regenerating from, so Loki eats it. Not quite coerced in the same sense as Sleipnir, but not really recreational cannibalism, either. The only motive it sheds light on is not dying, which is not related to LGBT.
2. In fact, there's nothing we would consider related to sex or gender in there at all. This is not a typical means of getting pregnant, after all. It might well make him a fairy by their definitions, but it doesn't make him LGBT by our definitions.
3. What about the argument that if he uses male pronouns and a masculine name and gets pregnant he's a trans man? Well, for one thing, this incident would be a particularly poor one to use for that argument if you wanted to make it, because getting pregnant from eating someone's heart is just as unlikely as a cis man getting pregnant at all.
(More hypocrisy: the trans guy because male and pregnant argument is one I thought of because I've made it before. :P)
And thank you for taking the time to respond to such a long comment!
(Also: I wrote Gylfaginning framing-story fic because of this conversation. Not sure if you'll like it but since its existence is partly your fault...)