Talk:Joseph Campbell

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.

Gill article

In the article The Faces of Joseph Campbell (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=3906) 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)

POV

"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)

Star Wars

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)