Talk:Archetypal literary criticism

Untitled
Hello! Um, this page seems to imply that the theories of Jung and Frye where direct conceptual descendent's of those of Frazer. Is there any proof of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.189.205 (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From the article: It has been argued that Frye’s version of archetypal criticism strictly categorizes works based on their genres, which determines how an archetype is to be interpreted in a text. According to this argument the dilemma Frye’s archetypal criticism faces with more contemporary literature, and that of post-modernism in general, is that genres and categories are no longer distinctly separate and that the very concept of genres has become blurred, thus problematizing Frye’s schema. For instance Beckett’s Waiting For Godot is considered a tragicomedy, a play with elements of tragedy and satire, with the implication that interpreting textual elements in the play becomes difficult as the two opposing seasons and conventions that Frye associated with genres are pitted against each other. But in fact arguments about generic blends such as tragicomedy go back to the Renaissance, and Frye always conceived of genres as fluid. Frye thought literary forms were part of a great circle and were capable of shading into other generic forms. (He contemplated including a diagram of his wheel in Anatomy of Criticism but thought better of it.)


 * Argued by whom? And who is supposed to be giving the response in the last few lines of this? This para may well be about right, and the article needs some kind of account of criticisms of Frye's work, but as it stands this sounds like original research. It certaintly needs some sources. Metamagician3000 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)