/lit/ - Literature

Define credible.

>>2803975
Read the damn book if you're so curious.

A discerning reader should be able to figure out soon enough.

Credible? It depends on what suits your boat, like with anything. Read it.

The book is interesting, but I don't think it's a great book. It's an interview and the questions just make Campbell go round and round, though I wouldn't say it's his fault.

I think Man and his Symbols by Jung and his colleagues cover up the idea of myths and archetypes in a much better way. It is extremely acessible.

>>2803981

Yes because second opinions are completely useless to a discerning reader who's totally not full of himself

>>2804028
lol why do my posts make people so insecure

>>2804030

>>2803981
I'm asking because I know that masses flock to the pseudo-intellectual stuff like Coelho and that I wouldn't get valuable opinion from mainstream sources and I'm not educated enough about the subject to distinguish truth from well-presented bullshit.
>>2804013
I'm actually going to read Hero with Thousand Faces.

The guy, yeah, but that's not really a good book, like he said it's mostly a poor interview.
If you want to read his stuff, try
The Hero with a thousand faces.
I'd recommend some Jung too.

>>2804044
>>2804044
>cohelo
>psuedo intellectual

lol

>>2804044
Dude, I don't think Coelho is even worthy of being called a pseudo-intellectual, he is a pseudo-writer if anything. Fear not, because Campbell has nothing to do with anything of that.

Except I don't think you should approach the subject going for "the truth", because it's not what it's about. Campbell makes an interpretation of human myths, he is going to show you how myths are analogue to human efforts in anything, that we treat our own lives as a myth. The thousand faces of the hero is also our own.

It's not bullshit.

Bullshit is what those who systematically build stories do when they want to be the next George Lucas or J. K. Rowling. That is bullshit: making a method of what he says.