<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A Clear Explanation of Archetypal Theory
Review: For the past couple of years, I have had an avid interest in Literary Criticism. I tend to be a traditionalist in this area, and so have a lot of respect for Northrop Frye, who was the last great proponent of an objective view of literature.Frye's most important work is The Anatomy of Criticism, which is very insightful, but can also be difficult to understand, especially for someone new to Critical Theory. Secular Scripture is an in-depth application of the theories presented in Anatomy of Criticism to one particular branch of literature: romance. As such, it relies more upon concrete examples than upon abstract reason, and is much easier to understand. If you are looking for a good introduction to archetypal theory in literature, this is probably the book for you.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Frye's best book
Review: Northrop Frye is probably *the* most important and most influential English-language literary critic of the 20th century-- and certainly the most important one to come from North America. _The Secular Scripture_, however, is not one of his better-known books, and that's probably for the best, as it's one of his weaker efforts. Thebook consists of six chapters, which were originally delivered as lectures during a 'special guest' stint he did at Harvard/Radcliffe a few decades back. The ostensible subject of these lectures (and, by extension, this book) is the literary genre of romance. However, like all of Frye's books, the specific topic is discussed within the context of Frye's theory of literature in general. Thus, _The Secular Scripture_ introduces the reader to Frye's general theories, such as the idea that literature possesses the same structure as myth, that there are essentially four main mythoi or plots of literature (comedy, romance, tragedy, and irony), that recurrent literary motifs/images tend to be structured around the mythic opposition of an ideally imagined world and a nightmarish demonic one, and that the only real difference between "realistic" literature and "fantastic literature) is that the mythic elements in the latter are most obvious and are presented with little narrative concealment, whereas those in the former tend to be displaced, or otherwise altered so as to be fitted into a context of "plausibility". It is within the context of these general ideas about literature that Frye enumerates what he sees as being the particular character of romance. For those unfamiliar with Frye's terminology, "romance" here does not refer to the kind of genre fiction that is typically marketed as romance-- i.e. the classic Harlequin romance or'bodice-ripper' tale. Or rather, it does not refer *only* (or even primarily) to such stories. Frye uses "romance" to describe a general type of story pattern-- one that usually involves a quest-- and which results in the hero or heroine enduring much suffering, difficulty, and adventure before finally attaining his/her goal (which may or may not even have been known to him/her earlier on). It can be a grand 'quest' in the sense of the medieval romances centered around knights (e.g. the quest for the Holy Grail. It may be a kind of spiritual fulfillment, realization, or redemption-- as in Apuleius's _The Golden Ass_ or in many narratives of the lives of saints. Or it be a quest for knowledge/solutions to some problem (most detective stories are romances, Frye notes, as are many spy stories). Most works in the genres of "fantasy" and "science-fiction" fall into this category as well. And yes, it can be a quest for "true love" or "erotic fulfillment" as in the case of the dimestore bodice-rippers that are called romances. And, of course, it can also be applied to a whole host of other works of literature-- novels, poems, plays, etc., including allegorical literature like _A Pilgrim's Progress_ and _The Faerie Queen_. What defines romance, in Frye's schema, is not the object of the quest (or still less contemporary marketing terms like "mystery", "fantasy", "sci-fi", or "romance"), but the overall structure and pattern of the narrative. In spite of its many variations (which have their own particular subconventions), romance as a whole, in all its forms, has an overall story pattern and structure that is unified, recognizable, and quite distict from the three other 'mythoi' of literature: comedy, tragedy, and irony. So, what does Frye actually have to say about romance in _The Secular Scripture_? Well, for the most part, the book is concerned with outlining the structural conventions of romance as a whole-- and specifically in outlining what it's features are and what makes it different from other types of narrative structures (i.e. why is it a romance and not a comedy). This mis most evident in the three 'main' chapters that deal specifically with the substance/structure of the form-- "Heroes and Heroines of Romance", "Themes of Descent" and "Themes of Ascent". Unfortunately, those are also the weakest chapters. The main reason for this, I think, is that Frye has already outlined his basic intellectual schema of what romance is, how it is structured, etc., by those chapters-- and he ends up filling them with many paraphrased illustrations to prove his points, in a whole host of variations and subvarations. Don't get me wrong-- it's good that he backs up his theoretical argument with textual illustrations-- but there's something about these chapters that seems kind of "cyclopedic", like it's just a list of illustration after illustration ad nauseam. Put briefly, I just don't think that those specific chapters *add* anything really to his argument any more than 1-2 well chosen illustrations could have done. His concluding chapter, is also somewhat weak-- in it, he essentially abandons the subject of romance and instead speaks about the merits of literary study and education as a means for coming to understand the "social mythologies" that govern our own art, assumptions, prejudices, etc. in real life. While I agree with him on this point, it's an inappropriate conclusion to a book on *romance*-- and it's a point he makes much better in "The Educated Imagination". All in all, I'd have to say that this book is worth reading if you've already read Frye's classic _The Anatomy of Criticism_ (which discusses romance at good length), but want further exposition-- and maybe a bit more contextualization or illustration. (Or, if you found _Anatomy_ a bit dense, the first chapter of _Secular Scripture_ is a good summary of the *general* viewpoint that Frye outlines in _Anatomy_. It also has an excellent discussion of what "myth" is, and how the term should be understood in a literary context). However, it's not Frye's best-- and it shouldn't be the first work by him you encounter. If your looking for his masterwork, read _Anatomy of Criticism_ which is dense, but immensely rewarding. Or, if you're looking for something more accessible, read _The Educated Imagination_ first. Or even read his specific studies of the Bible, Blake, Shakespeare, etc. It's not that this book is bad, mind you-- but it just isn't his best work.
<< 1 >>
|
