Thinking Activity - Northrope Freye and Architypal literature

This blog is written in response to the thinking activity on The Architypal Criticism of Northrope Freye, activity given by Dr Dilip Barad Sir at the Department of English, MKBU.

In this blog I have asked below given questions to ChatGPT and wrote the answers through the responses that I have received. 

1) What is Archetypal Criticism?

2) What is contribution of Northrop Frye in Archetypal Criticism?

3) What do Archetypal Critics do? Explain with examples.

4) "Every organized body of knowledge can be learned progressively; and experience shows that there is also something progressive about the learning of literature. Our opening sentence has already got us into a semantic difficulty." Explain the semantic difficulty. (copy paste in ChatGPT as prompt - and then copy paste the response with your comment regarding how correct explanation is given by chatgpt)

5) as above - "The relation of criticism to religion, when they deal with the same documents, is more complicated. In criticism, as in history, the divine is always treated as a human artifact. God for the critic, whether he finds him in Paradise Lost or the Bible, is a character in a human story".

1. What is Archetypal Criticism?

Archetypal criticism is a type of literary criticism that focuses on identifying and analyzing archetypes, which are recurring symbols, characters, themes, or patterns that are present in myths, folklore, and literature across cultures and time periods. Archetypal critics believe that these archetypes are universal, innate, and deeply rooted in the human psyche.

Archetypal criticism is often associated with the Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, who argued that archetypes are part of the collective unconscious, a shared reservoir of human experiences and symbols that are inherited from our ancestors. According to Jung, archetypes are manifestations of the basic patterns of human behavior, and they serve as a way of organizing and interpreting our experiences.

Archetypal critics analyze literature by identifying the archetypes that are present in the text, and they examine how these archetypes contribute to the meaning and themes of the work. They also compare and contrast the archetypes in different works of literature, and they explore the cultural and historical contexts in which these archetypes appear.

Some common archetypes that archetypal critics analyze include the hero, the villain, the mentor, the trickster, the mother, the father, the journey, the quest, and the underworld. Archetypal criticism is used to analyze a wide range of literary works, from myths and legends to modern novels and films.

2. What is contribution of Northrop Frye in Archetypal Criticism?

Northrop Frye was a prominent literary critic who made significant contributions to archetypal criticism. Frye's approach to archetypal criticism was influenced by his background in theology and his interest in the relationship between literature and culture.

Frye believed that archetypes were essential to the study of literature and that they provided a way of understanding the underlying structure and meaning of literary works. He argued that archetypes were part of a broader system of symbols and motifs that he called the "mythos," which was a kind of cultural unconscious that shapes our understanding of the world.

One of Frye's key contributions to archetypal criticism was his concept of the "anatomy of criticism," which he outlined in his book of the same name. In this book, Frye presented a system of literary analysis that was based on the idea of archetypes and their relationship to different genres of literature. He argued that all literature could be understood in terms of four main genres, which he called the "modes": the mythic, the romantic, the high mimetic, and the low mimetic. Each mode had its own set of archetypes and themes, and Frye believed that understanding these archetypes and themes was crucial to understanding the underlying meaning and structure of a work of literature.

Frye also developed the concept of the "archetypal plot," which was a basic narrative pattern that was present in many different works of literature. This plot was based on the hero's journey, in which the hero goes through a series of trials and challenges that ultimately lead to their transformation and enlightenment.

Overall, Frye's contributions to archetypal criticism helped to establish it as a significant approach to the study of literature, and his ideas continue to influence literary criticism and theory today.

3. What do Archetypal Critics do? Explain with examples.

Archetypal critics study literature by analyzing the archetypes that are present in the text and exploring how these archetypes contribute to the meaning and themes of the work. Archetypal critics identify archetypes, which are recurring symbols, characters, themes, or patterns that are present in myths, folklore, and literature across cultures and time periods. They believe that these archetypes are universal, innate, and deeply rooted in the human psyche. Here are some examples of what archetypal critics do:

• Analyze the Hero Archetype: The hero archetype is one of the most well-known and commonly analyzed archetypes. Archetypal critics will identify the hero archetype in a work of literature, and they will explore how the hero's journey contributes to the meaning of the work. For example, in J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings," the hero archetype is embodied by Frodo Baggins, who goes on a perilous journey to destroy the One Ring and save Middle Earth. Archetypal critics might analyze Frodo's journey and the challenges he faces, such as his battles with Gollum and the temptation to use the Ring for his own purposes, to explore the deeper themes of the work.
• Compare and Contrast Archetypes Across Cultures: Archetypal critics often compare and contrast archetypes in different works of literature and explore their cultural and historical contexts. For example, the trickster archetype is present in many different cultures, from the Norse god Loki to the African hare Anansi. Archetypal critics might analyze the different ways that the trickster archetype is portrayed in different cultures and explore the deeper meanings and themes that are associated with this archetype.
• Examine the Role of Archetypes in Genre Fiction: Archetypal critics often explore the role of archetypes in different genres of literature. For example, the Gothic novel is known for its use of archetypes such as the haunted castle and the mad scientist. Archetypal critics might analyze the ways in which these archetypes are used in different Gothic novels to explore the deeper fears and anxieties of the era in which they were written.

Overall, archetypal critics use their understanding of archetypes to explore the deeper meanings and themes of literary works and to understand the ways in which literature reflects and shapes the human experience.

4. "Every organized body of knowledge can be learned progressively; and experience shows that there is also something progressive about the learning of literature. Our opening sentence has already got us into a semantic difficulty." Explain the semantic difficulty. 

The semantic difficulty in the opening sentence of this statement is that it suggests that the learning of literature can be approached in a purely progressive or linear way, with each step building upon the last, in the same way that one might learn a scientific theory or mathematical formula. However, the study of literature is more complex and multifaceted than this simple model suggests, and it is not always possible to learn literature in a strictly progressive manner.

Literature is an art form that is not limited to a single set of rules or principles, and the meanings and interpretations of literary works can be highly subjective and open to different readings. Unlike scientific or mathematical knowledge, which is often based on empirical evidence and logical deduction, the study of literature requires a more intuitive and creative approach, as well as an understanding of the social, cultural, and historical context in which a work was written.

While it is certainly possible to learn about the techniques and structures that are commonly used in literature, and to gain a deeper understanding of the themes and ideas that are explored in different works, there is no single "correct" way to approach the study of literature. Different readers may bring different perspectives and interpretations to the same work, and these perspectives may change over time or be influenced by new experiences.

In summary, the semantic difficulty in the opening sentence of this statement arises from the fact that while the learning of literature can be approached progressively to some extent, it is also a complex and multifaceted art form that requires a more nuanced and subjective approach than a purely progressive model suggests.

5. "The relation of criticism to religion, when they deal with the same documents, is more complicated. In criticism, as in history, the divine is always treated as a human artifact. God for the critic, whether he finds him in Paradise Lost or the Bible, is a character in a human story".

This statement suggests that the relationship between criticism and religion is complicated, particularly when they are dealing with the same documents, such as religious texts like the Bible. In literary criticism, and in history more broadly, the divine is treated as a human artifact, rather than as an objective or transcendent reality.

From a critical perspective, when examining religious texts, God and other divine figures are viewed as literary characters, rather than as actual supernatural beings. This means that the divine is analyzed in terms of its literary qualities, such as character development, plot, and symbolism, rather than as a theological or spiritual entity.

This approach is in contrast to the religious perspective, which treats God and other divine figures as actual beings with real agency in the world. In this view, religious texts are seen as conveying divine truths and teachings, rather than as literary artifacts to be analyzed and interpreted.

The statement highlights the tension between these two approaches, and suggests that the relationship between criticism and religion is inherently complex. Critics are focused on analyzing the literary qualities of religious texts, while religious believers are focused on understanding their spiritual and theological significance.

Overall, this statement suggests that the relationship between criticism and religion is complex, and that there are fundamental differences in how each approach views the divine and its role in human experience.

Thinking activity- I A Richard’s Practical Criticism and Figurative language

 This blog is written in response to the thinking activity given by Dr. Dilip Barad sir on the I A Richards’s Practical Criticism and Figurative language at the Department of English, MKBU.

I.A. Richards

Ivor Armstrong Richards CH, known as I. A. Richards was an English educator, literary critic, poet, and rhetorician. He was born on 26 February 1893 in Sandbach, United Kingdom. He is best known for his ‘Practical Criticism’ and ‘The Principle of Literary Criticism’.

He is considered along with T S Eliot the founder of the New criticism. He deferred from other new critics as he just not limit himself rigorously to the poem under consideration but also takes into account its effects on the readers. For him the real value of a poem lies in the reactions and attitudes it creates, and whether or not it is conducive to greater emotional balance, equilibrium, peace and rest in the mind of the readers. For him, the value of a work of art lies in its power to harmonize and organize complex and warring human impulses into patterns that are lasting and pleasurable. 

I A Richards introduced four kinds of Meanings in poetry.

1. Sense is what is said, or the ‘items’ referred to by a writer.

2. Feeling refers to emotions, emotional attitudes, will, desire, pleasure, displeasure and the rest. When we say something we have a feeling about it, “an attitude towards it, some special direction, bias or accentuation of interest towards it, some personal flavor or colouring of feeling”. Words express “these feelings, these nuances of interest”.

3. Tone is the writer’s attitude to his readers or audience. The use of language is determined by the writer’s ‘recognition’ of his relation to his readers.

4. Intention is the writer’s aim, which may be conscious or unconscious. It refers to the effect that he tries to produce. This purpose modifies the expression. It controls the emphasis, shapes the arrangement, or draws attention to something of importance.

In his “Principles of Literary Criticism” chapter 34, he discusses the theory of language and the two uses of language. According to I. A. Richards language can be used in two ways,

 the scientific use and  the emotive one.

Richards introduced Four types of misunderstanding while reading poetry.

• Misunderstanding of the sense of poetry: Careless, intuitive reading. Like just considering rhyme or irregular syntax.
• Over-literal reading – prosaic reading
• Defective scholarship- inappropriate metaphor
• Difference in meaning of words in poetry and prose- don't understand the use of Personification, Metaphor etc.

With the help of I A Richards's arguments on poetry criticism lets analyze a poem.

Nizar Qabbani's poem  ‘Jerusalem! My Love, My Town’

Oh Jerusalem, the city of sorrow

A big tear wandering in the eye

Who will halt the aggression

On you, the pearl of religions?

Who will wash your bloody walls?

Who will safeguard the Bible?

Who will rescue the Quran?

Who will save Christ, From those who have killed Christ?

Who will save man?

Thinking Activity- 'Waiting for Godot' by Samuel Beckett.

This blog is written in response to the thinking activity given by Dr. Dilip Barad on Samuel Beckett’s play 'Waiting for Godot' at the Department of English, MKBU.

Waiting for Godot

 ‘En attendant Godot: tragicomedy in two acts' is a play written originally in French by Samuel Beckett in 1952 and was also translated by Beckett with the name  'Waiting for Godot' in English.

The play is part of Theatre of Absurd and hardly follows the rules of conventional play structure. The play is structured in round shape and the both acts of play are completely the same structure and without much changes.

1.1.    Why does Beckett grow a few leaves in Act II on the barren tree - The tree has four or five leaves?

In the first act of the play the tree is baron but in the second act there are few leaves grown into the tree.

The setting of the whole play is on the country road and everything seems to be baron, yet there is a tree, maybe of willow. In the first act it's completely empty with no leaf but in the second act it grows few leaves. 

The leaves that are grown on the tree do not change anything about the story and do not give any meaning. It is just what it is. That seems like nature does not care for anything. The tree grows leaves because of its nature. The human suffering that is represented by Vladimir and Estragon does not affect the tree or considerably the nature to stop growing leaves or to bloom entirely.

1.2.   Can we do any political reading of the play if we see European nations represented by the 'names' of the characters (Vladimir - Russia; Estragon - France; Pozzo - Italy and Lucky - England)? What interpretation can be inferred from the play written just after World War II? Which country stands for 'Godot'?

If we read waiting for Godot by the political viewpoint then we can consider Vladimir as Russia and Estragon as France. They seem to represent the Franco- Russian alliance and the after effects of WW1 as the Russian golden age ended and also the French ‘La Belle Époque’ means ‘The beautiful age’ also ended with the beginning of the first world war.

The character of Pozzo and Lucky also seems to represent countries Italy and England in some ways. Their relation to one another seems obscure. They both are very opposite. Pozzo seems to represent the Fascism in Italy. Both countries have a history of opposition to one another but they come to an agreement and alliance like both characters stay together.

Godot seems to represent the country Germany as it rises from world war 1 and causes to start world war 2. It seemed to become some marvel as it grew and was meant to be something good but as time came it became a nightmare and caused great harm to Europe and the rest of the world. Godot also seems to resemble Hitler as he drew a line between people like Nazis and Jews.

1.3.    In Act I, in reply to Boy’s question:

"BOY: What am I to tell Mr. Godot, Sir?

VLADIMIR: Tell him . . . (he hesitates) . . . tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn't you?

How does this conversation go in Act II? What is the significance?

In the first act Vladimir replies to The Boy that “tell him you saw us” but in the end of the second act Vladimir says that “tell him you saw me”. Apart from that the conversation is the same but those changes are very important as we can understand the changed mind of Vladimir.

In the play we can see that Vladimir is the one who is more desperate for salvation or wants to get away from life. Estragon does not remember anything and also doesn't care for anything. Vladimir on the other hand remembers everything. He always makes calculations and tries to use his brain to make the situation better. He is more practical because of his awareness of the situation. 

 He knows that one of the thieves was saved. So he becomes conscious of himself and wants to be under the grace of Mr. Godot so it seems that he becomes self centered at the end of the play.

1.4.    In both Acts, evening falls into night and moon rises. How would you interpret this ‘coming of night and moon’ when actually they are waiting for Godot?

 

‘The moon rises at back, mounts in the sky, stands still, shedding a pale light on the scene.’ 

In the first act when the moon rises and night falls completely, Vladimir says “at last” as he was waiting for the night to come and the day to end. His expressions seem to be relaxed. Now he can stop waiting for Godot till night ends and can rest without worry but on the other hand Estragon seems to be disappointed when the night comes.

He says, “Pale for weariness.”

“Of climbing heaven and gazing on the likes of us.”

It seems that he thinks that nature is mocking them and waiting for Godot. The ‘pale light’ of the moon seems to be their hope that is ruined with the gone time. 

1.5.    What is the meaning of the terms ‘Apathia, Aphasia and Athambia’ in Lucky’s speech? “. . . divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown …”

The terms Apathia means lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern, Athambia means incapable of being upset or not easily excited, Aphasia means trouble speaking or understanding other people speaking.

So, divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia provides the complete opposite of the version of god's characteristics that we believe is  omnipotent, meaning all-powerful; omniscient, meaning all-knowing; and omnipresent, meaning present everywhere at all times.

1.6.  ‘A better solution to the tramp’s predicament than to wait – is, suicide”. Is it really so? Why they fail to commit suicide? (Pg 36 in the article)

Indeed the batter solution for Vladimir and Estragon is seems to commit Suicide. If they commit suicide they can finely be free form waiting and can be resolved form their miserable life, but they fails to commit suicide because they think if Godot comes and save them tomorrow they don't have to commit suicide. So, they don't commit suicide and decided to stay in their miserable state and situation.

ESTRAGON: You haven't got a bit of rope?

VLADIMIR: No.

ESTRAGON: Then we can't.

First they don't have equipment such like rope so they can hang themselves to the tree and second they lake the will of committing suicide as they decide to wait for Godot and achieve salvation through him rather die by committing suicide.

VLADIMIR: 

Let's wait and see what he says. 

ESTRAGON: 

Who? 

VLADIMIR: 

Godot. 

1.7.    Explain: “Godot might become as image of what Sartre calls “Bad Faith””. (Pg 39 in the article, Martin Esslin's The Search for the Self)

According to Sartre, ‘Bad faith comes when a person denies his freedom to take actions according to his will for his life and completely relies on the fate of the divine or his position. Existentialists believed that individuals are always free to make choices in their lives according to their free wills.

“the first act of bad faith consist in evading what one cannot evade, in evading what one is”

In the play the constant want of salvation seems to be the act of evading reality, the condition in which the both characters Vladimir and Estragon are put into and Waiting for Godot is their escape from their reality.

1.8.    Explain:

“One hardly feels the absurdity of some things, on the one hand, and the necessity of those other things, on the other, (for it is rare that feeling of absurdity is not followed by the feeling of necessity), when one feels the absurdity of those things of which one had just felt the necessity (for it is rare that the feeling of necessity is not followed by the feeling of absurdity)”

When we have the necessity of something we overlook its other otherside that can be absurd but when we have the thing that we want, we will think of its other side. When we accept things just the way they are, we overlook their absurdity.

To understand this statement we can exemplify it with the environment of a classroom. When students find some topic or subject they hardly feel bored but if a teacher comes up with a subject or topic that is out of their understanding or they can not relate with they will feel bored and want to just get through it and will wait just for class to end and will watch the clock.