“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