Archetypal Approach

1. 1. Water
2. Garden
3. Desert
4. Red
5. Green
6. Black
7. Serpent
8. Seven

2. Archetypal Approach

3. Archetypal Approach
 Also called as mythological criticism
 Mythological criticism studies recurrent universal patterns
underlying most literary works (for example, “the hero’s
journey)
 It combines insights from a variety of academic disciplines-
anthropology, psychology, history, comparative religion… it
concerns itself with demonstrating how the individual
imagination shares a common humanity by identifying
common symbols, images, plots, etc.

4.  Mythological critics identify “archetypes” (symbol, characters,
situation, or images evoking a universal response.

5.  Is an approach to literature assumes that there is a collection
of symbols, images, characters, and motifs(archetypes) that
evokes basically the same response to people.
 According to Carl Jung, mankind possesses a “collective
unconscious” that is common to all of humanity.
 Myth critics identify these patterns and discuss how they
function in the work.

6.  They believe that these archetypes are the source of
literature’s power.

7. Some example of archetypes
 Water- creation, purification, redemption, fertility, growth
 Garden- paradise, innocence, fertility
 Desert- spiritual emptiness, death, hopelessness
 Red- blood, sacrifice, passion, disorder
 Green- growth, fertility, life
 Black- chaos, death, evil
 Serpent- evil, wisdom, destruction, sensuality

8.  Seven- perfection
 Hero archetype- the hero is involved in a quest (in which he
overcomes obstacles). He experiences initiation (involving a
separation, transformation, and return), and finally he serves
as a scapegoat, that is, he dies to atone.
 Archetypal women- the good mother, the terrible mother,
and the soulmate

9. Advantages
 Provides a universalistic approach to literature and identifies
a reason why certain literature may survive the test of time. It
works well with the works that are highly symbolic.

10. Disadvantages
 Literature may become little more than a vehicle for
archetypes, and this approach may ignore the “art” of
literature.