# A Useful Resource.



## The Blue Lotus (Dec 14, 2011)

Thought I would share this for those who might need it. *and really, lets face it who does not?*

510 or 2000 stage Hero's Journey (Monomyth, Transformation, New World), Screenwriting, Hero's Journey, Story Structure, Creative Writing, Screenwriter, Screenplay, Storytelling, Film Making, Sitcom Writing, Screenwriting Structure, Screenplay Structu

How to structure a story.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 14, 2011)

I'm confused. Two thousand separate stages of the hero's journey? I'm not sure if this is satire, serious, or a scam (they are asking for money). I'm getting Time Cube vibes.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 14, 2011)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I'm confused. Two thousand separate stages of the hero's journey? I'm not sure if this is satire, serious, or a scam (they are asking for money). I'm getting Time Cube vibes.



I have to respectfully agree with Ben on this one, Lotus.  Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" www.youblisher.com/files/publications/33/193953/pdf.pdf is my source for story structure..especially when it comes to the hero monomyth.


----------



## myrddin173 (Dec 15, 2011)

Reaver said:
			
		

> I have to respectfully agree with Ben on this one, Lotus.  Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" www.youblisher.com/files/publications/33/193953/pdf.pdf is my source for story structure..especially when it comes to the hero monomyth.



I wouldn't say that.  Chris Vogler's The Writer's Journey is, in my opinion, is also goog as it takes the Monomyth and relates it directly to writing.  It's also much easier to understand. (this from a guy who thought the Silmarillion was a "bit of light reading")


----------



## The Blue Lotus (Dec 15, 2011)

Eh I found it helpful just thought I would share...


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 15, 2011)

myrddin173 said:


> I wouldn't say that.  Chris Vogler's The Writer's Journey is, in my opinion, is also goog as it takes the Monomyth and relates it directly to writing.  It's also much easier to understand. (this from a guy who thought the Silmarillion was a "bit of light reading")



Having read Vogler's book, and having _tried_ to read Campbell's, I have to agree. _The Writer's Journey_ is written in a fairly straightforward way that's easy to understand. _The Hero with a Thousand Faces_ is _extremely_ dense and academic. I couldn't get through the first chapter before I threw it aside in frustration, and that was _after_ I read Vogler.


----------



## myrddin173 (Dec 15, 2011)

The Blue Lotus said:


> Eh I found it helpful just thought I would share...



It's always good to share, and maybe someone else here will find it useful!



Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Having read Vogler's book, and having _tried_ to read Campbell's, I have to agree. _The Writer's Journey_ is written in a fairly straightforward way that's easy to understand. _The Hero with a Thousand Faces_ is _extremely_ dense and academic. I couldn't get through the first chapter before I threw it aside in frustration, and that was _after_ I read Vogler.



I also read Vogler's first.  I had to force myself through Campbell's, it took me about a month...


----------



## Ravana (Dec 15, 2011)

Uhm… I'll go with "scam" on this one. There's nothing wrong with asking for money–you'd have to pay to buy Campbell's book, after all (or at least you did, until someone posted it on the net). But this is just absurd.

How did this author get two thousand stages? By doing this:



> There is really only one story. Every story you have ever seen or read is essentially an alternate situation superimposed, with individual style, over the same structure.



In other words, he takes the basic "monomyth" structure (which has, at its fullest development _a la_ Campbell, seventeen stages), then bombards you with endless examples of "alternate situations" and "individual style"–_not_ all of which are universal to every story. Take a quick reality check here: if they were, it wouldn't be possible to write a story with fewer than two thousand words… and even then, each word would have to be able to represent a single, complete stage–which is also not possible. Even for a 50k word novel, that would leave a mere hundred words to accomplish each "stage." Good luck with that.

Or consider this quote, which I find to be probably the most telling one on the website:



> Criticism 6: A lot of myths are shoehorned into the Hero's Journey.
> So what?



"So what?" _That's_ a response? The author is freely admitting that he's "shoehorned" stories so that they illustrate–and confirm–his structure? If the author were correct about his claims, there would be no _need_ to "shoehorn" anything.

This is a basic criticism of Campbell as well, and thus will apply to anything derivative of his works. He identified what he believed to be a pattern that pervades mythology, and spent most of the rest of his career trying to make everything fit that pattern… by selectively emphasizing those parts that did, freely ignoring anything that did not, and doing a considerable amount of "shoehorning" of his own along the way to try to force everything to conform to his pattern. His work is _not_ highly regarded among mythologists or anthropologists.

Which does not mean you can't use his work as a checklist. But its value ends there.

As for the above website, and the product it offers… I find it insulting to suggest that all stories are the same. They aren't. It's as simple as that. Even the seventeen stages of Campbell's hero's journey are not necessary for any single story–and it should also be kept in mind that Campbell himself was _only_ referring to myths, _not_ to "all stories": generalizing his hero's journey in that way is itself fallacious. Take any short story you like–most of which will be _longer_ than the text of any individual myth–and see how many of these "required" elements _aren't_ present. (Nor, to be fair, does Campbell find all stages in every myth he analyzes… though this may be why he had to come up with seventeen stages: to make sure at least _one_ of them showed up in every myth, so he could claim it fit his purported pattern. Shoehorning, again.) So even when using Campbell as a checklist, one must remember that these are not requirements, only items that _commonly_ appear in such stories. Nor, lest it need to be said, do they have to appear in the order given: many of them can be moved about–so even as a "structure," this should be viewed as flexible, not obligatory.

But to take the monomyth structure, expand it a hundredfold, and then try to claim that every story is in essence identical because you can manage to locate a _few_ of your two thousand elements in any story (since we've already established that you'll never locate _all_ of them in a single work)… no.

There are two ways to establish claims of "universality"–and both are equally worthless. One way, the one used here, is to expand your catalog of elements until it's impossible for anything you're applying it to to miss inclusion. The other is to be so vague and general that it's impossible to miss inclusion (another common criticism of Campbell). As an alternative to the hero's journey, I herewith present the following list of elements I might consider approaching "universal" to writing: let me know if you find it helpful.

(1) A story should begin.
(2) At some point later on, it should end.
(3) Something, or things, should happen in between those ("actions").
(4) The actions of the story should each be in some manner located in time and space ("setting"); it is not required that all actions share the same setting.
(5) There should be at least one character. [This one I can actually think of exceptions to, though by extending it metaphorically I think I can achieve complete inclusion.]
(6) There should be some connection between the various actions in the story, and between some of the actions and the character(s). [Through transitivity, this will also connect these to the setting.]
(7) The accomplishment of the above criteria should be performed through the medium of words. [I did specify this was to be applied to writing.]

Not quite as detailed as Twain's list in "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses," which includes, for example, the somewhat more rigorous criterion "The tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere"–but then, he's talking about criteria for a _good_ story, not _any_ story. Twain's list, you might actually derive some benefit from… but it won't be universal. The same applies to Campbell's. Mine: universal, and useless. 

Well, almost useless: if you've left any of those out, your story probably has a problem.


----------

