1. First a rather naive question: Does anyone dispute the basic thesis that there are underlying patterns to otherwise separate world mythologies? (I am sure that there are empirically minded anthropologists who just ignore this issue ... but other than that...)
Alternatively, are there ways to accept that the patterns exist but to dismiss them as unimportant?
2. This is a more involved question about what a modern literary critic should do with the discovery of the archetypal patterns.
I realized something about Campbell (something I guess he got from Jung) -- a kind of positivism. Basically he says that the progress of science finally got to the human mind and discovered the structure of dreams, and it was this that made possible the modern interpretations of ancient myths. (As a side note, it seems clear that bypassing literature was useful in the popularization of the theory -- just turn to Star Wars!)
Now, this is goofy for a number of reasons (not the least of which: Campbell is in an English department, an purports to have gotten some of his ideas from Joyce). But it made me focus on its alternative. That is, what does it mean to look to the history of art and literature (not science) as the basic receptacle of archetypal criticism?
One might say straight off that the basic spirit of the various threads of modernist aesthetics was precisely to negate the sort of content one finds in myths. One might say also that the supposed new learning on myths is not new at all.
But there are other options, aren't there? Ones that are not dismissive? Ones that, although not going the popular therapy route, accept that primordial patterns are significant and need to be dealt with in some way.
For example,
a. The case of Joyce: was he joking when he wrote a story that followed the pattern of the Odyssey? Did Campbell simply not get the joke?
b. There is Girard, but is he concerned with the canons of literary criticism themselves? I get the sense that he is more of free lance theorist.
c. There is Barthes, but I don't have a handle on that yet. Although they use the word myth a lot I get the sense of a big departure.
I recommend looking deeper at Girard. Brushing him off as a freelance theorist suggests you may have overlooked his significance.
ReplyDeleteWhat I said has nothing to do with his significance. His theory may be the most significant and powerful ever. My question is about he understands his own project -- and I honestly do not know. Does he see himself as one in a line of aestheticians or does he see himself as simply bringing to literature whatever concepts/explanations he finds useful. My sense is the latter -- which is not a criticism by itself. For example, I would also put Rougemont in that category. He does not see himself as an aesthetician. He is outside of art trying to place it rather than allowing art to place itself. It wold not occur to him to allow some piece of canonical literature (especially a modern piece) to speak for itself -- allowing it to help shape the overall theory. For Rougemont, and I suspect for Girard as well, if the piece does not reflect something about the theory then it is an irrelevant non-example. The fact that it is from Joyce or whomever does not change anything.
ReplyDeleteThe basic thing I am driving at here is this: are there any canonical modern writers who have reflected something useful about the role of myth?