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.”