The Hero’s Journey Is No Longer Serving Us
blog.collectivejourney.com
blog.collectivejourney.com
> Like no other time in human history, we each
> now have a say in any and every story being
> told; any and every story ever told.
This is disingenuous and misleading. The centralisation of entertainment -- in books, TV, movies -- has had exactly the opposite effect. Prior to this, oral history and storytelling were some of our most important forms of entertainment. These were largely replaced by mass media which is much more fixed in form. We can certainly respond to and adapt mass media, but it's not the same as having a say in how stories are told.I had to read it twice and I think I found the source of my confusion:
The author first writes about "hero's journey" but that's a "topic" or "subject" of a story.
He then attempts to contrast "hero" with the opposite -- the "collective" -- as in "collective storytelling". Hmmm... Did the author realize he just switched gears to the process of creating a story rather than the "topic" of the story?!? They are orthogonal concepts.
E.g. A collective/collaborative writing group (process) using Slack message channels or reddit[1] can join forces to create a "hero's journey" story (topic).
E.g. Or, a "lone heroic writer" (process) can write about a "collective group working together to build a bridge" (topic).
Save your time, skip this one.
I think this is a pretty questionable interpretation. The Buddhist myth of Prince Five-Weapons contradicts this, for example, as do many other myths which adhere to the "formula".
"None of this adheres to the rigid circular structure and ancient underpinnings of the Campbellian Hero’s Journey model. What is required is a new kind of storytelling, a narrative engine that lends itself to our nonlinear, networked, omni-perspective digital age. The kind of storytelling where any audience member can suddenly and at any point start contributing to the narrative. It’s a model of storytelling we call the Collective Journey."
- Nope sorry, you haven't changed the narrative in any way. People have always had opinions. It doesn't change what was written, just because its on the internet vs. newspaper vs. word of mouth.
"Wars are won by the average performance of the line units" - Field Marshall Slim, British army, WWII.
The real innovation in WWII was scale. Cryptanalysis in WWI was a few people in Room 40 and didn't accomplish that much.
And this statement:
>The villain, after all, must get his comeuppance.
Is completely orthogonal and erroneously attributed to the hero's journey. Has the author ever read any classic literature like the Greeks? You were supposed to feel _bad_ that the "evil guy" was evil and that he had to die. It was a tragedy. (In a Greek Tragedy? No!)
I question many of the author's projections and "read-between-the-lines" interpretations that he uses to make his argument.
There's nothing wrong with writing a story about people coming together. But his arguments for everyone else to do so, are flimsy at best.
And we desperately, desperately need heroes.