The bibliography on modern reworkings of mythical narratives is immense: Greco-Latin myths in novels and adventure films, adaptations of Celtic, Norse, or Slavic myths in cinema, TV series and comics, the relationships between Eastern and Western myths… The list is endless and somehow overabundant compared to the smaller (though still huge) bibliography of theories of myth. The reason for this disproportion is due, in part, to the difficulty involved in abstracting general criteria. When critics seek to define myth, they must first strip it of spatial, temporal or circumstantial conditioning; only later will they be able to apply the label “myth” to this or that story. Different key factors of our contemporary society (the phenomenon of globalisation, the dogmas of relativism, the logics of immanence) make the definition of myth even more difficult for the non-specialized public and for academic researchers alike. Indeed, academic reflection has not been immune to contemporary confusion about myth: in the wake of great psychoanalysts, sociologists or political experts, many researchers apply to their work certain conceptions of myth that identify it with individual sublimations, social deformations, or tendentious ideologies. For this reason, later on, the non-specialized public ―cheered on by the sensationalism of the press― likes to label any fallacy as “mythical”: apparently, the term “myth” cloaks the user of non-mythical discourses with a golden aura. The volume has been coordinated by José Manuel Losada and Antonella Lipscomb. Both have traced an extensive trajectory in publishing books focused on myths: six volumes published in Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Myth: Theories of a Controversial Concept comprises nine studies on myth written by university researchers from Portugal, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom: all of them shed light on a coherent definition of myth. On the 28th of February 2024, the volume was awarded the 2023 International "Aristotle of Thought and Essay" Prize, bestowed by the Sial Pigmalión Editorial Group in the Boardroom of the Faculty of Philology at the Complutense University.

1. MITO: TEORÍAS DE UN CONCEPTO CONTROVERTIDO
(English version below)
La bibliografía sobre interpretaciones de los relatos míticos es inmensa: los mitos grecolatinos en la novela y
el cine de aventuras, las adaptaciones de mitos celtas, nórdicos o eslavos en el cine, las series de TV y los
cómics, las relaciones entre mitos de Oriente y Occidente… La lista es interminable y sobreabundante en
comparación con la bibliografía sobre teorías del mito. Estas no son menos importantes: ayudan a discernir
con propiedad aquellas. Se hace necesario exponer el panorama actual de algunas definiciones
académicamente válidas.
Diversos factores característicos de nuestra sociedad contemporánea (el fenómeno de la globalización,
los dogmas del relativismo, la lógica de la inmanencia) tornan aún más dificultosa la definición del mito, tanto
para el público no especializado como para los investigadores universitarios. En efecto, la reflexión académica
no ha sido inmune a la ambigüedad contemporánea sobre el mito: en la estela de grandes psicoanalistas,
sociólogos y politólogos, muchos investigadores de literatura adoptan en sus trabajos determinadas
concepciones del mito que corren el peligro de confundirse con sublimaciones individuales, deformaciones
sociales o tendencias políticas. También el público no especializado y el sensacionalismo de la prensa gustan
de tildar de “míticas” tantas falacias: el término “mito” reviste de grandeza cualquier lance y aporta una (falsa)
aura culta a cualquier orador.
A estas dificultades epistemológicas se añade asimismo la confusión reinante entre los distintos
correlatos del imaginario: abundan los estudios que abordan de modo indiscriminado los dominios del
esoterismo, la fantasía, la ciencia ficción y la mitología, y escasean otros que disipen vaguedades y aporten
distinciones sobre estos correlatos del imaginario.
Toda esta problemática reclama una serie de reflexiones bien fundadas sobre una noción coherente
del mito: objeto, surgimiento, condiciones y función. De este modo los investigadores podrán abordar con
propiedad una interpretación de los relatos míticos, una que no imponga de antemano a los textos lo que se
pretende descubrir en ellos.
De ahí las preguntas a las que pretende responder este volumen: ¿Qué es el mito? ¿Cuál es su
estructura? ¿Cuándo se puede calificar un relato como mítico? ¿Cuáles son los grandes aciertos y las posibles
deficiencias de las teorías que utilizan el mito como objeto de estudio y herramienta de análisis? ¿Cómo pensar
el mito en nuestra sociedad contemporánea?
Bien pensadas, estas preguntas suscitan otras de gran calado, sobre todo desde un punto de vista lógico
y gnoseológico: ¿Es riguroso asentar que el mito se confina en sí mismo y carece de cualquier valor indicativo
sobre nuestro mundo real? Dicho de otro modo: ¿Cómo es posible que un predicado mítico no verificable
pueda “referir” nuestro mundo? ¿Acaso puede el mito expresar algún tipo de verdad, añadir algún tipo de
conocimiento sobre la experiencia real? En definitiva: si el mito tiene sus modos de expresar una verdad sobre
el mundo, ¿cuál es su diferencia respecto a los postulados de la razón científica y experimental?
El volumen ha sido coordinado por José Manuel Losada y Antonella Lipscomb. Ambos han trazado
una extensa trayectoria en la edición de libros centrados en los mitos: nada menos que seis volúmenes
publicados en Italia, Alemania y el Reino Unido. Mito: teorías de un concepto controvertido comprende nueve
estudios sobre el mito escritos por investigadores universitarios de Portugal, Italia, España y el Reino Unido:
unos y otros aportan luces para una definición coherente del mito.
El 28 de febrero de 2024, el volumen recibió el Premio Internacional “Aristóteles de pensamiento y
ensayo” 2023, otorgado por el Grupo Editorial Sial Pigmalión en la Sala de Juntas de la Facultad de Filología
de la Universidad Complutense.

2. MYTH: THEORIES OF A CONTROVERSIAL CONCEPT
The bibliography on modern reworkings of mythical narratives is immense: Greco-Latin myths in novels and
adventure films, adaptations of Celtic, Norse, or Slavic myths in cinema, TV series and comics, the
relationships between Eastern and Western myths… The list is endless and somehow overabundant
compared to the smaller (though still huge) bibliography of theories of myth. The reason for this
disproportion is due, in part, to the difficulty involved in abstracting general criteria. When critics seek to
define myth, they must first strip it of spatial, temporal or circumstantial conditioning; only later will they be
able to apply the label “myth” to this or that story.
Different key factors of our contemporary society (the phenomenon of globalisation, the dogmas of
relativism, the logics of immanence) make the definition of myth even more difficult for the non-specialized
public and for academic researchers alike. Indeed, academic reflection has not been immune to contemporary
confusion about myth: in the wake of great psychoanalysts, sociologists or political experts, many researchers
apply to their work certain conceptions of myth that identify it with individual sublimations, social
deformations, or tendentious ideologies. For this reason, later on, the non-specialized public ―cheered on by
the sensationalism of the press― likes to label any fallacy as “mythical”: apparently, the term “myth” cloaks
the user of non-mythical discourses with a golden aura.
In addition to these epistemological difficulties, there is another challenge: the prevailing confusion
between different correlates of the imaginary. There are many studies that indiscriminately address the
domains of esotericism, fantasy, science fiction, and mythology. Coherent studies that dispel vagueness and
provide distinctions in the academic critique of these correlates of the imaginary are needed.
All these problems call for a well-founded reflection on a more securely defined notion of myth. Only
then will it be possible for researchers to properly address an interpretation of mythical narratives, that is,
without previously imposing on the texts what they already intend to discover in them.
These questions, among others, are those that this volume aims to answer: What is myth? When can a
story be classified as mythical? How should we think about myth in our contemporary society? Is it too
rigorous to state that myth is inherently tautological and lacks any direct correlation with our real world? In
other words, how is it possible that an unverifiable mythical predicate can “refer” to our world? Can myth
express any kind of truth? Does it add a knowledge that is coherent with reality? Does it reveal a falsehood?
If myth has its own ways of expressing truths about the world, what differentiates it from the postulates of
scientific and experimental reason? If myth presupposes the intervention of the numinous, what distinguishes
it from religion and literature? And where does literature fit in?
The volume has been coordinated by José Manuel Losada and Antonella Lipscomb. Both have traced
an extensive trajectory in publishing books focused on myths: six volumes published in Italy, Germany, and
the United Kingdom. Myth: Theories of a Controversial Concept comprises nine studies on myth written by
university researchers from Portugal, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom: all of them shed light on a
coherent definition of myth.
On the 28th of February 2024, the volume was awarded the 2023 International "Aristotle of Thought
and Essay" Prize, bestowed by the Sial Pigmalión Editorial Group in the Boardroom of the Faculty of
Philology at the Complutense University.