Reviews

The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell

cindyqn4118's review against another edition

challenging informative mysterious slow-paced

4.0

sidharthvardhan's review against another edition

5.0

There is a Hindi saying that can be translated to effect that a poet can reach where sun won't - to show that there imagination is not limited like reality. While that may be so, the reach of imagination too is limited by limitations of mind using it. While imagining stuff, Human mind must work with its content - whether it be content from lived experience or something innate. Neither of those sources are unlimited. It must he therefore possible that all we do imagine can be limited to a few elements dressed differently.

And while some individuals might be able to imagine things undreamed of before; very nature of human language ensure that such fantastic ideas just can't be explained - because language itself is a set of symbols already agreed upon to represent predefined concepts ( as Borges points out in 'Aleph', a short story where he illustrates it rather beautifully). When Einstein gave theory of relativity, very few people on planet could grasp it; within a few years, the language to explain it was developed and anyone with a university degree in Physics understood it. Now just imagine what it would have been like had someone discovered same theory a century before Einstein. He just won't have language enough to start to explain it and probably would have been called mad.

Now myths are by nature very stories that almost an entire population not only understands but can also relate to - that is, they are stories that can make it to collective consciousness of whole community. This gives a space to a very small circle of ideas - not only are truly fantastic flights of human imagination but also other less relatable stories are unable to make the cut. Only stories that are relatable enough to generations of population to make them tell and retell are able to become myths.

Campbell picks up a few elements - initiation ceremonies, hero myth, creation myths, destruction myths, the mother figure, the father figure, the teacher figure, the saint figure etc and tries to explain that all myths of the world can be explained through these elements.

When I say 'world' above I mean it - he has studied myths from all the continents and countries; a rather herculean amount (intended). The very number of those that get mentioned in this book alone is impressive by all standards.

Given that there is a very strong relationship between myths and literature (literature really seems to be natural successor of mythology. Ancient Roman's and Greeks explained themselves and their ways by their myths. At begining of 20th century Russians explained themselves via Dostovesky and Tolstoy. The teenagers of beginning of 21st century English wold will tell you which house of Hogwarts school they belong to.); those patterns can be extended to literature too. Rabbit running down the hole is hero's call to another world for Alice, the play 'Hamlet' is mostly about its hero's struggle to choose between life he desires and life he is duty bound to live and Dumbledore is wise old man of Hero myth to Harry Potter.

That said Campbell never suggested that the story of any single mythological hero must through all those stages he mentioned. Most stories pass through some of them at best. That's right as well. The stages aren't so much stages that must follow one another in pre-defined routine as a list of elements that can be used in creating stories. Even one or two elements are enough. Kafka's The Castle for example completely ignores childhood or past of its hero.

Yet, if I am to believe some of the reviews written here - there are writers, including ones at Disney, trying hard to create stories with all the stages covered in their stories. And that's just really sad. This book is a very useful tool for Postmortem analysis of stories already written but it's a terrible guide (perhaps because it was never meant to) toward creating new stories and forcing them in directions that will just ruin them. Otherwise you are repeating just a single pattern over and over again. That's probably why I can't watch too many of Disney movies at once - the same introduction, conflict, resolution, happily ever after routines at repeat .... or maybe, who would have thought! I grew up. Highly doubt that last mentioned possibility though.

imomimo's review against another edition

challenging informative reflective slow-paced

3.0

Okay, this took me forever.

I'm not a big fan of non-fiction work simply because my brain finds it hard to focus - especially to inaccessible writings - and I find this was no different.

Campbell goes on a bit too long about some subjects, glosses over others, and he does it relatively well. I picked this up to further understand the hero's journey and I can firmly say I've picked up a thing or two from it. I don't think it's as necessary as some make it out to be for one to actually understand growth/challenges for your characters, but I digress.

Apply it to your writing, apply it to your own self; do what you want but take it with a grain of salt.

bittersweet_symphony's review against another edition

5.0

I have been planning to read this for 12 years. A high school mythology teacher first introduced me to the concept of "The Hero's Journey". It inspired me to see her trace the archtypes and story arc through the epic movies and books I had grown up with: Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, The Giver, and Christian scripture. I took note of the book and stored it away on my mind's shelf for another decade. A speaker during a seminar on organizational management referred to the entrepreneuer as "The Hero's Journey" and I recalled the stirring I felt when fist encountering the thoughts of Campbell (as more recently their connection to the work of Carl Jung).

Reading The Hero with a Thousand Faces has given me a new foundation to life, my place in it, and the meaning of the world. Campbell gives insight that brings me that much closer to the universal truth that belies all claims we make about the world.

Campbell expounds upon the monomyth, a group of archtypes and symbols which manifest in every culture and religion across time. Myth is the universal language. Stories are the vehicles of truth--truth is dynamic and contextual. The stories (epic, religious or mythic) are most true when they tap into the Monomyth.

Campbell's purpose in the book is to "uncover some of the truths disguised for us under the figures of religion and mythology by bringing together a multitude of not-too-difficult examples and letting the ancient meaning become apparent of itself." Quoting the Vedas, "truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names."

To glimpse the scope and grand sweeping claims of myth, Campbell says "it would not be too much to say that myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into the human cultural manifestation. Religions, philosophies, arts, the social forms of primitive and historic man, prime discoveries and technology, the very dreams that blister sleep, boil up from the basic, magic ring of myth."

He cites myths from all over the world to show the real diversity in how the myth shapes to fit communities in their own place and time: Eskimo, Ancient Egyptian, Norse, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Plains Tribes of NA, Aztec, Yoruban, Celtic, Siberian, Greek and Persian.

He aims to inspire each of us onto our own Hero Journeys. "We have not even to risk the adventure alone; for the heroes of all time have gone before us; the labyrinth is thoroughly known; we have only to follow the thread of the hero-path. And where we had thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god; where we had thought to slay another, we shall slay ourselves; where we had thought to travel outward, we shall come to the center of our own existence; where we had thought to be alone, we shall be with all the world."

Our nihilistic, and Postmodern world could find healing, and empowerment in the works of Joseph Campbell. I can only speak anecdotally, but there seems to be a recent revival of his work as more people move away from fundamental or orthodox religions. He talks about how the power of a religion lies not in its historical or literal claims (where more and more religions are losing ground to scientific and historical study) but in its mythological force (or, psychological empowerment); we shouldn't be so quick to throw the baby out with the bath water, forsaking religion only to lose the deeper insight that comes from mythological understandings.

fatimaelf's review against another edition

challenging informative reflective slow-paced

3.0

So this book is considered a classic, and for about half the time I was reading it, I could understand why. And the other half? Well. Let’s just say, parts of the book didn’t age well.

There’s no getting around the fact that this book is slower than slow, and I, with the attention span of a gnat, often found myself struggling to get through it. This paired with Campbell’s dry, academic pondering didn’t make for a read that was altogether pleasant. Though there were times, once I got into the groove of the language and pacing, where I found myself almost…inspired, by what was said? At the very least it stirred some emotion in me, especially when we got into the spirituality of it all. 

The hero’s journey, or the monomyth, is, of course, something I was already largely familiar with before I picked up this book. It’s a fairly ubiquitous concept nowadays, owing in large part to Campbell himself. The formula is easy enough to understand: the call, the obstacles, the triumph, the return. In fact, this sequence is conveniently summarized in part 2, chapter 4, “The Keys.” Campbell’s argument is that myths and folktales, regardless of origin, for the most part follow this formula, either partially or fully. He also argues that the reason for this is that the formula lives in our psyches; that is, the myths are human psychology made manifest. 

And herein my first problem with this book lies. I did not expect the absolute love letter to psychoanalysis half of the book was devoted to. Campbell extols Freudian and Jungian concepts of psychology, much of which has now been thoroughly debunked. Prepare to be inundated with countless references to Freud’s most popular theory, that of the Oedipus complex, and how that somehow relates to the world of myth. This is where Campbell’s analysis felt weakest. 

Campbell pairs traditional myths and folk stories with modern (at the time) dreams of Western patients, mined from journals and the reports of psychoanalysis. He presents a myth in which certain components are present, and compares this to the dreams of these random people, noting that the components present in both the myths and the dreams are the same. Wow! you may be thinking, if you were gullible. But if you’re slightly more skeptical you may think, okay, how is this relevant? Campbell insists that the fact that the same building blocks that make up myths also make up dreams means that across all times all people have experienced the same psychological “dangers” that earlier generations used myth to guide them through. He even says “there can be no question” about it. 

But there can, in fact, be a great number of questions about this conclusion, drawn from a handful of cherry-picked dreams from modern Western people who have been bombarded throughout their whole life with the very symbolism Campbell’s outlined, which have undoubtedly been internalized by them and therefore which manifested as dreams. The dreams don’t PROVE that the monomyth is innate, the dreams more than likely prove that parts of the makeup of the hero’s journey from past stories has affected present stories, and that in the past the hero’s journey was passed along different people and different cultures (because, you know, trade existed even then, incredible I know) and thus the different pantheons of ancient peoples influenced each other’s stories. It’s the assumption of isolationism that doesn’t make much sense here. Not to mention the sheer arrogance to only take dreams from Western people and draw a conclusion to apply equally across the world, no matter how stupid that conclusion is.  

Like, why did he not consider that maybe the opposite is true: that our psychology is influenced by the stories we tell, and have told for centuries, and not that our psychology influenced these stories? Or that the psychoanalyst’s interpretation of people’s dreams drew on their own familiarity with Judaism and Christianity, Greek and Roman symbolism. There’s just no consideration that maybe myths aren’t solely mined from our deep, dark unconsciousness, nor any inquiry into the many places myths do come from.  Some stories, for example, are there just people providing an explanation for things they didn’t understand — we do this all the time, to this day (though now these are known occasionally aa conspiracy theorists). These people didn’t tell the stories to conquer their own psyche, but to provide an explanation for why sometimes the valley flooded or the moon sometimes passed in front of the sun. Or how they got the olive tree! Thanks Athena. 

It’s even more insane because near the end of the book Campbell acknowledges that many of the myths he’s retelling have been handed down among countless generations, have been retold countless times. Most myths were oral stories! Some stories spent literal decades if not centuries just being spoken about before they were ever written down. Yes, Homer, we are indeed looking at you. And as who’s played a game of telephone knows, when people retell stories they exaggerate the parts they like best, or drop parts they either forgot or just didn’t like, or include themes they were personally biased for or against. And then eventually someone tries to organize all these stories under the umbrella of religion, or they use them to gain power, and then people take them as they exist at that point for granted, and so the story as set in stone as a myth can be. So if you’re trying to trace the myth that we have knowledge of now with all of human psychology, well — that’s a fool’s errand. And the fool has selectively chosen myths, and ignored others, to present a point it feels like he’d already decided on before even writing the book. 

I wish that we’d reduced the references to Freud by, like, 80 percent. Truly I wish they’d been eliminated entirely, but if Campbell insists on being hard for Freud, I wish he’d just left it in the prologue. Because the problem with Campbell’s analysis is that it relies so heavily on Freud’s conceptions of masculinity, femininity, and parentage (again, much of which aren’t taken seriously these days). The man must go on a question to conquer the woman so he can resolve the problem of desiring his mother? I can’t take that seriously. And even half-hearted efforts to make this balanced still tip in favor of the man: when the woman is the hero, her prize is the man, whether she’s expressed desire for him or not. In fact her prize is the man despite the fact that neither Freud nor Campbell believe that the girl desires her father in the same way the boy desires his mother, so she has resolved nothing and in fact only has worth insofar as she is beautiful (until her beauty becomes a problem, then she’s punished for it) — as in the example of the frog prince’s wife, or the porcupine god’s girl. It is difficult to accept this is widespread and common in all myth, and it’s Campbell doing the insisting that all this is natural, which is hugely disappointing.

That actually leads to my second problem: Were I a man (perish the thought) that used “primitive” to describe (almost exclusively non-Western) cultures, traditions, and points of view as often as Campbell did, I’d have been careful to ensure that none of my views could be called such; alas, Campbell’s views on women can be described as nothing less than, well, primitive. And certainly, we’re talking about a man born in 1904. But we’re also talking about a man who spent his entire teaching career as a professor at a women’s college. You’d think he’d have more thoughts on the role of women in the hero’s journey — as a hero herself, or as an agent in and of herself. Not as a prize to be won at the end of a journey, not as a virgin hag, not as a seductress to waylay the true hero, not as a mother or wife, but as a person in her own right, a human with agency, someone who — and hold onto your seats here — may want to be the hero too. 

And you may thinking, how unfair of you to accuse Campbell of sexism! He can’t control the way that ancient people thought about women, or included them in their myths. And certainly not, I’m not implying that Campbell invented sexism. He can’t control myths, no. But he can control which myths he includes in his analysis, and he can control the way he analyzes them. Never did we get a story and some analysis of a woman with her own agency, a woman whose story isn’t in the service of a man, but for herself alone. And before anyone says, “Well maybe they just don’t exist,” please, let’s not be reductive here. Off the top of my head there’s a story of how the Egyptian goddess Isis tricked the sun god Ra into giving up his secret name, the source of his power. Why she did so isn’t certain; yes, some believe it was to help her dead husband Osiris, or to give birth to her son Horus. But the text itself doesn’t really confirm that — it ends at Isis gaining her magic, and suggests that she wants to rule Egypt either with Ra or instead of him, considering that by that point Ra had grown old and decrepit. In Greek mythology there’s a story of a competition between Athena and Poseidon to be patron of Athens and, considering the name of the city, it’s pretty obvious who won (spoiler: not the man). Campbell himself even offers up a story in which the woman has agency unrelated whatsoever to men: Saint Martha went forth and tamed a beast in France. Yet this example is dropped in as one of many examples as “warrior,” with no regard or analysis offered for it. It’s a waste, and more to the point, it’s lazy.

 I can acknowledge the truth in that most myths center men, and cast women as either maternal or villainous. Rather than analyze why — men, in positions of power, were more prime and able to create and spread stories in ways women likely could not — Campbell accepts it as the natural state of humanity, a result of the psyche and thus immutable. In doing so he has made women, including the very women he spent decades teaching, second class in both stories and history. Why he has done so can clearly be understood in context of his love affair with psychoanalysis, a field of study also created and spread by men, which considers women as temptresses or objects.  But c’mon, man. Do better. 

And I want to emphasize that the undermining of women is constant and unending. Even the chapter entitled “The Virgin Birth,” the only chapter ostensibly meant to focus on the woman alone, managed to circle back to man, not to mention the fact that this chapter more than any of the others was littered with the stories of the myth themselves rather than any real thought or critique.

Then, of course, there’s the subtle racism. Though Campbell strives valiantly to retain objectivity, his slips in wording remind the reader that in the end, this is a Western author, with a Western point of view, operating a Western analysis when writing, in part, about non-Western traditions. In one subsection Campbell describes the rites of initiation two different cultures as “classic Greek” and “primitive Australian.” In the same sentence he says this. He also, up to that point, never used the word “savages” to describe any group of people, but made an exception for the Australia aboriginal people. Even as he attempted analysis, and tried for fairness, he failed to disguise his contempt for the rituals he was describing.

I’m not in the habit of excusing people’s biases — not their sexism or their racism, regardless of when they were born. To say someone is a “product of their time” is a useless observation. We are all products of our time. All time has contained both people who hold prejudices, and those who don’t — or who try, at least, not to. To his credit, I believe Campbell tried very hard not to hold the above biases, though he made paltry effort in his views on women. In the end, he isn’t absolved from his own discriminatory analysis, and thus it is, as with any book, the reader can take the good, and acknowledge but leave the bad. 

And there was some good! As I said, when Campbell focused on spirituality itself, he did a really excellent job as presenting some problems with the way organized religion presents messages to its followers — how many messages contrast with the source material the religion draws upon. He is inspiring when he speaks of how each of us can do the work of the hero, by reflecting on and learning about ourselves and the world around us, to change society for the better. And it is interesting to see how some myths compare across time and culture, how similarities abound even across continents. The easiest parts to read in the book were when Campbell was retelling or presenting myths for the reader to know and understand. I love reading these stories, some of which is not come across before, and it was fun to read them back to back, under the umbrella of what Campbell presents as an organizing principle. The second half of the book was marginally less infuriating than the first half, and contained a lot more reflection than psychoanalysis (though the psychoanalysis, like a cancerous growth, was ever present). 

If Campbell had approached this book as a religious scholar rather than a psychoanalyst, it would have improved the whole read in indescribable, unquantifiable ways. I don’t begrudge the man his opinions, and I do think this was worth the read just so I understand the source material that popularized the monomyth. However, one need not read this to actually comprehend the hero’s journey. A summary is just fine. 

kurtiskozel's review against another edition

4.0

When you open this book it's just a golden mirror reflecting your own face like that scene from Kung-Fu Panda where Po achieves enlightenment and realizes true power comes from living in the moment, true to himself, casting aside all manifestations of wounded ego and selfishness, learning that to be selfless you must first be your full-self if you ever want to beat that misguided tiger who literally kicked Tigress in the face or whatever.

joshlegere's review against another edition

adventurous challenging informative inspiring reflective slow-paced

4.0

thetandingo's review against another edition

informative medium-paced

5.0

neet1412's review against another edition

adventurous challenging informative inspiring slow-paced

4.25

kevinpearce's review against another edition

2.0

I read this because I found the first episode of "The Power of Myth" mind-blowing when it first showed up on Netflix. Much like the show, I felt like the book was illuminating at first, but became rather repetitive and meandering as it went on. The second half was more interesting than the first, however. Campbell's description of the rituals of non-Western cultures also reads as very dated, but it is understandable given its two publishing dates of 1949 and 1968.