From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mythology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Criticism & Star Wars Prequels[edit]

Is it right to use the Star Wars prequels as an example of disappointing box office and critical indifference? They were hugely successful financially and all score "Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes. Wouldn't a better example be the Matrix trilogy, where the original, action-oriented movie gets 88% on RT, but more myth-like sequels are rated a slightly lower 75% and a disastrous 37%? 02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dont forget Eragon, which rather clumsily follows the monomyth template in the same way that a paint-by-numbers kit tries to ape Rembrandt. Cranston Lamont 19:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposing Merge[edit]

I'm proposing to merge Hero's journey into this article. As it stands now, there's a huge amount of overlap between the two articles. While there are a few differences between the concepts, this could easily be clarified in a single article.DrLeebot 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Completely agree, please proceed. --Elonka 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(followup merge} I also recommend merging The Hero's Journey into Monomyth. Currently the article is about a book and film on the subject, but has no references proving that they are independently notable. Unless such sources can be provided, the information should probably be merged here and the name set up as a redirect. Disclaimer: I work for the company that produces another Hero's Journey title, Hero's Journey (MMORPG). I do think the merge of The Hero's Journey is a good idea, but I'll freely admit that my opinion should not be given as much weight, since I have a potential COI. --Elonka 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

LISTEN ALL! it is obvious that they should be merged! The comments below simply underline the confusion that abounds (the pattern has existed long before Campbell and can be clearly seen in movies and stories before Campbell's time [e.g. Casablanca]; Campbell is simply the most well known proponent of this pattern; The Lord of the Rings and The Never Ending Story DEFINITLEY FOLLOW the pattern even though this was way before Campbell's time etc). The merging will help clear up confusion. IMPORTANTLY, the present wiki mentions a single commercial product (the documentary) - what is that all about?!! SHAKESPEARE follows the pattern for Christ's sake! I'll merge them if you like! See the site at —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:08, June 23, 2007
It looks like you're right there; I don't see anything about the other book or the documentary that makes them independantly notable. I'd like to give this a week or so, however, just in case anyone can come up with something (Edited to add: See Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Notability (films) for what would be needed here). On a similar note, we also have The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure For Writers, which is basically a guide for writers on how to use this structure. Perhaps this should be merged in as well, while we're at it? (Edited to add: Checked over it, and that book does meet the notability criteria on its own.)
If we do go ahead with both of these, then it probably makes sense to get rid of the disambiguation page as well. I think at this point, it would make sense to have this page be the primary target for most links, as the concept as a whole is a fair bit more notable than an unreleased game. However, once the game is released and if it gets popular enough that a significant number of people are looking for information on it, we might want to reconsider this. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, it's been two weeks with no contest to the merge. I'll get at it when I have a chance (unless someone else beats me to it). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And it's done. Turns out a lot of the information from that page was already in this article via misc. past edits of mine, so little actually had to be added. Most of the actual work was in fixing up links (though there's a chance I missed a few). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Someone actually thinks "Cinderella Man"'s problem was the structure more than the title? Anyway, Star Wars Sequels used the same idea of the hreos journey as the prequels, there might be another reason?? 13:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like examples of how the monomyth is historically anti-populist and supported tyranny. Also, given Campbell's... err, eccentricity, I'm surprised no one has questioned the validity of the monomyth. Don't a lot of stories end when the hero collects his reward? --Logomachist (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems weasley and uncited, it's a vague opinion that doesn't really add anything: Thoughtless use of monomyth structure is often blamed for lack of originality and clichés in popular culture, especially big-budget Hollywood films.[citation needed] In addition to the popularity of Campbell-influenced guides such as The Writer's Journey, the influential book Screenplay by Syd Field also proposed an ideal three-act structure, which is easily compatible with modern screenwriters' attempts to craft a monomyth. No examples or citations. Think it should be removed. AstroArsonist (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There's some criticism on the theory/hypothesis in this article. Also, there's a discussion here. --Devadatta (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Other improvements[edit]

I'm looking at other ways we could improve this article, and there are two that immediately come to mind:

  1. References: While we list referenced works at the bottom, there aren't notes in the article mentioning which reference backs up which statement. If someone with access to some of these books could check this out, it would be appreciated.
  2. A Picture: A good article should preferably (though not necessarily) have some image on it (from WP:GA). Frankly though, I'm at a loss as to what might be appropriate here. Is this just one of those cases where we're better off without any pictures?

--Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to split the influences and examples into a separate article, where they might be further categorised (Biblical Examples, Examples from Mythology, Modern Examples, etc). Currently, they're making the main article pretty unwieldy. --Ravenclaw 01:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Men's Movement[edit]

In what way is this truly related to this topic? This just seems like promotional material -- bordering on spam. Certainly does NOT warrant anything more than one line and link to a relevant page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:53, 11 August 2007

I see how it's relevant and I don't see how it's spam. But I do see how it's unsourced. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 09:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Please be careful with signing your posts and not cutting in above my signature. The way you did that made it look like I was the one who made that comment. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest this section be split off into a separate article. It's about a group that was influenced by the monomyth concept, not the concept itself, and detailing it in the main article doesn't help elucidate the concept. --Ravenclaw 01:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Supernatural Aid[edit]

The examples of "Lord of the Rings" and "King Arthur" are truisms. There is not going to be a reference that says these two examples apply to supernatural aid in mythology. These are self evident by examples from within the stories themselves which are referenced. FrankWilliams 03:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still original research. You might be able to get away with unsourced claims when they qualify as "common knowledge" - something you'd expect the average person to know and which is verifiable by many reliable sources (ie. that Earth revolves around the Sun) - but this doesn't fit that. There are plenty of people who have done research on the monomyth and come up with examples for the different parts of it. All we need to do is find and use those. We're under no obligation to put in every element we can think of. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, from WP:V:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation

What you'd like "truism" to mean is that the examples are so self evident that they don't require sourcing (a meaning which is not evident in the link provided). Yet you attempted to source it, so what's really going on is when examples are taken off due to lack of sourcing, you tried to source them; this sourcing wasn't good enough because neither book contained any explicit connection to the monomyth. Only after the requirement was made explicit of the need for a source providing a connection between the monomyth and the works in question do you claim it supercedes sourcing. Sorry, that's not going to fly. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect/ Inappropriate Example[edit]

Under the example of stories exemplifying the hero's Refusal to the Call, Daphne escaping from Apollo is given as an example. Firstly, I don't believe this is an accurate example. There is no journey or call to adventure in the story of Daphne. To put it crudely, Apollo is a horny god trying to get into Daphne's pants, and she takes drastic measures to avoid being forced into sex with him (i.e. raped). The purpose of the story is more likely to personify the characteristics of the laurel tree, or to explain why the tree is associated with Apollo. To state that saying yes or no to being forced into sex with someone you don't want to have sex with (i.e. being raped) is analogous to answering or refusing the call to adventure is highly inaccurate. Secondly, it's highly offensive, don't you think? I am really surprised this has been up on this page for so long.Kiriki 00:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

True. Very true. I lent out my copy of Hero so I'll have to wait and see what examples Campbell provides. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I would appreciate knowing what examples Campbell uses and if there is any connection drawn to the Daphne story. I would be surprised, but if he does use it, I think he would be in error. It would be great to have an example of a female hero that isn't connected to sex.Kiriki 00:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, I called the person I lent it out to and apparantly the Daphne account is indeed an example listed by Campbell. Her cat started barfing, though (my friend's, not Daphne's) so I'm still not sure of the connect. I believe this link provides a bit of a quotation from Campbell in the relavent chapter. I guess sex with Apollo is supposed to represent adulthood and maturity. Because Campbell's monomythic structure is metaphorical for rites of passage, the passage into adulthood could be considered a sort of "Hero's journey."
Maybe we should include some actual analysis in the page for the examples rather than just listing them. For most of the examples from Campbell, the analysis is present already. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 03:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Explained like that, I can see how it fits, but I have to admit I don't think I like it - I'd much rather have a female example where the woman's journey is about more than letting a guy have sex with you, you know, but then I was born and raised in a different time than Daphne, and Campbell. If it is in Campbell's book, though, I can see an argument for including it, but perhaps there should be an explanation like the one you just gave to clarify. If there are any better female examples that would be great, too! Thanks for your work!Kiriki 23:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As per the reference, under "Refusal of the Call," to the Biblical passage in Proverbs, this is the voice of personified "Wisdom," not Yahweh. The reference itself may *perhaps* be structurally valid, but I don't think the correct speaker is noted. Dracosummoner (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, under the heading "Atonement with the Father," Christ does indeed submit to His Father's Will, but this may be a rather peculiar example, as Christ and Yahweh-God are generally not regarded as entirely separate entities in Christian theology. That is, Christ is said to be "God in the flesh" and not even *just* "the son of God." Also, the heading's description describes the "father figure" of the monomyth as having merciful and tyrannical aspects, and the article implies that God the Father has both of these aspects because He asks Christ to atone via death for the sins of man. There is a difference between being a "tyrant" (an oppressive, uncaring ruler) and doing what is necessary to deal with a problem (in this case, the sins of man, for which a price must be paid), even if the solution is not wholly pleasant. Dracosummoner (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The article says that the Buddha's motivation (the call to journey) is that he's bored with his regal life, which isn't the case. Specifically, the Buddha saw three men: an old man and a sick man and a dead man, and raised the question: why does misery exist in the world? Thence, he proceeded to attain enlightenment. Boredom with his regal life was not the impetus to leave his castle and seek spiritual awakening. Jus' sayin'. I'm piousbox. (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The knowledgeable corrections are a good and welcome thing, but they point up the problem in this article with WP:OR -- lots of peple supplying their own examples. We really need to get reid of everything that isn't specifically linked to WP:RS.DavidOaks (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you {{fact}} tag the places in the article where it seems like there's OR? Quite a few of them are from Campbell himself, so it could just be an issue of clarification. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 17:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


I know I can't be the only one getting frustrated by the incessant linkspam on this page. It seems around 90% or more of edits lately have been the insertion/removal of links to you-know-where. Anyone have any ideas of what we could do beyond simply reverting every time? Only thing I can think of is to simply comment out the link, in case it's a bot doing this and it might be fooled. Worth a try? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that we get a bot to help us out but we seem to be doing a fine job ourselves and a bot would be unwarranted; except for early November, every inclusion of the linkspam has been reverted within twelve hours. Usually it's within 4 hours.
It's picked up a bit recently but until it's every day or multiple times a day I don't think there's much we can do except persist. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

George Lucas and the Monomyth[edit]

It should be noted that we only have Lucas' word that he relied on Campbell's analysis for his movies; I have heard it said by more than a few people that this was made up by Lucas rather post facto -- either because it made him sound clever, or (some say) because he rather directly ripped much of the plotting from various comic books. Sdedeo (tips) 04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that his movies follow the book too closely to be accidental. I'm not sure who's made such an argument but we'd have a large burden of proof to defy a claim Lucas has gotten behind so much that he's made a documentary about it. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


I see that a lot of new information has been added to this article. On the one hand this is good. On the other, the formatting of the article appears to be getting further and further away from our Manual of Style, especially with the long lists and excessive bolding. I'm reluctant to just revert, since it does seem that there's some good information that's been added, and there's no clear "better" version to revert to. However, this article might benefit from some aggressive "machete" editing, removing a great deal of detail. I definitely would not object to such a thing! But it also might benefit from some softer editing, if anyone would like to try it. I'm reluctant to dig in myself, for the above-mentioned COI reasons (and because I would probably lean more towards the "machete" technique), but I did tag the article as needing cleanup. Or if other editors would be comfortable with me making changes, let me know and I'll see what I can do. --Elonka 16:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed sub-section[edit]

I've just removed this sub-section from the page:

Orson Scott Card and Ender's Game

In his book, Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card gives a very complete example of the monomyth structure, with the main character, Ender Wiggin, fulfilling all eight primary stages of it (using Leeming's formulation):

  • Miraculous Birth — In a world where only two children are normally allowed, Ender is born as the third child by special government decree
  • Initiation — Ender shows remarkable intelligence at a young age
  • Withdrawal — Ender is removed from his family and sent to Battle School
  • Trial and Quest — Ender learns of the threat to humanity from the Buggers
  • Death — Ender grows despondant after his unit is broken up, and he is sent back to Earth
  • Descent into the underworld — Ender's sister helps him feel like part of humanity once again
  • Resurrection and rebirth — Ender refuses to play the simulations anymore, and ends the game by destroying the Buggers' homeworld
  • Ascension, apotheosis, and atonement — Ender realizes that the simulations were in fact real and has to cope with this.

The narrative structure within Ender's Game doesn't follow this structure perfectly linearly. Many elements of it are actually repeated throughout the book. For instance, the latter four steps can also describe the psychological states Ender went through after his realization of what he'd done to the Buggers. [1]

This seems to be just another example of an application of the model, and not a particularly notable one, which is why I've cut it. It didn't seem to me to be adding anything significant to the article, but if I've missed something, please let me know.

DionysosProteus (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It specifically states that it is a "very complete example of the monomyth structure", which none of the other examples claim. It is therefore a very good example and should be kept over others which are not so complete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It's also cited, which has been an issue with examples in the past. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because it states that it's a complete example does not make it a complete example. It is stretch at best and cited from an obscure Brigham Young journal. The article doesn't mention Campbell, and only narrowly fits Ender's "quest" into the classical interpretation of the monomyth. "Growing despondent" after learning of his unit's break-up is not Death. Ender's sister making him feel part of humanity again does not correlate to a descent into the underworld. This section serves no purpose here other than to promote Card's work. AstroArsonist (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Leaning Away???[edit]

in regards to this comment:

Although well-known in popular culture, the monomyth has fallen out of favor in academia, which currently leans away from comparative mythology (comparativism) and toward particularism.[5]

there is an inadequate citation made. this seems weasily and if there is no real evidence to support this statement, i suggest it be removed. actually, the statement seems biased and vague altogether. while there is criticism, there is no real evidence to support that "acedemia" (whatever that is defined as) no longer favors it in the mainstream. there would have to be some citation made to a statistical analysis of "acedemia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What is inadequate about the citation? I agree that the sentence could be reworded, but I'm not sure it's fair to call it weasely. Skomorokh 01:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this citation is inadequate. There has to be some context - it has to be more than just `go and read the paper, it's all in there'. Is this a view held by Northup only, or does he/she cite other examples as evidence of this view? You simply can't tell based on this citation. If it IS a widely held view then great, it should go in the article, but we need more evidence - especially given that the literary theory that is said to have replaced it warrants only a handful of lines on Wikipedia. Ravenclaw (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The source is cited; a scholar states that universalist claims in general are out of fashion, and then goes on to critique Campell's specific universalism. Not sure what the objection is...DavidOaks (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


I'd suggest that the examples given -- many of which seem quite sensible -- nonethe4less need to be sourced to reputable scholarship; otherwise, they're original research. DavidOaks (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Many of the examples come from The Hero With a Thousand Faces. In these cases, they would simply be unreferenced rather than OR. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I follow -- if they're from that book, they don't need references? I don't agree. How would readers know when something's simply a given editor's opinion rather than the work of JC? DavidOaks (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In the past, editors have included Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings, and the Matrix with no citation and presumably they were making their own analysis of how these movies fit the monomyth. That is OR.
If a user includes an example from HWTF but doesn't cite it, there should still be a citation, I was just pointing out that such examples are not technically OR. I'm probably arguing semantics since the effect is the same. Fact tags, fact tags, and more fact tags. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Naw, I was just being thickheaded. I get it now. Thanks. DavidOaks (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The pop culture examples went long enough without citation. SOme seem obvious, but we need 3rd party WP:RS for each claim that a given element in Harry Potter is an example of some phase of the journey. Campbell himself provided many classical and biblical examples, and these need to be specifically ref'd. DavidOaks (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been paying attention. At this point, we shouldn't allow people to put pop culture examples without citation. Not even for a day. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 23:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Page References.[edit]

We don't have page numbers for the quotes from "The Hero with a Thousand Faces". Seems important, we should fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Most definitely agreed. Especially on the opening quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings"[edit]

Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is in Category:Monomyths. Is there a reason why it is not mentioned in this article? Wiki-uk (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added it now. Please improve. Wiki-uk (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


I have added all relevatant titles that are mentioned in this article to Category:Monomyths. Please check if it is correct, and add more articles to this category if you know more. Wiki-uk (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

On Talk:Moses#Category:Monomyths Til Eulenspiegel wrote:
"If this is a term invented by Joseph Campbell, I would recommend "categories for deletion", since it seems to be using the category system to endorse Campbell's POV unduly. It would be better to add a short statement into each of the articles like "Joseph Campbell listed this as one of his 'monomyths'", if it is indeed notable." - 10:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The third paragraph of this article states:
"Campbell and other scholars[citation needed] describe narratives of Buddha, Moses, and Christ in terms of the monomyth, and Campbell argues that other classic myths from many cultures follow this basic pattern."[1]
Is there a reference for the 'other scholars' somewhere? Is it indeed notable? Please comment. Wiki-uk (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why articles for myths like Beowulf or Arthur should be categorised with monomyth. Since the monomyth is a hypothesis with (as I understand it), very little support in academia (i.e. a fringe theory), it should be regarded as just a guess and not a fact. There's a lot of theories about deeper meanings of myths, but I don't see why they should be used for categorisation in reputable encyclopedias, even if they are popular. The appropriate thing to do is to have a section in the Monomyth article with a list of myths that are considered to be monomyths according to the theory itself, but not impose it on the rest of Wikipedia. Unless someone can show that there is a wide acceptance of the monomyth hypothesis in academic research on mythology, I'm going to delete the category from myths and stories not proven to have been inspired by Campbell. --Devadatta (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


Campbell seems to rely on a lot of Freudian theory, but this is not obvious to the reader unless one is already familiar with Freud. Maybe it warrants a mention? EverGreg (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Why is nothing said about 2001: A Space Odyssey? The first I ever heard about The Hero with a Thousand Faces was in connection with Kubrick's film, a decade before Star Wars. Bowman's (his name reminds us of Odysseus) journey and death/resurrection to a higher plane of existence include major elements of the Monomyth. I don't know whether Kubrick was consciously re-creating Campbell's myth, but it's hard to believe he wasn't. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We're trying to make sure this article isn't a WP:OR dumping ground, so mentioning 2001:ASO isn't a problem if we can find sourcing for it. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 00:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll look in the Jerome Agell book, but this falls into the "in front of your nose" category, not unlike "Sylvester is a cat" or "The ruby slippers are red". WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Anything challenged must be sourced. Anything obvious is easily sourced. Anything unverifiable is unencyclopedic. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 02:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

on Citation Four[edit]

I've looked through the introduction of both the 1949 edition and 2004 edition of a Thousand Faces and cannot find this quote. I believe it lies deeper in the text, and the text of the article should be edited to match this. Can anyone corroborate?

It's fairly easy to locate citations for this book, since it's on Google Preview. Scroll down to the bottom of the article, click on the ISBN number for the book, scroll down the Book Sources page and click on "Find this book at Google Book Search". In Google's search results, check that you're going to look at a "previewable" edition (sometimes a book has editions that are no preview, others that are snippet view, and others that are fully previewable). There's only one for Thousand Faces, so you're fine. Click on it to preview it. Then, in the left-hand side of the screen, there is a SEARCH box. Cut and paste whatever quotation you are looking for into there (or a part of it), and google will give you a list of pages on which it appears, even if that particular page isn't in the preview. In the case of citation #4, it's p.23. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Poor picture[edit]

Just popped by to respond to the previous talk message, and noticed the image now used to illustrate this article. It's not good. Every visual representation of the monomyth that I've seen Campbell use gives the direction of travel as anti-clockwise, not clockwise (as in the present image). I suspect that this has significance--clockwise gives an image of inevitability and unhindered movement, whereas anti-clockwise is an image of struggle. Any chance someone might take the time to edit the image's elements to produce one the other way round? DionysosProteus (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the graphic says "godess", which is misspelled, as it should be "goddess". Looks sloppy. Rsgranne (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Vladimir Propp[edit]

Is there really no criticism concerning the similarities of Propp's narrative structure and the monomyth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Deliberate use by Lucas?[edit]

The article states:

"Campbell's work has been consciously applied by a wide variety of modern writers and artists, for example, in creating screenplays for movies. The best known is perhaps George Lucas..."


"George Lucas's deliberate use of Campbell's theory of the monomyth in the making of the Star Wars movies is well documented."

Yet, the only quote from Lucas on this page directly contradicts the above statements:

"it came to me that there really was no modern use of that's when I started doing more strenuous research on fairy tales, folklore and mythology, and I started reading Joe's books. Before that I hadn't read any of Joe's books.... It was very eerie because in reading The Hero with A Thousand Faces I began to realize that my first draft of Star Wars was following classical motifs"(p. 541).

If he'd already completed his first draft when he noticed the similarity to the monomyth, then he didn't deliberately use it in the "making" (though this word is somewhat ambiguous) of his movie, but only in the refining of the basic story he'd already made (subsequent drafts/revisions).

I'm not sure if he did use the monomyth deliberately and this is simply a bad quote, or if the quote is accurate and he therefore didn't use the monomyth until after he'd already finished his rough draft, but either way, this contradiction needs to be fixed. --Þorstejnn (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Biblical Application"[edit]

The "biblical application" subsections under some of the stages of the monomyth seem rather centered on christianity. Perhaps expanding them to include examples from scriptures of other major world religions would be more appropriate. As such, I have removed them. (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Added links to related pages on hagiography and martyrdom[edit]

I have added links to pages that relate similar structuralist approaches to Christian mythology, such as those that discuss sainthood, hagiography, and martyrdom. Fairly related, in their Proppian, structuralist attitude to narrative. I suggest keeping them. Cheers--Yasya (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about "structuralist approaches to Christian mythology"; it is about Campbell's literary theories. Edward321 (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I still believe the links to the above mentioned articles are quite relevant to the topic of utterly unoriginal, post-Proppian structuralist "Campbell's literary theories". Thus, the referred articles are quite to the benefit of the reader. I still suggest keeping them. Cheers--Yasya (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Chaos of references[edit]

Hi, I'm the translator of the article to the Spanish Wik. Sorry. Page references to Campbell's work are a real mess. It is impossible to find anything. Thanks. --Sürrell (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is solved (in es:wik).--Sürrell (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Restoring Christ[edit]

In this account's only edit ever, Jesus was snipped from a list in the body text that had previously been parallel to the lead. I have no opinion about whether Jesus belongs in either list, nevertheless, I'm reverting this edit for the sake of consistency. — MaxEnt 15:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ender's Game and the Hero's Quest by Michael R. Collings, published in "In the Image of God: Theme, Characterization, and Landscape in the Fiction of Orson Scott Card." by Michael R. Collings, Westport CT: Greenwood, 1990. ISBN 978-0313264047, revised by Collings for his website.