Summary of Journal Literature
Summary 1
Deshpande, “Literary Theory Myth as the Archetype (A
critical review)” Indian Streems Research Journal Vol – I, Issue – V (June
2011)
This research is about the literary theory myth as
the archetype that has a critical view that had in Northrop Frye’s argument
that what we learned about criticism. The popular notion of learning literature
as an aesthetics, and individual experience leading to its understanding
Northrop Frye, a Canadian critic said that it is the exercise, in effect as an
act of criticism. The terms of archetype itself as the narrative design,
character types, and images which is found in variety of work of literature
which is the critics have used to interpret the word of literature. There are
two individuals who involved in the process of criticism which is consists of
the author and the reader or known as the critic. The most importance to the
author itself is the traditional critic. In Northrop Frye’s model of archetypal
criticism shows a new dimension to a critic’s role and it can be a multiple
meanings the singularity of meaning implied in the approach indicates its
limitations.
Summary 2
Dobson,
“Archetype Literary Theory in the
Postmodern Era” Journal of Jungian Scholarly Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2015
This
study is about Archetypal Literary Theory in the Postmodern Era where it takes place
of archetypal theory in the academy
seems always, or at least regularly, to
have been uncomfortable; however, one of
its most robust and academically successful
advocates has been Northrop Frye, who
in Anatomy of Criticism delineates an
archetypal approach to literary analysis. Due to
the influx of critical postmodern perspectives throughout the last two decades
of the twentieth century, archetypal criticism generally, and Frye’s influence
and prestige specifically, began to wane. The aim of this study is to know how
archetypal theory in the postmodern era. This study was using qualitative
method. Dobson was explaining about archetypal theory from many sides that he
explained in his research. Archetypal literary theory does
not seek to eradicate or ignore the particularities
of any literary work which is including its
ideologies. In fact, it is in comparing the
differences between the particularities of
this work and those of previous manifestations of
an archetypal image that interest and meaning is found for the archetypal
critic. The emphasis is not on the archetypes or on the archetypal image, not
on the myth nor on the ideology, but always on the relationship between the
two. it has contributed somewhat to validating
the vital and powerful position of
archetypal theory in contemporary literary studies,
and, perhaps, throughout the academy.
Summary 3
Shadraconis,
“Leaders and Heroes: Modern Day
Archetypes” LUX: A Journal of Transdisciplinary Writing and Research from
Clearemont Graduate University, Volume 3 Issue 1, Article 15 (2013)
This research is about the modern day archetypes of
leaders as heroes which has connotation with adversity, challenges, honor,
strength and victory. Heroes provide a narrative for sense-making in
individuals and they perceive reality as a social construction. It is refer to
interpretive process that allows a person to rationalize and understand a
series of events and experiences (Weick, 1995). The leader as a hero itself
fill up the role of mythical heroes through actions such as saving companies,
championing causes for poor or disenfranchised, and defending our closely held
beliefs. Through filling the void, a charismatic or toxic leader can have
disastrous results. Archetype allows us to get in touch with our true selves,
since they represent what we seek to be, which in turn accesses true
self-concept and leads to enhanced meaning of life.
0 ORANG SUKA AKU !:
Post a Comment