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.