"I strove with none; for none was worth my strife, / Nature I loved, and next to Nature, Art; / I warmed both hands before the fire of life, / It sinks, and I am ready to depart." - Walter Savage Landor
This is a response to Zephillite's so-called manifesto on how we ought to change our mindset. If you want to read Zephillite's manifesto, it is a blog post on the Myth Community Wiki: https://mythcommunity.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000000048087
Like Zephillite, I had the fortune (or misfortune, depending on how you look at it) of being with the myth community for a while. I've been in and out of the community since around 2017 or 2018. I can't say I have the same experiences as Zephillite, but I can say that I've seen a few cultural shifts in the myth community. Hopefully, then, I can be on speaking terms with Zephillite; who must have been through some shifts in the community, too.
Zephillite's essay expresses a desire to bring about an artistic revolution within the myth community. Curiously, such aesthetic revolutions have been attempted and, at least in the eyes of mainstream myth history, have failed (here, I am thinking of D3tectiveBailey's short-lived art-style magazine Blue Sky Down); but this does not necessarily mean that Zephillite's efforts are in vain. Rather, it suggests that an artistic revolution is not so simple.
I think we can draw 2 major claims from Zephillite's essay here. Firstly, they claim that myths "have always kind've sucked" in the sense that many mainstream myths - Kazdam's myths, Guest 666, and D3F4LT in particular - are not actually "artistically great." Secondly, they argue that myths should appeal "to the abstract, the surreal, the vague. Make something poetic, atmospheric, beautiful. Make art for god’s sake." But of course, we should try and hone in by what exactly is meant. Zephillite points us to Lezus as an example of a great myth and says, "Can we have more of this? The abstract, the experimental. You don't even have to tell a story, appeal to an emotion and you have something wonderful." Compare this with how Zephillite discusses the Kazdam's Shadelight myth: "I'm not captivated by a myth that's so rigid and lacking in room for interpretation and investigation that it's like watching a Marvel movie."
So, it would seem that for Zephillite, a truly artistic myth - a truly great myth - is one which is emotionally and intellectually engaging. The emotional engagement part is obvious; the intellectual engagement part is more subtle and is captured by Zephillite's criticism of Shadelight. When a myth is "so rigid and lacking in room for interpretation and investigation", there is little interest or captivation for Zephillite. In a sense, then, Zephillite likes myths which make people think. No wonder they enjoy the abstract and experimental myths, the ones which make us question what the deeper meaning of the myth is.
I would generally agree with Zephillite's claims as laid out above, although I'm more apathetic when it comes to establishing what "great art" looks like. When I speak about my artistic preferences, I don't presume that they are the preferences that everyone should have. I think "great art" is largely a matter of taste, in that sense. And I would say that my tastes are similar to Zephillite's. We both enjoy emotionally and intellectually engaging myths. We both want to see more creativity out of the myth community.
But I think we have some serious differences. Among these, I would be cautious about Zephillite's rejection of "the popular-but-bad myths", those myths like Shadelight which have shaped a large part of the myth community; these myths are, in a way, "traditional" to the community. There are many myth hunters (especially younger ones) who think that these myths are great - or at least, younger myth hunters compare those myths with other myths that they meet. And I don't think we should underestimate the power of this comparison. We recognize a myth as engaging when it catches us off-guard - when it's not the usual. But this means that we need to have some understanding of the usual in order to know the unusual, the great, the innovative. So, I don't think we should dismiss Shadelight, Guest 666, and other "traditional myths" in the way that Zephillite seems to treat them. After all, the traditional myths give us a baseline for what a myth could be and what an innovative myth looks like. In other words: tradition helps us give prestige to myths who are doing something new and great.
My thoughts differ from Zephillite's in another way: the idea that one does not need a story to create a great myth. In a way, I think this is technically true. You can create a myth without a proper story and you can still make it engaging. But what does that myth look like in practice? How are we made to feel a certain way?
We have to rely on some narrative elements; we have to rely on objects which have meaning for us. For example, if you wanted to create a myth which felt warm and snuggly, then you might put some hot chocolate and teddy bears in the myth's game. The myth might not have a typical narrative, but you'd still need objects with meaning - a kind of narrative element - to communicate a feeling. And these objects often get their meaning from our traditions. Why is hot chocolate related to feeling warm and cuddled-up in bed? Not only does it literally warm us up, but importantly, it can remind us of times where we tried to warm up with hot chocolate in bed. These repetitive things become "traditions" in a way, and those traditions give objects certain meanings. Basically, I agree with Zephillite on the surface level, but I don't think that Zephillite goes far enough to describe how a more abstract myth could evoke emotions other than confusion.
Lastly - and most interestingly, in my view - we should consider how Zephillite is captivated by games which have a lot of room for interpretation. In the essay, it's not exactly clear how Zephillite defines "room for interpretation". For example, they claim that Shadelight has little room for interpretation, but we can come up with theory after theory about why Chuck_Lloyd is always telling us to have manners. It seems that for Zephillite, "room for interpretation" actually means "room for a plausible interpretation." Again, in the example of Shadelight, there would be little "room for plausible interpretation" because it doesn't seem plausible for me to theorize that "Chuck tells us to have manners because Chuck was visited by cavemen with laser guns." But in a more abstract game, we would have more "room for plausible interpretation" because the story isn't exactly set in stone. We have more "freedom" to theorize different things.
But I don't think that "room for plausible interpretation" is the way that someone can get intellectually engaged with a myth. There are many ways to have intellectual engagement beyond the merely asking yourself, "What's a plausible interpretation of this myth?" You can also ask yourself, "How does this myth relate to me?" and have an enjoyable, intellectual engagement with the myth.
Time and time again, I look back to D3tectiveBailey in my own works. And this is because Bailey's work has had a pretty deep effect on me, compared to other myths that I've investigated. And Bailey is well-known enough that when I need to provide evidence of something engaging yet unorthodox (relative to the tradition of what a "typical Roblox myth" is), Bailey's myth provides that evidence. So, here I go again, but this time, I want to shine light on a fantastic video essay by Ray AKA 1000dumplings. This video essay was about Bailey's myth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJNLee5zEmE
Ray says that Bailey's myth made her cry, but when one considers Zephillite's criteria for an engaging myth, one might be confused. The abstract, surreal elements of Bailey's game are, in my view, largely secondary to the very obviously-revealed relationship between the characters of Tristy and Rynn. And yes, there is a wide range of interpretation that can be done with the abstract elements in Bailey's game; but when it comes to Tristy and Rynn, the range of interpretations becomes more narrow. Obviously, they have feelings for each other. Obviously, Tristy struggles with mental health. Obviously, someone wants to write a "new reality" for themselves.
But in the narrow range of interpretation, we can still have genuinely intellectual engagement on two levels. Firstly, we might ask ourselves, "How can I relate to the myth?" Through the intellectual creation of the video essay, In the conclusion of her video essay, Ray argues that she adores Bailey's games because they stand out as unique works of art in contrast to the "soulless clickbait" that you find on Roblox's front page. But in making this argument, Ray is basically relating to the myth. She's looking at the myth and then at the world around her, seeing how it all fits in. And her conclusion is that Bailey's games stand out among other games she's seen because Bailey's games are emotionally authentic. This kind of intellectual engagement is the "first level" I'm talking about.
The "second level" of intellectual engagement involves asking ourselves, "How can I relate to other people's views of the myth?" This is a kind of reflection which is "one step removed" from the myth, as we're no longer only interested in the myth; we're also interested in what others have to say about the myth. I think this kind of engagement is the basis of the myth community because myth hunters often theorize in groups; in groups, we hope to have more productive discussions about myths. And so, talking about this "second level of engagement" isn't a big leap forward. Rather, by talking about this, we're coming to a better understanding of what we do.
Here, I see a way that I can intellectually engage Ray. For one, I disagree with Ray's theory, which says that Tristy never really died and was just creating fanfictions ("new realities" of him and Rynn) for himself to enjoy. My point of disagreement is a whole other beast (and I've written about my own theory before, so I won't go into it here). But what I find especially touching about Ray's essay is in its aesthetics, especially the credits scene. Ray had a voice actor act out a hypothetical ending to Bailey's game, where Rynn visits Tristy. Tristy offers to show his collection of fanfiction writings to Rynn, and here, I feel like I could resonate with Ray's theory that Tristy became the "new author" making a "new reality" in the form of fanfiction. In Ray's credits scene, Tristy is at least somewhat proud of his fanfictions; otherwise, he wouldn't have offered to show them to Rynn.
And I empathized with the way that Tristy might have felt in those moments. What did it mean for Tristy to expose his romance fanfictions to Rynn, the one whom he loves? What did it mean to expose himself, his feelings, and his hopes for the future? Wasn't that so... vulnerable? And yet, wasn't that some way for Tristy to show affection?
Through that scene, I saw that a writer, thinker, or artist has to be vulnerable to touch people. What does it really mean to reach out to someone else through art or writing? What does it mean to give someone a message? Should the message really be delivered in a cold, distant way? Or is it best delivered in a way that, through vulnerability, expresses human emotion and hopes? I think the latter option is far more effective.
By engaging with Ray's essay in relation to myself, I've been able to think about new things. I've been able to get a deeper appreciation for Ray's theorizing and for the complexity of Bailey's games. In short, I've been able to have fun without having to worry about the "room for plausible interpretation" that Zephillite is worried about. And I think that Ray and I's engagement is proof that Bailey is still an artistic myth, in spite of Bailey's narrow "room for interpretation." So, I hope that this represents a reasonable critique against Zephillite's focus on "a myth's ability to be interpreted". In fact, I think that my critique itself has provided more evidence for the importance of tradition. By doing intellectual engagement on the second level, we're engaging with the tradition of myth hunters who have given their own opinions on myths. And by engaging with that tradition, we realize that a myth can be hard to solve but also beautiful. We can give the myth the prestige it deserves. I am hoping it's now clear that tradition and prestige are connected; their dynamics allow us to promote innovative myths and usher in an "artistic revolution" for the myth community.
But despite all my critiques, any piece of writing which makes you think is a useful piece of writing. I think Zephillite has made an extremely important step in getting us to think more about art in the myth community. Zephillite's piece is thought-provoking, personal, and challenging; and in those qualities, Zephillite's work becomes the foundation for a new way of theorizing, a new way of thinking about myths.