الفهرس 
The psychological approach of fiction criticismOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 335 |  |  |
| | | from | 335 | | |
Abstract
The thesis aims at exploring four modern approaches of literary criticism and their relation to fiction, namely, the psychological, the archetypal, the sociological, and the formalistic. Psychological criticism is primarily interested in psychoanalyzing minds and motives of authors and their fictitious characters. It also encourages novelists to create a type of fiction that nowadays can be classified as psychological novel, which is known to depict some of the established principles of psychology. Archetypal criticism considers characters and events in literature as inarticulate carriers of archetypal patterns as first appeared in myth. Its basic concern is studying the significance of archetypal images, patterns and motifs, which writers have drawn forward along the structure of their works. Sociological criticism assumes a causative relationship between society and literature, and society and the writer who is conceived of as the product of the society of his time. Hence, it assumes that literature affects social thinking in much the same way this last affects literature. In this way the cycle of social change goes on. Therefore, its basic concern. is explaining the novel as a reflection of the society and the age in which it is created. Formalistic criticism approves close textual analysis of a work of art away from any psychological, archetypal, or sociological implications. As an approach to fiction analysis, formalistic criticism concerns itself with the division of chapters, episodes, and scenes, plot formation, methods of narration and language analysis. Though, they are important approaches, each one of them by itself seems inadequate. A novel carries different meanings and can be analyzed from different points of view. Therefore, we cannot depend on understanding a literary work from one angle. At the same time, allowing all the modern approaches is impossible. We cannot speak for all voices and reduce them all to one. Therefore, I believe that it is better to design a collective approach that contains the four approaches to cover the analysis of both form and content of fiction. This collective approach can relate formalistic analysis of a novel to the study of a writer’s personality, his