Oh, thanks for the clarification, now I understand how that would work.
Jung is interesting but problematic (much like Freud, who was a mentor of his). For example, the concept of archetypes is tremendously useful. But the idea that these archetypes exist in a racial collective unconscious is fantasy, not science, and the particular archetypes chosen aged quickly into cultural irrelevance. Campbell, well, he's rather difficult to read, and to my personal vexation, he is a transcendentalist. I personally prefer Vogler's The Writer's Journey, which is an explanation and elaboration upon Campbell. That whole hero's journey thing has an irritating number of cultist-like followers though. IMO it's interesting and worth reading, but it does not universally apply to all fiction (as Vogler only admitted in the forward to the 2nd edition of the book after having the concept beaten into his head over years by fans) and it's sure not the be-all-end-all of fiction theory.
Technically if you're going in historical order you should read Freytag first, but OMG is his book awful. The only useful thing to come out of it was the original version of Freytag's Pyramid/Freytag's Triangle, which has evolved so much that its modern form barely resembles the original. See the modern one: http://home.comcast.net/~wickeddelight/modernizedfreytagstriangle.png
Lajos Egri's The Art Of Dramatic Writing also predates Campbell. He wrote mainly about the role of the thematic premise in creating fiction. I actually taught an online class which was a historical to modern survey of ideas in fiction theory, which is why I have all this information sitting around. Researching all this stuff was my project my senior year of university, though I didn't finish it until years later for that class.
When it comes to Jung I'm primarily interested in his Kantianism. Of course he's a fantastist, as his personal adherent (and I believe she dated him) Maria Moltzer said of him:
Gary Lachman: "She [argued] that [Jung's theories] should be considered art [not science] which got on Jung's nerves because he recognized that ... her arguments made sense, which suggests that he himself was in doubt about it."
That being said, I take quite a bit from Jung (and Kant, Heraclitus, Hegel, Schelling, Nietzsche, Plato, Aristotle, and to a lesser degree philosophically Huxley). Personality types as a channel of his philosophical theories is a primary interest for me. Freud is similarly inspiring to me- but I dislike his emphases. His clarity is refreshing after Jung though. That being said, I'm much more of a philosophical intuitionalist/fantasist, so that might express my sympathy to Jung. It colors every one of my interests- which may explain my fascination with theories of historicality (as if such a term could even exist in a scientific scenario!)
That being said- Jung always called himself a man of 'science'. The only way I could see this being the case is in his opposition to the Hegelian apparatus that he unwittingly resonated with more than he might have seen. Yet his Kantianism is certainly admirable (if you ask me), and his theory of Archetypes strikes me as a curiosity that has the 'spirit' right but not the precise elements. Of course, he could not ever venture to have precision- because he WAS NOT a man of science! Even Freud suffers.
Indeed, this historicality informs quite a bit of my plot as my thought inevitably tends towards the reconciliation of metaphysical opposites, and how newness is born from them in (Niels) Bohrian fashion:
"Contraria sunt complementa."
("Opposites are complementary.")
Campbell is quite annoying in that cultist activity I will agree. I also dislike his 'happy emptiness' sort of feeling, this 'follow your blissism'. It strikes me as remarkably distasteful overall- but he's my link into the field.
Well now we've gone off topic into my philosophical interests, but I think the point stands.
I definitely will look into those authors once I've finished this year's thesis. I'll look into the Egri and toy with Freytag. I know that you've studied this material, but your erudition is nevertheless commendable.
