>>>how long is the Bible, for example? How many
>>>books are encompassed in it? ; - )
>>
>> --this. This isn't a fair comparison. The
>>Bible isn't just one story. It's about fifty
>>kazillion stories all rolled into one. Also,
>>it's only about as long as a whole as two or
>>maybe three of Jordan's books, depending on how
>>big of a typeface you use (I have no idea what
>>the wordlength of either the Bible or WOT is).
>>Plus, the individual "books" of the Bible
>>aren't nearly as long as your typical Jordan
>>book.
>
> Hmm, this is an interesting comment - you say
>that the Bible isn't just one story - but isn't
>it, Dave? I would not be so sure - or at least,
>that is IMHO ... I admit I used the Bible to
>illustrate an example in quite broad terms, but
>I do maintain that essentially the point I was
>getting at remains true ....

I'm certainly no Biblical scholar, (heck, I'm not even a Christian) but I'm certain the Bible isn't "one story" in the sense that the Wheel of Time books are one story. Take it just from the beginning--Genesis is the story of the creation of the world and the fall of Man, the story of the flood and the chronicaling of several generations. Exodus is the story of the journey of the Israelites from Egypt to the promised land and of the handing down of the Ten Commandments. Leviticus and Deuteronomy I always get confused, but one of them is a whole bunch of "begats" and the other is the description of the Laws. Or maybe they're both a little of both. And after that I get confused as all heck, so I won't go on. But my point (and I do have one) is that the Bible is more a collection of short stories with a common theme than a cohesive novel.

>
> besides, just because we cannot imagine
> something, doesn't make it any less possible ...

I can't imagine a green colorless frog, either. Want to place bets on if they really exist?

>
> I enjoyed your comments regarding differing
>writers and their works being more akin to
>interpretations of other writers, as opposed to
>interpretations of germanic mythology, for
>example. sounds like you have read/studied this
>to some degree.

To an extent, yes, but for the most part it was stuff I was just making up on the fly, like usual. I do all of my best work like that. Actually, I think of it as ideas and philosophies that were already there in my head, but didn't form into a cohesive whole until I wrote them down.

>it's an intruiging thought - perhaps these
>various writer, by reinterpreting each others
>works rather than approaching them with fresh
>ideas/perspectives, will generate their own
>modern mythology (if they have not done so
>already?)

Well, it's happened already. Read any later Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms novel. They're just the top layer of the pile that is drawing from the level below it, all the way down to Tolkien who is right on top of the actual myths that form the base.

I look at it this way. The myths contained Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits. Tolkien used these and interpreted them in his own way, drawing from the rich background of the myths themselves to build his world.

Later writers used the same tropes--the Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits (although the Tolkien estate can claim the term "Hobbit" for themselves, so everybody else has to call them "Halflings" or "Little People" or what have you) but used as their base Tolkien's work instead of the myths he used--so they're drawing from a less rich, less abundant and fertile base. They used these ideas because Tolkien did, not because they had studied the myths and drawn inspiriation from them as he had. So even though "Elves" in many other mythologies are little sprite-like beings, or half-size cobblers, in most fantasy fiction they're tall, regal, ancient humanoids--strictly because that's the foundation Tolkien laid that everyone else has been building on top off.

Now, I'm not trying to say that all fantasy fiction is like this--awhile back we went through just this situation with Mr (Ms?) Faux Pas, with Sam and me defending the honor of fantasy fiction against much the same attacks. But the underlying truth of the matter is that this does happen, has happened, and will likely continue to happen. I'm not saying that's what Jordan has done, but its a common complaint I've seen about his works ("too derivitive").

So we already have a standard "fantasy" mythology of a sort.


>> Also, the more snooty members of
>>rec.arts.sf.written seem to like Gene Wolfe too.
>
> Hmm, this last comment ... should I be
>offended? LOL "snooty"? Personally I'm not into
>the pretentious intellectual writers scene ...
>that is reading something just because it is
>fashionable or whatever ... however, I'm
>grateful to you for the name, and also for the
>title 'Tigana'

I don't know if you should be offended or not. I just know that many people on rec.arts.sf.written will say "Gene Wolfe is my favorite writer" or some such, and others will shoot back that he's too caught up with style to be concerned with other things, or some such. And anytime someone likes form over function, I tend to lable them "snooty," as I am almost incapable of placing form over function.