The Mythology of Supernatural, Reader Question Response #4

Today my Mythology of Supernatural response is not exactly answering a question, but instead is my response to a rather disconcerting article that one of my readers recently brought to my attention (thanks for that, by the way, Joseph). The author of this article claims to be using my book The Mythology of Supernatural, as a source for one of his statements (full article is here…but I warn you it is rather offensive: http://creationliberty.com/questions/halloween.php).

More or less, the author of this article goes on a rant against the evils the Roman Catholic Church and the “demonic” practices of “pagans” in relation to the celebration of Halloween.

Of course... Pagans, as we all know, are the members of a motorcycle gang. Hahaha

No, in all seriousness, the word Pagan originally just meant “country folk” and was used to refer to rural people in areas of the Roman Empire who still practiced the “old religions” … which meant anything that wasn’t Christianity. The church eventually labeled such religions as “witchcraft” and/or “demon worship,” which eventually led to the word “pagan” being associated with such things.

To be honest, I am usually fine with letting people spout off their own personal forms of crazy on the internets ... but not when they are taking something I wrote and citing and/or paraphrasing it in a misleading way, as the author of this article seems to have done. Because, aside from the handful of historical facts he got right, nothing I believe or have written in any way supports anything the author of this article (who is apparently a creationist) believes or has written.

The below excerpt from the article, though short, REALLY gets on my nerves:
(Note: Some claim Samhain to be a pagan god, but pagan cultists say this is incorrect--
Samhain is a demon summoned by a warlock long ago.)
(See Nathan R. Brown, The Mythology of Supernatural, published Penguin, 2011,
ISBN: 9780425241370)

First of all, I can’t even figure out which part of the above statement the author is claiming to be citing from my book. The Mythology of Supernatural certainly does have a section on Samhain. However, aside from speaking about the CHARACTER ON the SHOW, the book does NOT claim Samhain is a “pagan god”… nor does it claim that Samhain is a “demon summoned by a warlock long ago.” However, the way the author presents the citation, it almost seems as if he is claiming my book supports his statement. I can assure you, it does NOT.

In fact, my book does the exact OPPOSITE. My section on Samhain in The Mythology of Supernatural explains how the word refers to the “end of summer,” and that early incorrect documentation of certain seasonal festivals led to the mistaken belief that Samhain was a god that was being worshipped at these events.

And where in the farfegnugen is he getting this craziness about Samhain being a “demon summoned by a warlock long ago”? It certainly did not come from my book.

Soooo…what could possibly be his source of info for making the claim that a “warlock long ago” summoned a demon named Samhain? Did he get that from The Lord of the Rings?

Better yet, what exactly does he mean by “long ago”? That could be ANY length of time, dpeending on how you look at it. I consider five years to be "long ago." So...what was it? 10 years ago? 100 years? A millennium? Come on, man, at least be specific with your crazy.

The only semi-reasonable conclusion I have been able to take away from this odd citation is that the author believes me to be a “pagan cultist.” I find this both interesting, odd, and (perhaps most importantly) incorrect ... since I do NOT subscribe to any organized religion, "pagan" or otherwise.

I DO, however, believe in God.

Yes, despite not having a religion I believe in God … but over a decade ago I chose to just leave organized human religions out of the relationship (a belief system which I have found, strangely enough, seems to make overly religious people even angrier than if I'd told them I was an atheist).

Well ... if choosing my own path to God makes me a “pagan cultist” ... then so be it, chuckles.

Mr. Christopher Johnson (a.k.a. author of the original article), I don’t appreciate you trying to stick my crazy in your crazy. Seriously ... leave my peanut butter out of your chocolate, dude. And, while you're at it, learn to properly quote/paraphrase your source citations if you are going to use them in your articles.

Trust me, sir ... you don’t want to go down this road with me.

UPDATE: I recently tried to take another look at the original article and it would appear that Mr. Johnson, after learning that the cat was out of the bag, decided to completely edit/revise the section I discuss in the above blog post. He removed the citation of my book, and revised the part about Samhain being a "demon." The article now says that the word Samhain, as I have explained, just means "end of summer" (though he cites a completely different source for this info). In addition, he now claims that "neo-pagans" celebrate a "demonic aspect" of Samhain, and offers what he claims to be a flyer from a "Samhain festival" as evidence ... unfortunately, the flyer is actually for an all ages punk show, featuring the band Samhain. I swear ... this guy really needs to learn how to properly conduct his research.

The Mythology of Supernatural: Reader Question Response #3

This week's response comes from an anonymous, would-be reader from a forum post:
"In the Hammer of the Gods episode they joke about Ragnarok, but one of the signs of it is Loki getting out of his prison, and Odin totally thought Gabriel was Loki, so...what's up with that? Did you even cover that in the book."

Simply put ... yes.

As I was writing the book, I quickly relaized that Gabriel was going to have to be covered in two different sections that would have to be located in two separate chapters. I discuss the angelology of Gabriel in the Angels chapter of the book. Then, later, I explain his role as Loki in a chapter that is devoted entirely to pre/non-Judeo-Christian concepts of Apocalypse ... a chapter which also pays very special attention to the characters portrayed in the "Hammer of the Gods" Supernatural episode.

I don't want to go into uber-spoiler detail here by summarizing everything in the book, but I can at least let you know what I do cover in the book when it comes to this subject.

The book goes into detail on the whole Ragnarok thing, and explains the mythology of Loki (as well as a little speculation on how/why the writers may have tried to match him up as Gabriel's alias). It also explains the mythological "who & what" of all the gods that were involved in the "Hammer of the Gods" episode: Odin, Baldur, Mercury, Kali, Baron Samedi, Zao Shen, etc. I also discuss the apocalyptic myth/lore (if present) that is associated with each of these gods.

Well, I think that's about all the detail I can give, without taking stuff right out of the book. And I am pretty sure the publisher would kill me for that, ;-P

Please keep the questions coming, folks. Only a few reader response questions are left in my queue. I will only post these responses for as long as there are questions for me to answer.

All my best!

Nathan

The Mythology of Supernatural: Reader Question Response #2

Okay folks,

So the reader response for this week does not come from any one particular person or reader, because several people have asked the same general thing in a variety of different ways. More or less, their questions came down to the length of the book.

Some people have asked (or complained) about the book being "too short."

Some people have asked (or complained) about the book being "a bit long."

And still other people have asked about the method(s) I used to make the length of the book "just right."

I swear ... I feel like I'm in some weird writer's version of 'Goldilocks and the Three Bears'.

Anyway ... instead of answering any specific one of the above three questions, I figured I should just explain how I went about deciding the length of the book in general.

First of all, obviously there are certain constraints set down by the publisher as to how long a book should be. They don't want it to be too short/brief ... but they don't want it to feel as though it drags on needlessly. I more or less hit right in the middle of the set word count/page range given to me by the publisher.

I realize that some people want a book like this to go into uber-serious detail, while others just want the basics. I can tell you that I went into this project knowing that I was not going to be able to please either group. If I got too wordy or unnecessarily detailed, hitting the max allowed word/page count, then I felt as though I was going to lose a good chunk of my mainstream readers. If I made it too brief/short, at the lower end of the minimum word/page count, then I knew that people were going to feel (for lack of a better description) "ripped off."

So ... what was my genius strategy for hitting the middle ground? Simple, I would first write a section/chapter ... then come back and read it a few days later (as well as let some colleagues and my editor read it). If I (or a rough majority of my test readers) got bored before reaching the end of a particular section/chapter, I did not go any further with it. If, however, I (or, again, any of my test readers) reached the end of a chapter or section with that sensation of "Aw, man ... is it over, already?" ... then I would continue researching and writing until that feeling went away.

Okay ... so this is not exactly "genius" ... but it was the best method I could think up. To be honest, I think that sometimes people put too much emphasis on length. For example, I'd rather learn everything I want/need to know from 100 well written pages than to be bored to tears by covering the same amount of information in 300 unecessarily wordy/detailed pages. And, in my experience, I have found that most readers feel the same way.

And besides ... I know very well, as most writers do (or, at least, should) that no book I ever write or publish is going to please everyone. In the words of Chuck Shurley (which, by the way, are also quoted in the book):
"You try to tie up every loose end, but you never can. The fans are always gonna bitch. There are always gonna be holes."

And you know what? I am cool with that. It's just part of the job.

So, long story short ... if you felt that The Mythology of Supernatural was too short, I am sorry for that ... if you felt that The Mythology of Supernatural was too long, I am sorry for that ... if you felt that it was just right ... um ... thanks?

Okay, now that I am back from the trip I will continue posting one response a week for as long as I keep receiving questions.

FYI - I got the intial sales numbers from the publisher today. They were VERY good. As always, my most sincere thanks to everyone in the Supernatural fandom-family for all the support!

The Mythology of Supernatural: Reader Question Response #1

My first reader question comes from Scott (no last name given), and he asks:
"In Season 3, episode 12, Jus In Bello, Sam and Dean reveal tattoos on the left side of their chests as a way of protection from being possessed. Did you decide to research the symbol? Can you give any information about it?"


Yes, Scott. I did research the origins of this symbol. Due to certain writing constraints regarding the use of images, however, it was not included in the book. However, I am more than happy to share that research here on the blog.

I looked for weeks before I found this (which, for me, is a really long time to look for something) in an excellent reference source, The Dictonary of Symbols by Carl G. Liungman (I've had this on my shelves for years, and it comes in handy far more often than one might expect).

The book offers a very similar (though, admittedly, not identical) symbol to the protection tattoo Sam and Dean have. Here is an image of that symbol:

This emblem is commonly found on clothing in regions of Ghana, and is meant to symbolize the Eastern Star (represented by the 5-pointed star), planet Venus (symbolized by the circle within the star), and the solar cycle/beginning of a new day (symbolized by the sun that surrounds the star, which is meant to represent rotation).

Linguistically, the symbol is supposed to mean Sesa woruban, which generally translates as "Change in life" or, more personally, "I change/transform my own life."

Now, please understand that there is no way to prove that the creators of Supernatural had this symbol in mind when they created the design of the protective tattoo used on the show. And I want to make it clear that I am making no such claim here. This is simply the most similar symbol that I was able to track down in my research.

Well, that's one response down. I will continue to do these once a week until I run out of questions. So, if you have a question related to The Mythology of Supernatural, send it to me in the comments here on the blog.

I'll also accept questions on the discussion board of my Amazon page: http://www.amazon.com/Nathan-Robert-Brown/e/B002OIHVIK/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0

Lastly, feel free to Tweet questions to me on my Twitter account: NatRBrown

Thanks for the question, Scott.

And thanks to all the Supernatural fans and readers who have helped to make The Mythology of Supernatural a success.

All my best,
Nathan