Thank you for this. I had a writing teacher, a famous sci-fi author I should note, who proclaimed the joys of the campbell circle jerk, but had no answer when I asked the question "What happens in societies where the individual is not all important, but rather the family is the key social schema?" It was a cold day in class that day. I used to love Campbell to. Then I read more and smoked less and suddenly The road warrior was just a kick ass movie and not the only thing I watched on Sunday mornings.

I dont see Harry potter on the check list. And no goddesses in his story.. But i agree, Campbell was pretty lame.. I was stoned and couldn't read all the way through that stuff. I don't suppose much of the modern female-based SF&F fits on that list either.

I thought the point of Journey was to collect your instruments from the aliens who stole them. Whoops wrong Journey.

Yeah, I think that this type of joruney is fine for one's first foray into fantasy. (Eddings for me), but we all need to move on. I think that a character can have a pretty interesting journey to herohood while not doing any of this stuff.

I agree that Campbell gets used like a crutch a lot of the time. But I also think that some of the best books/movies consciously invert part or all of the formula to surprise the audience, so I don't think that a knowledge of Campbell is a bad thing. The decision to reject it can be as interesting as the decision to embrace it. Like everything, it all comes down to execution.

While I think it's fair to level criticism at Campbell for the marketing of his work, maybe, I kinda feel like this post and the last one are attacking him for saying things he didn't really say. I mean, when I read The Hero With a Thousand Faces, I thought the metaphor was supposed to be pretty broad -- e.g., the hero doesn't actually have to go down into a cave, and he focused on stories about one person, because single-protagonist archplots are the most commonly found story forms all over the world. And, I mean, while it's true that problem-solving and personal growth aren't the same in real life, the point of a story is that whatever conflict needs to be overcome should be interesting enough that it has a little more impact on the character(s) in question than "Finished my math homework!" or "Found out where the nearest Rite Aid is!"

Also, the notion that "any storytelling formula is going to be lame" is just plain horseshit. Every able storyteller masters the forms (and formulas) first, because you have to before you can move beyond them. When storytellers think they can ignore the fundamentals, we end up with shitty "arty" stories.

It certainly CAN work, if elevated beyond the forumula. But most writing just plugs in those few cliches. I worked in development for a while, and all I did was read scripts about orphans, prophecies, chosen ones, and Evil.

The thing is, pretty much all the good writing, whether in scripts or prose, has a journey of some kind. The main character confronts problems, is changed by them, does stuff, goes places, developes as a person, etc. That's the driving force of drama. The problem is that this specific type of journey, the "hero's journey" as forumulated by Cambell, is a quick and specific way to make sure that the fundamental components to good drama is there. Those components, of course, require something more - creativity and justification. Yes, it's a forumla, but it's a good one. It's just been done poorly so many times that, like gaging when someone throws up on an airplane, discerning audiences have developed a reflex against it.

The problem with this particular monomnyth is that it also reinforces one of our predominant problems here in the 21st century: hero worship. Everyone is looking for The One (man) who will save us all because well, we're just a bunch of weaklings who wouldn't know that the Empire is fucking evil if we didn't have a hero or his sister of royal lineage to tell all us plebes what's what. Fuck that.

A more interesting story would have been if Jango Fett's clones decided they didn't want to be Storm Troopers any more and rebelled, splitting into factions and coalitions with different agendas but all wanting to right to self determination. They didn't wait around for some Jedi to quit fiddling with his lightsaber and threw the Emperor into the machinery because they were sick of taking orders and being strangled by Darth Vader's brain powers whenever they made a mistake.

@moff: Yeah, I think this is a valid point. Lame writers that use story formulas are lame because they're lame writers.

It's like saying you shouldn't use a recipe if you want to make a delicious chocolate cake, because then it'll be just like all the other chocolate cakes. That's crazy!

@jahpuba: Weirdly, even in societies where family social structure is extremely important, and more relevant than, say, the state, you still usually get single-protagonist epics. I can't think of any society off-hand in which individuality is literally subsumed by familial relationships--they've all got an individual sense of self, that is played on for the hero-epic.

@Gyrus: Wow, I totally want to read/see the version of Star Wars where the clones decide they're not going to take this shit any more and overthrow the emperor. You should use your jedi mind powers on George Lucas to make it happen!

@Gyrus: That'd be the same thing, though, it'd just be the stormtrooper clones who "received the call" (i.e., recognized the intolerability of their surroundings) and chose to embark upon the "journey" (eliminating the obstacles to their well-being).

Heroes are often marked, but don't have to be.

I have read that there are just eight plots and seven of them are in Homer. That seems to be a common meme, but i dont have a citation.

@Gyrus: The problem with your problem is the problem with this whole analysis: Humans don't worship heroes because we're told to by stories about heroes; we tell stories about heroes because we're wired to -- a "hero," by definition, symbolizes and embodies the qualities the worshiper admires.

Anyway, your clone idea is fine, but wouldn't play out all that differently on film, form-wise, from the Star Wars movies as they were made: There might not be a "chosen one" like a Skywalker, but there would still probably be one character who got a majority of screen time (even if it was a slight majority), accompanied by one or more other protagonists who were involved to varying degrees.

@braak: Yes! What you said!

@wishnevsky: I've heard this, too. Whatever it is: Man vs. Man, Man vs. Fate, Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Politics, Man vs. Cyclops, Man vs. Cannibals, Man Misses His Wife So He Sleeps Around A Little.

It depends a lot on how intricately you're describing "plots."

@braak: Awesome.

@charliejane: I haven't read these, but I have a feeling they're not too far off. Anyway, why is the story that much better if it's clones overthrowing the Empire instead of, say, some kind of alliance of rebels? If it were a movie, it just seems like there would be far fewer lightsaber battles and a lot more trouble telling the characters apart, unless they wore, like, different-colored outfits. ;-)

"The 'hero' is always a d00d. Why does the hero encounter the goddess halfway through? Because she's hawt and he's a guy. If the hero was a chick, would the goddess be a dude? Somehow we doubt it."

You're arguing that the hero is always a dude because Campbell was writing about myths where generally speaking the hero was always a dude. There's a logical fallacy in this. For instance, I think you could probably slot Buffy the Vampire Slayer into the monomyth with a little creativity. It's been a while but the goddess isn't just beautiful in the monomyth, she's a source of help.

Circa 1990, there was a musical called Once on this Island, featuring a female protagonist who went on a mythic journey to find her love and change her world. It fit the monomyth almost perfectly as I recall because we were studying the monomyth in English class the year I saw the show. In that case, the heroine, Ti Moune still met a goddess, Asaka, Mother of the Earth, who helped ease her travels and travails.

@justjack75: Uh, you don't need that much creativity to slot Buffy into the Monomyth. It can get a little complex, because of how long the story is, but Angel is definitely to Buffy as Ishtar is to Gilgamesh.

You're right, exactly, I think.

Remember, Campbell's monomyth was built around entirely patriarchal societies (because, so far as I know, all societies that have left readable histories have been patriarchal ones): he was describing what he saw, not proscribing it. There is nothing essential to the argument that requires that the "hero" be male, or that the "goddess" be female. These are just titles applied to functions.

@justjack75: For the record, Once On This Island was a good illustrative example, but man I hated that play.

Thanks for a thought provoking post. Nice to get something beyond the "OMG look who's gonna star in the new sci-fi movie!" posts (not that I don't like those too).

Anyway, I'm firmly in the Moff/Braak camp. Crap writing is crap writing, whether it follows a formula or not. I'd suggest that authors who go out of their way to avoid a formula will tend to produce crap more often than not.

Don't worry about formulae, genre conventions, or whether or not Campbell (or a horde of post-modern anti-Campbell hipster critics) will find your work derivative/arty. And most of all, don't start off trying to make your story "about" something. Just write a good story. If you do that, your readers will figure the rest out on their own.

@braak: Hehe... I'd ask why but this is io9, a science fiction forum, not a Broadway show forum ;-)

@braak: That said, I'd happily concede that the Campbell formula could be a masculine format (which can be adapted to use heroes of either sex) and that there's a corresponding feminine pattern that's much less well known or studied because we been holdin' the ladies down for so long. (Also, it would probably be kind of boring and involve a lot of "talking through your problems" and going on "adventures" to find cute shoes.)

@moff: The Candace Bushnell monomyth. Heroine with a thousand shoes.

It's true, though, that there are a lot of dissimilarities between cultural epics, and that Campbell ignores many of these (often to his detriment!). And it's also also true that for every culture that existed before the 19th century, we've lost about ten times as many stories as we've preserved, and if there were stories that women were telling each other that folllowed the heroine's quest to become sexually liberated and find a Prada handbag, or whatever, we will probably never find them.

Well, not everyone is in love with "The Color Purple." I hate the concept of a formula, but I don't think that similar plot points prove any given auther was following one. I mean, if you don't like male leads, heroes being the center of attention, or myths mushed into the story, there's plenty of fiction elsewhere to find. Those reasons seem like personal taste.

Plus I don't see how the last reason works. I've never run across anyone who was sitting around waiting for 'it' to happen to them to begin the hard work. When I see an epic adventure, and if the main character or anyone else is likeable, if they're working hard towards 'the right thing' it's inspring to me at least. I never took, "I need magic to continue life," from Star Wars.

I don't see how Starship Troopers, Enders Game, or Star Wars were cheesy. Blizzards concept of story? THAT'S some good cheese right there. Those three pieces of fiction however, seem like they follow a classic idea of growing and adventure. If it's done poorly, then it's cheesy. I think a story deserves a chance to stand on it's own two feet however. Not everything has to avoid this like the plague in order to be good.

I was just using the Clone Rebellion as an off the cuff example.

What I had in mind was more of an Altmanesque, large scale cross section of characters in different places and positions of power in the social order, deciding they were tired of the same old shit and deciding on rebellion but a splintered one, in which different factions have different objectives. Some want to take over the Empire and be Benevolent (in their eyes only) Dictators (sort of a Castro analog) others want to organize a galaxy wide peasant revolt (Che) while the upper and middle class folk decide on a democratic, albeit elitist, Republic (Sons of Liberty). Plus you have the double dealing only-in-it-for-the-money back stabber who sells out various people to the Empire and then has a change of heart but doesn't know how to fix the colossal fuck up they've made, plus the deposed royalists who just think the wrong people are in charge. It's more of a War and Peace style tapestry where everyone gets fucked over, disillusioned, blown up or corrupted. I imagine the "hero" analog would be the guy who is only in it for the swag and trim and realizes too late that his own greed and self interest has undermined everything noble. He tries to redeem himself but dies tragically saving someone but no one knows it and he is remembered as the Benedict Arnold of Space even though he tried to be George Washington, in the end. Oh, and the Benevolent Dictator and elitist republicans make a deal and so they win. Che gets martyred, as usual.

@Gyrus: Well, and while that'd be an entertaining movie, if we made all movies like that, then that would be the formula.

It is, moreover, still a story constructed in reference to the formula, insofar as it purposefully violates it in every possible count.

Also, it'd be way long.

I don't see how this is Campbell's fault for observing patterns in the past, but yeah people should be more original in the present/future.

Thanks for calling bullshit on Joseph Campbell & The Power of Myth. I always hated Campbell & his boring formula, but it's nice to see someone else had the patience to list out everything that sucks about it so I can just read it and nod.

And I did find his formula inherently sexist, but moreover it was just tedious to read and too reductive.

@Gyrus: That definitely sounds good, and epic. It just wouldn't be mythic (as War and Peace wasn't), since by definition, a myth is a story where the components are blurred and simplified in such a way as to connect with the widest range of audience members. (I mean, I think the vast majority of six-year-olds would vote for A New Hope over your story.)

And your main hero would still be making the Hero's Journey: venturing into the heart of his own darkness, facing it, and making his choice. It'd just be happening a lot later in the story, and too late for him.

Firefly/Serenity follow the hero's journey as much as Star Wars does. This is especially true of Serenity. The heroes receive a call (when River freaks out), they refuse it at first but then decide to go. They venture into the unknown, the planet of death, and emerge with knowledge that saves us all. Just because you have more than one person fulfilling the role of hero doesn't make it any less a Hero's Journey.

And I think that's a really important point - the Hero's Journey can be done very well, it can feel new and original. But it takes creativity. Obviously, most stories will be crap, that's a fact of life. You'll always have to dig through mounds of ich to get to the gem and this has nothing to do with Joseph Campbell.

Wow. I was initially attracted to this website for its interesting notes regarding science fiction but the phenomenal misunderstanding and clear hatred for Campbell is perplexing and quite sad. Joseph Campbell would have loved so many of the stories we all equally love, so i'm confused why you are attacking a widely respected academic who grew up with a love of storytelling and mtyhology. If modern writers are so lazy as to use a formula derived from Campbell's studies, THEY are the guilty ones for doing so. Call them to task. Campbell merely pointed out certain thematic similarities not all of which always occur in every hero story BECAUSE his theory was organic and flexible, not didactic and unyielding as you folks insist it to be. All things are informed and influenced by that which came before or even in tandem to it. No work of art, whether it be literature, painting, architecture, etc comes from a vacuum. If someone claims it does, it's merely pretentious posturing on their part. YOUR OWN WEBSITE PROVES THIS POINT AS WELL AS CAMPBELL'S OBSERVATIONS ON THE INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF ALL THINGS. (And clearly some of you have never read his books, because he MANY times observes the feminine role (usually the more powerful also) within mythology and heroes).

@justjack75: I'll tie it together for you through John Hodgman's 55 Dramatic Scenarios (far more than Homer), which includes "Man vs. Man" and "Man vs. Nature" (of course,) but also "Cyborg seeks fortune on Broadway."

I agree with all of the points in this post. I've been kind of over the Joseph Campbell worship for a while.

Where's the love for the anti-hero? And not as merely an antagonist to be vanquished by the hero. The portrayal of evil characters is much more interesting than most portrayals of heros, at least to me. But that's a fairly obvious observation.

"Danger io9! Danger!" Alienate your audience, lose your readership.

@Sandusky: Okay, mostly I agree with you, but Campbell's observations of the interconnectedness of all things were mostly just cribbed from his studies in Zen Buddhism, and are one of the reasons why he's not that widely respected an academic.

Or, rather, he's not that widely respected as an academic by academics.

JAPUBA said: "What happens in societies where the individual is not all important, but rather the family is the key social schema?"

Whose POV would that be told from? Would it be told from some collective POV? How would that work? I think you'd still end up with a main POV character, who would look an awful lot like a hero. The closest example I can think of to something like this is the Cohen character in Chris Moriarty's SPIN STATE. "He" is an AI made up of 30-some computer entities of varying states of sentience. Even he has one core personality who makes choices.

BRAAK said: "...Angel is definitely to Buffy as Ishtar is to Gilgamesh."

Really good point. About patriarchal hero stories -- Campbell outlined Inanna's search in the underworld for Tammuz in HWATF. BTW, Inanna is female. It doesn't have to be so literal though.

Like someone else said, a story formula is like a recipe for chocolate cake, it's how a writer personalizes it and twists it around in a way that presents it as something new and draws people in.
Some writers have very formulaic plots, but highly unique voices that make the story seem new. Other writers deliberately subvert the formula for dramatic effect, but you can't do that until you understand the formula in the first place.

And rly, shoe shopping is always an adventure.

@jahpuba: the mummy movies, that's what happens.

@Sandusky: I don't most of the comments are aimed at hating Campbell and his work insomuch as they are aimed at masses of storytelling engaging in, uhm, the hero worship of Campbell's works. I read a lot of his stuff, liked it, got insight out of it, but also, moved on. Discovered other stuff to rhapsodize over. Moved on, etc.

(I'm not really articulating clearly what I am trying to say b/c I'm at work and keep getting interrupted.)

@Justin K. Rivers: I think your wrong about saying that every script or prose has a journey of some kind (and yes I know you are talking about a journey in a metaphorical sense). Read Italio Calvino's beautiful "Invisible Cities" in which nothing happens other than Marco Polo describing cities (or one city from different angles to be more acurate) to Kubla Kahn. There is no other action than that. Just the descriptions. Or read anything by Jorge Luis Borges.

Modern literature is much more interested in the internal workings, the psychology of a thing(over time literature is said to have move downward and inward; downward in social strata and inward towards individual psycology) rather than physical action. Which is why most science fiction falls back on the handy crutches like the "Heroe's Journey", because they are both (science fiction and the "heroe's journey") more concerned with physical action. Now that's a gerneralization, but for the most part, in my experience this is the case.

And I'm not sure that saying "it's just been done poorly" covers it. I do agree that in the hand of a better writer, we find Campbell's work put to better use, but I think the problem is that worse writers (less expirienced writers) tend to use crutches like this, thinking their cool and linking their writings in some way to some ancient tradition. Where as better writers (more experienced writers) don't worry about things like this or aren't really interested. They are more interested in making art or telling a story the best way they can. Now they may impose an artificial structure on their writing (to use an example from i09 this morning, structuring novels like a jazz song), but they certainly are not looking for something that's going to make their writing like everyone else's. They are going to look for something that makes their writing stand out; something fresh and new (novel). Now that's not to say a more experienced writer's product won't have some of the tell-tale signs of Campbell's analasys. But should we be surprised to find them there? If we can go through myths and legends (ancient fiction) and find them, then they are part of our "literary heritage" and should be part of how we all tell stories. This structure has been transmitted through culture down through the ages. And thus there is nothing surprising or interesting about finding parts of it in mordern story telling as well as ancient story telling. The only thing interesting about Campbell's analasys is that he catalogs the "heroe's journey", not that he found these similarities. Again we should expect to find similarities. But until Campbell we just didn't know what those similarities were.

I don't say Campbell is wrong, just didactic and simpleminded. Lots of academic stiff is like that. I read histories for reviews, and lot of them are "publish or perish" potboilers where the author takes a single insight or metaphor and tries to squeeze 90,000 words out of it. I won't quote any recent examples, none are SF related, but when the author repeats himself by page 30, i feel i am wasting time that could better be spent rereading Flashman or Pratchett.

I would like to say that the only book i disliked more than Campbell was Bly's "Iron John," a deconstruction of a myth nobody had ever heard of.

The Golden Bough : A Study in Magic and Religion
by Sir James George Frazer - is a more interesting book as it is more of an anthropological study than one that proposes a heroic thesis. There is bunches about goddess religion in it.

ELIZABETHM:"Where's the love for the anti-hero? And not as merely an antagonist to be vanquished by the hero. The portrayal of evil characters is much more interesting than most portrayals of heros, at least to me. But that's a fairly obvious observation."

The best kinds of villains are ones who see themselves as heroes in their own stories. They aren't out there to do evil for evil's sake, they have very good reasons for their actions.

An anti-hero is a hero subtype. Not every hero in Campbell's formula needs to be a willing one. Ann Rice's Lestat is an example of a tragic anti-hero who is also the main protagonist of the story. Often anti-heroes act as foils to the willing hero -- like Han Solo and Darth Vader. You really can't have a character like Luke without the other two, but I personally find it much more compelling when the main protagonist is also an anti-hero. That combination doesn't negate the hero formula though. The two aren't mutually exclusive.