I've only read parts of Hero with a Thousand Faces, but most modern books on writing, whether novels or screenplays, whether they have 3, 4, 5, or 6 Acts, whether it's Truby, Brooks, Hauge, or Snyder...all fit relatively well into the short version of the Hero's Journey. I think the full Hero's Journey that Campbell describes has more steps.
Some interesting exceptions are Propp's Morphology of a Folktale and Dent's Master Plot.
I've tried finding older books on writing to see what advice existed prior to Campbell, but without much luck.
Yeah, Campbell goes into greater detail than I have, and I plan to do a chapter by chapter analysis in podcast and written form.
I’ve also looked into older ones, and struggled to find one. I have found a prose-guide to writing in the Victorian style, and am currently going through it but that one’s I think dated to the 60s or 80s or something.
I've use the Hero's Journey before. It can be very flexible when you mix up the archetypes Mentor and temptress for example. Or switch up the order, when facing the big bad the Hero goes into refusal of the call. keep it fresh.
Check the Eastern writing archetypes of the five man band. It's complementary. Or watch an old episode of G Force.
Very true about switching it up, I know I’ve plans for that in some of my stories.
As to the Eastern Writing Archetypes of the 5 Man Band I’ve heard about it, will have to look deeper into it and write about it. Thanks for reminding me about it.
One reason for taking a dim view of Jung is him being a weird occultist, this teller fully believes that Jung did communicate as he claimed with an entity calling itself Philemon, it was in all likelihood of quite a different nature than he believed it to be. That and few are the psychological men who weren't party to some horror or mind poison
But, that darkness aside, his works are fine fodder for stories. The id, the shadow and so on.
A writer, being somewhat of a bandit of imagination, need not respect, love or revere any idea. Take whatever works, plunder the past for the present!
Only if you have a structure to climb can you jump off of it and fly away...
Arguably there's only truly one story, under which all stories of the world begin and die. All stories save one.
It certainly hasn't gone well for any number of folks abandoning the hero's journey for the Mary Sue's fanfiction!
Fair point, about him and many others. I've never heard of the tale of Philemon.
But I will STRONGLY disagree about the comparison to Banditry. We writers are ‘Seekers of the Truth’ not Bandits. We seek the Truth by all means and explore all depths and deeps to find the Truth in all things, and in order to tell our tales. Bandits we are not, Liars we are not, Thieves we are not.
We seek after the shadow of heroes and legends. There is nothing nobler than that I think.
Perhaps you will find the banditry of Goemon or Robin Hood, of Phantom Thieves more palatable?
Indeed, a Liar is the 'shadow' of the writer, darkening with stories instead of brightening. The skillset of a writer and conman have a lot of overlap. The Liar is the fallen writer, or the writer is the redeemed liar. For a writer deep in lie, worlds ring hollow, character's flesh turns to cardboard. For a time such repulsive works can be powdered and given lipstick, but sooner or later, a hog will be called a hog.
Actually, to go further, rather than righteous bandits, some writers could be said to be like sorcerers pouring through tomes for spells to make wondrous worlds to enchant readers.
Some of course can be called warriors, so cutting are their words!
It's fine, noble thieves might be noble, but this teller won't say that such aren't lesser among writers, but few can reach places like the Arch-scholar Tolkien, to create a new mythology to mark the fantastic forevermore, he certainly intended and accomplished the former, the latter wasn't the objective, but certainly he did so too.
Excellent summary and overview of the Hero's journey! The woven Jungian and Cambellian ideas are beautifully fleshed out in a coherent and understandable manner. I surround myself daily with both Jung and Campbell's work and as an avid reader/researcher into the same topic I applaud this article.
Thanks and am glad you liked this brief overview, honestly I never thought I’d ever write one but when I interacted with some it seemed as though they had never seen Campbell/Jung’s works.
I’m hoping this’ll serve as a ‘gateway’ or ‘Threshold’ into their works.
And I’m glad you do regular research on this topic, kudos to you! Are you a Mythologist for a University or something?
I am completely independent in my study and research. One of the beautiful things of our world is that anyone can do research now, tis a curse to some since they can't get the monads proper, but to those who can zero in accurately on what they love have a beautiful opportunity ahead. The cross intersection of mythology and psychology have been at the forefront of my study for just over a year now. Before that was political theory, and before that was contemporary psychology and philosophy. However, I have a special calling to Jungian ideas, it wraps me in its beautiful wisdom and I do my absolute best to flesh it out in my own writing. Here recently I started applying Jungian "conjunction of opposites" to Heimskringla and Norse mythology. Something Jung didn't have too much information on but Cambell filled in some blanks.
Ah cool. and I’ll take a look at your Norse mythological essays, and will see about commenting on them. Campbell was brilliant and definitely had more time on his hands to an extent and definitely spent it well researching and writing and helping others like him with their own extensive research.
Honestly, the world lost an intellectual Giant when he passed away.
No pressure. You're free to read, comment, do as you please my friend. We are all in this boat together. I'm just here doing what I feel is best. Following the wind where it take me. And so far, I enjoy it very much.
Campbell's "Masks of God" 4 volume series on mythology is a constant on my desk. Right next to Peterson, von Franz, and Jung. Contrary to popular belief, and supporting evidence on YouTube, Peterson did not "dislike" or attempt to "discredit" Campbell. Peterson yields to Campbell's knowledge more than once in "Maps of Meaning".
Cool, and wait I thought Peterson was a fan of Campbell, I distinctly remember him praising him as a ‘genius’ and admitting to admiring his work and often turning to it for guidance like he does Jung.
Where did this ‘discredit’ story come from? Doesn’t his work, work in coordination with that of Campbell’s?
In one of Petersons lecture series (2015 Personality course at Toronto) he slights Campbell's quote "follow your bliss" and the internet took that as "Peterson dislikes Campbell." I've met plenty that argued Peterson didn't like Campbell but as you know it's a well-known truth that anyone who intersects mythology and psychology that Campbell, Peterson, and Jung are all on the same page. Peterson is also politically charged where Campbell and Jungs work barely get to that level. Peterson draws many sociological comparisons (Soviet atrocities) with a neuroscientific backdrop with a Jungian underpinning and, to some, it separates him from the lot. To me, it adds another element of archetypal comparison that of the political and sociological.
When I saw the movie 8th Grade (my favorite 2018 movie), I turned to my wife and said Kayla had completed her hero journey. What did the character do? She finally stood up for herself when the cool girls said something mean. Yes, yes, that was heroic growth, and it was a thrilling moment.
Cool! Never saw that movie, will check it out. And you’re right the character completed her Hero’s Journey and stood up for herself, sometimes it is as simple as that or the Breakfast Club realizing they all had stuff in common.
That’s awesome and yeah, those of us who recognize the truth about it do have those moments when watching cinema, it certainly helps make it more enjoyable.
I'm a huge Campbell fan and I love his monomyth but it also bugs me when stories follow it too closely. The Pirates of the Caribbean movies were a great example of loosely following the monomyth while still being creative and finding enough twists and turns to keep the reader guessing. Too predictable is bad in my opinion. And I say that as someone who works in Hollywood in the film industry haha
I've only read parts of Hero with a Thousand Faces, but most modern books on writing, whether novels or screenplays, whether they have 3, 4, 5, or 6 Acts, whether it's Truby, Brooks, Hauge, or Snyder...all fit relatively well into the short version of the Hero's Journey. I think the full Hero's Journey that Campbell describes has more steps.
Some interesting exceptions are Propp's Morphology of a Folktale and Dent's Master Plot.
I've tried finding older books on writing to see what advice existed prior to Campbell, but without much luck.
Yeah, Campbell goes into greater detail than I have, and I plan to do a chapter by chapter analysis in podcast and written form.
I’ve also looked into older ones, and struggled to find one. I have found a prose-guide to writing in the Victorian style, and am currently going through it but that one’s I think dated to the 60s or 80s or something.
I've use the Hero's Journey before. It can be very flexible when you mix up the archetypes Mentor and temptress for example. Or switch up the order, when facing the big bad the Hero goes into refusal of the call. keep it fresh.
Check the Eastern writing archetypes of the five man band. It's complementary. Or watch an old episode of G Force.
Very true about switching it up, I know I’ve plans for that in some of my stories.
As to the Eastern Writing Archetypes of the 5 Man Band I’ve heard about it, will have to look deeper into it and write about it. Thanks for reminding me about it.
One reason for taking a dim view of Jung is him being a weird occultist, this teller fully believes that Jung did communicate as he claimed with an entity calling itself Philemon, it was in all likelihood of quite a different nature than he believed it to be. That and few are the psychological men who weren't party to some horror or mind poison
But, that darkness aside, his works are fine fodder for stories. The id, the shadow and so on.
A writer, being somewhat of a bandit of imagination, need not respect, love or revere any idea. Take whatever works, plunder the past for the present!
Only if you have a structure to climb can you jump off of it and fly away...
Arguably there's only truly one story, under which all stories of the world begin and die. All stories save one.
It certainly hasn't gone well for any number of folks abandoning the hero's journey for the Mary Sue's fanfiction!
Fair point, about him and many others. I've never heard of the tale of Philemon.
But I will STRONGLY disagree about the comparison to Banditry. We writers are ‘Seekers of the Truth’ not Bandits. We seek the Truth by all means and explore all depths and deeps to find the Truth in all things, and in order to tell our tales. Bandits we are not, Liars we are not, Thieves we are not.
We seek after the shadow of heroes and legends. There is nothing nobler than that I think.
Perhaps you will find the banditry of Goemon or Robin Hood, of Phantom Thieves more palatable?
Indeed, a Liar is the 'shadow' of the writer, darkening with stories instead of brightening. The skillset of a writer and conman have a lot of overlap. The Liar is the fallen writer, or the writer is the redeemed liar. For a writer deep in lie, worlds ring hollow, character's flesh turns to cardboard. For a time such repulsive works can be powdered and given lipstick, but sooner or later, a hog will be called a hog.
Actually, to go further, rather than righteous bandits, some writers could be said to be like sorcerers pouring through tomes for spells to make wondrous worlds to enchant readers.
Some of course can be called warriors, so cutting are their words!
Oh I must offer up an apology then O Snowy Teller! Merry-Men indeed we are, and followers of the Great Goemon indeed!
As to the Liar, I must agree with you.
I suppose I must concede (happily) and say we are indeed Bandits, Sorcerers and also Warriors of Words and Worlds.
It's fine, noble thieves might be noble, but this teller won't say that such aren't lesser among writers, but few can reach places like the Arch-scholar Tolkien, to create a new mythology to mark the fantastic forevermore, he certainly intended and accomplished the former, the latter wasn't the objective, but certainly he did so too.
Well spoken, you’re absolutely right.
Excellent summary and overview of the Hero's journey! The woven Jungian and Cambellian ideas are beautifully fleshed out in a coherent and understandable manner. I surround myself daily with both Jung and Campbell's work and as an avid reader/researcher into the same topic I applaud this article.
Thanks and am glad you liked this brief overview, honestly I never thought I’d ever write one but when I interacted with some it seemed as though they had never seen Campbell/Jung’s works.
I’m hoping this’ll serve as a ‘gateway’ or ‘Threshold’ into their works.
And I’m glad you do regular research on this topic, kudos to you! Are you a Mythologist for a University or something?
I am completely independent in my study and research. One of the beautiful things of our world is that anyone can do research now, tis a curse to some since they can't get the monads proper, but to those who can zero in accurately on what they love have a beautiful opportunity ahead. The cross intersection of mythology and psychology have been at the forefront of my study for just over a year now. Before that was political theory, and before that was contemporary psychology and philosophy. However, I have a special calling to Jungian ideas, it wraps me in its beautiful wisdom and I do my absolute best to flesh it out in my own writing. Here recently I started applying Jungian "conjunction of opposites" to Heimskringla and Norse mythology. Something Jung didn't have too much information on but Cambell filled in some blanks.
Ah cool. and I’ll take a look at your Norse mythological essays, and will see about commenting on them. Campbell was brilliant and definitely had more time on his hands to an extent and definitely spent it well researching and writing and helping others like him with their own extensive research.
Honestly, the world lost an intellectual Giant when he passed away.
No pressure. You're free to read, comment, do as you please my friend. We are all in this boat together. I'm just here doing what I feel is best. Following the wind where it take me. And so far, I enjoy it very much.
Campbell's "Masks of God" 4 volume series on mythology is a constant on my desk. Right next to Peterson, von Franz, and Jung. Contrary to popular belief, and supporting evidence on YouTube, Peterson did not "dislike" or attempt to "discredit" Campbell. Peterson yields to Campbell's knowledge more than once in "Maps of Meaning".
Cool, and wait I thought Peterson was a fan of Campbell, I distinctly remember him praising him as a ‘genius’ and admitting to admiring his work and often turning to it for guidance like he does Jung.
Where did this ‘discredit’ story come from? Doesn’t his work, work in coordination with that of Campbell’s?
In one of Petersons lecture series (2015 Personality course at Toronto) he slights Campbell's quote "follow your bliss" and the internet took that as "Peterson dislikes Campbell." I've met plenty that argued Peterson didn't like Campbell but as you know it's a well-known truth that anyone who intersects mythology and psychology that Campbell, Peterson, and Jung are all on the same page. Peterson is also politically charged where Campbell and Jungs work barely get to that level. Peterson draws many sociological comparisons (Soviet atrocities) with a neuroscientific backdrop with a Jungian underpinning and, to some, it separates him from the lot. To me, it adds another element of archetypal comparison that of the political and sociological.
Well said.
When I saw the movie 8th Grade (my favorite 2018 movie), I turned to my wife and said Kayla had completed her hero journey. What did the character do? She finally stood up for herself when the cool girls said something mean. Yes, yes, that was heroic growth, and it was a thrilling moment.
Cool! Never saw that movie, will check it out. And you’re right the character completed her Hero’s Journey and stood up for herself, sometimes it is as simple as that or the Breakfast Club realizing they all had stuff in common.
I now wanna see that moment.
It’s a very quiet moment, but for those of us who know the hero’s journey, I’m not kidding that my heart soared.
That’s awesome and yeah, those of us who recognize the truth about it do have those moments when watching cinema, it certainly helps make it more enjoyable.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7014006/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Thx
I'm a huge Campbell fan and I love his monomyth but it also bugs me when stories follow it too closely. The Pirates of the Caribbean movies were a great example of loosely following the monomyth while still being creative and finding enough twists and turns to keep the reader guessing. Too predictable is bad in my opinion. And I say that as someone who works in Hollywood in the film industry haha