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.