But I found the structure rather confusing, both at macro and at micro level. I couldn't quite be sure what Campbell's basic thesis is, whether he thinks that there is a single archetypal hero myth in which all hero stories (maybe even all stories) are rooted (which is what he seems to say in the introduction) or whether he thinks it's impossible to be so concrete (which is what he seems to say in the epilogue). While each individual chapter and section is supposed to illustrate a certain element of the "monomyth", in fact the examples given often have little bearing on the point that is being made; Campbell tells us what he is going to say, then actually says something a bit different, and then fails to tell us what he has said. (The chapter on Transformations of the Hero, where Cuchulain comes up, seemed rather better structured than the rest.) Of course, it is the nature of folklore to be rambling and discursive, but one can analyse a thing without taking on too many of that thing's characteristics.
Anyway, I can see why this was an influential book of its time, but I felt that the approach was old-fashioned even for 1948, and hope that there are better introductions to world folklore out there.