Two Sides to Every Coin

Something that has fascinated me as of late, and has apparently fascinated many others, is the idea of evil within a story. As "the Monomyth" discussed, there is a a specific pattern followed by most every story that involves a journey. On page 30, it says a key part of the description of the journey is, "a decisive victory is won." This means that while the hero is the main subject of whatever story you're looking at (take your pick), there was also a force actively fighting against the hero.

I find that often times, no matter how glorified the hero is made out to be, the villain becomes the true character of interest. For example, as recognizable as the name "Luke Skywalker" may be, the name "Darth Vader" will always be just a step ahead of it. Why is that? Why do we fixate so much on the villain, if everything in the story is telling us to focus on the hero? Is it perhaps because the villains are closer to us as characters than the untouchable hero? I wouldn't think so; I'd say we are closer to the character who wants to do the right thing than the character who throws a hissy fit every time someone disagrees with them.

The line between good and evil becomes much more blurred in the most recent installments to the Star Wars franchise, with both main characters often teetering just on the edge that divides good and evil. And I would argue that Rey and Kylo Ren are talked about and recognized equally. What that says about the Hero's Journey, I'm not exactly sure, but I do find it very interesting.

Secondhand Hero's Journey

Darth Vader's influence on the real world
https://giphy.com/gifs/pepsi-darth-vader-1997-ylyUQnqAdMNs4QITOE 

Myths follow a rite of passage structure because it’s something with which every human can connect. It’s not just a common human experience, it is needed. Since we can’t all be heroes summoned by a mentor to adventure around the galaxy, myths act as supplementary experiences to “supply the symbols that carry the human spirit forward” (11). In the case of Star Wars, the fictional power of the force can become a real source of strength to people who connect with that symbol of divinity. Would Star Wars have had the same impact if it didn’t follow the pattern of the monomyth? Possibly. But part of its success must be attributed to the way it tapped into this innate human need to have secondhand life-changing experiences. Which is how modern texts that tap into that “transcendent anonymity” (46) of mythology like Star Wars can legitimately change the way people see the world. We withdraw from the ordinary when we enter the movie theater, we experience the film, and then we return to the world with our lives enhanced.  

Heroism Played Out

Campbell, in arguing against the "happily ever after" conclusion, outlines several outcomes for the hero on pages 36-37:

"The return and reintegration with society, which is indispensable to the continuous circulation of spiritual energy into the world, and which, from the standpoint of the community, is the justification of the long retreat, the hero himself may find the most difficult requirement of all.  For if he has won through, like the Buddha, to the profound repose of complete enlightenment, there is danger that the bliss of this experience may annihilate all recollection of, interest in, or hope for, the sorrows of the world; or else the problem of making known the way of illumination to people wrapped in economic problems may seem too great to solve.  and on the other hand, if the hero, instead of submitting to all of the initiatory tests, has, like Prometheus, simply darted to his goal (by violence, quick device, or luck) and plucked the boon for the world that he intended, then the powers that he has unbalanced may react so sharply that he will be blasted from within and without - crucified, like Prometheus, on the rock of his own violated unconscious. or if the hero, in the third place, makes his safe and willing return, he may meed with such a blank misunderstanding and disregard from those whom he has come to help that his career will collapse."

Is there no satisfying ending for the hero?  Is the longevity of memory all that he can hope for?

What's the big "secret"?

Question:  Thinking about this quote: ". . . myth the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestations."  What's so secret about it?  Who's withholding information from whom?

Thank God for Princess Leia

How do we navigate the historical and ongoing problem of the representation of women in mythology? Where are the women heroes? How does Campbell's framework (and Freudian psychoanalysis) depend on ideas about gender and sex that are (at best) problematic and at worst, deeply damaging and archaic?

The Hero's Journey

After reading the text two Quotes stuck out to me in terms of understanding a hero's development.

Page 16- "The hero is the man of self-achieved submission. But submission to what? That precisely is the riddle that today we have to ask ourselves and that it is everywhere the primary virtue and historic deed of the hero have to be solved."

Page 21- "In thinking of this dream I have a distinct feeling that I did not have to go where I was at all but could have chosen a comfortable walk along paved streets. I had gone to the squalid and muddy district because I preferred adventure, and , having begun, I had to go on. . . . When I think of how persistently I kept going straight ahead in the dream, it seems as thought I must have known there was something fine ahead, like that lovely, grassy river and the secure, high, paved road beyond. Thinking of it in those terms, it is like a determination to be born-or rather to be born again- in a sort of spiritual sense. Perhaps some of us have to go through dark and devious ways before we can find the river of peace or the highroad to the soul's destination."

Wait, it's that simple?

              After reading "The Monomyth", it is clear that there are certain things that just work. Certain roles, like the hero, mentor, and shapeshifter, can be identified in most movies, but it doesn't stop with movies; these figures and foundations exist in ancient folklore, mythology, sacred rituals, legends, and as Campbell puts it, "even nightmares". It is undeniable to say that there are certain things that humans innately respond to. When we look at old stories like "Beowulf" and "Sir Gaiwan and the Green knight", we see the "separation- initiation- return" pattern Campbell illustrates on page thirty. There is a reason these tales are timeless. 

             But what does this say about us as humans, if anything at all? How come these certain concept work time and time again? I want to attribute it to some evolutionary development, like the reason we admire the hero who has proven his worth by journeying out and returning to improve society is because a person like this would prove useful in a village or a tribe. Of course, I don't know the answer to this question, but I often tend to attribute out characteristics as some sort of process of evolution.