Word for the set of mythol. beings (Santa,E.Bunny,etc.)?
Colette Marine
A coworker and I were sitting around today talking about the lack
of a word in English for the set of beings containing Santa Claus,
the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin (ha! a
fictional myth.. the mind reels). There seems to be no such word.
Yet, since we were children, we've intuitively grouped them together
as a set. The very creation of Charles Schulz's Great Pumpkin
proves the existence of such a recognizable set. But what are they
*called*?
My coworker initially proposed that they are superheroes of a sort.
While they do possess supernatural powers, I didn't feel any
intuitive link between these beings and "superheroes". We agreed,
and determined that the fundamental difference between the two
sets was a lack of conflict. Superheroes derive there meaning from
their conflict with their nemesis.
We can't simply refer to them as mythological beings. That would
include such things as unicorns, for example, which clearly are not
part of this smaller set.
We can't call them mythological holiday beings. Losing a tooth is
hardly a holiday. And, such a name doesn't really get at the
essence of the similarities between these beings.
We see the essential similarities as follows: They are supernatural
beings who bring/give gifts in the process of serving as symbols of
important times or events (which makes one wonder why there's no
Birthday Fairy).
In any case, if there is a name for this intuitive set of beings
in English, we haven't found it. If it is, in fact, the case that
such a name doesn't exist, what shall we call them? Any ideas?
Also, are there names for this intuitive set in other languages?
(I have to think that, although the individual beings will vary from
culture to culture, the set itself exists, and is intuitively recognized
as such, universally.)
colette
(Anybody wanna make up a Thanksgiving being?)
--
Colette D. Marine |c...@nwu.edu
Inst.for the Learning Sciences|or
Northwestern University |mar...@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------
It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it
R S Rodgers
Colette Marine <col...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>A coworker and I were sitting around today talking about the lack
>of a word in English for the set of beings containing Santa Claus,
>the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin (ha! a
>fictional myth.. the mind reels). There seems to be no such word.
Fantasies? (And, to those not twisted by regimented RPG
descriptions, I've heard Santa called an Elf, the Tooth Fairy
called, well, a fairy, but not the GP.)
>The very creation of Charles Schulz's Great Pumpkin
>proves the existence of such a recognizable set.
No, it doesn't. Most people would respond with "magical
creatures associated with holidays, along with other myths."
There are plenty of holiday-centered myths, and these creatures
simply are a part of it. The set formed by the Easter Bunny and
Santa Claws (he wears a red suit, has elves--sure--that work
for free, offers goodies..) and the Great Pumpkin is either
"Holiday apparitions" or "magical creatures" -- and that's more
than sufficient. We don't need (or even desire) a single word
for every concept under the sun.
> But what are they
>*called*?
Boogiemen? Bajooms [boogums and boorums?]?
--
The big mistake that men make is that when they turn thirteen or fourteen and
all of a sudden they've reached puberty, they believe that they like women.
Actually, you're just horny. It doesn't mean you like women any more at
twenty-one than you did at ten. --Jules Feiffer (cartoonist)
A.C. Brown
Teddy (that's me)
| "But we'll never survive!" |
| "Nonsense, you're only saying that because no-one ever has." |
Buttercup and Westley, from The Princess Bride
Loren Miller
>A coworker and I were sitting around today talking about the lack
>of a word in English for the set of beings containing Santa Claus,
>the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin (ha! a
>fictional myth.. the mind reels).
The wee folk, fairies, angels, spirits, genius loci, genius tempi, spirits
of the season?
>We can't simply refer to them as mythological beings. That would
>include such things as unicorns, for example, which clearly are not
>part of this smaller set.
Why not call them mythological beings? It fits. People believe or believed
in all of them, even the Great Pumpkin, at some time. If people believe in
them then they are real and can safely be called mythical or mythological
beings.
Anyway, they're fairies or elementals.
>We see the essential similarities as follows: They are supernatural
>beings who bring/give gifts in the process of serving as symbols of
>important times or events (which makes one wonder why there's no
>Birthday Fairy).
Personal birthdays weren't celebrated in western society until the middle of
the 19th century by which time the functions of the fairies had been counted
and recorded. There were plenty of fairies that gave nice gifts to certain
newborn infants, but that only happens once, not yearly.
Tooth loss is a traumatic occasion for most adults. It's also a natural
occasion for a childhood rite of passage. The winter equinox and saturnalia
(sounds like what?) and new years festival, and the spring equinox and its
fertility nymphs (rabbits, egg-laying birds, etc), are all likely times for
festivals and societal rites to mark the passing of time and the sacred year.
>In any case, if there is a name for this intuitive set of beings
>in English, we haven't found it. If it is, in fact, the case that
>such a name doesn't exist, what shall we call them? Any ideas?
They're fairies or elemental spirits of some kind. That's the closest we
have in english to the generic name. Some of them are kind and have gifts
for people, others are nasty and hurt people.
Maybe you're actually searching for the Seelie Court?
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller LO...@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu
Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when
Zen, philosopher at large
R S Rodgers <rsro...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>In article <colette....@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
>Colette Marine <col...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>>A coworker and I were sitting around today talking about the lack
>>of a word in English for the set of beings containing Santa Claus,
>>the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin (ha! a
>>fictional myth.. the mind reels). There seems to be no such word.
> Fantasies? (And, to those not twisted by regimented RPG
> descriptions, I've heard Santa called an Elf, the Tooth Fairy
> called, well, a fairy, but not the GP.)
How about 'excuse creatures'? These beings all fill the sociological need
for parents to express love to their children in an indirect way while
simultaneously stimulating their imaginations. Santa, The Easter
Bunny, and The Tooth Fairy are all concepts, embodiments of ethical mores
we want to instill in children (sharing, giving, etc.). Maybe we
could call them "culture tools"?
Zen, philosopher-at-large
--
"Mee me meep mee meep me..."
"If you do not wish death, then how about this rubber chicken?"
_Silent Strawberries_
Randolph B. Guess
this idea? On his show, for any holiday, however
minor, there is a magical being, with its own traditional
songs. Such as the Labor Day Giant, who only likes
children having red hair. Watch for it on the next
minor holiday.
-Randy
Roger Greenwald
"We see the essential similarities as follows: They are supernatural
"beings who bring/give gifts in the process of serving as symbols of
"important times or events (which makes one wonder why there's no
"Birthday Fairy).
There _is_ a birthday fairy that belongs to this set, but perhaps
it should be called a birth-day fairy, since it visits only once,
on the original day of birth: The Stork.
James Wallis
> of a word in English for the set of beings containing Santa Claus,
> the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin (ha! a
> fictional myth.. the mind reels). There seems to be no such word.
> Yet, since we were children, we've intuitively grouped them together
> as a set. The very creation of Charles Schulz's Great Pumpkin
> proves the existence of such a recognizable set. But what are they
> *called*?
"Childhood icons"?
--
James Wallis
(ja...@wonder.demon.co.uk++++Writer/Editor++++The Wonderful Pig of Knowledge)
sez: There is good sex and there is bad sex but chocolate is always chocolate
Stephen Posey
A big one whom everybody seems to be missing, and who's a regular visitor is
the Sandman, who comes to put children (etc. ;-)) to sleep EVERY night. I
like the term in an earlier post of "genius tempi" (spirit of the time? not
the same as zeitgeist of course).
My contention is that these are sort of "anti-boogymen", meant to comfort
rather than to scare (though perhaps retaining some of the fear of the strange
and unknown they aren't outright MEANT to be scary). I'd be curious to see
how the historical beginnings of this kind of cultural artifact relates to the
shift in the cultural attitudes towards children (recall the changes that have
occurred in the character of Ol' St. Nick over the course of history). Any
ideas?
-* Stephen *-
Stephen Posey
S...@uno.edu
University of New Orleans
Marie Coffin
|>
|> A coworker and I were sitting around today talking about the lack
|> of a word in English for the set of beings containing Santa Claus,
|> the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin (ha! a
|> fictional myth.. the mind reels). There seems to be no such word.
|> Yet, since we were children, we've intuitively grouped them together
|> as a set. The very creation of Charles Schulz's Great Pumpkin
|> proves the existence of such a recognizable set. But what are they
|> *called*?
Parents. :)
Marie Coffin
Craig Sanders
>In article <colette....@news.acns.nwu.edu> col...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Colette Marine) writes:
>>A coworker and I were sitting around today talking about the lack of
>>a word in English for the set of beings containing Santa Claus, the
>>Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin (ha! a fictional
>>myth.. the mind reels).
[...deleted...]
>>We can't simply refer to them as mythological beings. That would
>>include such things as unicorns, for example, which clearly are not
>>part of this smaller set.
>Why not call them mythological beings? It fits. People believe or
>believed in all of them, even the Great Pumpkin, at some time. If
>people believe in them then they are real and can safely be called
>mythical or mythological beings.
why not call them "mythological beings which have been appropriated by
marketing droids and other consumerland forces"
as you say, some/many people did take these beings seriously in the
past. They are in different set (to other myth. beings) because
they have been co-opted for the orgies of consumption which are
blitz-marketed during the appropriate seasons...(if i see another ad
which mentions christmas or uses the word "season" or "jolly" then I'm
going to puke)
how do other people react to the transmutation of Christmas into
Consumermas?
My reaction has been to say "bah! humbug!" and distance myself from
anything to do with christmas. I've never been a christian, anyway - I
was raised basically as an atheist but have evolved into an agnostic
pagan - so I guess that was fairly natural for me.
My "abdication" disturbs me a little, because it is basically accepting
the right of the marketeers to "steal" social/spiritual events for their
own purposes.
hmmm...this question may be interesting to the people in alt.pagan as
well (hi peoples, meet another lurker :-), so I'll crosspost it there.
>Tooth loss is a traumatic occasion for most adults. It's also a natural
>occasion for a childhood rite of passage. The winter equinox and
>saturnalia (sounds like what?) and new years festival, and the spring
>equinox and its fertility nymphs (rabbits, egg-laying birds, etc), are
>all likely times for festivals and societal rites to mark the passing
>of time and the sacred year.
yes, Easter is a fertility festival. which is strange for somebody in
Australia because Easter is at the end of Autumn/start of Winter.
Other oddities here in Oz are celebrating Christmas by stuffing
ourselves full of hot, winter food instead of salads. It is vaguely
amusing in the way that anachronisms are amusing to see someone in a hot
red & white suit sweltering in 40 degree (i think that's 104 Fahrenheit)
heat.
--
Craig Sanders
----------------------THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK----------------------
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen c...@muffin.apana.org.au
Ian Paul Foot
CS> lo...@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu (Loren Miller) writes:
>> In article <colette....@news.acns.nwu.edu>
>> col...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Colette Marine) writes:
>>> A coworker and I were sitting around today talking about the lack
>>> of a word in English for the set of beings containing Santa Claus,
>>> the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin (ha! a
>>> fictional myth.. the mind reels).
CS> [...deleted...]
>>> We can't simply refer to them as mythological beings. That would
>>> include such things as unicorns, for example, which clearly are
>>> not part of this smaller set.
>> Why not call them mythological beings? It fits. People believe or
>> believed in all of them, even the Great Pumpkin, at some time. If
>> people believe in them then they are real and can safely be called
>> mythical or mythological beings.
<SNIP>
CS> hmmm...this question may be interesting to the people in alt.pagan
CS> as well (hi peoples, meet another lurker :-), so I'll crosspost it
CS> there.
<SNIP>
Welcome to alt.pagan, lurker ;-)
What's a "Great Pumpkin"?
Terry Pratchett uses the term "anthropomorphic personifications"
although I believe that this implies human form. Maybe this should
be cross-posted to alt.fan.pratchett where the great man resides.
"Mythological beings" is far to wide a term for my liking. I'm not
sure that I'd want to put the Easter Bunny in the same category as
Gwynn ap Nudd. I can also see how "anthropomorphic personifications"
could apply to Gwynn ap Nudd but not the Easter Bunny.
Also, I'm not at all certain that the Easter Bunny, the Tooth fairy
and the Great Pumpkin (whatever that is) are actually mythological
beings. I would guess that this would depend on your interpretation
of myth.
Ian
---
CLIS library
Another decidely American reference. ;-)
Read the comic strip "Peanuts" around Halloween to find out.
Cathy
Richard M. Alderson III
>We see the essential similarities as follows: They are supernatural beings
>who bring/give gifts in the process of serving as symbols of important times
>or events (which makes one wonder why there's no Birthday Fairy).
I have no suggestions for a name for this set, but I will note that at least
one greeting card company's staff *did* extrapolate a Birthday Fairy. I can't
remember the exact cover text, but it went something like
Each year the Birthday Fairy comes along and touches us with her
magic wand to make us a year older.
(with appropriate cutesy picture). I remember the interior text quite well:
She must have beaten the hell out of you!
De gus, and all that.
--
Rich Alderson You know the sort of thing that you can find in any dictionary
of a strange language, and which so excites the amateur philo-
logists, itching to derive one tongue from another that they
know better: a word that is nearly the same in form and meaning
as the corresponding word in English, or Latin, or Hebrew, or
what not.
--J. R. R. Tolkien,
alde...@netcom.com _The Notion Club Papers_
Richard Lee Winterstein
>
...deletions
>how do other people react to the transmutation of Christmas into
>Consumermas?
With wry detachment? Eons ago people observed the solstice to celebrate
the return of the sun. Nowadays, we celebrate the return of the economy...
Lou Sanchez-Chopitea
>of a word in English for the set of beings containing Santa Claus,
>the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin (ha! a
>fictional myth.. the mind reels). There seems to be no such word.
>Yet, since we were children, we've intuitively grouped them together
>as a set. The very creation of Charles Schulz's Great Pumpkin
>proves the existence of such a recognizable set. But what are they
>*called*?
Parents!!
>
>My coworker initially proposed that they are superheroes of a sort.
>While they do possess supernatural powers, I didn't feel any
>intuitive link between these beings and "superheroes". We agreed,
>and determined that the fundamental difference between the two
>sets was a lack of conflict. Superheroes derive there meaning from
>their conflict with their nemesis.
>
>We can't simply refer to them as mythological beings. That would
>include such things as unicorns, for example, which clearly are not
>part of this smaller set.
>
>We can't call them mythological holiday beings. Losing a tooth is
>hardly a holiday. And, such a name doesn't really get at the
>essence of the similarities between these beings.
>
>We see the essential similarities as follows: They are supernatural
>beings who bring/give gifts in the process of serving as symbols of
>important times or events (which makes one wonder why there's no
>Birthday Fairy).
>
>In any case, if there is a name for this intuitive set of beings
>in English, we haven't found it. If it is, in fact, the case that
>such a name doesn't exist, what shall we call them? Any ideas?
>
>Also, are there names for this intuitive set in other languages?
>
>(I have to think that, although the individual beings will vary from
>culture to culture, the set itself exists, and is intuitively recognized
>as such, universally.)
Also consider the Three Magii in latin cultures.
>
>colette
>(Anybody wanna make up a Thanksgiving being?)
>--
>Colette D. Marine |c...@nwu.edu
>Inst.for the Learning Sciences|or
>Northwestern University |mar...@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it
>
>
Cheers
Lou
--
Lou Sanchez-Chopitea EMail: l...@xilinx.com
Senior Software Engineer SnailMail: 2100 Logic Drive
SpeakMail: (408) 879-5059 San Jose, CA 95124
FaxMail: (408) 559-7114
Chris Lawrence Amshey
rendered the whole mess invisible.]
>What's a "Great Pumpkin"?
The Great Pumpkin is a giant anthropomorphic pumpkin that rises out of
the pumpkin patch on halloween night and brings gifts to all the good
boys & girls all throughout the land. Unfortunately, the only person
who believes in the Great Pumpkin is Linus, a character in Charles
Schulz's "Peanuts" series. Linus has never recieved a gift from the
great pumpkin or seen the great pumpkin, but continues to believe
that he exists...
[more stuff rendered invisible is here, if you look carefully. :) ]
--
--Chris Lawrence Amshey
ams...@twain.ucs.umass.edu, ams...@netsys.com
---------------------------------------------
In Germany they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me- and by that time no one was left to speak up. --Pastor Martin Neinmoeller.
Andrew Lewis
|> We see the essential similarities as follows: They are supernatural
|> beings who bring/give gifts in the process of serving as symbols of
|> important times or events (which makes one wonder why there's no
|> Birthday Fairy).
|>
|> In any case, if there is a name for this intuitive set of beings
|> in English, we haven't found it. If it is, in fact, the case that
|> such a name doesn't exist, what shall we call them? Any ideas?
|>
Mythical beneficent anthropomorphisms? (MBA? Is this more than just
coincidence? :)
Andrew
wit...@infoserv.utdallas.edu
> In article <colette....@news.acns.nwu.edu> col...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Colette Marine) writes:
> >
> >A coworker and I were sitting around today talking about the lack
> >of a word in English for the set of beings containing Santa Claus,
> >the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin (ha! a
> >fictional myth.. the mind reels). There seems to be no such word.
> >Yet, since we were children, we've intuitively grouped them together
> >as a set. The very creation of Charles Schulz's Great Pumpkin
> >proves the existence of such a recognizable set. But what are they
> >*called*?
American Traditional Myths?
naw, they'd be ATM's before long and I don't want to have to try and
explain that one...
Why don't we call them what we call all our fictional/fantasy/myths: a
balanced national budget... ;)
Lindsey Thomas Martin
col...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
>(Colette Marine) writes:
>> >
>> >A coworker and I were sitting around today talking about the lack
>> >of a word in English for the set of beings containing Santa Claus,
>> >the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin (ha! a
>> >fictional myth.. the mind reels). There seems to be no such word.
>> >Yet, since we were children, we've intuitively grouped them together
>> >as a set. The very creation of Charles Schulz's Great Pumpkin
>> >proves the existence of such a recognizable set. But what are they
>> >*called*?
a great deal lately--i.e., the reality of fictional characters. It is not
an area that I have studied deeply but here are a few thoughts towards
definition of the set to be named. The Great Pumpkin seems to fall in the
group of ordinary fictional characters that have been created by one
writer, etc. and have entered the popular imagination. The others seem to
have been either created conjointly (Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy) or
elaborated conjointly from some legendary/historical figure (Santa Claus
< Saint Nicholas, Bishop of ??; would Marilyn Monroe fit in here?) The
fact that you and your friend[s] have "intuitively grouped them together
as a set" is not negligible and indeed interesting but could you make
explicit why you did so? Would you include Mother Goose, or do I date
myself?
Two associated comments on the SC: I believe that the present american
portrayal owes much to a Coca Cola advertisement from early in the
century--is it, therefore, still popular; Dutch shopkeepers in Amsterdam
are presently trying to replace Sint Nikolaas (Sinterklaas) (who is
celebrated on December 5 also with presents and civic festivites) with
Santa Claus as being the figure more likely to promote sales. There is
strong opposition and Sinterklaas and Santa Claus seem not to belong to
the same set, but I am not sure why.
So, what do we call your set: 'fictional characters', I think but perhaps
we need some adjective to specify those that have arisen from the popular
imagination or that have been so taken over by the popular imagination
that the original author has lost the copyright, so to speak.
Lindsey Martin
rm...@netcom.com
: > In article <colette....@news.acns.nwu.edu> col...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Colette Marine) writes:
: > >
: > >A coworker and I were sitting around today talking about the lack
: > >of a word in English for the set of beings containing Santa Claus,
: > >the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin (ha! a
: > >fictional myth.. the mind reels). There seems to be no such word.
: > >Yet, since we were children, we've intuitively grouped them together
: > >as a set. The very creation of Charles Schulz's Great Pumpkin
: > >proves the existence of such a recognizable set. But what are they
: > >*called*?
It may be that anthropology or some other discipline has a term for just
this sort of deity, or it may be time to invent one. If the latter,
the new word should express their most salient (and American) quality: not
their role as presiding spirits of certain holidays but as as
bearers of loot, gratifiers of our lust for stuff. That's certainly what
united them, and made them truly divine, in my child-mind. They're a
perfect pantheon for our consumer-paganism. What to call them? How about
'gimmegods'?
-R
Horst, J.M.
> >> In article <colette....@news.acns.nwu.edu>
> col...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
> >(Colette Marine) writes:
{Stuff deleted}
> >> >> This is a question on which philosophers have thought and written (alas)
> a great deal lately--i.e., the reality of fictional characters. It is not
> an area that I have studied deeply but here are a few thoughts towards
> definition of the set to be named. The Great Pumpkin seems to fall in the
> group of ordinary fictional characters that have been created by one
> writer, etc. and have entered the popular imagination. The others seem to
> have been either created conjointly (Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy) or
> elaborated conjointly from some legendary/historical figure (Santa Claus
> < Saint Nicholas, Bishop of ??; would Marilyn Monroe fit in here?) The
Saint Nicholas was the Bishop of Myra.
> fact that you and your friend[s] have "intuitively grouped them together
> as a set" is not negligible and indeed interesting but could you make
> explicit why you did so? Would you include Mother Goose, or do I date
> myself?
> Two associated comments on the SC: I believe that the present american
> portrayal owes much to a Coca Cola advertisement from early in the
> century--is it, therefore, still popular; Dutch shopkeepers in Amsterdam
> are presently trying to replace Sint Nikolaas (Sinterklaas) (who is
> celebrated on December 5 also with presents and civic festivites) with
> Santa Claus as being the figure more likely to promote sales. There is
> strong opposition and Sinterklaas and Santa Claus seem not to belong to
> the same set, but I am not sure why.
The opposition to the replacement of Sinterklaas by Santa Claus is IMHO not
caused by their not being in the same set. It is felt by many people in the
Netherlands that Sinterklaas is a family celebration, whereas Santa Claus is
too commercialized and detracts from the true Christmas-spirit. They
simply feel that the celebration of the birth of Christ should not be
associated with large dinners, piles of presents and $ale$.
> So, what do we call your set: 'fictional characters', I think but perhaps
> we need some adjective to specify those that have arisen from the popular
> imagination or that have been so taken over by the popular imagination
> that the original author has lost the copyright, so to speak.
> Lindsey Martin
J. van der Horst
SHANA
R, this is the best new word I've heard in a long time. 'Gimmegods'
has my vote.
shana
>-R
>
>