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.
I think your interpretation of Frye's message here is exactly what he intended it to be. I also liked how you gave a pathway through your thoughts as you were interpreting the passage.
ReplyDeleteMy one critique is a minor one, and is not one of what you have written but rather one of what I would have liked to see. Your interpretation was right on the mark, as were your connections to McCoullough's writings, but next time I would like to view your opinions on what Frye is writing.
Nice work.