Why the hero's journey?

[Penpilot]

I'm feeling a little confused now, I've been told that every story uses the hero's journey and now you're telling me that not every story is a hero's journey.

Not every story is a hero's journey. You can try an fit everything in that mould, but IMHO, a lot of times its stuffing a square peg in a round hole. You can do it but it can be messy and it takes a lot of twisting.

There are lots of different ways to classify story types. Some say there is only one story, others thirty six, and it goes on. Link to descriptions of different plots. Frequently Asked Reference Questions I read a screen writing book where the guy says there are ten basic stories. They're all right and they're all wrong. Part of writing theory is about l organizing your thoughts, knowing what basic elements go into a story and knowing that if you're missing an element that the story may not be complete. But which theory you follow is up to you. There are commonalities between different theories as well as differences. Find what works for you.

A couple of books I recommend you check out are "20 Master Plots" and "Save the Cat". These books describe how they classify different plots. The first book obviously shows you 20 plots and the second shows you 10.

Can you tell me exactly what the hero's journey is? Is it a template used for all stories or just certain kinds of stories? Are there other templates that you could name?

Here's the wikipedia entry for what a Hero's Journey is. Monomyth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are a few movies that follow the Hero's Journey.

Star Wars
Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Eragon
The Matrix
Tron Legacy
Wizard of Oz
The Goonies
Star Trek - the new movie series
Avatar

Also I'm feeling all, on one hand I want to be original and break away from the traditional hero's journey, on the other I am terrified that if I do it won't sell.

Don't fret about originality. Originality isn't necessarily about the basic plot, but about your approach to telling that basic plot. For example here are three vastly different movies that share a similar plot and elements, Friday the 13th, Alien, Jaws. They each have a monster, they each take place in isolation or perceived isolation, they all contain elements of greed, and it goes on.

Also think about the classic Romeo and Juliet. How many times has that type of story been told? Westside Story, Lion King 2, Romeo Must Die.

 

[EccentricGentleman]

To get back to my original point, why is the Hero's journey so effective?
I know it works but why does it work?

I think that someone will do something better if they understand why they're doing it.

 

[Steerpike]

To get back to my original point, why is the Hero's journey so effective?
I know it works but why does it work?

I think that someone will do something better if they understand why they're doing it.

The theory from the comparative mythology side is that there is a reason these same themes show up over and over again in wide-ranging cultures, and that's that they resonate with us as humans on some deeper level. Cultures were seeking ways of knowing about life and about their place in it, and such questions can be abstract and hard to address in a straightforward manner. Myths developed in part to provide answers in a more metaphorical sense. Although the details of these myths differed from place to place, the basic elements that were symbolized by the specific elements stayed the same, and so they were expressions of some universal truth about the universe and our place in it that these cultures were attempting to express through myth because they weren't subject to direct expression.

At any rate, that's my understanding, so I hope I didn't botch it.

If you believe that explanation for why these types of myths developed across various cultures, then it could be a good explanation as to why hero's journey stories are so effective. These various cultures didn't arrive at these stories randomly, but rather the stories took form as the cultures strove to understand on a non-literal level something about the universe, and about being human. We're still the same modern humans as those ancestors of ours, and it would stand to reason that whatever subconscious understanding led them to create myths that follow these motifs would be at work in us and cause stories that follow the pattern to resonate with us on a deeper level we might not fully understand.

It's a theory, anyway

 

[Feo Takahari]

The theory from the comparative mythology side is that there is a reason these same themes show up over and over again in wide-ranging cultures, and that's that they resonate with us as humans on some deeper level. Cultures were seeking ways of knowing about life and about their place in it, and such questions can be abstract and hard to address in a straightforward manner. Myths developed in part to provide answers in a more metaphorical sense. Although the details of these myths differed from place to place, the basic elements that were symbolized by the specific elements stayed the same, and so they were expressions of some universal truth about the universe and our place in it that these cultures were attempting to express through myth because they weren't subject to direct expression.

At any rate, that's my understanding, so I hope I didn't botch it.

If you believe that explanation for why these types of myths developed across various cultures, then it could be a good explanation as to why hero's journey stories are so effective. These various cultures didn't arrive at these stories randomly, but rather the stories took form as the cultures strove to understand on a non-literal level something about the universe, and about being human. We're still the same modern humans as those ancestors of ours, and it would stand to reason that whatever subconscious understanding led them to create myths that follow these motifs would be at work in us and cause stories that follow the pattern to resonate with us on a deeper level we might not fully understand.

It's a theory, anyway

It's important to catch a particular aspect of this: this idea doesn't necessarily imply that the Hero's Journey is or contains truth. What it implies is that the Hero's Journey is or contains something people really want to believe*. I've written a couple different stories about how the mindset implied by the Hero's Journey can be used to make people want to serve your purposes (e.g. creating the concept of a military hero to encourage people to enlist and die for your cause.)

* You see a similar principle with non-horrific urban legends--for instance, the urban legend that such-and-such a political party has a low average IQ keeps appearing because some people really want to believe that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid.

 

[Steerpike]

It's important to catch a particular aspect of this: this idea doesn't necessarily imply that the Hero's Journey is or contains truth. What it implies is that the Hero's Journey is or contains something people really want to believe*.

I tend to think that's probably not the case. When you look at the wide variety of cultures whose myths show this structure, and the variety in size, class, social structure, agrarian v. non-agrarian, and so on, it makes more sense to me that they're reflecting something deeper than just things people want to believe. Seems to me to be a simpler explanation, just like the simple explanation for the ubiquity of deluge myths is that some event took place in the past that led to them.

Besides, if you look at a lot of the Hero's Journey myths, what aspects of them are you viewing as things people want to believe? That sounds like something that might be more pertinent to the Hollywoodization of the Hero's Journey, which is usually what gets bandied around web sites, but which as I pointed out above is a misunderstanding of the whole thing from the outset.

 

[Jabrosky]

On the whole, I find stories that feature character growth more engaging than stories that don't. That's my personal preference. You, apparently, don't feel the same way, and you don't have to.

I respect your opinion and am thankful that you respect mine, but frankly the whole fun of writing for me is not psychological character development. Writing for me is like drawing or painting in that I'm transcribing my visual imagination, not exploring the complexities of the human condition or whatever. I love world-building, describing how characters look, and animating them so that they do cool stuff, but not so much the psychological or emotional sides of character creation*. I have a hard enough time understanding how real living people tick as it is. Ergo I resent having to turn every piece of prose I write into an Aesop's fable.

* EDIT: Actually this may not be the most accurate way of putting it. I'm all for giving characters emotions and backstories that get them to do what they do. I am still resentful about the growth or development part though.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I respect your opinion and am thankful that you respect mine, but frankly the whole fun of writing for me is not psychological character development. Writing for me is like drawing or painting in that I'm transcribing my visual imagination, not exploring the complexities of the human condition or whatever. I love world-building, describing how characters look, and animating them so that they do cool stuff, but not so much the psychological or emotional sides of character creation*. I have a hard enough time understanding how real living people tick as it is. Ergo I resent having to turn every piece of prose I write into an Aesop's fable.

* EDIT: Actually this may not be the most accurate way of putting it. I'm all for giving characters emotions and backstories that get them to do what they do. I am still resentful about the growth or development part though.

Actually, it's interesting that if you put 10 writers in a room, they will have 10 different reasons why they write. We, for example, fall very firmly in the growth and development camp. It's like having kids. Demented, dysfunctional, over-powered kids who occasionally plot to take over the world... but still kids. We create them and then turn the loose and watch them go. For us plot is cool and the world is neat, but the complexities of people are fascinating!

Now, ask if we feel a need to attach a moral to our stories.

But, back to the OP...

The Hero's Journey is a great plot, and may in fact be the oldest, but it's just one of so many potential plots to choose from. We don't use it consciously - in fact, we don't choose any plots consciously. We just tell the stories that our characters need us to tell. Don't fuss too much over it, and whatever you do don't try to over think it. Study the plots, study those who have gone before, study your craft, and then just write your story.

 

[BWFoster78]

I love world-building, describing how characters look, and animating them so that they do cool stuff, but not so much the psychological or emotional sides of character creation*. I have a hard enough time understanding how real living people tick as it is. Ergo I resent having to turn every piece of prose I write into an Aesop's fable.

I'm trying to figure out the cause of your resentment.

There are tons of stories out there that don't feature characters that grow, so why do you feel the need to feature it in your stories if you don't like it? Is it because you feel it's expected by the audience of your genre?

If, to use my previous example, my audience really liked present tense, I'd have to either learn to like writing it or understand that I'm limiting my market. I would be hard for me, however, to resent my audience because their tastes don't align with mine.

 

[Jabrosky]

I'm trying to figure out the cause of your resentment.

There are tons of stories out there that don't feature characters that grow, so why do you feel the need to feature it in your stories if you don't like it? Is it because you feel it's expected by the audience of your genre?

Pretty much, I have the impression that it's expected for all fiction.

 

[BWFoster78]

Pretty much, I have the impression that it's expected for all fiction.

That would probably be an excellent topic for a new thread:

Is character growth expected for all fiction?

Again, I prefer it and tend to view stories that don't include it as unsatisfying. I'd also say that it is expected in genres like epic fantasy. If you're doing more action/adventure style fantasy, I think you can probably still find an audience. Also, I don't think you always have to meet expectations, though you should acknowledge them so you can deliberately subvert them.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I love world-building, describing how characters look, and animating them so that they do cool stuff, but not so much the psychological or emotional sides of character creation*. I have a hard enough time understanding how real living people tick as it is....
* EDIT: Actually this may not be the most accurate way of putting it. I'm all for giving characters emotions and backstories that get them to do what they do. I am still resentful about the growth or development part though.

Can you clarify this? I'm unsure if you simply don't like writing about the emotional impact, and the change that can occur as a result -OR- Do you have difficulty writing in that fashion? Perhaps both?

 

[Jabrosky]

Can you clarify this? I'm unsure if you simply don't like writing about the emotional impact, and the change that can occur as a result -OR- Do you have difficulty writing in that fashion? Perhaps it's both?

Actually it is probably the latter.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

In my view, your main character doesn't have to grow or change or develop at all...if that's what you want. There's plenty of literary successes that back that up. However, there has to be change, to some degree, on supporting characters....at least a few. Otherwise, what's the story? Just a telling of events? That seems rather bland to me.

The effects that events have on characters IS the story...again, not every character necessarily, but some. If there's no emotional impact to at least one character, why would anyone care about the underlying plots? There'd be no emotional toll or connection for the reader which, in my opinion, is the source of caring...or why readers become interested and invested in characters and story. Emotional attachment causes a reader to care about what happens to a character. It keeps them reading.

Actually it is probably the latter.

Where do you think the difficulty lies? Have you worked at writing emotion?

It's not easy to do well, and certainly takes work to develop the ability.

 

[Jabrosky]

In my view, your main character doesn't have to grow or change or develop at all...if that's what you want. There's plenty of literary successes that back that up. However, there has to be change, to some degree, on supporting characters....at least a few. Otherwise, what's the story? Just a telling of events? That seems rather bland to me.

The effects that events have on characters IS the story...again, not every character necessarily, but some. If there's no emotional impact to at least one character, why would anyone care about the underlying plots? There'd be no emotional toll or connection for the reader which, in my opinion, is the source of caring...or why readers become interested and invested in characters and story. Emotional attachment causes a reader to care about what happens to a character. It keeps them reading.

That's a good point you bring up there. You are probably right that character change does increase everyone's emotional investment in a story.

Where do you think the difficulty lies? Have you worked at writing emotion?

It's not easy to do well, and certainly takes work to develop the ability.

I'm not really sure where the difficulty does lie to be honest.

 

[Scribble]

I'm not really sure where the difficulty does lie to be honest.

I'm not saying this is the case for you, but this is how it was for me.

When I was a young man, I was very self-absorbed. I tried writing stories, and the world was brilliant (so I thought), and the plot was twisty and subtle (so I thought) but the characters were flat. They didn't have real flaws, real motivations, real fears. I had great ideas, but I was not in touch with my own emotions. I distanced myself from them, I was unaware of them, so I couldn't write them.

It wasn't until years later, after having lived through troubles, raising children, failing, succeeding, getting into ruts, getting out of ruts, hating myself, hating my life, fixing what I hated, fixing my life, feeling great, feeling bad, arguing, being in love, longing for love, deep talking with my girlfriend or wife until 4 AM until we reached one of those relationship-defining moments... all of that I was missing.

I had read widely, but I missed a good deal of the emotional content. I never cried when reading a book. Once I had learned to open myself up, I became more permeable to emotional experience. When I read, I was more vulnerable to the emotional machinations of the author, I found myself feeling more than I was able to as a more arrogant, more callous young man.

I had changed, many times, through many iterations over time. I understood my own transformations, and so I better understood the transformations of others.

It took many years, plus a few more just to be able to have the self-awareness to write these words. Now, with all that in my pocket, now I can envision and (working on it) write characters who have more than two dimensions.

One of the best examples of a character transformation story that I know of is Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse. It's kind of an anthem book for my life. Siddhartha follows the hero's journey nearly perfectly, but the struggle is all internal, it is all against himself. That brings the most important points of the hero's journey to light in a very explicit way, in my opinion.

Solution: live, read, repeat.

Audiobook (.mp3): ThoughtAudio.com - Siddhartha by Herman Hesse, unabridged free audio book download

Gutenberg.org (text, pdf, etc...) Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse - Free Ebook

 

[BWFoster78]

Jabrosky,

You inspired my blog post today. You can check it out at: Why Character Change is Important | Brian W. Foster

Let me know what you think.

Brian

 

[Addison]

There is no such thing as a flaw-less person. The hero may have one flaw (cowardice, too short, fear of heights etc) which could prove an issue or severe obstacle if they're to succeed. I've also found through experience, my own and observing others, that if and when one flaw is overcome another one either becomes worse or their success births another flaw. If your hero didn't have a lot of self esteem then, in the next, he could be oober confident and cocky, maybe even proud to an extent he inadvertently pushes his friends away.

The hero's journey is also a good way for a reader to bond with the character. Either the adventure they want to go on and/or the character's flaw is one the reader can relate to. It's not so much as necessary in the epic sense (climb a mountain, solve a riddle while hanging above a zombie-infested pit to slay the dragon) the hero's arc can be external or internal, even interpersonal, but the flaw is key. It's the flaw the hero fights through the entire arc, push and shove, fight or give in, at the end they beat the flaw out of existence to accomplish their goal.

 

[brokethepoint]

SHORT IS NOT A FLAW :tongue:

 

[A. E. Lowan]

SHORT IS NOT A FLAW :tongue:

*pats head* Of course not, dear. Just ask Miles Vorkosigan.

 

[Jabrosky]

Jabrosky,

You inspired my blog post today. You can check it out at: Why Character Change is Important | Brian W. Foster

Let me know what you think.

Brian

I understand your point. Having a character change in response to certain events can communicate a clear theme that resonates with readers and gives the story a degree of importance in their eyes.

Just to clarify, I'm not really against character change. I've written several stories where characters changed or learned some kind of moral lesson at the end. I guess what I'm really asking for is some flexibility in storytelling conventions.