Read on Twitter
I started rolling my eyes reading this thread but I actually agree with VKR's broader point here, which is that almost all stories can be made better by fitting them into a loosely defined structure that most successful works of fiction share. https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1355616950055931910
Whether or not that's strictly "Campbellian" I have some quibbles with. I am a fan of Matt Bird's formulation, which is more descriptive than it is prescriptive. Stories tend to be about a person solving a big problem.
The most important point, of course, is that you have to start with the story before you can beat it into a structure. The paint by numbers approach usually ends in frustration.
I tend to write a draft, then interrogate it later.
"Does the protagonist have a long standing social problem?"
"Have they taken up an intimidating opportunity?"
"Have they exhausted all the stupid ways of doing this?"
"Are they really taking the hard way now?"
"Does the protagonist have a long standing social problem?"
"Have they taken up an intimidating opportunity?"
"Have they exhausted all the stupid ways of doing this?"
"Are they really taking the hard way now?"
The answers to those questions send me down another series of rewrites. More questions, more rewrites.
Rinse/repeat until the rewrites stop making it better.
Rinse/repeat until the rewrites stop making it better.
But I digress. It's a good thread. This part is especially true, fanfic is a complete joke. https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1355641486063194113?s=20
