Discussion Joseph Campbell, The Monomyth and the ST

He also gnashes teeth all the time. Durseemas art is a bit ridiculous sometimes.

So classical Star Wars themes then? I'm still not sure what's so special or original about Cades arc that it must be repeated.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the whole destiny and Skywalker legacy stuff. I think it will play a role in the ST automatically. I'm just more interested in the "variables", in what the story adds that we haven't already seen.

 

Didn't GL use Campbell's stuff as a template/foundation. Some posters make it sound as if he ripped it completely off.

 

Han was probably even worse than Cade. He smuggled for the Hutts, probably drugs or weapons.

 

Looking specifically at the "Freedom to Live" portion of the journey, I have to agree with those who have already stated that coming to terms with the Vader portion of the Skywalker Legacy will be a major theme. For Luke to pass on the torch, and for the next/new generation to accept it, the potential of a cataclysmic fall to the dark side will have to be addressed, wrestled with, and accepted. The refusal of the torch, whether for Luke to pass it on or for other to accept it, would be on based on fear, and we all know that fear has the potential to lead to the dark side. Overall I think we will see the acceptance of this legacy, although whether it remains at a personal or galaxy wide level remains to be seen (and stretches probably into far into a separate speculation thread), as a major theme and motivator with the larger framework of the ST.

For the sake of discussion, could it be possible that we will see three separate Hero's journeys, or at least aspects of them, occurring within the ST? I think many of us feel there is the strong possibility for Luke to travel through some aspects of the Return part of the Journey, but how might it affect the story if we see two Solo/Skywalker offspring, one who has initiated and accepted their journey under Luke's tutelage while another has rejected it for the reasons stated above? It has already be said that there is a strong possibility of a male lead, but having two separate journeys occurring within the same generation might provide an opportunity for a strong female lead as well, and also explore the dualities of the force, good and evil, acceptance vs. refusal of the journey/legacy, etc..

I'll definitely be keeping my eyes on this thread. Keep up the great discussion all!

 

Chiznuk, you magnificent bastard, I could give you a big bear hug!

So I guess I'd better jump in with both feet: people have been wondering if it's possible for Luke, at this stage in his life and at this stage in the Saga, to nonetheless have a Hero's Journey of some form. Is there some precedent in Campbell for the kind of story that can still be told for Luke, particularly when we expect the majority of the heavy lifting to be done by new and younger characters?

Of such younger characters I can't really speak, since we know absolutely nothing about what those kind of characters would be like; but we can make this general assumption, deeply based in Campbell's ideas, about what basic function their story can serve as mythology, a function not too unlike that served by Luke himself in the OT: Campbell asserted that the human being had the longest period of maturation of any animal, essentially that humans were born several years too soon (and he would add, with a twinkle in his eye, that no mother would have it otherwise). Unlike so many animals, humans are not born prepared to function in an adult world; one of the main functions of mythology, he believed, was to provide a form of guidance for the developing human psyche as it had to undergo the process of adjusting to the world as it functions, and of becoming a mature being. He likened mythology to the pouch of marsupials, such as kangaroos, which their young, after birth, can crawl into (the young marsupial clamps on its mother's nipple; the nipple swells so it cannot let go; and it rests comfortably until it is ready to function outside the pouch) and which essentially functions as a second womb (a womb with a view, he jokingly liked to call it); mythology, he stated, was itself a kind of womb for the human psyche, allowing it to be comfortable as it undergoes the maturation process. Such was the mythological function of the story of Luke in the OT; such will be the function of the story of whatever younger central character will take the baton from Luke.

But Luke could indeed still have a story arc through the ST that is entirely consistent with Campbell's ideas. For Campbell also asserted that humans also suffered the longest period of aging of any animal as well, and it is just as crucial a period for the human psyche as the maturation period. It hits a person like a ton of bricks: just when he thinks he's got an idea how to function in his role, here comes a younger, hungrier person to replace him. Furthermore, he is the only animal that knows, without question, that he will one day die. Another function of mythology, Campbell proposed, was to also guide the human psyche through the process of aging that will eventually lead to death, to the disollution of the self. Just as mythology must make humans comfortable with life, it must help make humans comfortable with death. It is a position in life that Luke must surely be finding himself in the ST; regardless of what fate they assign to his character, I believe that the mythological function of the story of Luke in the ST would be to address the issue of aging and (quite possibly, but by no means certainly) death with the grace and dignity that we would expect of the character of Luke Skywalker.

And why not? Luke has always been something of a stand-in for Lucas himself; why not use the character to address what Lucas himself is now beginning to address: allowing himself to fade away after passing his function on to younger people? As a man of middle-age myself, I can't say I myself, to say nothing of a certain generation of fans, wouldn't have something to gain from such an example from the mythology I've made a part of my life in some way. it would be hard to see how a mythology meant to teach us about life, and living in it, could not address this equally crucial phase of life, this aspect of a Hero's Journey.

I'm already working on digging up his specific quotes on matters like this, so I obviously mean to keep my promise to contribute to this thread. Well, done, Chiznuk!

 

OK, one thing at a time...

On your first point, yes, Lucas said that in 1983. As Michael Kaminski pointed out in "The Secret History of Star Wars" Lucas has said many conflicting things over the years with regard to a possible ST. The bottom line is, from a classical-myth storytelling point of view, but more importantly from an economic point of view, there is no way that a 60-something Luke, played by a 60-something Mark Hamill, is going to be the main hero of this new trilogy.

Disney didn't pay $4 billion for the SW franchise so they could put out some marginally-successful new movies. They want blockbusters. Look at all the franchise-blockbuster movies that have come out in the last 30 years or so. With the notable exception of Indy 4 (which I'll address in a moment) name ONE franchise-blockbuster where the main character was over 50. Supporting characters, sure. Gandalf, Dumbledore, Obi-Wan, etc. They are present in the story to help the main hero, who is always young.

Indy 4 was the exception because the character of Indiana Jones was the franchise, period. There's no new film without Indy, and there is no Indy without Harrison Ford because the character is just too closely identified with him. In contrast, the Star Wars franchise has grown way beyond Luke. We've already had three SW films without him.

From a mythic-storytelling point of view, Luke is way, way past the midpoint of his hero-journey. The "return" phase of the story is the denouement, the final act. Luke has already achieved his boon, discovered the power (and forgiveness) that was within him. That was his main hero-journey. The only way TPTB can build not just another movie, but an entire trilogy around his character is to:

A) Abandon SW's mythic roots, and make this franchise into just another James Bond or Indiana Jones type franchise where it's all about a bunch of adventures undertaken by a protagonist who never changes or develops as a character. Or...

B) Have Luke go over to the dark side.

Because the mythic hero-journey has always been at the heart of the Star Wars films, and yes, a major transformation of consciousness is an absolutely essential element in this type of story.

But it's a moot point anyway because as I stated above, for simple economic reasons there is no way that a 60-something Luke is going to be the main hero of the ST. Yes, it's ageist but that's Hollywood for you.

 

Technically Die Hard franchise but those movies kinda fail now and a good example of milking a franchise and an actor so....yeah you're right

 

I think the key part of this is the question "What did the universe think of the Jedi at the start of A New Hope?"

It hadn't been that long between the events of ROTS and already many doubted the Jedi still existed, many more it seemed thought that their powers were nothing more than parlor tricks.

It is not unreasonable to assume then that at the end of ROTJ and after the Empire is beaten the exploits of the Jedi are largely forgotten, remember unlike the PT where the Jedi lead armies in the OT the Jedi fought the bad guys mostly in private.

Also with the Sith apparently dispatched and (I presume) relative peace for 30 years or so it would be natural for the children of Han & Leia or Luke to not bother training in the Jedi arts, after all I guess if you are ignorant of the Force you won't slip to the dark side.

However, all you need is for a Sith to magically appear somehow or a resurgent Empire to threaten the peace to vault our new hero's into the action and for an old master to open their minds to the ways of the Force.

 

On your first point, it seems to me that Luke himself has already come to terms with Vader being his father, and in turn, Vader's portion of the Skywalker Legacy. Unless he backslides at the start of the new trilogy (which is possible). On the other hand, we've never seen Leia come to terms with the Vader legacy, and this is something I'd like Arndt to address in the new film. But more to the point, either Leia's children or Luke's children (or both) will have to come to terms with this in the new trilogy. And IMO, this is fodder for the main character's hero-journey.

And yes, as you say fear -- and the connection between fear and the dark side -- is a big part of this story.

More than one hero-journey is certainly possible. The OT had at least two, as Han also had a personal journey of discovering that he wasn't such a self-serving mercenary guy after all. In a well-written story, all the main characters evolve to some degree and will have a transformation of consciousness.

Honestly I hope we see two siblings and/or cousins amongst the main characters. It's something that we haven't really seen explored yet in the saga (Luke and Leia never got a chance to act like siblings really) and there's a lot of dramatic potential in family relationships. But ultimately it will come down to one main hero, who will be a son or grandson of a Skywalker twin, and who will have his own mythic journey to undertake.

 

Good point. I'd forgotten about the Die Hard franchise. But it's similar to the Indiana Jones franchise in that the main characters IS the franchise, and that same character is so closely identified with a particular actor that recasting is out of the question.

 

Not just Luke's story, but the Saga as well is coming to an end. It hardly makes sense to start a new journey in this context. If the Saga was to continue with Episodes (let me stress Episodes, not movies) past IX then I would agree.

Based on this, George's description of the ST, and lack of mentioning a 3rd generation, I can only surmise that the main hero will be based on the main theme - and the main theme points to Luke as main hero.

I see "Freedom to Live" as attributing more to enlightenment through the Force and immortality. I think "Atonement with the Father" covers Luke's coming to terms with Vader.
Freedom to LiveMastery leads to freedom from the fear of death, which in turn is the freedom to live. This is sometimes referred to as living in the moment, neither anticipating the future nor regretting the past.
Campbell: "The hero is the champion of things becoming, not of things become, because he is. 'Before Abraham was, I AM.' He does not mistake apparent changelessness in time for the permanence of Being, nor is he fearful of the next moment (or of the 'other thing'), as destroying the permanent with its change. 'Nothing retains its own form; but Nature, the greater renewer, ever makes up forms from forms. Be sure there's nothing perishes in the whole universe; it does but vary and renew its form.' Thus the next moment is permitted to come to pass." [18]
Biblical application: Christ returns to the ordinary world after his resurrection, but not as an ordinary man. He can seem to be as others are and interact with them, but his body is a "glorified" body, capable of assuming visible and palpable form, but freed from the bonds of space and time. He is now able to give life to others through his own death and resurrection. Other traditional examples of something similar are Elijah, Enoch, and Khidr, the "immortal prophet" of the Sufis.

I think all characters will exhibit parts of the Hero's Journey, just as they did in the OT and PT, specifically the new ones. But going by what Lucas said is the main theme of the ST, that IS the RETURN phase.

Yep, called RETURN.

From a classical myth storytelling point of view following the RETURN stage, I have to disagree.

From an economic standpoint I have to disagree as well. What will make more money for Disney, Luke et al that the audience has already identified with or a new cast with new actors that the audience may not bond with? It's the old EU arguement, the novels focussing on the big 3 sell better on average than novels without them, which is why the vast majority of novels feature Luke and the gang.

Besides, Disney has the spinoff movies to introduce and star new characters as the lead, the ST is about George's treatments and concluding the 9 Episode Saga.

James Bond (5 movies with Roger Moore), Star Trek (2-7 with Shatner and crew, 7-10 with Stewart), Die Hard (2, as was mentioned). Just off the top of my head, there are 17 examples for you. I think Luke and the Big 3 in general have more commercial appeal than all of those combined.

Lucas' outline follows the mythic roots of the Hero's Journey as outlined in this thread following the RETURN phase.

They tried to introduce Indy's kid asthe next hero, how did that turn out?

The franchise may have grown beyond Luke in scope, but he is the focus of most of the EU to this day. Just because the EU has ventured past Luke to Cade andthe like doesn't mean that the 9 Episode Saga of one George Lucas has.

I would venture to guess that to the average member of the movie going public that doesn't read EU or post on these boards, the same could be said for Luke.

 

Let me add that I do firmly believe there will be a 3rd generation in the ST. I just feel that based on the few facts given over the years regarding Lucas' plans for the ST that it will focus on Luke's relationship with them and not their relationship with him. The OT gave us Luke dealing with his faher and the ST will give us Luke dealing with his kids/the 3rd generation.

 

Again, taking these points one by one (and I apologize is this is making the thread drift OT, but it does ultimately relate to the question of the main character's mythic hero-journey).

Let's start with what makes most sense for Disney. First you have to ask yourself: who is the target audience for the ST? If the target audience is all of us baby boomers who fell in love with the OT characters way back when, then yes absolutely their best bet is to have the new films be a reunion of sorts where the classic characters play the leads. But the baby boomer generation is getting old and I don't believe for one moment we will be the target audience. I believe the ST will be targeted mainly to young men. That's the group 99% of modern franchise blockbusters are aimed at, because as far as Hollywood is concerned, that's where the really big money is at (even though James Cameron proved that a film targeted to young women could be immensely lucrative).

Yes, it will be a challenge for the audience to bond with a new set of young characters. That's why A) the OT cast will participate, sort of handing off the baton as it were, and B) the main protagonist will be the son of either Luke, or Han and Leia.

Yes, the ST is about concluding the 9-episode mega-saga, but as far as George's treatments are concerned, again Kaminski's book "The Secret History of Star Wars" makes it very clear that Lucas has said many conflicting things about his plans for the ST over the years. Here are a few quotes from the book (towards the end of Appendix D, on page 501):

Lucas in 2001 (on the possibility of doing a ST): "...I might consider it. But don't count on it. There's nothing written...I'd have to start from scratch [The idea of episodes VII, VIII, and IX] was more of a media thing than it was me."

Hamill in 2004: "You know when I first did this, it was four trilogies. 12 movies! And out in the desert, any time between set-ups...lots of free time. And George was talking about this whole thing...He said, 'Um, how'd you like to be in Episode IX?' This is 1976...So I did the math and figured out how old I'd be. I said, 'Well, what do you want me to do?' He said, 'You'll just be like a cameo. You'll be like Obi-Wan handing down lightsaber down to the next new hope.'"

Yes, he did say it's Episode 9 where Luke just has a cameo -- but this was also when Lucas was planning 12 movies in the overall saga, not nine.

Regarding the Bond and Trek franchises, in most of those examples you are referencing the age of the actors -- not the characters. James Bond has occasionally been played by an over-50 actor -- but never for long -- and the character himself never ages. That's why James Bond has been recast so many times.

As for Trek, yes Shatner and most of the rest of the case were over 50 for II-VI, though it is never clear how old the characters were supposed to be. And I recall clearly a lot of fans howling about it at the time. But point taken. And Patrick Stewart was over 50 when the Next Gen films started, though again it's not clear how old Picard was supposed to be in the films. And I'll add that Stewart, his baldness notwithstanding, was unusually fit and virile for his age. But ultimately the age factor works against the Trek actors too: First the classic cast is replaced by the younger Next Gen cast, and then the Next Gen cast is replaced by young Pine and Quinto, et al. It's inevitable. And the Paramount didn't have the huge financial stake that Disney has in making sure their films had to be blockbusters.

I also don't agree that Mutt Jones was being groomed to take over the Indy franchise. Harrison Ford as Indy was the franchise, period. Giving him a son in the final film served two purposes. One, to have a young pretty actor in the main cast to help bring young people to the theaters since Ford was getting old, and two, it gives Indy some character development since he too was getting old and it was probably about time he settled down and had a family.

Getting back on topic, I don't see how the return portion of the hero-journey can carry Episode 7 -- let alone an entire trilogy. I repeat: the return part of the story is the denouement, the final act of Luke's hero-journey. It should have happened in the final act of ROTJ (a la Return of the King) but at that time Lucas was in a hurry to wrap things up quickly in a feelgood ending, so he pretty much skipped over that part of the story. Episode 7 begins at least a good 20-30 years after the end of ROTJ, so that's one helluva long intermission between two acts of the same story that usually happen in tandem. I don't think it can work, and I don't think TPTB will even try because the main protagonist will be either Luke's son, or Han and Leia's son.

I'm not saying that Luke can't play a pivotal role in the ST, or that he can't have a character arc. But he won't be the main lead, and his hero-journey has gone too far for him to undergo a major transformation of consciousness, unless he falls to the dark side, which I'm pretty sure very few people really want to see.

 

Good point. Right now all we know is that episodes 7-8-9 are slated to be part of a self-contained trilogy that will continue the saga of the Skywalker family.

To get this back on-topic...one of the strongest and most common themes in mythology is the constant cycle of death and rebirth, of the new overthrowing the old. Once a new life is born, that new life becomes the most important thing, something the parents should gladly give their lives to protect. And it's inevitable that the son will supplant the father. All the more reason why I believe the new young Skywalker/Solos will be the main protagonist(s) of the ST, not supporting.

Here are a few Joseph Campbell quotes from the book version of the Power of Myth series that I think might be relevant to the hero-journey of the ST:

~ "If you want to put it in terms of intentions, the trials [of the hero] are designed to see to it that the intending hero should really be a hero. Is he really a match for this task? Can he overcome the dangers? Does he have the courage, the knowledge, the capacity, to enable him to serve?"

~ "If you realize what the real problem is -- losing yourself, giving yourself to some higher end or to another -- you realize that this itself is the ultimate trial...And what all myths have to do with is transformation of consciousness, of one kind or another. You have been thinking one way, you now have to think a different way. [Consciousness is transformed] Either by the trials themselves, or by illuminating revelations. Trials and revelations are what it's all about."

~ "There are both kinds of heroes, some that choose to undertake the journey and some that don't."

~ (on the hero's sacrifice) "Many of them give their lives. But then, the myth also says that out of the given life comes a new life. It may not be the hero's life, but it's a new life, a new way of being or becoming."

~ "You see, consciousness thinks it's running the show...It must submit and serve the humanity of the body. When it does put itself in control, you get a man like Darth Vader...If the person insists on a certain program, and doesn't listen to the demands of his own heart, he's going to risk a schizophrenic crackup. Such a person has put himself off-center. He has aligned himself with a program for life, and it's not the one the body's interested in at all. The world is full of people who have stopped listening to themselves..."

I believe these quotes are relevant to the hero-journey the new, young protagonist will have to go through in the ST.

 

I think what makes the most sense for Disney is to target the entire audience, not just a portion. The big 3 have the most commercial appeal. I think the new characters will be there to target your young men.

Anakin was 9 in TPM because that is what the story demmanded, not because it hit the young men demographic. George makes the movies as he wantsthem.

You have to look at when these were written. In 2001 Lucas was trying to promote 2 additional movies in the PT and wasn't going to promote a ST over the trilogy he was making. Mark is recalling a conversation with George on set in 1976, which doesn't reflect George's view of the Saga that he 1st started talking about in 1980, continued in 1983, and didn't change until promotion for the PT began.

Come on now, you know Kirk and Picard were over 50. The audience knew it and didn't care.

Moore played Bond for 5 movies over 50, and looked over 50, that didn'thurt Bond.

I seem to remember all the talk at the time floating this idea.

Let's get back on topic. If you view the RETURN stage as it is it does not need to happen in tandem with the INITIATION stage:

Rescue from Without
Just as the hero may need guides and assistants to set out on the quest, oftentimes he or she must have powerful guides and rescuers to bring them back to everyday life, especially if the person has been wounded or weakened by the experience.
Campbell: "The hero may have to be brought back from his supernatural adventure by assistance from without. That is to say, the world may have to come and get him. For the bliss of the deep abode is not lightly abandoned in favor of the self-scattering of the wakened state. 'Who having cast off the world,' we read, 'would desire to return again? He would be only there.' And yet, in so far as one is alive, life will call. Society is jealous of those who remain away from it, and will come knocking at the door. If the hero. . . is unwilling, the disturber suffers an ugly shock; but on the other hand, if the summoned one is only delayed—sealed in by the beatitude of the state of perfect being (which resembles death)—an apparent rescue is effected, and the adventurer returns.

This can be a part of Episode VII, Luke being "Rescued From Without" by the 3rd generation and the adventurer returning.

The rest of the ST can include:

The Crossing of the Return Threshold
The trick in returning is to retain the wisdom gained on the quest, to integrate that wisdom into a human life, and then maybe figure out how to share the wisdom with the rest of the world.
Campbell: "The returning hero, to complete his adventure, must survive the impact of the world. Many failures attest to the difficulties of this life-affirmative threshold. The first problem of the returning hero is to accept as real, after an experience of the soul-satisfying vision of fulfillment, the passing joys and sorrows, banalities and noisy obscenities of life. Why re-enter such a world? Why attempt to make plausible, or even interesting, to men and women consumed with passion, the experience of transcendental bliss? As dreams that were momentous by night may seem simply silly in the light of day, so the poet and the prophet can discover themselves playing the idiot before a jury of sober eyes. The easy thing is to commit the whole community to the devil and retire again into the heavenly rock dwelling, close the door, and make it fast. But if some spiritual obstetrician has drawn the shimenawa across the retreat, then the work of representing eternity in time, and perceiving in time eternity, cannot be avoided" The hero returns to the world of common day and must accept it as real

Master of Two Worlds
This step is usually represented by a transcendental hero like Jesus or Gautama Buddha. For a human hero, it may mean achieving a balance between the material and spiritual. The person has become comfortable and competent in both the inner and outer worlds.
Campbell: "Freedom to pass back and forth across the world division, from the perspective of the apparitions of time to that of the causal deep and back—not contaminating the principles of the one with those of the other, yet permitting the mind to know the one by virtue of the other—is the talent of the master. The Cosmic Dancer, declares Nietzsche, does not rest heavily in a single spot, but gaily, lightly, turns and leaps from one position to another. It is possible to speak from only one point at a time, but that does not invalidate the insights of the rest. The individual, through prolonged psychological disciplines, gives up completely all attachment to his personal limitations, idiosyncrasies, hopes and fears, no longer resists the self-annihilation that is prerequisite to rebirth in the realization of truth, and so becomes ripe, at last, for the great at-one-ment. His personal ambitions being totally dissolved, he no longer tries to live but willingly relaxes to whatever may come to pass in him; he becomes, that is to say, an anonymity."[17]
Biblical application: In the Christ story, Jesus is able to return to the ordinary world after resurrection

Freedom to Live
Mastery leads to freedom from the fear of death, which in turn is the freedom to live. This is sometimes referred to as living in the moment, neither anticipating the future nor regretting the past.
Campbell: "The hero is the champion of things becoming, not of things become, because he is. 'Before Abraham was, I AM.' He does not mistake apparent changelessness in time for the permanence of Being, nor is he fearful of the next moment (or of the 'other thing'), as destroying the permanent with its change. 'Nothing retains its own form; but Nature, the greater renewer, ever makes up forms from forms. Be sure there's nothing perishes in the whole universe; it does but vary and renew its form.' Thus the next moment is permitted to come to pass." [18]
Biblical application: Christ returns to the ordinary world after his resurrection, but not as an ordinary man. He can seem to be as others are and interact with them, but his body is a "glorified" body, capable of assuming visible and palpable form, but freed from the bonds of space and time. He is now able to give life to others through his own death and resurrection. Other traditional examples of something similar are Elijah, Enoch, and Khidr, the "immortal prophet" of the Sufis

This sounds like the ST George discussed as "The main theme of the trilogy would be moral and philosophical problems, such as the necessity for moral choices and the wisdom needed to distinguish right from wrong, justice, confrontation, and passing on what you have learned."

Please rewatch the SW.Com video series (1st 2) as well as the Disney feature with George discussing SW and the sale. George says this is the end of the Trilogy/Saga. They all say VII-IX and standalone films.

 

Hey, why don't you copy and paste that same bunch of text about the Monomyth from Wikipedia here one more time, T-R-? I DARE YOU.

Honestly, if I had a dollar for every time you've pasted this list on some thread across the forum, I could afford a rather expensive meal right now. And the purpose of it is, what, to make clear that you feel it needs to be Luke who is the central character for the ST? Fine, you've done it; your point can be considered made already. You want the films structured so that the first six collectively tell Anakin's story from start to finish, and the last six collectively tell Luke's story from start to finish, with an overlap in the middle during the OT. I get it. You clearly state your preference under every post you make with your "Two Destinies/One Saga" catch-phrase. If you keep pressing it beyond this point, it'll risk becoming both repetitive and annoying. It'll most certainly risk robbing this thread of its almost limitless potential for intellectual discourse by making it into a song with just one note, and with some rare exceptions there are few things more boring and less beautiful than that.

It's fine to discuss that Luke still has some things he can do within the Monomyth paradigm; but is that the only point you have to make in the discussion? If not, what else would you like to contribute regarding what you know about Campbell? How many of his books have you read? Have you listened to his recorded audio lectures? Did you enjoy any in particular? Outside of what he had to say to Bill Moyers on the subject (which everyone has had the chance to see, because you can get that PBS special virtually anywhere), has he said anything about his impressions of the Star Wars films that strike you? He had a great shout-out to the OT in his book Pathways to Bliss, did you read that? Have you had the chance to learn how Campbell and Lucas met, and under what circumstances? Upon seeing the OT, he complimented Lucas by comparing his work in using mythological subjects in art as an accomplishment equivalent to that of Thomas Mann or James Joyce: can you guess why he would have chosen those two specific examples, and what significance they would have had for him?

There's so much to learn about Campbell and his contribution, first to intellectual discussion in general, to the arts in particular, and to Star Wars specifically, that believe me, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface. It's just the merest tip of the proverbial iceberg. When you open Campbell, you're truly taking your first step into a larger world.

 

To be honest, your post 57 made me actually less interested in Campbell because it reads like pseudointellectual drivel. It almost reminded me of the bad parts of CG Jungs books. If this is really Campbell I'm glad I never bought a book about him.

At least T-R didn't start rambling about how marsupials and Kangaroos feel in their mothers pouch.

 

If I had a dollar everytime someone states Luke can't be the main character because of marketing I'd be on a a very nice vacation right now. Marketing has nothing to do with the thread title, Joseph Campbell, or the Hero's Journey and you want to chastise me for discussing steps of the Monomyth?

People need to offer their own opinion on how the monomyth can and should shape the ST, not state that my opinion (which is based on Lucas' description of the main theme of the ST) isn't correct because of marketing. Offer a suggestion of how the monomyth applies to George's description of the ST without referencing RETURN.

I want to see a further a further examination of the Hero's Journey, not rehashing the same 2 sections (Departure/Separation and Initiation) that have already been covered by 2 trilogies. We already have 2 trilogies detailing how the younger generation reacts to the teachers, George's description talks about the 3rd section being examined in the ST and how the teachers react to the students.

The reposting of information was in response to statements such as:

1.) I don't see how the return portion of the hero-journey can carry Episode 7 -- let alone an entire trilogy. I repeat: the return part of the story is the denouement, the final act of Luke's hero-journey. It should have happened in the final act of ROTJ (a la Return of the King)

2.) But he won't be the main lead, and his hero-journey has gone too far for him to undergo a major transformation of consciousness, unless he falls to the dark side, which I'm pretty sure very few people really want to see.

3.) Looking specifically at the "Freedom to Live" portion of the journey, I have to agree with those who have already stated that coming to terms with the Vader portion of the Skywalker Legacy will be a major theme. For Luke to pass on the torch

and so on. The best way to counter these questions is to provide the poster with a summary of the steps involved so that readers can see where these statements are incorrect. It is the most effecientt way, and providing information is always better than just telling someone to read Campbell. That doesn't benefit the discussion.

I agree a 100%, but this is not the topic of the thread, which is Joseph Campbell, The Monomyth and the ST.

My understanding is that this thread is about how Joseph Campbell's ideas and work with the Monomyth can factor into the plot of the ST.

We all can discuss Campbell at length if you'd like, just change the thread title or start a topic in the appropriate forum.

 

It's a shame though that you may have missed this:

But Luke could indeed still have a story arc through the ST that is entirely consistent with Campbell's ideas. For Campbell also asserted that humans also suffered the longest period of aging of any animal as well, and it is just as crucial a period for the human psyche as the maturation period. It hits a person like a ton of bricks: just when he thinks he's got an idea how to function in his role, here comes a younger, hungrier person to replace him. Furthermore, he is the only animal that knows, without question, that he will one day die. Another function of mythology, Campbell proposed, was to also guide the human psyche through the process of aging that will eventually lead to death, to the disollution of the self. Just as mythology must make humans comfortable with life, it must help make humans comfortable with death. It is a position in life that Luke must surely be finding himself in the ST; regardless of what fate they assign to his character, I believe that the mythological function of the story of Luke in the ST would be to address the issue of aging and (quite possibly, but by no means certainly) death with the grace and dignity that we would expect of the character of Luke Skywalker.

And why not? Luke has always been something of a stand-in for Lucas himself; why not use the character to address what Lucas himself is now beginning to address: allowing himself to fade away after passing his function on to younger people? As a man of middle-age myself, I can't say I myself, to say nothing of a certain generation of fans, wouldn't have something to gain from such an example from the mythology I've made a part of my life in some way. it would be hard to see how a mythology meant to teach us about life, and living in it, could not address this equally crucial phase of life, this aspect of a Hero's Journey.

It's not something often addressed in the Episode VII forum (I recall discussing it once, briefly, last autumn) but I think that it bears a closer look.

I've pointed out before that, personally, I hope to see Luke's story conclude with a scene in which Luke, upon successfully completing his journey and passing the torch to his son's generation, walks off alone into the binary sunset of Tatooine in service to the will of the Force. More than any other potential scenario, I'd like the chance to leave Luke's final chapter to my own imagination.

That said, there is nothing to preclude an exploration of Luke "through the process of aging that will eventually lead to the disolution of the self." Luke Skywalker's journey through maturation is a story which I identified with as a child (most all of us did, I'm certain) and Pfluegermeister makes a fine point, I feel, that the character of Luke can continue to serve us as he guides us, all these years later, through aging and the acceptance of our mortality. 'Meister also points out that one would certainly suspect that George Lucas, who many feel personally identifies with the character of Luke (and given the point where he finds himself in life), would be tempted to write Luke this way in the ST and I tend to agree. I think this is a wonderful opportunity for Luke Skywalker to have a second, lasting impact on the audience.

 

Well, all the bolded parts are not confirmed by evidence, which makes me a bit sceptic. I don't mind statements on Lukes role in the ST, but these general assumptions about the role of mythology on human evolution and human nature don't sit very well with me. Maybe I'm too scientifically minded.
Like I said, it reminds me of CG Jung. Back then this kind of esoteric thinking was quite common and it makes for a good read. But to be "true" it must be supported by evidence. Real evidence. Otherwise this is but a discussion of personal faith and as we all know faith is subjective.

I think this could be interesting, actually. On the other hand, SW was always action-ladden and this plot may not be very well suited for action-adventure. Maybe it could be handled as a side plot while a heroine takes center stage.

 

I think its a mistake to assume the protagonist in this movie will necessarily be young. If these movies are set 35-40 years after the end of ROTJ, the skywalker kids would probably be 25-35 years old.