- Type: SeFi
- Development: lll-
- Attitude: Unseelie
Just wanted to write a few remarks on the Hero Myth and the Hero’s Journey. As far as I can see, I think it is universal, and it is the meta-story that arises from the other stories, though I can see how this could be my own bias. An Ne myth-story of Wanderlust is to me just a sub-plot and not the main story, though I realise how extreme that sounds. Perhaps this is why I could never get into the Lord of the Rings universe. I would say, however, that the Hero Myth need not be external. Indeed, I think the transformational journey is one that happens in the crucibles of the person’s soul. I think Jung said something to this effect. Typologically, perhaps this is just my introverted bent, the Hero’s Journey for introverts, as it were, or perhaps it reflects an auxiliary Fe vs a dominant Fe orientation, assuming such a myth is felt as universal by high-Fe types.
On a related note, if we are taking the notion of hierarchy in type as a fundamental piece that doesn’t vanish with development, it would make sense that if a person is possessed by a myth of a function that is not his dominant, that this myth would be manifested through the dominant. An SeTi with an Fe hero myth would look different in the way the journey’s trial and tribulations take place versus an FeNi with an Fe hero myth, though fundamentally the stories would be the same.
You’re thinking more along the lines I am –
Which is that if we are going to accept that “Hero through Trial by Fire is the Myth of Fe” – then we must also say that the Fe Mythology is the most fundamental, universal trajectory for a story. And that it is the “meta-story” in which other narratives are placed. It might also be my own bias, though, but I have seen this story play out time and time again, in the real lives of real people, including P-heavies; and also, I see how fictional hero stories compel people on very wide scales.
As I said in a few of my other posts:
Villains are often the tyrants & tricksters that embody one function fully, like a 50 year old infant, whereas heroes are the ones that face their shadow and incorporate something more.
This is the way I see it. Villains – including Fe villains – are characters who represent a one dimensional version of their dominant function, and never go beyond it, even when others would be called to do so. For instance the Joker, Hitler, Voldemort. I’m not saying they didn’t develop other functions, per se; but rather that they allowed the myth of the trickster or the tyrant to take them over completely, rather than seeking balance or heroically rising from the ashes of trauma. Villains are characters who refuse to change. They might improve in their abilities, but their ‘outlook’ kind of gets stuck in a dark place and never recovers.
Heroes are characters who have a personal trajectory. Who respond positively to the need to change, to step up to the plate, to reconsider who they are, how they do things, or how they see things. This can happen internally or externally, as you point out.
I would say this is universal and goes well beyond Fe. But if we are going to say that this trait is Fe, then we must also say it is – at the very least – latent within all of us.