The title promises an interesting topic but the text itself doesn't live up to that promise. The writing is somewhat disjointed and superficial, and relies mostly on the amassing of citations without introducing anything particularly new to my understanding. As I finished the first chapter I thought that this might change later in the book, and what I was reading was an attempt by the author to catch the reader up on the general concept of myth and its utility in society, but the tone remains the same throughout. Citations are confusing, as they are often inserted into places where I would assume almost anyone would be able to read the statement as nearly self evident. Consider this sentence:

"Today, we have newspapers, formal documents, photographs, computers, and other sophisticated devices for storing information that may be retrieved when the need arises (McLuhan, 1962)." While the work cited looks interesting and may have something to say about the effect that these new technologies had on modern society, the citation itself doesn't seem necessary. It's this disposal of any deeper insight in favor of the most superficial of statements that caused me so much frustration in reading. The paragraph the follows elaborates a little more, but is the information from McLuhan or does it come from the Neals? Poor citation makes it difficult to say.

I read non-fiction for fun, but this book brought me back to some of my deepest suffering back in college, which was not pleasant. Even if the subject matter seems interesting to you, I would skip. ( )

It is not a profound statement to say that our perceptions arise from the events we experience. How we react to individual and collective crises affect how we experience the myths that shape our lives. Myth-Making and Religious Extremism and Their Roots in Crises, by Arthur G. Neal and Helen Youngelson-Neal seeks to explore how humanity creates collective mythologies. The Neals are both emeritus professors at universities in Portland, Oregon. The good news is the Neals have a firm grasp over their subject matter. The bad news is Myth-Making is a horrendously edited book.

Arthur Neal is an emeritus professor of sociology. Helen Youngelson-Neal is an emeritus professor of economics. The combination brings to bear insights into how we as humans manage our everyday lives. The premise stated on the back pages states, “Myth-making shapes our lives, beliefs, and behavior. Collective myths become plausible explanations for events past and present as each new generation constructs reality anew to make sense of the human condition.” As a historian, my bias is to always historicize. A chronology of events leads to a historical interpretation. Sociology differs in that it looks at mass behavior. Myth-Making tackles topics like life and death, sexual prohibitions, war and peace, and how we interact with animals. The academic discipline is closely allied with anthropology. Both seek to understand what we normally would take for granted.

For me, Myth-Making falls into the category Great Premise, Bungled Execution. The book was based on a series of seminar lectures “on Myth and Myth-Making and The Sociology of Violence.” Unfortunately the book fails to transcend its roots as academic lectures. The essays come across as rambling and disjointed. The dismal editing does not help. The scholarship is solid. It would pass muster as a textbook for an introductory course in sociology, anthropology, or history. Why do we behave the way we do?

But because these used to be lectures, there’s unintentional consequences in the way groups get characterized. In discussions about the afterlife, Christianity is seen as a homogeneous monolithic mass. Taken as a given, this assumption doesn’t even explain the multiplicity of views and perspectives within the Christian worldview. The Neals think the “born-again” phenomenon exists in all denominations. It depends on how one defines it. Does this include infant baptism, adult baptism, revival meetings, faith healing, etc.? This is where generalizations can come across as disingenuous.

The editing situation really drags this book down. There were points where I wondered if English was their first language. There’s an entire chapter riddled with typos. Other chapters are laced with convoluted expressions that don’t make any sense. It’s like they submitted the manuscript to McFarland without looking at it … and McFarland not looking at it. It really is disappointing, given McFarland’s reputation as a publisher of high-quality academic texts. There’s not many occasions where I wonder if there was a line editor and proofreader in the process. McFarland publishes numerous fine academic texts each year. This isn’t one of them.

https://driftlessareareview.com/2017/11/01/myth-making-and-religious-extremism-a... ( )

The information was fascinating in parts, but it droned on with more and more information without much analysis in other parts. I was hoping the author would give analysis about how all of this affect terrorism, but it never seemed to get to this. I kept on saying to the author, "And your point is . . .?" I learned some new facts though, and for that I am grateful. It had no profound conclusions.

It had quite a few typos in the "Terrorism" chapter but not others, and the authors must be atheists because they tend to lump all Christians into one big pot. This will alienate many people who believe that creation is not a myth. ( )

I did enjoy reading this, although it was not new information for me, I liked how it was presented. Explaining what and why myth making is part of our human existence and then giving examples; not just the myth but where the myth came from. ( )

This book is a first draft that could have been published after a lot of work. As an published volume, however, it fails. The title suggests an overarching thesis on the interaction of crises, myth-making, and religious extremism, but the authors never develop any. This reduces the book to a series of loosely connected essays on topics including gender, animal rights, and death. Unfortunately, the essays also lack any coherent theses.

The prose is unwieldy—Neal and Neal-Youngelson never met a passive construction they didn’t like. They struggle with subject verb agreement and don’t understand verb tenses. They repeatedly discuss how “we” reacted to “9-11,” “Columbine,” and “the anthrax scare” as though all their readers are Americans whom they expect will understand these references, sans context, as a matter of course. They jump back and forth in time, repeat themselves, and throw ideas into chapters willy-nilly instead of considering how to logically present them.

They regularly contradict their own arguments. “sexuality today has become much more than a source of intense pleasure; it as also become a source of intense anger, anxiety, and hostility,” they write, as if this were not true of sexuality in pre-modern times as well. This sweeping statement is all the more confounding considering the authors’ discussion not three pages earlier of the “normative offenses includ[ing] murder, rape, adultery, incest, treachery, and even cannibalism” of Greek and Roman deities, and how these behaviors are “very human-like.” The book is riddled with examples like this.

Other statements are just nonsensical. "Rather than being required to endure the suffering and sorrow of the Tribulation, dedicated Christians will be taken up from this earth. This notion was expressed on a bumper sticker in Portland Oregon, which read, 'When the Rapture comes, this vehicle will be empty.' Thus, there are wide variations among Christians on how and when the end will come and what will be required of them." How does this bumper sticker say anything about "wide variations among Christians"? Why does the text suggest there's only one such bumper sticker? Why is the statement about it in past tense? And what does Portland, Oregon have to do with any of this? It's maddening.

The book is riddled with typographical errors, and Neal and Neal-Youngelson appear to have typed chapter 5 while drunk. The authors and editors both should be embarrassed. For instance, “twarted” is neither an actual word nor something any spellchecker would miss, yet it appears in this published volume. Therefore, I am summarily going to make it a word. Example usage: Neal and Neal-Youngelson didn’t even bother to spellcheck their manuscript before publication. What a couple of twarts.

The authors have read widely and I often found myself flipping to the works cited section so that I could follow up on citations that are hopefully more coherent and better-written than this outing. In fact, my frustration with this book may be amplified precisely because there are germs of intriguing ideas within it; had it been merely bad, it would have been less disappointing. ( )