Some Literary Socionics, or Socionical Literary Criticism
Alright, I'm an English major and a major nerd, so here goes some literary socionics. Thoughts, comments, questions, and disagreements are greatly appreciated.
The Iliad: Homeric society is painfully gamma. The value of Se is blatantly evident in the exaltation of fighting. The value of Ni is blatantly obvious in the heavy emphasis given to prophecy, foretelling, interpreting the will of the gods, etc. The value of Fi is expressed in the emphasis on codes, especially the guest-host relationship code; the whole Trojan War basically occurs because Paris was really, really, really impolite. Honor also seems a very Fi concept, as it is unchanging and Fi is a static function. The value of Te is expressed in the emphasis on being "best in counsel" and basically picking the most efficient course of action. Hector is the exemplary ESFp. Paris, Helen, and most of all Achilles all represent challenges to a Gamma system from other quadras. Helen is probably beta, demonstrated in her obsession with Fe (Aphrodite is a very Fe goddess, and speaks in the most emotionally vivid language of all the gods, and Helen is basically Aphrodite's scion). Paris' focus on his appearance (Helen is just beautiful and reliant on her beauty, but is not shown tending to her beauty in the same way that Paris is) implies Si, and he displays an utter lack of Fi, so he is likely an ESFj or ISFp. Achilles clearly demonstrates superid Fe (to an outrageous degree, and also exposes Agamemnon's lack thereof, as a probable LIE or some such), and as such is either ESTp or ISTj, as he is certainly not LII or ILE.
Hamlet: Hamlet has no type. Typing Hamlet as EIE certainly makes the important point of Hamlet's essential fluidity, but who is smart enough to find fault with Hamlet's Ti or even Se if the moment is necessary? He certainly seems Te-less though, as not a single one of his means or methods has anything approaching efficiency. Nevertheless, he is typeless or type-transcendent. Shakespeare himself is typeless, as he has both the IEE's Ne wideness of imagination/possibilities and the IEI's Ni depth of imagination/realities.
Pride and Prejudice: I don't get what kind of duality Lizzy and Darcy are supposed to be. LII (Darcy) and ESE (Lizzy)? Or ILI (Darcy) and SEE (Lizzy)? OR ESI (Darcy) and LIE (Lizzy)? I don't get it, but gamma irrational seems most likely, as the entire book does nothing but attack the silly Alpha ways of Mrs. Bennet and the younger siblings.
Walt Whitman: Walt Whitman the man was an IEI, as is the "Real Me" of Song of Myself. He describes the IEI experience brilliantly:
He created an SLE persona in "Walt Whitman, one of the Roughs" who is manly, vital, physical, strong, the "trainer of athletes". Or maybe it's SEE and Walt's ILI? Who knows. (I say this because of the Rough Walt's power of identifying utterly with others, but this may be a type-transcendent quality)Apart from the pulling and hauling stands what I am,
Stands amused, complacent, compassionating, idle, unitary,
Looks down, is erect, or bends an arm on an impalpable certain rest,
Looking with side-curved head curious what will come next,
Both in and out of the game and watching and wondering at it.
There's a wonderful literary critic named Harold Bloom who is very beta and opposes delta political correctness with an iron pen. He says "the only method is the self" which is a very beta quote, in my opinion.
I can't think of any more at the moment, but I will eventually, and maybe post that too.