Frye's “The Archetypes of Literature”

Thesis (as I see it):

“So while no one expects literature itself to behave like a science, there is no reason why criticism, as a systematic and organized study, should not be, at least partly, a science” (1446).

Noteworthy Summaries:

Literary criticism found in journals and scholarly monographs hold the characteristics of a scientific means of criticism. These texts are scientific in nature: listing of evidence, reference to scholars to build ethos, careful, methodical editing. However, students of literature recognize that literature is not just the study of literature; history and philosophy become equally important (1446).

The primary function of criticism is commentary. But just commentating is devoid of the scientific process of literary criticism. Literary criticism is a nebulous region of vagaries, reflection, and research where there is no Truth or definitive answer as “criticism … prefers a waste space to an empty one” (1446).

As well, “the principles by which one can distinguish a significant from a meaningless statement in criticism are not clearly defined” (1446). Therefore, we need to do away with meaningless statements, and we need to develop a way to talk about literature that is systematic with a “scientific” structure. Literary “chit-chat” and commentaries that are value-based not on literary experience have no place in criticism (1446).

What's Cool:

What I really like is this connection to literary criticism as a science. Oftentimes (or usually) English (and the Humanities) gets blamed/accused of being too objective. This accusation is generally given by a person or group who favors the exactitude of the sciences. However, similarly to the study of science, we in the Humanities develop hypothesis (the claim) and complete our own research (analysis and archival work). Maybe we’re blamed for being too objective because our work doesn’t seem crucial—there aren’t the same stakes in English as in cancer research. Thus, I was drawn to Frye’s call for a structured system of literary criticism, separated from the “chit-chat” and commentaries often given instead. Perhaps Frye recognized we were lacking ethos, and this is his attempt to give us credibility.

Extending the Convo:

To return to our conversation about the fairy tale genre and the conventions of that genre, I would say we did a somewhat good job identifying the key aspects of the genre. I think to really teach our students how to successfully transition between genres, they need to understand the “science” (the systematic elements) of each genre. And this we know for those of us who teach genre-based curriculum.

I think we could most certainly discuss whether or not English/Humanities can be viewed as “scientific.” Are our subject matters and the treatment of those subjects truly subjective? Or can we extend Frye’s call for a systematic system to other areas of our field? Can we truly move beyond the chit-chat? I think, at least, these are interesting questions to discuss, and I’m not sure I have an answer.