Literary Theories

Dr Marek Oziewicz Introduction to Literary Theory and Criticism 1

 _____  ________ _____ ______ _________ ______ ______ _____  __  Myth and Archetypal criticism is an approach to literature which derives from the insights of depth psychology (C. G. Jung and James Hillman), anthropology (primarily James Frazer and Edward B. Tylor), comparative religion and mythology (Mircea Eliade and Joseph J oseph Campbell), and attempts to explain literature by mythic principles. Although for many scholars archetypal theory and criticism is distinct from myth theory and criticism, boundaries are elusive and the two may be treated as one type of, still evolving, approach to art and literature. Myth critics, aligned with writers in comparative anthropology and philosophy, are said to include James Frazer, Jessie Weston, Leslie Fiedler, Ernst Cassirer, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Richard Chase, Joseph Campbell, Philip Wheelwright, and Francis Fergusson. The archetypal theorists who have remained faithful to the origins and traditions of depth, especially analytical, psychology include James Hillman, Henri Corbin, Gilbert Durand, Rafael Lopez-Pedraza, Lopez-Pedraza, Evangelos Christou. Archetypal (Jungian) criticism is an attempt to bring psychological analysis and reflection to bear upon the imaginative experience communicated by literature, and to examine those forms or patterns in which the universal forces of human nature there find objectification. Hillman locates the archetypal neither “in the physiology of the brain, the structure of language, the organization of  society, nor the analysis of behavior, but in the processes of imagination.” Focusing on the imaginal and making central the concept they call “soul,” the archetypalists maintain an insistent focus on psychoid phenomena, which they characterize as meaningful. Yet, since Jungian theory provided no clear avenue of access for those outside of  psychology, and since orthodox  Jungians were left with little in the way of models for the psychological analysis of literature, this school of  criticism has long remained on the margins of academic discourse and outside the boundaries of traditional academic disciplines and departments. Myth criticism signaled a need for fo r criticism to move beyond the restrained and relatively objective explication of single texts to the sustained and a nd even passionate meditation upon the larger mythic patternings of 

the human mind that produce ritual, myth, legend, romance, and ultimately literature. Much of the rhetorical power of myth criticism lay not just in a claim to erect or preserve a literary or cultural tradition, but in the feeling that it was participating vitally in a pan-disciplinary effort, often combining, the “findings” of  anthropology (Frazer), (Frazer), mythology (Ernst Cassirer), and psychology (C. G. Jung primarily, but Sigmund Freud as well) to get at the ways that humanity makes meaning. This is clear in an inaugural work of myth criticism,  Joseph Campbell's 1949 Hero with a Thousand Faces, just as well as in its crowning achievement, Northrop Frye’s 1957 Anatomy of Criticism. Frye’s Theory: In his Anatomy of Criticism, Northrop Frye essentially redefines and relocates archetype on grounds that remove him unequivocally from the ranks of “Jungian” critics by severing the connection between archetype and depth psychology: Perceiving Perceiving a theory of a collective unconscious as an unnecessary hypothesis in literary criticism, Frye retains retains the Jungian concept of archetype, but redefines it as a literary occurrence per se, an exclusively intertextual recurring phenomenon resembling a convention. Frye attempts a comprehensive classification of literature into four narrative categories (comic, tragic, romantic, ironic) that correspond to four mythoi (spring, summer, autumn, winter). Like other myth critics, Frye is heavily dependent upon ritualist assumptions—i.e. that classical art had its origins in primitive ritual, and modern art is also evolved from vital primitive rituals that reflected primal mystical ways of thinking. (Jessie Weston's 1920 From Ritual to Romance, a study of the Grail romances as civilized versions of fertility rites, is one of the first applications of the ritualist approach to nonclassical material). Frye lays over literature a simplified evolutionary grid on which ritual evolves into myth which evolves into literature. For him all genres of literature derive from myth—specifically, the myth of the life of the hero. Associating the life cycle of the hero with several other cycles: the yearly cycle of the seasons, the daily cycle of the sun, and the nightly cycle of dreaming and awakening, Frye Frye offers his own heroic pattern, which he calls the “questmyth,” and which consists of four broad stages: the birth, triumph, isolation, and defeat of the hero. Dr Marek Oziewicz Introduction to Literary Theory and Criticism 2

Each main genre of literature parallels at once a season, a stage in the day, a stage of consciousness, and above all a stage in the heroic myth. Romance parallels at once spring, sunrise, awakening, and the birth of the hero. Comedy parallels summer, midday, waking consciousness, and the triumph of the hero. Tragedy parallels autumn, sunset, daydreaming, and the isolation of the hero. Satire parallels winter, night, sleep, and the defeat of  the hero. The literary genres do not merely parallel the heroic myth but derive from it, just as the myth itself  derives from ritual. MYTH AND LITERATURE

 The relationship between myth and literature has taken varying forms, but the dominant are three: th ree: 1. the use of myth in works of literature, which usually boils down to a standard theme of tracing of  classical figures, events, and themes in works of literature. 2. the derivation of literature from myth. An example of this approach is From Ritual to Romance in which the English medievalist Jessie Weston Weston (1850-1928). 3. the focus on a common story line, combined with the search for mythic patterns in literature. M YTHIC PATTERNS Myths collectively are too varied to share a plot, but common plots have been proposed for specific kinds of  myths, most often for hero myths. Other categories of myths, such as creation myths, flood myths, myths of  paradise, and myths of the future, have proved too disparate for all but the broadest commonalities. Most notable attempts to delineate mythic patterns include: In 1876 the Austrian scholar Johann Georg von Hahn uses fourteen f ourteen cases to argue that all “Aryan” hero tales follow an “exposure and return” formula. In each case the hero is born illegitimately, out of the fear of the prophecy of his future greatness is abandoned by his father, is sa ved by animals and raised by a lowly couple, fights wars, returns home triumphant, defeats his persecutors, frees his mother, becomes king, founds a city, and dies young. In 1914 the Viennese psychoanalyst Otto Rank publishes The Myth of the Birth of the Hero, a classical Freudian Freudian analysis of myth as the disguised, symbolic fulfillment of repressed, overwhelmingly Oedipal wishes lingering in the adult myth-maker or reader. reader. Rank presents a common plot, or pattern, for one category of myths: those of 

male heroes. For Rank, following Freud, heroism deals with what Jungians call the “first half of life”—birth, childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood—and involves the establishment of oneself as an independent person in the external world. The attainment of independence expresses itself concretely in the securing of a job and a mate. The securing of either requires both separation from one's parents and mastery of one's instincts, but for Rank actually culminates in a literary fantasy about the fulfillment of  the Oedipal wish to kill one's father in order to gain sexual access to one's mother. By identifying himself with the named hero, the creator or reader of the myth(ic story) acts out in his mind deeds that he would never dare act out in the world. Even the Oedipal deeds of the named hero are disguised, for the heroic pattern operates at or near the manifest, not the latent, level. Rank’s Hero Saga from The Myth of the Birth of the Hero develops the following outline: The hero is the child of most distinguished parents, usually the son of a king. k ing. His origin is preceded by difficulties, such as continence, or prolonged barrenness, or secret intercourse of the p arents due to external prohibition or obstacles. During or before the pregnancy, there is a prophecy, in the form of  a dream or oracle, cautioning against his birth, and usually threatening danger to the father or his representative. representative. As a rule, he is surrendered to the water, in a box. He is then saved by animals, or by lowly people (shepherds), and is suckled by a female animal or by an humble woman. After he has grown up, he finds his distinguished parents, in a highly versatile fashion. He takes his revenge on his father, on the one hand, and is acknowledged, on the other. Finally he achieves rank and honors. In 1928 the Russian folklorist Vladimir Propp seeks to demonstrate that Russian Russian fairy tales follow a common plot, in which the hero goes off on a successful adventure and upon his return marries and gains the throne. Although Propp's pattern skirts both the birth and the death of the hero, he attempts to establish a pattern for hero stories. Dr Marek Oziewicz Introduction to Literary Theory and Criticism 3 In 1936 the English folklorist Lord Raglan works out a detailed, twenty-two step pattern for the myth of 

the hero—a pattern he then applies to twenty-one myths—in his book The Hero. Raglan makes the heart of hero myths not the attainment of the throne but the loss of it, and his pattern covers the whole of the hero's life. What makes Raglan's theory applicable to literature is the centrality of the plot; his myth-ritualism does not merely make make the plot the scenario for the ritual r itual but argues for the ritual from the plot. Raglan’s Hero Myth pattern from The Hero consists of the following stages: 1. The hero's mother is a royal virgin; 2. His father is a king, and 3. Often a near relative of his mother, but 4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and 5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god. 6. At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather, to kill him, but 7. He is spirited away, and 8. Reared by foster-parents in a far country. 9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but 10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom. 11. After After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast, 12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor, and 13. Becomes king. 14. For a time he reigns uneventfully, and 15. Prescribes laws, but 16. Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and 17. Is driven from the throne and city, after which 18. He meets with a mysterious death, 19. Often at the top of a hill. 20. His children, if any, do not succeed him. 21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless 22. He has one or more holy sepulchers. In 1949 the American mythographer Joseph Campbell publishes the classically Jungian counterpart to Rank’s work in his The Hero with a Thousand Faces. In it Campbell claims that the standard path of the mythological adventure of the hero is a magnification of the formula f ormula represented represented in the rites of passage: separation-initiation-return, separation-initiation-ret urn, which might be named the nuclear unit of the monomyth. For Cambpell a hero ventures forth, from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder (Separation). There he encounters fabulous forces and wins a decisive victory (Initiation). Then the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man (Return). (Return). When Campbell writes that

the myths accompanying initiation rituals “reveal the benign self-giving aspect of the archetypal father,” he is using the term in its Jungian sense. For Freudians, Freudians, gods symbolize parents. For Jungians, parents symbolize gods, who in turn symbolize father and mother archetypes, which are components of the hero's personality. The hero's relationship to these gods symbolizes the relationship of one side of a male's personality—his ego—to another side—his unconscious. The father and the mother are but two of the archetypes of which the Jungian, or “collective,” unconscious is composed. Archetypes are unconscious not because they have been repressed but because they have never been made conscious. For Jung and Campbell, myth originates and functions not, as for Freud and Rank, to satisfy neurotic urges that cannot be manifested openly but to express normal sides of  the personality that have just not had a chance at realization. Thus for Campbell male or female myth-maker or reader vicariously lives out mentally an adventure that even when directly fulfilled would still be taking place in the mind. For parts of the mind are what the hero is really encountering. However, where Jung espouses balance between ego consciousness and the unconscious, Campbell espouses fusion. Combining a philosophical interpretation of hero myths with a psychological psycho logical one, he takes all hero myths to be preaching mystical oneness. Dr Marek Oziewicz Introduction to Literary Theory and Criticism 4 Campbell’s stages of the heroic journey from The Hero with a Thousand Faces include: SEPARATION or DEPARTURE: 1. The Call to Adventure; 2. Refusal of the Call; 3. Supernatural Aid; 4. The Crossing of the First First Threshold; 5. The Belly of the Whale. INITIATION : 1. The Road of Trials; 2. The Meeting with the Goddess; 3. Woman as the Temptress; 4. Atonement with the Father; 5. Apotheosis; 6. The Ultimate Boon. RETURN: 1. Refusal of the Return; 2. The Magic Flight;

3. Rescue from Without; 4. The Crossing of the Return Return Threshold; 5. Master of the Two Worlds; 6. Freedom to Live. WHAT ARCHETYPAL AND MYTH CRITICS DO 1. They examine literature as echoing a ritualistic function, usually of  initiation into the mystery of adult life, and basically growing out of myths through its use of mythic structures, motives, plot patterns, and archetypes. 2. They point out the process of mythicization of contemporary literature as evidence of the resilience of  myth and mythic structures of human imagination and cognition. 3. They propose mythic plotlines or structures as templates for specific forms of literary expression (genres, conventions) and they examine individual works of literature as variations of  those patterns. 4. They assume the unavoidability of mythic narratives in human life, tracing the transformations of older myths into modern ones. 5. They are looking for traces of “mythic expression” in all types of art, not only literature, linking the mythic with the imaginary and identifying a “mythic” and “archetypal” context in literary works.  Postcolonialism deals with cultural identity in colonised societies: the dilemmas of  developing a national identity after colonial rule; the ways in which writers articulate and celebrate that identity (often reclaiming it from and maintaining strong connec tions with the coloniser); the ways in which the knowledge of the colonised (subordinated (subordinated)) people has been generated and used to serve the coloniser's interests; and the ways in which the c oloniser's literature has justified colonialism via images of the colonised as a p erpetually inferior people, society and culture. These inward struggles of identity, history, history, and future possibilities often occur in the metropolis and, ironically, with the aid of postcolonial structures of power, such as universities. Not surprisingly, surprisingly, many contemporary postcolonial p ostcolonial writers reside in London, Paris,  New York and Madrid. The creation of binary opposition structures the way we view others. In the case of colonialism, the Oriental and the Westerner  Westerner were were distinguished as different from each other (i.e. the emotional, decadent Orient vs. the principled, progressive Occident). This opposition justified the "white "white man's burden," burden," the coloniser's self-perceived "destiny to rule" subordinate peoples. In contrast, post-colonialism seeks out areas of hybridity and transculturalization. This aspect is  particularly relevant during processes of globalization. In Post-Colonial In Post-Colonial Drama: theory, practice, politics, Helen Gilbert and Joanne Joann e Tompkins Tompkins write: "the term postcolonialism – according to a too-rigid etymology – is frequently misunderstood as a temporal concept, meaning the time after colonialism has ceased, or the time following the  politically determined Independence Day on which a country breaks away from its governance  by another state, Not a naïve teleological sequence which supersedes colonialism,  postcolonialism is, rather, an engagement with and contestation of colonialism's discourses,

 power structures, and social hierarchies ... A theory of postcolonialism must, then, respond to more than the merely chronological construction of p ost-independence, and to more than just the discursive experience of imperialism of imperialism." ."[4] Colonized peoples reply to the colonial legacy by writing back to the center , when the indigenous peoples write their own histories and legacies using the coloniser's language (e.g. English, French, Dutch) for their own purposes.[5] "Indigenous decolonization" decolonization" is the intellectual impact of postcolonialist theory upon communities of indigenous peoples, thereby, thereby, their  generating postcolonial generating postcolonial literature. literature. A single, definitive definition of postcolonial theory is co ntroversial; writers have strongly criticised it as a concept embedded in identity politics. politics. Ann Laura Stoler, Stoler, in Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power, argues that the simplistic oppositional binary concept of Coloniser of Coloniser and  Colonised is Colonised is more complicated than it seems, since these categories are fluid and shifting;  postcolonial works emphasise the re-analysis of categories assumed to be natural an d immutable. Postcolonial Theory - as epistemology, epistemology, ethics, and politics - addresses matters of identity, identity, gender, race, racism and ethnicity with the challenges of developing a post-colonial national identity, of  how a colonised people's knowledge was used against them in service of the coloniser's interests, and of how knowledge about the world is generated under specific relations between the  powerful and the powerless, circulated repetitively and finally legitimated in service to c ertain imperial interests. At the same time, postcolonial theory encourages though t about the colonised's creative resistance to the coloniser and how that resistance complicates and gives texture to European imperial colonial projects, which u tilised a range of strategies, including anti-conquest narratives, narratives, to legitimise their dominance. Postcolonial writers object to the colonised's depiction as hollow "mimics" of Europeans or as  passive recipients of power. Consequent to Foucauldian argument, postcolonial scholars, i.e. the Subaltern Studies collective, argue that anti-colonial resistance accompanies every deployment of power. Archetypal literary criticism is a type of critical theory that interprets a text by focusing on recurring myths and archetypes (from the Greek archē  Greek archē , or beginning, and typos, typos, or imprint) in the narrative narrative,, symbols symbols,, images images,, and character types in a literary work. As a form of literary criticism, it dates back to 1934 when Maud Bodkin published Archetypal published Archetypal Patterns in Poetry. Poetry. Archetypal literary criticism’s criticism’s origins are rooted in two other academic ac ademic disciplines, social anthropology and psychoanalysis and psychoanalysis;; each contributed to the literary criticism in separate ways, with the latter being a sub-branch of the critical theory. Archetypal criticism was its most popular  in the 1950’s and 1960’s, largely due to the work of Canadian literary critic Northrop critic Northrop Frye. Frye. Though archetypal literary criticism is no longer widely practiced, nor have there been any major  developments in the field, it still has a place in the tradition of literary studies

ntent BookRags.com

Airport Schiphol Hotels Save up to 75% on Hotels Pay at check-in. No booking fees. www.priceline-europe.com

Shakespeare - Hamlet's Problem with Women Sexual Inexperience, Mother-Son Relationship and Delayed Revenge © Claire Cowling

Oct 12, 2008

Hamlet's problems, and the fate of Ophelia, in Shakespeare's tragedy can be blamed on his inability to reconcile the idea of Gertrude, his mother, and her sexuality.

Hamlet can be seen, according ac cording to W. W. Dyson Wood, Wood, as a young man of a delicate age of  indecision generally, generally, not yet fully in harmony with himself, sexuality and the culture around him. This certainly seems to be the case in the opening of  Hamlet   Hamlet . He is out of tune with the rest of  the court, in theatrical terms, standing apart from those whom he sees as hypocritical.

Gertrude and Sexuality It is here that the root of Hamlet’s problem is discovered – his mother’s hasty marriage to Claudius. This is preying on his mind even before h e discovers by means of the ghost that his father had been murdered by b y Claudius. He is still trying to come to terms with his mother’s sexuality and he has to work through these feelings before he can even eve n really consider avenging avenging his father’s death. death. By Elizabethan law, the marriage is incestuous and Hamlet has every right to call it so. Elizabethans also had long terms of mourning for the dead, but Gertrude does not, which maybe is symbolised by her inability to see the ghost of her dea d husband. This, together with the hastiness of her marriage could quite easily suggest to an audience as well as to Hamlet that Gertrude may have been guilty of adultery adulter y while her husband was alive. During the time that Hamlet is railing at his mother and trying to come to terms with the way sexuality works, his thoughts have little scope left for thinking abou t killing Claudius. If 

anything, he appears to be acting out his revenge on his mother for her suspected crime against his father. This does not detract from the heroic ideal, however. Shakespeare uses the concept,  but with a difference, portraying the sensitive, thoughtful hero, rather than a two-dimensional Homeric hero.

Condemning or Protecting Ophelia? Hamlet displays a degree of ambiguous feeling towards Ophelia, resulting in his ultimate rejection of her. His behaviour stems from his undeveloped, juvenile feelings of sexuality surrounding his mother. Hamlet is obviously shocked and dismayed by what he assumes is his mother’s lack of moral strength. Critics such as Muir believe, therefore, that he h eartlessly condemns Ophelia with:

To a nunnery nunner y, go; and quickly too. (III,1, l.147)  because he assumes that Ophelia, like Gertrude, must be a corrupt female and, in saying this, he  betrays his sexually inexperienced thoughts about all women. However, it is possible that Hamlet sees the nunnery as Ophelia’s means of protecting herself  against the sins of the flesh. He asks Ophelia: Why would’st would’st thou be a breeder breede r of sinners? (III,1, l.124-5) This suggests that, although in his own mind he associates all women with hypocritical love, he is actually trying to protect Ophelia from corruption. This is highlighted further when Hamlet describes her as innocent when he discovers she is dead. Evidently, Hamlet has loved Ophelia as he not only sacrificed his own happiness with her earlier in the play, but he is stirred into action  by the discovery of her death. There is also another possibility, which is rooted in the inexperience of Hamlet himself. In expressing his wish to hide hid e Ophelia away in a nunnery, it suggests Hamlet’s fear of sexuality and carnal love. It causes him to wish the removal of the only link he has with desire.

The Tragedy of Hamlet’s Psychology It is a rash thought, and through Hamlet’s Hamlet’s only rash deed of the entire play – that of killing Polonius, Ophelia’s father – that Ophelia’s fate is sealed. She thus suffers madness and death, due to Hamlet’s agitation and undeveloped knowledge about the relationships of men and women which prays on his mind throughout throughou t and is the reason for the catastrophic fatality of  Polonius, Ophelia and Hamlet’s Hamlet’s own happiness. It can be seen. then, that the moral and sexuality-based distractions of a young, exp erienced Hamlet are at the root of both Hamlet’s Hamlet’s delay in taking revenge for his h is father’s murder and of the fate of Ophelia, a true, tragic heroine. But Hamlet can be sympathised with. A modern audience can see Hamlet has a point: Gertrude does settle rather quickly into her new role as queen to Claudius. To an Elizabethan audience, he is right is condemning his mother and he needs to work through these feelings before embarking upon any kind of revenge. It seems only logical that Hamlet, as a young man, would be distracted by the possibility of  morally dubious sexuality of his mother and contemplates his revenge. It is this inexperience – 

the flaw in his character - in true Shakespearean tragic form, which leads to the ultimate catastrophic chain of events for Ophelia

Young Goodman Brown | Summary 1. Printable Version 2. Download PDF 3. Cite this Page 4. Ask a Question "Young "Young Goodman Brown" opens with Young Young Goodman Brown about to embark on an evening's  journey.  journey. His young wife, Faith, fearful for some unknown reason, beseeches him to delay his  journey.  journey. Goodman Brown, however, stresses that he has a task that must be accomplished before sunrise, and so the newlyweds reluctantly part. As he walks down the street, Goodman Brown chides himself for leaving Faith while he goes on his journey and resolves that, after this night, he will stay by the side of his good and pious wife. Pleased with himself, Goodman Brown the n hurries through the forest to..

Young Goodman Brown | Introduction 1. Printable Version 2. Download PDF 3. Cite this Page 4. Ask a Question "Young "Young Goodman Brown," written in 1835 by Nathaniel by Nathaniel Hawthorne is known for being one of  literature's most gripping portrayals of seventeenth-century Puritan society. society. The tale first appeared in the April issue of  New  New England Magazine and was later included in Hawthorne's  popular short story collection, Mosses from an Old Manse, Manse, in 1846. "Young "Young Goodman Brown" tells the tale of a young Puritan man drawn into a covenant with the Devil. Brown's illusions about the goodness of his society are crushed when he discovers that many of his fellow townspeople, including religious leaders and his wife, are attending a Black  Mass. At the end of the story, story, it is not no t clear whether Brown's experience e xperience was nightmare or reality, reality,  but the results are nonetheless the same. Brown is unable to forgive the possibility of evil in his loved ones and as a result spends the rest of his life in desperate loneliness and gloom. Though a work of fiction, "Young "Young Goodman Brown'' is widely considered to be one of the most effective literary works to address the h ysteria surrounding the Salem Witch Trials Trials of 1692. Hawthorne is also remembered for helping to e stablish the short story as a respected form of  literature and as a proponent of instilling morals and lessons into his writing.

Young Goodman Brown Summary "Young "Young Goodman Brown" opens with Young Young Goodman Brown about to embark on an evening's  journey.  journey. His young wife, Faith, fearful for some unknown reason, beseeches him to delay his  journey.  journey. Goodman Brown, however, stresses that he has a task that must be accomplished before sunrise, and so the newlyweds reluctantly part. As he walks down the street, Goodman Brown

chides himself for leaving Faith while he goes on his journey and resolves that, after this night, he will stay by the side of his good and pious wife. Pleased with himself, Goodman Brown the n hurries through the forest to accomplish some unknown task. Deeper in the forest Goodman Brown spies an old man, who is actually the Devil in disguise, waiting for him. Goodman Brown blames Faith for making him late. The older man, who has ha s a curious resemblance to Goodman Brown, carries a staff which resembles a black snake. When the older man urges Goodman Brown to take the staff to ease his walk, Goodman Brown expresses second thoughts and his intention to go home. The older man convinces Goodman Brown to walk with him, however, and listen to the reasons why he should continue. Goodman Brown agrees and murmurs that his forefathers, good h onest Christians, would never go on such a walk. To his surprise, Brown finds this is not true. His companion tells him that he is well acquainted with the Brown family and that he helped Brown's father and grandfather commit acts such as the punishment of religious dissenters and the massacre of Indians. While Goodman Brown expresses surprise, his companion... » Complete Young Young Goodman Brown Summary