Always reblog John Constantine.

There’s a discussion on Tumblr about fanfic and Hellenismos, to wit:

I really don’t care what other people say or do in regards to their practice and religion but I’m honestly kind of worried about the future of Hellenism. I understand that there is a need and valid reason to be festive and playful but sometimes I don’t understand why it goes as far as it does. It’s like some people disrespect the gods – well that’s not really the right word at all it’s like some people talk about them as if the gods and the entire religion were a joke and it’s their right and they can do what they want but I have serious worries about a religion that writes fan fiction about their deities. I mean I just don’t know because this is serious to me and I can’t imagine why anyone would play games with that sort of thing in every aspect of it.

Which, frankly, reminds me a bit of Plato’s criticism of poetry in the Republic:

Therefore, Glaucon, whenever you meet with any of the eulogists of Homer declaring that he has been the educator of Hellas, and that he is profitable for education and for the ordering of human things, and that you should take him up again and again and get to know him and regulate your whole life according to him, we may love and honour those who say these things –they are excellent people, as far as their lights extend; and we are ready to acknowledge that Homer is the greatest of poets and first of tragedy writers; but we must remain firm in our conviction that hymns to the gods and praises of famous men are the only poetry which ought to be admitted into our State. For if you go beyond this and allow the honeyed muse to enter, either in epic or lyric verse, not law and the reason of mankind, which by common consent have ever been deemed best, but pleasure and pain will be the rulers in our State.

Ain’t nothing new about this; we’re just imitating the same arguments the ancients got into. (Ho ho, catch what I did there?)

Which is kind of the point Jack Faust was trying to get across with this post, quoting a section from Aristophanes’ Frogs. But not the best part, which is undoubtedly the refrain of the titular chorus: Βρεκεκεκέξ κοάξ κοάξ. Say it, it’s fun! Βρεκεκεκέξ κοάξ κοάξ! Βρεκεκεκέξ! Βρεκεκεκέξ!

So anyway, sure, Aristophanes includes scatological taunts at his audience, burlesques the traditionally received myths and even plays pretty loose with the characters of the gods – but if you look a little deeper what he’s doing is really fucking profound. Take this play. What’s it about? Wikipedia does a surprisingly good job summarizing it but even they miss what’s going on.

You see, on the surface the reason that Dionysos makes his descent is because tragedy has been suffering since the death of the great poets and he needs to bring up the soul of the one he judges the greatest. However it’s not just tragedy that’s suffering. The real reason Dionysos goes below is because he’s forgotten who he is, hence his odd and uncharacteristic behavior at the play’s opening which is starkly contrasted with how he comes across in the latter half, once the katabasis has been completed. This is really driven home when the god fails to recognize the chorus of initiates in the underworld, even though they’re hailing him by his secret mystery name. (You know, the initiates who earned their blessed status by being able to answer the question, “Who are you?”)

Stop and really let what Aristophanes is saying sink in. If it helps, read this where I talk about Dionysos’ relationship with the arts, or this one where I go into the magic of language as it pertains to Hermes and Orpheus.

And you’re going to compare what Aristophanes is doing to fanfic?

Thing is, it’s a very high caliber of fanfic. People are still talking about it and putting on productions of Aristophanes’ plays two and a half millennia later.

Somehow I doubt that’ll be the case with my Carebear meets the Cenobites slashfic.

But maybe I’m wrong, and there is no substantial difference between these two works. Ultimately I don’t see much point to debating aesthetics since it basically boils down to taste, something that is inherently personal.

However, I think it’s important to remind ourselves what the underlying cause of all such arguments are: authority. More specifically, what is it, who has it, and why? And those are always good questions to ask.

Plato, unsurprisingly, had some astute observations on the subject. I’m particularly fond of this passage:

For all good poets, epic as well as lyric, compose their beautiful poems not by art, but because they are inspired and possessed. And as the Corybantic revellers when they dance are not in their right mind, so the lyric poets are not in their right mind when they are composing their beautiful strains: but when falling under the power of music and metre they are inspired and possessed; like Bacchic maidens who draw milk and honey from the rivers when they are under the influence of Dionysos but not when they are in their right mind. And the soul of the lyric poet does the same, as they themselves say; for they tell us that they bring songs from honeyed fountains, culling them out of the gardens and dells of the Muses; they, like the bees, winging their way from flower to flower. And this is true. For the poet is a light and winged and holy thing, and there is no invention in him until he has been inspired and is out of his senses, and the mind is no longer in him: when he has not attained to this state, he is powerless and is unable to utter his oracles. (Plato, Ion 533e-534b)