As a writer, I read Joseph Campbell's book and also discovered that he got a lot of his information from Carl Jung, who studied the archetypes in human myth throughout the ages.
This isn't the general story, this is the archetype of a "hero's journey" (you said it yourself), a common and very pleasing - even resonant - kind of story. Perhaps this structure resonates with a human audience because we seek meaning, we are drawn to stories with purpose, and that follow this sort Order/Disorder cycle. I would like to give examples where this interpretation falls apart. We'll start with tragedies, I'll go with the most recognizable one - Romeo and Juliet. The characters enter the chaotic world, but they fail to return - the cost was too great and everybody dies. What about more surreal movies, like "A Serious Man" - the movie arguably begins and remains in a world of chaos the entire time. There is no Goddess, there's nowhere to return to. This man's life is simply a road of trials. These are definitely stories, but you would have a hard time contorting them to fit Harmon's model of storytelling. The story circle is an interesting and effective way to interpret stories, but I would make contention with the claim that "Every Story is the Same".
TunaSammich I agree the title should be Why MOST Stories Are The Same. A great video similar but more dark is called Illuminati Hollywood Full Disclosure
At the end of Romeo and Juliet though, the 2 families have decided to reconcile - I think that is a change brought upon by all that happened in the story.
According to Christopher Booker, there is at least 7 basic plots: 1. Overcoming the Monster 2. Rags to Riches 3. The Quest 4. Voyage and Return 5. Rebirth 6. Comedy 7. Tragedy The first five can be simplified to Hero's Journey, while the last two is different. So, there is at least 3 basic plots for stories.
This video sets it out so well, I keep coming back to this as a resource every time I sit down to write a script. Thanks for compiling it and making such a great edit!
Holy crap, you're right. Start out with a calm introduction where it explains easy to digest concepts that we might already know. Then it goes to the unknown where we start to understand in greater depth. Then it wraps up with going back to using familiar examples, and easily relatable experiences with the new knowledge on how these are all similar, and why exactly.
but if every story follows the structure, it would be really difficult to make a video that doesn't, a video that works anyway. so is it genius or is it just normal?
HappyBeezerStudios - by Lord_Mogul Clayton, Gaston, Maleficent, Dr. Facilier, Professor Ratigan, Queen from Snow White, syndrome, etc. a lot of villains get killed...
"The Hero with a Thousand Faces" is the one book I would want to have with me if I were to ever be stranded on a deserted island. It is my all time favorite read. Campbell's telling of the story of the "monomyth" is a brilliant story in itself. In the early 90's, I bought the six cassette set of "The Power of Myth" which is the Bill Moyers PBS interview of Joseph Campbell at Lucas' Skywalker Ranch. I played it at work, at home and in my vehicle. Thank you for posting this ... !!!
Nick Toss Yes, this is very true. And on the flip side, drawing connections and patterns between seemingly disparate ideas amd stories creates a new perspective for us - a bigger picture - that allows us to find higher meaning and purpose not only in what is being studied but also in our own lives :)
Or... generalizations lead to the rest of the story to be told. Do you remember eating? Do you remember walking to the bathroom? Do you remember laughing with your friend that one time in grade 2 about his lunch? All generalizations that fill in the narrative of life. Bringing weight to the things you find important. I might be loosing the point? Lol
I guess maybe you CAN interpret any story to fit this pattern, but you'd have to twist a lot of them badly out of shape, get pretty loose with the interpretation of various steps, and, in many cases, miss the point. It's like the saying goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Other posters have mentioned tragedies, so I'd like to put forward the BBC movie Cathy Come Home. Basically, the movie is about a mother whose family's economic situation steadily gets worse and worse and who find themselves dealing with an uncaring, confusing, and inefficient bureaucracy. At the end, they end up living on the street and social services takes away her children, leaving her there crying. Clearly this is a story and, based on its reception, a very emotionally impactful one, but it doesn't seem to get much farther than the road of trials. Cathy doesn't ascend from the strange world she's entered, she doesn't become empowered, she stays in the world of being homeless and that's it. Even if you can make some aspects of the story to fit the circle, e.g. "she undergoes a change from being a happy person to being miserable," claiming this story is following the same template as Star Wars or The Lion King would stretch it to the point of meaninglessness.
I agree! I think the fact that most examples of stories fitting the Monomyth in these types of essays belong to actual mythology, children's entertainment or Hollywood blockbusters designed for maximum appeal is significant. Campbell himself didn't have any pretensions to be describing the entirety of narrative arts; I certainly don't think he would have agreed to using the most basic template imaginable for a mythical story as a creative guide for contemporary fiction. The structure is an appealing one, but thank God we've spent centuries imagining new ways of building stories; art as a whole would be pretty damn boring and simplistic if we hadn't.
It's a template for lazy writers. It fits StarWars so well only because Star Wars was based upon it from the beginning. A story that does not fit the monomyth: how about The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
I think some people are taking this too literally. The idea is that most good stories or lasting stories can fit this model. The reason for this is because it is ingrained in our psyche. Does every story have to fit this model? No. But in a business it is good to find a solid template that provides solid returns on investment. You might find that the vast majority of successful stories fit this model but not all successful stories do. Nothing is absolute in the real world but you can always calm investors by ensuring a greater chance of success through a proven method. BTW, I am pretty sure the Good the Bad and the Ugly does fit the mono-myth pretty well, but like in the video it is an example of multiple circles applied to multiple characters to drive complexity. If you take the whole mono-myth too literally and forget that it is scalable then you might miss out on some great examples. I don't remember all of the details in the movie but I do remember that if you thought the "you" is Angle Eyes and you are following his circle then you are wrong (this is mentioned in the video). The true circle belongs to Tuco and/or Blonde. 1. Tuco & Blonde could be considered the "you". 2. They both want money to achieve different goals. 3. Complexity is thrown in when they get sick of each other and try to kill each other but opportunity arises when they each hold part of the information required to make a lot of money. 4. They reluctantly work together and, at times, work with Angle Eyes. They also enter the "other world" of the civil war. 5. Eventually they share information during a daring attempt to stop the battle that is about to happen. Tuco thinks he is master of his destiny and shows confidence in this belief while Blonde becomes a true master of his own destiny (although that information is hidden from the viewers). 6. They have to duel each other (and Angel Eyes) for the true name of the grave knowing they all might die for it. 7. The story loops back in on itself into familiar territory as blonde forces Tuco into a noose then things mirror the events of the beginning when Blonde shoots Tuco loose from the noose. (Full circle FTW) 8. Blonde and Tuco part ways, their partnership dissolved but both having the gold to move on with their goals. FYI, this is all off the top of my head. I only looked up the character's names. The "other world" might be the chase as a whole not just the civil war but things return to the status quo once the two armies part ways. After writing this... Blonde might have the stronger circle in retrospect. Angel Eyes might also follow the mono-myth (that would be interesting) but I can't remember enough about his character to think he had anything more than the role of "obstacle with motivation" which is fine. In other words... I think The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is a pretty great example of this model scaled up to two characters.
The Also Person Look, it's not a strict rule. It's purposefully malleable. For example, a tragedy is just half of a story circle. Take a story circle, cut it in half, boom! Tragedy. The rule is best used to describe a character arc rather than a whole story. Many of these can apply to different characters within the story. Some stories, like star wars episode four, revolve around one character's arc, but not all stories do. This doesn't mean that those stories don't use this, they merelyexplore it in a different way, such as applying it to different characters within the story, or cutting it short, as is done in a tragedy
Exactly Maxx Black, i do think that every story use the Campbell circle but in different ways. You choose what to use and when to stop the story. Read the book guys, in there Campbell explain not just the full circle but also variations of it.
Thank you so much for this essay! I discovered Dan Harmon because he responded to a tweet from Graham Linehan, creator of Father Ted & The IT Crowd, discussing a story problem Dan had been able to resolve with a suggestion from Graham. He mentioned the story circle theory he was working on, and I was immediately in love. Since then, I've met Dan several times through my volunteer work with SFSketchfest and found him to be a genuine, intelligent, creative man with his own demons that keep him relatable. I have known about and respected George Lucas' crafting of Star Wars through The Hero's Journey for years, and even got to see George's own handwritten notes in his copy of "The Hero With A Thousand Faces" in his library on Skywalker Ranch when I worked there earlier this year. These are people and ideas that I love, and clearly you do too. Mad respect for reinvigorating my inspirations to write and create!
Hey all, I know this one's a little different--more on the informational side than an argumentative one on theory. I do find the Harmon/Campbell argument compelling, but would love to know everyone's thoughts. Discussion is the most important part of these things. Let me know! Have a great Thanksgiving. Much love, Will
Nahh I'm not sure about it dude. There's a Russian filmmaker (can't remember his name, sorry) that pretty much delineates the western mode of narrative as essentially conservative. A return to the same with caveats, essentially. His point is that this monomythic/harmonistic viewpoint is a subliminal redoubling of the status quo. Not sure it works for Grendel, notes from the underground, most of Camus' work. And there's more, much more, it's just quite late here in England and my mind is a bit shot. Regardless of criticism I massively respect the work you're doing and always enjoy your videos. Keep it up my dude.
Diego Cigarillo Just some food for thought from the Q&A on the series of the Story Circle. I often think Western narratives are subliminal redoublings of the status quo, but I'm not convinced it's the structure. I'm more convinced it's the storyteller. "Q: But I'm sick and tired of cookie-cutter stories about good guys saving the day from bad guys. Some of my favorite movies fly in the face of your story model. A: If it's really your favorite movie, I absolutely guarantee you it's structured at least somewhat in accordance with this model. You're hearing "good guys and bad guys," but I'm not saying it. I'm saying "protagonist descending and returning." The very fact that you ARE sick of ordinary movies is evidence that we live and breathe this structure. If you're a subversive punk rock anarchist with a spike through your nose, and you hate "Shrek" because it's a piece of corporate shit, you are craving a descent into the unknown. "You" are expressing a "need" to "go" to an obscure film magazine, "search" for something unique, "find" a gory Japanese horror film, "take" it, "return" to your apartment with it and use it to "change" your friends' minds about cinema. And I think you will find that your "favorite" Japanese gore fest is the one with a recognizable protagonist needing to eat human flesh, going to an orgy, eating everyone there, raping a woman, killing the police and jumping out the window before heading into the night. Schrab has this video we watch all the time: It's an orientation video designed to teach mentally retarded girls about their period. The protagonist is a retarded girl. She starts asking questions about periods. She's led into a bathroom by her older sister, and after a very uncomfortable road of trials, things take a turn for the bizarre. I won't go into detail. Not only is the protagonist going on a journey, the audience is, too. I have taken great pains to avoid any ethical positioning in my observations of structure. Stories are not necessarily about love conquering all, they're not about achieving spiritual balance, they're not about "learning valuable life lessons" and they're not about maintaining order. They're about change. Subversion of order. By the way, "Shrek" had not-so-good structure. Good structure is the best weapon we can use in the fight against corporate garbage because good structure costs nothing, is instinctive to the individual and important to the audience. For all their money, computers and famous actors, the Hollywood factory is constantly being challenged and often buried by individuals like you, people who started by realizing that they were sick of the shit they were seeing and wrote a good story from the deepest level of their unconscious mind. I am trying to show you how to make your own gunpowder. You can use it to make pretty fireworks or you can use it to blow up a building full of innocent babies, it's not my place to care."
I find it interesting that because we use this intuitively/unconsciously, rather than being something that constrains our story telling it can provide a tool our intuition can use to communicate to our conscious mind more fluidly. It can help move past the moment of sitting in front of a blank page going "... something's not right, something's not working, I can't figure out where I'm trying to go."
It's natural. We probably absorb it unconsciously from the culture around us. It's like language: you knew how to use it before anyone told you the different parts are called "noun", "verb", and so on. It is incredible, though.
WOW This was EXTREMELY helpful. This is exactly what I was looking for. Now I can get back to finishing my book. Thank you so much for this video. It is greatly appreciated.
Really makes you understand and appreciate films that can be successful without sticking to this circle, such as Mulholland Drive.True contemporary masterpiece.
Those eight words sound like a neanderthal giving a very basic motivational speech about going and getting what you want out of life. You need go search find take return change. It's like Eat. Pray. Love. for cavemen.
I love your videos, and really enjoyed this one because it was the perfect balance between relevant, deep, and entertaining. The structure that you described universal to every book, movie, and show almost exactly aligned with the plot of the novel that I am currently working on. It's haunting.
" I am a fool When I need you ~ I'm a fool to believe ~ My heart is so wide open ~ I'm so easy to deceive ~ I'm a fool, I can't believe it ~ I'm a fool, I believe it all ~ I'm a fool who'll keep on tryin' ~ And, like a fool, I will crawl ~ From, Rollins' Band ~ Henry once saved my life ~
I tried listing the basic plots; good vs. evil, boy meets girl, the evil twin, the stranger in town, destructive pride, etc. I got to about a dozen variations, but they all distilled into one story. It all comes back to discovering who we are and why we are here.
"Infinite stories, Morty! And all of them, every, every one of th..*BRRRRRRP* ..em, ..the same!" It's one big story Morty! You! Me! Its all one big ,, big, stoo..URP..oory! Its all connected, Morty, and we're gonna watch it... you n me, were gonna witness it! We're.. We're gonna watch it like a movie, Morty, like one big F***kin TV show! The Rick and Morty show, Morty! RICK AND MORTY!!"
I was recently watching Moral Oral. And there is lot of season 3 that really does not fit this cycle. And to some degree all of of Moral Oral was a defiance of the cycle. Now I see how it is so creepy. Moral Oral stories are ultimately about people who failed in their Heroes quests. It is relating of people who refused to quest, got stuck in one phase, or did not return with anything of value. My respect for the series just went up several notches.
The big leboski, most (if not all) of quentin tarantino's movies, a few good men, the star wars prequels, every story where the character doesn't have an arc, every story where there is no main character, etc, etc: are examples of stories that don't conform to this..... A lot of stories to center around the hero's journey, but not all of them. Just because a character follows the hero's journey doesn't mean its the same story as star wars or harry potter....
I don't think any good story really *conforms* to this circle. But this circle can be used to create good stories. Also, I'd say Django Unchained seems closest to this structure as far as I've seen. 1. Django, a slave who is freed by a german bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz, who uses his assistance for bounty hunting. 2. Django wants to free his wife, Broomhilda, from a slave owner, Calvin Candie. 3. Django and Schultz go to the plantation where Candie resides. 4. They try to play it cool and make a deal with Candie for Broomhilda (and 2 other men) 5. The deal is nearly completed, but Candie, with info from his personal slave Stephen, finds out their trick. 6. Schultz shoots Candie after Candie insists they shake his hand. After a shootout, Django is captured and sent to a mining company. 7. Django escapes and kills his captives, then heads back to Candie's residence. 8. Django frees Broomhilda and destroys Candieland.
Fiction writers should never approach a story with the idea that every narrative is the same, because it's not. There has never been another person that is you who has created a story yet. You are the first person to ever exist as who you are. Sounds confusing but it's true. Don't aim for originality, aim for something refreshing. Bring different angles to familiar subjects. Don't get caught up in the "there's nothing new under the sun" way of thinking. We know that already. But there can be refreshing ways to tell the same story, and bring about a new or better understanding of it.
I think anyone looking at it in the negative way you're describing would be taking it too literally. There is nobody else alive, or who has ever lived, who is precisely the same as you, but all people have the same elements that make them people. All people have the same structure. Their skeleton, their flesh, etc. The differences are what are laid on top of all this.
Copyright law protects expression not concept. For concept you need a patent. This means that this structure can be followed but what distinguishes a work is its expression. _The Force Awakens_ has the same structure as _A New Hope_ but a slightly different expression, just enough to make it feel different for most audiences until the very similar trench run in which those around me in the audience openly started to laugh.
"You talk a lot but don't say anything" really fits to what you just wrote. :/ Everything you said is nothing new. Everybody is trying to sound like a poet. You cleary did not get what this video is about. "The Basic structure" of Stories. And that they are all the same. And they are!
Man, with youtube, sometimes you watch the beginning of a video and you switch quickly to another one, and sometimes you watch it three or four times in a row, making pauses to take notes because it's exactly what you need to here right now! Well, yours enters the second group. Thank you for this great video!
connecting all stories is just a matter of fibding a description so general that it applies to everything. its does not mean all stories are the same it means you can sum up all stories if you fond the right comination of very vague words. your argument is like saying Elvis is the same thing as a can of peas because they can both be "summed up" as "matter and energy". yeah if you sttip away all the things that make things different everything is the same.
This is about the Hero's Journey. The title should mention that. Btw, most movies also end with a man and a woman coming together, which symbolizes the alchemical wedding of the divine masculine and the divine feminine.
What an incredible video! Between you and nerdwriter, kaptainkristian and other video essay channels you're all the sole reason why I love coming to youtube. Hats off to you Will for making fantastic stuff here. Definitely subscribed and definitely supporting your work on patreon :D
This changed my life. And writing. I always wrote stories in this way, but never realised it. But it was harder every time I had to find this circle again...
It blew my mind a bit when I got to around 5:00 and right away recognized the medicine wheel symbol, found in cultures the world over. It's incredibly important as a concept to storytelling and individual/community growth. This goes really, really deep.
Here's my experience with writing: There are a number of these story archetypes out there like Harmon's Circle, Save the Cat, Cambell's Hero's Journey, etc. They work for different types of stories and it's up to the writer to learn them and interpret their appropriate use. Once you figure out your rough plot, look at these guides to help you refine your plot into a satisfying structure. They are tools for the writer... not rules.
I've heard the Hero's Journey explained before, but this is the first explanation that resonates with me and tells me WHY it is so important. The aspect of one direction being the story's geography and the other direction being the character's arc is a tremendous point. Not only is this interesting, but most importantly, *this is USEFUL.* Subscribed. Please keep it up and get a good following.
This is a very good summary of the similarities of story throughout every genre. The 'meat' portion of the video is great and very useful. I just published my 11th TH-cam episode and incorporated some storytelling -- it's done well -- but will do a lot more in my 12th project and afterwards.
+Will Schoder New subscriber here, loved your video on joke theft! That definitely hooked me, and I feel like you're gonna be getting a lot more subs soon as you pop up near things like every frame a painting, nerdwriter1, and other video essay channels so good luck and don't quit cause these are amazing! Super inspiring to me
Hi Will. I've been watching youtube videos almost a decade now and I've never felt compelled to subscribe to a channel until yours. Thanks for these videos; they are poignant, substantive, and entertaining. Keep up the great work. Good things are surely coming your way.
Hey Bryan, that's one of the nicest comments I've ever seen. I'm flattered. It's really great to see this kind of appreciation. I am not sure how many topics like this I can keep doing--they are pretty exhausting--but I am going to keep making them!
This mostly works for movies. Not so good for books. I'm updating this. It took me some time to realize that this is true for all mediums. Sorry I was an ass before, I was being naive.
you mean, bestsellers... i can't imagine Point Counter Point by huzley, or Rayuela (Hopscotch) by cortázar with a three act or the joseph campbell theory
@Ravikul Rao talk about missing out. The Skywalker time-line (original and prequels. I'm not a fan of the sequels tbh) is well put together. You don't have to watch them in chronological order to enjoy them either. You can go 4,5,6 then 1,2,3. Vice versa. You can even throw Rouge one into the mix, which can connect episode 3 and episode 4.
This notion isn't by any means revolutionary, or even contemporary. Aristotle often spoke of his exasperation that there only seem to be seven basic plots in fiction. However I would argue that postmodernism (or hypermodernism as I prefer to call it) has introduced a new genre, that of the anti-plot, or a story structured in such a way that its components can be read in any particular order and still form a cohesive whole, even if that whole creates an understandable but ultimately unsatisfying narrative. The concept that eventually became 'Demon Box' by Ken Kesey is the best example of this, but many Paul Auster novels, and even Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse 5' could be said to adhere to this model.
@wonder mike But since when has it been to appeal to the masses? If you're true to yourself and your story regardless of the structure and the message it should not matter. It all comes from the message of the story and what you're trying to convey, not based upon following a structure just because everyone else has and it's worked for so long. Which is why I feel writing has became so dull. Understand the meta and break it. Don't follow the same old structure just because it's been the most appealing; which the whole point of postmodernism. Looking at things from a different perspective.
wonder mike Oh so The Simpsons, and the whole wave they started of satire comedy ridiculing the “perfect american family” in the 90s was trash? That was postmodernism for television at the time and completely changed and redefined television. (funny because the simpsons later became that which they satired but that’s besides the point) What about all of Christopher Nolan’s movies which all follow a different movie structure compared to other blockbusters yet are considered genius by many? All of his movies were completely different Following norms doesn’t make you stand out it makes your art dull and repetitive What you’re not understanding is that even masters at one point had to defy their own teachers to accomplish their biggest achievements. For example, jazz players in the 20-30s, when the only “good” music was classical music. Jazz redefined all those definitions at the time because of structure and composition, but to this day a lot of modern music has jazz influence in one way or another. Make your mark following your own path, not what people tell you to follow. But like you said it’s important to know the rules and fundamentals before you break them. That’s what meta game is. Game inside a game. Now go out there and be yourself.
@wonder mike If people are thinking about what the viewer wants to see before thinking what THEY themselves personally want to see, they will make a bland safe movie. It's why most people I know haven't seen a good movie in years.
@wonder mike I never think of copying anyone's methods, or what the act is. I just tell a story that I myself could find enjoyable and it's working out fine since the people I show my work to enjoy it too. Even if some of the Marvel movies were decent, the fact they were all leading to something as childish as the "infinity war" film weakens them considerably. An alien that simply looks like a large purple human that wants to "kill half the universe" - any sort of fiction that mentions doing anything to the universe prove the writers have absolutely no idea what the universe even is and I can only see them as comedies, unfortunately unfunny ones.
Postmodernism is the rejection of structure, thus plot itself. Boris Vien is the only one I know who would qualify. But thats not really revolutionary either. Realism is a century older and did much the same thing, and even before that comedy mostly fell outside the journey with mostly static characters.
This is a great way to describe one of the seven basic stories: overcoming the monster; rags to riches; the quest; voyage and return; comedy; tragedy; rebirth. This is the the quest archetype and it fits in very naturally. And even though there might be several ways to do it, the formula seems to work very well when done in a unique voice and style
I know everyone probably says the same thing but you're videos are so good, I can't believe you don't have more subscribers. I'm going to binge watch all of them. Much love and respect to you!
I just wanna say that through reading and other forms of media, your channel in my eyes shines as a something that expresses an important perspective; one which I enjoy very much
Can you analyze Spirited Away movie? One of the greatest movie of all time. I see that the structure is different. First: "You", second: "Go" The main character doesn't want something but she is forced to go to unfamiliar situation. third: "Search" She adapts to new situation and realizes that other characters have their own problems and everything gets complicated. Fourth: "Find" When she tries to solve her problem, she instead solving everyone's problem accidently because of her sincerity, then she gets stronger. Fifth: "change" Now she solves her problem easily. Sixth: "return" She comes back to her world as a new better person.
I don't understand why so many ppl in the comments have to point out that not all works of media follow the circle. It's more than obvious that this video focuses on the _maintream, safe & easy_ concept. You can even gather that information from the title of the video if think about it for a second. The circle is a very good *guideline* to write a well-structured story for beginners who just want to write one. If you wanna create some fancy stuff and "break the rules", you probably should learn them first (and maybe even master them). Yeah and don't break the rules for the sake of breaking the rules. For many stories this formula is all you need to follow. It depends on the story and writer how he wants to tell the story!
I agree with you. Its like learning the fundamentals of art. Just learn the fundamentals, and you can make art any way you want to within the fundamentals. Same thing here. Theres a really basic template. Learn it, then work off of it as someone sees fit.
Cyberpunk stories sometimes don't follow this cicle, because by definition there should show change or happy ending. But as some did point out the hero's journey is the most mainstream way of storytelling, that doesn't make it bad by any means
Everything start in "the order" or "confort zone"? What happen with the peapole who born in a disaster, or war? This theory have a first world bias, really. For example a typical news about the Palestinians, o Syrian war, or Afghanistan, is exactly the inverse structure. In a classical narrative, Moses for example don't born in a "confort zone", born in a slave jew family. Jesus , is the same, who born in a chaotic situation. With my bad english , i want to say, this theory is wrong.
The monomyth is generally correct, especially Harmon's version, but certain highly resonating and popular stories do not fit into it. When do ANY of the necessary parts occur in "On the Road"? They don't. The characters don't change, they only ever briefly exit the comfort zone, they're constantly moving in a completely vertical fashion. You could fit the entire life of Kerouac into the monomyth, perhaps, but "On the Road" is a slice of it, it defies the monomyth when analyzed alone.
1. I am on the sofa 2. I am hungry 3. I go to the fridge 4. I get food 5. I eat it 6. There is less food for other people 7. I go back to the sofa 8. No longer hungry
I just wrapped up my first ever NaNoWriMo mere moments ago. Watching this video and tracing my main character's path around the story circle was incredibly relieving. It made me realize I hadn't just spent a month writing nonsense and has invigorated me to follow through on revisions and editing in the coming months. Thank you for making this.
I know this comment is late. Publishing agencies, from what I have researched, want to sell what works and are afraid to take risks with what is out of any norms. If they want to stick to particular tropes because many people love zombie stories, for example, it is because that stuff is constantly on the market. The market has a lot to do with it. To understand many producers making universally similar products, you will want understand consumers first. Supply and demand... I hope this helps. Unless you already know, then sorry for the rehash.
mushroomdude123 Well, yes of course as a musician I do realise this. But I'm thinking more abstractly, I'm considering the possibility that these forms emerge from the substrate of human neurology and are, therefore, expressions of those forms. I'm NOT going to call them archetypes or even Kantian "faculties" because that seems wrong to me. They are more like universal grammar. Just a speculation, but not an idle one.
I think this structure is the basis of our consciousness, becoming aware of death means becoming aware of life, diving in the unconscious means coming back more creative with newly organized ideas. Universe is creation, becoming creative is becoming conscious of the universe. This cycle I first encountered, more profoundly, on psychedelic experiences. It's crazy how similar it is to the Hero's Journey, that is directly hijacked into your consciousness in a concentrated way, it's amazing that such a process is present. Concentrated means learning faster, means more awareness and connections, memory arise from creativity and pattern recognition. Humanity took its first step with the shamans, they basically repeated that circle endless times in their own mind, maybe we could say they connected to the story of the universe more than anyone else. Anyway, this pattern has been studied by a psychologist called Stanislav Grof, he called it perinatal matrix and believed it to be at the source of mental illness and other altered states. I had found a paper that merged it with the Monomyth structures but hadn't been brave enough to read all that English psychology :3
Very, very interesting stuff. I'll have to check out this Grof fellow. I do think it's built into our DNA for survival purposes. As Harmon says, if we just didn't go out and look for ways to change things (in caveman voice: you, need, go, search, find, take, return, change), we'd probably perish.
For me it's more an inheritance of the cycle of season per say, or day and night, with which we have became so intricately connected, not only on a physical level like all being but a symbolical one. Then the sun becomes the bringer of consciousness over the unconscious when he rises, then the night becomes dissolution of boundaries and frontiers. I do think the universe is looking for such type of consciousness, repetition is call learning, diversity is call learning faster, etc. When the nights comes and we can only see what is far we dreams, we see everything merging with each other and dancing like shadows, I can't help but seeing it connected. if nature put out there a molecule that accelerate this process it would be amazing. It's also about the shape of our body, it's all so precise. I can't help but think deep dreams and learning is mimicking the psychedelic experience for the computer, it's telling him "see more" and so he start dreaming, if there is a substance that have such a drastic effect on creativity and consciousness with this very process of leaving the ordinary and returning with the elixir, it's safe to base it has a big part in the evolution of our consciousness. (and maybe, hoho, the plan's of the universe)
holotropicbreathwork.ning.com/xn_resources/research/archambault2010.pdf I think it's the most complete I have found, though, yet not read. If you look for perinatal matrix+ hero's journey you can find some other stuff
It's essentially the Buddist wheel of suffering, called samsara, the only difference being with the 4th quadrant represents birth/rebirth where the cycle repeats. IMost stories with the happy ending stops just after the main character attains what was desired but before the proverbial "death" that comes from realising they're still not satisfied. This suffering goes on for a time until a new desire is formed and a new quest begins, represented as rebirth. You can see the cycle of samsara on various levels/dimensions, on an individual level psychological perspective and from a more meta level sociological and biological perspective. The sociological perspective being the desire to achieve a certain sociological change to achieve a state essentially the same as our personal desire to escape suffering from our own personal psychology. Societies can easily be seen to go in cycles, around the wheel in various forms taking on various trends of more left wing, more ring wing, more liberal, more conservative, and back again. Ultimately it's all an attempt to straighten out chaos, to arrange everything so reality is all "up", which is why it will never work. You can only achieve a state of non-suffering for a limited time before it naturally leads back to dissatisfaction and suffering. You can think of this as an expression of us trying to fight the reality that all things are falling apart constantly, that things eventually tend towards disorder. It's possible to introduce energy into a system that can achieve a perception of stabilisation and creation, but this doesn't last forever. The true interpretation of "nirvana" involves at the core a deep recognition of how futile it is to think we can escape the cycle of samsara. To put it in another way, it's the difference between understanding the second law of thermodynamics intellectually, and "feeling" it. The strongest forces driving social forces around the wheel back and forth from the left and to the right and back in different forms, comes from those who are convinced the most that we can stabilise this state of decay, that we can achieve a perfect state. What we allow ourselves to ignore is the reality that if a particular idea of the perfect society is achieved, even if it were perfect at that moment would longer seem perfect once achieved, because individually we're still on the wheel. It's the same mistake of thinking some new technology will make our lives so much happier, but then when we get it we rapidly or even immediately feel something missing and then we're back to reaching for the next thing. It's the fallacy that comes from thinking that the more power we have the happier we'll be and the more we'll escape the disorder and chaos of suffering. Essentially it's a way of thinking that leads logically to believing that to be God would by definition solve the whole thing. Except it's clear that the more power people achieve it doesn't make them much happier necessarily than those with nothing, and we resent them for that because we feel they aught to be. And there comes the point right back around to the topic of the video. Story and drama. Hinduism sees the Universe itself as God, but not as God as a ruler like a King and enforcer of law. There is no God outside the Universe (or what we call reality) it means we're all aspects of/incarnations of the same reality, "God". If you're God you know everything and you're all powerful, which means existence would be very boring as there's nothing worth doing. We can imagine this when we think of a game like chess, where it's not fun playing a game of chess with yourself. Great chess players don't play to win they play for the challenge, and for that there needs to be the chance they'll lose. So the idea is that God needed to split himself into an infinite multiplicity of forms, and so there could be truly this sense of drama and excitement he would need to forget who he was. In order to create a rock too heavy for God to lift, God needed to take away his own power. So with this idea the Universe is seen as a cosmic drama and we're all part of it, we're all playing a role we think of as us, but who we really are is God, or the "higher self". In other words, the wheel of samsara on every level - personal, sociological, etc, is the source of all our problems and suffering but it's also the source of all the drama, excitement, and happiness and beauty. It's the force of creation driving the human mind to create. It creates peace and it creates war, it creates heaven and hell, and you can't truly wish away one without wishing away the other. The irony is that if we desire to eliminate the cycle is exactly the same as any other other desire to eliminate suffering, which is itself a desire. We know that all good stories need conflict. If there's no conflict there's no story, hence the videos subject matter. We can't get excited at beauty unless we have the contrast of ugly, and what we consider beautiful completely depends on our perception of that contrast to ugliness. We can't perceive beauty at all if there is no ugliness, which is why we live at a time where most us take completely for granted living conditions that for most of human history would have been unthinkable. Suffering and death is really in a sense the act of creation, because creation can't come from anything else. Out of the chaotic inflation of a single sub atomic spark that we call the event of the Big Bang created a Universe of ever expanding complexities. Out of what we call nothing and can't define created everything, both order and chaos. Our lack of knowledge in another players decisions makes a game worth playing, and our suffering that the world isn't as we'd like it to be allows us to experience all the beauty of the human experience. The fairy tale that ends "and they lived happily ever after" is boring and that's why we never care about telling that story. We don't truly want to escape suffering, it's why even we could do it, we'd choose not to. If you analyse stories deeply enough, you analyse human psychology, and you can take that deeper still.
this video is so well made i cant even describe how inspiring it was listening to you! I have now a way better understanding about story and story telling then any teacher in my old school could teach me. The way they approach topics are uninteresting and just dull but you created something special and relatable we all know and understand in a simple and entertaining way. Thank you for this awesome video!
This model only works when you stretch those points on the circle to fit anything and everything. I mean, even within this video you started off explaining how point 8 - 'change' applies to the hero, but then go on and give example of how the hero is now able to change the world. Yes, both things have the word 'change' in them, but they're not the same. I have a feeling that either you've left out some crucial things, or the theory has some major holes in it. Edit: Also, talking about Star Wars in particular, I've seen people breaking down how it follows monomyth in plenty of different ways. Some denoted the lightsaber to be the 'special object', others say it was the droids. Nobody could agree as to where exactly the 'return to normalcy' occurs. Some people outline it in just the first film, others trace it through the whole trilogy. Not a very empirical way to apply it, huh.
These theories are like dream interpretation. You might find something that feels true to you, but that doesn't mean it's there. The circle and the monomyth both seem like a load of confirmation bias to me, and they aren't very useful to someone doing literary criticism. On the other hand, "Rick & Morty" has some of the best writing on TV, of any show, cartoon or non, and so if thinking this way helps artists like Dan Harmon, I won't kill their fun.
I think the best, most lasting mythological stories -- especially those that are films or books in a series or trilogy like Star Wars -- have multiple points of application, like a geometric, circular drawing. I also think the video specifically misunderstands some of Harmon's story beats, and doesn't do a very good job explaining that, in something like Star Wars, there is more than one circle. In something like "Community", for example, in basically every episode script, there is a story circle for the episode, AND one for each of the characters. The same can almost be said for Star Wars, which is why there are so many in-points for some of these.
Like it is clearly mentioned in the video. Most stories are like this and most thing not like this aren't stories. Your example falls into things which arent stories.
Excellent! I was looking for something to help structure the plot of a story gone rogue and this was just what I needed. Simple to understand and straight forward.
As much as I respect Harmon, disappointingly this is another blueprint. It's not a theory, as it doesn't offer any rationalised content that defines a story as distinguished from a series of events, it simply identifies some of the most common elements that can be found within the broader spectrum of conventional storytelling and elevates them to the status of rule. Harmon's erected another cookie cutter, albeit a cleaner one.
Favorite video of the year. And I watch A LOT of educational/analysis-heavy TH-cam videos. Thank you. I plan to use this for an interview and help me construct a story about my life and put the interview into the context of my bigger life story.
Any story and any medium? Then what about all the 19th century operas/literature, or even some of the 20th century operas like Berg's "Lulu", "Wozzeck" or Britten's "Peter Grimes"? There are countless of stories that don't fit this circle at all; have they just been disregarded for the convenience of this video?
Thinking of a few short stories I've read recently in this context made me realize why there is a distinction made between stories/novels and short stories. A story follows the general arc described in this video while short stories are just some section of the circle, with the rest of the circle either implied or left open to interpretation. For example, "A Perfect Day for Banana Fish," a short story by J.D. Salinger (of "The Catcher in the Rye" fame), ends at the transition from order to chaos (or from chaos back to order, depending on how you see it) with the suicide of a character you barely got to know.
Good argument. Of course, one could cite that the absurdist and surrealist literature does not have the same impact as traditional stories. That they are often not even perceived as "stories". I know people who think a pretty generic movie is "pointless" when the usual happy ending is missing. So you have to first determine, whether the genre you mentioned or literature types are even "stories". However, I also think that this video simplifies matters too much, even if the core is perhaps true. In addition, one can also recognize, in my opinion, that this core develops or changes over decades, centuries, millennia. So, also the understanding, the perception of these stories is subject to some kind of evolution.
As a writer, I read Joseph Campbell's book and also discovered that he got a lot of his information from Carl Jung, who studied the archetypes in human myth throughout the ages.
Yup. And even Jung, the much more original thinker, is disputed by many. I wouldn't take the ideas in this video as gospel.
Alchemy was the birth of carl Jung in the 20th - 21st Cent, A Legend
This isn't the general story, this is the archetype of a "hero's journey" (you said it yourself), a common and very pleasing - even resonant - kind of story. Perhaps this structure resonates with a human audience because we seek meaning, we are drawn to stories with purpose, and that follow this sort Order/Disorder cycle. I would like to give examples where this interpretation falls apart.
We'll start with tragedies, I'll go with the most recognizable one - Romeo and Juliet. The characters enter the chaotic world, but they fail to return - the cost was too great and everybody dies. What about more surreal movies, like "A Serious Man" - the movie arguably begins and remains in a world of chaos the entire time. There is no Goddess, there's nowhere to return to. This man's life is simply a road of trials. These are definitely stories, but you would have a hard time contorting them to fit Harmon's model of storytelling.
The story circle is an interesting and effective way to interpret stories, but I would make contention with the claim that "Every Story is the Same".
TunaSammich I agree the title should be Why MOST Stories Are The Same. A great video similar but more dark is called Illuminati Hollywood Full Disclosure
At the end of Romeo and Juliet though, the 2 families have decided to reconcile - I think that is a change brought upon by all that happened in the story.
According to Christopher Booker, there is at least 7 basic plots:
1. Overcoming the Monster
2. Rags to Riches
3. The Quest
4. Voyage and Return
5. Rebirth
6. Comedy
7. Tragedy
The first five can be simplified to Hero's Journey, while the last two is different. So, there is at least 3 basic plots for stories.
Parisan 99 thanks for listing those, now excuse while I spend the rest of the day diving into learning about them all lol
Calvaire 2004. France/Belgium. What is that??
This video sets it out so well, I keep coming back to this as a resource every time I sit down to write a script. Thanks for compiling it and making such a great edit!
Hi loony love youre videos!
Hi Loony
Anyone else noticed that the video itself follows this structure?? This is genius 🙌
Holy crap, you're right.
Start out with a calm introduction where it explains easy to digest concepts that we might already know.
Then it goes to the unknown where we start to understand in greater depth.
Then it wraps up with going back to using familiar examples, and easily relatable experiences with the new knowledge on how these are all similar, and why exactly.
DONT GIVE IT AWAY
but if every story follows the structure, it would be really difficult to make a video that doesn't, a video that works anyway. so is it genius or is it just normal?
Teodor, in my estimation all genius is nothing more than the explanation of what is, in the optimal articulation. Thus, it is both.
The video is essentially a linear description of the story arch that it describes, so of course it will. And it’s well done.
All Disney stories are either: stolen fairytales or someone goes missing/gets lost.
...and most of the time, both.
Don't forget that the villian doesn'T get killed. He dissapeares.
HappyBeezerStudios - by Lord_Mogul Clayton, Gaston, Maleficent, Dr. Facilier, Professor Ratigan, Queen from Snow White, syndrome, etc. a lot of villains get killed...
Yep
The mothers seem to be killed in Disney shit!
And it works everytime, they are making money lol
"The Hero with a Thousand Faces" is the one book I would want to have with me if I were to ever be stranded on a deserted island. It is my all time favorite read. Campbell's telling of the story of the "monomyth" is a brilliant story in itself. In the early 90's, I bought the six cassette set of "The Power of Myth" which is the Bill Moyers PBS interview of Joseph Campbell at Lucas' Skywalker Ranch. I played it at work, at home and in my vehicle. Thank you for posting this ... !!!
I bought a tomato, I ate it, and it was good.
Hero's Journey
@@noahfatsi7190 😃
It was an Apple
@@johnnys3576 The amount of commitment...
@@johnnys3576 wonderful! But what about mr. Carrot, how does his journey ends?
The commercial that interrupted this seemed to prove the videos point.
Generalization leads to great things being left out
Nick Toss Yes, this is very true. And on the flip side, drawing connections and patterns between seemingly disparate ideas amd stories creates a new perspective for us - a bigger picture - that allows us to find higher meaning and purpose not only in what is being studied but also in our own lives :)
Or... generalizations lead to the rest of the story to be told.
Do you remember eating? Do you remember walking to the bathroom? Do you remember laughing with your friend that one time in grade 2 about his lunch? All generalizations that fill in the narrative of life. Bringing weight to the things you find important.
I might be loosing the point? Lol
Is that a generalization?...
amen
great story: the guy saves the women without her permission and defeats all challengers, he gets punished for being cocky, gets lucky in the story.
I guess maybe you CAN interpret any story to fit this pattern, but you'd have to twist a lot of them badly out of shape, get pretty loose with the interpretation of various steps, and, in many cases, miss the point. It's like the saying goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Other posters have mentioned tragedies, so I'd like to put forward the BBC movie Cathy Come Home. Basically, the movie is about a mother whose family's economic situation steadily gets worse and worse and who find themselves dealing with an uncaring, confusing, and inefficient bureaucracy. At the end, they end up living on the street and social services takes away her children, leaving her there crying.
Clearly this is a story and, based on its reception, a very emotionally impactful one, but it doesn't seem to get much farther than the road of trials. Cathy doesn't ascend from the strange world she's entered, she doesn't become empowered, she stays in the world of being homeless and that's it. Even if you can make some aspects of the story to fit the circle, e.g. "she undergoes a change from being a happy person to being miserable," claiming this story is following the same template as Star Wars or The Lion King would stretch it to the point of meaninglessness.
I agree! I think the fact that most examples of stories fitting the Monomyth in these types of essays belong to actual mythology, children's entertainment or Hollywood blockbusters designed for maximum appeal is significant. Campbell himself didn't have any pretensions to be describing the entirety of narrative arts; I certainly don't think he would have agreed to using the most basic template imaginable for a mythical story as a creative guide for contemporary fiction. The structure is an appealing one, but thank God we've spent centuries imagining new ways of building stories; art as a whole would be pretty damn boring and simplistic if we hadn't.
It's a template for lazy writers. It fits StarWars so well only because Star Wars was based upon it from the beginning.
A story that does not fit the monomyth: how about The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
I think some people are taking this too literally. The idea is that most good stories or lasting stories can fit this model. The reason for this is because it is ingrained in our psyche. Does every story have to fit this model? No. But in a business it is good to find a solid template that provides solid returns on investment. You might find that the vast majority of successful stories fit this model but not all successful stories do. Nothing is absolute in the real world but you can always calm investors by ensuring a greater chance of success through a proven method.
BTW, I am pretty sure the Good the Bad and the Ugly does fit the mono-myth pretty well, but like in the video it is an example of multiple circles applied to multiple characters to drive complexity. If you take the whole mono-myth too literally and forget that it is scalable then you might miss out on some great examples. I don't remember all of the details in the movie but I do remember that if you thought the "you" is Angle Eyes and you are following his circle then you are wrong (this is mentioned in the video). The true circle belongs to Tuco and/or Blonde. 1. Tuco & Blonde could be considered the "you". 2. They both want money to achieve different goals. 3. Complexity is thrown in when they get sick of each other and try to kill each other but opportunity arises when they each hold part of the information required to make a lot of money. 4. They reluctantly work together and, at times, work with Angle Eyes. They also enter the "other world" of the civil war. 5. Eventually they share information during a daring attempt to stop the battle that is about to happen. Tuco thinks he is master of his destiny and shows confidence in this belief while Blonde becomes a true master of his own destiny (although that information is hidden from the viewers). 6. They have to duel each other (and Angel Eyes) for the true name of the grave knowing they all might die for it. 7. The story loops back in on itself into familiar territory as blonde forces Tuco into a noose then things mirror the events of the beginning when Blonde shoots Tuco loose from the noose. (Full circle FTW) 8. Blonde and Tuco part ways, their partnership dissolved but both having the gold to move on with their goals.
FYI, this is all off the top of my head. I only looked up the character's names. The "other world" might be the chase as a whole not just the civil war but things return to the status quo once the two armies part ways. After writing this... Blonde might have the stronger circle in retrospect. Angel Eyes might also follow the mono-myth (that would be interesting) but I can't remember enough about his character to think he had anything more than the role of "obstacle with motivation" which is fine. In other words... I think The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is a pretty great example of this model scaled up to two characters.
The Also Person
Look, it's not a strict rule. It's purposefully malleable. For example, a tragedy is just half of a story circle. Take a story circle, cut it in half, boom! Tragedy. The rule is best used to describe a character arc rather than a whole story. Many of these can apply to different characters within the story. Some stories, like star wars episode four, revolve around one character's arc, but not all stories do. This doesn't mean that those stories don't use this, they merelyexplore it in a different way, such as applying it to different characters within the story, or cutting it short, as is done in a tragedy
Exactly Maxx Black, i do think that every story use the Campbell circle but in different ways. You choose what to use and when to stop the story. Read the book guys, in there Campbell explain not just the full circle but also variations of it.
Thank you so much for this essay! I discovered Dan Harmon because he responded to a tweet from Graham Linehan, creator of Father Ted & The IT Crowd, discussing a story problem Dan had been able to resolve with a suggestion from Graham. He mentioned the story circle theory he was working on, and I was immediately in love.
Since then, I've met Dan several times through my volunteer work with SFSketchfest and found him to be a genuine, intelligent, creative man with his own demons that keep him relatable. I have known about and respected George Lucas' crafting of Star Wars through The Hero's Journey for years, and even got to see George's own handwritten notes in his copy of "The Hero With A Thousand Faces" in his library on Skywalker Ranch when I worked there earlier this year. These are people and ideas that I love, and clearly you do too. Mad respect for reinvigorating my inspirations to write and create!
"A theory that explains everything, explains nothing." ~Karl Popper
Josh Lincecum Truuuu!!! Love pop pop
Right
A theory that explains nothing, explains everything
He that overcometh all things shall inherit all things
"And the meek shall inherit the Earth."
These are so well produced and articulated. I absolutely love it.
Thank you, sir. I appreciate your appreciation.
Same here
Will Schoder I appreciate you appreciating the appreciation.
@@incomemobile8566 i appreciate you appreciating him appreciating B.055-Bot's appreciation
Hey all, I know this one's a little different--more on the informational side than an argumentative one on theory. I do find the Harmon/Campbell argument compelling, but would love to know everyone's thoughts. Discussion is the most important part of these things. Let me know!
Have a great Thanksgiving.
Much love,
Will
You did a great job man!
I think it's a great video! Thanks for making it
Nahh I'm not sure about it dude. There's a Russian filmmaker (can't remember his name, sorry) that pretty much delineates the western mode of narrative as essentially conservative. A return to the same with caveats, essentially. His point is that this monomythic/harmonistic viewpoint is a subliminal redoubling of the status quo.
Not sure it works for Grendel, notes from the underground, most of Camus' work. And there's more, much more, it's just quite late here in England and my mind is a bit shot.
Regardless of criticism I massively respect the work you're doing and always enjoy your videos. Keep it up my dude.
Diego Cigarillo Just some food for thought from the Q&A on the series of the Story Circle. I often think Western narratives are subliminal redoublings of the status quo, but I'm not convinced it's the structure. I'm more convinced it's the storyteller.
"Q: But I'm sick and tired of cookie-cutter stories about good guys saving the day from bad guys. Some of my favorite movies fly in the face of your story model.
A: If it's really your favorite movie, I absolutely guarantee you it's structured at least somewhat in accordance with this model. You're hearing "good guys and bad guys," but I'm not saying it. I'm saying "protagonist descending and returning."
The very fact that you ARE sick of ordinary movies is evidence that we live and breathe this structure. If you're a subversive punk rock anarchist with a spike through your nose, and you hate "Shrek" because it's a piece of corporate shit, you are craving a descent into the unknown. "You" are expressing a "need" to "go" to an obscure film magazine, "search" for something unique, "find" a gory Japanese horror film, "take" it, "return" to your apartment with it and use it to "change" your friends' minds about cinema. And I think you will find that your "favorite" Japanese gore fest is the one with a recognizable protagonist needing to eat human flesh, going to an orgy, eating everyone there, raping a woman, killing the police and jumping out the window before heading into the night.
Schrab has this video we watch all the time: It's an orientation video designed to teach mentally retarded girls about their period. The protagonist is a retarded girl. She starts asking questions about periods. She's led into a bathroom by her older sister, and after a very uncomfortable road of trials, things take a turn for the bizarre. I won't go into detail. Not only is the protagonist going on a journey, the audience is, too.
I have taken great pains to avoid any ethical positioning in my observations of structure. Stories are not necessarily about love conquering all, they're not about achieving spiritual balance, they're not about "learning valuable life lessons" and they're not about maintaining order. They're about change. Subversion of order. By the way, "Shrek" had not-so-good structure.
Good structure is the best weapon we can use in the fight against corporate garbage because good structure costs nothing, is instinctive to the individual and important to the audience. For all their money, computers and famous actors, the Hollywood factory is constantly being challenged and often buried by individuals like you, people who started by realizing that they were sick of the shit they were seeing and wrote a good story from the deepest level of their unconscious mind. I am trying to show you how to make your own gunpowder. You can use it to make pretty fireworks or you can use it to blow up a building full of innocent babies, it's not my place to care."
You're probably talking about Andrei Tarkovsky, yeah?
I find it interesting that because we use this intuitively/unconsciously, rather than being something that constrains our story telling it can provide a tool our intuition can use to communicate to our conscious mind more fluidly. It can help move past the moment of sitting in front of a blank page going "... something's not right, something's not working, I can't figure out where I'm trying to go."
It's incredible that, despite not knowing about this circle up until right now, everything I've ever written does follow this concept to the T.
It's natural. We probably absorb it unconsciously from the culture around us. It's like language: you knew how to use it before anyone told you the different parts are called "noun", "verb", and so on.
It is incredible, though.
I'm glad I've grown up to realise that these 8 parts don't need to know actually be the same length or be in the exact lineup of runtime.
At least you get it.
WOW This was EXTREMELY helpful. This is exactly what I was looking for. Now I can get back to finishing my book. Thank you so much for this video. It is greatly appreciated.
If you have largely written your book already, how the hell could this video be helpful?
@@blaustein_autor She wants to see how she can evolve as a writer.
Will, you're killing it. Love this stuff. Very helpful for someone who might want to write something one day. Thank you!
Of course. Every video that goes up on this channel is meant to help people in some way or another. Thanks for watching.
Really makes you understand and appreciate films that can be successful without sticking to this circle, such as Mulholland Drive.True contemporary masterpiece.
Those eight words sound like a neanderthal giving a very basic motivational speech about going and getting what you want out of life.
You need go search find take return change.
It's like Eat. Pray. Love. for cavemen.
This really helped to understand plotting my novel
I love your videos, and really enjoyed this one because it was the perfect balance between relevant, deep, and entertaining. The structure that you described universal to every book, movie, and show almost exactly aligned with the plot of the novel that I am currently working on. It's haunting.
Super eyepatch wolf has a fascinating antithesis to this "What makes a hero feel real". Not directly, but in similar subject.
" I am a fool
When I need you ~
I'm a fool to believe ~
My heart is so wide open ~
I'm so easy to deceive ~
I'm a fool, I can't believe it ~
I'm a fool, I believe it all ~
I'm a fool who'll keep on tryin' ~
And, like a fool, I will crawl ~
From, Rollins' Band ~
Henry once saved my life ~
I tried listing the basic plots; good vs. evil, boy meets girl, the evil twin, the stranger in town, destructive pride, etc. I got to about a dozen variations, but they all distilled into one story. It all comes back to discovering who we are and why we are here.
Paul Moore Ever wonder why that would matter? Why the Egyptians told the same story?
"Infinite stories, Morty! And all of them, every, every one of th..*BRRRRRRP* ..em, ..the same!"
It's one big story Morty! You! Me! Its all one big ,, big, stoo..URP..oory! Its all connected, Morty, and we're gonna watch it... you n me, were gonna witness it! We're.. We're gonna watch it like a movie, Morty, like one big F***kin TV show! The Rick and Morty show, Morty! RICK AND MORTY!!"
Awesome. Why did no one comment on this? :D
@@BrutalGames2013 Because he said everything that needed be said here perfectly :D
@@Sillylittleworld1 Well said
I was recently watching Moral Oral. And there is lot of season 3 that really does not fit this cycle. And to some degree all of of Moral Oral was a defiance of the cycle.
Now I see how it is so creepy. Moral Oral stories are ultimately about people who failed in their Heroes quests. It is relating of people who refused to quest, got stuck in one phase, or did not return with anything of value. My respect for the series just went up several notches.
The big leboski, most (if not all) of quentin tarantino's movies, a few good men, the star wars prequels, every story where the character doesn't have an arc, every story where there is no main character, etc, etc: are examples of stories that don't conform to this.....
A lot of stories to center around the hero's journey, but not all of them. Just because a character follows the hero's journey doesn't mean its the same story as star wars or harry potter....
I don't think any good story really *conforms* to this circle. But this circle can be used to create good stories.
Also, I'd say Django Unchained seems closest to this structure as far as I've seen.
1. Django, a slave who is freed by a german bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz, who uses his assistance for bounty hunting.
2. Django wants to free his wife, Broomhilda, from a slave owner, Calvin Candie.
3. Django and Schultz go to the plantation where Candie resides.
4. They try to play it cool and make a deal with Candie for Broomhilda (and 2 other men)
5. The deal is nearly completed, but Candie, with info from his personal slave Stephen, finds out their trick.
6. Schultz shoots Candie after Candie insists they shake his hand. After a shootout, Django is captured and sent to a mining company.
7. Django escapes and kills his captives, then heads back to Candie's residence.
8. Django frees Broomhilda and destroys Candieland.
This is amazing. This video and Harmon's insight has given me new clarity to this story I'm writing. Thank you for making this.
Fiction writers should never approach a story with the idea that every narrative is the same, because it's not. There has never been another person that is you who has created a story yet. You are the first person to ever exist as who you are. Sounds confusing but it's true. Don't aim for originality, aim for something refreshing. Bring different angles to familiar subjects. Don't get caught up in the "there's nothing new under the sun" way of thinking. We know that already. But there can be refreshing ways to tell the same story, and bring about a new or better understanding of it.
I think anyone looking at it in the negative way you're describing would be taking it too literally. There is nobody else alive, or who has ever lived, who is precisely the same as you, but all people have the same elements that make them people. All people have the same structure. Their skeleton, their flesh, etc. The differences are what are laid on top of all this.
Copyright law protects expression not concept. For concept you need a patent. This means that this structure can be followed but what distinguishes a work is its expression. _The Force Awakens_ has the same structure as _A New Hope_ but a slightly different expression, just enough to make it feel different for most audiences until the very similar trench run in which those around me in the audience openly started to laugh.
Yep, we wouldn’t have inspiration without it! A great point.
"You talk a lot but don't say anything" really fits to what you just wrote. :/ Everything you said is nothing new. Everybody is trying to sound like a poet. You cleary did not get what this video is about. "The Basic structure" of Stories. And that they are all the same. And they are!
Just how a writer must think.
Man, with youtube, sometimes you watch the beginning of a video and you switch quickly to another one, and sometimes you watch it three or four times in a row, making pauses to take notes because it's exactly what you need to here right now! Well, yours enters the second group. Thank you for this great video!
connecting all stories is just a matter of fibding a description so general that it applies to everything. its does not mean all stories are the same it means you can sum up all stories if you fond the right comination of very vague words. your argument is like saying Elvis is the same thing as a can of peas because they can both be "summed up" as "matter and energy". yeah if you sttip away all the things that make things different everything is the same.
This is about the Hero's Journey. The title should mention that. Btw, most movies also end with a man and a woman coming together, which symbolizes the alchemical wedding of the divine masculine and the divine feminine.
Right up there with the best of em, Will! Keep telling your stories!
Thanks, Joe. I will!
What an incredible video! Between you and nerdwriter, kaptainkristian and other video essay channels you're all the sole reason why I love coming to youtube. Hats off to you Will for making fantastic stuff here. Definitely subscribed and definitely supporting your work on patreon :D
I like how when he said "or read a great book" it was Tenth of December by George Saunders. A fantastic book.
This changed my life. And writing. I always wrote stories in this way, but never realised it. But it was harder every time I had to find this circle again...
You forgot to credit Community in the description. Small nitpick, but I'd say it deserves as much recognition and credit than Friends, if not more.
Fixed! Thanks for pointing that out.
Amazing. Thanks for sharing. I've used a lot of the same story structure but hadn't heard of the circle. This is awesome. Thank you.
Will Schoder: Every Story is the same.
Me: I just watched Pulp Fiction
It blew my mind a bit when I got to around 5:00 and right away recognized the medicine wheel symbol, found in cultures the world over. It's incredibly important as a concept to storytelling and individual/community growth. This goes really, really deep.
Here's my experience with writing: There are a number of these story archetypes out there like Harmon's Circle, Save the Cat, Cambell's Hero's Journey, etc. They work for different types of stories and it's up to the writer to learn them and interpret their appropriate use. Once you figure out your rough plot, look at these guides to help you refine your plot into a satisfying structure. They are tools for the writer... not rules.
I've heard the Hero's Journey explained before, but this is the first explanation that resonates with me and tells me WHY it is so important. The aspect of one direction being the story's geography and the other direction being the character's arc is a tremendous point. Not only is this interesting, but most importantly, *this is USEFUL.*
Subscribed. Please keep it up and get a good following.
And I'm here thinking how Spirited Away (and other seemingly structureless stories) fits along the circle points.
Started out great but you're telling me the Deathstar / climax of Star Wars occurs in the "known land" at the top of the circle? Nah dawg.
Love your vids! Use of source material is great and you unpack these big ideals in delighful, sincere videos. Keep up the good work.
Thank you, ReK. You've pinpointed several of the things I actively try to do in every video. Glad to see it shows. Thanks for the comment.
Brilliant job at presenting difficult stuff in a very accessible way
these are the types of videos that you watch when you're feeling at your lowest state, or if you woke up at 1 pm
This is a very good summary of the similarities of story throughout every genre. The 'meat' portion of the video is great and very useful. I just published my 11th TH-cam episode and incorporated some storytelling -- it's done well -- but will do a lot more in my 12th project and afterwards.
You might as well say that all stories are the same because they all exist. If you generalize enough, you can place everything in the same category.
Or saying that all stories are the same because all they have a beginning, middle and end.
Probably the most inspiring video on TH-cam. I keep coming back to it and pick up new meanings each time. Great job man!
YOU NEED MORE SUBSCRIBERS!!!!
I know! Where are they?! Lets get 'em
Will Schoder if you build it, they will come
+Will Schoder New subscriber here, loved your video on joke theft! That definitely hooked me, and I feel like you're gonna be getting a lot more subs soon as you pop up near things like every frame a painting, nerdwriter1, and other video essay channels so good luck and don't quit cause these are amazing! Super inspiring to me
Hi Will. New subscriber here!
Loving this video.
Hi Will. I've been watching youtube videos almost a decade now and I've never felt compelled to subscribe to a channel until yours. Thanks for these videos; they are poignant, substantive, and entertaining. Keep up the great work. Good things are surely coming your way.
Hey Bryan, that's one of the nicest comments I've ever seen. I'm flattered. It's really great to see this kind of appreciation. I am not sure how many topics like this I can keep doing--they are pretty exhausting--but I am going to keep making them!
This mostly works for movies. Not so good for books. I'm updating this. It took me some time to realize that this is true for all mediums. Sorry I was an ass before, I was being naive.
you mean, bestsellers... i can't imagine Point Counter Point by huzley, or Rayuela (Hopscotch) by cortázar with a three act or the joseph campbell theory
One of the most common stories is the story of people thrown together through circumstance who learn to get along. It's basically every TV show.
Every theory about stories uses Star Wars as their quintessential example.
@Ravikul Rao talk about missing out. The Skywalker time-line (original and prequels. I'm not a fan of the sequels tbh) is well put together. You don't have to watch them in chronological order to enjoy them either. You can go 4,5,6 then 1,2,3. Vice versa. You can even throw Rouge one into the mix, which can connect episode 3 and episode 4.
Because it’s a great story in multidimensional ways
I think a lot of stories don't start with a place of comfort. Many seem to go straight into the need as if it has been needed for a while.
This notion isn't by any means revolutionary, or even contemporary. Aristotle often spoke of his exasperation that there only seem to be seven basic plots in fiction. However I would argue that postmodernism (or hypermodernism as I prefer to call it) has introduced a new genre, that of the anti-plot, or a story structured in such a way that its components can be read in any particular order and still form a cohesive whole, even if that whole creates an understandable but ultimately unsatisfying narrative. The concept that eventually became 'Demon Box' by Ken Kesey is the best example of this, but many Paul Auster novels, and even Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse 5' could be said to adhere to this model.
@wonder mike But since when has it been to appeal to the masses? If you're true to yourself and your story regardless of the structure and the message it should not matter. It all comes from the message of the story and what you're trying to convey, not based upon following a structure just because everyone else has and it's worked for so long. Which is why I feel writing has became so dull.
Understand the meta and break it. Don't follow the same old structure just because it's been the most appealing; which the whole point of postmodernism. Looking at things from a different perspective.
wonder mike Oh so The Simpsons, and the whole wave they started of satire comedy ridiculing the “perfect american family” in the 90s was trash? That was postmodernism for television at the time and completely changed and redefined television. (funny because the simpsons later became that which they satired but that’s besides the point)
What about all of Christopher Nolan’s movies which all follow a different movie structure compared to other blockbusters yet are considered genius by many? All of his movies were completely different
Following norms doesn’t make you stand out it makes your art dull and repetitive
What you’re not understanding is that even masters at one point had to defy their own teachers to accomplish their biggest achievements. For example, jazz players in the 20-30s, when the only “good” music was classical music. Jazz redefined all those definitions at the time because of structure and composition, but to this day a lot of modern music has jazz influence in one way or another.
Make your mark following your own path, not what people tell you to follow. But like you said it’s important to know the rules and fundamentals before you break them. That’s what meta game is. Game inside a game. Now go out there and be yourself.
@wonder mike If people are thinking about what the viewer wants to see before thinking what THEY themselves personally want to see, they will make a bland safe movie. It's why most people I know haven't seen a good movie in years.
@wonder mike I never think of copying anyone's methods, or what the act is. I just tell a story that I myself could find enjoyable and it's working out fine since the people I show my work to enjoy it too.
Even if some of the Marvel movies were decent, the fact they were all leading to something as childish as the "infinity war" film weakens them considerably. An alien that simply looks like a large purple human that wants to "kill half the universe" - any sort of fiction that mentions doing anything to the universe prove the writers have absolutely no idea what the universe even is and I can only see them as comedies, unfortunately unfunny ones.
Postmodernism is the rejection of structure, thus plot itself. Boris Vien is the only one I know who would qualify. But thats not really revolutionary either. Realism is a century older and did much the same thing, and even before that comedy mostly fell outside the journey with mostly static characters.
This was a best explanation i’ve seen of the circle
HEY i love your videos, keep it up! You'll get the recognition you'll deserve soon!
Ryan Leader Thanks Ryan :)
This is a great way to describe one of the seven basic stories: overcoming the monster; rags to riches; the quest; voyage and return; comedy; tragedy; rebirth. This is the the quest archetype and it fits in very naturally. And even though there might be several ways to do it, the formula seems to work very well when done in a unique voice and style
Your video's are fantastic! Keep up the great work
Thank you, thank you!
I know everyone probably says the same thing but you're videos are so good, I can't believe you don't have more subscribers. I'm going to binge watch all of them. Much love and respect to you!
13:24
He says: Top to bottom *flashes top and then bottom*
Me: Yeah that's good.
He says: Left to roght *flashes right and then left*
Me: :o
Your content is some of the best I have ever seen on youtube. Good job Sir. I will try my best to spread it as much as I can.
"...should not make it seem dull, or repetitive, or uninspiring..."
**Shows the three "Death Stars" being blown up**
lel
I just wanna say that through reading and other forms of media, your channel in my eyes shines as a something that expresses an important perspective; one which I enjoy very much
Thanks, Harry. That comment means a lot. Really glad you're liking what you're seeing here.
No worries, can't imagine the work it takes to make one of these
How did Princess 'Leea' know Kenobi was called 'Ben.'
Watch the movie again, she is clearly called Lee-ah not lay-a..
Well I was referring to the pronunciation, note the inverted comma; and you were replying to me.
Organon She years of him from her father
Right????!!!!
She didnt. The transmission goes: "Help me obi wan kenobi, you are my only hope!"
Can you analyze Spirited Away movie? One of the greatest movie of all time. I see that the structure is different. First: "You", second: "Go" The main character doesn't want something but she is forced to go to unfamiliar situation. third: "Search" She adapts to new situation and realizes that other characters have their own problems and everything gets complicated. Fourth: "Find" When she tries to solve her problem, she instead solving everyone's problem accidently because of her sincerity, then she gets stronger. Fifth: "change" Now she solves her problem easily. Sixth: "return" She comes back to her world as a new better person.
I don't understand why so many ppl in the comments have to point out that not all works of media follow the circle. It's more than obvious that this video focuses on the _maintream, safe & easy_ concept. You can even gather that information from the title of the video if think about it for a second.
The circle is a very good *guideline* to write a well-structured story for beginners who just want to write one.
If you wanna create some fancy stuff and "break the rules", you probably should learn them first (and maybe even master them). Yeah and don't break the rules for the sake of breaking the rules. For many stories this formula is all you need to follow. It depends on the story and writer how he wants to tell the story!
YVZ STUDIOS Then that neglects the whole point of the theory...
But that's not the way Campbell's theory is generally applied. The first thing the video itself says is that there is only one story.
I agree with you. Its like learning the fundamentals of art. Just learn the fundamentals, and you can make art any way you want to within the fundamentals.
Same thing here. Theres a really basic template. Learn it, then work off of it as someone sees fit.
Cyberpunk stories sometimes don't follow this cicle, because by definition there should show change or happy ending. But as some did point out the hero's journey is the most mainstream way of storytelling, that doesn't make it bad by any means
Everything start in "the order" or "confort zone"? What happen with the peapole who born in a disaster, or war? This theory have a first world bias, really. For example a typical news about the Palestinians, o Syrian war, or Afghanistan, is exactly the inverse structure. In a classical narrative, Moses for example don't born in a "confort zone", born in a slave jew family. Jesus , is the same, who born in a chaotic situation. With my bad english , i want to say, this theory is wrong.
Fantastic video. I loved Harmon's genius free series of articles on this, and I'm sharing this video-format version of it too.
*IT'S NOT A JOURNEY IF YOU NEVER COME BACK*
HOLY
CHRIST!
The monomyth is generally correct, especially Harmon's version, but certain highly resonating and popular stories do not fit into it. When do ANY of the necessary parts occur in "On the Road"? They don't. The characters don't change, they only ever briefly exit the comfort zone, they're constantly moving in a completely vertical fashion. You could fit the entire life of Kerouac into the monomyth, perhaps, but "On the Road" is a slice of it, it defies the monomyth when analyzed alone.
I think this is an interesting way to analyze a story, but I wouldn't use it in the creative process. Just let your subconscious work it out.
1. I am on the sofa
2. I am hungry
3. I go to the fridge
4. I get food
5. I eat it
6. There is less food for other people
7. I go back to the sofa
8. No longer hungry
I just wrapped up my first ever NaNoWriMo mere moments ago. Watching this video and tracing my main character's path around the story circle was incredibly relieving. It made me realize I hadn't just spent a month writing nonsense and has invigorated me to follow through on revisions and editing in the coming months. Thank you for making this.
I feel like the maker of the video became so focused on Harmon's wheel that he forgot to drive home why every story is, supposedly, the same.
I know this comment is late. Publishing agencies, from what I have researched, want to sell what works and are afraid to take risks with what is out of any norms. If they want to stick to particular tropes because many people love zombie stories, for example, it is because that stuff is constantly on the market. The market has a lot to do with it. To understand many producers making universally similar products, you will want understand consumers first. Supply and demand... I hope this helps. Unless you already know, then sorry for the rehash.
Quality video Mr. Will Schoder
Thanks, Jamie.
Your videos are so good. I've watched dozens of videos about that damn circle even one from Dan Harmon. You explain it best.
Curious that it resembles the musical circle of fourths.
Matt Gilbert Music (even those with no lyrics) can also tell a story. One that we usually aren't always psychologically aware of.
mushroomdude123 Well, yes of course as a musician I do realise this. But I'm thinking more abstractly, I'm considering the possibility that these forms emerge from the substrate of human neurology and are, therefore, expressions of those forms. I'm NOT going to call them archetypes or even Kantian "faculties" because that seems wrong to me. They are more like universal grammar. Just a speculation, but not an idle one.
mushroomdude123 Even though I don't accept the universal grammar theory in linguistics, but maybe something "like" universal grammar.
mushroomdude123 The circle of fifths is just the circle of fourths from the opposite direction
E B F#, You, change, return, take, find(Passing tone), search, go, need, cadence, drum roll. Encore!
I have been trying to get a grasp on this structure for years. This is the first explanation that's helped. Thanks for such a great video.
The mono-myth cycle is daily for me
Thank you so much for this video, you single handily got me a 98% on my English seminar
I think this structure is the basis of our consciousness, becoming aware of death means becoming aware of life, diving in the unconscious means coming back more creative with newly organized ideas. Universe is creation, becoming creative is becoming conscious of the universe.
This cycle I first encountered, more profoundly, on psychedelic experiences. It's crazy how similar it is to the Hero's Journey, that is directly hijacked into your consciousness in a concentrated way, it's amazing that such a process is present. Concentrated means learning faster, means more awareness and connections, memory arise from creativity and pattern recognition. Humanity took its first step with the shamans, they basically repeated that circle endless times in their own mind, maybe we could say they connected to the story of the universe more than anyone else.
Anyway, this pattern has been studied by a psychologist called Stanislav Grof, he called it perinatal matrix and believed it to be at the source of mental illness and other altered states. I had found a paper that merged it with the Monomyth structures but hadn't been brave enough to read all that English psychology :3
Very, very interesting stuff. I'll have to check out this Grof fellow. I do think it's built into our DNA for survival purposes. As Harmon says, if we just didn't go out and look for ways to change things (in caveman voice: you, need, go, search, find, take, return, change), we'd probably perish.
For me it's more an inheritance of the cycle of season per say, or day and night, with which we have became so intricately connected, not only on a physical level like all being but a symbolical one. Then the sun becomes the bringer of consciousness over the unconscious when he rises, then the night becomes dissolution of boundaries and frontiers.
I do think the universe is looking for such type of consciousness, repetition is call learning, diversity is call learning faster, etc. When the nights comes and we can only see what is far we dreams, we see everything merging with each other and dancing like shadows, I can't help but seeing it connected.
if nature put out there a molecule that accelerate this process it would be amazing. It's also about the shape of our body, it's all so precise. I can't help but think deep dreams and learning is mimicking the psychedelic experience for the computer, it's telling him "see more" and so he start dreaming, if there is a substance that have such a drastic effect on creativity and consciousness with this very process of leaving the ordinary and returning with the elixir, it's safe to base it has a big part in the evolution of our consciousness. (and maybe, hoho, the plan's of the universe)
holotropicbreathwork.ning.com/xn_resources/research/archambault2010.pdf
I think it's the most complete I have found, though, yet not read. If you look for perinatal matrix+ hero's journey you can find some other stuff
Maitrī xp +
It's essentially the Buddist wheel of suffering, called samsara, the only difference being with the 4th quadrant represents birth/rebirth where the cycle repeats. IMost stories with the happy ending stops just after the main character attains what was desired but before the proverbial "death" that comes from realising they're still not satisfied. This suffering goes on for a time until a new desire is formed and a new quest begins, represented as rebirth.
You can see the cycle of samsara on various levels/dimensions, on an individual level psychological perspective and from a more meta level sociological and biological perspective. The sociological perspective being the desire to achieve a certain sociological change to achieve a state essentially the same as our personal desire to escape suffering from our own personal psychology.
Societies can easily be seen to go in cycles, around the wheel in various forms taking on various trends of more left wing, more ring wing, more liberal, more conservative, and back again. Ultimately it's all an attempt to straighten out chaos, to arrange everything so reality is all "up", which is why it will never work. You can only achieve a state of non-suffering for a limited time before it naturally leads back to dissatisfaction and suffering.
You can think of this as an expression of us trying to fight the reality that all things are falling apart constantly, that things eventually tend towards disorder. It's possible to introduce energy into a system that can achieve a perception of stabilisation and creation, but this doesn't last forever. The true interpretation of "nirvana" involves at the core a deep recognition of how futile it is to think we can escape the cycle of samsara. To put it in another way, it's the difference between understanding the second law of thermodynamics intellectually, and "feeling" it.
The strongest forces driving social forces around the wheel back and forth from the left and to the right and back in different forms, comes from those who are convinced the most that we can stabilise this state of decay, that we can achieve a perfect state. What we allow ourselves to ignore is the reality that if a particular idea of the perfect society is achieved, even if it were perfect at that moment would longer seem perfect once achieved, because individually we're still on the wheel.
It's the same mistake of thinking some new technology will make our lives so much happier, but then when we get it we rapidly or even immediately feel something missing and then we're back to reaching for the next thing. It's the fallacy that comes from thinking that the more power we have the happier we'll be and the more we'll escape the disorder and chaos of suffering. Essentially it's a way of thinking that leads logically to believing that to be God would by definition solve the whole thing. Except it's clear that the more power people achieve it doesn't make them much happier necessarily than those with nothing, and we resent them for that because we feel they aught to be.
And there comes the point right back around to the topic of the video. Story and drama.
Hinduism sees the Universe itself as God, but not as God as a ruler like a King and enforcer of law. There is no God outside the Universe (or what we call reality) it means we're all aspects of/incarnations of the same reality, "God". If you're God you know everything and you're all powerful, which means existence would be very boring as there's nothing worth doing. We can imagine this when we think of a game like chess, where it's not fun playing a game of chess with yourself. Great chess players don't play to win they play for the challenge, and for that there needs to be the chance they'll lose. So the idea is that God needed to split himself into an infinite multiplicity of forms, and so there could be truly this sense of drama and excitement he would need to forget who he was. In order to create a rock too heavy for God to lift, God needed to take away his own power. So with this idea the Universe is seen as a cosmic drama and we're all part of it, we're all playing a role we think of as us, but who we really are is God, or the "higher self".
In other words, the wheel of samsara on every level - personal, sociological, etc, is the source of all our problems and suffering but it's also the source of all the drama, excitement, and happiness and beauty. It's the force of creation driving the human mind to create. It creates peace and it creates war, it creates heaven and hell, and you can't truly wish away one without wishing away the other. The irony is that if we desire to eliminate the cycle is exactly the same as any other other desire to eliminate suffering, which is itself a desire.
We know that all good stories need conflict. If there's no conflict there's no story, hence the videos subject matter. We can't get excited at beauty unless we have the contrast of ugly, and what we consider beautiful completely depends on our perception of that contrast to ugliness. We can't perceive beauty at all if there is no ugliness, which is why we live at a time where most us take completely for granted living conditions that for most of human history would have been unthinkable.
Suffering and death is really in a sense the act of creation, because creation can't come from anything else. Out of the chaotic inflation of a single sub atomic spark that we call the event of the Big Bang created a Universe of ever expanding complexities. Out of what we call nothing and can't define created everything, both order and chaos. Our lack of knowledge in another players decisions makes a game worth playing, and our suffering that the world isn't as we'd like it to be allows us to experience all the beauty of the human experience. The fairy tale that ends "and they lived happily ever after" is boring and that's why we never care about telling that story. We don't truly want to escape suffering, it's why even we could do it, we'd choose not to.
If you analyse stories deeply enough, you analyse human psychology, and you can take that deeper still.
this video is so well made i cant even describe how inspiring it was listening to you! I have now a way better understanding about story and story telling then any teacher in my old school could teach me. The way they approach topics are uninteresting and just dull but you created something special and relatable we all know and understand in a simple and entertaining way.
Thank you for this awesome video!
"i love life!"
"oh no!"
lol
I need more channels like this. So far my favs are (in order) : Kaptain Kristian , Super Eyepatch Wolf, Will Schoder
This model only works when you stretch those points on the circle to fit anything and everything. I mean, even within this video you started off explaining how point 8 - 'change' applies to the hero, but then go on and give example of how the hero is now able to change the world. Yes, both things have the word 'change' in them, but they're not the same. I have a feeling that either you've left out some crucial things, or the theory has some major holes in it.
Edit: Also, talking about Star Wars in particular, I've seen people breaking down how it follows monomyth in plenty of different ways. Some denoted the lightsaber to be the 'special object', others say it was the droids. Nobody could agree as to where exactly the 'return to normalcy' occurs. Some people outline it in just the first film, others trace it through the whole trilogy. Not a very empirical way to apply it, huh.
These theories are like dream interpretation. You might find something that feels true to you, but that doesn't mean it's there. The circle and the monomyth both seem like a load of confirmation bias to me, and they aren't very useful to someone doing literary criticism. On the other hand, "Rick & Morty" has some of the best writing on TV, of any show, cartoon or non, and so if thinking this way helps artists like Dan Harmon, I won't kill their fun.
Ackshully......!
I think the best, most lasting mythological stories -- especially those that are films or books in a series or trilogy like Star Wars -- have multiple points of application, like a geometric, circular drawing. I also think the video specifically misunderstands some of Harmon's story beats, and doesn't do a very good job explaining that, in something like Star Wars, there is more than one circle. In something like "Community", for example, in basically every episode script, there is a story circle for the episode, AND one for each of the characters. The same can almost be said for Star Wars, which is why there are so many in-points for some of these.
This is one of the best educational videos I’ve ever seen. Sooo interesting to think of breaking down stories this way
Not every story is the heroes journey ..... just saying ...
No need to "just say". Literally everyone knows that.
@@ShawnTheMidget sometimes the easiest concepts are hardest to recognize at the moment. That comment was worth it.
This was one of the best videos i have seen about stories and writing. Love it and now i feel inspired to write again. Thank you.
What if you made a movie that was just 11 days straight of grass growing in real time.
Add an after credits scene of a deer eating the grass 😂
and why not? look Jean-Luc Godard - Adieu au langage, hasn't any formula
@johnny walker Or maybe a lawnmover just passing through - end -
Like it is clearly mentioned in the video. Most stories are like this and most thing not like this aren't stories. Your example falls into things which arent stories.
Excellent! I was looking for something to help structure the plot of a story gone rogue and this was just what I needed. Simple to understand and straight forward.
As much as I respect Harmon, disappointingly this is another blueprint. It's not a theory, as it doesn't offer any rationalised content that defines a story as distinguished from a series of events, it simply identifies some of the most common elements that can be found within the broader spectrum of conventional storytelling and elevates them to the status of rule. Harmon's erected another cookie cutter, albeit a cleaner one.
There are no such things as rules. Even Harmon acknowledges this.
Favorite video of the year. And I watch A LOT of educational/analysis-heavy TH-cam videos. Thank you. I plan to use this for an interview and help me construct a story about my life and put the interview into the context of my bigger life story.
Any story and any medium? Then what about all the 19th century operas/literature, or even some of the 20th century operas like Berg's "Lulu", "Wozzeck" or Britten's "Peter Grimes"? There are countless of stories that don't fit this circle at all; have they just been disregarded for the convenience of this video?
Thinking of a few short stories I've read recently in this context made me realize why there is a distinction made between stories/novels and short stories. A story follows the general arc described in this video while short stories are just some section of the circle, with the rest of the circle either implied or left open to interpretation.
For example, "A Perfect Day for Banana Fish," a short story by J.D. Salinger (of "The Catcher in the Rye" fame), ends at the transition from order to chaos (or from chaos back to order, depending on how you see it) with the suicide of a character you barely got to know.
This doesn't apply to absurdist and surrealist literature, dichotomies are for the feeble minded.
Good argument. Of course, one could cite that the absurdist and surrealist literature does not have the same impact as traditional stories. That they are often not even perceived as "stories". I know people who think a pretty generic movie is "pointless" when the usual happy ending is missing. So you have to first determine, whether the genre you mentioned or literature types are even "stories".
However, I also think that this video simplifies matters too much, even if the core is perhaps true. In addition, one can also recognize, in my opinion, that this core develops or changes over decades, centuries, millennia. So, also the understanding, the perception of these stories is subject to some kind of evolution.
It doesn't even apply to british comedy and bad endings in general
This form satisfies the masses aka sells the most