Talk:Joseph Campbell/Archive 1

message: How much room is there for criticism of Campbell's technique in Hero with a Thousand Faces?  I personally found the book full of unsubstantiated assertion (despite the nigh-comical profusion of footnotes), questionable conclusions and a lot of "curve fitting" of his purported data into his predecided conclusion.  I'm sure I can find others who agree.  Would a section critical of his theories and approach be apropos or not?
Before we begin adjusting data curves to any interpretation of the themes of mythology, what's wrong with this sentence: '...became fascinated with Native American culture when his father took him to see the Metropolitan Museum in New York.' Perhaps someone more interested in Campbell would be willing to read some biographical notes and make a sensible entry. User:Wetman
:There is plenty of room for criticism (see Michael Moore for an example).  The key is to keep point of view out of it.  So, you could state how the "curve fitting" is used to prove Campbell's point, but then note a weakness in the method.  I gave the extreme example of Moore because there have been so many people that either claim he is a golden god here to enlighten the masses or the spawn of Satan here to line his pockets with the dollars of the ignorant.  You can see how the article boiled down to a good example of point/counter-point.
:Personally, I feel Campbell generalized far too much.  When you generalize, it is easy to make a point, but you are ignoring the counter-points. Kainaw 19:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, as it stands there is very little in the way of discussion of Campbell's work and conclusions in the article and we'd need that in there before we start adding the criticisms of his work. This is something I might add if I get time. Though in general I have a lot of time for Campbell's work (and feel that those who criticise his 'generalist' approach don't fully understand the fundamental ideas behind his work (IMO!!)), I think a balanced article would need to include such criticisms. 209.94.128.82
firstfox 15:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: In the article The Faces of Joseph Campbell by Brendan Gill, the exchange in the NY Review of Books after it and other commentaries after that, Campbell was called everything from anti-semitic to racist against blacks to a crypto-fascist.  Anyhow, I'm not sure how to approach this, but being as that article seems to be a touchstone of this, I think mentioning it, and that he was accused of reactionary political views makes the most sense.  Especially since Gill says Campbell was something of a paradox which he could never figure out. Ruy Lopez 06:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like mentioning that he was accused of reactionary political views or anti-semitism becuase it seems like baseless slander. If there are factual examples of things Campbell did or said which could be considered anti-semetic, racist, or reactionary then they should be included, but all the talk of Campbell's anti-semitism seems to be traced back to Gill who waited until just after Campbell died to start hurling charges Campbell could longer defend himself against.--198.93.113.49 14:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gill article 

message: :"It's actually very difficult to grasp what Campbell actually believes, as all of his writings are peppered with quotes (or what philosophers call appeals to authority)."
This line is very POV.  Is its author alleging that it is difficult to understand Campbell simply because he uses quotes?  Is the parenthetical intended to smugly criticize philosophers, Campbell, the use of quotations in essays, or all three?
209.94.128.82 09:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for being vigilant, but thefreedictionary.com is actually a mirror of Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Mirrors and Forks for a full listing of all known legal and illegal mirrors. thefreedictionary.com is a legal mirror, and its listing can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Stu#TheFreeDictionary.com --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 23:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: There had been a line in the article that said "George Lucas based the Star Wars series..." which had been changed the "George Lucas claims to have based the Star Wars series...". I changed it to "George Lucas has said that he based the Star Wars series..." The first implied that Lucas's statement is true, the second implied that it was false. I changed the wording to make in neutral.--198.93.113.49 18:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Wars

message: (Mr. Shalazi does concede, however, that Campbell's major ideas "aren't even wrong".) This is not a concession; it's the stronger claim of meaninglessness. Septentrionalis 8 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
------
"In contemporary popular culture, three film series, Star Wars, The Matrix, and The Lord of the Rings (along with the original book series of the last one) hew very closely to Campbell’s archetypal pattern."  How's that?  This needs to be backed up with specifics, or it should be removed.  Seems pretty windy anyway.
And what is all this "seminal quote" business?  Who says they're "seminal" ?  Everyone has fortune cookie profundities to offer, why are Campbell's pertinent here?  Much of this article is sophomoric.
* Is it reasonable to include the Lord of the Rings under 'Influences of his work', given that it was largely completed by 1949 according to that article? This is a separate question from whether the Lord of the Rings and the legends it draws from may illustrate many of Campbell's themes. Willhsmit 03:05, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I in no way understand how seeing all of the world religions as masks for the same transcendant truth makes one an agnostic.  Could someone please explain to me how this is so.  The truth may be unknowable but if you believe that it exists then you wouldn't be an agnostic.  216.231.162.9 05:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misunderstanding

message: In the last paragraph of section "Criticism", the following sentence appears: "However, any anti-Semitism that might be harbored by Campbell seems well-disguised, and can never be asserted without a horde of Campbell's adherents arguing adamantly (and well) against any such suggestion.". This sentence makes it impossible to argue with credibility that Campbell was not an anti-semetic. For everyone who does can be dismissed as being a 'Campbell adherent', and although arguing "adamently (and well)", not necessarily being truthful. By doing this, the author has attempted to shift the burden-of-proof from those who assert something (i.e. Campbell's anti-semitism) to those who do not assert. This goes against, not only the Wikipedia principle of assuming good faith, but also the principle of simplicity (Ockham's Razor) — a principle basic to all rational discourses. PJ 09:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-semitism POV 

message: She is an Associate Professor of Statistics and who cares what she things.  Removing link.
:Cares what she things? Whoever you are, you're funny! —J M Rice 10:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosma Shalizi 

message: A little psychedelic, no? Are there any normal pictures of him in the public domain?
Sorry, I think it's a fantastic picture of him...  1000 Faces of Joseph Campbell!
--1000Faces 01:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: This section needs references before it can be restored to the article - otherwise it reads as original research. -Classicfilms 13:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tim Miller

message: Thankyou ClassicFilms for your welcome and general suggestions. But I'd like you to address one specific question for me please. If you want to move this discussion to the Campbell discussion page that's fine - but I am asking you - since you are the one who seems interested in the section of which we speak. 
Why would you have a 'for' and 'against' listing of books and articles? Why would you have it for this scholar and no other?
It looks like this:
*Books and articles Critical of Campbell
*1.)Brendan Gill
*2.)General
*Defense of Campbell
*1.)Maggie Macary
And then, explain to me why the general references you added would be listed under the books and articles Critical of Campbell? Why weren't they put above under general references? 
Tojagi 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, as I mentioned above, your suggestion for re-organization of this section - which you discuss above - sounds fine to me. I never had a problem with getting rid of this way of organizing the texts. My argument lay with the removal of texts - unless there is a very good reason to do so, or group consensus, I don't believe that texts should be removed from the bibliography. However, I don't see a problem with getting rid of these headers and simply creating a long general list which does not qualify the texts. This is just my opinion, however. You probably want to move this discussion to the general talk page for the article and put your suggestions to all of the people who edit the page. -Classicfilms 20:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Campbell 

message: I’m still talking to you Classicfilms. 
You graciously suggested I mind three of the five pillars of Wiki:
*1.) Consensus 
*2.) Neutrality
*3.) Attribution
We can wait for a consensus. tick tick tick… But given the current condition of the section of General references, and given the length of time it’s been in that condition, I wonder how many people are really interested. That’s why I’m talking to you. You were interested enough to delete my revisions. 
As far as neutrality goes, I’d like to know if anything I have proposed or any of the edits I’ve made that you deleted have in any way indicated that I’m not interested in neutrality. You said you think the Brendan Gill articles should stay. But in my revamp of the section that you deleted I included the Brendan Gill articles. Not only that, I included other articles on the matter of Joseph Campbell’s alleged anti-Semitism that are not currently listed. I really don’t see neutrality as an issue in this discussion. We’re talking about quality. In particular, were talking about the justification for listing a ‘for’ and ‘against’ bibliography under general references. 
And as for attribution, I said the Brendan Gill articles were not very scholarly – that’s all. I didn’t say they should not be included. I just thought it odd the way they were presented – listed under articles Critical of Campbell, and then being the only ones listed. And it’s even more odd that the defense of Campbell was a defense of the charge of anti-Semitism, because that was only one of several of Brendan Gill’s charges. 
And I never said that any of the other general reference books were unscholarly. Of course they’re scholarly. Nor did I think in terms of politics when I left them out of my revamp of the section that you deleted.  I just figured, if these books were important to other editors, they would be re-listed. They could be re-listed under the title categories I gave – or under a new title categories. You did that to me when I was revamping Campbell’s bibliography. ‘member that? You started a new section titled books edited by Joseph Campbell which I then added to. I don’t expect my edits to be etched in stone. People always want to tinker. But – we’ve got to get the categories right first you see. 
You say it would be best to have one list with all of the general references and not have to ‘qualify’ certain ones. It’s a good point. I admit, it’s a judgment call. But I think it’s a division that we can live with. There’s a big difference between books that are commentaries and critiques of Campbell’s work, such as The Joseph Campbell Phenomenon, Paths to the Power of Myth or Joseph Campbell and the New Age and books about African Mythology, Fairy Tales, or The Heroine in Modern Literature that mentions Campbell’s work, and builds upon it. 
I can see that, under the guidelines I just proposed, numbers (8) and (9) on my list are suspect. But they really are all about Campbell, from beginning to end. 
Of course, it has nothing to do with the quality of the book. It has to do with just how and to what degree Campbell is represented. The Harris and Plaztner’s Classical Mythology book is a great textbook on Classical mythology, but I don’t think it belongs in the Campbell article - anywhere. 
The Pearson and Pope book on the Female Hero is not generally about Campbell or his work. From the preface, 
“[This book] is a work of myth criticism that explores patterns of female heroism in American and British literature with emphasis on 19th and 20th century novels. The great works on the hero – such as Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand faces, Dorothy Norman’s The Hero: Myth/Image/Symbol, and Lord Raglan’s The Hero: A study in Tradition, Myth and Drama – all begin with the assumption that the hero is male. This prevailing bias has given the impression that in literature and life, heroism is a male phenomenon. This work begins with the assumption that women are and have been heroic, but that the culture has often been unable to recognize female heroism….
…This book traces the stages of the journey of the female hero, concentrating on those elements of the female hero’s quest that differ from those of her male counterpart.”
But this book is not ‘The Heroine with a thousand Faces’. Joseph Campbell’s name is referenced six times in this 278 page book and Hero-Faces thrice. It isn’t like the ten books listed above in which every chapter focuses on Campbell’s life or work. This book, The Female Hero, is specifically about the female hero in modern literature. 
However, I don’t see the harm with listing books as a secondary reference that deal with issues that might be of interest to anyone interested in Campbell. Campbell’s idea’s radiate into different directions and the ‘heroine’s quest’ is just one. Steven Jones' Fairy Tale book has a little more Campbell in it – but not much. And I have these two books in front of me as I speak.
I especially like the Fairy Tale book. 
Erikson’s book is not in a library near me, but I’ve got this review from the web:
 
“This book considers one of the most vigorously debated issues in mythological studies. Is the ‘monomyth’ a patriarchal construct, designed to perpetrate phallocentric systems which privilege some and exclude others, or is it an archetypal roadmap for life, outlining a path to enlightenment, available to any who have the courage to pursue it? ...
http://www.mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=6526&pc=9
Campbell’s Hero-Faces was his most popular book but it was one of many. And it did not focus on modern or post modern literature. And if it promotes a patriarchal view, that is simply incidental. Joseph Campbell didn’t sit down with the idea of writing a patriarchal thesis. What I’m trying to get across here is just how much these books I’m speaking of are tangential to Campbell’s work. The same is true I think of The Hero with an African Face. It’s an offshoot of Campbell’s work. 
On External Links
I’m glad you told me to read the external links instruction page, Classicfilms. ‘To read it before I try to add links.’ Because the very first thing it says is (1) Links should be kept to a minimum. It isn’t so much that I want to add links – but delete most of them and replace them with higher quality links. I like the idea of fewer – and higher quality. Right now it looks like Gramma’s attic. The reason I had so many links in my first attempt that you rejected is that, just like with the book reference list, someone who put them there might complain, I thought – and I was trying to work with it a bit. 
The third instruction for Wiki external links says to avoid having several links to the same Website. The entire Footnote section can go. Of nine links there are two to the Joseph Campbell Foundation and three to the Pacifica Graduate Institute – both of which are already listed below in “External Links”. There are two book links, (Hero-Faces and Transformations of Myth through Time), which belong as ISBNs in the bibliography. 
Under the section External Links – The New World Library and Litweb doesn’t provide any new information that can’t be part of this article. The Joseph Campbell Foundation and the Pacifica Graduate school sites will both have short biographies and book lists. I don’t see a need for the TV and Movie links. These sites don’t say anything special about Campbell. Can’t we just do an ISBN for these films as they are listed in the ‘Films/DVDs of Joseph Campbell’ section? 
I know of two active discussion groups on Joseph Campbell - at Yahoo and at the JCF. The Yahoo site that is listed is not one of them. It is not active. 
The articles and interviews are great but I’d like to add to them. There are a few sites on Joseph Campbell and related topics that are not terribly commercial. And I have a list of interesting Campbell critiques from the Web that I’d like to add. 
All in all, I’d like to revamp the whole External Links section. Fewer, and of higher quality – that’s my motto going forward. 
I’ve seen all the articles you contribute to in Wiki ,Classicfilms, and I know it’s a thankless job – with no pay. Hats off to you. But as much as I love Joseph Campbell and Wiki, I hate to see references laid out like a garage sale. That’s all. 
Thx Tojagi 22:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and revamp as proposed above. -Classicfilms 01:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, that's fine. Great job, thanks for your input and effort in improving this article. -Classicfilms 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On References and External Links 

message: Noirceuil, 
   
A “critical” essay may be either negative, positive, or a combination. Anyone who reads the title of the essay “Joseph Campbell and the Power of Deceit” will be aware that it is a negative critical essay. And after reading the title page of Tom Snyder’s essay they will be aware that this is an opinion from traditional Christianity. I don’t know what advantage there is to showing a link to “evangelical”. I think you mean to let the reader know that this is a view from traditional Christianity – which seems rather obvious to me in just one click.  I suppose someone could come along and put a link to “new age” next to James Hillman’s name in the same list of critical essays. It doesn’t seem necessary to me. But it is accurate.  
But to put the label “evangelical” next to Robert A. Segal’s name is, I think,  a misrepresentation. I’ve read his book, ‘Joseph Campbell: An Introduction’ and I don’t see it as promoting traditional religion. Segal is Campbell’s most outspoken critic on Campbell’s theory of myth. In my opinion, he best  represents the negative criticism from academia. Just as Tom Snyder represents the negative criticism from the ‘Christian Right’. And Brendan Gill’s negative criticism is criticism coming from a personal – sort of a street view. (As though coming from a late night radio talk show host.) 
To give you an idea of Segal’s criticism here is a scathing attack from a book titled, Sacred Narrative, ed. Alan Dundes, (1984)
P265      “In summary so far, Campbell vaunts a number of bold claims about myth but fails to substantiate any of them. He asserts that myth, correctly understood, provides an antidote to the turmoil of modern society, but he fails to prove that the degree of turmoil in modern society is unprecedented; that modern society is in turmoil because modern man finds life meaningless; that modern man finds life meaningless because he has no myths; that myths alone give meaning to life; that modern man has no myths because his belief in science precludes his acceptance of them at the literal level; that the real meaning of myth is not, however; literal but symbolic; that the symbolic meaning of myth is psychological; that the psychological meaning of myth is Jungian; that when this is understood, myth accommodates science and so is acceptable to modern man; and that when accepted, myth gives meaning to life and can thereby allay the turmoil of modern society. Instead of arguments, Campbell makes assertions. 
As irksome as Campbell’s dogmatism is, even more irksome is his own violation of it. His assertion that the meaning of myth is symbolic he never qualifies, but he does qualify his seemingly uncompromising pronouncement that its symbolic meaning is psychological, whatever the particular psychology involved. Because his qualifications occur throughout his writings, and frequently within the same book, no change in his thought can account for them.” 
- Robert A. Segal, Sacred Narrative Edited by Alan Dundes (1984)
In the essay in question, The Romantic Appeal of Joseph Campbell, Segal refers to Campbell as an evangelist. “…no other theorist, not even Jung, is as much an evangelist for myth as Campbell.”
But the general theme of the Segal’s essay is comparing what he is calling a ‘classical’ interpretation or analysis of myth to Campbell’s ‘romantic’ interpretation or appeal.  The ‘classical’ is more academic. The ‘romantic’ is a more popular and less rigorous approach to myth. But it has little to do with a preferred religion/mythology such as Christianity. Just because this essay is presented by a Christian organization is no reason to label the essay as evangelical or to mislead people into thinking Robert A. Segal is a spokesperson for the religious right. 
But Tom Snyder certainly is. 
It would be nice to include in the article somewhere an unbiased explanation of how Campbell plays into the current culture wars between Christian Fundamentalists and New Agers. (Or Cultural Creatives if you like.) I know - from talking to people at the JCF for several years the sense of the division. Many people feel Campbell represents their side against those people; that is – those Fundamentalist Christians. It seems to be a perennial topic.  But I’m not clever enough to know how to present the division. I’m thinking it would be a section titled something like, “The social impact of Campbell’s work after the popularity of the PBS show The Power of Myth" – or just ‘Campbell’s Social impact.’ 
Tojagi 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evangelical