Talk:Monomyth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mythology Portal
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 This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Criticism & Star Wars Prequels

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%? 143.238.234.53 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)

[edit] Proposing Merge

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 89.200.219.7 (talk • contribs) 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)

[edit] Criticism

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?? 213.39.154.252 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)

[edit] Bashir's work

I'm wondering if we need to mention Bashir's website at all in this article. I haven't seen any outside references to it, and with the recent rash of spammers trying to put it or references to it in, it looks like it's just someone promoting their own original research. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: Unless we can find some other reliable source proving notability, all references to Bashir's work should be hunted down and incinerated. --Elonka 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Looking at the actual website linked, it seems to be grossly commercial and is, frankly, a pain to read with the constant ads. This makes me suspect all the more that it was only in here in the first place due to self-advertisement. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and requested semi-protection for Monomyth, The Hero's Journey and Hero's journey (disambiguation). Hopefully that will quiet things down. --Elonka 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
That or it will force the spammer to register an account, which could help us communicate and try to explain why spamming is not a good idea. (Somehow, I doubt it, though.) --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 07:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
My two cents (someone needs to defend this guy): I added some content and linked back to Bashir's site a while ago. On my return that content has disappeared and this wiki is worse for it. Thing is, Bashir has something fresh and valuable to say, whereas most material on the journey is the same regurgitated, misunderstood 17 stage Campbell stuff with the bog standard examples (Star Wars, Matrix etc). I've learned alot from this guy. He goes into this stuff in detail and clarifies the jargon. Just look at what he's trying to say. a) So what if the site is text ugly - so is Vogler's, b) So what if it's a commerical site - commericial stuff allows for innovation and lets not forget that YouTube, MySpace etc were all "non-commercial" until a Corp with deep pockets turned up and I'm sure wiki won't break that tradition - I like the honesty that comes with being commercial; the present Hero's Journey links to a commercial product, c) The real question you're facing is, "what is quality?" If you disallow content and links to new material (webs sites) and only to traditionally published books you'll always end up with an inferior, out of date site as books take a couple of years to publish and there are relatively few books about this topic published and so the gap extends to several years - lets face it, presently a google search on this topic yields better results than looking at this page, d) What's with the hubris? I wouldn't be surprised if others linked to this material; if someone was going to self-promote then why focus on wiki - it's not that important. Elonka: you're an editor, right? Shouldn't you be a little more objective? Incinerating someone's content! Come on !!! So I guess you know where I stand. I'd email the guy and ask for him to contribute. WAISAD this site needs improving. Oh, and definitely merge monomyth with hero's journey. Easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.121.22 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 5 July 2007
Thanks for the actual feedback; constantly reverting an anon address who never said anything was getting a bit frustrating. However, I still believe that it shouldn't be in. The thresholds for inclusion in Wikipedia are Notability and Verifiability. While it's clearly verifiable that Bashir has made these observations, what's not clear is that it's notable enough to merit inclusion. To judge this, let's go to the notability criteria for websites (Note that these are for making articles about websites, but are close enough to cover inclusion of the views within one website):
  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
    • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
      • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
      • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
  2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
  3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for:
    • Trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)
Also relevent are the notability criteria for books:
  1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
    • The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
  2. The book has won a major literary award.
  3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
  4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
  5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.
If either the website or the book can meet any of these criteria, then I have no problem putting it in. If you can find evidence that this is so, please do so (it seems most likely that #4 for books might be filled, so this would be a good place to start).
Aside from that, I'll agree that whether the site is commercial or a pain to read is irrelevent to its notability. However, I wasn't using those facts to argue this particular point; I was using them as evidence that the inclusion of it might be a form of self-advertisement (Okay, just the fact that it's commercial, really. The other point is just irrelevent opinion). See WP:SOAP, point #4 for the applicable policy. For material that might qualify as such, we have to be a bit more stringent about applying the notability criteria, and we have to make sure it's only edited by people without a conflict of interest. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Infophile, thank you for participating, debate is always encouraged.  :) As for whether Bashir's information should be included, I still disagree on that. Infophile posted a thorough and articulate post above, but let me try to put it another way too: The thousands of editors of Wikipedia have spent a lot of time discussing which information to include here. The general consensus is that blogs and message boards and personally-created sites don't reach the "notability" bar, unless there is proof that they are getting attention from other third-party sources. So far, it does not appear that Bashir's work is notable. Instead, it appears that Bashir (or someone on his behalf) is trying to use Wikipedia to become notable. Which is not what we're here for. If you can show that his work is getting cited elsewhere, like in major newspapers or magazines, it may be worth inclusion. But just as a standalone commercial website, no, it's not there yet. You may also find it useful to read this page: Wikipedia:No original research. --Elonka 17:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to ask myself why I'm getting involved in this. Life is short, after all. So after my skinny grande cappuccino I have come up with a) there is a HUGE gap in wiki's write up of the hero's journey / monomyth that the 188 stage structure addressees. There is presently no mention of transformation, movement from Old World to New World, becoming of the New Self etc, b) I don't do idolatry but what the guy is saying is just brilliant, c) I can't be as busy as I think I am. I'll spend a little time trying to find "notable references." I'm not going to read loads of books and stuff, I'll do a web investigation and see what I come up with. I'll also email him for input. If you can tell me what sort of web links you accept as credible, then that'd help. I need about a week. Easy. Later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.121.22 (talk • contribs) 12:02, July 6, 2007
Reliable secondary and tertiary sources. See WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR. In terms of what's on the web, I'd recommend looking in news archives for the New York Times and TIME magazine, CNN, NPR, etc. Pretty much anything from those sources would be acceptable. But I've gotta ask, are you sure you're coming from the right place? If you want to expand the article just to expand the concept of the Hero's Journey, then great. But if you're only looking for sources specifically so that you can include a link to Bashir's work, that sounds like a bit of WP:COI problem. --Elonka 18:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
A clear case of the rules not working. If someone wants to add content then let them. It's easy to see whether it adds value or not. One of the competitive advantages of a web encyclopedia is that you are able to add and link to the latest and diverse content (an extension of the "long tail"). The "Time Magazine or NY Times" reference requirement is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.115.96 (talk • contribs) 10:56, July 7, 2007
Please read Wikipedia:No original research. --Elonka 16:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Plus if we add in everything that "adds value," we'll soon be swamped in information. Readers will have to sift through the mostly-irrelevant to get to what they actually care about. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, try to sign your posts by putting "~~~~" at the end, if you don't mind. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
If you google "188 stage Hero's Journey" you get 409,000 links. I don't think you can justify not allowing a hyperlink. Personally, I don't find the site difficult to read and it is interesting. Perhaps a small paragraph summarising the contents would enhance Wikipedia's Hero's Journey / Monomyth80.229.129.226 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Claire.
Actually, when you search on "188 stage Hero's Journey" as a single string,[1] you get about 21,000 hits. Search on "188 stage" + "hero's journey" + bashir[2] and get fewer than 100. Bashir is obviously heavily self-promoting his work.[3] I'm also willing to bet that "Kal Bishop" == "Kal Bashir". In fact, I couldn't even link to some of the places that are promoting this work, because they're already on Wikipedia's spam blacklist. We're past assuming good faith here. Please stop trying to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. --Elonka 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
+2cents. I've been stumbling onto Bashir/Bishop's work while trying to research this subject, his sites are using questionable SEO techniques and IMO should be taken with a grain of salt 124.254.124.247 05:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
+3cents. Listen, his work is good and a lot more insightful than any other around. I would even say that it is an improvement on Campbell's ideas. I think some people object to it because (ohmigod!) he charges for his work.
I object because no one has established notability for it. Normally I wouldn't bother with a very high threshold for a simple external link, but the fact that so much blatant self-promotion has gone on leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. Wikipedia is not a tool for advertisement. Now, if we can show some external notability that doesn't have to do with his self-promotion, then we can consider it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other improvements

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)

[edit] Men's Movement

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 86.151.227.66 (talk • contribs) 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)

[edit] Supernatural Aid

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)

[edit] Incorrect/ Inappropriate Example

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)

[edit] Linkspam

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)

[edit] George Lucas and the Monomyth

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)

[edit] Cleanup

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)