Talk:The Golden Bough
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.
|
||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.
This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
I believe the 1900 date is incorrect. The first appears to be:
Frazer, J.G. The Golden Bough : a Study in Comparitive Religion in Two Volumes Macmillan, 1890
Okay, seriously, is the reference to a video game necessary or relevent here? You'll have to provide a lot more works in which the work in question is referenced (I've no doubt there are many) before you can start pointing to kid's games, if you want this entry to be taken seriously.
How are video games less of a legitimate media than the other sources listed? I think that you're being unfairly biased. That the Golden Bough would be referenced in such an outlet shows how far its influence has really reached.
I dont think it's too bad, as a ahort abstract. As for popular culture, The Golden Bough also makes an appearance in "Apocalypse Now" where the book is seen, open, on the night table of Colonel Kurtz, played by Marlon Brando.
The passage "He is uninterested in understanding the religious practices of 'savages' from their own point of view" is demonstrably false and amounts to a calumny against Fraser. He analyzes every such belief and ritual from first principles as he perceived them to be, and over and over explains one or another belief or practice by explaining what he believed to be the underlying assumptions held by those who held these beliefs. The political incorrectness of his conclusions has no bearing on their factual accuracy.
The fact that he found it to be all of a piece, and all equivalently a crock of dingos' kidneys, from Etruscan rituals of human sacrifice to the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus (which latter topic brought him death threats for the rest of his life), and was willing to say so publicly, strikes me as evidence of tremendous intellectual courage on his part.
Whoever wrote the article seems to have gone out of his way to paint Fraser as some sort of smug and smirking apologist for Victorian modernity, but I think there was rather more to him. And I would also say, flatly, that if the wealthy cultures of the West, enriched by science and rationality, view more primitive and ignorant cultures with a certain pity, this is entirely reasonable, politically correct or no. And if such forthrightness is not is not fashionable among today's (almost entirely Marxist/PoMo and completely politicized) cultural anthropologists, that does not mean that it must ipso facto be wrong.
Contents |
[edit] Star Wars
I just read that, "Star Wars was a true reflection of who George was at that time...he had two books on his desk: A collection of "Flash Gordon" comic strips, and "The Golden Bough." And that's where Star Wars came from, those two sources."
Source: http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/05/23/the_secrets_of_star_wars/page6.html
Is this enough to warrant adding something about Star Wars? I haven't heard of this book before, until just now from reading that Star Wars article. Modul8r 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A claim
He is uninterested in understanding the religious practices of "savages" from their own point of view, but rather concerns himself with simply describing (through the eyes of a Western European) their practices.
No analysis of folklore practices can be made without trying to understand "their point of view". So he does analyze that point of view, and he sees it as the result of primitive forms of thinking, and/or regards the practice as a re-analyzed motive whose original meaning the natives themselves don't understand any longer. He does that within the framework of his own, somewhat weird, theory. But it's clearly wrong to say that he just looks at it "through the eyes of a Western European", because that would mean he has no theory at all. --91.148.159.4 19:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
--I altered this paragraph and took out the offending sentence, as it's clearly just that pomo perspective, articulated in an ironically "essentialist" voice, bereft of concrete examples. The Frazier-critique here looks like boilerplate from a Stalinist pamphlet. Frazier, as far as this reader can tell, is precisely interested in their practices from their own point of view. To be honest my inclination is to say some instances of pomo whooping should be treated precisely like the harrangue of a vociferous scientologist. Their influence has waned, no?
[edit] "Reception" and "popular culture"
I suggest that these two sections be combined into one new section to be entitled "Literary impact." This would require a good deal of work, including adding references (of which there are currently none), removing a lot of junk (many of the items in "popular culture" amount to little more than passing references to the book), and basically making it more readable. Anyone have any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it really referenced in The Mangler as a demonology text? It's been a while since I've read that story (although certainly parts are still etched in my brain) but it seems like The Golden Bough would be relevant in the section where they're trying to identify the possessing demon. Isn't it just one of a list of books that they're using to do the analysis? If so, and if it doesn't specifically say "it's about demonology" then the implication is that its relevant to the analysis because it's a discussion of magic (which it is) rather than a demonology text (which it isn't). And I can't believe I've done a paragraph to complain about one line, here. If I had a copy of Night Shift around, I'd just check it and update the entry...Patrickbowman (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Force fire"
The "see also" section contains a link to an article on the old Scottish custom of force fire. While interesting, neither article explains any connection. I'm reluctant to excise it as I haven't read the GB, but suggest that someone add an explanation in the text. Scottwh (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
