Archetypes, Imitation, and Writing

Analogous to Saussure’s analysis of language, in “The Archetypes of Literature” Northrop Frye attempts to examine the structure of literary works by outlining the archetypes or myths that act as the building blocks of literary works. Trying to accomplish a unifying form of criticism, Frye contends that masterpieces draw readers to “converging patterns of signification” (1309). Judging from the literary success of Frankestien, it was most certainly entrenched with patterns of signification. While Frye believes that a great deal of writers seem to be unaware of the recurring archetypes in their works, Mary Shelley purposely accentuates the myth of the fall from grace and the struggle between good and evil in Frankenstein. Mary Shelley builds upon Milton’s “Paradise Lost” which was in turn based upon the Bible. The Creature comes to think of himself sometimes as Adam and other times as Satan: “Like Adam, I was created apparently united by no other being in existence…..Many times I considered Satan as the fitter Emblem of my condition…. For often the bitter gall of envy rose within me” (87). Here we can see how one basic structure can regenerate into other forms. Thus, in order to recognize the impact of prototypes, there has to be a systematic study of them. Knowing archetypes allows us to interconnect between different works of literature. While Frye advocates a formalist reading of a text, I believe his approach encourages an intertextual reading of archetypes, although I don’t think he will agree. Speaking of a writer’s unconscious and private mythology, I wonder how much of that mythology is actually private. No doubt many psychologists, most prominently Freud, emphasize the importance of childhood in shaping adulthood. Do fairy tales and scriptural stories fixate in a child’s mind so that even when he or she grows up to be writers these stories, albeit disguised, resurface? Is creativity exhausted to the extent that instead of creating new types of characters, settings, or plots we must recycle older patterns? Where does that leave novelty in a novel? I believe that the notion of archetypes is very confining and seems to sideline other elements of a literary work.
It also appears to me that Frye echoes Barthes dismissal of the author when he says that “the poet’s task is to deliver the poem in as uninjured a state as possible, and if the poem is alive, it is equally anxious to be rid of him, and screams to be cut loose from his private memories and association… and the other navel strings and feeding-tube of his ego” (1307). Nonetheless, Frye appeals to the private mythology that the writer is unconscious of, thus delving into the writer’s psychology, yet not acknowledging it.
Barthes also seems in accordance with Frye’s notion of archetypes when he declares in “The Death of Author” that “the writer can only imitate gesture that is always interior, never original. His only power is to mix writings….. the inner thing he thinks to translate is itself only a ready-formed dictionary” (1324). It seems far-fetched and very generalizing to strip away originality from a writer and suggest that he or she or only imitators, yet Barthes himself is only reiterating what Plato articulated thousands of years ago that if all art is mimesis than all artists are imitators. Knowing the influences Mary Shelley had in writing Frankenstein, that of Milton, Lord Byron, and mostly her husband Percy, who edited, reviewed and wrote the preface for her book, how much claim does Mary have to her work? There are even instances in the book where Mary quotes verses from Percy’s poem “Mont Blanc”. It is possible that Percy co-authored Frankestien with Mary. After all, he did pressure Mary to live up to her name, being the daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin. I have to admit that I question why Mary did not publish her own preface until after her husband died, and why her literary career began and ended with Frankestein.
Like Frye, Claude Lévi-Strauss searched for patterns of significance in the native Brazilian tribe he was studying. According to Saussure writing is the concrete representation of language “language is a storehouse of sound-images, and writing is the tangible form of those images” (850). In “A Writing Lesson” from “Tristes Tropiques” Lévi-Strauss, with some astonishment, reveals how the Nabikwara tribe chief, for two full hours, pretended that he knew how to write. The chief grasped the meaning of writing. He would give Levi-Strauss his writing as he latter can read it. Levi-Strauss describes this façade: “He was half-taken in by his own make-believe’ each time he completed a line, he examined it anxiously as if expecting meaning to leap out of the page” (1280). The signs that the tribe leader wrote had no meaning, yet as Saussure established that the relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary, the tribe leader could have easily created a writing system. Nonetheless, as Saussure contests that the community is necessary in ascribing value to a linguistic system, the signs the tribal leader wrote were meaningless since they were not agreed upon by the collective community. By using writing to raise himself above the clan, the Nabikwara tribe leader neglected the social aspect of writing, thus stirring resentment and bitterness among his people who eventually abandoned him. The tribe leader borrowed writing as a sociological symbol; still, it was not for the purpose of knowledge, but for increasing prestige and power. This leads Lévi-Strauss to examine the structure of writing not as a power tool of oppression.
In a similar sense language is what gives the Creature his edge, in which he describes language as a “godlike science” which he “ardently desired to become acquainted with” (75). Admitting that he was unable to discover languages connection to visible objects, the Creature realizes the arbitrariness of the relationship between signifier and signified, leading him to focus on distinguishing sounds. The Creature did not attempt to introduce himself to the cottagers until he became a “master of their language” (76). Here the conventionality of language comes into place as he believed that that he can be a part of their community by sharing their language. The Creature further becomes interested in the linguistic sign when he sees the cottagers read. Thus, after improving in speech the Creature focused on learning how to read. After being rejected by the cottagers the creature became obsessed with deciphering Frankenstein’s writing, and when he does he is so full of rage that he vows to take revenge. Through reading, the Creature became powerful and capable to carry out his wrath on Frankenstein by knowing everything about him, such as his name and where he lives. Furthermore, both Walton and Frankestein are moved by the Creature's eloquence and mastery of language.