Prologue: Defining Myth: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Storytelling and Myth

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. For discussions of definition, see Lauri Honko, “The Problem of Defining Myth”; G. S. Kirk, “On Defining Myths”; and J. W. Rogerson, “Slippery Words: Myth.” All three essays are reprinted in Alan Dundes, Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth.

2. Mary Strine, Beverly Whitaker Long, and Mary Frances HopKins make this statement regarding performance [“Research in Interpretation and Performance Studies: Trends, Issues, Priorities.” Speech Communication: Essays to Commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the Speech Communication Association. Ed. Gerald M. Phillips and Julia T. Wood. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1990.181–204. Print]. They build upon W. B. Gallie's Philosophy and the Historical Understanding, in which he argues that major concepts (such as democracy and art) are necessarily bound up in disagreements of their very essences. I am arguing here that myth, too, is an essentially contested term. I agree with Strine, Long, and HopKins that such disagreement over definition is both “inevitable and healthy” (183).