Some problems with the Hero's Journey
Mar. 24th, 2012 08:20 amHULK EXPLAINS WHY WE SHOULD STOP IT WITH THE HERO JOURNEY SHIT, and let me tell you, I refused the call to read this several times because IT'S IN ALL CAPS!
However, I've hated Joseph Campbell for a long time. I'd like to be able to read about things taking place in a forest without wondering whether it's a liminal place, but brain bleach for such things isn't yet available. Tentative: Mirkwood doesn't seem very liminal, I guess Treabeard's forest is sorta-kinda liminal.
I eventually started reading, and the author is absolutely right that the tools for analysis are not the same as the methods of construction.
And that the hero ought to have some sort of a spark rather than being no one in particular. And when I say no one in particular, I especially mean Neo. This may not be a great example, since many people love The Matrix, but I kept wondering, why is that nebbish the One?
More generally, the theme seems to be that story needs to be driven by distinctive characters who personally want things, and the hero's journey has become a dreary paint-by-numbers exercise. I assume that if "distinctive characters who personally want things" became the rule, some writers would find some way to make that routine, too.
There's a video clip of Matt Stone and Trey Parker (South Park writers) explaining something it took them a long time to learn. Scenes should never be connected by "and then"-- that boring. Scenes should always be connected by "therefore" or "but".
I seem to have put the conclusion in the middle, so all that's left is to mention that the essay has some charming illos, especially the Hulk piggy bank and the Japanese Gilgamesh.
Link thanks to
green_knight.
However, I've hated Joseph Campbell for a long time. I'd like to be able to read about things taking place in a forest without wondering whether it's a liminal place, but brain bleach for such things isn't yet available. Tentative: Mirkwood doesn't seem very liminal, I guess Treabeard's forest is sorta-kinda liminal.
I eventually started reading, and the author is absolutely right that the tools for analysis are not the same as the methods of construction.
And that the hero ought to have some sort of a spark rather than being no one in particular. And when I say no one in particular, I especially mean Neo. This may not be a great example, since many people love The Matrix, but I kept wondering, why is that nebbish the One?
More generally, the theme seems to be that story needs to be driven by distinctive characters who personally want things, and the hero's journey has become a dreary paint-by-numbers exercise. I assume that if "distinctive characters who personally want things" became the rule, some writers would find some way to make that routine, too.
There's a video clip of Matt Stone and Trey Parker (South Park writers) explaining something it took them a long time to learn. Scenes should never be connected by "and then"-- that boring. Scenes should always be connected by "therefore" or "but".
I seem to have put the conclusion in the middle, so all that's left is to mention that the essay has some charming illos, especially the Hulk piggy bank and the Japanese Gilgamesh.
Link thanks to
no subject
Date: 2012-03-24 04:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-24 04:27 pm (UTC)Copy & Paste in Word
Date: 2012-03-24 05:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-24 05:52 pm (UTC)Also - Trinity can't be The One because she's a GURL! Or something.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-25 10:15 am (UTC)...There is a lot of good stuff in that EXTREMELY ANNOYING FORMAT, not least the Neo point: an everyman who is in some way a hero, is in fact the exact reverse of a hero who is nobody in particular. Everyhero suggests: greatness comes from a thousand springs within, and you never know where or when it might break out. It's democratic in spirit, circumstantial in occurrence, and requires specific work in expression. Heronull suggests: greatness falls extraneously upon your head like the blessing of a passing seagull, and whites out the irrelevant matter that came before. It's correspondingly authoritarian, essentialist, and mass-producible. It may become a lot more interesting when Heronull is provoked by the senselessness of the seagull into reacting like somebody in particular - but since Heronull is probably a result of routinism in the first place, once again we get into "We've got a stencil for that!" territory. Meh!
no subject
Date: 2012-03-25 02:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-24 02:05 pm (UTC)I agree, media is more interesting the more, well, entropy it contains. The more you can't *quite* predict what happens next. Totally random is boring; totally structured is boring; two steps left of normal is fascinating. Because you've heard this song before, but you want to see what they do with the chorus this time, because that thing in the opening verse was awesome.
None of those storytellers (Gilgamesh, Star Wars, Arthur, ...) set out to write a monomyth story. It was in their bones, because it falls naturally out of how we culturally recognize a particular way for abandoned boys to rise to manhood. (If you or your readers are curious, here's my analysis of the monomyth, with some psychology thrown in. Mild warning: contains talk about male anatomy.)
I feel this way with most 'formula' stories, whether it's monomyth, little princess, hard-boiled detective, Saturday morning cartoon, or 5-act tragedy. Know the formula--don't write the formula. No one listens to songs that consist entirely of scales (except perhaps for Trance, and that's a special case). So don't just write the monomyth over again.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-24 02:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-24 02:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-24 03:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-24 05:54 pm (UTC)Still, in this essay, he made more than one point I hadn't seen before.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-24 04:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-24 05:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-24 09:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-24 09:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-24 09:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 12:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 07:26 pm (UTC)But Campbell is a useful list of Things that Happen in Stories. Thus, Mirkwood does change Bilbo: beginning in Mirkwood, he acts on his own, without Gandalf and effectively without the dwarves, and saves the situation - and he does it twice, once against the spiders and once against Thranduil. Without that change, we would not believe his coping with the perils of the Mountain.
But because Tolkien doesn't coat it over with theory (he knew more about myth, and less about the theory of myth, than anybody is apt to nowadays - lucky man), we don't notice; I had to read Tom Shippey to see this.
Kal Bashir's version of Hero's Journey rocks man
Date: 2012-03-27 08:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 09:08 pm (UTC)