Matei's Reviews > The Hero With a Thousand Faces

The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
14424167
's review

it was ok
bookshelves: non-fiction
Read 2 times. Last read February 8, 2017 to February 19, 2017.

2/5 fundamentally flawed. In attempting to show the general patterns of mythology and their significance ( for which he relied on psychoanalysis, which was horribly misguided: Campbell notices himself that analyzing myths as scientific/historic artifacts is wrong; why should a psychoanalytical approach be right?) he presents a ton of examples for every stage, yet in doing so, removes them from their inherent context. Of course a lot of stories will point towards the same thing if we force the same meaning unto them ( I obviously can't speak for all the examples given, but for the ones I do know something about, I can see how he is twisting/ignoring their inherent point to force them into an universal pattern). Because of this, this feels very fragmented, like I was just reading a collection of snippets from various mythologies. I would have appreciated more explanations and interpretations from Campbell, a clearer presentation of the mythological superstructure and its implications, but these were hardly in the book at all. Which is a shame: the best parts of the book are when he ties things together and actually does a comparative study, rather than simple iterating through stories.
10 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Hero With a Thousand Faces.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

December 2, 2013 – Shelved
December 2, 2013 – Shelved as: to-read
February 8, 2017 – Started Reading
February 8, 2017 – Started Reading
Finished Reading
February 19, 2017 – Shelved as: non-fiction
February 19, 2017 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-2 of 2 (2 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Pinkyivan (new)

Pinkyivan It seems that he has accounted for form, but not the content.


Matei Pinkyivan wrote: "It seems that he has accounted for form, but not the content."

That's a good way to put it, but I think he would disagree with you. He accounts for content in so far as he brutalizes it to fit the form.


back to top