Talk:Joseph Campbell/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Joseph Campbell. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

Data first. I've been listening to some Campbell lectures lately, and it seems to me his ideas/concepts are quite abstract and easy to misinterpret. So before criticizing his ideas/methods it would be necessary to clearly document and get some consensus on what those ideas/methods are in the first place (IMO).

Shouldn't The Campbellian View of Mythology be merged here? It seems to cover the same subject and there's room enough here. JoaoRicardo 21:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that some criticism (and defense of those criticisms) needs to be added. Personally, I find Campbell to be a complete crackpot and ceased to be impressed by his ideas after high school, and I don't think the article should give the impression that Campbell's ideas are universally accepted or that they have to critics.

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)

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)

Before we loose sight of what we are doing . . . I think it is better to present the facts in an encyclopedic fashion than proceed as though we are writing book reviews. Present his theories and ideas as he seems to have seen them - if you want to write a critique maybe Billboard Magazine is more appropriate. People come here I think to find out what things are and who people are. Let them make up their own minds what to believe of nietche or kante etc etc.

I think those who disagreed with him are important parts of his story and links to them are appropriate - lets tell those details elsewhere, however. Clean - up is probably best approached by removing extraneous details to their own place. That way we can avoid bias a bit better?? --Dayorkmd 23:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC) D York

I think we should begin work on creating a list of 'influences' and who he 'influences'. The wikipedia articles on novelists does this.... why not other intellectuals? for an example, look under the portrait of Franz Kafka, Albert Camus, Fyodor Dostoevsky, etc. They all interconnect. It's really great...

"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)

No, it isn't POV. (S)he's clearly saying that Campbell commits the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority, in which someone wrongfully assumes someone is an authority on something. In this case, (having read Campbell myself) I can vouge for the fact that Campbell treats quotes of famous thinkers as if they were proven fact, basing conclusions on quotes as if they were proper premises.Maprovonsha172 17:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the case, the statement is long gone from the page now.

Please note: this page on Joseph Campbell has been plagerised dircetly from http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Joseph+Campbell —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.84.52.118 (talk • contribs) .

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)

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)

I think the neutrality of this edit works best. I agree with this edit. Having said that, I also would like to point out that Lucas has said numerous times that he was inspired by Campbell's work for the entire Star Wars saga. So the original statement, though a little ambiguously written, was accurate.

(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)

I'm not sure about the veracity of this:

"Campbell is considered by some to be one of the most famous autodidacts, or 'self-educators', and is sometimes seen as a poster child for this way of learning. After completing his master's degree, Campbell decided not to go forward with his plans to earn a doctorate; instead, he went into the woods in upstate New York, reading deeply for five years. According to poet and author Robert Bly, a friend of Campbell, Campbell developed a systematic program of reading nine hours a day. According to Campbell, this is, in a sense, where his real education took place, and the time when he began to develop his unique view on the nature of life."

The reason I am skeptical is that the Joseph Campbell Foundation website (www.jcf.org) has this to say:

"When Joe returned from Europe late in August of 1929, he was at a crossroad, unable to decide what to do with his life. With the onset of the Great Depression, he found himself with no hope of obtaining a teaching job; and so he spent most of the next two years reconnecting with his family, reading, renewing old acquaintances, and writing copious entries in his journal. Then, late in 1931, after exploring and rejecting the possibility of a doctoral program or teaching job at Columbia, he decided, like countless young men before and since, to “hit the road,” to undertake a cross-country journey in which he hoped to experience “the soul of America” and, in the process, perhaps discover the purpose of his life.... His travels next carried him north to San Francisco, then back south to Pacific Grove, where he spent the better part of a year in the company of Carol and John Steinbeck and marine biologist Ed Ricketts. During this time, he wrestled with his writing, discovered the poems of Robinson Jeffers, first read Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West, and wrote to some seventy colleges and universities in an unsuccessful attempt to secure employment. Finally, he was offered a teaching position at the Canterbury School. He returned to the East Coast, where he endured an unhappy year as a Canterbury housemaster, the one bright moment being when he sold his first short story (“Strictly Platonic”) to Liberty magazine. Then, in 1933, he moved to a cottage without running water on Maverick Road in Woodstock NY, where he spent a year reading and writing. In 1934, he was offered and accepted a position in the literature department at Sarah Lawrence College, a post he would retain for thirty-eight years."

It could be possible that both the current account and this account are true. But even if that is the case, I think the article could be improved if someone wants to add this information.

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)

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)

Ever since I heard this garbage, going back to some idiots from The New Republic asserting it on C-Span, a few years after Campbell's death (of course), I've been infuriated whenever I've heard it. Campbell criticised Judaism the way he criticised Catholicism, as a scholar. I inserted a little note in the Criticism section citing Campbell's assertion that religious criticism was his job. (Though I couldn't cite it "page and verse," those familiar with his video lectures will remember this.) I wish there were some way of more forcefully debunking this vile canard in conformity with NPOV. The references to the Gill piece and to this professor Segal really don't go beyond the fact of the accusations. In fact, the Segal quote—"Later in the article Segal also suggests that this view of Campbell stems, at least in part, from his tendency to critique aspects of different religions"—is a blatant example of begging the question. Is this really up to Wikipedia standard?

Also, what's this "National University" that the latest Criticism comes from? Looks like some kind of diploma mill. Anyway there's no "Tom Snyder" listed in the faculty. Furthermore, the Website containing this guy's "criticism" (answers.org) is a religious "apologetics" outfit that doesn't conform to Wikipedia sourcing standards. So I've deleted the whole thing as bogus.

Until the detractors can come up with more specific criticisms than the accusation itself, I propose that, barring outright deletion, at least the section name be changed. Perhaps "Controversy"? Personally, I'd prefer something like "Calumny" ;) —J M Rice 10:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've renamed the section, "Controversy". -Classicfilms 14:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. It will be interesting to see if the Campbell bashers can actually come up with an example of anti-Semitism. Two possibilites come to mind, which someone so inclined might pounce on:

• When Campbell was talking about migrations into Mesopotamia he mentioned two groups, the Aryans, "who brought agriculture and the chariot," and the Semites, "who brought the camel". If one were so inclined they might read the latter reference as "patronizing." And of course they might willfully or ignorantly misread "Aryan" in the Nazi sense.
• Campbell's story of his run-in, as a student, with Martin Buber. Campbell asked Buber if there wasn't an equivalence between Yahweh and the gods of other cultures (he was more specififc but I forget which others he pointed to), and Buber said, "You don't mean to compare..." Campbell comments disgustedly, "Well, that did it for me." He then tells of how the moderator had to intervene. "Of course I was comparing. That's what I do!" i.e., comparing religions was his job.

Another of Campbell's criticisms was of the Old Testament's "alienation" of man from God, symbolized by the "Expulsion from Eden" myth. But again, this was a scholarly criticism, the remedy for which Campbell found not in received Christianity, which accepts this alienation, but in the Apocryphal, gnostic and hermetic scriptures, which teach the immanence of the divine.

Of course one can debate the merits, but to infer some kind of anti-Semitic bias from examples like the above is absurd on its face, though maybe not so absurd for someone eager to bash Campbell. Perhaps Gill's personal encounters with Campbell, rather than anything the latter wrote or uttered publicly, are behind the indictment, in which case Gill should have cited these encounters specifically, and the others in their turn, for anti-Semitism is a serious charge that must be bassd on more than supposition or hearsay. —J M Rice 11:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's put this in perspective. I'm a gay man. Needless to say, I object to the portrayal of Yahweh as homophobic in the Old and New Testaments. So I criticize it. And of course when I do, it's easy for a fundamentalist Christian or Jew to say "oh you're just anti-Christian or anti-Jew." Um, no. I have nothing against Christians, Jews, Muslims or anyone else. I strongly support religious freedom. But that doesn't mean their religion or culture is perfect and beyond criticism.

It's a very common reactionary response by defensive people to turn criticism around on the critic when they don't want to face it.

Having read numerous Campbell books, I strongly believe this is what is happening. Campbell loved mythology and he loved diversity, he didn't hate any group of people. All he did is point out the obvious - that there are a lot of religions in the world and all of them have strengths and weaknesses. He didn't believe Abrahamic religions were as suited to our contemporary societies as they were thousands of years ago. We now have freedom and democracy in many countries, we have a better understanding of sexual and racial diversity and the equality of women, the ethical problems with slavery, polygamy, and animal sacrifice - and all of this puts our modern society at odds with the society and values depicted in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament - not because the Hebrews were bad people, but because their lifestyles would be inappropriate for us in the modern age.

And most people, if they were thinking clearly, would agree with that. Most people don't want to sacrifice animals, own slaves, trade women as property, or stone homosexuals to death (most people, not all, unfortunately).

I've never heard a valid, reputable, academic assertion based on any evidence that Campbell harbored bigotry toward Jews. I believe these charges are all reactionary and defensive actions taken by people who want to believe their religion or culture is superior to all others, and resent that Campbell did his part to deflate their delusions of grandeur.

And this article doesn't really give any evidence either, it just mentions that the accusation exists. So I think the anti-semitism section should be axed.Rglong 18:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Why is there no image of Joseph Campbell?

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)

American writer Tim Miller has cited Campbell's work as an essential early influence on his own poetry, which generally centers around mythology and religion. He admits now that what is useful and most valuable in Campbell's work aren't his theories of how or why myths came to be, but rather his retellings of the myths themselves, and his passion for the importance of myth and religion in modern society. Miller credits Campbell with, at the very least, pointing his way to a direct experience of the sacred texts and stories, as well as introducing him to the work of other scholars, Mircea Eliade among them. Miller's long poem-in-progress To the House of the Sun [1] is in many ways directly related to Campbell's early influence on his writing.

Hello Classicfilms,

You can tell I’m struggling with just navigating Wikipedia and its coding and editing process. I’m new to Wiki, but I am not new to Joseph Campbell. And you seem to be the self-appointed editor – and a rather tenacious one I might add – editing my edits on the Joseph Campbell Bibliography before I even finished editing. You’re a good watchdog. So I figure if I can enlist you to my way of thinking, you could ‘protect’ my edits against others.

Of course, there’s no guarantee my edits will warrant protection, but my revamping of the books, audio, and video of Joseph Campbell seemed to pass your inspection without too much trouble. I’m not angry with you. I’m just frustrated with the fact that the ‘General References’ have remained the way they are.

Let me tell you what the problem is with General References.

Since when do scholars and commentators neatly ‘line up’ for or against another scholar’s work? When you look up Carl Jung in Wikipedia you don’t find books and articles listed ‘for’ or ‘against’ Carl Jung! Nor would you see it at articles on Karl Marx, Franz Boas, Friedrich Nietzsche, James Hillman, Alan Watts, Huston Smith, or Mircea Eliade… It just doesn’t happen – ever.

And even if you were going to make an exception in this particular case, I’m not sure how it would be done. In Kenneth L. Golden’s book Uses of Comparative Mythology: Essays on the Work of Joseph Campbell. (1992) there is an essay by Robert A. Segal who is one of Campbell’s most outspoken critics. And it is negative. But most of the essays are ‘pro-Campbell’ so to speak - or else neutral. Are you going to pick and choose essays out of books and magazines at random to accentuate a polarity? Most critiques are just that; critiques. They aren’t wholly negative or wholly positive.

You have a category titled “Books and Articles critical of Campbell”.

And then only two ‘articles’ are listed by a man who wasn’t even a scholar of myth. He was a friend of Joseph Campbell’s. The Brendan Gill articles are a very general attack and they are not terribly scholarly, and the second one is not completely negative since it includes three authors who are answering charges made in the first article.

Then, under the heading Defense of Campbell you have a single piece of a blog by Maggie Macary who is investigating one particular aspect of Joseph Campbell’s personality; his alleged anti-Semitism.

The concept of a ‘for’ and ‘against’ Campbell listing doesn’t make sense. Some books or articles are critical of his ‘theory of myth’ or his ‘hero cycle’ or some other aspect of his scholarship. Are you going to list them right along with articles that argue about Campbell's alleged anti-Semitism?

Of course, we’d like to point people toward negative criticism as efficiently as possible. But the place to do that, if it is done, would be under the section, “Criticism of Joseph Campbell” not under ‘General References’

Furthermore, under the heading Books and articles critical of Joseph Campbell you have a sub-title “general” for general references. Only one of the articles, the last one, written by Robert A. Segal is ‘critical’ of Joseph Campbell. Some people might construe the Ellwood book as negative of Campbell. I didn’t think it was – though I didn’t really think it was positive. It seems odd to me that while people have tinkered with other parts of the article no one has changed this obvious flaw of listing general references under “Books and articles Critical of Campbell”.

But really, the whole concept of having books and articles for and against a thinker seems weird to me to begin with.

I suppose, if anti-Semitism is the issue, and if that’s what people are really interested in, you could have separate section listing of articles that address this particular issue. But even then, I don’t see why they should be divided up into ‘for’ or ‘against’ articles.

The next problem I have with ‘General references’ is some of the books listed.

Harris and Platzner. Classical Mythology: Images and Insights is a fine overveiw of Classical Mythology. But why would it be listed in general references for a Joseph Campbell article? This book is over 1000 pages. There are two references to Joseph Campbell, on page 48 and on page 304. Sure, it’s related to Campbell’s work. But I could easily list a hundred books on mythology that might mention Campbell’s name.

What’s needed, after listing the work that Campbell had a hand in creating, is a category that lists books and articles that deal directly and primarily with Campbell, his life, his work, or both. Not spin-offs. There are tons of spin-offs. I just read a book titled A Myth in Action: The Heroic Life of Audie Murphy In it, the author compares a ‘real life’ hero to the ‘Hero cycle’ as put forth by Campbell. But I wouldn’t list it as a primary source for Campbell. It’s a spin-off - or more precisely a work that uses Campbell's theories for a specific purpose. Building on his work and perhaps taking it in a new direction. And that’s how I see The Hero with an African Face and The Fairy Tale: The Magic Mirror of Imagination and Pearson & Pope’s The Female Hero in American and British Literature

These ten books deal directly and primarily with the life or work of Joseph Campbell.

• 1.) Segal, Robert. Joseph Campbell an Introduction, (1987)
• 2.) Larsen, Stephen and Larsen, Robin. Joseph Campbell: A Fire in the Mind. (1991)
• 3.) Golden, Kenneth L. Uses of Comparative Mythology: Essays on the Work of Joseph Campbell (1992)
• 4.) Manganaro, Marc. Myth, Rhetoric, and the Voice of Authority: A Critique of Frazer, Eliot, Frye, and Campbell. (1992)
• 5.) Madden, Lawrence, Editor. The Joseph Campbell Phenomenon: Implications for the Contemporary Church (1992)
• 6.) Noel, Daniel C., Editor. Paths to the Power of Myth (1994)
• 7.) Snyder, Tom. Myth Conceptions: Joseph Campbell and the New Age (1995)
• 8.) Henderson, Mary. Star Wars: The Magic of Myth (1997)
• 9.) Vogler, Christopher. The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure For Writers. (1998)
• 10.) Ellwood, Robert. The Politics of Myth: A Study of C. G. Jung, Mircea Eliade, and Joseph Campbell (1999)

The only book in this list that could possibly be debated about is Mary Henderson’s ‘Star Wars: The Magic of Myth”. But after I went to my local library and read this book I had to admit that every chapter follows right through Campbell’s ‘Hero Cycle’ with Campbell quotes and explanations. There’s just too much Campbell to leave it off the list - imho.

So my proposal is to have a title ‘Books and articles about Joseph Campbell’ – or about the ‘Life and Work of Joseph Campbell’ and then a category for ‘spin-offs’ or ‘secondary sources’ or whatever you might call them to list those books that use Campbell but are not primarily about Campbell. That way people have a place to put their favorite Campbell inspired book. But that list, by the examples I’ve seen, could grow to be very, very long.

I think the ‘external links’ needs to be revamped as well – but I’d better get your feedback on this first for fear I’m wasting my time.

Thx Tojagi 04:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tojagi and welcome to the Wikipedia. Thank you for your long and very interesting post, though I'm thinking that it might be better placed on the talk page for Joseph Campbell since a number of editors have worked on the page. Of the books and references you list above, I added some and some were contributed by other editors - as many editors have worked on the page.

Generally, when radical changes are made to a section, reasons are listed at the time. And I believe that you offer very valid reasons above. I believe that your ideas for re-organization are great and it sounds as if you would like to add some valuable sources. My previous objection lay in the fact that existing material was removed without offering a reason why. You have done so above and, as I said, you have made some very valid points.

In order to present a balanced point of view, many articles in the Wikipedia offer a controversies section if a controversy was associated with the topic. Because of the controversy that followed upon its publication, the Gill article and the references to it should probably remain. The texts by Erickson, Jones, Manganaro, Larsen, and Pearson are all valuable (and scholarly) general additions. In general, it's a good idea when editing a page in the Wikipedia to justify removing existing information. If you can provide solid justification on the talk page for the article, then it is usually fine. As for external links, the Wikipedia offers very useful guidelines located here: Wikipedia:External links. You might want to review this page before adding links.

Other than that, you might want to review the general guidelines for the Wikipedia which are located on the page Wikipedia:Five pillars. Of these, it might be useful to pay attention to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Consensus though these are not the only useful pages.

Good luck with your future edits and I look forward to reading your contributions. -Classicfilms 05:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ok – Classicfilms, you're not the spokes person for this article. Would any one else like to answer the question I asked ClassicFilms? Comments?

My proposal is that we change ‘General References’ to

Books and Articles on the Life and Work of Joseph Campbell

• 1.) Books
• 2.) Articles

General References

• 1.) Books
• 2.) Campbell-Gimbutas Library

And if someone wants a list that deals directly with Campbell and anti-Semitism they can be listed at the end of the ‘Controversy’ section.

Tojagi 00:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tojagi (talk • contribs) 22:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Go ahead and revamp as proposed above. -Classicfilms 01:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

One of my quirks, other than putting the copyright date in parenthesis, is not to list the publisher. I know it looks professional to do so – but really – knowing the name of the publisher has never helped me locate a book or told me anything special about the book. Of course, if you tried to leave the name of the publisher out in a publication you’d be sued. But this is Wiki. And it’s especially useless when there’s an ISBN to locate the book. The Author, the Title, and the Copyright date, seems sufficient to me. And of course the name of the periodical if it’s an article.

Tojagi 19:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. Great job, thanks for your input and effort in improving this article. -Classicfilms 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think not