# The Hero's Progression



## Dr Steve Brule (Feb 18, 2017)

In many books and films I see a similar theme or idea. Usually the main hero is not a hero/warrior/fighter and that through circumstance they become a hero. I just watched a Star Wars marathon and would like to use Luke as an example. He was a simple farmer, nothing seemingly spectacular about him. He loses his family, discovers a bigger world outside the one he knows, sets out to learn the force and become a jedi knight. I think the story would have been much different had it started with Luke already trained in the ways of the jedi. But, would it have necessarily been bad?

I know it has become a cliche of sorts to have the "main hero is a farmer/peasant/whathaveyou, his family is killed, joins X group (usually a rebellion of some kind) and then ends up becoming extraordinary." (I'm thinking of Eragon here) I find a lot of stories use this set up and the hero is usually trained by a mentor type character.

Do your heroes follow this path or were they already powerful to begin with? If you don't use this approach, how did you go about portraying your protagonist?


----------



## Penpilot (Feb 18, 2017)

There are many different story archetypes/patterns. Luke's is what's call the Hero's Journey story . You can google up what that is. 

Sorry to be a bit vague here, but my protagonists start where they're meant to start and the go where they're meant to go depending on the story I'm trying to tell. Sometimes it's strong to weak. Other times it's weak to strong, and others still they remain weak or strong through out the story. And then there's everything in between.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 18, 2017)

The farmer lead is just to get the story going. I quietly bait and switch him with the real main character. The farmer still gets a story that plays out like the traditional hero's progression, with his own final boss, but it's relegated to a B plot.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 18, 2017)

Dr Steve Brule said:


> I think the story would have been much different had it started with Luke already trained in the ways of the jedi. But, would it have necessarily been bad?


No. It wouldn't have been bad. It would have been absolutely horrible.
Why? Because the entire point of the story is the Hero's Journey. (Literally. Lucas sat down with a copy of Campbell's book and wrote a story based on the main beats of the Journey.) More importantly, the only way to make it relatable is to give us the "Every Man" character- the one we could picture ourselves as. Only after you have established that can you start their journey.


As for the rest of your post: First, read Joseph Campbell's _The Hero With a Thousand Faces_. Your comment about the mentor is one of the steps- and it is a story as old as civilization.
Some of my characters start out powerful, but the Hero's Journey still gets used. Not even deliberately. It's just the way it has to be.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 18, 2017)

Using the hero's journey does not mean you necessarily hit every point on the cycle. And it's generally a bad idea to write explicitly to the cycle. The character may never meet a mentor, or may never refuse the call. Some parts are not hit in order and others may not happen at all.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 18, 2017)

And the vast majority of those stories that _don't_ hit the points on the cycle? They gain no popularity because they fail to connect with the audience. I'm not saying write explicitly to the cycle. But I _am_ saying you need to compare your finished story (first draft or outline) and see if it hits the points of the Journey.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 18, 2017)

The hero's journey is descriptive. It was never prescriptive. It is a vague amalgamation of the hero's progression for the purposes of critical discussion. It isn't a how to write guide.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 18, 2017)

The Hero's Journey wasn't prescriptive. You're correct. But it is much more than simply descriptive. If it was simply descriptive, you wouldn't find the precise same beats going back _thousands_ of years through story telling.
The Hero's Journey is the story humanity wants to hear, obviously. It's the _reason_ Star Wars (the original) has made all the money in the world. Because it is the story we can relate to and get invested in.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 18, 2017)

Joseph Campbell analyzed many stories and outlined vague commonalities that fit most of them. That is the definition of descriptive. 

The prequels follow the hero's journey even closer than the originals, right down to the virgin birth. And that sucked. The hero's journey is supposed to unfold from the story. Each character has a different hero's journey that does not always follow the same progression. Being so reductive that saying every hero's path should be written against a checklist, is misguided.


----------



## Vaporo (Feb 18, 2017)

(Please don't turn this into that other thread that just got locked! It only just started.)

I think that I'm going to agree with AnnoyingKid here. The hero's journey is ultimately just a descriptor. A very good descriptor, but ultimately just a descriptor. It's an emergent property of a well-written story, and not every good story necessarily follows it perfectly.

Think about the first Harry Potter book. The traditional hero's journey would have the Harry refuse the initial invitation to Hogwarts, or refuse to find our who's trying to steal the Sorcerer's Stone, but he accepts both adventures with open arms. In fact, I don't remember that at any point during the first book where Harry refuses to face new adventures. He's always the one trying to find the adventure while everyone else ignores the problems at hand. It doesn't follow the ideal hero's journey, yet the book was a massive success.


----------



## Mythopoet (Feb 18, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> The Hero's Journey wasn't prescriptive. You're correct. But it is much more than simply descriptive. If it was simply descriptive, you wouldn't find the precise same beats going back _thousands_ of years through story telling.



You _can't_ find the precise same beats going back thousands of years. You have to fudge it and ignore tons of context. 

You can find precisely the same beats in countless stories since Campbell wrote his stupid book though.


----------



## glutton (Feb 18, 2017)

Mine start powerful and stay powerful lol, easier to start off with cool action and justify them fighting strong enemies from early on. How powerful exactly varies though.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 18, 2017)

It kind of depends on the story. Fir example, within one story I have three MCs. One mc is an accomplished gun slinging magic soldier. She's BAMF who don't take no crap from nobody. The other two are a nooby legislator and a world famous attorney of magical law. Those two are utter incompetents in terms of combat. One is an utter incompetent with the rules of legislative procedure and wrangling. But they each progress and are faced with challenges well beyond their ken. 

I have another story where the MC is angel of death sent to be a temporary mortal to root out a plot to kill and replace Death. He's fully competent in killing everyone and everything. But his challenge is internal, to control himself from violating certain rules. He's tempted to because the conspirators are trying to kill his own son. So his journey is markedly different than Luke's in the sense of power. But even still, the challenges he faces are hard for him and force him to grow. 

So, my heroes start where they need to start and grow as they need to. 

As to the broader debate. There are more story archetypes than the hero's journey. There are sports stories where a rag tag group of disparate characters come together and overcome challenges. This would be like the movie Remember the Titans or Oceans 11. Then there are the rags to riches stories like Cinderella or Slum Dog Millionaire. And a host of other archetypes. None of these are prescriptive. A great author can use any basic archetype and flavor them accordingly by either subtraction or by taking elements of other archetypes and putting them in their main story. The difference is that if a chef and s cook. The best authors are chefs, able to mix and match pieces of archetypes to change around basic stories. A cook follows the archetypes perfectly. The former can be great. The latter guarantees a bare minimum of story competence.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 18, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> You _can't_ find the precise same beats going back thousands of years. You have to fudge it and ignore tons of context.


Really? Because you can find them in Homer. In Shakespeare. In Tolkien. In most mythologies.
The precise same beats. Sure. There's context that makes every story different. But when you strip it down to the skeleton that has no names? Exactly the same beats.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 18, 2017)

glutton said:


> Mine start powerful and stay powerful lol, easier to start off with cool action and justify them fighting strong enemies from early on. How powerful exactly varies though.



So no growth?


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 18, 2017)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> The best authors are chefs, able to mix and match pieces of archetypes to change around basic stories. A cook follows the archetypes perfectly. The former can be great. The latter guarantees a bare minimum of story competence.



1) How do you define greatness? Sales?  How they're remembered? Literacy?
2) I have to disagree with the premise. A chef follows the recipe. They don't have to look it up, because they've internalized it. But they follow it. They may make some alterations. But they still follow the recipe. If you took a card with the basic recipe and compared it to the creation of a brilliant chef? You'd find the same ingredients you were expecting. Possibly a few more. Possibly created differently. But you'd find the ingredients.
The same goes true for a story teller. If you hold up the "recipe" to the finished product, you're going to find the ingredients you expect. Created differently? Absolutely. Does it have some other stuff? Certainly. But you'll find the stuff you're looking for.
After all, there are only about a dozen stories in the world. Everything else is a revision of those.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 18, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> Really? Because you can find them in Homer. In Shakespeare. In Tolkien. In most mythologies.
> The precise same beats. Sure. There's context that makes every story different. But when you strip it down to the skeleton that has no names? Exactly the same beats.



I must have missed the clear indicators of the hero's journey in A Midsummer's Night Dream and The Merchant of Venice and Macbeth. None of those are hero journeys.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 18, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> 1) How do you define greatness? Sales?  How they're remembered? Literacy?
> 2) I have to disagree with the premise. A chef follows the recipe. They don't have to look it up, because they've internalized it. But they follow it. They may make some alterations. But they still follow the recipe. If you took a card with the basic recipe and compared it to the creation of a brilliant chef? You'd find the same ingredients you were expecting. Possibly a few more. Possibly created differently. But you'd find the ingredients.
> The same goes true for a story teller. If you hold up the "recipe" to the finished product, you're going to find the ingredients you expect. Created differently? Absolutely. Does it have some other stuff? Certainly. But you'll find the stuff you're looking for.
> After all, there are only about a dozen stories in the world. Everything else is a revision of those.



Which is exactly what I said. Chefs and the best storytellers are able to mix and match story elements to change the formula into something recognizable and yet different and surprising.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 18, 2017)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Which is exactly what I said. Chefs and the best storytellers are able to mix and match story elements to change the formula into something recognizable and yet different and surprising.



Except they _don't_ do that. A Chef doesn't mix a Pasta Foix Gras with Chicken Teriyaki. They make the thing, using the recipe. Because that's what people come to them for.

I also notice you've completely ignored my question regarding what makes a "great" writer. Sorry, but that's the most important question I can raise at the moment. You say a "great" writer does X. So what is a great writer? What _defines_ a great writer?


----------



## glutton (Feb 18, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> So no growth?



Depends on the character, they might grow into a better leader, learn to open up more to other people or become more mature etc, they might even get more skilled/powerful but they are already impressive at the start.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 18, 2017)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> I must have missed the clear indicators of the hero's journey in A Midsummer's Night Dream and The Merchant of Venice and Macbeth. None of those are hero journeys.



You most definitely did. Here's someone talking about that very thing. MacBeth And The Tragic Hero's Journey by Carolee Dean


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 18, 2017)

I want to remind everyone on this thread that you are off topic. The OP asked a perfectly reasonable question and you are not responding to it. If you wish to argue about Joseph Campbell, please start your own thread. I shall repeat the original question.

(also, kudos to the two who actually did reply to the question)


>Do your heroes follow this path or were they already powerful to begin with? If you don't use this approach, how did you go about portraying your protagonist? 

See? Nothing there about the hero's journey. I'm not saying don't talk about it. I'm just saying you are like the rude guest at a party who comes in and blows up someone else's conversation.

I have not done a growing-into-power story. Your question, Dr Brule, has made me only just realize that. The most powerful character I have is a barbarian princess who has a white sword that is eternally sharp, never stains, and mows down enemies. But *she* has no power. It's in the sword. 

That doesn't mean she doesn't grow, though. At the story's start, she is an exile (her people believe she's the magic, not the sword) among other exiled magicians. She is, however, a princess. Over the course of the story she emerges as a leader first of the exiles, then of her whole people. So that's the change--I prefer to think in terms of change rather than of growth.

My other characters--sprite, ogre, dwarves, one human--all appear in short stories, so there's not much change there. 

I'm not sure that's much help. But maybe think in terms of change and realize that the individual's power may be at maturity, other aspects of their life may go through change. Also, I've long been interested in writing a story about a magician with failing powers, at the end of his life. Oh, and another one: the magician whose magic once did something terrible, so he's sworn off magic for years, now faces the need to use it again to save something he cares for.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 18, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> Except they _don't_ do that. A Chef doesn't mix a Pasta Foix Gras with Chicken Teriyaki. They make the thing, using the recipe. Because that's what people come to them for.
> 
> I also notice you've completely ignored my question regarding what makes a "great" writer. Sorry, but that's the most important question I can raise at the moment. You say a "great" writer does X. So what is a great writer? What _defines_ a great writer?



You just used two recipes. I said mix and match elements of recipes. Of course this doesn't mean mixing and matching Willy nilly, as you imply. It means mixing and matching elements of recipes with a specific and deliberate purpose. 

As for your question it's off topic to the thread so I elected to ignore it. The short answer is the test for a great author is a totality of the circumstances that includes critical acclaim, longevity of their stories, impact of their stories, executory skill in writing, sales, and host of other factors that are not determinative in themselves. This analysis is inherently fact based and cannot be answered in the abstract as you wish. Therefore your question is also irrelevant.

ETA I wrote this at the same time as Skip did his. If you want to continue this discussion I'll be happy to do so in another thread. But as I said in my initial response, I have characters of varying power and ability but all of them grow in some way, whether that be in power or personality.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 18, 2017)

Dr Steve Brule said:


> Do your heroes follow this path or were they already powerful to begin with? If you don't use this approach, how did you go about portraying your protagonist?



It depends on the genre and my audience. My current WIP? The guy starts out as a literally dead human being, and will ultimately grow into one of the most powerful Fire Sirens in history.
Another work, currently back burner, involves a series of novels set in a universe where superpowers are real, but are kept secret. I'll have some start powerful and stay there, some start weak and gain power, some start powerful and lose it.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 18, 2017)

Reaver said:


> You make some good points here, BSA. Please don't sully it with personal barbs aimed at other members. You're a valued and respected member here who's made many excellent posts in our forums. We both know you're better than that.
> 
> To everyone else, I'd like to reiterate what Skip stated earlier and what BSA also mentioned. Keep the conversation on topic or start another thread.
> 
> Thanks for participating.



Sorry for the barb. I've had to deal with two things at work that required a more pointed argument style. I think it bled over here. I'll keep it in better check in the future.


----------



## Russ (Feb 18, 2017)

I think that in a good story the character needs to grow or change in some significant fashion.

That doesn't have to be from weak to powerful, but it can be.  Personally I try to write works where the character goes from unjust to just, or from not wise to wise.   There are lots of ways to change your character that can  make for great story.

JC talks about the structure of that journey and the structures derived from his studies can indeed be useful, particularly if structure is not your strong point.


----------



## Chessie (Feb 18, 2017)

glutton said:


> Mine start powerful and stay powerful lol, easier to start off with cool action and justify them fighting strong enemies from early on. How powerful exactly varies though.


I'm jealous. If anyone can teach me how to write bad ass heroines that swing swords that would be amazing. Mine just wield magic and the occasionally poisoned dagger!




Dr Steve Brule said:


> Do your heroes follow this path or were they already powerful to begin with? If you don't use this approach, how did you go about portraying your protagonist?


All heroes should take some sort of journey and if they don't, there's no story. There are some plot lines (like mystery) where the MC isn't required to change necessarily. So it depends on what you're writing.

As for my stories, yes, the characters change. They have to. Romance requires a specific set of changes to occur within character that's tricky to time and gauge. Basically, it's not that easy getting two people to fall in love and stay that way. The other day, I received an email from a reader saying that the characters in the story she read were believable. I like...ran into the living room jumping up and down like a kid to tell my husband because holy shit! Is it not difficult to write believable characters! And the ones in that story had a ton of issues they needed to overcome before the end. A total emotional journey, but not a physical one. They stay in their town the entire time.

It's not just about falling in love though. There are internal and external issues my characters have to deal with in order to make it to HEA. So a strong starting point is required. For example, WIP features two characters that have mad passion for one another but falling in love is in a different category. Countess is an icy woman and greatly feared by her people. Hero is a detective of her Royal Guard who falls under a curse and must overcome not only his embittered nature but also confess to the countess that he's using her in order to cure himself, because she holds the cure. The trope here is a quick affair leads to more, but the destruction of her throne is at hand, so not only do I have to get them to fall in love and stay that way, but they have to work together to save her throne because that's how it's done in this subgenre, and it's a huge headache. They take emotional and physical journeys to their goal and without any of that, there wouldn't be conflict, or a story.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 18, 2017)

Off the top of my head, Pulp Fiction and Memento aren't typical hero's journey stories.



> Do your heroes follow this path or were they already powerful to begin with? If you don't use this approach, how did you go about portraying your protagonist?



In my story, Part 1:
The "typical farmer MC", who is not actually the MC, He's just there to get things rolling and provide a B plot. He finds the main goddess early on, and has another female companion. He hides from bandits, tries and fails to rescue their horses, gets radiation poisoning early on and has to still walk to the capital. He's going to find out more about his brother's murder as only there can the only witness have her mind read. Once the goddess' mind is read it's revealed she has a  dark counterpart, only then does he get notably stronger as he's trained by the Military's Captain as part of having to join the army and it's only for one panel. In the final battle he does kills some minions and plays a key role in initiating a major action sequence. He returns home having seen some crazy shit and being inspired by great sacrifice. 

Part 2:
He saves his family from giant radioactive spiders. He then joins the counterattack to the source of the problem. He is kept from joining in by his wife, and then nature goddess saves them. She rushes ahead, sensing evil. He and others follow along only to find the ruins of the capital now a giant hole in the ground. They decide to keep going to the second strongest city further west. He and almost everyone else gets captured and enslaved there and taken to the villain's realm.

Part 3:
He alone is brave enough to go wandering alone in the villain's realm. Guided by the dead, he finds the main goddess who seriously injures him. He manages to escape with her sword and uses it to take on a whole army to try to find nature goddess. But in the act he is killed by the main villains lieutenant, but is then resurrected as a demigod, so he's far far far stronger than before. He kills that lieutenant, which is his final boss, and then goes home to try to restore order but it turns out the true MC banned him and others from her state. He challenges not the true MC (he'd get murderstomped) but rather the Military Captain who trained him to one round of combat as a bet. He wins and he gets his rights. For him thats the end. 

The real MC follows a different path. The character is static because it's about the struggle to maintain power and principles despite the transformative pressure of several impact characters one after the other. The question is can this character cross the finish line despite a weakening mental and physical state. How the character became powerful is told much later on in flashback.

And then there's the hero's journey of the omnipotent main goddess, who goes from non sentient to sentient. She's not a narrative tool for the farmer along his journey. She has her own that merely intersects with his.

In the complexity of an ensemble piece, journeys both typical and unconventional, are overlaid and are occurring parallel to each other. None of them were ever checked against the mono-myth, that's not the point. The point is to tell a story with heart and feeling. For example, include a mentor if he's integral to your vision. Not just because you're "supposed to". We don't need tacked on, generic characters.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Feb 18, 2017)

I agree that in almost all cases, the main character must change throughout a story. It seems to me that if a main character doesn't change in a story, then the events of the story didn't really affect them on a deep level. And if the events in a story don't affect the main character on a deep level, how are they of significance to the main character? And if the story isn't of significance to the main character, then what's the point of the story? 

Say that I wanted a peach smoothie. (Not an uncommon occurrence.) But I didn't have the ingredients to make a peach smoothie. So I went on a journey to get the ingredients to make a smoothie. I could face all sorts of great challenges, like having to scrounge up loose change from the cushions of my couch to afford a trip to the store, a roadblock on the way to the grocery store, and not being able to find any peaches. (I don't know, I can't think of anything. There's a reason why people don't write stories about awkward dragons seeking smoothies.) But at the end of the story, if nothing changed except I didn't have a peach smoothie before and now I have one...it's kind of a pointless story. 

Most of the time the point/theme/deeper meaning of a story is vested in the change in the main character. 

But...there is seriously so much flexibility in how that change can manifest itself. A character can go through all kinds of change in a story, for better or for worse...so I don't think all stories need strict adherence to any structure.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Feb 18, 2017)

My stories tend to lack mentor characters, or at least have them play only a minor role.


----------



## glutton (Feb 18, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> My stories tend to lack mentor characters, or at least have them play only a minor role.



My heroes often serve a mentor-like role to someone else.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 18, 2017)

I like the Unforgiven model, the bad man trying to be good, who fails miserably at it, LOL.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 18, 2017)

Hercules from Hercules:The Legendary Journeys is an example of a static character done well who obviously starts strong and stays  paragon for all five seasons. He's the moral center from which everything else rotates. He inspires change in others by always presenting the right way to other characters. Even to King Arthur.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 18, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> There's a reason why people don't write stories about awkward dragons seeking smoothies


Curse and snare you! Now I need to write some flash fic with that premise.


----------



## Mythopoet (Feb 18, 2017)

Personally, I would hope that I don't have a tendency to write stories any particular way. I would rather that I can write a great many very differing types of stories depending on the elements that the stories require. However, I do not know yet. It still remains to be seen.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Feb 18, 2017)

My stories don't have villains, don't necessarily follow the Hero's Journey, and my characters don't usually save the world--they just live in it, or occasionally end up destroying it.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Feb 18, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> Curse and snare you! Now I need to write some flash fic with that premise.



Um, well, id read it.


----------



## Chessie (Feb 18, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I like the Unforgiven model, the bad man trying to be good, who fails miserably at it, LOL.


Ooooh, the anti-hero. I love those.  

Suppose I have more allies than mentors. Allies can be antagonists, too. The only thing I care about is that my characters have one bff to confide in throughout the story because everyone needs a friend. Usually, that friend will act as a pusher, someone who tells MC the truth of how jacked up they're acting/being/thinking towards the end of story as a movational tool. Antagonists can serve this purpose, too and that's a real blast to write.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 19, 2017)

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> My stories don't have villains, don't necessarily follow the Hero's Journey, and my characters don't usually save the world--they just live in it, or occasionally end up destroying it.



So...if they don't have villains- do they at least have antagonists? (Which is something completely different.)
And is there any change in the protagonist? That's more important than anything else. (For the record, the reason I made the claim earlier that all, or nearly all, stories follow the Hero's journey isn't because of that book. It's because it is ingrained in us from a young age, as all the stories we are told as children, all the "great" stories of the past, follow that journey.)


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 19, 2017)

_ In Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth (1984), editor Alan Dundes dismisses Campbell's work, characterizing him as a popularizer: "like most universalists, he is content to merely assert universality rather than bother to document it. […] If Campbell's generalizations about myth are not substantiated, why should students consider his work?_

Hero's journey - Wikipedia

The idea that allthe great stories going back thousands of years all follow Campbell's monomyth is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. From the sounds of it that evidence hasn't been documented.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 19, 2017)

I agree. I read _Hero with a Thousand Faces_ back in the 70s and was interested but not persuaded. That is, however, beside the point. This is off topic and does not contribute to the original question, as I said before. 

So let's either drop this or move it to it's own thread, ok?


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Feb 19, 2017)

I realized reading that Wikipedia article that my WIP actually IS a hero's journey. I made one by accident! 

Yes, it is missing some steps, and my MC's journey isn't so much becoming ordinary --> becoming extraordinary as learning to face her vulnerabilities and inner demons. It's kinda funny to call in a hero's journey, too, since she's an antihero and the "refusing the call" kinda continues and resurges throughout the book...she doesn't want to be a hero at all. But I can see lots of parallels still.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Feb 19, 2017)

Now I'm trying to see if my OTHER stories are hero's journeys. 

Graphic novel idea--definitely not. It's something else. Part of the concept is that it takes place AFTER the hero's journey. Of course, it follows an episodic structure and many intersecting subplots, so I wouldn't expect it to. 

The expedition story--nope. Of course, I don't know much about this story, but I don't think it's a hero's journey. 

WIP that I quit temporarily--Not sure yet. There's a good chance that it is. It follows the rather standard "girl-finds-out-she-has-powers, baddies-are-after-girl, girl-finds-allies-to-fight-baddies, etc etc" plotline...The fact that I have two main characters complicates things. 

Until the Moss had Reached our Lips--nope. Not at all. 

I can think of so many instances in which the hero's journey is applicable. There's something so appealing about the classic MC-is-a-nobody, distaster-opens-MC-up-to-a-bigger-world, MC-begins-journey-to-transform-into-more-than-a-nobody....type plot. But there are so many instances in which it is NOT applicable.


----------



## TheKillerBs (Feb 19, 2017)

One of my WIPs is about the MC's descent into villainy as he becomes more and more powerful. I'm not sure about the other one but there will probably be elements of that too. I'm definitely a sucker for "power corrupts".


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 19, 2017)

Hey, guys. Knowing I'm as guilty as anyone else, how about we actually discuss this?




Dr Steve Brule said:


> In many books and films I see a similar theme or idea. Usually the main hero is not a hero/warrior/fighter and that through circumstance they become a hero. I just watched a Star Wars marathon and would like to use Luke as an example. He was a simple farmer, nothing seemingly spectacular about him. He loses his family, discovers a bigger world outside the one he knows, sets out to learn the force and become a jedi knight. I think the story would have been much different had it started with Luke already trained in the ways of the jedi. But, would it have necessarily been bad?
> 
> I know it has become a cliche of sorts to have the "main hero is a farmer/peasant/whathaveyou, his family is killed, joins X group (usually a rebellion of some kind) and then ends up becoming extraordinary." (I'm thinking of Eragon here) I find a lot of stories use this set up and the hero is usually trained by a mentor type character.
> 
> Do your heroes follow this path or were they already powerful to begin with? If you don't use this approach, how did you go about portraying your protagonist?


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 19, 2017)

One reason why the Hero's Journey gets talked about so much in our quarter is because we write fantasy. We write about heroes. It's less applicable to other genres. But as DragonOfTheAerie says, there are also tons of fantasy stories where it doesn't fit at all. So let's talk about that.

I've realized that the convention of developing magical power rests on an assumption that is worth examining; namely, that magic power develop. That, in turn, most often involves either discovering powers that were innate, or in being trained/educated to acquire them. That doesn't need to be the case.

We have people born to the nobility, to take a non-magical instance. No one suggests that nobility needs to be learned or earned. The character is noble from birth. That could be an interesting premise.

Another approach could be something like hunting or combat skills, or any other skill that is learned at your parent's knee. Everyone has some degree of ability, even those who are impaired or timid or slow. But by adulthood it's assumed you will have whatever skills you will ever have. In this case, magic ability would be seen as unique to each tribe or clan or family group. Or even city or kingdom, much like a common diet or common laws. 

In another scenario, you might have power at puberty. It happens more or less in tandem with puberty. There it would be more of a rite of passage. Something to be endured with prospects of adulthood at the other end. The magic power might itself be limited or restricted. Just another aspect of maturity.

For a specific example, I'm toying with this last one for my gnomes. They have exceptional ability in crafting and farming. I can see all gnomes acquiring their ability through puberty, with room for emphasis in this or that area, rather like someone who is naturally good at math or art. The magic power is real, but is so mundane no one would dream of pretending to be a gnome wizard. They would giggle at that.

Anyway, hope some of these ideas spark some of your own.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 19, 2017)

This is the reason my main character refused the offer of the mentor:
Honestly Expressing Yourself - YouTube

The idea of fighting as self expression. Not following the mentor's way or following his other recruits or the crowd. If one follows the guru as their first exposure to combat, his way is going to be crystallized in your mind. You're only going to be able to make variations of the foundations he set. When you're told this is the way to do things, the young open mind gets closed off to wild possibilities. The truth is alot of fantasy characters are reactively jumping through the challenges set by others - mentors especially - and being dragged along by others. For this, Eragon was the worst. 

My MC was smart enough to know even as a young lady, that her wild imagination would get closed off by this guy. That she would internalize the idea of; you can do this, but you can't do that.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 19, 2017)

One of the many reasons I chafe at the Young Farmboy of Destiny is I think it gets the timing wrong. 

Teenagers are naturally rebellious. They tend to reject authority, so giving them a mentor isn't a good fit. I'm speaking of humans here. It is different with elves or dwarves.

OTOH, it is well established that people around their mid-20s do in fact look for a mentor. It's a period of ten years or so, by which time most individuals move beyond their mentor to become their own person. Then, around 55-65, they tend to seek out the mentor role for themselves. I'm fascinated by the anthropology of maturity. Around 35 is when we outgrow our mentor. It can be no coincidence that the Romans made the minimum age for consul 35. Same as the age for American presidents. Or, to point to another, that automobile insurance companies impose an age premium on drivers under 25. 

But most fantasy stories of the YFD variety have a kid of fifteen or eighteen following and even seeking out a mentor. At that age, I was flinging mud in the face of every authority figure I could find. But by 24 or so, I most definitely looked for mentors. The ones I respected were not authority figures in the sense of parents or officials, but they were ones whose authority (in their subject area or other realm) I eagerly sought to understand.


----------



## ascanius (Feb 19, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> This is the reason my main character refused the offer of the mentor:
> Honestly Expressing Yourself - YouTube
> 
> The idea of fighting as self expression. Not following the mentor's way or following his other recruits or the crowd. If one follows the guru as their first exposure to combat, his way is going to be crystallized in your mind. You're only going to be able to make variations of the foundations he set. When you're told this is the way to do things, the young open mind gets closed off to wild possibilities. The truth is alot of fantasy characters are reactively jumping through the challenges set by others - mentors especially - and being dragged along by others. For this, Eragon was the worst.
> ...



Fighting as self expressions carries the prerequisite of having a mentor who trains the character to the point where they are capable of fighting/self expression.  Bruce Lee had mentors who trained him.  The good mentor is one who teaches without destroying the perspicacious mind.  

Also it is better to learn all that can be learned, instead of assuming that what others have to teach is without merit or fear at being unable to discern the lessons of value.  Take your character for instance.  It says a lot about her mental toughness if her spirit will be dominated by another.  So too her resolve in the face of adversity.

though, IMHO your spot on about Eragon.

As to the op.  Some characters start strong and stay strong others start weak.  I think the important thing about the Heroes journey is not so much the steps but self assessment of the character to realize change, be it of self or the world around them.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 19, 2017)

ascanius said:


> Fighting as self expressions carries the prerequisite of having a mentor who trains the character to the point where they are capable of fighting/self expression.  Bruce Lee had mentors who trained him.  The good mentor is one who teaches without destroying the perspicacious mind.
> 
> Also it is better to learn all that can be learned, instead of assuming that what others have to teach is without merit or fear at being unable to discern the lessons of value.  Take your character for instance.  It says a lot about her mental toughness if her spirit will be dominated by another.  So too her resolve in the face of adversity.
> 
> .



We're all born knowing how to fight as a means of self expression. Even an infant does that. It's outside influences that cause it to no longer be self expression. Bruce Lee's style was still a modified form of Kung Fu, with some grappling added and the more useless moves discarded. But still based on the Kung Fu he learned from Ip Man.

Any mentor can only teach what they know. If they think fighting a certain way is going to get you killed, they're going to make sure you know it. Out of perfectly well meaning intentions. Let me ask you how many fantasy protagonists actually decide what the mentor's doing doesn't work for them and they're instead going down a radically different direction? No - fantasy protags follow the mentor's direction and base their fighting style around the mentor's because the mentor represents the animus, the aggressive father. The protagonist is typically dominated by them, To the point where they're just a younger copy of the mentor. Only when the mentor dies does the protagonist grow up and become a man. (The refused mentor doesn't die, or at least doesn't have to) And when he becomes a man, he becomes very strong in the face of adversity. So I argue that resolve and spirit don't have much to do with imagination and pioneering insight.


----------



## ascanius (Feb 20, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> We're all born knowing how to fight as a means of self expression. Even an infant does that. It's outside influences that cause it to no longer be self expression. Bruce Lee's style was still a modified form of Kung Fu, with some grappling added and the more useless moves discarded. But still based on the Kung Fu he learned from Ip Man.



yes we are all born knowing how to fight but like any skill practice makes perfect.  There is a vast difference between a child throwing a tantrum and what Bruce Lee is talking about.  Even he says 'it is easy to put on a show but to truly express ones self is very difficult.'  A child fighting and most fighting for that matter is a show, reaction to some stimuli.  And it is a show because the whole purpose of the fight is to draw attention towards the individual. Child wants candy, fights with other child to get candy, or two guys trying to prove who is alpha, its a reaction and not at all what Bruce Lee is talking about.  The fighting itself is not what makes it the expression but the conscious controlled will towards perfection.  Bruce Lee is talking about going beyond reaction and taking control, forcing others to react to him.  About moving with intent and 'not accepting anything less.'  He is talking about him being proactive and forcing the world to react to him.  Ask anyone who has been in a fight, or war, those who force the enemy to react to their will will win.  There is more to what Bruce Lee is saying than simply fighting as expression.  What you describe and talk about is vastly different than what he is talking about.  Hell Bruce Lee even says it takes years of training to be able to express ones self in such a manner, you've reduced everything he said down to, fighting as expression.



Annoyingkid said:


> Any mentor can only teach what they know. If they think fighting a certain way is going to get you killed, they're going to make sure you know it. Out of perfectly well meaning intentions. Let me ask you how many fantasy protagonists actually decide what the mentor's doing doesn't work for them and they're instead going down a radically different direction?



this is what I mean.  Bruce Lee is talking about going beyond the emotionally satisfying reaction and forcing others to react.  To take your example, simply deciding that the mentors style doesn't allow for self creativity and leaving is different from moving with intent and purpose to force the mentor to allow such creativity.  One is simply running away for crap reasons the other is fighting to allow creative expression.  Quitting because it doesn't allow creativity simply shows a lack of creativity.



Annoyingkid said:


> So I argue that resolve and spirit don't have much to do with imagination and pioneering insight.



I disagree.  Imagination and pioneering insight are pointless if a person doesn't have the resolve or spirit to put it to use, it just stagnates.  

Now, don't get me wrong I get what your getting at in regards to the OP, I disagree with how you got there.  There are a lot of different ways the Mentor archetype can be approached, and the standard you are talking about can always be changed and played with.

Did you ever wonder why the mentor archetype is the father figure?  Most often the MC lacks a true father figure (orphaned, deadbeat dad, or father of weak moral character).  The mentor is there to take that place and help the character become a man, or woman, to grow up, and instill the moral qualities needed to proceed in the story/life with success.  The Mentor is there to challenge the MC without there being the actual risk of death.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Feb 20, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> fantasy protags follow the mentor's direction and base their fighting style around the mentor's


Brief rabbit trail: I would disagree with this. Most fantasy protags, at least in my experience, surpass their mentors. Yes, their initial forays are following the direction and style of the mentor, but as they master the art (mystic and/or combat), they reach a point where they are either _greater_ than the mentor in some measurable ways, or they learn that the mentor did not teach them (was not capable of teaching them) everything.
Case in point: Star Wars. Luke Skywalker was taught by Yoda and Obi-Wan a very specific, combat related, use of the Force. They needed him to be a warrior. However, in the Expanded Universe (now called Legends), he learned that the Force was much larger and deeper than that, and moved in a different direction that still _utilized_ (though infrequently) the teachings of his mentors but also incorporated things he had to learn as he progressed.



Annoyingkid said:


> I argue that resolve and spirit don't have much to do with imagination and pioneering insight.


Actually, precisely the opposite of that is true- both in fiction and in life. You can't have resolve without insight, or spirit without imagination.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Feb 20, 2017)

Dr Steve Brule said:


> In many books and films I see a similar theme or idea. Usually the main hero is not a hero/warrior/fighter and that through circumstance they become a hero. I just watched a Star Wars marathon and would like to use Luke as an example. He was a simple farmer, nothing seemingly spectacular about him. He loses his family, discovers a bigger world outside the one he knows, sets out to learn the force and become a jedi knight. I think the story would have been much different had it started with Luke already trained in the ways of the jedi. But, would it have necessarily been bad?
> 
> I know it has become a cliche of sorts to have the "main hero is a farmer/peasant/whathaveyou, his family is killed, joins X group (usually a rebellion of some kind) and then ends up becoming extraordinary." (I'm thinking of Eragon here) I find a lot of stories use this set up and the hero is usually trained by a mentor type character.
> 
> Do your heroes follow this path or were they already powerful to begin with? If you don't use this approach, how did you go about portraying your protagonist?



In my WIP, I have three POV characters, one of which I regard as the MC. This MC is a NA-age young woman of means who is practiced at what she does, and doesn't know or find anyone who does it better. On the other hand, her skills aren't over-the-top powerful, either. Her parents died five years before the story starts, but she still has her twin sister. She doesn't join any kind of group. She does rebel against the sorceress-benefactor who took her in after her parents died. She is not trained by a mentor, though she does seek advice from a dragon who knows a good deal of the world's history. Does she become something extraordinary? Yes, but primarily through her own merits and determination, since for the most part everyone (including to some degree her sister and the dragon) advises her to go with the flow of events, to not try to exert her own will, because no one else thinks anything will come of her efforts. But she has her own morals, and though at times it is difficult to abide by them -- sometimes she slips -- in the end it is her creativity and determination to do what she believes is right that save the day, or at least prevent complete disaster.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 20, 2017)

ascanius said:


> yes we are all born knowing how to fight but like any skill practice makes perfect.  There is a vast difference between a child throwing a tantrum and what Bruce Lee is talking about.  Even he says 'it is easy to put on a show but to truly express ones self is very difficult.'  A child fighting and most fighting for that matter is a show, reaction to some stimuli.  And it is a show because the whole purpose of the fight is to draw attention towards the individual. Child wants candy, fights with other child to get candy, or two guys trying to prove who is alpha, its a reaction and not at all what Bruce Lee is talking about.



I think you're confusing motive with movement. We're not talking about motive or action vs reaction.The infant isn't lying to themselves purely in terms of movement - that's all we're talking about. The question is, does the infant move dishonestly once the fight starts. The answer is no, because it can't. The problem is that an "infant style" isn't effective so regression is not the answer.

One has to be scientfic in addition to natural so of course practice makes perfect. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean practice with a mentor. My point is that Bruce Lee built upon Ip Man's Kung Fu. He didn't build his own original house, he modified and extended Ip Man's. 



> Bruce Lee is talking about going beyond reaction and taking control, forcing others to react to him.



Following the guru isn't taking control though. It's surrendering it.



> About moving with intent and 'not accepting anything less.'  He is talking about him being proactive and forcing the world to react to him.



He was talking about committing to the movement and explosively. I'm not sure where you're getting "forcing the world to react to him". I don't know what you mean by that. I mean he's probably only going to fight for real if he's attacked, right? That's him reacting to a scenario, aka to the world. He wasn't proactively attacking people. 

I mean for christ's sakes, his style is called The Way of the* Intercepting* Fist.  Interception is a reaction by definition. 



> this is what I mean.  Bruce Lee is talking about going beyond the emotionally satisfying reaction and forcing others to react.  To take your example, simply deciding that the mentors style doesn't allow for self creativity and leaving is different from moving with intent and purpose to *force the mentor* to allow such creativity.  One is simply running away for crap reasons the other is fighting to allow creative expression.  Quitting because it doesn't allow creativity simply shows a lack of creativity.



 My point was I actually don't think you _can_ quit for all practical purposes. It's beyond difficult to walk off into the unknown creatively while under the pressure of the animus. For any young person. Which is why I say very few do manage to tell the mentor they're going to train themselves instead. If the mentor knows alot more than you at that time, and is convinced it's a bad idea, can that student be called weak or uncreative for submitting to the mentor's wisdom? We have to ask ourselves what is weak? Weak is relative. There is a giant power imbalance present and inherent in the relationship that's undeniable. So relative to the mentor, the student _is _weak. 



> I disagree.  Imagination and pioneering insight are pointless if a person doesn't have the resolve or spirit to put it to use, it just stagnates.



Only if you let it. 



> Did you ever wonder why the mentor archetype is the father figure?  Most often the MC lacks a true father figure (orphaned, deadbeat dad, or father of weak moral character).  The mentor is there to take that place and help the character become a man, or woman, to grow up, and instill the moral qualities needed to proceed in the story/life with success.  The Mentor is there to challenge the MC without there being the actual risk of death.



That's exactly why it's so difficult to reject the mentor's way once that relationship is established. Likely the protag may not even begin to think there's anything wrong with the training, when you're being reinforced in terms of praise from "big daddy" for doing one thing and scolded for doing the other. If you're being behaviourally reinforced into a certain mode of action, it's more difficult - not impossible- more difficult to break free. 

One has to weight that against the potential benefits of the mentor. But my protag knew that she would have to push herself into realms that he would deem life threatening, just to catch up with him.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Feb 20, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> Brief rabbit trail: I would disagree with this. Most fantasy protags, at least in my experience, surpass their mentors.



That's cos fighting arts advance over time and most protags by that point are comparing themselves to dead mentors.

Edit - Also of course there's Chosen One power or destiny or whatever special power the protag has that causes them to be the star.


----------



## Helen (Mar 6, 2017)

Dr Steve Brule said:


> In many books and films I see a similar theme or idea. Usually the main hero is not a hero/warrior/fighter and that through circumstance they become a hero. I just watched a Star Wars marathon and would like to use Luke as an example. He was a simple farmer, nothing seemingly spectacular about him. He loses his family, discovers a bigger world outside the one he knows, sets out to learn the force and become a jedi knight. I think the story would have been much different had it started with Luke already trained in the ways of the jedi. But, would it have necessarily been bad?
> 
> I know it has become a cliche of sorts to have the "main hero is a farmer/peasant/whathaveyou, his family is killed, joins X group (usually a rebellion of some kind) and then ends up becoming extraordinary." (I'm thinking of Eragon here) I find a lot of stories use this set up and the hero is usually trained by a mentor type character.
> 
> Do your heroes follow this path or were they already powerful to begin with? If you don't use this approach, how did you go about portraying your protagonist?



In an origin story, you set the character up in an Ordinary World (which may or may not be a farm - Luke Skywalker, Clark Kent etc).

If already extraordinary (e.g. Superman 2, Thor 2, Iron Man 2 etc), you still start by setting the character up in an Ordinary World. It's pretty much the same process, it's just more common to see the farm thing in the origin story.

Watch the videos at KalBashir.com - he's very good at showing this.


----------



## Futhark (Mar 10, 2017)

My protagonists are already trained.  They have just entered their Ordinary world, their jobs basically, that they are expecting.  They have no mentor as such, it's their environment and colleagues that are now providing the challenges that will push them.  Outside forces push them into the extra-ordinary, or adventure world, where life takes them on the unexpected journey.  However, this is a Coming of Age and Overcoming the Monster story, rather than a Heroes Journey.  Star Wars is clearly a Heroes Journey.  I think Achilles was one too, and he started out powerful but had a mentor in Chiron (I think, my mythology is a little rusty).  Buddha could be seen as a hero, and his journey starts out as a prince with everything.  He never has a mentor, but he changes a great deal.

As to Luke starting out as a Jedi.  Well, it could have worked, but then that would be his ordinary world, not his adventure world.  Lucas would have had to create a different world for Luke to enter, or change the structure to fit a flatter character arc, in which Star Wars would probably resemble a western.


----------

