Investigators of traditional Native American literature typically point out arcane dissimilarities between “their literature” and the western (non-Native American) literary tradition. The implication is that they possess special insights and methods that western critics fail to possess. Such an approach can be instructive, but I suggest that unique ethnic approaches to literary criticism are not the only enlightening ways to look at a traditional narrative. On the one hand, I wholly concur with Del Hyme’s suggestion that for a critic to analyze traditional narrative solely for the light it sheds on what interests him (structure, perhaps, or language) is to falsify the tradition from which the narrative emerged. On the other hand, investigating similarities between Native American traditional narrative and western narrative, using an appropriate western method, may also illuminate and inform. I intend to do three things in this article. First, I wish to quarrel with Paula Gunn Allen’s “ethnic approach” to criticism of Native American literature that she uses in her essay, “The Sacred Hoop: A Contemporary Indian Perspective on American Indian Literature.” Second, by using an archetypal approach, which I will demonstrate is transcultural, I will investigate a Hopi traditional story. And finally-almost as a by-product of the above-I wish to point out the accessibility of Native American literature to the non-Indian, thereby supporting a stance for a plurality of interpretations. It goes without saying that in order for a non-Indian to fully and fairly analyze a piece of Native American literature, the investigator must familiarize himself or herself with the traditions of that culture. Such a familiarity is possible today, even for the non-Indian.