The Hero's Journey and Mythic Structure

[Brian G Turner]

I've seen various mentions of features of the Hero's Journey and Mythic Structure in screenwriting books, such as Save the Cat and Million Dollar Outline, which has been interesting to note. I tried reading the Joseph Campbell but found it a little long-winded and too tightly focused. Anyway, I'm now reading The Writer's Journey by Christopher Vogler which goes into the issues of mythic structure in general.

What I find really interesting is how much I've already tapped into much of this already without realising I was doing so. Perhaps it's simply from watching a lot of films, where it's usually easy to note the features quite succinctly.

More to the point, by reading up more on mythic structure, it helps me understand better what I'm already doing, and therefore raise questions I need to answer, as well as make tweaks from a deeper understanding of the symbolism I'm using.

Question is, is anyone else using mythic structure, whether on purpose or by accident, and if so, are you looking more deeply into it? If so, what sort of details have you found especially useful?

For myself the greatest advantage is seeing areas I can improve upon, especially in terms of character development - from simple things to realising that I need to make their stakes clearer, to more complex ideas such as the relationships between individual protagonists and antagonist.

Even better, though, is that what I'm writing no longer seems so mysterious, and I'm beginning to understand what I'm doing intellectually, which I find quite comforting!

 

[ctg]

I don't quite get what you mean with the mythical structure? Or the way how you tie mythology to your work, or how to write in something specific in nature?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Wiki has an outline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Writer's_Journey:_Mythic_Structure_for_Writers

Um, I used some of the steps in Abendau, missed some out and turned some on their heads. So step 8, the ordeal, leads to the hero falling in mine. I also have no mentor, except a dead one of sorts. The trilogy brings it round full circle a bit more. I don't see it so clearly in my other stuff, but they're not epic in scale. Aspects but not the whole pattern for me. Often a sense of whacking the pattern on its head, actually, but that's partly my obsession with what it would really do to someone to go through such a process. My pragmatism/honesty unrails the process from time to time, whilst ultimately adhering to the concept(ish).

 

[HareBrain]

I read Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces when I started writing. It's interesting, and as you say quite validating when you realise your story fits in with it, but I think it's a trap to try to consciously follow it, because it can be very limiting. Often it's the diversions from the pattern that make a story interesting. It's also worth remembering, in my opinion, that all the peoples that created the myths of which Campbell's monomyth turned out to be the pattern didn't know of the monomyth themselves (because no academic had come along and pointed it out).

 

[Tecdavid]

According to that Wiki page, my WiP fits some of those steps and points nicely. I knew my overall structure was rather familiar, but still, it's odd to see it mapped out like that! That said, not all the stages and archetypes are present in my story.

If the basic outline on that page is anything to go by, then yes, I am -- to a degree -- following this structure.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I agree, Hb. I think I would have preferred not to know about this, for fear I'll subconsciously either look for the steps to validate a story, or avoid them to be edgy, where really the story should drive what happens, not a perceived structure.

 

[Glitch]

I haven't written a fantasy story of any length yet, but I can recall other stories which have followed this structure (however loosely).

It's tempting to say I don't want to follow a predefined structure. Then again, why avoid something that has worked for so many others.

 

[HareBrain]

I think if you find that your past work roughly fits the structure, then you can afford to pretty much forget about it, because it shows you have the storytelling instinct, which (again, my opinion) is more valuable than a checklist of mentor, threshold guardian, etc.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think there are just some story shapes that naturally appeal to either humans in general or European culture. The story of a man who goes on a mission, and either chooses not to return or can't go back to normal, for instance, is somehow more satisfying than the story of a man who goes on a mission, goes back and carries on as usual. Why this is so, I don't know; maybe it's popular because every culture has experience of people coming back from wars and having trouble readjusting to civilian life, or perhaps it just chimes with the way our brains are wired.

A while ago, I was talking to a writer who is very knowledgable on the history of UFO sightings and how they reflect science fiction. He pointed out that there are medieval legends of changelings and sky-boats that strongly resemble modern abduction stories. He posited two explanations: either aliens have been stealing humans for a very long time or, perhaps more interestingly from a writing point of view, humans have felt the need to tell those stories for hundreds of years, changing the scenery but not the plot.

At any rate, I wouldn't worry too much about this. It's certainly interesting, but I don't think that it imposes particular rules on the writer. It's more that it guides writers towards possibly interesting stories.

 

[Hex]

I think I would have preferred not to know about this, for fear I'll subconsciously either look for the steps to validate a story, or avoid them to be edgy, where really the story should drive what happens, not a perceived structure.

Fear not! The wonderful HB pointed out the structure to me when I was snarling and sinking beneath synopses. I read up on it, went: "Gosh. That fits my wip quite well. The man's a genius.(*)" -- the really clever thing that I did next, though, was to completely forget it.

You may use that insight for free

EDITED to add: I think some people are happy writing from a structure. I know (from her blog posts) that Janice Hardy has started doing so, for example. It's kind of a case of finding out what works for you. Structures hurt my head but then lots of things do that.

(*) HB, obviously.

 

[Gumboot]

I've always found the validity of the monomyth doubtful. Once you actually look into The Hero With A Thousand Faces in any sort of detail you realise that very few, if any, stories actually hit all of the beats, and many of them only hit the most basic and generic beats that every story includes.

The wikipedia article actually succinctly summarises why the entire concept of the monomyth is highly questionable:

"Campbell describes 17 stages or steps along this journey. Very few myths contain all 17 stages—some myths contain many of the stages, while others contain only a few; some myths may focus on only one of the stages, while other myths may deal with the stages in a somewhat different order."

The only story I know of that really matches the monomyth is Star Wars and that's because Lucas deliberately followed Campbell's book point by point.

 

[HareBrain]

If most myths hit all seventeen "beats" it wouldn't just be remarkable, it would be proof of alien interference. But I think the theory does say something valuable about our psychology and how it relates to the way pre-modern people raised and initiated their children, and how those cultural tropes have lingered.

And this, I think, is an interesting point: the hero myth is a tool related to male initiation. (Campbell says somewhere that its subtext is the male adolescent encountering the female). That does not, of course, mean that stories with female MCs can't use the structure just as successfully, but it does make it one particular type of story. Relying on the monomyth as some kind of magic formula means excluding alternatives that come (to put it crudely) from the female side of storytelling, which would work much better in many, many cases.

 

[Brian G Turner]

What I really like about the mythic structure is that it forces me to try and understand consciously a creative process that tends to be organic and unconscious.

Looking at the different elements of mythic structure, I can also try and understand more about what I need to develop more - for example, last night it was realising more character change to be explored after The Ordeal.

However, it's elements of a story and I'm not using them all, but a helpful template to reference IMO.

you realise that very few, if any, stories actually hit all of the beats, and many of them only hit the most basic and generic beats that every story includes.

What's really funny about Vogler is that he summarises that these are elements of a story, and don't all have to be used, or in a specific order. However, he then goes on about working at Disney for the story development of Lion King, and is very critical of the Timon and Pumba middle section because to follow mythic structure it should have been more of a training montage in the middle, according to him - and by his own argument, actually shows why care needs to be taken in following mythic structure too closely - I suspect if Vogler had got more of his way with the story, Lion King would not have done so well.

 

[Ashley R]

I found reading Christopher Booker's The Seven Basic plots, which is another way of analysing traditional story telling to be most useful. It encompasses the Heroes journey as one of the basic plots.

 

[ZombieWife]

I've seen various mentions of features of the Hero's Journey and Mythic Structure in screenwriting books, such as Save the Cat and Million Dollar Outline, which has been interesting to note. I tried reading the Joseph Campbell but found it a little long-winded and too tightly focused. Anyway, I'm now reading The Writer's Journey by Christopher Vogler which goes into the issues of mythic structure in general.

Vogler's book is a great read.

What I find really interesting is how much I've already tapped into much of this already without realising I was doing so. Perhaps it's simply from watching a lot of films, where it's usually easy to note the features quite succinctly.

My take is that we (as writers) do it subconsciously. But, I'm a big fan of Jungian archetypes which Campbell blends in to his own work.

More to the point, by reading up more on mythic structure, it helps me understand better what I'm already doing, and therefore raise questions I need to answer, as well as make tweaks from a deeper understanding of the symbolism I'm using.

As a writer, I have this same experience, but, my "awareness" doesn't occur until post-first draft, usually. I start to see patterns, archetypes, symbols and such appear when I go through the story again. I find themes in particular and from those, I can often recognize the archetypal elements and where to tweak and edit.

Question is, is anyone else using mythic structure, whether on purpose or by accident, and if so, are you looking more deeply into it? If so, what sort of details have you found especially useful?

I don't say that I use mythic structure to guide me, but if I do see something within my work after the fact, I will assess whether or not the story might benefit from turning up the volume on those of those elements. Themes that I see popping up for me are:

Order and Chaos (Jung might say Self and Shadow)
Male and Female (Self and Anima/Animus)
Atonement and Redemption
Gatekeepers
Denial of Self/Journey/Abilities

For myself the greatest advantage is seeing areas I can improve upon, especially in terms of character development - from simple things to realising that I need to make their stakes clearer, to more complex ideas such as the relationships between individual protagonists and antagonist. Even better, though, is that what I'm writing no longer seems so mysterious, and I'm beginning to understand what I'm doing intellectually, which I find quite comforting!

I love this idea. If it's helping you fine tune and clarify, then marvelous!

I've studied this stuff pretty fervently (undergrad minor was religious studies/mythic studies). It's really a big, huge, wonderful world for writers, critics and academics to "play" in.

The one thing I see a lot of, however, is when folks are too stringent with the analysis portion. They take things far too literally.

1. Every step does not need to be present.
2. Steps do not need to be literal.
3. Steps (especially middle steps) do not necessarily have to be in order.

If you are really interested in this, I have some suggestions (and am always a PM away if you want to bounce some ideas off me).

1. Read some Jung. "Man and His Symbols" is a good place to start. "Memories, Dreams, and Reflections" is a good one. It's his autobiography, but there is a lot in there.

2. Look into alchemy. This is often an untapped well of information. There is a process of individuation present here as well, the magnum opus in particular. [Link] and [Link].

3. Look into dream analysis (Jungian if you can). It's a great resource for symbols and meaning.

 

[Gumboot]

My point is that the more vague you make adherence to the monomyth (such as skipping steps, having them in different order, interpreting them vaguely), the more meaningless it is. Become vague enough, and you can crowbar every single story ever written into the monomyth.

It's hardly compelling to claim "many of our stories have one or more dramatic beats that are vaguely like, or possibly vaguely counter to, these arbitrary seventeen dramatic beats I've listed".

Campbell, to my mind, suffers from the old saying "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". He became so fixated on this "monomyth" he falls for selective pattern-reading, ignoring details that undermine his premise, and elevating the importance of details that reinforce his premise.

It's like Nostradamus. Sure, if you're flexible enough with your interpretation you can actually apply his "predictions" to real events, but so what? A prediction that can equally be applied to fifty unrelated and fundamentally different historical events is hardly a true "prediction".

 

[ZombieWife]

My point is that the more vague you make adherence to the monomyth (such as skipping steps, having them in different order, interpreting them vaguely), the more meaningless it is. Become vague enough, and you can crowbar every single story ever written into the monomyth.

It's hardly compelling to claim "many of our stories have one or more dramatic beats that are vaguely like, or possibly vaguely counter to, these arbitrary seventeen dramatic beats I've listed".

Campbell, to my mind, suffers from the old saying "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". He became so fixated on this "monomyth" he falls for selective pattern-reading, ignoring details that undermine his premise, and elevating the importance of details that reinforce his premise.

It's like Nostradamus. Sure, if you're flexible enough with your interpretation you can actually apply his "predictions" to real events, but so what? A prediction that can equally be applied to fifty unrelated and fundamentally different historical events is hardly a true "prediction".

Well, that's kind of the point of the "Every story is being retold over and over again," claim. Isn't that what the monomyth is all about? And yes, you can fit most narratives into this structure (I would say "all", but figured that someone would throw a micro-fiction piece at me and say, "ha HA! NOT HERE.")

It's a tool for analysis. If someone wants precision and exaction, then they will have a far more limited outcome. (Meeting of goddess meaning "meeting of a real goddess," gatekeepers meaning "real men standing at a gate and guarding it.") As with most literature theory there isn't one way into story analysis. This opens the door for more flexible interpretations at times. It really depends on the lens. The monomyth is a lens, not the 10 commandments.

My point is that someone can insist until they are blue in the face that this template utilizes a teeny-tiny lens. That's fine for their own analysis, as long as the rules of said_analysis are clearly outlined. Same goes for those playing it fast and loose. For me, there is no right way or wrong way, but from how I read the monomyth, I take it in the spirit for which it's presented:

"All of these different mythologies give us the same essential quest. You leave the world that you're in and go into a depth or into a distance or up to a height. There you come to what was missing in your consciousness in the world you formerly inhabited. Then comes the problem of either staying with that, and letting the world drop off, or returning with that boon and trying to hold onto it as you move back into your social world again." (131).

It could be that I was a bit too firm myself in my previous post, stating that things ARE more flexible. They are only as flexible as you need/want for your analysis. I'm just big on establishing rules for any type of argument up front: "We're taking this 100% literally," or, "We're looking at this at a symbolic level. Here is the conceptualization of that . . . "

I will say that genre (especially sci-fi/fantasy/comic books, etc) tend to follow a more narrow interpretation: more epic, more literal in many parts. I think that's why I'm drawn to sci-fi and fantasy. Risks are higher, rewards are higher.

Just my take!

 

[prizzley]

Wiki has an outline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Writer's_Journey:_Mythic_Structure_for_Writers

It's a good job I drafted my current wip before I saw this this. Otherwise I'd never have written it. It seems so contrived. Yet it's the plot of my wip exactly!

 

[Gumboot]

Well, that's kind of the point of the "Every story is being retold over and over again," claim. Isn't that what the monomyth is all about? And yes, you can fit most narratives into this structure (I would say "all", but figured that someone would throw a micro-fiction piece at me and say, "ha HA! NOT HERE.")

Maybe I didn't explain myself properly. Campbell's criteria by which a story "fits" effectively renders the "structure" non-existent. It's not the same story being told over and over again. It's widely different stories with a varied collection of often superficial similarities, being forcibly reinterpreted in a way that falsely registers them as the same story.

(This is not to say that the "monomyth" story isn't popular, and doesn't feature often in narratives throughout human history - my objection is to the scope of Campbell's application)

It's a tool for analysis.

Applied as vaguely as Campbell applies it, it's totally worthless as a tool of analysis.

If someone wants precision and exaction, then they will have a far more limited outcome. (Meeting of goddess meaning "meeting of a real goddess," gatekeepers meaning "real men standing at a gate and guarding it.") As with most literature theory there isn't one way into story analysis. This opens the door for more flexible interpretations at times. It really depends on the lens. The monomyth is a lens, not the 10 commandments.

Granted, it's possible to attempt to apply a template too literally, and thus render analysis impossible due to an expectation of excessive precision. Campbell is guilty of the opposite though; applying a template so vaguely that analysis is rendered impossible due to excessive breadth of application.

In other words, the monomyth may indeed be a useful tool for analysing stories, but Campbell got so caught up in trying to show how every story was the monomyth that he undermined any analytical value it might have had.

My point is that someone can insist until they are blue in the face that this template utilizes a teeny-tiny lens.

Personally I think it's the exact opposite.

For me, there is no right way or wrong way, but from how I read the monomyth, I take it in the spirit for which it's presented:

"All of these different mythologies give us the same essential quest. You leave the world that you're in and go into a depth or into a distance or up to a height. There you come to what was missing in your consciousness in the world you formerly inhabited. Then comes the problem of either staying with that, and letting the world drop off, or returning with that boon and trying to hold onto it as you move back into your social world again." (131).

Had Campbell actually adhered to that analysis, I'd be fine with it. But he gets so vague with his application of the monomyth that he incorporates stories that don't match the above outline at all.

It could be that I was a bit too firm myself in my previous post, stating that things ARE more flexible. They are only as flexible as you need/want for your analysis. I'm just big on establishing rules for any type of argument up front: "We're taking this 100% literally," or, "We're looking at this at a symbolic level. Here is the conceptualization of that . . . "

Sure, but as with any sort of analysis, if others feel the parameters of your analysis are such that they render your conclusions meaningless, they're entitled to point that out.

I feel that the parameters of Campbell's analysis of the monomyth are so vague that they render his conclusions meaningless. Hence I was pointing that out.

Two prime examples I'd cite are the stories of Jesus Christ and Gautama Buddha. Campbell cites both as "classic" examples of the monomyth. Neither narrative even remotely resembles the monomyth. In the case of Jesus, it's essentially the opposite of the monomyth. An analysis that scores a positive on two stories that are fundamentally at odds with the basic parameters cannot be considered a meaningful analysis.

 

[ZombieWife]

I see it in Christ. I see it in Buddha. I simply don't agree that it's overly vague. That's really all I have to add. (shrug)