>>24855566
No, it's absolute hogwash. Despite supposedly being a "universal" story structure, there isn't a single notable example of a story that actually follows every step of the monomyth in the order laid out by Campbell. Even artificial plots DESIGNED to follow it like Star Wars skip steps or do them out of Campbell's order.

>>24855570
Its an abstract template not a literal one, no story follows the exact order of anything?

>>24855578
>It's an abstract template
And that's why it's useless as a theory of a universal myth. Yes, you can find similarities between ANY two stories, no matter how disparate, if you isolate certain features and ignore the dissimilar elements. That doesn't tell you anything useful other than that all stories (and indeed, all art) have certain basic characteristics in common. But if you actually analyze the structure of the plot of say, The Odyssey in any detail (a supposedly archetypal example of the "monomyth") you find that it really has very little in common with The Hero's Journey as described by Campbell.

>>24855594
Then find a statistically objective analysis and compare

No. But you might want to, if you're a writer.

>>24855570
-10/10

>>24855594
>it's useless as a theory of a universal myth.
Try reading the fucking book, shitface.

>>24855741
@grok is this true?

>>24855743
It is not a statement and therefore has no truth value. Hope that helps.

>>24855566
I just really like it desu, it's like the platonic ideal of a story, not that every story is like it, but that it's the source of what a story is really supposed to be.

>>24855643
>objective analysis
>in art