Identify the quote time

My guess is the same as Eric’s. First, because the meaning (not the wording) reminds me of Sam Gamgee wondering in which story he and Frodo might be in. Second, because we all know you are a big and knowledgeable fan of Tolkien

Wait, nevermind, Albus Dumbledore. LOL

I knew it wasn’t Tolkien or Lewis. Too post-modern, if I correctly understand that term to mean self-aware. Plus, Tolkien and Lewis believe in heroes who believe in themselves. None of this reflecting upon the myth, or being uncoupled from your pretentions stuff. And certainly no reflections upon greatness: Tolkien’s and Lewis’ characters don’t think about being great. They are great.

But beyond that, not a clue.

Oscar Wilde? Dr. Who? Homer Simpson?

My other guess is Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

Robert Heinlein; The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?

SPT nailed it.

Well done.

What do you think of the quote, some truth there?

Like Red, I’m not totally sure what to think of this removed from its moorings within the larger work. But, I’ll play the game.

I completely agree that there is some problem in the word choice, and I would point to his use of “sardonic”. I can follow Herbert’s general line of thought right up to that point. Then, how you define “sardonic” changes the entire nature of what he’s describing.

I know nothing of Dune, but here’s my stab…

His suggestions about the relationship between “greatness” and the “myth-making imagination” really strikes home for me. As I read it in this quote, it’s a particularly postmodern thought. Whatever “greatness” may be in essence, however you might describe its form, it is still a perception acted upon by removing it from the imagination and projecting it into the real world upon a real person. To those watching that person, the “great person” takes on qualities that are hard to define, almost ethereal in some sense. Think of major world figures who are lionized as great historical figures, especially within the very recent past (100 years or so). Their descriptions within the public imagination, both when they were alive and now that they may be gone, often work to perfect the person into a symbol that dismisses or covers over human foibles.

A truly “great” person can thrive within this context, but only if they recognize it for what it is. A person that has a “feeling for the myth” and can “reflect what is projected upon him” seems to me a person who may not only be a “worthy” person by nature, but also someone who consciously understands how to demonstrate his worthiness within the frame of how others see him. He can use others’ perceptions and descriptions to his advantage.

Again, I haven’t read Dune, but it would appear to me, in this context, that Herbert doesn’t see “greatness” as necessarily coupled with “goodness.” It’s not so much a description of a person’s type, but of a person’s place. Thus, the need for the “sardonic.” Strictly speaking, that word points to an attitude of cynical rejection. Although it’s not clear in the quote, I would venture to guess (and no more) that Herbert is describing a person who is both aware of his/herself, how and why others perceive him/her the way they do, and has a healthy dose of skepticism about the reality of the myth. That person may fully accept the myth’s utility, but step away from it before it’s cracked and shattered.

Actually, of all the examples I can think of common to our bit of cyberspace, this would seem a fairly accurate description of Dumbledore. And, I think it’s one reason why some people feel the need to debate the ethics of some of Dumbledore’s choices and actions.

OK, I can work with Dave’s translation.

One of the points confusing me is the definition of “greatness”. Is Herbert (or whoever his mouthpiece in the book is) speaking of a true instance of superiority or nobility? Or is he talking about the perception of that, which then becomes part of a myth?

Because if he’s talking about the myth, then the statement has nothing to do with what a person actually does, and everything to do with how his actions are perceived, and how they fit into the myth. In which case the subject matter is “myth making”; we’re not talking of noble deeds or actions, but of reputation or image, and how they fit into a common narrative, i.e. the “myth”. And their effect on the person who is the screen upon which the myth is projected. The statement is not about heroes, but about perceptions.

But if he is talking about some “real” (and I cringe when I use that word) act of heroism, courage and nobility, and saying that how that is perceived, i.e. the construction people put on it, i.e. the myth, then he’s saying that that public perception becomes some kind of risk for him, to the extent of “destroying” him (another unclear use of an important term). And that the only way such a man can escape that risk is by being sardonic, or more comprehensibly, skeptical of the myth, or, as Dave said, rejecting the myth. But again, the brunt of the argument is not about heroism, but the corroding effect of believing too much in the stories men build around heroes and heroic acts.

Which reminds me of the film clip (I have no idea anymore about what is text and what is film), where Hermione tells Harry that a girl only fancies him because she thinks he’s the chosen one. And he replies, smirking:

“But I am the Chosen One”.

Wherupon she smacks him.

Closer to reality, I look at great hockey players, and the hype that’s built around them, their “legend” or “myth” as Herbert would say. And how they actively try to discount that at every interview, trying to stay grounded, stay real, stay humble. It’s hard work.

But before I go, I just wanted to express my appreciation of an earlier comment by Travis. I agree that Sam, of all of Tolkien’s characters, seems the most aware – and appreciative – of the fact that he is part of a story, even a legend. He even gives the story a name.

I’ll modify my original premise to say that by and large Tolkien’s characters are not self-reflective; the elves, dwarves and heroic men don’t reflect upon their story; they are one with the story. But there are exceptions. The humble hobbit, Sam, is more of a postmodernist. And I think Galadriel’s semi-bitter statement, when she rejects the ring of power: “I will stay Galadriel and diminish into the West” (or words like that), suggests awareness of different possible Galadriel narratives, which suggests the beginning of self-reflection.

Thanks LL, as I said, I can no longer distinguish text from script.

And of course, it is a bit too postmodern for the books.

But why did you hate The English Patient?

All I remember from the book is the name Bene Geserit (I think) which I think was the name of some cult or religious order or other. Made me think of the Jesuits. Also there was some mind altering chemical everyone wanted. And a lot of politics and a lot of talking.

I’m tempted to go back and try again, based on your comments, Korg. But one thing I’d like to know before: are there heroes, in the manner of Tolkien, and Lewis and yes, Rowling? Or to go back to your original quote: is there greatness, or just convenient myths of greatness constructed around flawed men?

Red Rocker, we rented The English Patient when my parents were visiting about a decade ago, so my memory is a little hazy, although I remember it a lot better than Dune. We rented it on the strength of it having won so many Academy Awards. The whole plot drove me bonkers and it was long and I totally didn’t care about the characters and their choices by the end of it (actually I think I hated the English patient; I’m forgetting exactly what the plot twist was). I have this vague idea that what he did was supposed to have been noble or something but I didn’t think it was. I just remember wishing I could have those three hours of my life back and vowing never again to watch a movie just because it won Academy Awards. I have to confess I generally prefer James Bond/Die Hard/Jason Bourne/Jackie Chan-type action movies! My husband’s the one who likes the chick flicks. And of course we see an astonishing number of “kid” movies, some of which are pretty good. Some not so much.

Here is a quotation from Frank Herbert that sheds some light on the subject:

I had this theory that superheroes were disastrous for humans, that even if you postulated an infallible hero, the things this hero set in motion fell eventually into the hands of fallible mortals. What better way to destroy a civilization, society or a race than to set people into the wild oscillations which follow their turning over their judgment and decision-making faculties to a superhero?

In many ways, Paul was a conventional hero, but the effects of his career were very destructive (and Paul himself recognizes it, and is mostly helpless to stop it). Tim O’Reilly has a discussion of Dune’s “heroes” at http://tim.oreilly.com/herbert/ch04.html (but most of the directly relevant stuff is at the bottom; search the page for “MeNelly has noted”).
Oh, I’d better say I agree that Dune is one of the all-time great SF/fantasy novels, and that I hated the movie version!