“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.
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.
When the author talks about how literature doesn't evolve I believe he is talking about how writers constantly use stories from the past as a basis for their work.
ReplyDeleteI also like your point about how we learn from our society.
Excellent post, Alan!
ReplyDelete