(How) Is Archetypal Criticism Useful To A Skeptic? Part I

Blogging about Northrop Frye’s magisterial Anatomy of Criticism, which I just finished last evening on the Q train, feels a little like writing limericks about “The Waste Land.” (Which someone did.) You’re transferring a massive, carefully wrought art object into a parallel genre, one which is tiny and vaguely parodic. Still, since I’ve invested an embarrassing number of q-train rides into Frye, and I understood the book only in flashes, I feel like the least I can get out of it is a blogpost.

Frye’s self-declared goal is to arrive at a “synoptic” view of literature, that is, an overall structure of criticism which traces the central recurrent literary phenomena. The book consists, in essence, of a number of categorizations. Genres, for instance, are fourfold: comedy, tragedy, irony and romance. Or there are five “phases,” which describe the relation of the protagonist to the audience, ranging from mythic, in which the protagonists are gods; through romance—confusingly used to mean something related to but different from the above—which features superheros or demigods; high mimetic, featuring aristocrats; low mimetic, featuring commoners; and ironic, featuring anti-heros and the like.

There are several more systems like this: each is developed cleverly, and a dizzying selection of literary works—both high art and low—is employed in tracing the many archetypes. So, for instance, Freud’s master narrative is a comedy (!), just like those of Aristophanes and Shakespeare—and indeed, like Hollywood movies—and more interestingly, when Frye does the work of making smaller, more controversial divisions and evaluations, the groups and narrative affinities he described do not strictly correspond to historical periods: You may find that His Girl Friday has more in common with, say, A Midsummer’s Night Dream, than do The Merry Wives of Windsor and Dr. Strangelove (in fact, you would—the first two comedies are closer to romance, the latter two to irony).

So here’s the question. If I don’t think literature has a synoptic structure, what use is Anatomy of Criticism? I’ve been struggling to articulate where this skepticism comes from. Yesterday, it was clarified by a professor I met to talk about graduate school.

She said, more or less in passing, that although English departments talk about being interdisciplinary, transnational, and the rest of it, basically they were interested in provable historical adjacencies. To show that Blake’s idea of revolution anticipated post-colonial conversations (or is a meaningful part of them), you should find articles about the Haitian revolution in the papers he was reading. Further, English professors, these days, are frankly more interested in, say, how Ghanain independence relates to Portnoy’s complaint (both end of the fifties), than in how Roth’s vision of masculinity in the novel relates to, say, Henry James’s. The latter is basically the subject of a book, because you’ll need 200 pages to move a half century or century (or more likely, the book’ll just be four unconnected essays, and the “relates to” will be an illusion anyway).

I think this sensibility is a more precise version of my skepticism. The issue isn’t just the “single literary canon,” it’s the whole idea that one can move easily between historical periods, that, whether because of the conscious design of the writer or, as Frye thinks, the shared literary structures within which they end up working necessarily, the most interesting things to say about them would be based on structural affinities, rather than historical adjacencies. (Needless to say, physical books themselves are the historical adjacencies between the “deep past” and the present: Homer’s Iliad is historically adjacent to me because of the Fagels translation sitting on my shelf which I read in college.)

Now, while I am interested in theoretical answers to my skepticism (i.e., I’m not sure we’ve taken the right tack in discounting literary arguments that aren’t historically local, and I think Fagels and Lattimore are quite important), I also want to put forward an argument for how literary structure can help us construct arguments that are ultimately historically local. So that’s the plan for the next post.

6 thoughts on “(How) Is Archetypal Criticism Useful To A Skeptic? Part I

  1. As for the claim that Frye is not interested in the historically local, you might want to read Michael Dolzani’s article in the most recent issue of the University of Toronto Quarterly–an issue devoted to Frye on the centennial of his birth.

    Too, in speaking about what Frye does or does not think, it’s good to be aware of the more than 20 books he wrote after Anatomy of Criticism. I wonder, for example, if your English department friend has read Words with Power or looked into Frye’s Late Notebooks. There are many Fryes, and one of them will certainly continue to be the Frye of Anatomy of Criticism. But in the 35 years following the appearance of that book a great deal more than a theory of literary structure flkowed from his pen.

    • Robert —

      Thanks for reading and commenting! To be clear, none of this is about Frye per se. It’s about this book, that is Anatomy of Criticism. If I have concerns about some of the math being wrong in Kapital Volume II, I’m not making a point about Marx in toto. As I’m currently university-less, I don’t think I can get Dolzani’s article, though if you have a pdf and want to help a young enthusiast, my email is raphael.magarik@gmail.com. Also to be clear, my professor friend wasn’t talking about Frye—I took her comment from another context to help me clarify exactly what my skeptical intuitions are. Sorry if the post left that point ambiguous.

      Also, as you’ll see if I write the two or three more posts on this book I’m hoping to write (and you read them), I actually think myth/archetpye criticism is really helpful to historically minded scholars. I want to see if I can (mostly for my own benefit) lay out plainly the ways they are.

      Again, thanks for reading.


      • I guess actually the follow-up questions for me, though would be, since you seem to be an expert in Frye, what else would you recommend of his? And how would you describe some of his best later work (ie, the more “locally” oriented stuff?)?

        Also, since I don’t know you, I’d be curious how you found this blog—a google alert for “Northrop Frye”?

  2. Yes, I found your blog through Frye alerts, which I often send in to the Frye blog: http://fryeblog.blog.lib.mcmaster.ca/

    For a view of Frye somewhat different from that contained in the Anatomy, I’d recommend the last half of Words with Power and the essays collected in Myth and Metaphor. Also the posthumously published The Double Vision.

    If you send me your email address, I can send you Dolzani’s essay: it seems too long to include in a “comment.”

    All best,
    Bob Denham

  3. Pingback: An Early Modern Phil Ochs | Raphael Magarik

Leave a Reply to Robert Denham Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s