I don’t believe the claims that these concepts are eternal innate principles of storytelling. That’s bunk. However I believe it is true that if you need a starting point, a way in to structuring a story, any of these ideas can work. It’s just a matter of what appeals to you. Plenty of writers have followed guidelines like this to great effect. Others think it’s tosh and some of the greatest stories break the patterns he describes.

which part on the second one made you think that?

I’m guessing the references to now thoroughly discredited Freudian and Jungian psychology.

That entire profession is thoroughly discredited. Jung and Freud will continue to fall in and out of fashion.

I wonder what they might say about "everything I don't like is wrong" reactions tho.

> I wonder what they might say about "everything I don't like is wrong" reactions tho.

What is this in reference to?

> now thoroughly discredited Freudian and Jungian psychology

Who thinks "everything I don't like is wrong" though?

Ogres and talking donkeys are also thoroughly discredited, but somehow the people who make Shrek still found a large audience and made tons-o-cash.

Fiction is stuff that didn't actually happen (and in many cases, couldn't actually happen).

That's because they weren't trying to explain anything as if it were true, just telling a story. These posts are stating a bunch of psuedofacts as if they're true, more a form of misinformation than storytelling.

Oh sure, I mentioned this before in another comment here. All the pseudo-psychology stuff may be bunk, but it can still be useful as a framework to hang your story on, even if only in the training wheels stage.

One of the best insights I ever received as to the popularity of Freudian and Jungian psychology in spite of discrediting is how well Psychoanalysis analogues commercial storytelling.

In both you take grand events, gestures, or themes. Weave together a “why” as to why something happened. Then take away some grand life lesson from those events.

With Psychoanalysis, it goes something like; 1. I feel exhausted all the time 2. Because I have nightmares 3. Nightmares about being a failure at work and school 4. I am constantly afraid of failure 5. Because my parents always nagged and harped on me about avoiding being a failure 6. I am told to "kill" the version

With a fictional narrative, they'll take this process and make it metaphorical. Maybe make the nightmares an antagonistic force, symbolic of failure and criticism. Have the patient literally fight the feelings of failure, make them embrace failure, and then kill the metaphorical symbol of their parents as a form of processing.

Meanwhile, the modern psychological approach to dealing with the initial problem is much less narratively satisfying. 1. I feel exhausted all the time 2. Talk to a psychiatrist, who may prescribe a combination of anti-psychotics (to reduce the amount of sleepless nights) and clinical talk therapy to help address coping mechanisms to enable reducing anti-psychotics. 3. Start taking pills and feeling more rested during the day, which allows one to feel less exhausted at work and daily life activities; which makes them less anxious of failure since they have the ability to properly address issues. 4. Go to a psychologist who may introduce CBT techniques and provide a failure-free environment to allow the patient to more adequately express and understand their issues. 5. During moments of high stress, the patient uses coping mechanisms which reduce the tendency for nightmares to occur. And allows them to wean off anti-psychotics, and allows them restful sleep once more.

The differences between the classical psychoanalytical framework of psychiatry, and modern evidence-based techniques illustrate why story tellers (like Dan Harmon) love and use concepts and ideas from psychoanalysis. It is already based around creating a narrative around life events to provide a life lesson for a patient.

I agree. These articles are very heavy of style, and questionable on substance.

And yet Dan Harmon still manages to write popular and effective stories based solely on pseudoscientific principles. Storywriting is an art, not a science, after all; vague brush strokes are what you need to get the job done, and if it's possible to get good stories out of Jung's theories then maybe you should rethink how useless pseudoscience really is.

That's besides the point. He's here claiming to explain the mechanics of how it works, not telling us a story. Most athletes can do amazing things without understanding the first thing about the mechanics. In fact, we can do amazing things without understanding any biology, chemistry or physics.

All models are wrong, some are useful