Just a pile of books...

"Is it possible to get, in however crude and sketchy a way, some bird's eye view of what literature as a whole is about: considered, that is, as a coherent subject of study and not just a pile of books?" (pg. 26)

I only think some parts of this quote hold true. I do not think it’s possible to fully understand what literature as a whole is about. However, I do think it is possible to have some “crude and sketchy” birds eye view, but then again, not as a coherent subject of study. As much as we may try to completely understand literature, we cannot. It is too vast of an area to cover. You can sail the seven seas, but you will never know every inch of its waters. Meaning, yes we can crudely take a birds eye view on the whole matter, but that doesn't teach us anything. I believe you have only truly understood something when you can relate it to a bigger idea. To begin to understand literature we must go back to the basics. Maybe if we understand how literature started we can then better understand it on a whole.

Throughout the book, “The Educated Imagination”, Frye often comes back to the deserted island metaphor. I think what he is trying to do here is explain things in simple terms. What’s simpler than being stranded on an island? But if we do go back to the beginning, there’s no guarantee we’ll get to the end. In conclusion, I do not think it is possible to have an absolute understanding of literature, as much as we may try.

the worlds best copy cat

"You notice that popular literature, the kind of stories that are read for relaxation, is always very highly conventionalized." (pg. 21)

What Frye says in this quote is true; popular literature for any genre follows along a similar blueprint. We learn from our parents what their parents learned from their parents and so on, meaning that we have been strongly influenced by the past. As we get older we are influenced by even more, television, internet, what we see and what we hear and with that it gets harder to break the mould. In order for literature to take a new form we would have to take a very naive look at the world around us. I feel as though Frye is reiterating what he said in The Motive for Metaphor “literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress” (pg.9) but in a different context. In The Singing School he is saying that our current literature “provide[s] only content, they don’t provide new literary forms” (pg.22) mainly because the new writers have based their writing experiences on the previous literary scholars that have shaped the mould for literature and all we are left to do is add to it.

the elephant in the room

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

I think Frye is saying that as human beings we have the conscious ability to go beyond the concrete walls of reality and imagine another world full of everything you personally want. I think Frye believes imagination to be a literary tool used to take thought outside of our everyday “world of action” and place it into a “world of imagination”. He describes imagination as being a power one could harness to create infinite stories that model our human experiences, whether they are physical or emotional. Overall, I do agree with what Frye is saying. Generally when we think of the word imagination, we think of experiences or wants that outside of our imagination are typically impossible to replicate; such as flying horses, people with magical abilities, or teleportation. Using this power of imagination writers are able to create situations and experiences that within reality are physically impossible to recreate. However, imagination is not restricted to only physical terms. For instance take Shakespeare who used his imagination to create fantasy worlds like those in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. He also used his imagination to create legendary characters like Hamlet and King Lear, who although had no special powers or magical qualities, were characters that were created outside of reality. Imagination allows writers and students alike to demonstrate morals, metaphors, and messages in a number of ways. He states that “in the world of imagination, anything goes that’s imaginatively possible, but nothing really happens” I think that Frye is showing the outstanding level of consciousness that stops humans from living the imaginative life they want in comparison to the reality they created. For instance when looking at children’s books such as The Tortoise and the Hare, we know the story is imaginary, and we know these animals can’t speak; but that doesn’t take away from the message that is portrayed through the story. In regards to The Love of Learning, McCullough does not specifically reference the differences between imagination and reality. However he does mention the importance of understanding what you are reading. If you are reading something you have never personally experienced and don’t quite understand your imagination is the biggest tool you can use to grasp the idea that is being delivered.

Assignment 2: The Creature that is Literature

"The literary writer isn't giving information, either about a subject or about his state of mind: he's trying to let something take on its own form, whether it's a poem or play or novel or whatever...The writer of literature can only write out what takes shape in his mind." (p. 24)

Here Frye makes an interesting revelation in regards to the origin and manner in which literature is created. He personifies literature, describing it as a creature that is brought about from the visionary's own mind. It exudes into life, at times unexpectedly, taking the writer by surprise. When you set out to write, it is impossible to plan exactly what you are going to write-you can have the initial notion, but that idea is nurtured, refined and aggrandized on its own accord. It is almost as if literature is an art; in small segments it is random, but in totality and as a unit it is precisely sculpted. Unlike in science, their is a profusion of answers that each make total sense and that take on their "own form" as they are developed. In fact as I have written my above comments, it feels as if everything just fit together like a puzzle..

Read and learn children; cyberspace can be harmful!

http://news.aol.ca/ca/article/gang-rape-photos-on-facebook-police/19637049?icid=main%7Ccanada-hp%7Cdl1%7Csec2_lnk1%7C171003

Assignment 2

“There is no direct address in literature: it isn’t what you say but how it’s said that’s important there.” pg 24

I find this quote out to be true. Every word means something, but saying it in a different tone could change how it is meant. People use literature as a way to express themselves, when poets write, they use literary devices to create a more imaginative story that you can get lost in, When public speakers present, they change the tone of there voice to change how the words they are saying are presented in a different manner. As you can see words on paper can be taking many different ways but still mean the same thing. This is why I would have to agree with Frye and his point.

Assignment 1

By reading the first lecture titled “The Motive for Metaphor” written by Northrop Frye for the first time it seemed confusing till I read it again and figured it out.

One of the most important quote that Northrop Frye had mentioned in this lecture was “Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.” By saying this Northrop Frye tries to convince the audience that literature will never change for good or bad although other categories might. The example that Northrop Frye had used was how science has come a long way, and how it has evolved and progressed since there is better technology for us to use which allows us to experiment which was not available in the past “Science learns more and more about the world as it goes on.”(pg.9). He also tells us that even the greatest scientist back then like Newton may not be smarter than a average scientist now.

I think that Frye is trying to prove that literature will never be better now or in the future than it was in the past. If anything in my opinion he could argue that literature in the past was better than it is now. I argue this because it has been over a hundred years and yet there is no better play writer than Shakespeare himself. His plays are still performed not because there a classic but there also the best that can be enjoyed today and by many generations after. Unlike science techniques that keep on changing sometimes even yearly. So what I am trying to say here is that I do agree with Frye.

It seems to me that McCullough and Frye are on the same page about how they agree on literature. The point that was made by McCullough was that “even a old book is new to the person who opens it for the first time.” What he tries to say is that it doesn’t matter when the book was published but it matter when it was read, because there nothing else like it in the world.

In my opinion this is why even till this day we read plays and novel written many years ago, because to our generation they are still new and this is why they will be read for years to come.

Isn't it ironic.

In Frye's second lecture of the "The Educated Imagination." He makes some very striking remarks. One comment that caught my eye was "The tone literature takes toward this world is not a moralizing tone, but the tone we call ironic. The effect of irony is to enable us to see over the head of a situation- we have irony in a play, for example, when we know more about what’s going on than the characters do- and so to detach us, at least in imagination, from the world we’d prefer not to be involved with." (pg.31) I thought this was intriguing because he states that literature does not reflect the positive outlook on the world. He states that literature uses sarcasm, to perhaps convey a lighter mood. He proclaims that in order to see through a situation you need to sometimes look on the lighter side of things. What I don’t understand is why he says “to detach us, at least in imagination, from the world we’d prefer not to be involved with.” Does he mean that through the ironic tone in literature, we use our imagination to create a world where there is no wrong?

What do you do when you find yourself in a hole you cannot climb out of? -Dig deeper

"...understand that literature is still doing the same job that mythology did earlier, but filling in its huge cloudy shapes with sharper lights and deeper shadows" p.32

The immediate meaning of this quote is apparent and is something with which i agree wholeheartedly. Myths were the original literature, combining the natural world with the human to such an extent that the very basis of natural phenomena were explained by the repercussions of human behaviour. In the world of the ancients, myths made it so that the entire world was a form of literature, allowing our ancestors to live in a much more familiar world than what we modern people see it as today. Nowadays we have distinctions between the natural and human-made worlds, provided by science and curiosity that can be validated with modern tools, uncovering the truth behind the world that surrounds us. Literature is the more distinct, advanced mythology, creating separate worlds from which we can dive into and again dive out.

Upon further thought, Fryes words arguably apply to many other fields, not just literature. Is human kind not actually taking any new steps, but instead just planting their ancient feet further and further down into deeper and darker soil? It would seem that in all our years of existence the same wants, needs, and fundamental questions still concern us. The ancients solved this through wondrous tales of immortals, we use wondrous particles and constants to explain that which we have a thirst to know. Upon even further review, maybe its obvious that we can never truly progress, for humanity will always be human, dealing with the human experience in ever innovative ways, trying to go beyond our limitations yet always failing to escape that which defines us. It would seem that literature is just another way that we humans try to break through our own complex, hoping to become something greater than just a human, perhaps immortal, perhaps all-knowing. But the truth is that we need not look any farther than the mirror to realize that all we've done is shade the shadows, for we are still here, and we are still trying to be more.

United We Stand

"One person by himself is not a complete human being"

Frye casually mentions this as he hurriedly rushes along to prove other points, but this quote which has no further elaboration, is quite a profound one. At first it sounds like a paradox, a whole person is indefinetely whole, therefore complete human-wise, but upon further analysis we see that a single person is nowhere near anything that we define humanity by.

Theoretically, if a person were to be solitary all his life, devoid of any human connections of any kind, he would be very little more than a resourceful monkey who walked on two feet. We are designed to interact. Eyebrows are solely for the purpose of obvious expression, huge swathes of our brain are designed to handle language, keep track of relationships, and reason social decisions. If the physical evidence weren't enough the psycho/emotional proofs are more than plentiful. Progress of humanity would be limited to natural selection without the passing of information onto the next generation in any capacity. A lack of feeling, of compassion, would produce harsh creatures void of morality, another vital human trait. McColloughs speech would have no place in a solitary world, without the passing of knowledge learning, information, enriching oneself past the limits of physical health, would all be non-existant. In short, without other humans, being "human" would mean nothing at all.

Assignment Two: A Preoccupied Society

In Frye’s second lecture he states that “the effect of irony is to enable us to see over the head of a situation... and so to detach us, at least in imagination, from the world we’d prefer not to be involved with.” (pg. 31). I find it interesting how Northrop Frye symbolizes literature as a form of relief or escape from our daily lives. He seems to understand the fact that as humans we have our problems and we tend to reflect them in our literature. On page 31 he states “...the more advanced the civilization, the more literature seems to concern itself with purely human problems and conflicts”. What I don’t understand is how does the advanced civilization and the increase of literature involving human conflict correlate? Is he saying that our society is more likely to complain about our problems, we honestly have important issues worth discussing, or that we have become so preoccupied with ourselves, that is generally all we write about?

New, Yet Still Familiar

Northrop Frye stated that though literature may be new, yet is "recognizably the same thing as the old". I found his comparison to a human child profound- though each is an individual, it is still very similar to those that have come before it. Each piece of literature may bring something new into the world, but they are building on what has come before them. I find it interesting to analyse how similar themes or structures are between very different pieces of literature. Yet despite the similarities, the plot, characters, emotions, and many other factors can make it unique and interesting. We can read many books with the same theme yet find each one new and refreshing. Even though we may think a book or play is dissimilar from anything else we have read, does not mean that the general structures and themes have not been written about before. The way literature is presented is what changes it and allows us to see things in a new light.

Assignment 2

"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" 

I found this interpretation of the course of literature quite intriguing. Fry boldly states that literature is just a repetition of the same ideas in a different form. That every thing has been done in the literary world, now things can only change form, but they retain the same basic message. It seems like a very doom and gloom analysis. I disagree with this statement because of several things. This is a severe generalization, "the same kind of thing as the old". Also no two story's are exactly the same, it's the small details that make a story truly special. It's the little details that stick in your mind and occasionally pop into your head that makes a good story a great one. He can't just say there different but there the same because they aren't the same. Two fingerprints are not the same, they have a similar shape, texture, colour, but no two prints are identical. Northrope Fry has a lot of great ideas and insights that are fascinating, but this is not one of them.

So does that mean nothing is new?

In Frye’s second lecture, the idea that fascinated me the most was Frye’s idea that “A writer’s desire to write can only have come from previous experience of literature,” (P.19). This part of his lecture caught my attention because it made me ask the question “So then is no literature original?” Here Frye is saying that all literature has a background, a pedigree as he describes it, and I agree with him. Literature was created from experiences but with some imagination involved. But I was shocked when he stated that a writer will imitate whatever he reads which will give him a “convention” and after writing with the convention for some time, he will develop “his own distinctive sense of form.” I was shocked mainly due to the fact that I had never thought about literature in that sense. I never thought of literature as having a general shape that doesn’t change (to an extent) in whatever time period or culture it’s being written in. Initially I disagreed with Frye and couldn’t understand how he thought a writer needed previous literature to have a desire to write and how literature is conventionalized. One could argue that a writer can have a desire to write because of an experience they had but the base of their writing or ideas will come from literature they have read. Or one could say that poems are not all the same or conventionalized, or that mythologies are never alike but the truth is, in a sense they are. Frye has change my opinion and I now feel that the base to most kinds of literature did in fact come from a broad, central idea that already existed.

Assignment 1

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

In this quote Northrop Frye is posing the question; will our scientific civilization outgrow poetry and literature. He follows up the question by discussing ancient legends of men in flight, how they could only imagine such things, but now it is a reality. He also asks “do we need such stories now that we have airplanes”. I think it is human nature to push the boundaries of possibility, but I also think the mass of civilization will outgrow literature as a medium of conveying stories and poetry. The new age where video and television is so readily accessible, and as the art of filmmaking improves, reading as a way to convey a story will, and already has started to, slip away into history. Even if literature disappears, the thinkers and dreamers will always find a way of telling there story, whether it’s through film or music. The medium may be outgrown, the paper tossed aside, but the dreamers and thinkers will live on. 

Congratulations to Herman Northrop Frye!

I thought that the main points I understood from 'The Singing School' were eyeopeners. When I first read the following sentence; "This story of the loss and regaining of identity is, I think, the framework of all literature"(30), I was not only surprised by this statement and somewhat skeptical about its validity, but also determined to find a loophole in it. I was also not just going to willingly accept the fact that "popular literature... is always highly conventionalized" (21), especially because the word 'always' is an extremely powerful one. Not that I do not appreciate his academic merit, but with all due respect, I believe that Frye was wrong if he thought that he could just stick a statement like that in a lecture and expect one to believe it on a whim. I can honestly say that I have spent over half an hour trying to come up with something but Herman Northrop Frye prevails. I went through a mental list of books I have read, from 'The Prince and the Pauper' by Mark Twain to William Kotzwinkle and Glenn Murray's 'Walter the Farting Dog', and, like magic, every one I went over managed to fit into the framework that Frye suggested.

So congratulations to Mr.Frye, because his description of literature as being conventionalized and his insight into the "loss and regaining of identity"(30) as the basis of this convention, is truly profound.

P.S. If you have not read 'Walter the Farting Dog', today is your day! I found a video of someone reading it aloud on YouTube because I needed a refresher when looking into this matter. Enjoy!

Physically Whole but Emotionally Incomplete

In Frye’s first lecture of the series “The Educated Imagination”, he states “One person by himself is not a complete human being…” (p.6) The simple fact to the statement is that we need other people to thrive not only in society but the world in general. This is because we would be no one without friends and family around us. These people are who help us create our identities and mold us into who we are today and who we will become. In the lecture Frye adds another shipwrecked refugee of the opposite sex; this with two human beings creates a human society. If a problem were to arise in a certain situation and only that one person was present, then you would only have one solution to that problem. With other human beings around you are able to come up with the best solution to any problem. When I think of the term “a complete human being” I consider one person by himself to be physically whole but when looking at the philosophically, emotionally and spiritually side of the person, the one person cannot possibly be “complete.” If one man was to be isolated from the human population, the human would not be complete. This is because you need others around you to grow. There would be no communication, and no experiences. That person would not know right from wrong, because there are no opinions or thoughts to take into consideration. I think you need others to learn from, to interact with and make connections. This quote related directly to McCullough’s speech “The Love of Learning.” The most useful point that can be taken from this speech is that learning is an extremely important. Without learning you just know a bunch of facts, and cannot function in “Information Age.” In relation to this quote to learn you need to value what you learn and take the most out of life experiences. Experiences come from the interaction of others, where you learn and grow as a human. Therefore the speech is in complete agreement with the quote. Without others one person cannot possibly be a complete human being.

Assignment One: Literature is Timeless

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

Will the scientific and technological advances our society is making eventually dominate the arts and literature as we know it? Literature allows the human mind to explore life beyond our immediate environment. It allows us to be imaginative, innovative, and most importantly inspired to further explore the extent of our capabilities. Old legends of people flying on artificial wings or chariots gave man the motivation to accomplish this impossible task. Literature allows us to dream big.

One might argue that in today’s society, science has become so advanced that it is slowly replacing literature and poetry. It is true that ipods, cell phones, and other electronic devices have become a major part of our lives and scientific discoveries have improved our health and well being. However, science alone does not define humanity. As McCullough states, “One can have all the facts and miss the truth”. I believe that poetry and literature are as central and meaningful to civilization, because the human mind has the capacity for conceptual thought. Limiting human experience to technology and scientific advances, limits our ability to imagine, and to explore on a philosophic level. This will never be outdated, and in fact is important in our growth as human beings. Poetry and literature are timeless pieces of work which we as humans will always be able to connect with.

"Constructing a human world", The Human Society

When Northrop Frye says "constructing a human world" I believe he meant that the life we have now, even if we don't feel as though it is, this is the life we want and need because we would not be able to survive in a peaceful world dominated by kind, loving animals. I do not believe with what he was referring to, however, due to the fact that many people are solitary by nature and do not require the human marvels we have and would love nothing more than to spend the rest of eternity living in a tranquil wilderness where one could do whatever he or she pleased. I believe that "The love of learning" speech does not have any direct correlation to Frye because in a speech directed at university graduates, when would construction of a human world occur? It is not feasible, however, Frye and McCullough where attempting to do the same thing and bring the love of literature to people that is what Frye believes and the only terrible loss from living in the animal kingdom would be the loss of the miraculous works published throughout the ages.

long live dance! assignment 2

One of things that captivated me about Frye's second lecture was the idea that things like religion and cultural beliefs can survive for thousands of years, even though the ideas are outdated, because they have been transformed into literature. His example on page 19 of dances and rituals taking on a dramatic form and developing into a independent drama got me wondering whether or not any of the dances that I perform will be transformed into a play 100 years from now.

The idea that "no human society is too primitive to have some kind of literature" p.19 emphasizes the fact that literature has always been a part of the human society and although we are in a technological age classic literature isn't going anywhere... at least for a while!

I was confused by what Frye meant when he wrote about "primitive literature" p.19. In my mind different types of literature are all complex in their own way and the fact that something can be considered literature means that it is not primitive.

Assignment 1: The Human Society

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

In stating this, Frye affirms that a sole individual is not a true human being. What makes him one are the countless influences upon him, particularly other human relationships. At times, one may feel that they can function independent of everything and everybody around them, but you must realize that much more can get accomplished by working with others. Frye believes that to be "complete" you must be a part of a larger assemblage-a society. For it is our interactions with others as well as our reactions to others that incite the senses and broaden the mind. Alone, you can only get so far, together, the possibilities are limitless. I believe that as humans, we have a tendency to be quite individualistic in our approach to learning and higher education. We don't realize that concrete ideas are brought into the limelight when we culminate our work and ideas as one. I agree with Frye's statement, as one has not lived life to the brim if they have not established bonds in their lifetime. How can one learn simply from themselves, by themselves? In a solitary world, there would be no mistakes, no corrections, or no clashes of opinions. As McCullough points out, "learning is acquired mainly from books." Books conceived by a panoply of human beings, who have acquired knowledge and learned the art of literature from past writers, and who will also pass on their acumen to future generations.

Literature is everywhere.

One idea i found particularly interesting in chapter two of 'The Educated Imagination' was the idea that literature is found in every human society, even if it hasn't been separated from other aspects of human life. This almost accidental literature is found particularly in religion, where stories are told about the gods and their heroic actions, creating myths and legends. These myths are then refined and edited until they are no longer one singular story about a god, but a whole host of fictional stories, based upon this original myth. This idea is particularly emphasised in the phrase 'but we can see literary expression taking shape in these things, and forming an imaginary framework, so to speak, that contains the literature descending from it.' This emphasises how literature evolved from everyday occurrences and practices, gradually becoming more and more refined. The metaphor of the 'imaginary framework' emphasises the way literature grew from these other aspects of life.

Another way literature was found in many aspects of human life was through the use of literature for a practical purpose, such as the need for a funeral lament or wedding song. This is shown in the phrase 'Poems used for certain occasions, war-songs, work-songs, funeral laments, lullabies, become traditional literary forms'. The use of asyndeton in this phrase emphasises the fact that literature came from almost anywhere, and was not confined to one aspect of life.

New works, old structure

"I'm not saying 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)

This line, taken from Frye's second lecture, comes after an explanation of how very old works are quite similar to newer works. Frye uses the books Odyssey and Huckleberry Finn as examples to back up his position. Frye explains how "Superficially, they're very different, but the better you know both the Odyssey and Huckleberry Finn, the more impressed you'll be by the resemblances:" (p. 23). Frye then goes on to list resemblances between the two works such as "the disguises, the exciting adventures that often suddenly turn tragic, the mingling of the strange and the familiar, the sense of human comradeship stronger than any disaster." (p. 23) After Frye makes these comparisons, he builds on this idea with the line, "I'm not saying 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) This line seems to repeat one of his main ideas in his first lecture, literature is timeless, but at the same time it adds a new thought to this idea. Frye, in my mind, is saying that although litreature can be repetitive, the fresh twist to a story caused by the distinct voice of the writer, makes a work of literature new. Frye's abnormal but brilliant metaphor is a very interesting way of looking at this concept. I had to read this metaphor more than once to gain an understanding of what Frye is trying to say. Frye uses a new born baby to explain is opinion, stating that this new baby is something new but also something very common, a human being. If we replace the new born baby in this metaphor with a book or poem, Frye's meaning becomes quite clear. A new book is something new but it is among billions of other books that have the same structure it does. The thing that makes each work different is not the cover but what's on the inside.

Influence Over Innovation. 2

"The moral of all this is that every form in literature has a pedigree, and we can trace its descent back to the earliest times. 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."

Frye's point here is relatively self-explanatory. I cannot agree with him entirely however, because he seems to believe that there is no innovation in literature. The only time I would find his point to be untrue is when the first writers began to create. Obviously there had to be a beginning to literature, and at this beginning there would be no prior experiences of literature to draw upon. Even in this case however, literature is always going to draw on something, whether it is previous literary experiences or experiences in life. This is where I believe the first writers drew their inspiration from.

Apart from that one minor exception, I believe that Frye's argument is completely valid. The one thing that really stuck out to me was that he appears to have a very scientific mind, in that he brings everything down to blunt truths. This is evident in how he does not like to leave us with the idea that certain brilliant minds progressed literature more than others, rather that no human does anything more than draw from previous literature.

Whether or not Frye's scientific inference is entirely correct still is not determined within my mind. All of the evidence appears valid, but I personally like the idea that our minds are not all so similar.

The New Is The Same As The 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)

Northrop Frye uses this quote to further explain how two books may have completely different story lines, such as Huckleberry Finn and Moby Dick, but remain similar through the characters, their adventures, and their tragedies. This supports Frye's opinion that literature is very repetitive and rhythmic. (p. 26) I strongly agree with Frye's outlook because many classic novels of different genres share the same concepts whether it be fantasy, mystery, romance, or others. They all follow the same basic structure: an introduction to the main characters, the teaching of life lessons and important morals, and a happy ending or tragic conclusion. The idea that all books generally share a common format, while each creating a unique story of different characters and settings, further reinforces Frye's earlier assertion that literature is constant and maintains its value indefinitely.

Literature never evolves.

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

This quote suggests that Frye believed that Literature, unlike science, is already at the best it can be and although other works may be written that are equally as good, or in a different style or genre, than classic literature, it will never be better than those classics. This is particularly emphasised through the fact that while many students still study Shakespeare and Ovid, science that was developed at the same time as both writers is very basic by today's standards, and sometimes wrong. I do agree with this view, as i believe that classic novels will never become out of date or irrelevant to our society, and that although many new novels and literature is written, nothing really new is ever created; it is just the same basic ideas being rewritten in different ways. The rule of three emphasises Frye's point, and the anaphora of 'or' adds further emphasis to the fact that literature can never be improved upon. McCullough's speech, 'the love of learning' has some similarities to Frye's ideas as they both discuss how people view literature and it's impact on society.

It's what you make of it.

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

We can only learn so much by ourselves. We can try and gain as much information as possible and store it in our memories, but what good are facts when there are no experiences to apply them to? To be a “complete” human being, one must learn from the journeys of others and their accomplishments-even their failures. By yourself you will live a standard life, but if you take in your surroundings you will live an exceptional life. I think Frye also means that through literature we become complete human beings. Of course two people can read the same book but both may get something completely different from out of it, meaning it’s all about how you interpret it. This point is also supported in McCullough’s speech when he says, “Information can save your life. The value of information, facts, figures, and the like, depends on what we make of it-on judgment.” Frye and McCullough both have similar messages. Life presents us with opportunities, some people grasp them and some people don’t.

Long Live Literature!

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

Upon first reading this question, my immediate answer was yes. As a 'scientific' civilization, we have moved from basic stone tools to complex and lightweight ones that are more functional. We have transitioned from handing in a hard copy of our english assignments to posting our ideas on a blog. In other words, we seem to always be moving away from how things have been done before, and toward streamlining the way we live. Literature stands out from other cultural facets of the past as something that has not changed. It does not at first appear to fit in with the scientific direction in which our civilization is headed.

However, the fact that literature has hardly changed at all and is still relevant and prominent is what catches one's attention as different. In my opinion, that is why Frye asks this question. He has realised that poetry, at a glance, may not seem a vital part of our lives. He also recognises, however, that it has somehow lasted the test of time but not actually 'improved' which goes against the apparent pattern. I suppose that Frye would agree with me that literature is not something that our civilization will outgrow. At this point, I believe that there is a reputation attached to many classics and that there is a certain curiosity which draws people to these books to experience firsthand why they have been relevant for ages. As long as there continues to be this curiosity (not necessarily from each individual, but from a substantial group), at least the classics will survive alongside science.

As for poetry specifically, it is a prominent part of religion and music. McCullough quoted John Adams as saying, "You will never be alone with a poet in your pocket." In these modern times, the poet could be on an ipod or mP3 player in your pocket, or maybe you have a pocket bible. If nothing else, I do not think that our civilization is likely to outgrow music or religion anytime soon, so on lives poetry and therefore literature!

Evolution- Not all it's cracked up to be. 1

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

When Frye writes this, it is easy to take the meaning out of it that human's have a natural sense of rebellion towards authorities, and this instinct "can never stop". His observation here is one I agree with, and also an instinct I believe is beneficial for humans to possess. As discussed in class, rebellion against authorities causes us to challenge what would otherwise remain the standard, and were it not for this instinct, we would risk stagnation. As far as the lessons to be taken from this, I would have to say that it goes to show that human nature is no fluke; and to not abandon your intuition. There's an interesting parallel from Frye's message to McCoullough's, in that both contain the idea of not missing the big picture. Many could view this fact of human's not producing aeroplane's for flight, as simply that. Whereas McCoullough encourages readers to look deeper into the text, and to pull out a more significant meaning.

In fear of simply reiterating what my classmates have already posted, there is another meaning to this quote that I noticed, although it is slightly far-fetched.

When Frye writes that our motive for flight is nothing more than a desire to save time, one can't help but think that 10 years ago, in our own lives, the concept of flying was exciting to us because it was something that we thought shouldn't be possible. In our eyes, it was a miracle. However, in the eyes of the "matured" population, the concept of flight does not offer any significance other than saving time. This gives the idea that as we "evolve" as humans, we begin to take more for granted, and that perhaps the insight of the immature is one that we have undervalued. Both Frye and McCoullough have a similar message in this sense. McCoullough states that although some literature may be outdated, its quality will never be matched. Frye, states that opinions which are not as "advanced" are ones that we are overlooking, and that they contain lessons we must learn as adults. The key differential here is that we acknowledge aged literature for its worth, where as we still must learn to appreciate the lessons we once knew.

Assignment #2: Unique Literature from a Primitive Society

"People coming to Canada from, say, England in 1830 started writing in the conventions of English literature in 1830. They couldn't possibly have done anything else: they weren't primitives..." (p. 22)

I think this quote is really thought-provoking because Frye is implying that for a country or region to have a truly unique literature, it must be isolated from other sources of literature (or as Frye says, the inhabitants must be "primitives"). Usually when the word "primitive" is used to describe a group of people, it has a very negative connotation. However, here, Northrop Frye is saying that it is necessary to be primitives, to never have read or listened to any stories or poetry outside those found in your own community, to have a literary culture of your own. This, I find ironic since many of the discoveries that have identified us as an advanced society have been shared across the globe. For example, the printing press was invented by Gutenberg in what is now Germany, but has now been used internationally for a long time, helping us advance yet retain our history by making it easier to record and distribute facts and knowledge, as well as poetry and fiction. However, Frye is saying that real "literary discoveries" have to be thought of without any influence as opposed to other discoveries which usually rely on international collaboration for success.

Science is temporary, literature is forever

"Literature doesn't evolve or improve or progress." (p. 9)

This line, found in Frye's first lecture "The Motive for Metaphor", comes after a brief explanation of how the subject of science evolves, improves and progresses. On the counter side of this statement, Frye states that "Literature doesn't evolve or improve or progress." To backup his opinion, Frye writes that "A physicist today knows more physics than Newton did, even if he's not as great a scientist." This is an extreme assumption to make considering how great of a scientist Newton was, but it's an assumption that I agree with. The field of science has progressed so much, due to new discoveries and advancements in theory, that Newton would be extremely far behind. Literature, on the other hand, does not evolve or improve or progress. Authors of different eras all have a different style but the structure of the writing remains similar. I think this is the basis on which Frye develops the opinion that literature is timeless. Plays that were written thousands of years ago, such as Oedipus Rex, are still being read and appreciated today by many audiences. The beautiful thing about literature is that it does not have to evolve or improve or progress, classics are respected in the same way a new work is respected, if not more. I feel there is a connection between this line from Frye's lecture and Mr. McCullough's speech. Mr. McCullough strongly enforces the idea of reading any work you can get your hands on. He tells the audience to read classics of American literature, books on their country's history and books that have stood the test of time, ". Like Frye, McCullough seems to feel that books able to withstand the test of time are the one's worth picking apart and re-reading in order to find the true meaning that lies within. "But take seriously-read closely-books that have stood the test of time." To go back to the line from Frye's lecture, literature is timeless. A classic novel or poem will be analyzed and studied for generations to come.

Assignment 2: Is Literature Repetitive?

"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" (pg.23)

Prior to this quotation Northrop Frye seemed to be implying that literature is extremely repetitive, and from that I was beginning to conclude that he believed it was lacking creativity. This was especially emphasized when he compared a Greek play to a novel by P.G. Wodehouse, he wrote, "you've got the same plot and the same cast of characters". I thought this was a very unusual way to view literature, as it is more commonly viewed as something requiring extensive creativity. However I thought that this line; "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" really clarified his argument by challenging the preconception that literature has little new thinking to offer. He followed this by using the example of a newborn baby, saying, "just as a new baby is a genuinely new individual, although it's also an example of something very common". I thought that this was a great comparison in respect to literature and the argument he is making for its originality, I agree with his point of view.

Literature's Audience

"There is no direct address in literature: it isn't what you say but how it's said that important there." pg 24


This quote shows an important aspect of literature that I thought we don't usually think about to often, that being how literature can be perceived. Frye is explaining in the entire passage about how language and literature can be passed on and create imagination and how this imagination created is what shows that the information has been passed onto the listeners. Frye is correct in the sense that there is no direct address in literature due to the fact that we can continuosly address people with different form of literature but if it is not spoken or written in a manner that will create imagination or get the attention of the listeners/readers than the literature is not getting addressed anywhere. This is something that many of us tend to forget when it comes to presenting various types of work that we have. Overall i think Frye is trying to show us how literature can be better understood so that it actually does become more interesting than it actually is, no matter what type of literature it is.

which language shall you speak in?: Assignment 2

“I said that there was a language for each attitude, and that these languages appear in our society as the languages of ordinary conversation, the language of practical skills, and the language of literature.” (pg 17)

This quotation synthesizes one of Frye’s main objectives in this chapter “The Singing School.” Before this opinionated judgement Frye refers back to his “shipwrecked island” situation of which he spoke about in the first chapter. This quotation is simply a reminder of what he had previously stated. I find this quote rather odd and different, possibly because I’ve never thought about it before. The three attitudes to which Northrop Frye refers to are: a state of awareness in which you notice that you may be alone, an attitude in which you begin to create a “human way” of living in an isolated situation and finally an attitude of imagination, one in which you generate your own world. As Frye adds meaning to this, he labels each attitude with a language, and that is the quotation that I chose. At first glance I think I may attempt to comprehend what his main message may be, but the more I read it over I realize that I’m not sure how to distinguish between these languages. For instance, when someone speaks to you, you don’t say “oh that’s the language of practical skills!” Possibly I just think too rationally to understand this. Though I don’t’ understand the true meaning behind this, I doubtfully have few assumptions. Maybe when Frye differentiates between these languages he means how you say things or write them, or maybe the tone used in the context, maybe I’m totally wrong, or maybe I’m completely right. Any thoughts?????

What's in it for me?

In Frye’s first lecture, titled “The motive for Metaphor”, he declares that “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) Through this statement, he is suggesting that when children study “English,” it may not seem immediately useful to them and not as sensible as sciences are, for example. They complain about it because they are studying something that is not directly helping them and not answering the question, “why?” He continues to say that Shakespeare and Milton “are not the kind of thing you must know to hold a place in society at all.” (p.3) What Frye is explaining is that literature, and the interpretation of Shakespearian plays, are not necessary to live your everyday life in society, and that is why kids are confused. He believes that you can have a place in society without the knowledge of literature, but knowing literature makes your place more meaningful. I agree with Frye’s opinion, that children are realizing that literature is not immediately useful. Personally, I too have asked the question “Why are we studying Shakespeare when I’m never going to refer to the character development in this play ever again.” I’m sure most students have had similar thoughts. It is a sign of frustration and lack of using one’s imagination, which in Frye’s opinion is “what you use in understanding it” (literature). In David McCullough’s speech “The Love of Learning,” he states that “the books that will mean most to you, books that will change your life, are still to come.” This quote doesn’t directly connect to Frye’s viewpoint that children are drifting away from literature; however, it similar in that McCullough is encouraging the students he is addressing, to stick with literature. He is telling them to persevere and not to "be one of those” people who don’t even read one novel or short story in a year. He also claims that by talking about the books you read and asking others what they’re reading, “You will learn a lot.” I feel this relates to Frye’s point because what you can learn from literature may not be useful right away, but the day may come when you need it.

A Higher Purpose for Literature

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

From a first glance my initial interpretation of this quote was that; mankind did not invent planes just for the sake of flying. The plane was created for a higher purpose not simply just "to get somewhere else faster" (pg.14) but to benefit from the extra time and opportunities flight offered. He recognized the power flight brought to mankind, labeling it as a "rebellion" to the limitations that existed before flight. However I also realized that this line was actually referring to literature in the sense that literature has a higher purpose than just providing information , instead it helps people to think on a larger scale i.e. 'outside the box'. With this interpretation in mind I found a direct relation to McCullough's speech, 'The Love of Learning'. Specifically the quotes "If information were learning, you could memorize the World Almanac and call yourself educated" as well as "One can have all the facts and miss the truth." In these quotes McCullough appears to be stressing the huge difference between information and learning, using the argument that memorizing facts is not learning at all. Instead it is actually the process of interpreting and applying knowledge. To conclude the importance of having a higher purpose, I would agree with Northrop Frye's approach whether it be in literature, learning, or even flying. In addition I also thought that this quote highlighted the control of time and space and so the desire to break free. This challenge to existing rules could also be seen as an anti-authority view similar to those discussed in class. Stemming from the events such as WWII concerning the Nazi Regime that shocked the world, I thought that the "rebellion against the tyranny of time and space" expressed mankind's current tendency to question and challenge existing authority and control.

Assignment #1: Constructing a Home

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

I believe that Frye is implying that literature is something that uses concepts unique to humans, as opposed to concepts present in nature. For example, poems about natural phenomena, such as rain, snow or storms, usually talk about the mood or atmosphere they create and their effects on the human mind. Some poems may use metaphors and similes as methods of comparing these natural phenomena to more human concepts. For example, one might compare thunder to the wrath of God. Rarely, if ever, will you find a poem explaining the science behind the formation of rain. Otherwise, reading poetry would have a similar effect to that of reading a textbook and would not serve the same purpose it does today. Thus, when Northrop Frye says literature belongs to the world man constructs, I can only agree with him. Literature would not be literature if it took concepts, human or natural, and tried to describe them using science. As Frye tells earlier, literature is the language of imagination: about things that we wish would happen or wonder what would result if they did happen. It is used to describe the world that we create or carve out of the world we are given. The language of self-expression (or the technological language) however, would be the language that science uses to explain the world we see: our environment. Connections can be made between this idea and the ideas found in McCullough's speech on "The Love of Learning." In his speech, McCullough emphasizes that information and facts are never enough. Learning comes from synthesis and being able to take raw facts and apply them to a practical use. This can be paralleled to Frye's view that literature and imagination take the world we already have and concepts we want to have to create a utopia we wish to escape to. Both McCullough and Frye emphasize that the higher level of thinking required to look past what we are given (facts or our environment) and using them to create something we can use (ideas or plans for our future) is critical in any society.

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

"Literature doesn't evolve or improve or progress."
Northrop Frye aims to prove a point that literature, as we know it today, is not going to advance. He claims that even though every era could potentially produce their own masterpieces they will neither be more dramatic nor well written than the classics. By classics Frye refers to King Lear and Oedipus Rex (pg 10) for examples. The reasonng behind this statement is supported by various examples concerning poet's works in different time frames. For instance, Whitman's work is compared to that of Dante's. Frye explains that even though the times and economic standings have changed, the historic literature produced by Dante should not be under minded to Whitman's comprehendible work (pg 10.) Northrop Frye often speaks abou and compares the quality of literature concerning the epoch. Frye also contrasts the changes of science and literature. On page nine, two truly valid points are expressed. "Science learns more and more about the world as it evolves and improves." And soon after Frye includes "But literature begins with the possible model of experience, and what it produces is the literary model we call the classic." (pg 9) These two opinions are nothing less than the honest truth. I believe that Frye is once again attempting to reach out and exclaim how important it is to remember the history of literature. He expresses that with science there is always something new to discover and gain control of, but with literature there is no more "new." Notable methods of writing have already been written. When writing, you write with the rest of the authors on your shoulder's. You may only express your words in a way that you have witnessed. By "witnessed" I'm refering to something you have read or listened to. Literature is a building block process in which you contribute to, in hopes of attempting to achieve something real, something classic. With such a constant reminder of science throughout this chapter I am forced to believe that Frye wants to express that English is just as important to this world as science is. He models th two subjects on the same pedestal. In good conscience I read this quote and immediately did not agree. I thought that Professor Frye did not have the right to judge the future, where literature would take us. But I was wrong. I have realized that I do agree with his legitimate opinion. Mind you, I agree when he states "evolves" but not when he writes "progresses." I don't attach the word to the standing of good literature, rather ideas. My view on this thought is that a writer's progress in their ideas using their imagination. People's imaginations evolve. Most authors are forced to mask the painful process of writing with new ideas because they know that their writing will never be up to par with the writing by the "classical" authors. With all of the new technology today our imaginations have no choice but to develop new ideas and plots for literature. That is why I believe that the only place literature evolves is within a single human as they evolve. Simply: The idea changes, not the style. Perhaps I am wrong but at this moment in time it's how I feel. The connections with this quote and the speech by McCullough "The Love of Learning" are quite profound. McCullough said "We're all what we've read to a very considerable degree" and that is something I agree with. I previously expressed the same thought, and it is true! We cannot be but slightly different than what we know and feel comfortable with. However in relations to the quote by Frye the quotation with the most significance is "Read your country's history. How can we profess to love our country and take no interest in its history?" This quotation supports the idea of appreciating ancient and modern literture. Just as Frye defined within Chapter 1 of his lecture, you must learn to love the "possible model of experience" with in turn produces "the literary model we call the classic." (pg 9)

- glitter sparx

Literature's Possible Future

”Is it possible that literature, especially poetry, is something that a scientific civilization like ours will eventually outgrow?" This question by Frye is one that is very relevant to us as students in our generation as well as those in generations to come. Frye in this chapter does talk quite a bit about the topics of science and the topic of art. As we are in a time where science and technology is becoming more and more prominent, to us as youth the answer to this question very much seems to be yes, it could. In the chapter he compares the ideas behind science and the arts and compares there "motives" very thoroughly. He says, "Science learns more and more about the world as it goes on: it evolves and improves...But literature begins with the model of experience, producing the literary model we call the classic." He then says that literature doesn't evolve or improve or progress. This analysis by Frye on literature's state is one that I never really thought about, but it is true . In this day and age we as a human race are learning so much about our planet, creating new technologies to get rid of the old methods of doing things, and using science to improve everything around us. This is something that classic literature in Frye's words, will not happen. If everything including science improves but poetic type of literature itself wont become anything greater than its classic ancestors, this type of literature may potentially be left out. The line, "Writers dont seem to benefit much by the advance of science..", is a line that I see as very important as to whether or not all types of writers will survive in the coming time. Although literature may vanish in paper form, novelists and writers of today, more closer to today's way of life will be around to give us there views and run our imagination. In relation to McCullough's speech, he says to take seriously and read closely to the books that have stood the test of time and to continue studying masterpieces and thoroughly analyze them. The real question is if poetry or literatures of olden ages (classics) will continue to follow us in a time where the new is in and the old is out. Will we really care to pay attention to such types of writing in the coming times?

Assignment #1

“One person by himself is not a complete human being…” I believe the Frye means that although we are all our own human beings, we wouldn’t be who we are without the people around us, who helped shape us into what we are today. I do agree with Frye on this point. One person all alone is not a complete human being, yes they do breathe and eat like everyone, but they don’t have the same view on life as others, they are missing out. In my case, I would consider myself a complete human being, I do not just think of myself or isolate myself from the world. I like to get involved, help others out and I enjoy being around company. Yes there is a connection to McCullough’s’ speech, in his speech he quotes Thomas Jefferson “I cannot live without books…” You could say that books define people, ask you questions you may not have asked yourself, pushed your knowledge to the limit and perhaps even helped you in some way. Going back to the quote “One person by himself is not a complete human” One could speculate that others people influences define you as a person and push you to your full potential.

literature, is nothing new?: assignment 1

In Frye's first lecture, he claims that "literature doesn't evolve, or improve, or progress". What he means by this is that although the writing styles, words and ideas may differ over time, literature is essentially the same thing today as it was when it was first written. If you break it down into the basics, literature is words that the authors use to try and put ideas they have in their mind onto paper. The conventions of writing have remained the same; authors must use words and sentences to convey what it is they want to say. If they try to change the conventions by using, say, symbols instead of words to express meaning then the work can no longer be considered literature, it becomes art as it is much more objective. Words as a form of communication are effective only because people have come to accept the general definition of what each word means and the feelings, colour, smells, and connotations that are associated with each word. The reason why literature cannot improve is because there is no way to make literature better. How can we improve something for which all ratings and opinions are objective and dependent on the reader? Writers have always been influenced by the writers before them and they can only express their ideas using language that has been used before as that is the only language they know. David McCullough suggests in 'The Love of Learning' that we "[read] books that have stood the test of time" and the fact that we can do this, that things written in the past can still be read today is a testament to the fact that literature has not changed that much over time. In short, literature cannot evolve, improve or progress, all it can be is different from what has been written in the past.

Literature Will Never Progress

"Literature doesn't evolve or improve or progress." (p. 9)

In Northrop Frye's first lecture, "The Motive for Metaphor", he explains how science is continuously changing and progressing where as "literature doesn't evolve or improve or progress." (p. 9) Frye supports his opinion by stating that a current physics student would be more advanced than Newton. Although Newton was a pioneer in his time, he would fall far behind in today's studies of science due to the many advancements and novel discoveries the field has since witnessed. In contrast, literature does not posess the same capacity to evolve as the sciences do. Frye explains that any era may have the aptitude to create plays such as King Lear and Oedipus Rex (p. 10), but none will ever compare to the legacy of these stories. Despite being written thousands of years ago, these plays are still valued in today's society through continuous efforts to recite them, interpret them, and comprehend them. Northrop Frye and David McCullough both encourage their audience to read literature of any kind because the morals and life lessons that they offer are timeless. McCullough states that, "even the oldest book is brand new for the reader who opens it for the first time," indicating that literature written in the past can still be read by modern audiences. The ability of today's readers to appreciate classic literature is possible because "literature doesn't evolve or improve or progress."

Literature or Language?

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

I think that Frye is explaining that modern literature and classical literature can be just as good as each other. Though in the sciences there are new innovations, literature will always talk about the human experience, which will never change, though settings, technology, and the actual words will change. This is why Shakespeare, for example, is a great playwright, and his greatness is not diminished or increased by time. We can read a great novel written recently, or one written hundreds of years ago, and they can be comparable. The English language may evolve, but the themes and soul of the book do not.

I completely agree with Frye's analysis of literature. I have favourite books that are classics as well as favourites written only a few years ago. I also agree that language in itself is not nearly as useful as literature- a way to communicate the emotions or ideas of the author using language as a tool.

McCullough's speech "The Love of Learning" talks about the information age. The value of knowledge over information is comparable to the value of literature over language. Language is just the words, but they mean nothing without judgement and the knowledge of how to use them to communicate an idea.

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.

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)