“Just how Pagan is it?” is the kind of elementary assessment I would expect from any Pagan critique at the bare minimum. I would argue that such assessments should not be binary (it’s either Pagan or it isn’t), but, rather, that such assessments should, in general, be multidimensional and allow for a range of Paganess across each of those dimensions. I am a statistician, and so I am tempted to want to assign a number to everything. In this post, I am going to outline a quantitative instrument for assessing the Paganness of any cultural artifact, and I will apply the approach to several examples. However, I do not think that anyone should or would particularly want to take such a formal approach to Paganometry every time they approach a critique of, for instance, the latest pop song, but I do hope that there will be value in discussing what constitutes the most important dimensions of Paganness and in the list of questions within each dimension.
Dimension #1: The Goddesses
The first thing we must look for is presence of the Gods. We do not expect everything we examine with our witchy eyes to overtly name a Goddess and sing Her praises. Nevertheless, to the extent that the material being critiqued implies a world-view or universe we might consider asking the following questions:
- Are there Gods in this universe?
- Is there more than one Goddess?
- Are any Goddesses mentioned by name?
- Does anyone worship the Gods?
- Do the Goddesses act in the universe?
- Do any characters have an identifiable religion?
- Is anyone ever shown as engaging in any kind of spiritual act?
I am not trying to create a Pagan version of The Bechdel Test, but when you start to realize just how non-existent ANY kind of spirituality is in most of the artifacts produced by the Modernist-dominated media, there certainly is a temptation to construct something similar.
In the Modernist paradigm, a religious affiliation is most often portrayed and understood as a kind of brand, or, perhaps, a political and cultural identifier. Most fictional characters are presented with no religious brand affiliation of any kind. In the US marketplace, there is little advantage to be had in a work being perceived as being primarily for one particular sub-culture. A few niche cultures are perceived as large enough to support their own isolated market: the Christian market (Christian bookstores and CCM), the Urban (i.e. African America) market, and, to a much lesser extent, the Gay market (and strange, isn’t it, that it really is tightly focused on gay males rather than LGBT in general). Then there’s an even smaller Pagan market. But, in general, if a character’s religion is not integral to the plot, it will not be mentioned, and only the most diligent fans will dig out any evidence one way or the other. (Sorry, Pagans, Harry Potter is probably Anglican).
Even when the Goddesses are explicitly present as in the works of Riordan, Gaiman and Pratchett it is not clear that the works are fully Pagan. We should expect our Gods to be more than superheroes (though, contrawise, evoking superheros as Gods is a thoroughly Pagan thing to do). Gaiman is a particularly interesting case because while many of his works feature a throughly Pagan set of Gods acting in the world the journey of his protagonists often seem be solidly psychological rather than spiritual. (Just how many of his works feature a wicked mother archetype?)
Approaching the matter from the opposite direction, we can give Pagan readings to thoroughly non-Pagan (what are we going with these days: “cowan”? Or has “muggle” successfully taken its place?) works. We can ask questions about what forces are at play in a particular narrative and what Goddesses within our various pantheons might be seen to govern those forces. We will return to the issue of Pagan approaches to understanding narrative dynamics in future posts, but for the simple task of Paganometry we need only reflect on how overt the actions of the Gods are in any particular narrative.
As place to start, I propose a scale from 0 to 5 to assess how Pagan a work is for each of the five dimensions of the Paganometer. We will add them up and multiply the total by four to get a scale of 0 to 100% Pagan. To measure this first dimension (the presence of the Goddesses) I would put an entirely non-spiritual, atheistic work at 0 and one that fully embraces the spiritual path of a specific Pagan tradition at 5. An explicitly Abrahamic monotheistic work would get a 1. (It is not exactly the case that if you have 1 God, you get a 1: there are Pagan monotheist Goddess worshipers. But if your religion actively suppresses the worship of multiple Gods by people OUTSIDE your religion, then you are not getting more than a 1 on this dimension of the Paganometer.) This guidance means that Handel’s Messiah is at least 4% Pagan according to the Paganometer, but then we probably should find Handel to be more Pagan than Shostakovich.
Dimension #2: Earth Worship
Our relationship to the Earth is fairly central to most pagan traditions, and, furthermore, that relationship is distinctly different from the values of the dominant consumeristic society in the US. A work’s attitude towards ecological concerns and green issues are most often only revealed in the background (even more so than in the presence of the Gods). In fact, it is a legitimate part of a Pagan critique to question the greenness of media used to create the work and the process by which the art receives its funding.
- Does the work have an explicitly green message?
- Are the characters ever aware of the ecological consequences of their actions?
- Is consumption ever questioned?
- Are the trappings of material wealth portrayed as desirable?
- Is the work funded by product placement or commercials?
- How green is the work’s medium?
Ecological themes are not as suppressed by the dominant culture in the US to the same extent that spirituality and non-heteronormative sexuality are. In the years following the popularization of the environmental movement in the Seventies it became acceptable to present ecological messages in a variety of media and, in particular, works targeted towards children. These messages do receive a certain amount of criticism and backlash, but you need look no further than 2009′s Avatar to prove the potential popularity of such themes.
However, the potential popularity of such themes is largely ignored in media like advertiser-funded television since ideas like simplicity, recycling and re-use conflict with the goal of advertisers to move product (except where there is a potential for greenwashing). Thus, in ad-supported media like most of television materialistic consumption is most often portrayed as desirable, and buying things is depicted as the solution to many problems. Even in the modern film industry where funding has traditionally been primarily derived from ticket sales both product placement and product tie-ins have become a significant chunk of the revenue, and so there is similar potential conflict in that medium as well. It should be noted, however, that film has always been notably aspirational, and so films largely portrayed wealth and conspicuous consumption in a positive light long before any studio ever received a check for product placement.
Creatives tend to be more aligned with the Modernists on this issue than we are with the Traditionalists. Thanks to the environmental movement, Modernists have come to embrace the idea that it is not worth poisoning human communities for the sake of materialistic exploitation of the world’s resources. Thus, there is a fair amount of buy-in by the dominant Modernist culture that pollution is a bad thing, and that moving to sustainable energy and renewable resources are necessary for the continued success of human civilization. You know that the Environmental movement has made significant inroads into Modernist policy when George W. Bush backed ethanol as the fuel of the future. (Ethanol might well be the wrong choice, but the mere fact that an oil baron would point to ANY renewable fuel source for the US energy strategy is remarkable.)
Traditionalists and, particularly, millenialist Christians are more fundamentally opposed to Pagans on environmental issues than the Modernists. Genesis fairly immediately has God giving Man dominion “over all the earth“. Couple that with a view that we will not need the earth much longer, and you have got the recipe for an assault on the environment. It is generally not a good idea to appoint anyone with such beliefs to be Secretary of the Interior, and it is a bad sign when they endorse your energy policy.
And so on this dimension of the Paganometer a 0 should correspond to a work which advocates the unlimited exploitation of the earth’s natural resources, and a 5 should correspond to the kind of Pagan ideal of what the human presence on the Earth should be.
Dimension #3: Equal Worth
I am not sure that Paganism is in general or even should be strictly egalitarian. The same person in our community who is most fiercely on the lines fighting for racial equality, women’s rights and the rights of LGBT people is often the same person embracing closed traditions, his or her tradition’s own unique access to magical powers and a spiritual elitism which can only be attained through the hard work of study, discipline and practice. We do seem to believe that our Pagan ways and, particularly, our deeper, magical connection to the Earth can and does make us better people.
It is a hopeless task to fully address issues of equality in this post for two fundamental reasons. First, it is a broad topic for which entire academic disciplines (various gender and ethnic studies) have been created to study. Second, it would be a slight to conservative Pagans to assume that the progressive values of social justice should be normative for Paganism as a whole.
Nevertheless, I think it is accepted as true with fair generality across Paganism as a whole that people and Traditions have different gifts and these these gifts should be respected and valued mostly equally. And, furthermore — at least between groups and in larger political processes — all groups should be treated equally and fairly in terms of power and in terms of their treatment before the law. Thus, we all value a bare minimum standard of tolerance if only for the survival of our particular groups.
And so given that this dimension of the Pagonometer is particularly complex, what kinds of questions should the Pagan critic consider as he or she assesses a work?
- What kind of people hold the power in this narrative?
- Who has agency?
- Who is present but anonymous and invisible?
- Is any group of people denigrated or exploited?
On this particular axis the Modernists are more our allies than the Traditionalists. The Traditionalist are the ones that are continually calling for a “return” to the traditional roles for men and women, a homogenous heteronormativity, and, if they could still get away with it, patriarchal race relations. Modernists, on the other hand, theoretically embrace political and legal processes which are blind to gender, race and sexual orientation. Of course, the Modernists are entirely susceptible to unconscious and market-driven biases that our revealed by criticism like the Bechdel Test.
Thus, I would give any explicitly racist or sexist piece a 0 on this dimension of the Paganometer, and, contrawise, any piece which fully embraces a vision of complete and conscious equal worth across diversity should get a 5.
Dimension #4: Sex Positivity
We Pagans believe that sex is good. We believe that consent and responsibility is part of what makes sex good, of course. We believe in an “if you don’t like it, you can’t have any” approach to sexual exploration.
In assessing this dimension the Pagan critic might ask the following questions:
- Who gets to have sex?
- How often is sex portrayed as having negative consequences?
- Is LGBT identity and sexuality expressed as freely as hetero identity and sexuality?
- Is sex freely, consciously and responsibly chosen by all the characters involved?
- Is the spiritual and magical components of sex acknowledged and portrayed?
The widest gap between Pagans and the Traditionalists occurs on this axis. There are Traditionalists that can endure and even embrace having a person of color as President; there are none at all that could imagine let alone endorse a bisexual polyamorist as such. It is on this dimension that much of the current cultural war is being waged. Any work which embraces the sex-negativity of the Traditionalists should, of course, receive a 0 on this dimension.
We are far more aligned with the Modernists on this topic. It would not be uncommon for Modernist artistic production to get a 4 on this dimension. However, we Pagans do believe in the sacredness of sex, and it is only through the exploration of the spiritual dimension of sex that that last point can be earned on this scale.
Dimension #5: Magic
We cannot say in full generality that all Pagans believe in magic; nonetheless, it is true in general that we hold ontologies that are entirely in opposition to the materialism of the Modernists. We Pagans tend to believe that the world is full of spirits, and that everything in the universe comes into to being through the spiritual direction of material processes.
The Pagan critic might consider the following as he ar she assesses the magical quality of a work:
- Does magic exist in the piece?
- Does everyone have access to magical power?
- Does every attempt at magic have negative consequences for the magician?
- Does the magic as portrayed violate physical laws as we currently understand them?
Clearly, this dimension is another in which we are at greatest opposition with the Modernists. Modernists routinely dismiss magic as delusion, childish wish-fulfillment or fraud. Modernists might accept the utility of magic in narrative. “It’s fun, but it can never be true.” There is no distinction between myth and fiction in the Modernist paradigm.
It is also a dimension in which we are opposed by the Traditionalists, although the case is a bit more complex here. In the Traditional paradigm both God and Satan can violate physics as we understand them, and, clearly, in their viewpoint any magic we might claim comes solely through the latter. And, yet, there are parts of Christianity in general where the practiced theurgy is markedly similar to Pagan ritual. Catholic evocation of specific Saints is one example, and evangelical spritual warfare is another.
On this dimension, we should assess a work in which magic is not considered possible in any sense as a 0, and one which magic fully informs the universe as a 5.
Examples
The only way to test this instrument is apply it to several examples, and see how good a job it does.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: 32% Pagan
- Goddesses: 0 The Daily Show is a purely Modernist endeavor. Several of the cast members are open about their religious affiliation, but it is wholly secular and intentionally Godless. It might pick up a fraction of a point if it were still running its occasional “This Week In God” segment.
- Ecology: 2 It’s certainly in favor of having an ecology, and I’ll go out on a limb and guess that they’re opposed to pollution in general. But it’s certainly ad-supported, but, more important, fairly supportive of consumerism in general.
- Equality: 4 It’s received some criticism for the lack of women writers and performers, but, in general, it speaks from a place where values diversity and tolerance are considered good and promotes them often and well.
- Sex: 2 I had not ever really considered The Daily Show in this context before. It has certainly made hay of right wing sexual hypocrisy. But it does not often consider sex as positive beyond the scandals. It’s overtly positive towards LGTB issues, but has never had an an openly LGBT cast member, as far as I can recall.
- Magic: 0 I fear magic can only be ridiculed in the universe of The Daily Show.
Harry Potter: 41% Pagan
- Goddesses: 1 Well, there are a lot of ghosts, and some suggestion of something more in Dumbledore’s postmortem talk with Harry in the last book. But not much more.
- Ecology: 1 Pretty much off the radar for this series.
- Equality:2 Women are certainly given a fair share of agency in the series but the leaders of the various factions are all men. There is some minor racial diversity.
- Sex: 2.25 Probably as positive as a massively popular Young Adult series can get. Probably age appropriate, and it does get a slim extra fraction for having Dumbledore be nominally gay though it would be better if were, you know, actually mentioned in the novels.
- Magic: 4 I can’t imagine having more magic in a novel, but the magic of Harry’s universe is definitely not available to everyone and often violates the physics of our universe.
Avatar: 72% Pagan
- Goddesses: 4 The Home Tree is a strong metaphor for the Goddess, but unfortunately limited to Pandora.
- Ecology: 5 It’s the central theme of the movie.
- Equality: 2 It does not pass the Bechdel Test, and the white man coming into save everything rather undercuts the presence of strong women and minorities.
- Sex: 3 The on-screen sex is heteronormative, but cross-species heteronormative sex has to count for something.
- Magic: 4The interconnection between the species on Pandora is, perhaps, overly literal and explicable via a scientific paradigm. It is, nevertheless, a brilliant metaphor for what we believe Magic is as Pagans.
Rebecca Black’s Friday: 8% Pagan
- Goddesses: 1 I’m claiming a point here for the invocation of Ceres through the reference to the cereal bowl, and the Pagan roots of the English names for the days of the week.
- Ecology: 0 The song is wholly consumerist.
- Equality: 1 Well, there is some diversity, but it’s the kind that is allowed in pop songs. The young teen protagonist is allowed little agency (ooh, she may get to choose her seat in the car, but no) within the limitations of the culture in this video.
- Sex: 0 But that score is probably a good thing given Black’s age.
- Magic: 0 The video is as numinous as an ad for Clearasil.
Tex and Molly in the Afterlife: 96% Pagan
- Goddesses: 5 Multiple Gods and Goddesses present and acting in the universe.
- Ecology: 5 Ecological concerns drive the central conflict of the novel.
- Equality: 4 IIRC, there are no non-white characters in the book, but it is set in Maine. Lot’s of women acting and talking to each other and leading, though.
- Sex: 5 Consensual sex is seen as positive and has no negative consequences. There is a scene of drumming/masturbation which is portrayed as magical and spiritual.
- Magic: 5 An absolutely integral part of the narrative and does not violate the physics of our consensus reality in any sense at all.
I’d say these examples tend to fall out where I would expect and want them to be.
Are these the right dimensions and criteria? Please share your thoughts and tweaks in the comments.
I feel it is an oversight to say that there must be anthropomorphic gods and goddessess for something to be considered Pagan. There are many ancient traditions and a good number of modern pagans who worship or honor primarily nature spirits, ancestor spirits, fey beings, elemental forces and so forth.
I think you have some great ideas here, but I am going blind trying to read white type on a black background. I can’t print it out. I may have to copy it to a Word file to see what you have here.
I certainly did not intend God or Goddess to be read as limited to anthropomorphic forms. My intent was for the terms to be read an generic sense that covers all the forms you cited as well. I may edit that section to say so more explicitly since you certainly make a fair point.
Hey, Sophie: most browsers let you turn off the style sheet. In Firefox it’s View->Page Style and select “No style”. Doing so will render the page black on white.
Hey Scott- wow, this is a very impressive, well thought-out set of criteria for evaluating Pagan works! (Or the Paganness of Works)- Good show!
A few notes on what’s otherwise a fine essay…
Since when are all Pagan traditions austerity-focused? Our ancestors surely were not. There are approaches to prosperity that are not automatically harmful to the planet, and this insistence the average neopagan has that wealth is automatically wrong is something we need to revisit. I’m not proposing prosperity theology akin to some of the more shallow Christian trads, but a better relationship to what money can be and do is called for here. It’s a force akin to magic in this world, after all.
Also, using LGBT when you mean sexual orientation only is erasure of trans people. You may wish to take a look at some of what arose during Pantheacon as a launching pad to expand that section to respect gender diversity as much as sexual orientation diversity. Anything else is antithetical to true equality.
Excellent! I love the ideas presented here and I can’t wait to explore them more. I was thinking about some of the things I watch and love as a Pagan and how they fall into the meter themselves. In doing such, I was considering the categories and how feel they are best applied. Let me take my favorite TV series Fringe, for example:
* Goddesses: 1 – No gods or goddesses to speak of but a deep epic mythology permeates the story and that is why I find it Pagan-Friendly.
* Ecology: 0 – Ecology is not part of the Fringe universe but not because it isn’t important, I just isn’t important to the story.
* Equality: 5 – Olivia is a bad ass – enough said. Characters are relatively diverse. Even non-human characters get equal treatment occasionally.
* Sex: 4 – Sex for everyone. The very first scene in the entire series is a sex scene. And it isn’t just used casually. When two characters engage, it is for plot development. Positive or negative outcomes are yet to be determined.
* Magic: 3 – no “Magic” but lots of “Fringe Science” and I sometimes don’t care about the difference.
Specifically in regards to category 1 – “Goddesses” – I tend to see the divine in less literal structures. Fringe is not a Pagan show in any way. It isn’t even religious at all. However, the story itself is Pagan – a journey into the underworld/alternate dimension, a man’s issues with his father and complicated paternal story line, etc. An Epic and Mythological journey is as Pagan to me as anything overtly Goddess oriented.
I will undoubtedly keep these criteria in mind as I watch all my favorite shows from now on.
@Lysanna I’m fairly sure that I’m not claiming that austerity is a modern Pagan value. Consumerism is not the same as capitalism is not the same thing as consumption. And I don’t think that ANY power (even the one(s) driving consumerism) is wrong in and of itself. But Powers, particularly the ones influencing human behavior, do get out of balance (Koyaanisqatsi). A reduction in consumerism does not inevitably lead to austerity; in fact, in the US consumer-debt-based economy a reduction in (largely unnecessary) consumption leads to greater wealth for individuals as their money moves from debt to savings.
I did consider linking to the recent controversy around the incident at Pantheacon. I was certainly aware of it and participated in at least one thread on the topic over at Patheos. As I said, though, covering the topic of equality in general in this article was always hopeless. I did, however, intentionaly place the equality dimension ahead of the sex-positivity dimension to raise the issues of gender identity and empowerment before thse of sexual orieantation and expression. And I intentionally did not start listing all the conceivable groups who are routinely erased and disempowered by our culture because doing so inevitably (in my opinion, mind) seems to lead to a game of Queen for a Day in which everyone tries to out victem each other. It’s the same trap that artists in our society face routinely: how can you possibly represent every group in work with a finite cast of characters? All you can do is hold to the general principle that equal worth is the value to be aspired to, acknowledge the complexity of the problem, listen to those hurting, sit with their issues, and act as inclusively as you can. I think that’s the general Pagan value, but I’m prepared to be enlightened (as I have been many times before) with a clue-by-four to the noggin.
@Laura You raise an interesting conumdrum around intentionally mythological works. We should consider Star Wars similarly. Clearly, the Star Wars universe contains no explicit dieties. The Force is presented in a similar nontheistic manner as the Buddha is in many form of Buddhism. We are shown the spirits of the Beloved Dead at the end of Ep. 6. And, yet, Lucas was directly guided by Campbell. Lucas made a fairly conscious decision to exclude the Gods and only present the mythology which, ISTM, was a fairly standard Mid-Twentieth Century Modernist program (a straight line from Jung to Campbell to Lucas in this case). I’d continue to argue that truly Pagan works should go beyond the mythological and reveal (and revel in) the Spirits in all Their forms. In short, I think putting Fringe at 52% Pagan is about right.
I think maybe the way I see things like Star Wars or Fringe are that they are ways for the Gods to stay in our lives because people are telling the stories. Star Wars and Fringe both lack the divine but they make up for that in rich mythologies. My favorite quote on this matter comes from author Roberto Calasso, “A life in which the gods are not invited isn’t worth living. It will be quieter, but there won’t be any stories. And you could suppose that these dangerous invitations were in fact contrived by the gods themselves, because the gods get bored with men who have no stories.” Those are words I live by as a Pagan. Through these stories the Gods live on whether or not people watching the shows fully comprehend that.
OK, I’m kind of feeling the need to see Scott get cut some slack here; doesn’t the “T” in “LGBT” stand for “Trans-Gendered”? Isn’t that why the [current] acronym (it’s an acronym, right? Unless it’s something else) exists, to include a number of diversity within the acronym utilized?
According to my understanding of modern Queer lingo usage- originally, we were all “Gays.” Then Lesbians were like, “Gay” translates predominantly as “Homosexual [or Homoerotic] Male” and (again) “Homosexual [or Homoerotic] Females” are erased into “Men” as the generic term.
So- Queer People became “Gays and Lesbians.” Then the Lesbians were like, How come Men [even Queer ones] always come first?
So then it was Lesbians and Gays. Then Bisexual people came along and said, hey yo- we’re neither Homoerotic Females [Lesbians] or Homoerotic Males [Gays]- we’re Bi! What about us?
So then it became the Movement for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Equality.
Until the Transgendered People popped up, and were like, yo-
So now what we’re looking at is- the [L] Lesbian, [G] Gay (Male), [B] Bisexual, [T] Transgendered Peoples, united in a Movement for Equality together- and this whole “LGBT” formula has been coined in a specific desire to give respect and inclusion to all parties involved- the only other possible variation recognizable in the formula at this point is to add a superfluous “Q” for “Queer” somewhere- QLGBT or LGBTQ or something-
But this is seriously the best that the ferociously inclined towards inclusivity Queer Folks Movement has come up with [yet, to date]- so let’s not dog on Scott for it, as he’s trying just to figure out how to judge the Pagan quality of Pop-Culture Entertainment.
Thanks, zan: that’s pretty much my understanding of the history as well. But the fallout from the event at Patheacon continues, and I can understand that as well. The issues are markedly intractable. I remember talking about a couple of my friend’s issues trying to organize the LBGT community in Hollywood in the early 90′s. They were grappling with much the same endless proliferation of diversity which needed to be acknowledged at every step of the way. (They went on to move to your neck of woods and build among other things the website for GLAAD, though I see that GLAAD’s no longer their client.) It’s so odd: we’re all pretty much on the same side and in agreement that all should be honored and valued, but people are still feeling left out by the very communities that would honor them. Clearly, there are processes of perpetuating pain going on here, and they are really hard to banish.
@Laura I’d take it even further and say that we are the stories that the Gods tell (who in turn tell our own stories bringing others into being). We are (this whole Universe is) the manifest Song of Faerie.
Hmmm- we ARE the stories the Gods tell: so I assume then, that (years- centuries, ago) the Gods [Goddesses] of Fate started telling a story called “Macbeth”- and at some point (1605?) this story fell into the consciousness of William Shakespeare, and he told it to his theater-audience- and he told it so well, that 400 years later- we (whoever continues the story of Macbeth) ARE the story the Gods [Goddesses- of Fate] tell. Hmmmmm…
OK, now wait a minute- cause, following Laura’s example, I want to apply Scott’s Pagan-Judging Rubic to: Shakespeare’s Macbeth.
Goddesses: Shakespeare’s Macbeth has Goddesses ALL OVER the place!! One, the Goddesses (in the play, explicitly, the Wyrrd Sisters of Teutonic Culture + Faerie-Women of Celtic Culture, according to legend) are also (oddly, beyond-disputedly) Witches- they open the show; they dominate the action until Act Four, scene 1 (their next appearance, the selling scene in the play, the most famous display of Witchcraft in history); they hover over the show’s actions until the final curtain. I would argue that it is difficult to find a show more Witch/ Goddess-dominated, and would therefore give Macbeth high ratings according to Scott’s system.
Ecology: Macbeth takes place in a totally pre-industrial world, so the issue of ecology is a non-starter, as pollution does not exist within its framework. The characters in Macbeth, good and evil, live as one with their natural environment. High points, then.
Equality: the folks in Macbeth reside within a medieval structure of rank and out-ranking rank (Kings outranking all others). Add to this the general medieval inequality-system whereby women were subservient to men, and wives to husbands- ferocious IN-equality is actually the norm in Macbeth. Very tiny Pagan points, it seems to me, here.
Sex: Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, by all accounts, have a terrific sex-life and a very tight and intimate personal life. Sex, oddly, in Macbeth, is very positive- altho used as a vehicle of arousal towards regicide. I’m at a loss how to call this.
Magic: there’s nothing in Macbeth that contravenes the Laws of Nature. What do the Witches do? They assemble; they plan to reassemble. They form a Ring, holding hands. They dance in a Circle, chanting a Charm. They issue Prophecies. They build a fire under a Cauldron. They dance about same, chanting and throwing in ingredients. They summon Spirits for Macbeth- and he has Visions in consequence.
What here is impossible?
With the exceptions of Equality (the social norms in this ancient period are very non-Equal), and Sex (seriously- I don’t know what to do here- the sex between Lady Macbeth and Macbeth appears very positive; they have obviously a great private life, it’s just all directed towards really twisted ends, finally): otherwise, in the categories of Goddesses (beyond the marks high); Ecology (as Ecological as can possibly be, prior to the 1800s); and Magic (yes, there is Magic, and yes, the whole of Western Cultural Tradition appears to consider this Magic hyper-powerful- but no, one can’t truly say, anything is beyond the realm of the possible, assuming that Macbeth’s psyche and it’s imaginings lie within the realm of the possible): it seems to me, one would have to give Macbeth high marks on Scott’s Paganism-Score.
Heh, I actually considered doing Macbeth as one of the examples, but I’m not nearly as familiar with the text as I was back in highschool when it was one of the two plays I preped on for scholarship essays. I pretty much agree with all your assessments except for the ecology dimension where I might come in a point lower. It’s hard to give high marks on that axis to a play that features a literal deforestation (well, at least, massive pruning) as a plot point. Macbeth as to score lower on that dimension than, say, King Lear since it’s Nature in the form of the storm which restores Lear’s sanity. And both of these (indeed, much of Western literature as a whole) have to be lower on the Paganometer than A Midsummer Nigtht’s Dream. The Pagonmeter probably goes the comedies > the tradgedies > the histories for Will in general.
[...] Plain, released last month in a trade paperback edition is fabulous. It does not score as highly on the Paganometer as some of the other books we review here: the society it portrays is, apparently, wholly [...]
[...] the book peg the 100% mark on the Paganometer? Interestingly, the thealogy is occluded at best in this first book of the series. The witches do [...]