Evolution is Nature

“Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.” (p. 9)
This is an outrageously false comment. It would seem to defy the laws of nature to have something exist in our world that never changes. That is, of course, any tangible object, or abstract of the mind will always be subject to change. If literature was never evolving, or improving, the world would have never given birth to Homer, Cervantes, or Shakespeare. We as humans would have been satisfied with cave markings as a representation of our imagination and humanity. Of course one could debate at length whether or not literature "improves" however, we see blatant evidence of its change. Sure Romeo and Juliet still strike the heart of every audience member with passion and tragedy, but only its value has stood the test of time. The language and dynamics used to portray the story have vastly gone askew from Shakespeares' work. Words change, plots change; although not by much, the presentation changes, but most importantly, we as humans change. A hundred years from now, "honesty" may not be "the best policy", and the literature of that generation will demonstrate that above anything else. Plays such as A Doll's House would not have been thought of if the literature of that time wasn't attempting to reflect and provide insights on humanity at that time. The single agreeable implication of Frye's quote: “Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.” (p. 9) is its application to the goal of literature. Just as science will never stop attempting to define nature in terms of itself, or to describe the world we experience with great accuracy, literature will never cease to capture the essence of mankind and to display it with poweful meaning. Just as David McCullough said in his speech to the graduating class of Boston College in 2008, "It can be like the old piano teacher's lament to her student, I hear all the notes, but I hear no music" and in my opinion, literature will, at least, always be playing music.

Imitation is the Mother of Creation

In chapter 2, Frye said, “A writer’s desire to write can only have come from previous experience of literature, and he’ll start by imitating whatever he’s read” (p.19). I have never thought of a literature in this way before, but it literally makes sense. Even if, let’s say, Frye hadn’t read as much literature as he has read, he would not have been able to write what he has written. Possibly he wouldn’t have become a writer. Definitely Frye has also started by imitating whatever he’s read like he said, whether it is done consciously or not.

It’s like a baby learning a language by imitating what the parents say.

Frye gave an example of painting. And I think it’s same with the music. I took a bit of vocal lesson, and once you get in a certain level, they make you do something over and over. It’s copying. Copying the songs of old famous singers like Stevie Wonder or Brian McKnight. Copying really means literally copying, which even includes their breathing sound, shape of mouth, and facial expression. Then it would become a convention and eventually become completely yours.

Why study literature? I think Frye is giving one of the reasons here. It’s to develop your own distinctive sense by imitating whatever you have read and to eventually create something out of it.

The same old story

The part of chapter 2 that stood out to me the most was on page 21/22 where Frye describes how story lines have not changed much over time. He gives many examples which clearly show how conventional stories are used again and again but in slightly different ways. The one which interested me the most was the example of "the mysterious birth of the hero" because this is probably the most popular conventional story to use and has been evident since the time of Mesopotamia. I found the idea that writing does not evolve over time but rather stems from a few conventional ideas was very profound and gives a new perspective on literature.

Imitation is History

"A writer's desire to write can only have come from previous experience of literature, and he'll start by imitating whatever he's read, which usually means what the people around him are writing."


After reading the second chapter that quote was the one that stood out to me the most. This to me seems to not be entirely true to most significant writers in history. Most writers who have made compelling additions to the world made truly unique pieces, such as shakespear and Dickens. That said, I can agree that a lot of less known writers have made very similer stories. Usually in the basic theme or plot of the story. But as an example our modern world of liturature being unique is a must to be sucesfull. This is due to the popularity of books and poems decreasing with the advancement of technology. Which pushes the modern writers to create something so eye catching and unique it can take the attention away from other forms of entertainment. So in a sense he is true with the past history of liturature, but incorrect with our modern day writers.

Great Writers

"The writer of literature can only write out what takes shape in his mind." p.24

I agree with what Frye is saying here, I think what makes a good writer, a great writer are all the life experiences he or she may have had, the mistakes he or she have learned from and all the stories they have read. This quote ties into Frye's main point about this chapter, which is new literature is old literature. For a writer to become a great writer they have to read many other stories, and be able to tell the difference between a bad, good, and great story. They also need to use those stories as a base for their stories that they are currently writing.

I think you can apply this quote to many other things, for example math. The more variety of math problems a student as solved, the greater chance they will have at solving a difficult problem.

The Conventional Aspect

In the second chapter of this book the idea that struck me as most profound was that regarding conventional literature. The reason this surprised me so much was when Frye talked about books such as the Bible and Greek mythology and how a lot of those stories are actually very conventional. Although in a religious sense the Bible takes on a lot of meaning it is an interesting concept to think that the stories in it can many times be very conventional and how sometimes today stories like that can be easily perceived as 'corny'. But Frye makes a good point how some of these greatest works of literature although written thousands of years ago are conventional. Once being introduced to this idea I can definitely agree with Frye on this point and see it as a very important one with regards to literature.

The New is Really Old.

"I'm saying that everything is new, and yet recognizably the same kind of thing as the old"

I believe that this quote represents the chapter, and the real situation fairly accurately. I believe this as literature the more books you read the more you can predict the twists of future books. This is due to the fact that for all stories to remain interesting they must consistently throw twists in the plot.

This leads to concepts used in an old stories to be used in new ones as well, and thus even if new stories are formed, to appeal to human drama they must follow these twists. Thus the old will always be equal to the new.

The Conventional Story

I like how he talks about the conventional story. He gives the example of Moses in the Bible and says "That's a conventional type of story, the mysterious birth of a hero. It was told about a Mesopotamian king long before there was any Bible; It was told about Perseus in Greek legend; then it was passed into literature with Euripides' play Ion; Then it was used by Plautus and Terence and with other writers of comedies; then it became a device in fiction, used in Tom Jones and Oliver Twist". This shows that one story is used over and over again but in different ways, from a legend to comedy to American popular literature. He says that literature is timeless no matter what the story is and it can be used over and over again and every time it can seem different and refreshing, which is Frye's point in the chapter.

The Language of Expression

"No human society is too primitive to have some kind of literature." pg 19

Frye who suggests there are 3 main attitudes of our minds says that the language of literature belongs to our imaginative attitude, "a vision or model of the world as you could imagine it and would like it to be" pg 17. Literature uses association to connect humans to the outer world. It uses human shape and meaning. Literature does not only come in the form of great novels or pieces of writing. Where imagination is involved and where human connections are made literature can be present. Frye calls this primitive literature which isn't in itself distinguished specificaly as literature. Religion, magic, and social ceremonies are all examples givin but only a few of a list of many possibilities. The human mind is what forms and shapes literature. This can be linked back to my first post in the sense that literature is a result of the homes we build and our worlds that result. Not only does it produce results but it also is used in the opposite sense to shape and build these worlds. With this Frye in a way contradicts himself in this chapter because he before stated that "literature doesn't evolve or improve or progress" pg 9. Clearly however there has been evolution and progression from the more primitive times thoughout history. Although, it would be unfair to say that literature has improved because what makes one form of literature better than the other. There really is no way to measure the quality of a form or piece of literature, there is no grading scale. Literature is what we construct and allows us to build; the extent of form that can be associated with literature is only an extent of "human meaning [and] human shape" pg 3.

Literature is the expression of the imaginative language.

Literature does not Evolve or Improve or Progress

“Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.” (p.9)

In the context, Frye contrasts science and literature; one that does evolves and improves and one that doesn’t. Frye supports with his specific examples for each of them. He states that physicist today knows more than Newton did because scientists these days learn more about the world as they discover new stuffs out every day. On the other hand, Frye insists that literature does not evolve or progress explaining that even if an author nowadays can write plays as good as Shakespeare or Sophocles did, those pieces can never be better than any of their plays like King Lear or Oedipus Rex. It’s also like if someone asks, “Who is better? Shakespeare or Sophocles?” there is no answer to the question. As long as the writers are in the certain range in writing skill, you just can’t say one’s better than the other. As each one of us is different, we all have different point of view, imagination, or dream. And you cannot say something in your mind is better than that of others. So does the literature, as it is coming from there, it cannot be better than others. In other words, literature does not evolve or improve or progress, each one of them is just different. To phrase it in other way that was stated in The Love of Learning by McCullough, “even the oldest book is brand new book for the readers who open it for the first time.”

Are we all imitators?

“A writer’s desire to write can only have come from previous experience of literature, and he’ll start by imitating whatever he’s read, which usually means what the people around him are writing.”

I found this quote to be extremely profound in the respect of applying this same concept to life in general. If a writer’s desire to write strictly comes from reading previous works of literature, does that mean that all of our desires in life are developed from our past experiences? And if a writer writes similarly to whatever he’s read, does that mean that we act similarly to the people we spend our time with? I found the parallel between what influences both literature and our everyday lives to be extremely interesting. This quote really gets at the fact that everything we read, do, see, and hear affects us whether we notice it or not. I believe that a writer’s style is affected by every piece of literature they read much like the way peoples’ characters are affected by every single person they meet.

Subjective Reality

“We tend to think of the sciences as intellectual and the arts as emotional: one starts with the world as it is, the other with the world we want to have.” (p.9)

Frye uses this quote to briefly summarize how he believes peoples’ brains operate in different areas of study. I agree with him in saying that the sciences require us to use our intellect and entirely rely on information and facts. There is a distinct difference between the sciences and arts, and like McCullough said, "Information isn't poety. Or art." and "Facts rarely if ever have any soul." Instead, the sciences force us to think rationally, logically, and quantitatively. When Fryer states that, “one starts with the world as it is” I believe he is referring to the world of sciences. This is because all theories and principles begin with an observation of physical reality. And these principles are not true just because we “want” them to be true, these principles are true because they have consistently been proven to be correct. The sciences take the world as it is and helps to explain why things are the way they are. He also mentions that the arts are emotional. In my opinion, they are very much based and influenced by how we feel, who we are as a person, and our imaginations and beliefs. Whether we are aware of it or not, I also believe the arts are very closely related to what goes on in our subconscious. That’s why they begin with “the world we want to have”. The arts are simply a place that indirectly reflects our greatest desires, hopes, and dreams. And after all, anything man creates must begin with a thought.

New and Old

"I'm not saying that there's nothing new in literature: I'm saying that everything is new, and yet recognizably the same kind of thing as the old..." (p.23)

Frye is basically explaining that literature repeats itself in numerous forms. What may seem to be new is actually an old idea that is presented in a different way. This statement made me realize that all the fiction stories we read have already been written about at some point in time. It reminded me of times when I could predict what would happen after just reading a few pages of a book. For example, there are many love stories out there, but they all seem to have similar themes such as unrequited love and forbidden love. Authors skillfully disguise these old stories into new appealing ones. To do this they may add their own spin to an old story. However the final product will still have a sense of familiarity to it, one authors can't quite get rid of. I found this interesting because I've never thought of literature this way before. Now I realize that its all the same, except in different forms.

what makes a complete human being

"One person by himself is not a complete human being...." (p.6)

Through this quote Frye is conveying the idea that without other people around to share our experiences with a person is not complete. So much of how a person acts and interacts with others is a direct result of the people and society that surround them. Without anyone to influence and educate a person throughout their life they will not have essential qualities and miss out on lessons which could be learned from other people.

The idea of not being complete can also relate to how in our society today a person's happiness or feeling of success/completion does not always rely on self satisfaction, they want to have others see what they have accomplished and receive praise for it. Without this it would make a lot of hard tasks, problems etc. that people have spent their life completing or solving seem worthless, which emphasizes the need for humans to constantly have other people around them to feel complete.

On page 19 Frye states that "A writer's desire to write can only have come from previous experiences of literature." I agree with this statement because if literature is something you have not come across before writing would not a possibility. There would be no sense of beginning middle and end. The ability to create a story would not be able to form. It is us seeing models and previous works of literature that allows our mind to evolve what we have to say into a story. Literature from other writers helps other writers develop their own. One thing that I disagree about with this statement is that the original creator of literature had no model to base his literature too. So until literature was developed around the world, writers made their own sense of literature.

something profound

On p.22, Frye suggests that "literature can only derive its forms from itself: they can't exist outside literature." This quote was honestly one of the few things I agreed with in this chapter. Literature can only advance from another form of literature. It is almost as if its forms are caught in a big literature web and they are heavily dependent on literature for survival. Without literature, there would be no similes or metaphors or poetry. It simply would not exist. I also agree with another statement Frye makes on p.23 stating that "everything is new, and yet recognizably the same kind of thing as the old." Literature can be similar at a first glance, but that is because many if not all contemperary readings are just branches off the same tree. Most authors write material based on what is acceptable or popular in their society, and they follow the same trends as other successful writers to be as great as they are. But when an author goes down a different path, whether the writing is good or not, their literature is found on the bestsellers list because it is different than any other piece of writing in the competition.

New is recongizably old

Within chapter two of this book, I very much agreed with Northrop Frye when he stated that everything new in literature is considered new, however it is the somewhat the same as the old literature.

I agree with this because the old literature is basically the foundation of the of all the new literature that is published today. Sure the ideas and story may be different, but because the old literature is the base it will show up in every piece of literature, and depending on the writer, it may show up in a large amount or a very small amount.

Well this is my take on this part in chapter 2.

The Past

Personally I strongly agree with the authors main point in this chapter about how stories from the past strongly influence the current literature of the time. Our society is one that is based strongly on what our forefather's teach us and the stories that are passed on to us. (Hansel and Gretel etc.) This then means that all the writers of today have decided to become authors or poets because of their love for the stories that they heard as children or even as adults. Thusly their writing is directly or indirectly affected by what they have read in the past.

State of Being

“You're not separating only yourself from nature now, but constructing a human world and separating it from the rest of the world” (p.5)

The objective world Frye talks about is something that we are unable to relate or connect to because it lacks "human shape or a human meaning" pg3. Everyone is their own being and our beings result from the ways in which we construct them. We as beings grow homes which become our own worlds. Human interaction is what allows us to make our homes, our ideal states of being; we as humans need this. The objective world is not enough so we change it and build and build and we never stop building. Frye compares this to moving to a different level of human life.

This quote also depicts the isolation we experience because of our single identites as humans. This sort of isolation should have a positive meaning because it is what we grow on. Growth comes from human shape and human meaning, which is ultimately interaction. From this it is our home that grows which will in turn impacts other beings. We all start at the state of being and take different paths of growth from there.

We are separated because we have built our own worlds and we are what we build.

Does quality literature endure?

“Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.” (p. 9)

Frye is saying that literature doesn't improve over time - the style remains constant. In other words, a good book now will still be a good book in a hundred years (Shakespeare is used as an example). There is no "new" style of literature - it is something that will endure until the end of time.

I agree with Frye's point. Many of the most popular (and/or "classic") books today (works of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway in addition to non-fictional texts and biographies), were written over several decades ago. In the case of Shakespeare and the Greek philosophical plays, these were written over hundreds and thousands of years ago, respectively. It is clear that literature does not age - in fact, some of (in my opinion) the best history books are those written in the immediate post-WWII era - some 60 years from today. The fact that many new books are "popular" and "bestsellers" doesn't necessarily mean that they will eclipse the level of enjoyment offered by the old classics. The paraphrase McCullough, "even a old book is new to the person who opens it for the first time".

In this regard, Frye seems to be agreeing with McCullough - if literature doesn't evolve, the level of enjoyment must clearly be the same as the day the book was released. Although their philosophical views on how we learn are different: Frye claims that we learn mostly from the society in which we live in, while McCullough's view is very "book-oriented". However, the fact that two very different people (historian and a reviewer) from very different time periods (1960s vs present-day) agree that literature never ages, adds yet another piece of supporting evidence to Frye's claim.

Interesting Title

One person by himself is not a complete human being.

What Frye means is part of being a human and the human experience is to socialize and interact with others. So much of life is interaction with other people who most importantly we learn from. Without other people the learning experience would be compromised therefore humanity would not nearly be as far advanced if it were not for the discussion between people.

Why The Aeroplane Was Invented

"What's produced the aeroplane is not so much the desire to fly as a rebellion agains the tyranny of time and space." [p14]

I think that what Frye means by this statement is that we didn't invent the aeroplane because we wanted to fly it was because some one wanted to prove everyone wrong and be the first to do something. I think this statement is very true because it is in the nature of human beings to want to always be right and do whatever it takes to prove that. As well humans love to rebel against any rules. Also he says "people don't get into planes because they want to fly, it's because they want to get somewhere faster." which is completely true statement, when the aeroplane was invented it wasn't just because people fantasized about flying through the air like poets used to, it was because people wanted to get places faster and to prove the disbelievers wrong. This attitude is still around today, people will spend their whole lives trying to prove something they believe is correct and a driving force to solve the problem is the satisfaction of being right.

A completly different level

“What makes our practical life really human is a third level of the mind, a level where consciousness and practical skill come together. This third level is a vision or model in your mind of what you want to construct.” (p.7)

Reading this quote leads me to believe that Northrop is trying to suggest that our society today cannot function on practicality or consciousness alone. If our world was based on practicality everything would be simple and soulless. On the other hand our complex society could not handle on frivolous thinking alone. With these two factors in mind, our perspective of a perfect world is based upon them. As an example, all work and no play isn't a world in which us humans see as enjoyable. Leaving me to do nothing but agree with his statement.

Technology vs. Literature

”Is it possible that literature, especially poetry, is something that a scientific civilization like ours will eventually outgrow?”

This quote is important because Frye is talking about the importance of literature in today's civilization, and how many people may not see a need for literature, especially poetry. I think literature plays a very important role in our society, it helps us expand our knowledge, and helps us become better readers. Even though our society is technology based, this does not mean we are in a scientific civilization, technology may involve science but not everybody enjoys learning about science, and many people do not always talk about science, or even talk about it at all. There are still many people today who are still very passionate about writing, and reading poetry, and if there is at least one person out there who is passionate about poetry they will make a need for it in today's society. There will always be a need for both science, and literature.

Poetry can relate to "The Love of Learning" because McCullough talks about taking the time to do the little things in life that are very important, such as tipping the maid. Many people are so busy that they forget to appreciate some of the simpler things in life. Poetry can describe the simplest object, and give it many characteristics to make people appreciate it more.

The Human experience

“One person by himself is not a complete human being…” (p.6)

This quote to me summarizes how our society today works. Northrop Frye is suggesting here that part of what makes us who we are is the way in which we interact with those around us. Without the influences of the people around us we would act differently, and it is how people interact together which forms our society.

The great imagination

"[Imagination is] the power of constructing possible models of human experience.” (p.8)



I feel Frye is portraying imagination as a neccessary part of the human experience. He shows that imagination allows humans to be creative and free from the restirctions that reality sometimes places on us. He is implying that from these "possible models of human experience" come great things. I agree that imagination is neccessary because without it, many discoveries or innovations today wouldn't have come to pass if someone hadn't stopped to come up with an idea first. All actions start of as a small spark of imagination. Frye said, "In the world of imagination...nothing really happens. If it did, it would move out of the world of imagination into the world of action" (p.8). Although an idea may seem meaning less at first, it can eventaully blossom into "the world of action" as meaningful discovery.
I also feel that imagination has the power to inspire people to chase their dreams and make them a reality. People without imagination don't go as far as those who dare to dream. For this reason I feel imaginaion plays an important role in life.

evolution of literature

“Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.”

In this quote Frye trys to point out that literature is out there in its finest it is just up to human beings to unlock its full potential. Literature does not evolve although the human beings and the way we present it and interpret might change. I agree with this quote because there are plenty of examples that relate to this such as Shakespear. If literature progresses Shakespear would not be looked upon as such a masterpiece as it is today. This quote has connection to McCullough's speach, all books are new to a person who is reading it for the first time.

Can society shape someone?

One person by himself s not a complete human being... (Page 6)

Frye is saying how 'one person can't do it all'. To shape someone to be who they are takes more then one person, it takes a society as a whole. I thoroughly agree that one person would be a no body without society help shape who they are. They would be emotionless, not aware of any of his surroundings, and not able to "be". Society is so important in our lives. Although we don't see how much it effects us, it does. It can range from your friends and family, up to people who who live half way across the world. The world is so intertwined it is unbelievable. Just a few years ago the Internet was some small thing. Now most of our lives depend on the internet. Ever realize someone has to manage internet usage? They are part of our society. This relates back to "The Love of Learning" showing how it describes who we are as a whole... Not as a person, but as a whole. We are what we are, thanks to the people around us.

Exploring Complex Ideas!

“One person by himself s not a complete human being…” (p.6)

I believe what frye is trying to get the reader to grasp here is the concept of what makes a person a human being. |The idea of the world around us acually shaping us for who we are as humans is emphasized through Frye's analagy of the human alone on island. He does this to isolate a human from everything else and basically strip it down to just a bare human being that is not influenced by the world in which actually shapes us to who we are. I would definately agree with frye on this statement because i do esentially believe that if we were alone on an island with know sense of being able to communicate or work or create we would not really exist as what we refer to as "human beings" if you know what i mean.

cheers

~ mikeyg

Blogging Assignment #2

Read chapter 2 of Northrop Frye's The Educated Imagination and blog (create a New Post) on one thing you felt is profound, or something you profoundly disagree with, or something you don't understand.


Also, comment on at least two other blog posts from students in our class.

assignment #1

"One person by himself is not a complete human being" p.6

I think Frye means that people need interaction with others to feel complete. The nature of being a human being is communication and socializing in a society. You can build and create anything you desire but you will not be fulfilled unless you are accompanied by another human being. If you are alone, your monologue will never turn into dialogue and society would never advance. I agree with this statement because i am a very social person. I love being around others and engaging in a conversation with someone other than myself. If i did not have friends, i would definitely feel incomplete. I know there are people who would strongly disagree with this statement, but that is because they are content with being alone for the majority of their life, while I am not.
In McCullough's speech, "The Love of Learning," he mentions advice John Adams gave his son John Quincey. The advice was to always carry a book with you on your travels because "you will never be alone with a poet in your pocket." This is the opposite of Frye's quote. John Adams is stating that even if you are physically and emotionally alone, you can always confide in literature. For some people, this could be inspirational. The way i see it is reading literature will never compensate for the life of another. It can't tuck you in at night, it can't stop wars, it can't stop your tears, and the only feelings it possesses are the feelings of another.

Human Rebellion

“What’s produced the aeroplane is not so much a desire to fly as a rebellion against the tyranny of time and space.” (p.14)


From this quotation, I understand that the only reason human beings have accomplished so much technologically, scientifically, and medically wise is because of our rebellious nature. We want to acheive things that have been stated to be unattainable or impossible, such as humans learning to fly. Because of these statements saying that we, humans, can not acheive a certain goal our rebellious nature drives us to go against the laws of nature telling us what we can and can not do and rise up against it and prove it wrong.

I, however, disagree with this quotation. I believe that humans acheive great accomplishments by the desire to improve and accomplish. Even though we are told that we are unable to accomplish something, we try and try again, not out of rebellion, but out of that desire to improve. For example, the Wright Brothers did not just want to try and fly out of rebellion against nature, they wanted to see if they were capable of accomplishing their goal. There are many other examples of humans acheiveing goals that were thought to be impossible, but it wasn't acheived out of rebellion, but as the desire to accomplish.

Frye and McCullough: Authors For Life.

"Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.” (Frye, p. 9)

What I think Frye means by the above quotation is that unlike science or mathematics, literature does not evolve and advance over time. Instead literature remains constant and may be good or bad relying entirely on the author\s ability. This is is due to literature being entirely based off human emotion, and thus it's up to the authors ability to purvey the emotion clearly, that determines the quality of literature.

I agree with this quote, as readers today can go back and read Shakespeare and still view it as a great piece. This is unlike science and math where the thoughts and theories of one can be viewed as wrong post mortem, and be viewed as unintelligent.

Yes this quote is comparable to McCullough’s speech “The Love of Learning”. It is comparable as both works emphasize that literature helps develop human emotion and culture while remaining constant, teaching many generations all the sides of one coin from one work. Both also state that science and math although advancing do not help one truly learn of the world, but help explain the world around them.

Blogging Assignment #1

"The Motive for Metaphor

This first chapter in Northrop Frye's Educated Imagination raises questions that he will attempt to answer over the course of the six lectures. The questions address the topic of "education" as well as the social function of literature and literary education. Keep these questions in mind throughout your reading of the text.

"What good is the study of literature?" (p.1)

"Does it help us to think more clearly, or feel more sensitively, or live a better life than we could without it?" (p.1)

"What is the relation of English as the mother tongue to English as a literature?" (p. 3)

"What is the place of the imagination ... in the learning process?" (p.3)

"What is the social value of the study of literature?" (p.3)

Blogging Assignment #1

The following quotations are taken from the first chapter of Northrop Frye’s The Educated Imagination. Choose one of the quotations listed below and blog about it, considering four things: (1) what do you think Frye means; refer to context? (2) do you agree? (3) make application and synthesize; (4) are there any connections to McCullough’s speech “The Love of Learning”?

“Every child realizes that literature is taking him in a different direction from the immediately useful, and a good many children complain loudly about this.” (p.3)

“constructing a human world” (p.5)

“necessity and freedom” (p.6)

“One person by himself s not a complete human being…” (p.6)

“What makes our practical life really human is a third level of the mind, a level where consciousness and practical skill come together. This third level is a vision or model in your mind of what you want to construct.” (p.7)

“[Imagination is] the power of constructing possible models of human experience.” (p.8)
“…We tend to think of the sciences as intellectual and the arts as emotional: one starts with the world as it is, the other with the world we want to have.” (p.9)

“Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.” (p. 9)

”Is it possible that literature, especially poetry, is something that a scientific civilization like ours will eventually outgrow?” (p.11)

“…Literature belongs to the world man constructs, not to the world he sees; to his home, not his environment.” (p.12)

“…the limit of the imagination is a totally human world.” (p.13)
“What’s produced the aeroplane is not so much a desire to fly as a rebellion against the tyranny of time and space.” (p.14)
“The Motive for Metaphor” (lecture title; & p.14f)