Archetypal Criticism: Finding the Mythic Resonance

Old myths, old gods, old heroes have never died. They are only sleeping at the bottom of our
mind, waiting for our call. We have need for them. They represent the wisdom of our race.
–Stanley Kunitz

Archetypal literary critics think there is a realm of human experience expressed in myths that
goes deeper than any rational or intellectual thinking. These critics ⸺ we can call them myth
critic for short⸺ believe the great literature that has proved to be of enduring appeal to humans
over the centuries is the literature that best reveals and expresses this magical realm. The job of
archetypal criticism is to identify those mythic elements that give a work of literature this deeper
resonance.
By their universality, myths seem essential to human culture. They explain the natural world,
offer guidance on proper ways to behave in a given society, and offer insight into enduring the
inevitable milestones of a lifetime.
Literature uses these common patterns or archetypes. In fact, say myth critics, whenever we are
totally caught up in a compelling book, it’s usually because of an author’s conscious or
unconscious use of mythic elements. Common mythical images, symbols, themes, and stories are
usually called archetypes, a word derived from ancient Greek that means as original pattern.
We can easily identify many mythic patterns that show up repeatedly in literature, giving it
remarkable unity. We can find archetypal geographies (paradise-like gardens, hellish,
wastelands, scary forest), archetypal characters (hero warriors, orphans, sorcerers, dark strangers,
fisher kings or wounded kings, evil advisers, country bumpkins, scapegoats etc.), archetypal
character conflicts (competing brothers, rebellious children, power-robbing spouses), archetypal
story arcs (a stranger comes to town, fish out of water, opposites attract, mistaken identify, rags
to riches), and archetypal themes (good vs. evil, man vs. nature). In other words, there is no
shortage of mythic elements to locate in works of literature. At the heart of them all, however, is
the archetype of the heroic quest, the mother of all myths.
Archetypal criticism has many benefits. It’s an approach that gives readers another way to think
about and analyze literature. It cultivates a cross-cultural appreciation for a common mythic
heritage. And it offers tools for personal discovery. We can use literature’s archetypes to think
about our own lives in mythic terms as a quest or journey of discovery on which we are
embarked. We can consider times we have ventured outside our known realms, undergone
initiations, served apprenticeships, received talismanic objects that invest our life with meaning,
been tempted to the dark side, experienced transformations, and faced up to our own dragons,
Or, we can measure our own modern-day heroes against archetypal heroic mold
Limitations and Critiques of Archetypal Criticism
One of the common critique of archetypal criticism is that it doesn’t really give us that much to
do with a piece of literature⸺ after we identify the mythic elements in a work, then what? Is
that all it is?
Another critique is that archetypal criticism tends to try to interpret all literature as another
version of heroic quest story. Isn’t literature too varied to be limited to the endless re-expression
of this archetype or to be reduced to a few recurring themes?
A final critique is the overemphasis on mythic elements. Aren’t we also drawn to great books by
their artistry, their philosophical questions, their historical implications, their political stances,
their psychological insights, and so forth? Archetypal criticism slights all these attributes of
lasting literature.
To Sum Up
The archetypal or myths critic asks these questions: What mythic elements or archetypal patterns
⸺ themes, characters, settings, symbols, imagery, plots, or versions of hero’s quest ⸺ are
employed in this literary work? What do they contribute to the work as a whole? Does
knowledge of these elements add anything to an understanding of the work? Does the work add
anything to an understanding of archetypes? Does the work update old archetypes? Does the
work subvert or deconstruct any archetypes?
When reading a work of literature, then, the myth critic examines the form and content of the
work, looking for the connection to mythic archetypes that have collected in our human psyches,
seeking the inner spirit that gives the work its vitality and enduring appeal.

Another Overview
By the universalities, myths seem essential to human culture. However, many modern folks view
myths as mere fables, expressing ancient forms of religion or primitive versions of science. But
myths have traditionally served many other crucial cultural functions, not only explaining the
natural world but also using stories to present guidance on proper ways to behave in society and
offering insight into enduring the inevitable milestones of a lifetime.
Since ancient times, people have invested the most basic transitions and other universal aspects
of the human condition with mythic rituals and stories to help them understand and cope. As
Joseph Campbell says in his popular book The power of Myth, “(Myths) deal with great human
problems. I know what to do when I come to a threshold in my life now. A myth can tell me about
it, how to respond to certain crises of disappointment or delight or failure or success. Myths tell
me where I am” (I988, 15).
Myths do much of this work at a symbolic and metaphoric level, because the ultimate mysteries
of life are not entirely graspable by the intellect alone, say scholars such as Campbell. Myths are
thus dramatized representations of the deep instinctual life of people.
Archetypal literary criticism took root in the rich soil of other academic fields, most notably
cultural anthropology and psychoanalysis. These disciplines may seem far removed from the
reading of literature, but this reading approach does have both cultural and psychological
dimensions.
On the cultural side, the work of Scotland’s Sir James Frazer (1854-1941) set the cornerstone. At
Cambridge University, Frazer undertook a massive cross-cultural study of the origins of religion
in primitive myth and ritual. Eventually this tome, which Frazer titled The Golden Bough: A
study in Magic and Religion, stretched to a dozen volumes. Unlike most anthropologists, Frazer,
a historian of classics and religion, did not travel to other places to conduct fieldwork; his
knowledge of other cultures was secondhand, gleaned from his reading and from questionnaires
he sent to missionaries working among “primitive” peoples. Though subsequent scholars
consider some of Frazer’s descriptions of local myths unreliable, some of his conclusions
inaccurate, and some of his attitudes toward other cultures demeaning, The Golden Bough is still
considered a classic, the first great work of comparative mythology.
It took another great thinker to conceive of the mythic elements in great literature as reflective
not only of natural or cultural phenomena, as Sir James Frazer did, but also of deep-seated
psychic meanings.
On this psychological side, the work of Carl Jung (1875-1961) offered a substructure for
thinking about literature in mythic terms. Jung (pronounced Yoong) was a Swiss psychoanalyst
and philosopher. Early in his brilliant medical career, he was a disciple of Freud, but Jung’s
thinking soon diverged from that of his older mentor. Once difference: Jung believed Freud’s
conception of the unconscious too limited. Where Freud focused on negative and neurotic
behavior, Jung was interested in what he felt was the health-giving potential of the unconscious.
And where Freud saw the unconscious as primarily a personal repository of each individual’s
repressed desires and emotions, Jung conceived of the unconscious as having two strata. The
shallower level, Jung agreed with Freud, is individual and based on one’s unique collection of
personal experiences. But Jung saw a deeper, more universal and ancient layer, and a “memory”
from our distant ancestors, and a psychic inheritance common to the whole human race. Jung
labeled this the collective unconscious. This layer has contents that are more or less the same in
all individuals everywhere throughout history, and Jung used a Greek word to describe these
contents: archetypal. (Archetype is pronounced ar-ki-type and is a joining of the Greek prefix
arche-, beginning, with typos, imprint, generally referring to an original pattern on which
subsequent representations are based.) Our psychic archetypes are recurring patterns of images,
symbols, themes, and stories that help us make sense of our lives. And this mythic level of the
unconscious is a source for creativity and health, said Jung.
Jung believed that wisdom and good mental health result when humans are in harmony with the
archetypes and universal symbols in the collective unconscious. He worried that modern humans,
relying too much on science and logic, intellectualizing and domesticating their more primitive
and non-rational natures, might lose contact with something important, might even lose a sense
of essential purpose in life.
Benefits of Archetypal Criticism
Both the anthropological and the psychological aspects of archetypal criticism have value.
On the anthropological side, studying archetypal criticism reinforces our knowledge of
mythology, which scholars such as Joseph Campbell believe is foundational information for any
educated person, and gets us thinking about all the essential experiences and wishes we share
with other people in other times and places. The essence of the hero’s journey crosses all cultural
and temporal barriers, for example, thus illuminating our common humanity.
On the psychological side, studying archetypal criticism gives perspective to our lives,
putting our trials and triumphs in the context of a personal heroic journey. Watching mythic or
literary heroes struggle, fail, learn, persevere, and experience all possible forms of joy and
sorrow is a rehearsal for all that life may bring to us. In other words, studying the mythic roots of
literature can be helpful in the endless human quest to find out who we are.
Thus, archetypes, according to their fans, not only take us back to the beginning of
humankind’s oldest rituals and beliefs, thus connecting us to others, but also take us deeper into
an understanding of our own individual psyches.

Limitations and Critiques of Archetypal Criticism

During a class discussion of archetypal criticism, a student said, “It’s so demoralizing to have to
reduce everything you read to one pattern. It makes you think you’ll never read anything new
again.”
This comment expresses one critic of archetypal criticism, that to interpret all literature through a
few archetypal patterns is reductive. Isn’t literature too varied, experimental, and explorative an
art form to be limited to re-expressions of a few recurring themes? Some writers think the point
of literature is to complicate, deconstruct, and resist old imaginative patterns; this critical method
seems to deny that innovative or transgressive capacity of art.
In addition, are mythic elements the only magnets in the energy field that draw us to
literature? Aren’t we also drawn to aesthetic accomplishments, philosophical questions,
historical implications, and many other aspects of literature? Archetypal criticism ignores all
these other attractions.

To Sum Up

Archetypal criticism ranges across the fields of mythology, cultural history, and anthropology to
gain a feel for the archetypes and images that seem to have the greatest meaning for humans over
time.
The archetypal, or myth, critic asks these questions:
 What mythic elements or archetypal patterns⸺ themes, characters, settings, symbols,
imagery, plots, or versions of hero’s quest⸺ are employed in this literary work? What do they
contribute to the work as a whole? Does knowledge of these elements add anything to an
understanding of the work? Does the work add anything to an understanding of archetypes? Does
the work update old archetypes? Does the work subvert or deconstruct any archetypes?
When reading a work of literature, then, the myth critic examines the form and content of the
work, looking for the connection to mythic archetypes that have collected in our human psyches,
seeking the inner spirit that gives the work its vitality and enduring appeal.

Story Archetypes
I’ve collected these archetypal classifications over the years to share with students, though I’m
not sure of the source for all of them.
 There is an old dictum among writers, repeated by American novelist and critic John
Gardner that all novels are variations on two themes: “A Strangers Comes to Town” or “a
Journey Is Taken.”
 The Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges once remarked that there were only two main
plots in all narrative art: the Odyssey and the Crucifixion.
 This list was found in an old writing textbook: There are only seven basic stories: The
Fish out of Water, Coming of Age, Opposites Attract, TH Comeuppance, The King Must
Die, Mistaken Identify, and Crisis of Belief.
 A favorite when I was in high school was the “Man in Conflict” model (today, we’d say
“Humans in Conflict”), often ascribed to the venerable Sir Arthur Quille-Couch, which
has seven variations: Man vs. Man, Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Himself, Man vs. God, Man
vs. Society, Man Caught in the Middle, and Man and Woman. (Some versions add Man
vs. Technology)
 In his 2005 volume The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories, Christopher Booker
identifies these essential story lines: Overcoming the Monster, Rags to Riches, The
Quest, Voyage and Return, Comedy, Tragedy, and Rebirth.