Critically reflect on the 17 steps of the hero's journey:

While the hero’s journey may be the simplest way to project character growth and has the clearest story structure, I would argue that the hero’s journey doesn’t necessarily make the most compelling stories. In a sense, it’s so recognizable that it makes every story you read predictable even if the plot and events are new, creative, and thrilling. Ultimately you still know the ending. The hero’s journey is very specific to one narrative and doesn’t leave room for different types of protagonists or plot lines. For example, a hero’s journey leaves no room to learn about the villain, observer, sidekick, etc. I was reading people’s comments on a website about this topic and someone said something that I found particularly insightful. They said, “it reduces the world to simple binaries: good and evil, victory and failure. If all stories followed the hero’s journey writers wouldn’t be able to express a nuanced perspective of the world.” Another thing that I find interesting about the hero’s journey is how many more of these stories are written about men. Typically (at least in the books I have read) when there is a heroine protagonist, there is more seeking from within rather than going on a journey to find, fix or solve something. In fact, as I researched, I found that there is an entirely different philosophy for the feminine journey (created by Maureen Murdock in 1990).

Not only does the hero’s journey seem to be limited to the male experience but it also tends to lack stories about oppression or marginalized groups. There are endless examples of the “white savior” or savior from a dominant culture in these narratives. Examples of this include: the white woman in Orange is the New Black plays the trojan horse or gateway character to other representations. In the show, Modern Family, the only characters that lack showing physical affection on screen are the gay couple. The white savior is common in these stories but so is the “white tourist” who is placed in another marginalized culture and typically adapts fast. While this narrative is meant to change stereotypes, it is an unfair assumption that switching cultures is a possibility, which, for those who aren’t privileged, it isn’t. 

The hero’s journey is also inherently sexist. The women tend to appear in these stories in one of two ways. Either as a helpless, disempowered damsel in distress or as an evil temptress that the men must conquer. According to Mary Sharatt, Maureen Murdock, the woman who wrote about the heroine's journey, was actually one of Joseph Cambell’s students. In response to her writing and questioning of where women fit into this monomyth, he said, “Women don’t need to make the journey. In the whole mythological journey, the woman is there. All she has to do is realize that she’s the place people are trying to get to.” I think this quote is really relevant to why so many people criticize the ways of the hero’s journey. The creator himself is obviously innately sexist. According to the Atlantic, he also says, “She may be the muse, the grail, or the goddess. She may be the source of being, or she may be the bottomless death. But the adventure itself, with its conquering of monsters and quelling of demons–that’s for the blokes.” This further proves Cambell’s sexist beliefs and mindset.

While I personally believe that the hero’s journey has endless sexist, racist, classist, etc. problems, some would argue that there are some benefits of the hero’s journey. Some truly enjoy the hero’s journey because they think it demonstrates that success is possible for anyone. There’s a reason so many famous pieces in pop culture follow the hero’s journey. It’s inspirational. I might argue that it’s particularly inspirational to the white-male-dominated America we live in(contributing to its popularity in media). Nonetheless, the hero’s journey is a master structure of the plot, character development, and motivation.