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.