Hi kids, I need a little help here. If there are any Neon Genesis Evangelion fans, you could most certainly be of great assistance!

After doing some very patient and much needed reading of Vehk?s teaching, specially about the Tower, I can?t help but draw some similarties between the secret of the Tower and the Human Instrumentality Project.

I quote:


While I was reading this, images of the last two episodes of the series came to my mind.

I know it might be frowned upon mixing settings like this, but it does help my learning process.

So please do post some replies on the matter, am I completely mistaken to relate NGE and the concept of the Tower and its relationship to Nirn?s mortals?

I would apreciate all the help you guys could bring.


P.S.: Yes, I have seen The End of Evangelion. In fact, I keep on my laptop and watch it every now and then anlong with the last six episodes of the series

It's like two roads, where the intersection is called "Jung."

;)

Sorry, stopped reading there.

Look, that series is a trite, pretentious, obnoxious, and self-indulgent exercise in budget cuts and time constraints leading to contrived "weirdness" that some gullible people label "art" for its "uniqueness." It's a badly executed attempt to create some kind of postmodern mythology constructed from Freudian psychology and tropes from "giant mecha" series in anime, culminating in one of the least fulfilling and most disappointing endings to any anime ever. That the producers themselves admit that their sporadic use of abstract Christian imagery was merely a tool (easily implementable with a low budget) used because it would "sell in the West" is telling.

So trying to compare it with TES, where (at least parts) of the mythology have been carefully developed to reflect the evolving nature of myth in the real world, will be a moot point. Sorry.

I get your point, maybe it was wrong of me to use the word "similar". It?s not what I mean.

It?s just that making a comparison, for better or for worst, helps me to absorb the material... I?m not sure I am making any sense to you.

Im not trying to imply that there are elements of that series in TES lore.

I really don't think they're the same thing, but I'm not really an expert in either case.

Well, it's not the first time the comparison to NGE came up though I never quite had the patience to sit it out or look into it deeper. Arnyel seems to have covered the gist of it though.

When it comes to serious weirdness (serious but weird), I'd suggest the Invisibles by Grant Morrison. Goes down hill a bit on the second half (too much like the x-files), but still worth a read.

Seems you are looking at source material corespondences and mytheiopeic structure - and I suspect that you are considering CHIMp - to follow your quote above. And you might consider that almost all the 'interpretive' material comes from the fan base here - so it is likely that some people here having read both have fed the one into their interpretation of the other.

The Jung quote may have some truth and I suppose you could get a whole lot more correspondences if you could get into the minds of all the authors.

But perhaps you might consider that Evangelion and it's 'compatriots' are very simply structured - based on a comparitively small number of sources and to a large extent aimed clearly and undisputably at the viscera and groins of its (for all practical purposes) pubascent and post-pubascent readers (with a certain nodding acquaintance to morality and 'humanity) ... not necessarily a bad thing, but very different in aim from ES.

Es has that aspect, but also brings in and challenges almost all its themes from multiple sources and directions. If you will, it sets each of a multitude of themes up against the next in an often deceptively simple style that conceals a progressively vastening pattern of conflict, change and compromise.

At the other extreme in ES you have Vivec's Lessons that a lot of people (myself to some extent too at one stage) pass over as directionless window-dressing (however sophisticated in presentation) intended to add little more than atmosphere. In truth it can be said that much of the 'Lessons' actually goes somewhere and links up in a manner that Nostrildamus would have been proud of - and without doubt his shade is now jealous of. And let's not forget the madman who has made it so

I don't know anything about the Tower so I can't assess your comparision properly. Your summary of the Tower makes it seem that the end result is similar to that of the Instrumentality Project but I think that the IP was a loss of your individuality so much as it was a completion of your being. It's been a while since I've seen NGE but I don't think the fullfillment of the IP would have turned you/everyone into an omnipotent being.

NGE?
SRSLY?

:facepalm:

Thanks, 1999!

Of all the slaps I?ve taken in this thread, yours has been the best and most constructive.

That?s all I needed, it really helped.

The mythology is weak. Saying it has an "evolving nature" is just defending TES lore for the sake of defending something. Anyway, in TES it is not mythology. The Gods are fact (well most of them) The Gods exist and intervene with the mortals of the Arena Supermundus (Tamriel). Comparing them is actually rather relevant, because their lore is made of the same substance; jelly. Which leaves the creators of both room to mould either into whatever story that they deem fit.

Arena Supermundus is NIRN not Tamriel, correct?

But otherwise I kind of agree, it's not really Mythology at least as far as I know.

Owh, but myth definitly matters, it's the mythology is that is real and from that come the gods and everything else.

Well, the "most of them" is where this has problems. You are right in nearly every way, but the detail left out is this: How each group views the real gods. The Nine Divines is a myth, taking the stories from Aldmeri and Nordic sources and melding them into one, as such it is both true and not true. Not only that, but it does evolve over time to fit each Imperial regime. The main difference between that and the evolution of mythology in the real world (Like herakles melding from several local heroes into one "national" one that was used to lend validity to Spartan royal regimes) is that some of the time the changes do actually effect the face of the gods.

Surely the only reason it changes is because Bethesda need to fit the lore in and around the games? I suppose this thread helps the evollution of the Elder Scroll's Mythos... Your welcome, Bethesda.

I think change is the wrong word as it implies one thing is replaced with another. Rather the setting is refined with each iteration, this means things change but rather then discarding the old material it is incorporated in the new.

Ever studied real mythology? It's not necessarily consistent - this group will say this god was born here, and did these things; this other group will say the same god was born in a different place and did these other things. That's the nature of myth.

Now, what if the myths are actually true. There's your starting point.

As for Evangenlion, as I understood it that series was basically about the way one's individual identity is related to the people, things, and events of the world outside him or her. The same theme is dealt with (at least to some degree) in certain aspects of TES mythology, so I can understand the urge to forge a connection in that respect. But then, the Matrix series deals with that theme too, it's fairly ubiquitous.