In a thread called the "heroine's journey". Because gender doesn't really matter. (Not to speak of sex. Which makes "gender" in "hero/herioine" work more like grammar than like fictional sex [which is an amalgam of gender constellations in the first place, because fictional characters have no sex, unless you go into very much biological detail - which exceeds my actual biological knowledge]).
It's about gender to the extent that these seem to me to be patterns in the stories we tell about heroines. Beyond that, gender may or may not be important to the story.
I think these questions are better suited to the original thread than this one.
Do you understand my confusion?
No, not really.
Fine. So there are shows that you (general "you"; not you in this particular context) think don't quite fit the "heroes journey".
There are tons of stories that don't fit the hero's journey. I don't think that in itself is indicative of anything.
The idea of examining the monomyth in the first place is to try to perceive patterns to the stories that seem to resonate strongly across time and cultures (though I do think it's heavily Western-weighted).
You find they have something in common, and formulate your own type. So how, then, does that type relate to the original? A more detailed subtype, maybe? An alternative in opposition?
I think you're thinking too hard about this part. I think it can be informative and interesting to compare them, but trying to apply words like "subtype" doesn't really make any sense to me. It's trying too hard to turn the discussion into a rigorous codification system, when that's not the point. That's just bookkeeping. I don't care about the bookkeeping.
In this case, it arose out of a gender question. But it's not really about gender. Then about what is it?
Of course it is about sex and gender to an extent, because that's what the discussion was originally about, and that's specifically how I chose what fiction to consider. I meant the stories don't have to be and often aren't about sex or gender, nor do I think there's anything
inherently "masculine" or "feminine" about the hero's journey or the heroine's journey specifically.
But of course when you bring culture and society into it, then sex and gender become important. You can't tell a story in isolation. You tell it to an audience, and the story you tell is informed by the gender roles and expectations in your culture and society. So in that way, it's completely about gender.
Whether gender is important to the story depends on which way you're approaching it.
Is the new type even necessary?
I'm not sure what you mean. To discuss any definition, you need to have a definition in the first place. The monomyth itself is only "necessary" if you want to discuss it. Otherwise, it's pointless.
There was a discussion over what a heroine's journey would be, so obviously, it's necessary to make attempts to define and describe it in order to discuss it.
Maybe, in an attempt to make sense of the monomyth, you made it to specific in the first place?
I didn't make the monomyth, and I attempted to be liberally metaphorical in my interpretation of it.
Maybe it's all under one blanket? How can you tell whether that's the case or not?
That's entirely subjective, and it's kind of the point of the discussion. Since it's a discussion I'm interested in, I'd rather have the discussion than waste time debating whether the discussion is necessary in the first place. You seem to think it isn't interesting or necessary, so I don't know why you're debating it instead of ignoring it.
Maybe we should write paper on whether the monomyth is compatible with the literary mode of writing. Hm...
I have no idea why it wouldn't be?
Seriously, I think I get what you mean. I think I just instinctively feel it's a waste of time to use terms like "monomyth" or "literary fiction" (or "magical realism", for that matter). These terms rarely add anything to what I have to say.
Then don't use them. For me, I find it hard to have a discussion of something when you don't even have anything to call it. How am I supposed to discuss magic realism or literary fiction if I don't call it something?
Of course she refuses. But then Hitomi comes under the influence of a witch... (Isn't that exactly what they speak about? Clearly, she can't refuse forever, or it would be "the prevented journey of a person who refused to be hero" - something rarely sung about by the bards. She held out more steadfastly than most heroes actually [though you do have a point that she'd have given in earlier if it weren't for a certain opposition].)
So:
Watch episodes 3 and 4 again: she particualrly talks about how scared she is and even apologises to Mami. Homura is a factor from the beginning, I agree. But at the time of the first refusal, simple danger is - IMO - far more foregrounded. It's all about wishes - danger vs. reward. It's not that simple, either, but it's there, and explicitly so. Good enough, IMO, to qualify for "refusal".
I think it's hard to tell exactly because Homura is involved from her very first meeting with Kyubey in all n+1 timelines. In the first timeline, she uses her wish to save a cat and it's never clear whether she hesitates at all. One could argue that the story truly begins with her having already accepted the call.
Furthermore, considering Madoka's conflict in 11 out of the 12 episodes is whether or not to become a mahou shoujo in the first place, I think that suggests her "adventure" isn't
being a mahou shoujo at all. One could say that her call to adventure and acceptance was when Kyubey called her for help, and she decided to help him. Her involvement in the world of mahou shoujo and witches at all, even though she isn't a mahou shoujo, could be considered the adventure in itself. Her attempting to decide whether to make a wish
is her journey. In fact, that's probably what makes the most sense.
But in any case, there's far more to a pattern than any single step, and I think in general it fits pretty well.
If you only allow the pure cases, you can crowd concept-space with lots and lots of sub-types. Not sure that would improve clarity.
But obviously I'm not doing that. I don't think
any story will fit a generic pattern perfectly, unless it's a completely trivial pattern.
Except I haven't actually made up my mind yet. I'm still trying to understand what I'm talking about. It's not easy for me, you know?
I'm not even sure what you're trying to make up your mind about. You seem not to think it's an meaningful or interesting discussion in the first place.
There's a sliding scale of non-heroicness/non-jouneyism: at the extreme end you get slice of life/Waiting for Godot. But, yes, so far I think that Shingeki no Kyoujin is a typical representative, and if anyone's the heroic traveller it's Eren. Specifically, I'd say the Skywalker sub-type (who wants to join the rebellion against the family's wishes, but has a secret history...). The theme's actually pretty explicit in his conversations with Armin. (Obviously, there's no refusing the call. In fact, I'd say he fits - plotwise - your description a lot better than Kaname Madoka. Just like Luke Skywalker.)
I don't think Eren fits either particularly well, and not knowing the ending makes it hard to conclude anything.
I'm not particularly concerned with
Shingeki no Kyoujin anyway since I highly doubt it'll have anything close to the impact and resonance of shows like
Utena and
Madoka. Sure, it's popular now, but I think most people will have forgotten it in a few seasons.
If we add shounen to the discussion, it'd make more sense for it to be series that have already had a meaningful impact and proven resonance past their airing. Like, y'know,
Eva. Madoka wasn't praised as "the
Evangelion of anime" for nothing. Or
Gundam or
Gurren Lagann.
If it has to be a shounen battle anime, then maybe
Fullmetal Alchemist or
Dragon Ball Z.
You also seem particularly focused on the whole "refusal/accepting the call" part, when I think that was the least important and least interesting part of the whole thing.
But I'm no expert on heroic journeys. And as I said I'm not really interested in that level of genrality, unless I have a clear goal that gives the abstraction a direction.
I think it's fine not to be interested in it. Lots of people aren't interested in it. If they were, everyone would be an English major.
