The history of literary criticism has always been filled with vicious tit for tat disputes over the correct way to interpret literature. In the late 16th century there was Sir Philip Sydney and the Puritans, David Hume and John Locke in the 18th century and Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault in recent years, just to name a child's handful. Two of the most conversing contemporary schools of criticism have been Formalism and Reader Response, as the former is very restrictive in terms of methods of interpreting literature, while the latter is so critically liberal that it not only recognizes that there are several different ways to interpret a text, but indeed Reader Response criticism examines those different interpretations that result from the past experiences of an interpreter. As such, Northrop Frye's Archetypal criticism and Stanley Fish's Reader response criticism are shown to be at extreme odds with each other, especially when both are utilized to interpret Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness.
             Frye takes a completely formalist approach to literary criticism in which he considers the form and structure of a literary text as the main course of criticism, and regards any historical context of the work as an unimportant detail to be pushed aside like soggy canned corn next to a tender sirloin steak. Common among formalist critics is the use of a central theme on which they base their criticism of literature; Frye's theme of preference is the archetype, thus fitting Frye into the subcategory of Formalism known as Archetypal Criticism. In Archetypes of Literature, Frye explains that the primary focus of the critic should be to keep the 'study of literature centripetal', and that any distasteful side notes of insight such as those that concern history and philosophy, should be treated like hitchhikers on the great highway of criticism, overlooked without a second thought of remorse (Frye 644). Once ...