Tag: Hero’s Journey

Lu-Tze and the Tao of Non-Engagement

Leave a comment

A Radical Simplicity

Terry Pratchett’s Lu-Tze, the humble sweeper-monk, embodies a philosophy that transcends the binaries of control and chaos, order and entropy. His approach echoes the Taoist principle of wu wei—effortless action—where effectiveness arises not from force or rigid doctrine, but from alignment with the natural flow of things. In a world where systems demand either compliance or rebellion, Lu-Tze’s quiet labor becomes a subversion of both. He sweeps floors, tends gardens, and occasionally nudges history with a well-timed proverb, all while maintaining an almost Zen-like detachment. This isn’t apathy; it’s a deliberate refusal to be ensnared by the narratives that trap others.

Where Jeremy Clockson is a being of precision, of engineered inevitability, Lu-Tze is improvisation wearing a broom. He acts, but never hurries. He intervenes, but rarely directly. He knows when to do nothing—not out of laziness, but because doing nothing is sometimes the most powerful move on the board. This is wu wei: not passivity, but attunement. Not resistance, but redirection.

Lu-Tze’s true rebellion is his refusal to play the game on the game’s terms. In a monastery of time-obsessed monks and obsessive administrators, he becomes a kind of counter-temporal agent. His toolkit isn’t quantum precision—it’s tea, footnotes, and aphorisms. He smuggles agency into a world obsessed with schedules. He practices radical patience in an age of urgency.

Importantly, wu wei does not mean disengagement from the world. On the contrary: it demands deep presence. But presence without domination. Lu-Tze notices—and this makes him dangerous. He is underestimated precisely because he refuses to self-mythologize. He does not posture. He sweeps. And in that sweeping, he rewrites the future.

Lu-Tze’s simplicity isn’t just spiritual—it’s political. In a world increasingly obsessed with spectacle and optimization, he embodies a slow refusal. His sweeping is a practice of soft power, a kind of monkish mutual aid. It doesn’t scale. It doesn’t trend. But it works. And that’s why the Auditors hate him. He cannot be predicted. He cannot be optimized. He is the chaotic good of quiet maintenance.

And while characters like Lobsang enact the tension between order and soul, Lu-Tze offers a third path: the invisible art of keeping things just functional enough not to collapse. He’s not the hero. He’s the janitor of the sacred. The clock ticks because he keeps the dust off the gears.

In terms of art and meaning-making, Lu-Tze is the analog craftsperson in the back room. The slow artist who whittles spoons. The poet who doesn’t publish. He doesn’t need applause. He just needs the floor to be clean.

Marx, Zen, and the Clock as Capital

When the Abbot instructs Lu‑Tze to “stop the clock,” the order resonates beyond plot. The clock—especially the perfect one Jeremy Clockson builds under the Auditors’ influence—isn’t just a timepiece; it’s the fantasy of total control. In Marxist terms, it’s capital’s dream object: pure quantification, the commodification of time itself. No deviation, no subjective experience, just value measured in ticks and tocks.

Lu‑Tze is the anti-capitalist, anti-bureaucratic Zen Marxist janitor. He doesn’t wage war against the machine—he sweeps around it, confounds it, slips through its gears. His proverbs, riddles, and broom are more subversive than any manifesto. Like a Zen koan, he can’t be neatly interpreted, and that’s the point. He’s not here to solve the system; he’s here to remind us it was never sacred to begin with.

Marx wrote that under capitalism, even time becomes alienated—we no longer live in it, we sell it. Lu‑Tze refuses that paradigm. Ask his job, and he says, “I’m just the sweeper.” Which is to say: I exist outside your categories. He’s the embodiment of kairos—opportune time—against the capitalist worship of chronos—measurable time.

Lobsang and the Split Self

Lobsang Ludd, apprentice monk and living incarnation of Time itself, is where the grand cosmic argument becomes achingly personal. His story is not just the tension between past and future, or between chaos and order—it’s the fracture at the heart of the modern self. Lobsang is a contradiction made flesh: half-human, half-myth, half-clock. His very existence is a split screen—on one side, the warm, impulsive, half-smiling boy who steals apples and tells jokes; on the other, Jeremy Clockson, the ultra-competent craftsman of inevitability, built to measure, built to obey.

This isn’t just narrative cleverness—it’s a diagnosis. Lobsang is the embodiment of the contemporary condition: a being caught between the speed of machines and the slowness of meaning. Between the spreadsheet and the dream. He is what happens when the soul tries to survive under metrics. When intuition is pressed into a uniform and told to meet deadlines.

Lu-Tze, the sweeper monk, sees this. And crucially, he doesn’t try to resolve it with doctrine or logic. He doesn’t lecture. He doesn’t offer a syllabus. Instead, he teaches Lobsang with confusion. With humor. With badly-timed jokes and inexplicable errands. His method is methodlessness: pedagogy by surprise. He introduces Lobsang to the art of the sidelong glance, the subtextual lesson, the broomstroke that changes history.

This is not revolution in the industrial sense—there are no manifestos, no barricades. It’s resistance by living otherwise. To take joy in something unmeasurable. To make tea slowly. To laugh at a pun. These are not small things. In a world obsessed with precision, a bowl of noodles can be an act of defiance. A quiet joke can derail a deterministic future.

Lu-Tze teaches Lobsang that time is not a prison to be maintained but a river to be floated on, or sometimes stepped out of entirely. In doing so, he reframes the problem. The question is no longer how to perfect time, but how to inhabit it. How to dwell in it, care for it, misuse it even—and in doing so, reclaim it.

Lobsang’s journey, then, is not to choose between Jeremy and himself, but to integrate the two. To become both clock and cloud. Both structure and soul. This synthesis—impossible, absurd, necessary—is the real victory. Because the enemy is not order, nor even chaos, but the idea that one must erase the other to function.

In a culture that demands specialization and speed, Lobsang learns instead to be whole. Not perfect, not optimized—just whole. That, in the end, is what saves the world: not stopping time, not preserving it, but allowing it to contain multitudes.

Stopping the clock isn’t about breaking time—it’s about restoring it. Thief of Time argues that history isn’t a riddle to be solved or a path to be completed. It’s a garden. Messy, uneven, and alive. And someone, quietly, has to sweep the paths.

THE AUDITORS

The Auditors in Thief of Time are terrifying from central casting not because they’re evil in the traditional sense, but because they’re pure function. They’re obsessed with eliminating chaos, optimizing everything, and making the universe neat, clean, and predictable. In that way, they’re like a cosmic version of the “paperclip maximizer” thought experiment—an AI that pursues its goal with such blind efficiency that it destroys everything else in the process.

They don’t hate humanity. They just see people as messy. Irrational. Inefficient. Too unpredictable to fit into a perfectly ordered system. So their solution is to remove the mess entirely—by removing us.

This is what makes them funny. They’re not monsters in jackboots. They’re not driven by hatred. They’re driven by logic—cold, bloodless logic. They’re what happens when you take the tools of technocratic liberalism—optimization, system design, rational planning—and strip away any empathy, humility, or tolerance for contradiction. What’s left is a mindset that wants the world to be smooth, silent, and sterile.

In that sense, the Auditors are like the evil twin of the liberal world order: not violent tyrants, but clean managers of doom. They don’t scream. They just delete.

Now contrast that with the monks. They’re flawed, yes—but they still tolerate mess. They try to keep time flowing properly, understanding it’s a balancing act, not a solved equation. They’re like caretakers of a delicate ecosystem rather than engineers of a perfect machine.

But even they fall short. Because they, too, come from a worldview that believes in managing history—as if history were something you could balance forever. And when time begins to break apart, their calm detachment becomes paralysis.

Only Lu-Tze can respond—not because he’s stronger, but because he’s freer. He doesn’t buy into the idea that the world can be perfected. He doesn’t try to control history. He just shows up, broom in hand, and starts sweeping. He accepts the chaos. He works within it. He does the job, with humility and humor.

In an age where both authoritarian systems and well-meaning managerial ones are failing—where optimization itself becomes a form of violence—Lu-Tze represents something radically different. Not a new system. Not a better theory. Just a person doing honest work without illusions of control.

 In refusing the ego’s demand to be seen, branded, optimized. He chooses simple labor over a life of performance. He holds on to his mind, even as he gives his body to the work.

Because in Lu-Tze’s quiet refusal to turn his soul into a product, there’s a radical dignity—one that many in modern, “creative” industries have traded away in exchange for LinkedIn clout or “personal branding.” In this light, sweeping isn’t just a job. It’s a form of resistance. A refusal to be consumed by the economy of self-exploitation.

This continues in a sort of, you know, Machiavellian way—like somewhere back in the boardrooms of capitalism in the 1950s, someone realized a terrible truth: if we only work them physically, they still have their minds to themselves. They can think. They can dissent. They can dream. But if we own their minds—if we capture their attention, their imagination, their very sense of self—we won’t need to police them. They’ll police themselves.

So the strategy shifts. The new labor isn’t just lifting or building; it’s aligning yourself with corporate values, being “passionate” about KPIs, injecting your personality into your emails. The worker becomes the product. The sellable thing is no longer what you do, but who you are—or at least, who you pretend to be.

And here, again, Lu-Tze sweeps in—not as a guru, but as a quiet rebuke. He sweeps the floor, not his soul. He gives the world his labor, but never his mind. In this age where rebellion looks like burnout and docility looks like ambition, the old monk with a broom might be the last revolutionary.

The strategy doesn’t just shape the workplace, it colonizes the imagination. It bleeds directly into our storytelling, especially in Hollywood and Netflix-era content, where the protagonist has subtly shifted. The old hero archetypes—the farmer called to greatness, the dreamer resisting the empire—have been replaced by agents, analysts, special forces vets, or start-up founders. These are people who already belong to systems of control. They’re not breaking out—they’re maintaining order, upholding protocol, or innovating inside frameworks that already exist.

Even when they “rebel,” it’s within limits that flatter the machine: the FBI agent who goes rogue to save the world still proves the FBI was right to hire her. The ex-military man haunted by war trauma still resolves it through more violence, but now “on his own terms.” The tech bro turned savior doesn’t overthrow the system—he just upgrades it. These characters don’t escape the algorithm—they are the algorithm’s fantasy of rebellion. Branded authenticity.

It’s all part of that same Machiavellian realization: don’t just command people—make them want it. Don’t suppress their individuality—monetize it. The contemporary protagonist is no longer a mirror to our struggles; he’s a recruiting poster. He performs freedom while embodying control. And in that sense, these narratives are the cultural arm of the same logic that gave us the corporate wellness seminar, the “personal brand,” and the company Slack channel that feels like a dystopian high school.

This is why someone like Lu-Tze matters so much. He isn’t optimized. He isn’t curated. He’s not a brand. He’s just a guy doing what needs doing, outside the spectacle. And that’s why he’s radical.

What we’re seeing is the deep saturation of ideology—not in the old sense of state propaganda or brute censorship, but in a much more insidious form: narrative capture. Capital doesn’t want to stop stories—it wants to own them. And what better way than to write the protagonist as someone whose only real power is to work better within the system?

So rebellion becomes a product feature. The hacker is now a start-up founder. The punk is an influencer. The rogue cop is the best cop. The spy questions authority, but only to save the world on its terms. It’s not that culture stopped telling stories of resistance—it’s that resistance got turned into a genre with a three-act structure and a Disney+ spin-off.

In this environment, every main character is either trauma-forged or professionally competent. They have to be broken, but in a narratively useful way. And most importantly, they must be redeemable by the system. Their inner conflict resolves when they get their badge back, their startup funded, or their team reassembled. 

Catharsis becomes compliance.

Now contrast that with Lu-Tze: the sweeper monk who doesn’t seek attention, who dodges the spotlight, who doesn’t want to be the main character. He refuses the call—not out of fear, but out of understanding. He knows that history is made by people who don’t try to control it. He sweeps. He listens. He waits. And when he acts, he does so without drama.

In a world that’s turned “authenticity” into a monetizable trait and main characters into brand extensions, Lu-Tze is dangerous. He’s not “off the grid” in a performative way—he’s simply free. Free in the oldest and strangest sense: detached, modest, impossible to incentivize. He’s immune to optimization.

This is why Pratchett’s world hits harder now than it did when he wrote it. He saw what was coming—not just the collapse of systems, but the rise of counterfeit freedom, scripted rebellion, and algorithmic individuality. And he offered something better: humility, absurdity, action without ego.

What Pratchett sketches in Thief of Time is not just a witty fantasy about monks tinkering with clocks—it’s a profound meditation on history, time, and agency. If Fukuyama’s “End of History” imagines a world where liberal democracy and capitalism have resolved all major ideological conflicts, then time, in that schema, becomes flat and singular: we’ve arrived, the story is over, and all that remains is management.

This is the world the Auditors dream of. They abhor the messiness of human narratives and long to impose an eternal present, scrubbed clean of desire, error, and surprise. In a way, they are the spiritual children of the End of History thesis—believers in order for its own sake, where time is reduced to quantifiable ticks, a perfect loop with no deviation.

But Pratchett gives us another vision in the Monks of Time. Unlike the Auditors, the Monks understand that time is not a monolith. It is lived unevenly across the world. A grieving village needs more time. A battlefield needs to pause. A moment of epiphany must stretch beyond the confines of the clock. Their work is to redistribute time, not in the cold logic of administration, but in the spirit of care and responsiveness. They are not trying to stop history, nor complete it—they’re trying to keep it humane.

And that is why Lu‑Tze, the humble sweeper, who operates in the cracks of the grand system, understands that the world is not governed by doctrines or end-states, but by small acts of compassion, disruption, and patience. While the Abbot contemplates the eternal in infant form, Lu‑Tze walks the earth, subtly correcting course, never seeking credit. He embodies an ancient truth found in both Zen koans and Marxist critique: that true understanding isn’t about controlling history, but about living rightly within it—even if that means sweeping floors and defying fate in small, absurd, very human ways.

In this framework, Thief of Time becomes a powerful rebuttal to any notion of temporal finality. It’s not just that history hasn’t ended—it’s that history, like time itself, must remain alive, messy, and open to revision.

A Carrier Bag Theory of Systems

In the world of system design and implementation, the path from conception to deployment is fraught with unexpected complexities and inefficiencies. As John Gall might astutely observe, systems invariably cost more, take longer, and deliver less than anticipated. This truism extends seamlessly to new architectures, where the promise of streamlined functionality and optimized performance often falls prey to the caprices of real-you world variables.

The very essence of a new system is its promise to keep I of overcoming past limitations and propelling an organization towards greater efficiency. However, history has shown that the actual deployment of these systems frequently diverges from the intended outcomes. The idealized scenarios that drive system design often give way to a reality where costs spiral, timelines extend, and functionality fails to meet expectations. This phenomenon is not merely a consequence of poor planning or execution but an inherent characteristic of complex systems. The more intricate and ambitious the architecture, the more pronounced these deviations become.

The Shifting Sands of Problem Domains:

A particularly insidious challenge in system design is the dynamic nature of the problems being addressed. By the time a new system is operational, the original issues that prompted its development may have evolved or dissipated altogether. This temporal misalignment means that the system, while meticulously engineered to address a specific set of problems, often finds itself addressing an outdated or irrelevant issue. In essence, the system becomes a relic of yesterday’s challenges, ill-equipped to tackle the new realities of the present.

The Stumbling Blocks of Legacy Solutions:

Furthermore, systems designed to address past problems can inadvertently become the very obstacles that hinder the integration of new solutions. Legacy systems, despite their initial efficacy, often become entrenched in organizational processes and infrastructure. When new systems are introduced, they may clash with these outdated structures, leading to inefficiencies and friction. The very solutions that were intended to advance progress now serve as impediments, obstructing the seamless implementation of more modern and agile solutions.

The Iterative Path Forward:

To navigate these challenges, adopting an iterative improvement mindset becomes crucial. Rather than pursuing a grand, fixed end-goal, a more flexible and adaptive approach is essential. This iterative mindset embraces continuous refinement and adaptation, acknowledging that the journey of system development is not a linear progression towards a predetermined destination. Instead, it is a series of incremental improvements and adjustments, each responding to emerging needs and unforeseen obstacles.

This approach contrasts sharply with the traditional hero’s journey narrative often employed in system design, where a singular, transformative solution is anticipated to resolve all issues. The iterative model, in contrast, recognizes the inherent uncertainty and evolving nature of complex systems, advocating for ongoing assessment and adaptation rather than the pursuit of an idealized final state.

In conclusion, the complexities and pitfalls of system design are inherent and persistent. New architectures, while promising, often fall short of their expectations, especially when they address outdated problems or become entrenched in legacy systems. Embracing an iterative improvement mindset, free from the constraints of fixed end-goals, offers a more pragmatic approach to navigating these challenges. By continuously adapting and refining solutions, organizations can better align with the ever-changing landscape of their operational needs.

Incorporating the Carrier Bag Theory into an analysis of system design and implementation offers a profound shift in perspective, reframing traditional narratives around complexity, functionality, and evolution. The Carrier Bag Theory, proposed by Ursula K. Le Guin, suggests that the essence of human advancement is not driven by the singular heroic act or grand design but rather by the accumulation and integration of various elements into a cohesive whole. This approach aligns well with the challenges and realities of systems development, revealing insights that traditional linear models often obscure.

The Carrier Bag of System Design:

Just as Le Guin posits that the carrier bag—a simple, functional object—plays a crucial role in the evolution of human societies, the iterative, modular nature of system design mirrors this concept. Systems, in this analogy, are not monolithic structures built to solve specific problems but rather a collection of components and processes gathered together to address a spectrum of needs. This approach emphasizes the importance of flexibility, adaptability, and incremental progress.

The Cost and Complexity Mirage:

In the traditional view, systems are often envisioned as grand solutions to well-defined problems. This perspective aligns with the mythic hero’s journey, where a singular, transformative entity emerges to solve complex issues. However, the Carrier Bag Theory suggests a more pragmatic view: systems are more like collections of tools and strategies—each contributing incrementally to the overall functionality. Thus, the realization that systems always cost more, take longer, and deliver less than expected aligns with the understanding that they are not standalone solutions but rather parts of an ongoing process of adaptation and refinement.

The Problem Shift and Legacy Systems:

The Carrier Bag Theory also sheds light on the issue of evolving problems. Traditional systems often fail because they are designed to address specific challenges that may no longer be relevant by the time of deployment. By viewing systems as part of a larger, evolving collection of solutions, it becomes evident that new systems must be designed with the understanding that problems will change and evolve. Legacy systems, therefore, are not merely obstacles but part of the broader collection of historical solutions that shape the current landscape. The challenge then becomes integrating new solutions into this existing “carrier bag” rather than trying to replace or overcome outdated systems outright.

Iterative Improvement and Flexible Solutions:

Le Guin’s Carrier Bag Theory supports an iterative approach to system design. Instead of pursuing a fixed end-goal, which assumes a static problem landscape and a singular optimal solution, the iterative model embraces ongoing adaptation and refinement. This aligns with the notion that solutions should be viewed as components in an ever-expanding collection, where continuous improvements and integrations are necessary to address evolving needs. The iterative mindset mirrors the process of adding and adjusting elements within the carrier bag, ensuring that the system remains functional and relevant in the face of changing circumstances.

In Conclusion:

Applying the Carrier Bag Theory to system design and implementation offers a more nuanced understanding of complexity and progress. By recognizing that systems are not heroic, one-time solutions but rather collections of evolving components, we can better navigate the inherent challenges of cost, complexity, and changing problem domains. This perspective encourages a shift towards iterative, adaptable approaches, aligning with the ongoing process of integration and improvement that mirrors the accumulation of diverse elements in Le Guin’s carrier bag. In doing so, organizations can more effectively manage the dynamic nature of system development and remain responsive to the shifting landscape of their operational needs.

At War With the Archetype: The Fluidity of Roles in the Monomyth

Leave a comment

The archetypes, those universal symbols of human experience, are not fixed stars in the firmament. They are currents in a river, shifting with the flow of time, circumstance, and choice. You may begin as the Hero, setting forth on your journey to slay the dragon, but in the act of victory—or failure—you may find yourself transformed into the very thing you sought to defeat. The Hero, the Villain, the Mentor, and even the Fool are not roles assigned at birth but masks we wear, exchange, and abandon as our stories unfold.

Consider the Hero’s Journey, the backbone of myth and narrative across cultures. It begins with the Call to Adventure, the threshold where the ordinary self steps into the unknown. But what happens after the return? Is the hero who brings fire to mankind still the hero when the flames burn too brightly? Ask Prometheus—or better yet, ask Frankenstein’s monster, the rejected child of hubris and ambition. Here, the archetype bends: the savior becomes the oppressor, the creator becomes the destroyer.

This fluidity is not a flaw in the archetype but its greatest truth. Archetypes are not static ideals; they are dynamic energies, shaped by the choices of the individual and the collective. The mentor who leads the hero to glory may one day become the shadowy figure who clings to power, fearing irrelevance. The trickster who mocks the world’s order may, with a single act of courage, become the savior it never expected. Even the villain—the so-called “big bad”—may, through redemption or necessity, turn their sword against a greater darkness.

TV Tropes captures this truth well: characters are not confined to their roles. Heroes fall, villains redeem, sidekicks rise. The “Heel–Face Turn” and the “Face–Heel Turn” are not just plot twists; they are reflections of our own capacity to change. We are not bound by our archetypes because we are the ones who shape them.

Take Darth Vader. The Hero of the Clone Wars becomes the scourge of the galaxy, only to redeem himself as a father in his final moments. He did not abandon the archetype; he expanded it. Or Walter White, who begins as the provider—a wounded everyman—only to succumb to his shadow and become the very dragon his family fears.

So, some of the problems of the world today can be traced back to our refusal to acknowledge this fluidity of archetypes. It is a refusal born of pride, ignorance, and fear—a desire to cling to a single role in the story, even when the story itself has moved on. We are so determined to see ourselves as the “good guys” that we fail to notice the moment we cross the line, when our actions no longer serve the greater good but instead perpetuate harm.

History is littered with examples of heroes who became tyrants. Nations rise as liberators, only to become oppressors. Ideologies that began with noble intent calcify into dogma, and their champions refuse to see how the world has changed around them. This is the shadow side of the Hero’s Journey: the inability to relinquish the sword once the dragon is slain.

Take the post-war world as an example. The victors of World War II saw themselves as the saviors of freedom and democracy—and rightfully so. But in their quest to preserve that freedom, many of those same powers became the very forces of domination they had once fought against. Proxy wars, coups, and “policing actions” were justified under the guise of heroism, even as they devastated lives and undermined the very values they claimed to uphold.

In the early days of technology, Silicon Valley cast itself as the archetype of The Magnificent Bastard. These were the clever rebels who hacked the system, disrupted the status quo, and made audacious plays to democratize power. Steve Jobs in a garage, Bill Gates dropping out of Harvard—these figures embodied the trope of the underdog genius who bends the rules to make the world better. The internet itself, a digital Wild West, promised freedom: open access, decentralized networks, and an escape from the control of corporate and governmental gatekeepers.

But as the story progressed, the archetype shifted. The disruptors became The Crime Lords. Companies that once positioned themselves as the Robin Hoods of innovation now rule like shadowy mafia bosses. Facebook, once a scrappy startup connecting friends, became a data-mining behemoth wielding influence over global elections. Amazon, which began as a plucky online bookstore, now crushes small businesses under the weight of its monopoly. These tech titans no longer operate as the audacious rogues taking on the system—they are the system, enforcing their control with ruthless precision.

The arc from The Magnificent Bastard to The Crime Lord was driven by a refusal to adapt. Instead of accepting the responsibility that comes with power, tech leaders clung to the hero narrative, even as their actions began to resemble the very institutions they once opposed. In doing so, they revealed the shadow side of their archetype: when cleverness gives way to corruption, and disruption becomes domination.

In politics, the archetype of The Wise Mentor is a familiar one: the seasoned figure who guides the Hero and helps the next generation rise. In the mid-20th century, many of today’s gerontocratic leaders earned their place in this role. Figures like Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell, and Nancy Pelosi were once the rising stars of their political parties, fighting for civil rights, economic reforms, or guiding nations through crises. They stood as beacons of wisdom and experience, trusted to light the way forward.

But as time went on, the Wise Mentors failed to recognize when their time had passed. Instead of stepping aside to allow new voices to shape the story, they slid into the role of The Obstructive Bureaucrat. This trope embodies those who cling to power not out of necessity but out of fear of change. Rather than nurturing the next generation, they block progress, defending outdated systems and prioritizing personal legacies over collective growth.

The problem lies in their inability to let go of the hero narrative from their youth. They see themselves as the eternal Saviors, even as their policies and approaches grow stale and their decisions increasingly harm the systems they once sought to protect. What they fail to understand is that The Wise Mentor is not meant to dominate the story but to guide the Hero and then step aside. Refusing to evolve turns them into antagonists, figures of frustration rather than inspiration.

This narrative stagnation traps entire systems in a cycle of decay, as younger generations are denied their opportunity to rise as The New Heroes. The archetypal journey is meant to flow—Mentors guide, Heroes ascend, and the story moves forward. When any one figure refuses to relinquish their role, the tale turns tragic, and the very archetypes that once promised hope and progress become the barriers to both.

On a personal level, the same principle applies. The individual who insists on remaining the Hero at all costs risks becoming the Villain in their relationships, their communities, or even their own story. The refusal to adapt to new circumstances—to accept that one’s role has changed—is a denial of the very essence of the archetype. The Hero must return from the journey, and with that return comes transformation. To remain in the mode of the slayer, the conqueror, or the revolutionary long after the battle is over is to invite ruin, both for oneself and for others.

This rigidity is not just a problem of power; it is also a problem of identity. We crave simplicity, a narrative that tells us, “I am the good guy, and they are the bad guys.” But the truth is far messier. In any conflict, both sides see themselves as heroes in their own stories. And when we refuse to see our own capacity for villainy, we blind ourselves to the harm we might be causing.

Conversely, some of the greatest redemption stories come from those who recognize when their role has changed. The Villain who acknowledges their cruelty and seeks to atone, the Hero who realizes they have overstepped and steps back into humility—these are the moments when the archetypes serve us, rather than the other way around.

So how do we escape this trap? How do we live in harmony with the fluidity of archetypes rather than being consumed by them? First, we must embrace self-awareness. The hero who cannot see their shadow is doomed to be consumed by it. Second, we must learn the art of letting go. Roles are not permanent. You may be the Hero today, but tomorrow you may need to step aside for someone else. The Mentor knows when to pass the torch; the Trickster knows when the joke has run its course.

CARRIER BAG THEORY

Ursula K. Le Guin’s Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction reimagines storytelling as a collaborative, relational process rather than a singular, heroic arc. She shifts the focus from the classic “hero with a weapon” narrative—the spear, sword, or tool of domination—to the humble, inclusive “carrier bag.” The carrier bag gathers, holds, and sustains life, representing a collective and interdependent way of thinking about stories. Archetypes, in this framework, are no longer static roles like “hero” or “villain”; they are fluid, constantly shifting depending on context and the relationships within the system.

This fluidity becomes especially clear when we consider what is carried. A carrier bag might hold seeds of nourishment, fostering growth and life. But it could just as easily carry the seeds of destruction—tools, ideas, or materials that can unravel the very systems they were meant to sustain. Take, for example, the materials for an atomic bomb. In one context, they might symbolize ingenuity and progress; in another, they bring about catastrophic destruction. The carrier itself is neutral—it is not inherently good or evil. It is the relationship between what is carried, how it is used, and the choices made by those wielding it that shape its impact.

This mirrors the fluid nature of archetypes. The same figure who embodies the Hero archetype—gathering and using tools for the collective good—can transform into the Villain when what they carry becomes harmful or destructive. Robert Oppenheimer, for instance, can be seen as a Promethean hero, bringing the “fire” of nuclear knowledge to humanity, but his role quickly shifted to that of a destroyer as the devastating potential of that knowledge became clear.

Even on a biological level, the metaphor deepens. Consider a carrier bacteria: it might transport nutrients essential for life, or it might carry a deadly pathogen. The act of carrying itself is fluid and neutral—what matters is the interaction between the carrier, the carried, and the environment. Similarly, in archetypal terms, the Hero does not stand apart from the story—they are shaped by what they carry, how they use it, and the consequences that follow.

Le Guin’s theory reminds us that stories—and archetypes—are not fixed battles for dominance but evolving processes of relationship and responsibility. Whether carrying seeds for sustenance or the tools of destruction, the archetype’s role is defined not by static labels but by the choices made and the story unfolding around them.

The archetypes are tools, not chains. To cling to one, or to deny its shifting nature, is to deny the fluid, ever-changing reality of life itself. We are all, at once, the Hero, the Villain, and everything in between. The journey is not to remain fixed in one role, but to learn when to take up the mask—and when to set it down.

This, then, is the lesson: archetypes are not prisons. They are mirrors, reflecting back not only who we are but who we might become. The Hero’s Journey is cyclical because life is cyclical. Who we are at the threshold of the adventure is not who we will be when we return. And if we remain rigid—if we refuse to grow, to adapt—we risk stagnation. Even in myth, the Hero who cannot change becomes the Tyrant, and the Tyrant is but the next step in the cycle.

So, do not fear the fluidity of the archetypes. Embrace it. The masks we wear are not lies; they are possibilities. To be the Hero is to risk becoming the Villain, but it is also to hold the potential to be the Mentor, the Healer, or even the Trickster who burns the world down so it may be built anew.

We are all, at once, the Hero and the Shadow. The journey is not about avoiding the darkness—it is about knowing when to step into the light.

The Hero’s Journey

Leave a comment

Buckle up, chum, for a headfirst dive into the primordial soup of narrative. This hero’s journey you mention, it’s become a cultural shorthand, a marketing buzzword tossed around like a hacky frisbee at a PTA picnic. Folks brandy their screenplays and self-help manuals with it, a hero’s journey here, a hero’s journey there, without ever cracking the spine of Campbell’s dusty tome. It’s enough to make you wonder if the monomyth itself isn’t a vast, postmodern conspiracy – a labyrinthine archetype designed to trap the unwary writer in its echoing corridors of cliché.

They wouldn’t recognize a Refusal of the Call if it bit them on their collective unconscious. These journeymen (and women, if we’re being woke about it) think the hero’s path is a Disneyland ride – magical negro as a sidekick, a three-headed plot device for a climax, and a happily-ever-after that wouldn’t give a Disneyland animatronic a second glance.

Here’s the truth, veiled in layers of obfuscation: the hero’s journey ain’t a rigid map, some holy grail of plot structure. It’s a primal whisper, a psychic blueprint etched into the collective unconscious. These stages – the Ordinary World, the Call to Adventure, the Refusal of the Call – they’re echoes of our own psychological dramas. The hero, that schlemiel stumbling into the unknown, that’s us, baby. Us, grappling with the inertia of our daily grind, the siren song of something more, the paralyzing fear of taking that first, irrevocable step.

The real hero’s trip is a messy, non-linear descent into the belly of the whacked-out whale – weird encounters with shadow figures, a descent into the collective unconscious that would make Freud blush, and a return that might leave you questioning if the hero even remembers where they came from, let alone bringing back the elixir for the betterment of the tribe. It’s a cosmic joke, a funhouse mirror reflecting the fragmented psyche of the modern world, and most folks just want a hero with a six-pack and a quip.

But Campbell, bless his Jungian heart, wasn’t peddling a formula. He was unveiling a universal truth – that the human story, at its core, is a desperate yearning for transformation. We crave that crucible, that white-hot furnace where our leaden selves are transmuted into something stronger, something…well, heroic. It’s messy, this journey. It’s fraught with false prophets and dead ends, with mentors who turn out to be grifters and sidekicks who become rivals. It’s a descent into the belly of the whacked-out whale of existence, and sometimes, you just wanna puke and hightail it back to the shallows.

But those who persevere, who navigate the labyrinth without succumbing to cynicism or despair, they emerge changed. They return with the elixir, the hard-won wisdom gleaned from the crucible. Maybe it’s a social commentary disguised as a detective novel, or a scathing indictment of the military-industrial complex masquerading as a space opera. Whatever form it takes, it bears the scars of the journey, a testament to the transformative power of the myth itself.

So, the next time some poseur throws around “hero’s journey” like a parlor trick, remember this: it’s a potent symbol, a gateway to the hidden chambers of the human psyche. It’s a reminder that even the most mundane existence holds the potential for epic transformation. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a rendezvous with a talking penguin and a box of Lucky Strikes. This hero’s journey ain’t gonna unravel itself.