DDD I've read Propp. I was hailing him on these boards many years ago. Basically Campbell ripped him off. + Before I get started here: R2D2 means 'reel two, dialogue two' and came about while Lucas was matching sound to film during the editorial process on American Graffiti. It's shorthand. *But* my point is this: just because you draw a chart it doesn't make your conclusions true. Propp may have had something if he stayed within certain bounderies, say: only Russian tales transmitted orally. His data would then have been useful as a reference tool. But he surmised that his Table was universal. Sorry, that just isn't possible. For instance: Culture A: young man is sent on quest and given a magical item at the start Culture B: young man is sent on quest and given a magical item at the start They *appear* similar but rafts of important data is missing. At the very least I would venture that the *reason* the young man goes on his quest is different in each case and so culturally specific as to be nontransferable. This begs the question: what individual purposes did the two stories serve in their respective cultures? That's the manner of Mythography I would like to see eclipse and ultimately destroy the Jung/Propp/Campbellian model, which is ultimately useless and nothing more than a game of 'match the similarities'. Unless one believes the idea that All stories are One story then the 'findings' of these sorts of mythologists are not really helpful. Propp presents his own difficulties. To him 'classification' was synonymous with 'meaning' but this simply is not true. Just because you've classified a thing does not mean that you have described its objective meaning, or its subjective meaning within its particular environment. He did not preset any standard to the quality of data he used or fix a quantity; he's working from very little material and attempting to create an absolute standard. This is just plain wrong! He also didn't feel that an understanding of a native language was important to the study of their lore. This is simply lazy! I really want to see all of this 'monomyth' nonsense put to rest. It's softening the study of cultural research to a regrettable degree. PS: I'm speaking here of 'Morphology of the Folktale'. Propp later softened his approach and produced the marginally more useful 'Historical Roots of the Fairytale'.