Critical Response #3

I would like to use this critical response to discuss the archetypal figures in Into the Woods and Siddhartha. I believe there are similar yet different archetypes when comparing them. Therefore, I will be using the archetypal approach.

First, I will compare some of the archetypal figures in both works. The main archetype that I see present in Into the Woods and Siddhartha is the Seeker. Pearson says that the main goal of the Seeker is a search for a better life (10). Mostly all the characters in Into the Woods are, in some way, in search for something that will make their lives better. For instance, Rapunzel is sick of being up there in that tower, and wants the chance to search for a better life. Jack goes out in search for someone to buy his cow so that he and his mother will have a little more money. Of course, the baker and his wife are in search of items to lift the curse so they can have a baby.

Siddhartha is clearly on a continuing search for a better life during much of Hesse’s novel. He ends taking most of the book to search for his Self. Each new place he arrives to, he eventually becomes bored and unsatisfied with. This clearly fulfills the Seeker description. Pearson says that “all forms of the quest reduce to a basic desire to encounter authenticity—in oneself, in the world outside, and in the cosmos as a whole” (129). I think that this specific quote pretty much sums up the entire theme of Siddhartha.

I think one of the main differences between Into the Woods and Siddhartha is the amount of characters. Into the Woods has many characters portraying many archetypes, where as Siddhartha portrays archetypes using less characters. Through all of Siddhartha’s transformations, basically every single archetype is present in some way. Siddhartha’s Orphan and Seeker come out when he decides to leave his home. His sage is apparent during his time as a Samana. When he leaves the life as a Samana and enters a village where Kamala is she brings out his inner Lover. Once Siddhartha gets swept up in materialistic things and making money, his inner shadow Fool and shadow Creator come alive.  Finally he realizes how ridiculous he’s been and “destroys” the life he has come to know, i.e. his Destroyer. He then again goes in search of some enlightenment and winds up staying with Vasudeva. I think in the end of the novel, Siddhartha inner Sage is the most dominant.

Into the Woods on the other hand, takes more characters to fulfill the archetypes. That’s not to say they don’t all in some way possess the rest of the archetypes, but each one has a clear dominant archetype. For example, I view the baker’s wife as a Warrior because she keeps on fighting to be able to have a baby. Jack is quite the Fool; Little Red Riding Hood, the Innocent; the Witch, shadow Magician; and Cinderella as the Orphan.

I think both effects of portraying archetypes were effective even thought they were pretty much complete opposites. It is entertaining seeing the archetypes interact with each other in Into the Woods. On the other hand, it’s awesome to see Siddhartha go through these transformations that take him, at some point, to every single archetype.

Pearson, Carol. Awakening the Heroes Within. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1991. 10-230. Print.

 

Critical Response #2

So, I’ve learned TONS about archetypes in the past week, so currently they fascinate me. Therefore, I’ve chosen to analyze Star Wars and The Wizard of Oz by using the Archetypal approach. Archetypes are our inner guides while we are on our journeys. “Each archetype that comes into our lives brings with it a task, a lesson, and ultimately a gift” (Pearson 7). They help us on even the smallest of journeys that we take every single day. The 12 archetypes are Innocent, Orphan, Warrior, Caregiver, Seeker, Lover, Destroyer, Creator, Ruler, Magician, Sage, and Fool (Pearson 10). For now, however, I would like to focus solely on Innocent, Orphan, Warrior, and Caregiver.

My reason for picking these four archetypes is that I wanted to make connections to Pearson’s “stages of the journey”, mainly focusing on the Ego stage. The Ego stage is said to be the preparation for journey, but I see this stage being active during the entire length of both movies. While on life’s journeys we first experience the Innocent archetype, then the Orphan, Warrior, and Caregiver. It’s important to experience each of these archetypes to their potential for us to be able to complete our journeys fully (Pearson).

The first archetype I will place is the Innocent. Both Dorothy and Luke Skywalker start off as the Innocent in their journeys. Luke places faith in Obi Wan Kenobi and even finds out the truth about his father through him, which he had no clue about before. Dorothy, as it appears to me, has this perception that the land and world around her wouldn’t deceive her. Then, as all Innocents do, Luke and Dorothy experience the “fall” of innocence (Pearson 79). Luke’s fall is when he sees his hometown destroyed. Dorothy’s fall is when her evil neighbor takes Toto away from her and her aunt and uncle don’t stop her. These are clearly very important events in Luke and Dorothy’s lives because they contribute to the beginning of their journeys.

The next archetype present in Luke and Dorothy’s journeys in the Orphan. As you know, Luke was an orphan before this point and lived with his aunt and uncle. However, Luke’s inner orphan also comes into play whenever he loses Obi Wan Kenobi. When you see him in the ship after Obi Wan is gone you can tell he feels abandoned and has lost some faith in what he’s doing. Dorothy, like Luke, appears to be an orphan when we first meet her since she also lives with her aunt and uncle. The Orphan within Dorothy, in this movie, seems to come into play whenever she first realizes she’s in a place without Auntie Em and Uncle Henry. In some ways, the Orphan archetype says active in Dorothy throughout the rest of her journey until she finally returns home. However, after experiences abandonment, both Luke and Dorothy complete the other two levels of the Orphan. Level two is when they accept help from others. Dorothy for example, accepts the help of the Glenda the Good Witch. After completing level two, both characters complete level three. Each of them “band together against authority” (Pearson 90). Luke is with a whole crew of people who are trying to destroy the Death Star, and Dorothy has the scarecrow, tin man, and lion.

The next archetype of the Ego is the Warrior. I know it’s hard to picture sweet little Dorothy as a Warrior, but she definitely has a lot to fight for within the story. Dorothy has to “fight for her way home”. In order for the Wizard to grant her and her companion’s wishes she had to bring him the Wicked Witch’s broom. Which, in other words, meant that she would have to kill the witch. Clearly, that requires a bit of fighting. Luke was obviously a Warrior throughout most of Star Wars. He and Han Solo had to fight for the Princess, they had to fight to get back on the ship, then later had to try to destroy the Death Star. Each of these tasks required some form of battle. Luke and Dorothy were both very good Warriors. Neither of them fought for unnecessary things, only the things that were important to them.

The final archetype of the Ego is the Caregiver. Dorothy was a Caregiver well throughout the film. If you think about it, she allowed the scarecrow, tin man, and lion to accompany her on the journey to Oz and was constantly lifting their spirits and didn’t let them doubt themselves. I believe that Dorothy’s biggest Caregiver moment was when she realized that “there’s no place like home”. It was a moment that Dorothy was really caring about what was deep inside of her and realizing where she belongs in life. Notice, Dorothy couldn’t come to this moment without completing all the tasks on her journey. Luke’s Caregiver was present while battling against the Death Star. Why would he battle against it, if he weren’t worried about everyone it could harm or kill. He was sacrificing himself to try to protect the lives of many others.

Obviously, it is not only these two stories that follow the structure of the Ego stage. Think about The Lion King. Simba, as a young cub, knows of no evil (Innocent), then after his father’s death (Orphan), he runs away and finds his faithful companions, Timone and Pumba. Then Nala informs him of the conditions of Pride Rock, and he eventually goes back to fight for the land against his evil uncle, Scar (Warrior). Next, Simba has a family of his own with Nala and has the whole lion pride to look over (Caregiver).  See the similarities?

Another story that I noticed this outline is Watership Down. The original warren doesn’t see anything bad that could possibly happen that would destroy their warren (Innocent), but some rabbits flee from it and go out on their own (Orphan). During their journey they are forced to fight against things to survive (Warrior), whether it was to get to their new warren, or to get does, they had to fight plenty of times. Then after they have finally settled down, they could concentrate on caring for their warren and producing and nurturing baby rabbits to allow their place to grow (Caregiver).

This Ego Stage, is also present in every single one of our lives as well. We go through certain events that can be connected to events in Star Wars, or The Wizard of Oz, and even Watership Down. All you have to do is think about it and you will see you’re not much different than Luke, Dorothy, Simba, or Hazel.

Works Cited

Pearson, Carol. Awakening the Heroes Within. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1991. 1-119. Print.

 

Critical Response #1

A critical approach is a way to sort of dissect and gain a further understanding of messages within writing. By performing a critical analysis on something, a person can gain more appreciation for the work and the specific way or reason it was written. Critical approaches make you ask questions and explore writings in a way that you may haven’t thought about before. There are many different ways to analyze literature and other works, depending on what you would like to focus on within the piece (Bedford/St. Martins).

One approach to critically analyzing literary work is to understand more fully the person who wrote it. By applying biographical criticism the reader can comprehend fundamentals in the piece. Also, finding out the time period in which the author lived can be crucial to understanding certain thoughts in the text (Purdue University).

New historicism is another critical approach. There a plenty of different approaches to this, but all concern the time period when the text was created. You want to try to form connections between the text and culture, ideology, history, and discourse. Examining the historical aspects of writing can help the reader have a better understanding for the culture and context (Purdue University).

Psychoanalytic is an approach that’s about understanding the inner workings of the mind. The person analyzing should be looking to find symbolism and alternative meanings within the text. By developing a psychological awareness of the character the reader can have more insight to their choices.  One idea that is helpful is Sigmund Freud’s. Look for “the expression of the unconscious mind through symbols (often in dreams)” (Purdue University).

Social criticism is all about the social meanings of a piece. Social criticism is similar to historical criticism in the way that they both make links between the text and the environment. There is feminist criticism, which involves the studying of women. Then, out of feminist criticism came gender criticism so that both feminine and masculine issues could be studied. A critic may explore to see whether the text is either gendered or sexist (Purdue University).

When looking at narrative text a critic can apply the narratological approach. They will analyze the structure of narrative and the point of view in which the story is told. Determining who the narrator is, and possibly why they are narrating is important. “This considers the narrator not necessarily as a person, but more as a window through which one sees a construction reality” (Purdue University).

The mythological criticism approach highlights the reoccurring patterns that are in most literary works. The critic should try to form connections between myths and the cultures. Also, a key concept with this type of criticism is the archetype. “Mythological critics tend to view literary works in the broader context of works sharing a similar pattern” (Padgett).

Overall, there are so many different ways to critically analyze text. Also, many writings could be analyzed using more than one approach. No matter what you analyze, or how you analyze it, gaining that knowledge of what you’re reading will help you to appreciate it even more. If you can make connections between the writing and real life in your head, it makes you more connected with the piece and give you an understanding of what the author is trying to say.

Works Cited

“Critical Approaches.” Purdue University, Web. 23 Jan 2010.

Padgett, John. “Critical Approaches to Literature.” Ole Miss. University of Mississippi, Web. 23 Jan 2010.   “Padgett”

“virtuaLit: Critical Approaches.” Bedford/St. Martins, Web. 23 Jan 2010.

My analysis of Changeling

The movie Changeling is based on a true story about a woman whose son was kidnapped and the police tried giving her the wrong boy. The woman, Christine Collins, went through a great deal in this movie and I wanted to explore and compare the movie to the actual events. So my approach to critically analyzing this movie is like the new historicism approach.

One difference was that the movie makes it seem like the police made the boy say he is Walter, when in real life, the boy himself claimed to be Walter. He did so to try to get to Hollywood to meet his favorite actor. Another difference I found in the story was that instead of the priest getting Christine Collins out of the psychiatric ward, the police let her out because the boy who was pretending to be her son confessed that he was Arthur Hutchins, Jr. In the movie, the boy didn’t confess until after Collins got out of the ward. Also, in the movie, the priest helped get Christine out of the psychiatric ward. The last major difference that I found was that there really wasn’t a boy who came forth to confess about Walter’s escape after the execution, like there was in the movie.

Overall, I think the changes that were made to the movie were for dramatization purposes. Otherwise, why make the changes?

Also, while watching the film I tried to notice whether or not the clothing and such items fit with the time period this took place in. (The boy was kidnapped in 1928.) I think that this movie did a very good job at portraying such items. I read that Clint Eastwood, the director, even picked Angelina Jolie to play Christine Collins because she had a fit face for that time period.

My analysis was important because it really made me understand the history of the film a bit more. By taking the time to research into the actual story after watching the movie was a chance for me to appreciate the actions in the film which are accurate. Most of the time when I watch a movie that states “based on a true story” I really don’t buy into most of the dramatic things that they add to it. I expected a lot more things to have been changed within the story for the making of this movie, but I’ve gained some respect for the creators. Also, I gained respect for the story that the movie was based on since I had to take some time and research it.