Customer Reviews

Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Whether you agree with him or not, there's no denying that Northrop Frye is the most important literary critic from North America-- and quite probably the most influential English- language critic of the 20th-century. His influence, I should add, is not limited to literary scholarship, but has been felt in other disciplines as well (e.g. Hayden White's classic historiographical study "Metahistory").

Although he's written many books on a host of specific subjects, "An Anatomy of Criticism" is Frye's magnum opus. In it, he outlines a general theory of literature-- what it is, how it is structured, and how it "works". These questions are answered in the volumes four essays, each of which approaches the subject from a different theoretical perspective: (1) a theory of modes", (2) a "theory of symbols", (3) a "theory of myths", and (4) a "theory of genres". Although these theories are not 100% unified into a larger structure, they are interrelated and complementary-- and, taken together, they do form what I believe can be called a (multifacted) "general theory of literature".

The book begins with a "Polemical Introduction". Here, Frye makes an argument that is at once simple and profound. For too long, he claims, literary criticism has revolved primarily around matters of taste, with critics pronouncing judgement on the relative merits of different authors and works. Frye believes that this has prevented literary criticism from really coming into its own as a serious scholarly activity-- and he wants to make literary scholarship a genuinely scholarly subject. The way to do this, he argues, is by eschewing any criticism whose goal is to attribute "merit" or "value" to works-- to say that they are good or bad. Instead, the true literary scholar needs to see himself as a scientist and to survey the field of literature as a whole, taking it on its own terms, and describing what seem to be the basic principles, structures, and unstated "laws" governing it. An important point here (and one that I think is especially compelling) is that Frye insists that literary scholarship needs to derive its understanding of literature from literature itself-- and not from other fields like psychoanalysis (e.g. Freudian/Jungian interpretations), from history (biograhical criticism), politics (Marxist criticism), etc. "An Anatomy of Criticism", Frye states, is his attempt to do just that-- to derive a theory of literature (or rather four complementary theories of literature) from literature itself, taking into account that literature, understood broadly, is work consisting primary of words, arranged in such a way as to create structures such as we call plots, characters, images, themes, etc.

In the first essay, the theory of modes, Frye articulates a theory of literature in terms of its level of realism, noting that this can exist in several degrees, which Frye expresses in terms of characters' relation of power to ordinary people and to the world. On the one extreme, we have myth, with gods who are nearly omnipotent, and on the other irony, with characters who are helpless and ineffectual. This is a short essay, and very readable, but is not as insightful as it could have been, if Frye had expanded it to discuss the mimetic level of the "world" in which the character exists as well.

The second essay is Frye's theory of symbols. It is, by far, the densest and most complicated of the four essays. It also has the most jargon, using lots of terms borrowed from Aristotelian and medieval criticism. Nonetheless, it is worth
reading, as Frye wrestles at length with question of what a symbol is, particularly within the context of literature. He also outlines the existence and workings of 5 different levels on which literary symbols work, raning from the literal (where individual words simply symbolize their mundane meanings) to the anagogic, which is an almost mystical level of symbolization-- a level that is more typically reserved for works of perceived religious or spiritually import (although Frye seems like he wants to acknowledge the possibility tha any work's symbols can be read on any of the five levels of symbolization).

The third essay is the "theory of myths". This is also the longest, and probably the most important essay here. Here, Frye outlines his theory that there are essentially four main plots, or "mythoi" (to use the Greek word for "plots") that literature uses-- comedy, romance, tragedy, and irony. Moreover, he notes, the various symbols, motifs, characters, and events that appear in all literary works can be understood within the context of a mythical opposition between a divine, ideal world (which he calls the "apocalyptic") and a demonic, nightmare world (which he calls "demonic). Contrary to what some folks believe, Frye does *not* use this to claim that literature is essentially "derived" from myths-- rather, he insists that those tales that we call myths simply present these structures in their clearest, baldest, most direct forms. In other forms of literature, the same structures exist, but they are displaced, toned down, or made incidental so as to fit into our basic canon of plausibility.

The fourth essay, the theory of genres, is perhaps the least successful of the four. Essentially, Frye seeks here to outline the difference among different types of literature (dramatic, lyric, epic, etc.) in terms of its performative aspect.

When all's said and done, it has to be said that Frye's book (now approx. 50 years old), is hardly the alpha and omega of literary criticism. Like all great books, it asks as many questions as it answers-- and like all general theories, it leaves the reader wondering whether it actually works for
all/most specific cases. And of course, there are many questions that aren't even discussed-- particularly about the world of non-western literature. Additionally, one wonders whether or not Frye's general theory can be expanded to include such basic aspects of literary interest as "style" and whether there is a place at all for biographical criticism within his
vision of what literary science could be. And of course, to someone reading this book today (a half-century after it was written), certain aspects of his argument and terminology may seem a bit outdated. Nonetheless, this is truly a milestone in literary theory and it is a standard by which other works have to be measured. If you haven't read this, I heartily recommend you do-- it may change the way you view literature as whole (for the better!). However, be warned-- this occasionally does get to be tough going (particularly essay 2). Those seeking a more 'accessible' version of Frye's ideas might turn to "The Educated Imagination"-- which waters them down a *lot* and leaves out a lot of the rigor and nuance-- but is still a passable introduction to the subject.

As any student of English literature knows, a life without reading Frye is a life with eyes closed to a multitude of possibilities. References to Frye drove me to him; Why else would the world of critical analysis place him in such high esteem by quoting him if not for his ability to make sense of literature? But for all his ability to codify and characterize modes, symbols, myths, and genres, his text seems calls upon the scientific efforts of new criticism. This seems particularly ironic since Frye often demurs the new critical effort. His call for a universal criticism also seems farfetched, primarily because a multiplicity of individual approaches prevents a singular opinion from emerging. However, for the most part, Frye's work both stuns and astounds, forcing the reader not only to understand literature in terms of proto-generic forms, but also to pursue Frye's conjectures into the realms of literature beyond his 1957 publication date. An extensive reading list (from the Greeks to the early twentieth century) assists Frye in his pursuit of the illusive patterns of literature, as well as an encyclopedic concern for definitive examples. Previous definitions of generic categories fall victim to Frye's ruthless pursuit of new possibilities, splitting drama and poetry into more easily digestible shards of subtlety. Frye's use of archetypes proves particularly fruitful, infusing the every-day (or perhaps modern-day) interpretations of lifeless texts with an alternative possibility of generative renewal for the observant, critical thinker. All in all, Frye's text proves well worth the time and effort.

You're in the bookstore and you've pulled this book off the shelf when the lights go out. You call out, "Anybody here read 'Anatomy of Criticism?' Clerks and customers volunteer opinions, some of them informed and well-meaning. Still, you wish you could read the darn blurbs.

These are from the back cover of my copy of 'Anatomy of Criticism:'

...simply overpowering in the originality of its main concepts, and dazzling in the brilliance of its applications of them. Here is a book fundamental enough to be entitled 'Principia Critica.' -- Vivian Mercier, 'Commonweal'

...an attempt to give 'a synoptic view of the scope, theory, principles, and techniques of literary criticism,' ...the book is continuously informed by original and incisive thought, by fine perception, and by striking observations upon literature in general and upon particular works. -- 'Modern Language Review'

Does literary criticism need a conceptual universe of its own? Professor Frye has written a brilliantly suggestive and encyclopedically erudite book to prove that it does; and he has done his impressive best to provide a framework for this universe. His book is a signal achievement; it is tight, hard, paradoxical, and genuinely witty... [Frye] is the most exciting critic around; I do not think he is capable of writing a page which does not offer some sort of intellectual reward.' -- Robert Martin Adams, 'Hudson Review'

This is a brilliant but bristling book, an important though thoroughly controversial attempt to establish order in a disorderly field. ...Mr. Frye has wit, style, audacity, immense learning, a gift for opening up new and unexpected perspectives in the study of literature... It would be hopeless to attempt a brief summary of Mr. Frye's dazzlingly counterpointed classifications.' -- Thomas Vance, 'The Nation'

The above were written in the mid-1950s when the book first came out. Reaction to 'Anatomy of Criticism' continues. Some readers are honked off by Frye's notion of looking at literature as if it were a particular world with its own structures. Frye worked to develop coherent ways of thinking about books that went beyond value judgements grounded in social fashion or individual taste. He hoped to get criticism away from bickering over rankings of "greatness" and pronouncements of worth based on political or religious criteria.

Some of Frye's critics say his approach to criticism isn't enough of a science -- that he's optimistic about human nature, and he sees entities and landscapes that aren't real. That's certainly true. Others say his approach isn't artistically appreciative enough, that he's incapable of enjoying a butterfly till he's gassed it and filed it in the proper drawer. That's certainly hooey. Frye was as delighted and informed and transformed by his reading as the rest of us. It's just that if he saw a great system of thought in, say, the work of poet William Blake, he went on to show the extent of this thought, revealing how Blake's work carried echoes from other works all the way back to the Old Testament, and how Blake's vision extended far ahead of him all the way to Rimbaud's hell and Rilke's angels, Kafka's castle and James's ivory tower, Yeats's vortices and Proust's hermaphrodites, Eliot's dying god and Joyce's Finnegan. But this is becoming a review of Frye's 'Fearful Symmetry.'

I like Northrop Frye because he reminds me that literature can do more than report life with embellishments. The human imagination, and literature in particular, tells us not just what humanity is but what it can be, giving us the same bogus pitch over and over, outlining the impossible, appealing to our deepest wishes and fears, pulling us up by our bootstraps till we want to get up out of the mire and walk on water -- even to the point we begin devising ways of doing it. 'Anatomy of Criticism' is an effort to help us know what we get from reading literature and to show us it is knowledge we can do something with.

I spend quite a lot of time thinking about literature and analyzing it myself and was very attracted to ideas about myths and archetypes. Reading Frye was a constant journey of "I almost knew that!" and "I knew that, but I didn't KNOW that I knew it!" The book turned around and cleared up my thinking about literature. In my literature class the day after I started to read this book, I felt myself bursting with excitement and the new understanding I had just through looking at a play within its "mode" of literature and its broader literary category. Frye's theory is comprehensive and unified, clearly explained and illustrated, and perfectly sensible. It fails to have practical application only if the reader's understanding isn't complete enough to allow him to apply it for himself to the works he is studying.

In this classic work Frye takes a long view of literature, and discerns deep structural patterns. In Essay I he charts a progression in the history of western literature from myth through romance through realism to irony in which the hero becomes increasingly human. Essay III envisions different archetypal literary forms (comedy, romance, tragedy, satire) as continuous phases of a central quest-myth that recurs throughout the history of western literature, and lays out a rich and resonant typology of their symbolism.

I found Essays II and IV, which are concerned with forms of symbolism, and genres, respectively, to be somewhat muddled, and much less insightful than the other two essays.

Bottom line- if you read Essays I and III you will gain a new and lasting insight into the stories you come across and the way they work, be they novels, films, plays or poetry.

Highly recommended as an antidote to the facile post-modernism and literary identity politics that most English departments are awash in these days.

For those reading the book, I also recommend googling Everett Frost's recreation of the mandala diagram of Essay III that Frye left out of the manuscript.

The previous reviewer's comments on Frye show a great deal of personal bitterness and some fascinating resistance. It'd be interesting to know his experience w/ Frye. As to the review, it's just a summoning of names that mean nothing even to the reviewer himself, in order to demonstrate his own knowledge of the subject of literature and authority in judging Frye. I only ask those who are interested to read the book. Of course, that wouldn't be easy, and the reader may at times feel the urge to argue w/ Frye, charming and persuasive as he is. But, however flawed, this book has no rivals in modern criticism, and it is only by engaging it that further progress is possible. Conclusion: if you're interested in literature, don't ignore this book because of some stupid comments from some bitter reviewer. And by the way Frye was one of the best prose writers of his generation. He did not do creative writing because he knew his limits--he was a master of expository prose. Creative writers do not always make good critics, and the concluding lines of the last review seem exceptionally stupid.

It really is of no importance, whether you agree with Frye, or you do not. After all, such things only matter if you are yourself literature historian, and you already developed your own viewpoints of the literature or culture and what does it look like. But, if you are only begining your own path upon that winding road, you shouldn't walk right past Frye without stopping and looking at least for some time.

Amongst the books to which I return often, which fuel over and over again mine desire for things that are slowly, but irreversibly being forgotten, amongst E.R.Curtius, Erich Auerbach, Roland Barthes, stands Frye. Stands there as an equal. His "Anatomy of criticism" keeps shoving itself, many times over, as an endless well of themes, motives, ideas, it functions as a marvelous whole which is trying to shed some light upon the dark corners of the earth. Especially those presented in literatures of all kind.

Of course, this is a major task for any book, and question remains of Fryes successfulness. Personally, putting aside all thoughts of structuralism, deconstructionism and all kinds of isms, that emerged years after this book was published, Fryes conception of critic, and critical task still remain important and strong as ever it was.

I will not talk about it here, it makes no sense at all, retelling Frye. He's making best argue over his own position with his own words, which you will find printed here. What I should say is - putting aside Frye and his work means missing very large part of literature. Not the corpus itself, of course, but rather a certain viewpoint, manner of building worlds with bricks that are dealt beforehand, manner that breathes new life into a body that has been slowly rotting away.

While his theories are sometimes very difficult to understand, you get a very comprehensive view of the science of literature from one of the great scholars of this century. He also does a wonderful job intertwining many other scholars into his own analysis of literature. This is a great first step for anyone beginning a journey into myth criticism.

If you are studying literature, this book will be very helpful. It presents good explanations and deffinitions.

In seven years of graduate school and six years of working on problems related to those touched upon by Frye, I have not encountered any texts written in this century that surpasses its usefulness. Frye's insights have served me well in circumstance after circumstance, in case after case. They are applicable to and illuminate virtually any kind of text. I have never encountered an effective objection to them, or been let down by conclusions reached on the basis of Frye's insights. Anyone working in critical theory in general or structuralist theory in particular would be foolish not to study this text.