Christine Heyward

Professor Jared Gibbs

ENGL 2416
Literature Review Final Draft
December 8, 2014
Literatures Girl: Woman and Developing Individualism
Analyzing the characterization of women in literature is not a novel
concept, and has been a subject of feminist research throughout the
twentieth and twenty-first centuries. As more female writers emerge in a
previously male-dominated field, new characters and new interpretations of
the woman have emerged. Many of these seek to directly combat the
traditional passivity of women in fiction found in fairy tales and Victorian
literature. Others attempt to reconcile to differences between traditional
archetypes and the more complex individual. In this review, research was
focused on the use of archetypes to define the female individual, primarily
the ways in which this practice in problematic as the next wave of the
feminist movement breaks in the twenty-first century.
The use of archetypes in the literary world is an old and pervasive
practice. In their article Resonance to archetypes is media: Theres some
accounting for taste, Michael Faber and John Mayer discuss the usefulness
of archetypes in forming a connection between a work and its audience. The
majority of the article reports on two studies performed in order to form
and assess the Rich Culture Archetype Scale (RCAS). The RCAS identifies
and describes five clusters of archetypes to which people resonate (Faber

Heyward, Literature Review Draft, Gibbs 2

and Mayer 307). According to Faber and Mayer, the archetype a reader or
consumer most closely relates to strongly informs his or her choice in media
(308). Faber and Mayer attempt to discern within both their studies
whether people show repeated patterns for liking stimuli that all exemplify
the same archetype across different mass media, thus possibly, revealing a
personal life theme (Faber and Mayer 310). The underlying assumption
then, would be that individuals natural (if sometimes unconsciously)
associate themselves with an archetypal pattern and absorb it into their
self-identity. While Faber and Mayers work studied responses in both men
and women, many other critics have focused exclusively on the female
individual and female archetypes.
In Melissa McCleary & Michael Widdersheims analysis of twenty-first
century Newberry Award winners, they reported that females are not
underrepresented and there is not a bias against the female gender (20).
Furthermore, in comparing the results of previous reviews McCleary and
Widdersheim noted that progressive representation of women in Newbery
Medal winners was steadily increasing over the recent decades (20).
However, a closer look at the nature of those progressive representations
is warranted. The progressive female is more often the rescuer than the
rescued, depicted more commonly in the outdoors, and exhibits
characteristics such as independence, intelligence, or bravery (McCleary
and Widdersheim 17). However, it is important to note that the female
protagonist or major character is often socially rejected by peers when

Heyward, Literature Review Draft, Gibbs 3

cast as independent and strong role models (McCleary and Widdersheim
9). This type of character description creates a subtle, but devastating
assumption in the young reader, that a woman must either be demure or
an outsider (McCleary and Widdersheim 7). For young readers in the
throes of forming their own self-identity, it is vital that this one or the other
mentality is altered.
For women in particular, forming a unique self-identity can be
difficult. With the feminist movement and the ongoing studies of female
archetypes, so much focus is placed on how women in general are
represented (basic character traits, general role) that little is left over for
the individual, the woman herself. Instead, the reader is left with a variety
of takes of various social faces of women: the mother, the caretaker, the
boss, the bitch, the free spirit, the fighter, the romantic, etc. While the
increasing representation of archetypes such as the boss or the fighter can
be considered progressive, the persistence of stereotypes over the
individual is not. Critic Gabriella Bedetti observes the lack of attention to
the development of self even in well-known works such as Annis Pratts
Archetypal Patterns in Women's Fiction and Estella Lauter and Carol
Schreier Rupprechs Feminist Archetypal Theory: Interdisciplinary ReVisions of Jungian Thought. While archetypal reviews such as these help to
highlight emerging roles for women and fulfill an individualist desire for
alternative canon formation they fail to recognize a need for internal selfexamination outside of identifying ones role (Bedetti 585). In essence, it is

Heyward, Literature Review Draft, Gibbs 4

revision with no subversion, reclamation without deconstruction (Bedetti
584). Bedetti insists that this approach leaves a reader with the concept
that the self is essential, but without allowing for the possibility that ones
identity as a womanas a personinvolves a critique of such an essential
self (584).
Brenda Miles examination of the female protagonists struggle with
social masks notes that archetypal personas require a balance in their
acknowledgement. Social personas are, in many ways, an unavoidable
aspect of society. It is expected in many respects to be defined by ones
career, social status, education level, or social clique. So much so, that even
the individual conforms themselves (or alternately seeks to severely
separate themselves) from the archetypal traits of his chosen descriptor.
Miles outlines two dangers of this method of self-identity: over-identification
and forced conformity in contrast to the selfs nature. In over-identification,
the identity of the self becomes synonymous with the persona, leading to
unwillingness to explore desires or personal growth in areas outside of the
archetypal persona (Miles 4). This concept can also be applied to the
individual attached to the non-conformist persona, resulting in a hesitance
to accept typical patterns associated with a persona. However if an
individual is committed to a persona, but is not naturally inclined to some or
all of the associated behaviors, then she risks becoming shallow and
artificial (Miles 2).

Heyward, Literature Review Draft, Gibbs 5

In Rachel Kincaids article Frustrations of the Modern Feminist, she
confronts the difficulties of trying to conform to feminist archetypes. Like
Miles, Kincaid agrees that many individuals do not completely reflect all of
the behaviors associated with a persona (Kincaid 60). While focusing on the
popular feminist ideal, Kincaid illustrates the internal struggle and conflict
that arises when not all of an individuals preferences and desires fit within
her chosen model: in that undefined spaces between what we wish we
could be and what we feel we ought to do (Kincaid 61). According to
Kincaid, this leads to a necessary, if uncomfortable, compromise within the
self where parts of the individual are left unfulfilled and the desire to
conform to the archetype is similarly frustrated. This internal dissonance or
hidden vein of discontent among women for Kincaid, signals a flaw in the
system, of recognizing the individual woman (Kincaid 61). The feminist
individual is more complex than an independent woman archetype or
career woman archetype, and Kincaid closes by calling for an inclusion of
the female individual in all of her many complex forms (Kincaid 61).
In a similar vein of recognizing the complexity of the female
individual, some critics are beginning to examine typical archetypes for a
more multifaceted study of individual character. Notably, critic Lauren
Ashley Price has reinterpreted classically passive fairy tale heroines such
as Cinderella and the Little Mermaid in a more complex consideration. Price
questions the critical tradition to assume that a woman who is rescued by
the bonds of marriage is automatically passive or weak (3-4). This

Heyward, Literature Review Draft, Gibbs 6

assumption is fueled, according to Price, by the continued use of the word
heroine as a synonym for protagonist (4). Another facet of the female
protagonist explosion in recent literary history is the revision of many
classic tales featuring female protagonists with stronger personalities and
an increased agency (Price 5). However, Price contends, that to find a
stronger female character one need look no farther than a reexamination of
the original tales themselves (5). In her exploration of Cinderella, in
particular, Price notes that while Cinderellas choices are severely limited
by her abusive family, she manages to find means for survival, and
eventually to escape (16). This contradicts the traditional view of
Cinderella and her fairy tale protagonist contemporaries as helpless and
passive (Price 18). Throughout her article, Prices main contention appears
to be the use of heroine interchangeably with protagonist, and the sense
of activeness and power associated with the word heroine leading to a
more negative critique of classic female protagonists (Price 19).
Prices reappraisal of classically traditional female protagonists is only
the first step in representing women as intricate individuals in literature.
The archetypal pattern approach to feminist literary criticism taken by
researchers such as Annis Pratt, Estella Lauter and Carol Schreier
Rupprech, lacks an allowance for a more multifaceted exploration of the
true self, and perpetuates the need for specified gender roles for women in
literature. While there is truth in the research done by psychologists such
as Faber and Mayer, that people are inclined to identify with archetypes, the

Heyward, Literature Review Draft, Gibbs 7

finite definitions of archetypal roles does not all enough room for the
complexity of the human individual. The spectrum of those roles is indeed
becoming more progressive and helping to broaden the horizon of female
opportunity, however, the evolution of the individual is being lost in the
retreating dusk as critics cling to the notion of boundaries of archetypes.
With increased attention to a critical consideration of the woman behind the
mask, however, the concept of the individual can also be explored in new
light as a new wave of feminism breaks.

Heyward, Literature Review Draft, Gibbs 8

Works Cited
Bedetti, Gabriella. Archetypal Patterns in Womens Fiction by Annis Pratt;
Feminist Archetypal Theory:
Interdisciplinary Re-Visions of Jungian Thought by Estella Lauter;
Carol Schreier Rupprecht. Signs
13.3 (1988): 583-586. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.
Faber, Michael A., John D. Mayer. Resonance to archetypes in media:
Theres some accounting for
taste. Journal of Research in Personality. 43 (2009): 307-322. Web. 7
Dec. 2014.
Kincaid, Rachel. Frustrations of the Modern Feminist. Off Our Backs 37.4
(2007): 60-61. Web. 6
Dec. 2014.
McCleary, Melissa A., Michael M. Widdersheim. The Princess and the Poor
Self-Image, An
Analysis of Newbery Medal Winners for Gender Bias and Female
Underrepresentation
Leading into the Twenty-First Century. Pennsylvania Libraries:
Research and Practice 2.1
(2014): 6-26. Palrap.org. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.
Miles, Brenda. "Female Protagonists' Struggle with Jungian Social Masks
Under Patriarchy: Virginia
Woolf's "Mrs. Dalloway" and "to the Lighthouse"." Order No. 1490125
California State
University, Dominguez Hills, 2010. Ann Arbor: ProQuest. Web. 5 Nov.
2014
Price, Lauren Ashley. "Fairy Tales Reinterpreted: Passive Protagonists
Transformed into Active
Heroines." Order No. 1564751 Middle Tennessee State University,
2014. Ann
Arbor: ProQuest. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.