Very interesting observations, great food for thought. Thank you.
I still think (although I may be wrong) that classical myths - those that were created in ancient time - had different meaning. In the world without mass communications actual travels were the essence of hero's journey. The the patriarchal world the atonement with the father signified the acceptance of the old traditions. In the religious society the meeting and marriage with the Goddess was another way to guarantee hero's loyalty to traditional moral values.
In his work Campbell used the conventions and the experience of people who lived in a religious, patriarchal society with no mass communications. But the world changed. Can we apply Campbell's explorations to modern storytelling? I think that, while many writers turn Campbell's works into formulas, many scholars shoehorn modern stories into Campbell's formulas by broadening them to the limit and them substituting the original meaning for something that suits their current needs.
I think you interpret myth too broadly, depriving it of its initial essence. With such broad interpretation practically any action movie, pre-Campbell as well as post-Campbell, can be shoehorned into this formula. Something happens to the character - voila "crossing the threshold". The first big fight in the end of the first act may be interpreted as a "facing the entity that has life or death power over the hero's life and being transformed by it". Characters helping somebody (they always help somebody) is "experiencing an all-encompassing, unconditional love".
I think that such broad interpretation of Campbell's works reduces unimyth to the ABC of storytelling. The majority of stories with traditional narrative are told this way. It doesn't turn them into myths. (The litmus test of mythology is active popular participation. Oral tradition in case of classical mythologies, fanfiction in modern society.)
no subject
I still think (although I may be wrong) that classical myths - those that were created in ancient time - had different meaning. In the world without mass communications actual travels were the essence of hero's journey. The the patriarchal world the atonement with the father signified the acceptance of the old traditions. In the religious society the meeting and marriage with the Goddess was another way to guarantee hero's loyalty to traditional moral values.
In his work Campbell used the conventions and the experience of people who lived in a religious, patriarchal society with no mass communications. But the world changed. Can we apply Campbell's explorations to modern storytelling? I think that, while many writers turn Campbell's works into formulas, many scholars shoehorn modern stories into Campbell's formulas by broadening them to the limit and them substituting the original meaning for something that suits their current needs.
I think you interpret myth too broadly, depriving it of its initial essence. With such broad interpretation practically any action movie, pre-Campbell as well as post-Campbell, can be shoehorned into this formula. Something happens to the character - voila "crossing the threshold". The first big fight in the end of the first act may be interpreted as a "facing the entity that has life or death power over the hero's life and being transformed by it". Characters helping somebody (they always help somebody) is "experiencing an all-encompassing, unconditional love".
I think that such broad interpretation of Campbell's works reduces unimyth to the ABC of storytelling. The majority of stories with traditional narrative are told this way. It doesn't turn them into myths. (The litmus test of mythology is active popular participation. Oral tradition in case of classical mythologies, fanfiction in modern society.)