Northrop Frye, Archetypal Criticism

Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye offers the only alternative to the New Critics' pattern of the 'close reading' of a text in the twentieth century that does not either deny a common humanity or mount a war on the word. Frye's 1953 masterpiece Anatomy of Criticism actually suggests four legitimate means of reading literature, but it is the archetypal criticism for which he is most famous.

Following Carl Jung, Frye offers a mode of reading that understands human experience in universal terms, seeing primal, general, and universal themes in the great works of literature, and the 'great code' of art in the Bible. Dr. Jordan Peterson has to some degree repopularised Frye's approach with his psychological readings of literature and the idea of a 'collective unconscious' common to all humanity.

To support my channel and assist me in providing better content, please go here:

[azaadbhat]

This lecture is worth ten days study about this book.... An anatomy of criticism.

[LordLightheart]

How delighted I am when I see your face in the search results 🙏🏻 this channel is a true 💎!!

[geoffreynhill]

A nod to Jordan Peterson & James Frazer... and you'll find the Bible, Blake, Wordsworth, Schiller, Jung et alia all here., still present and correct! For sure our supposed myths & legends are the roots that attend our birth and sustain us throughout our lives. Sincerest thanks to the modest & knowledgeable Dr Masson! 🌈🦉

[dollie]

I wrote a research paper last semester and used archetypal criticism. I was afraid that I might not get a good grade because it's considered a dated approach but I got the highest marks now I want to use the same theory for my thesis to analyse contemporary retellings of Greek literature. I don't have my argument or the exact direction where I want to take it but your lecture has helped significantly. Some of my misconceptions are cleared up and I have a clearer view, Thank you!!!

[geoffreynhill]

Jung, Freud & Adler were dismissed in half a lecture as "early pioneers" at my Uni in the 60's, and replaced by weeks of amassing statistics on "wrist reflexes under various control conditions". I quit for Sociology and learned years later that the Psychology Dept was generously funded by local industry. 🥴

[dougbond]

I'm a bit concerned by the specific links to Jung and Jordan Peterson. Frye is/was quite explicit that his notion of archetype is not Jungian (he laments his use of term because it has caused much confusion). Peterson's approach is also Freudian, and Frye is quite explicit also (See Words with Power) about his resistance to reducing the structural principles of myth and metaphor to psychology or anthropology (he says his ideas will be consistent with them but not reducible for very specific reasons). Using Jung or Peterson/Freud in this way I suggest misconstrues Frye's ideas, and their explanatory power.

[alohm]

Just to discuss, I think Frye was right - 51:00. We read the Bible, or the Gita, or Conrad or Baudelaire.... Without knowing about Paris, or the Middle East 2000 years ago - and the teachings and stories still resonate in our souls - that is transcendence in Literature, and what I think he means?

[KoffeeShak]

Taking a intro class to comedy film studies. Read an excerpt from Frye and found your lecture very informative. Thank you.

[utqx]

I have to read his book of literature, the educated imagination, and he's a wonderful critic, but for a book that aims to educate the general public, his writing makes his work hard to read. Harder than any of my science textbooks.

[asmaaelsokkary]

From Egypt, tip of hat for the lecture, can you help me in theory of symbol for Frye

[chadbareje]

I love this topic, Dr. Masson. I hope you can explain to me the second essay of Sir Frye, Ethical: Theory of Symbols, please, I struggle more on this part. Thank you.

Love from Ph.

[katiabelfadel]

would you mind to explain more about the theory of mythos in the third essay of anatomy of criticism, please. I do really thank you.

[DhillonRainOne]

Great lecture. You can access his personal library at u of t and I did.

[czarquetzal]

Dr. Masson, how can we categorize Frye? New Critic, Archetypal Critic?

[jipangoo]

Eagleton needs to look at New Criticism as a language game. I'm not sure about the archetype. It assumes similar sets of rules, objectives and so on. Humans are emotional. Aspects of Romanticism (seen in Marxism and elsewhere) recur via an emotional response more than it having appeared before via THE archetype