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.