Personally, I find trying to use any kind of story paradigm more of a hindrance than a help when trying to develop a story - being 'top-down' and analytical, it just gets in the way of 'bottom-up' imagination. Paradigms are probably more helpful in analysing a story after first draft in order to identify any holes or imbalances.

On the question of other cultures, I've heard that Aztec myths are radically different from anything described in Campbell, and that often when discussing non-Indo-European myths Campbell is really talking about corruptions of these myths as transcribed by Christian missionaries, who imposed their own cultural perspectives.

pkd_fan

gonuts

I agree that the monomyth is most consistent with Indo-European influenced myths, but Campbell also mentions Japanese myths about the sun-goddess Amaterasu, Egyptian myths about the otherworld and those from other other non-IE cultures. I don't see anything wrong with looking at a set of myths from one particular culture and examining the similar elements.

I submit that good Fantasy and Science Fiction exist due to a combination of common story elements that resonant with most people (plot), pulp elements audiences think are interesting (setting), and the ability of the writer to create characters people can identify with on some level and who sound real on the page or screen (character development).

dangrgirl

Actually, if you read the comments here, there IS a strong implication that there is only one true formula, given the way people are plugging Star Wars, Deadwood, Firefly and pretty much everything else written or filmed into the formula.

Personally, I don't care much for Campbell. I consider him something of a hack that cherry-picked mythologies to suit his preconceived, ethnocentric notions. It's also worth pointing out that the vast majority of the myths he cherry picks are from the indio-european ethnic group, so of course there's going to be similarities, since they stem from the same culture. The real problem though is people glomming onto the monomyth, as some necessary way to plot. This is compounded when people point out out-of-date ethnocentric works like the Golden Bough as sources as well. When people grab onto bad anthropology and and use it as the model for how to write, then bad writing results.

I'd submit that quality fantasy writing exists not as a result of the Heroic Journey nonsense, but in spite of it. For example Star Wars is an excellent film not because of any journey, but because of the emulation of pulp SF elements. The quality of the films decline as they distance themselves from their pulp roots. Writers like Gaiman can take the Mythic Journey tropes and turn them into something interesting, but generally, the Hero's journey is a liability rather than a boon in writing.

Eric Tolle

Campbell's cachet as an academic aside (said cachet being now virtually non-existent) he did stumble upon an interesting model in heroic/quest mythology. It's a model that makes me wonder if there's something genetic lurking there, or if there's an approach that got preserved memetically.

It's only this: if you live in a society where everyone has the same basic cultural information, and you encounter a problem that no one has ever seen before, your own set of experiences are going to be insufficient to solving it. So you (the hero) wander off into the woods, or the dark, or where the faeries (i.e., the people that aren't like you) live, and you learn something different.

And when you come back, now you're equipped to solve the problem. Personal growth is essential to solving problems. The "hero's journey," in this light, can be seen as a blueprint for finding new perspectives.

My friend Joe, who is an anthropologist, says you shouldn't think of Campbell as an anthropologist, because he isn't. He's a literary critic and an interpreter; he's just using mythology and folklore as his starting point.

And the Golden Bough is very good, but it's hell of long. I'd recommend starting with the abdridged version.

braak

And that, is really the bottom line for any story. I could also make an argument that "Serenity" and several other very original stories fit very well in the "Hero's Journey model" You have Mal who basically gets the "call" in the form of Simon and River, refuses the call, changes his mind, you have the "Dragon" in the form of The Operative, the "Mentor" in the form of the Shepherd, you could go on and on.

People get just as antsy about the Hero's Journey thing as they do about Myers Briggs personality tests, and for the same reason. They don't like being so easily defined. Hero's Journey is simply a tool for understanding, not some fundamentalist gospel. If you don't like it, Set it on fire, piss on it, eat it, use it as toilet paper (you should probably only pick one of those activities, mixing and matching would be messy and gorss and possibly illegal). The point is, if it is not benefiting you as a tool, ditch it.

I will say this, using this tool to write is like using a level as a power drill. It doesn't work.

Mjolniir

Okay, so you read Hero while on the chronic, you hit RPG.net of all places to prove how it's wrong, and you know the lingo. Okay. But there's a reason why Campbell himself was hot for SF, and it has to do with a lot of what's valuable about all his work, the concept of the Hero's Journey included.

But whatever. I mean, you're right, that when it's used as a crutch for actual work, it's dull. But the counterpoint is that merely not using it doesn't mean that the work becomes good.

And take care in the assertion that Serenity represents some alternative form of storytelling.

Slatz_Grobnik

Huh. That would make a nice fanfic.

Jonn

That was bad enough. I could only watch the first 10 minutes of the last movie, it was that painful.

dangrgirl

Jack

I don't recall Campbell saying that the hero formula was dogmatically the only formula. It's just one academic analysis of myths and folklore that concentrates on common elements. I don't think anyone is saying "there can be only one."

dangrgirl

Yes, and the presence of the Inanna myth in HWATF supports this. I do think Campbell could have gone an extra step and examined how the "Meeting with the Goddess" would have differed with a female hero.

And to anyone who picks up the White Goddess. Please make sure to note the intro where Graves admits that most of what's in that book comes from personal inspiration.

While we're talking about female heroes, my Danger Gal Friday post today is on the new Star Wars Signature Action Figure Series "Starkiller Hero," based on Ralph McQuarrie's concept sketches. Back when Luke was a girl.

dangrgirl

You can not take a large subsection of myths, throw out the parts that don't match up to your vision, ignore a GIGANTIC subsection of mythology that paints a very different story and then claim to have found a great vision that binds us all together, etc etc.

This is the same guy that claims that the reason we use drugs is because we don't have myths anymore (specifically that we use them to fill some spiritual void in our life)--consequently ignoring the use of narcotics through our entire history.

What amazes me even more however is how little people who agree with Campbell's 'vision' are willing to actually discuss such a matter. They get as defensive and uppity as he did when he received criticism, which to me is a pretty sure sign that he's on some serious shaky ground.

BTW Gyrus, the plot you described (which was pretty awesome for off-the-top-of-your-head) reminds me a little of how Dune played out. You know what's ironic about that? Campbell hated Dune. Mostly because Dune's 'Chosen Ones' managed to completely screw things up.

Evdor

Charlie Jane Anders

oddityodyssey

oddityodyssey

Also, if you read the Hero's journey as being just about d00ds you're being purposefully oblique.

I do however, agree that Campbell is guilty of many International Coffeehouse Moments. And hey, good on you for stimulating an interesting conversation.

Inkymonkey

You have to consider the time constraints of the medium. In TV and movies, thank goodness for the hero's journey structure. With it you get shows like Deadwood. Without it you get, well, John From Cincinnati.

Rick Chandler

Eac_o_System

On another note, why not consider why Campbell and Star Wars were both extremely popular during their time. I don't know; I wasn't alive, but there is certainly something in Star Wars and Campbell that attracts people; it's undeniable.

The hero's journey is not all bullshit, it's just not post-modern, and so by today's standards it seems played out.

One more counterexample: Dune. Great great great book(s), very Campbellian.

indemnitypop

wishnevsky

mitchel_stevens

I'd also like to say that I agree with the others who feel that the tongue-in-cheek articles here really don't work; they're not insightful enough to be satire, not funny enough to be comedy.

andrew60647

Sandusky

Justin K. Rivers

Moff

Sandusky

Beschizza

Perhaps we need to submit this article to a real anthropologist, considering Campbell WAS one. His interview series with Moyers is undeniable. I'm ready to call shennanigans...
Now, we can discuss the Hero Myth as "the Myth of the Individual".

gods-n-clods

Sandusky

Maybe the best way to exploit Campbell's pattern would be to follow it to a point, and then to savagely vary from the formula at a key point to make a difference.

Poormojo

EncephelanetRepairHelperGuy

Expecting certain motifs from any given story as a reader is different than writing a story that includes those things. It's the difference between riding in a car and building the road. As a writer you have to learn all of these details consciously, and then you have to let them go in order to create something new.

dangrgirl

SuperUnison

I grew up on "Blackhawk" comics where everybody, even the comic Chinese cook gets to be the hero every once in a while

wishnevsky

I'd just add that Campbell's framework is only one way of looking at a story. Nietzche's "Birth of Tragedy" is another. Aristotle's "Poetics" is yet another. There are certainly more.

There's also something to be said for formula. For instance, more than 95% (maybe 100%) of the narratives anyone here has come across have 3 acts. (I'm talking about on an outline level, no a stage logistics level.) Hell, most essays do too. Even when an artist tries to be an asshole and mythologize their creative process you can often look at whatever their output is and generally there are a fuck ton of storytelling conventions they were following without even knowing it. Campbell basically outlined something that resonates with a shared cultural context. Hell, you can generally watch something that employs it without being fully conscious that it's at work. Hacks use it and fuck it up, just like nearly any tactic you can imagine. However, "Children of Men" for instance, follows it really closeley and almost no one brings it up.

In conclusion, this essay trashes the hero's journey because the writer has a one-dimensional, aspiring hipster understanding of how art works. Maybe if you'd grown the fuck up and approached it as an intelligent critique instead of a cluelessly bitchy takedown I'd think more of it (There are some decent points in all the clusterfuck, they're just phrased in a way that makes you look like a 16-year old in a Rancid shirt trying to explain Punk Rock to a Minor Threat fan.)

SuperUnison

I think you miss my point. It is not the just the experienced writer who has internalized this structure; we all have (unless you grew up on a story-free zone). I guess I didn't really make that clear. Its a self-feeding cycle. Not only has "cultural transmission" made sure that stories are told with these elements but has also made sure that those of us receiveing the stories have an expectation of the same elements. Even less experienced writers HAVE internalized the "heroe's journey." What they haven't done is moved past it.

I think less experienced writers are always looking for an easy way to make their writing either better or easier or both. Campbell is attractive because his theory seems to underlie every (or most) story they've ever heard, read or seen. And because his structure is easy to implement. What the experienced writer has internalized is the realization that what makes a good story isn't how it's similar to other stories but how it differs from them.

worsethannormal

w00t! Some people doth protest too much.

dangrgirl

Exactly. Well said.

dangrgirl

Incidentally, if you tried following your bliss, you might not be so bitter.

jwisser

One of the many characteristics of the hero is her/his making the ultimate sacrifice. Buffy did this when she swan dived into the gaping hell-mouth. Aside from the setting, the Band of Brothers motif isn't really all that different from the Fantasy one of a hero and sidekicks on a quest. In American entertainment, we're just used to the hero not dying. We want that happy ending instead of a bittersweet one.

DISCRETE-DANIEL said: "Han Solo lacks a lot of what defines the Hero's Journey. He never receives the call. He doesn't have the aid of any supernatural powers or sage teachers and he's never implied to have any sort of destiny or birthright. In a world of all-powerful Jedi and Sith, he's just an ordinary "muggle"."

He accepts the call at the end of A New Hope when he comes back to help Luke destroy the Death Star. Up until this point he's Refusing the Call. A whole story could be written this way, with the hero protagonist not accepting the call until the very end. The acceptance becomes the denouement. He's actually all the more interesting as a hero because he chooses to be a hero instead of accepting a birthright. This is one way to twist the formula.

Lestat doesn't want to change -- he likes himself just fine as the embodiment of chaos, thank you very much. But Han Solo, is different. He wants to be part of something, even if he plays the cynic. He wouldn't have returned, joined the Alliance or fell in love with a Princess/Rebel Leader if he didn't feel that deep down. Now, though, we're getting into character instead of plot. If you just have a hero formula plot without doing the character work (in other words, you have the what but not the why) the story is going to fall flat.

Thanks for the kudos SANDUSKY!

dangrgirl

Gina Trapani

I think the thing that most of us who are 'defending' Campbell are trying to say is that because those writers use him as a crutch is not Campbell's fault. And as such, io9's issue with say George Lucas's (and others') writing being derivative crap, if fun derivative crap, should not be taken out on Joseph Campbell as this post seems to do.

I mean you can take Neil Gaiman's American Gods as a wonderful way of both using the Hero's Journey and critiquing it at the same time. In the hands of a skilled writer these ideas and archetypes can be fresh and wonderful experiences. Perhaps it's a limitation of the genre of Sci Fi and Fantasy that it requires stories to follow the same sorts of trajectories in order to give us a familiar path through and unfamiliar terrain. I don't know... but the basic point is that Joseph Campbell's cataloging of cultural similarities is not the root cause of bad Sci Fi writing, bad writers are ;-)

Jack

Moff

I don't generally have a problem with Campbell, even as an anthropologist, but I would personally prefer it if his books had less hoodoo in them.

braak

And DANGRGIRL made a great point regarding the relationship of the hero to that of the anti-hero and/or the reluctant hero.

Sandusky

Han Solo lacks a lot of what defines the Hero's Journey. He never receives the call. He doesn't have the aid of any supernatural powers or sage teachers and he's never implied to have any sort of destiny or birthright. In a world of all-powerful Jedi and Sith, he's just an ordinary "muggle".

Discrete-Daniel

There was a SF book in my youth, "The Planet Strappers" that involved a bunch of teenagers getting into space. Pretty realistic book. In real life, things are accomplished by teams, and one of the best ways to kill a team is to have a "Hero.'

In NASCAR, for example, the driver gets all the press, but he is not the whole story, and if he doesn't keep the engine builder happy he doesn't win.

One of the greatest things in real life is being part of a team, doing something worthwhile. I've gone that three or four times and it's a gas.

wishnevsky

Hero called to adventure? Yup.
Hero refuses call? Uh-huh.
Hero finally answers call? You bet.
And so on.

ellenw

gods-n-clods

Oh man, thanks for taking me back to the 8-bit Atari Golden Age!!! I know have the MIDI version of Stone in Love going through my head.

I'm not sure Campbell deserves derision as much as a big "DUH"! There's nothing earth-shattering about his conclusions. It's all common sense wrapped up in a few $5 words to make it safe for the academic set to feel comfortable about enjoying Star Wars.

Hero's Journy and 1000 faces would have made better spreadsheets.

Pwnieboy

donarumo

That's how I feel about "The Heroine's Journey" by Maureen Murdock. It didn't click for me. Maybe that's because I actually do get along with my mother.

However, I did find "Women Who Run with the Wolves" by Clarissa Pinkola Estes to be interesting. Her writing style is a little ecstatic, but it was interesting to read right after HWATF.

dangrgirl

Discrete-Daniel

That's because the more experienced writers have internalized and don't have to think about it consciously to put a good story together. Once that happens, they can spend their time and effort twisting it around. Or using jazz songs.

WISHNEVSKY said: "...the author takes a single insight or metaphor and tries to squeeze 90,000 words out of it."

Then it should have been a short story, not a novel. Not every idea works in a novel-length format. That's not Campbell's fault or a failing of the "hero formula."

dangrgirl

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.

dangrgirl

foofer

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.

wishnevsky

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.

worsethannormal

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

elizabethm

tetracycloide

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.

dangrgirl

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

braak

WickedGlee

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.

elizabethm

92BuickLeSabre

Sandusky

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.

Grimalmorei

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.

Moff

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

nymphy1

Daveed

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.

braak

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

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.

Garro

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.

braak

Moff

Jack

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.

Ed Grabianowski

braak

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.

braak

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.

Jack

@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. ;-)

Moff

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

braak

Moff

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.

Moff

wishnevsky

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

braak

Charlie Jane Anders

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.

braak

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.

Gyrus

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.

Justin K. Rivers

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.

Moff

Juba

AdamL

BloggyMcBlogBlog

wishnevsky

jahpuba