The Difference in Masculinity between Murdock’s and Schmidt’s Heroines’ Journeys.

    In this blog post, I will be critically reflecting on the differences between Murdock’s and Schmidt’s heroines’ journeys. More specifically, I will focus on the attention to masculinity that both templates either contain or lack. For a quick recap, the heroine’s journey is “a female-centric version of the traditional hero’s journey template” (Heroine’s Journey Wikipedia). In class, we focused on two versions of the heroine’s journey: one from Maureen Murdock and another from Victoria Lynn Schmidt. 

    In Maureen Murdock’s Heroine’s Journey, we see more attention to detail on the main character’s, or our heroine’s, internal struggles with masculine values. Murdock’s journey is deeply psychological and emotional, mapping a cycle where the heroine initially rejects the feminine, strives for success in a masculine-dominated world, and eventually experiences a crisis that forces her to reconnect with the feminine aspects of herself. For example, the beginning stages, like “Shift from feminine to masculine” and “Identification of the masculine,” focus on stages where our heroine disassociates her feminine urges and switches to more masculine characteristics. Later on in the monomyth, our heroine goes through the “Integration of masculine and feminine” stage, where she reconciles and finds balance between both worlds. This process feels authentic because it mirrors real-world societal pressures placed on women: success is often defined by traditionally masculine ideals, such as independence, rationality, and ambition. Murdock's emphasis on healing the split between the masculine and feminine makes her model particularly powerful, suggesting that true self-actualization comes not from rejecting femininity, but from embracing both sides of identity.

    By contrast, Victoria Lynn Schmidt’s model feels broader and somewhat more action-driven. While Schmidt acknowledges an internal journey, her template leans more heavily on external challenges, plot points, and character archetypes. In Schmidt’s structure, the heroine often faces outer conflicts that are metaphorical for internal struggle, but the emphasis on masculine ideals—such as proving oneself through external battles—is less overtly critiqued. Instead, Schmidt’s heroine appears to navigate challenges without as much attention to how internalized masculinity may have influenced her. I found that this monomyth is more similar to Campbell’s 17-stage journey, which we have been focusing on in class. This is ironic, however, as Murdock was Campbell’s student but produced a journey for her heroine that had much more internal conflict than that of Schmidt’s. Although this can make Schmidt’s version more accessible for storytelling across genres, it sometimes risks flattening the emotional complexity that Murdock so carefully outlines.

Ultimately, Murdock’s and Schmidt’s templates both offer valuable frameworks, but they serve slightly different purposes. Murdock's version feels more intimate, more therapeutic, while Schmidt's is more flexible for writers interested in adventure narratives with female protagonists. If a storyteller wants to deeply explore the psychological effects of living in a male-dominated society, Murdock’s model offers richer material. However, if the goal is to tell a fast-paced story with strong external stakes, Schmidt’s approach might be more practical. Both models remind us that the heroine’s journey is not simply about flipping the hero’s journey to fit a woman; it’s about carving out new storytelling possibilities that better reflect diverse human experiences.