If you've read just about anything I've written since the age of 17 I think it should be fairly apparent to you that I have a problem with Joseph W Campbell and the Hero's Journey
( Read more... )
You know, much as I respect you, man, I gotta call bullshit on this premise.
No, I'm not saying Campbell or Jung or anybody else got it right with their notions of a monomyth. Maybe there truly are no rules to what you can do with a story and the characters in it. That's a valid way to look at things.
What I'm calling bullshit on is your use of the word "hero". You seem to be hung up on the notion that it represents some retarded person's crayon drawing of an imaginary friend, a crude and unworthy impostor that needs to be revealed as an empty lie. The problem with this is that, while there are certainly simplistic, naive, and utterly false idols labeled "heroes", the word has more complexity of meaning than that.
Each and every one of the sources you cite have heroes. Most if not all of them are what are called "antiheroes"; transgressors who achieve something outside of normal moral convention. But they're still heroes, man. They come from one place and move into another place, overcoming obstacles and either triumph or fail spectacularly. They define their world. They are special, if only because they are so godawful morally bankrupt that they set new standards for depravity. That's a kind of heroism.
If you look at the myths that the anthropologists, head shrinkers, and literary wankers were referring to, the heroes of those stories are almost never paragons of virtue. The Old Testament has plenty of heroes who blatantly disregard or contradict the supposed teachings of their God in the process of serving his word. Theseus, one of the earliest Greek heroes, was a corrupt old rapist. Truthfully, most of the old Greek heroes were pedophiles and murderers who obeyed the whims of their own basest desires. But they were, and are, heroes. They went places and did things that set them apart, regardless of notions of what is good and what is evil.
You may prefer the term "protagonist". Maybe that's what floats your boat. I don't know. But dismissing the very concept of heroes on the basis of what passes for it in a fucking cartoon is way, way too easy of a cop out.
So what if the hero dies a stupid, pointless death before the denoument? So what if the story unblinkingly depicts life's awful torrent of random, meaningless horseshit? Just because his world is arbitrary or corrupt doesn't mean that your hero is suddenly just "some guy" who the camera or narrator decides to obsess over. He's still the fucking hero.
Re: BullshitjasonfranksJanuary 27 2009, 05:23:21 UTC
I guess I haven't made it clear what I'm actually complaining about. That essay I wrote is a bit on the antagonistic side and I expected to provoke a bit of reaction, but I guess what I was trying to say got lost in there somewhere.
I'm tired of hearing about the monomyth. Great, a lot of fiction fits the mould. A lot of fiction doesn't. But building a story by checking off the boxes, by completing the 'attributes of a hero' matrix, that just leads to bad writing. That's what I'm complaining about.
What is a hero? Ok, you're right, I do use the term in a derogatory way more often than I should. I do, however, think that a hero needs to knowingly act for the good of others, regardless of his deeper motivations. If he acts to further himself without regard for others or out of malice he is a villain. If you lose that distinction we're at 'protagonist' and 'antagonist' and I prefer to keep them distinct.
I want to be able to say, about a given work, "the protagonist is a hero" (John McClain in DIE HARD) or "the protagonist is a villain" (Michael Corleone in THE GODFATHER). In most fiction it's going to be the former, and that's fine and dandy--but it's not a necessary quality.
I find villains more interesting, but I have nothing against heroes. My real problem is with bad writing.
Re: BullshitdinopollardJanuary 27 2009, 08:50:41 UTC
I agree with a lot of this except for the part that the works Jason listed all have heroes. A lot of them you can make a case for, I agree. But I don't think you can find a hero in American Psycho. Patrick Bateman was a total psychopath, an emotionless, uncaring, selfish void instead of an actual person, always more concerned with the superficial than anything else.
There's absolutely nothing heroic about Bateman. But that's okay, because it's still an amazing book and a great movie that perfectly satirizes the yuppie culture.
Re: BullshitjasonfranksJanuary 27 2009, 09:50:21 UTC
AMERICAN PSYCHO is a particularly interesting one to look at.
Patrick Bateman is the protagonist, but he's also the villain.
He does not go on a journey, he's just himself. He has a couple of episodes where his sanity crumbles, and then reverts back to its nominal state, but nothing about Patrick is ever going to change for good. "This is not an exit."
At the start of the novel, one of Bateman's closest friends is Price. In fact, at the opening of the book, the story seems to be about Price: there's no indication that Bateman is present, let alone that he is narrating the book, for at least a couple of pages. There's no I, not even to claim lines of dialogue that he might have spoken, for pages--when Bateman finallyasserts himself it's a shock.
Price is another scumbag yuppie, just like Bateman. He disappears out of the book fairly early on and he doesn't reappear until the end. It's not clear then if Batemen even missed him, but it is clear that somethign has happened to him. He's been on a journey, he's a changed man... even Bateman can see that. But he won't say what it was, and in the end Price's mysterious adventure is irrelevant to Bateman's story.
That, to me, reads as if Ellis is showing us the road not taken: the hero's journey that Bateman can never be part of.
American PyschospatulaladJanuary 27 2009, 19:08:47 UTC
I'll admit; I only know the film, not the book.
But even if Bateman's story is a just a flat line of depravity, sadism, and apathy, he's still the hero of his story. He persists and makes choices, even if those choices only prove how fundamentally empty and inhuman he is.
Re: American PyschojasonfranksJanuary 27 2009, 22:15:55 UTC
There is a lot more material in the book than in the film. The book is a lot more depraved... and also a lot funnier (not at the same time), because Bateman and his interchangeable mates just don't realize how stupid they are.
I think our difference is one of terminology; I want to say that a hero is different to a protagonist--Sherlock Holmes is the hero while Watson is the protagonist--but at this point I think we need to just recognize a difference of opinion and let it be. In my head, that's how I think of it, but I don't think it's really that easy a distinction to make. I really like Elmore Leonard's books because he gives everybody a chance to be the protagonist. I really like THE WIRE for the same reason--you get to barrack (I refuse to say 'root') for characters on all the different sides.
No, I'm not saying Campbell or Jung or anybody else got it right with their notions of a monomyth. Maybe there truly are no rules to what you can do with a story and the characters in it. That's a valid way to look at things.
What I'm calling bullshit on is your use of the word "hero". You seem to be hung up on the notion that it represents some retarded person's crayon drawing of an imaginary friend, a crude and unworthy impostor that needs to be revealed as an empty lie. The problem with this is that, while there are certainly simplistic, naive, and utterly false idols labeled "heroes", the word has more complexity of meaning than that.
Each and every one of the sources you cite have heroes. Most if not all of them are what are called "antiheroes"; transgressors who achieve something outside of normal moral convention. But they're still heroes, man. They come from one place and move into another place, overcoming obstacles and either triumph or fail spectacularly. They define their world. They are special, if only because they are so godawful morally bankrupt that they set new standards for depravity. That's a kind of heroism.
If you look at the myths that the anthropologists, head shrinkers, and literary wankers were referring to, the heroes of those stories are almost never paragons of virtue. The Old Testament has plenty of heroes who blatantly disregard or contradict the supposed teachings of their God in the process of serving his word. Theseus, one of the earliest Greek heroes, was a corrupt old rapist. Truthfully, most of the old Greek heroes were pedophiles and murderers who obeyed the whims of their own basest desires. But they were, and are, heroes. They went places and did things that set them apart, regardless of notions of what is good and what is evil.
You may prefer the term "protagonist". Maybe that's what floats your boat. I don't know. But dismissing the very concept of heroes on the basis of what passes for it in a fucking cartoon is way, way too easy of a cop out.
So what if the hero dies a stupid, pointless death before the denoument? So what if the story unblinkingly depicts life's awful torrent of random, meaningless horseshit? Just because his world is arbitrary or corrupt doesn't mean that your hero is suddenly just "some guy" who the camera or narrator decides to obsess over. He's still the fucking hero.
Reply
I guess I haven't made it clear what I'm actually complaining about. That essay I wrote is a bit on the antagonistic side and I expected to provoke a bit of reaction, but I guess what I was trying to say got lost in there somewhere.
I'm tired of hearing about the monomyth. Great, a lot of fiction fits the mould. A lot of fiction doesn't. But building a story by checking off the boxes, by completing the 'attributes of a hero' matrix, that just leads to bad writing. That's what I'm complaining about.
What is a hero? Ok, you're right, I do use the term in a derogatory way more often than I should. I do, however, think that a hero needs to knowingly act for the good of others, regardless of his deeper motivations. If he acts to further himself without regard for others or out of malice he is a villain. If you lose that distinction we're at 'protagonist' and 'antagonist' and I prefer to keep them distinct.
I want to be able to say, about a given work, "the protagonist is a hero" (John McClain in DIE HARD) or "the protagonist is a villain" (Michael Corleone in THE GODFATHER). In most fiction it's going to be the former, and that's fine and dandy--but it's not a necessary quality.
I find villains more interesting, but I have nothing against heroes. My real problem is with bad writing.
-- JF
Reply
There's absolutely nothing heroic about Bateman. But that's okay, because it's still an amazing book and a great movie that perfectly satirizes the yuppie culture.
Reply
AMERICAN PSYCHO is a particularly interesting one to look at.
Patrick Bateman is the protagonist, but he's also the villain.
He does not go on a journey, he's just himself. He has a couple of episodes where his sanity crumbles, and then reverts back to its nominal state, but nothing about Patrick is ever going to change for good. "This is not an exit."
At the start of the novel, one of Bateman's closest friends is Price. In fact, at the opening of the book, the story seems to be about Price: there's no indication that Bateman is present, let alone that he is narrating the book, for at least a couple of pages. There's no I, not even to claim lines of dialogue that he might have spoken, for pages--when Bateman finallyasserts himself it's a shock.
Price is another scumbag yuppie, just like Bateman. He disappears out of the book fairly early on and he doesn't reappear until the end. It's not clear then if Batemen even missed him, but it is clear that somethign has happened to him. He's been on a journey, he's a changed man... even Bateman can see that. But he won't say what it was, and in the end Price's mysterious adventure is irrelevant to Bateman's story.
That, to me, reads as if Ellis is showing us the road not taken: the hero's journey that Bateman can never be part of.
-- JF
Reply
But even if Bateman's story is a just a flat line of depravity, sadism, and apathy, he's still the hero of his story. He persists and makes choices, even if those choices only prove how fundamentally empty and inhuman he is.
Reply
There is a lot more material in the book than in the film. The book is a lot more depraved... and also a lot funnier (not at the same time), because Bateman and his interchangeable mates just don't realize how stupid they are.
I think our difference is one of terminology; I want to say that a hero is different to a protagonist--Sherlock Holmes is the hero while Watson is the protagonist--but at this point I think we need to just recognize a difference of opinion and let it be. In my head, that's how I think of it, but I don't think it's really that easy a distinction to make. I really like Elmore Leonard's books because he gives everybody a chance to be the protagonist. I really like THE WIRE for the same reason--you get to barrack (I refuse to say 'root') for characters on all the different sides.
-- JF
Reply
Leave a comment