The collective unconscious theory is, in effect, a mystical mirror-world version of #sociology. Among other things, it posits the existence of #archetypes - that is, through the unperceived connections everyone has to everyone else, we inherit common patterns of thought, or images, or symbols. If the collective unconscious is the cause of rhyming stories and history, archetypes are the effect.

I needn't explain again how the Monomyth, as an analytical tool, prioritises archetypes over the actual texts being analysed. It will not tell you what makes the Aenid and Watership Down different stories, but what it will tell you is that, deep down, they are the same stories, sharing the same archetypes, because of that pesky collective unconscious at work. It's pure tautology.

When Campbell wrote, "there is no final system for the interpretation of myths," whatever his intention, what has manifested in the #Monomyth is its structural opposite - *"there is no alternative for the interpretation of stories."* You can break or subvert every trope in the Monomyth's cycle, and its photo negative, its afterimage, yet stains your eyelids. It insists upon itself that it's impossible for the psyche to come up with anything different.

"We are incapable of telling stories any different. It is impossible to imagine new ways of storytelling. There is no alternative." Where have I heard these before? Suffice it to say that, insofar as we're concerned with the success and spread of ideas, the study of myth has continued to let conservative bias go unchallenged, believing this to be apolitical; the left, so we're to believe, has yet to offer a lucid countertheory, a challenger in the same weight class.

So, come up with something different! But what? And how? McDaniel, as a Greek and Roman historian, writes:

> "If you want to know what the Homeric epics meant to ancient Greek people, you can't find the answer just by reading the epics themselves without any context and coming up with a meaning on your own… You have to study ancient Greek culture and read what other ancient Greek authors wrote about the Homeric epics."
- Spencer McDaniel, "The Hero's Journey is Nonsense"

We can't understand the nature of this resurgence without also understanding the ongoing discussions about gender roles. Bringing more and more topics to the table to explore why last year's #Tiktok trend was a different historical moment from those that came before is antithetical to the #Monomyth.

One more time: the #Monomyth would argue it's perfectly possible to understand Darth Vader and a corrupt Roman statesman (as portrayed by an ancient Roman author) as *the same tyranny.* It's not just that it can't tell us the difference - we are taught to willfully ignore how Roman authors portrayed evil, and instead to look for the archetypes and symbols that supersede the text.

> If Star Wars were an ancient Roman story, then, instead of building a superweapon that can destroy planets, Darth Vader would probably be constantly boasting of his own superiority, comparing himself to deities… sadistically torturing galactic Senators in all sorts of horrible ways. These things would be instantly recognizable to Roman people as signs of an evil ruler.
- Spencer McDaniel, "The Hero's Journey is Nonsense"

What I have been critiquing throughout this post is not just the Monomyth itself, but the *myth* of the Monomyth, the Metamonomyth, if you'd like. But we can go further. A leftist countertheory should. However, this is where I stop for now. I took over a fortnight going back and forth on writing this, and while I'm not worried about writing longform works, I am trying to keep things brief. Rest assured: the next time we meet the Monomyth, it'll be in the court of the Stranger King…