"Campbell's "Hero's Journey" applied to Game of Thrones" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Fantasy Media Message Board
Areas of InterestFantasy
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Ruleset
Featured Profile Article
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
John the OFM | 06 Nov 2016 8:44 a.m. PST |
link I love this kind of stuff. |
Saber6 | 06 Nov 2016 9:20 a.m. PST |
|
John the OFM | 06 Nov 2016 9:27 a.m. PST |
Follow all the links too. I would wager that Martin has a well thumbed copy of Campbell close by his writing desk. I would like to see this applied to Lord of the Rings too.
|
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 06 Nov 2016 10:30 a.m. PST |
The Hobbit follows fairly closely;interesting because it predates Cambell. If LOTR had been primarily about Aragorn (as in the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen) it would have also been quite close. Frodo exhibits many of the characteristics of the monomyth hero,but the "renewer" role is taken by Sam,at least in the Shire. Of course,sometimes the hero is unrecognized in his own country. That is the fate of Frodo,and Bilbo too. Some lit/crit books I've seen have gone off the rails on this point,IMO. Tolkien was an anomaly,as T.A.Shippey points out,in that in a sense,he was writing an ANTI-monomyth,a recognizably twentieth century story,not about finding or discovering the "great gift",but destroying the great threat. It's worth remembering that what Bilbo brought back to the Shire turned out to be the object that would have spelled its doom. I recommend Northop Frye's seminal Anatomy of Criticism,the most useful single book I've read for understanding Tolkien--though he never mentions him. |
Dynaman8789 | 06 Nov 2016 11:56 a.m. PST |
Campbell just put a name on something that has been around at LEAST since Beowulf. So Tolkien following the basic thread of such a story is nothing remarkable. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 06 Nov 2016 12:09 p.m. PST |
True,in that sense. One of the linked articles makes the argument that many writers of stories and film scripts have,post Campbell, just followed his formula mechanically. That,Tolkien was obviously not doing,though his many imitators might make it seem so,in retrospect. Certainly there are echoes and even direct quotes from Beowulf; unsurprising in someone who taught it all his professional life. But I take your point. Of course, it's what he did with it that really matters,as he emphasized in "On Fairy Stories". |
piper909 | 06 Nov 2016 10:32 p.m. PST |
The further we come from the original works or analyses, the more derivative we seem to become. Formula writing has become the norm in screenplays as well as fiction. (Generations of "creative writing" courses and How to Write Screenplays books have seen to that.) Campbell is slavishly followed by writers looking to follow a trail laid out for them and Tolkien would probably not be able to get published these days, and that's the sad fact. |
Winston Smith | 06 Nov 2016 10:41 p.m. PST |
George Lucas wasn't exactly reticent about checking all the boxes for Luke, was he? |
|