Assignment 2

"The reason is that you're not a genuine primitive: your imagination couldn't operate on such a world except in terms of the world you know". p18

I do not understand this line. I have an idea of what Mr. Frye means, but it is not clear. My first take on it, is that Mr. Frye is saying that if we did not have liturature my imagination would not blend with the world I know... If that is what he is saying, I do not agree with Mr. Frye, I think that is a very bias way of looking at it.

Herc

Framework to literature

In chapter two of The Educated Imagination, Frye expresses his opinion about the framework of all literature. “This story of loss and regaining of identity is, I think, the framework of all literature.” (pg.30) Frye’s opinion is intriguing and definitely has some truth to it, although no all literature shows it in the same ways. If you look at any piece of work my thought is that you will find a loss and regaining of identity depending on how in depth you look at it. This situation then leads to the emotional conflicts, and plot of the story.

Assignment 1

“One person by himself is not a complete human being…” (p.6)
I would have to agree with Northrop Frye. My personal thinking of what Mr. Frye means is, one person who does not go outside the box or think outside the box is not living the human experience. We were not made to be perfect; to be a human being in my thought is that you would have to go through happiness, sorrow, love and hate. All the things that make your character and how you act.

The general opinion I have, is that if you were by yourself you would not get the emotional feedback from a wall then another person. You need other humans around you to become a "human being".

Herc

Frye's Imagination

While reading chapter 2 the singing song, i was very intriguid by the writing style of Northrop Frye and the way that he thinks about things. One thing that I thought was intereasting was Myths tend to stick together to form a mythology. That is so because myths are conventional, because one myth inspires another. Similarly, in our culture, one novel inspires another. Frye does not accept the romantic theory that literature is uniquely inspired. "A writer's desire to write can only have come from previous experience of literature," says Frye, "and he'll start by imitating whatever he's read" (p. 40). This leads to conventions in form as well as content: "Literature can derive its forms only from itself" (p. 42), he says and again, "The writer of literature can only write out what takes shape in his mind" (p. 46), Literary conventions enable the writer to incorporate personal experience into literature.

Assignment #2

"There is no direct address in literature: it isn't what you say but how it's said that's important there. 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 novel or whatever." (p.24)

I agree with Frye's statement and relate to it. It is what comes from the writers thoughts that make literature. I found it fascinating reading how Frye relates to many famous novels in chapter 2. Especially with books that I can also relate to. Frye's understanding of literature is astounding, he explains the fundamentals it takes to write good literature and helps me benefit from his knowledge, leaving me with a better understanding of the history of literature.

Recycle, Reuse Literature

Chapter 2, Page 23, “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 strongly agree with Frye’s comment. It is evident to me, and I’m sure others, that literature repeats itself, which is what makes it so fascinating. Recent works come across with a fresh outlook on an original idea each time. Although, by stating this, Frye contradicts himself with his previous comment in chapter 1 page 9, “Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.” When literature repeats itself, one interprets their personal opinion, progressing forward with the fundamentals of the past. Lastly, one thing I found frustrating in this chapter is that he makes a lot of references to books and plays that I’m not familiar with, so I only have a basic idea of what he’s talking about.

literary repetition

In chapter two of Northrop Frye's The Educated Imagination, Frye talks about how all literature is very common. He states that all present day literature can be related loosely to the themes and plots of Greek mythology and other ancient literature. " literature can only derive its forms from itself"(22) i agree with Frye when he states this. I too believe that all literature although having its individuality it based on previous literature, I also believe this is very apparent in music throughout the ages the repetition is very noticeable. Frye really brings the theme of not being able to be a complete human being by oneself which relates to literature not being literature without the help of previous literature, when he states that " A writer's desire to write can only have come from previous experience of literature, and he'll start by imitating what ever he's read, which usually means what the people around him are writing" (19)

Blogging assignment #1

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

Frye believes that the literary work of the classics, for example Shakespeare, will never be surpassed. The dramatic writings of these past eras will always serve as a model for future generations or “as long as the human race endures” (10). His expression that literature does not evolve, improve or progress simply states that we have already witnessed writing at its best. As Frye states in Chapter 2, “every form in literature has a pedigree,” (19) where we can trace its descent back. He believes that all writers write from a “previous experience of literature” (19). On the contrary, science evolves and improves as time passes; we know more today than we have in the past. I agree with Frye; present day literature is a modified version of the classics. For example, a reader can identify a stock character from a Shakespearean play to one from a twentieth century novel. Lastly, this quotation does have a connection to McCullough’s speech (#16 ...So there I was....I read...Don Quixote- for the first time in my life. What a joy!) After so many years, a classic is read and its excellence is thoroughly appreciated; “classic” being the key word.

Assignment 1

“One person by himself s not a complete human being…”

I think Frye is talking about how one human being on his own can never be complete because the person would not advance very far without other humans input and opinions. My opinion is that his words say it like it is. The impact of literature, society and judgment can be a major influence and define lives. The quote can be connected to literature and human communication. When we read the book stimulates our brains and could impose a greater depth of thinking on the person reading. The literature being read could ask fundamental questions and implant new thoughts into the mind that may never have been established without it. Literature, being written by another human, is an expression of creativity, and or detailed ideas about a subject and it brings in a new perspective and multiple bias thoughts which prod the mind further than possible while independent. This quote has a direct connection to paragraph 24 in “The Love of Learning”; “Make use of the public libraries. Start you own personal library and watch it grow. Talk about your reading. Ask others what they’re reading. You’ll learn a lot.” Undoubtedly this quotation sums up the whole message being portrayed by Frye. Reading and communication with other human sources is one of the most influential learning methods in the world, and makes us closer to being complete as humans.

Assignment #1

“…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)

Northrop Frye expresses that not only are sciences only intellectual and arts only emotional, but that a high level art and a high level science are similar and that "it's nonsense to think of the scientist as a cold unemotional reasoner and the artist as somebody who's in a perpetual emotional tizzy." (p.9) I agree with Frye's reasoning behind what one thinks of a scientist compared to an artist, though they are different, they demonstrate one's personal commitment and how strong of an effort they put in determines the outcome of their work. Both professions need intelligence to come up with ideas or experiments and without trying you will go no where. McCullough states that you should "Underline, make notes in the margins, and after a few years, go back and read it again…” which is generally what Frye mentions when he says you must go over what you said and think about it.

It's Our cycle

Overall I was really pleased with the chapter "The Singing School" however I had to re-read parts of the chapter over again… but in saying so I found I really enjoyed creating my own perspective on Frye’s work. Frye goes on throughout the chapter about the old linking to the new and I tend to strongly agree. For me I believe everything is a cycle with our imagination ...somehow and someway
We can re-create or adjust the old by being cautious or even simply being oblivious.
In simpler terms:
The old effects the present
As does the present to the future…
I always find myself thinking of new and possible understandings after reading his work… but I believe that’s the point
Our imagination is based on whom and what surrounds us and it’s simply endless
..Like a cycle.

The Common Theme

"A dim, misty outline of the story that's told so often, of how man once lived in a golden age, or a Garden of Eden, or the Hesperides."

One of the points that really interested me in Frye's second speech is his point of view on the garden of Eden story as the template for all creative literature. The story of the garden of eden is really the perfect example of how our "motive for metaphor" is to re identify with the world around us and to essentially get back to the garden of Eden. I think think its interesting that the more you think of it, the more examples there are that follow this template. Novels such as Harry Potter, where at the beginning Harry is estranged from the whole outside world, but by the end of the book he is integrated into the wizarding world. Also books like Fahrenheit 451 in which the protagonist is isolated and disillusioned but by the end of the book he has found a "garden of Eden" in a group of people that he feels connected to. I just thought it was interesting how many books follow similar templates.
Adam

Vacant Imaginations

“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)

I sincerely agree with Northrop Frye when he states that children complain loudly when interacting with literature because they have to use their imagination to understand what they are reading. Now a day’s children are growing up in an environment where the imagination is suppressed because of instant entertainment such as video and computer games, and television. Rather than children developing their own ideas, it has already been handed over to them. Our generation has become lazy, and technologically dependent. This ultimately effects the ability to problem solve and to think outside the box, whether it’s involved with math, science, English, or any other application. This is because we are dependent on the answer already being there for us. McCullough states that learning is not at the touch of the finger, which is exactly why children today complain about literature. Literature has depth and requires time to understand; which is a hard concept to deal with when living in a fast paced and immediate world.

Literature Doesn't Change, WE DO

While reading through chapter 2, Frye's view stating that literature hasn't changed is quite interesting. He states “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, just as a new baby is genuinely new individual, although it’s also an example of something very common, which is human beings, and also it’s lineally descended from the first human beings there ever were.” This quote had me shocked as I realized media in today’s society has more similarities than one would expect from a book or movie from so long ago. As almost everything in today’s society is advancing I questioned if literature could advance as well; it is evident that there are only so many emotions that directors can use when creating new media or books.

The View of Frye

Northrop Frye has a very refreshing view on literature that I haven't ever thought of. He points out that stories in general has similar structure (beginning/ending, roles, etc.) and makes you think of literature in a different light. It is explained that Literature has never really evolved, its been the same for ages and the only aspects that change are the small things such as characters, settings, style. I think stories don't change because it is the reflection of our morals and emotions, people can't just develop new ranges of emotions so that's why stories will frequently touch upon similar subjects. It came as a surprise that stories many years had so many similarities with the stories that we read nowadays.

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, just as a new baby is a genuinely new individual, although it's also an example of something very common, which is human beings, and also it's lineally you descended from the first human beings there ever were. And what, you ask, is the point of saying that? " (page 23)

Northrop Frye is completly right, I can not agree with him more on this subject. Everything is new to someone that has not read or tried it before and although it may be old for some humans it is new for others. Therefore everything is new for any human because no one has read everybook or played every sports game, so everyone is always learning.

Assignment #1

“What’s produced the aeroplane is not so much a desire to fly as a rebellion against the tyranny of time and space.” (page 14)


I believe Northrop Frye is saying that the human mind was not set on flying as so much as to be able to travel from one location to another location faster. Humans did not build airplanes in order to fly among the birds or because someone dreamed about it. It was because man kind wanted to be able to travel more efficently. I agree with Northrop Frye because although man kind creates new inventions and creations, they are all to better humans lives and make life on them easier, and more efficent so humans have more time for other important activities in their lives that are going on. This effects humans because the more efficent we can be the more time we have to do what we enjoy most. This is related to McCullough's "The Love of Learning" because both are saying as either there focal point or as a side point that learning is endless and you will never know everything.

The Evolution of Literature

“Literature doesn’t evolve or improve or progress.”
I think that part of what Northrop Frye is saying in this quote is correct but I also believe that certain aspects of the quote are presumptuous. I agree with Frye's point of view when he says that literature does not improve. Especially when compared to science, with which one could track the various and numerous discoveries and improvements made in the field in the last 100 years. The quality of literature cannot be quantified as easily as the quality of scientific practices and equipment. The quality of literature has remained stagnant for a long time, although great books have been made recently they are certainly no better quality literature than Shakespeare. And even if they were, the quality of literature is not easily measured. The part of this quote that I do disagree on is Frye's statement that literature does not evolve. One cannot say that Ray Bradbury's image-based simplistic writing style has not evolved from Shakespeare's flowery ornate writing style of the sixteenth century. I doubt that they were making self help books during Roman times, and I would say that contemporary poems by E.E. Cummings are almost completely different from Shakespearean love sonnets. I think its true that the nature of literature has not changed. The reason that people write literature has been and still is the desire to associate with the world and "become part of what we know". However, the way that people identify with the outside world through literature has changed and will continue to.
Adam

The reason for poetry

"There is no direct address in literature: it isn't what you say but how it's said that's important there. 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 be a poem or play or novel or whatever... That's also why it's no use telling the poet that he ought to write in a different way so you can understand him better." (p24)

I never thought about poetry this way. I was always frustrated when it came to reading poems because I could never comprehend what they were trying to get across. It makes sense now because what Frye is saying is that it's how someone words things to express or convey certain themes that intrigue people and make them want to read it. If someone were to write about love or sadness or happiness and just said 'I am very happy' there is no point in reading it or writing it in the first place. Frye is saying that poets allow themselves to step outside of the box and use their imagination for the poem to "take on its own form." Maybe the reason we find that a lot of poems don't make sense because of people's state of mind behind the poem. Last year in English class was a perfect example when we did the train of thought writing. People's thoughts would stretch from the homework they had to do or the fact that they missed the bus that morning to what they were going to have for dinner. People's thoughts are always jumbled and trying to sort that out and control it would be impossible. It's possible that due to this confusion it comes across in the literature we read.

Our Corrupted Minds

"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 does follow a similar pattern for storyline and varies between the genres. No one has a clear view. Ever since we have entered into the world we have been influenced by religion and our parent's views. As we grew older it became society's views, our friend's views, celebrities actions. Now it is becoming our own opinions about what is around us and our inner conscious. To create a new form of literature we would have to have a naive and natural view of our world. Our current literature "provide[s] only content; they don't provide new literary forms." (pg. 22) because of the past experiences of their authors which have shaped their understanding of anything and everything. I also agree with the fact that "[The] story of loss and regaining of identity is the framework of all literature." (pg. 30)

Assignment 1

In my opinion the quote, "one person by himself is not a complete human being," conveys that Frye meant behind every person are other people in which helped the individual to become the true human being that he or she is. I completely agree with this statement because if we take a look at a big corportation such as Apple; we see that engineers together bond to form and modify an idea to make it better. We see that they need other people's opinions to know what the average individual would expect from a new device. In summary the ideal meaning for the statement is that without human to human interactions and brainstorming one person by himself is not able to achieve as much, opposed to a group of individuals.

Assignment #2

The part of this chapter that struck me the most was the overall message of it- that most if not all of literature has basis from a piece already created. This drew my attention because I had never thought of it that way before. Everyone talks about movies and songs being repetitive (which are in essence stories themselves) but I had never thought of this in terms of great classics like Huckleberry Finn or the other works mentioned in the chapter. I liked how Frye reassures readers that he does not mean that nothing is new in literature. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that even though similar aspects exist from story to story, that is not to say that one is better or more original than the other because all these stories are doing is taking from what it means to be human and using those main themes again in their stories. They can be applied in different ways and different conclusions can be drawn from each story, which is possibly the best part of literature. These works are all written by humans about BEING human, what its like to live and love and be betrayed, etc. The best part of it all is that with every story comes a new perspective in what it means to be human, giving us readers much to go through, think about and ultimately decide our opinions on a plethora of topics.

The Recovery of Identity

Frye's point regarding the loss and regaining of identity and its connection with literature was definitely a thought provoking concept. The idea that "... literature not only leads us toward the regaining of identity, but it also separates this state from its opposite, the world we don't like and want to get away from." Pg31 This immediately made me think of what allows people to stray from the aspects of the world that they dislike. I soon realized that there are very few outlets other than literature that allow a person to detach themselves from what they dislike about the world they live in, leaving me in concurrence with Frye.

Distinguishing Literature from Life

" literature hasn't yet become distinguished from other aspects of life: its still embedded in religion, magic, and social ceremonies" pg. 19

I felt profoundly about this quote due to the fact that it allowed me to think about all the different things that literature is part of. Frye asks in the beginning "What difference does the study of literature make in our social or political or religious attitude?" this allowed me to think about how literature is part of stories, religion etc. and without it there would be something missing in our lives and since literature hasn't been distinguished from all the aspects of life , I don't think it will ever be due to it connecting many events or things that we believe in or that are part of our lives.

The World we see and the World we want

“…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)

I think what Frye is trying to say here is that we think of sciences as intellectual because it already exists and gives us the world that we see in front of us today. All we have to do is “accept the data and try to explain the laws” of science which demonstrates intellect. Art, we see as emotional because it has to do with what we think and what we want to see and feel which can be portrayed through writing, painting music etc. It begins with the imagination and wanting it which eventually leads to experience. I agree with Frye because it is how society views science and art due to the facts, which we have regarding science, and the need for something new allowing our imagination to create new things. I think there is a connection to McCullough’s speech because he tells the graduates to read and to learn but also to travel and see and live every day of their life. McCullough makes some connections to this because he wants the graduates to know that you can be intellectual not only regarding science because you can read other things and experience emotions and we can see the world as it is and as we want it.

An Educated Imagination

The sentence in Chapter two that I felt was most profound is "... your imagination couldn't operate on such a world except in terms of the world you know." (p.18) Logically, it makes sense. How can one imagine something they know nothing about?

If you were to ask a child who knows zilch about Art History to draw a picture of Vincent Van Gogh, you would be considered highly unreasonable for the exact reasons listed above. That's why I thought this quotation was insightful; it states the obvious and how one can only know as much as the information they have absorbed.

The New, the Old, and the Original

There was a certain part of Chapter 2 that struck me, as it actually was along the lines of a thought that had bothered me for a couple of years now. On page 22, Frye is discussing literature and it's forms. Specifically, when Canada was still first starting out, there were many who believed Canada would produce so many new things, and that a new literature would be one of these. He then states, "But these new things provide only content; they don't provide new literary forms."

It is a fear that has crossed my mind before; that there is nothing new, nothing original left to create in literature, or any sort of art. Think of movies, books; how many of them have all been done before? However, Frye explained on the next page, "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," and with this, I realized that my conclusion of what he was saying on the previous page was incorrect. I think I was giving too much credit to things that are 'new'. A piece of work does not have to be completely new in order to be an original piece of work. It seems that all literature borrows from other pieces nowadays, and, according to Frye, that is perfectly fine. That may seem rather contradictory to it being called original, as the word itself implies something completely new, borrowing from nothing else. And perhaps it is, but also perhaps, Frye is not thinking of the word 'original' as the same way I am. It also must be taken into consideration that there is no new literary forms; but the content of literature is free to be played with and turned into something new.

I realize I'm sort of rambling, and that I haven't gotten to much of a conclusion, mainly because I don't really have one quite yet. These two pages just stuck in my mind: they gave me food for thought, at any rate. What do you guys think? Do you agree with Frye, in that every story or piece of literature can be connected to another one in the past? Or is there a specific instance that you can think of that proves him wrong? Comment! I want to know.

Literature: The eye man

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



Northrope Frye says "literature belongs to the world a man constructs" he is meaning that literature is the tool we use for our imaginations and thoughts. It is there to help people construct thoughts and visions that may not physically exist in the real world which is meant by the phrase"not to the world he sees; to his home, not his environment." I believe in what Frye is saying, literature has always been about enabling people to form pictures and think of ideas in their mind. We have created literary terms and literature referring to almost everything in real life (people, events, items, etc.). Therefore, when we speak or write of things we can still know what these things are even if they are not right in front of our eyes, because the words let us construct an image or an idea about it in our heads. For example when we read a dinosaur book we can know what they looked like due to the descriptive words used, without actually seeing one in front of us. There connections to McCullough's speech. Forms of literature like books can enable us to gain information and learn without actually having to experience things in real life.

The World Man Constructs

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

In this statement, Frye talks of two separate worlds. One is referred to as the environment: this is the world we see around us, and the one that Frye believes pertains the most to science. The other is our "home", which we have constructed. Our home is where literature belongs, and each person's home is different, because the home is imagination. It is within the mind, but it is not constrained by the limits of the outward environment. Our imagination is our home, because it houses everything that is truly a part of us; everything within us. You can probably tell that I agree with this statement, because literature is first born in our mind. It is created with imagination, and it grows. Perhaps it may eventually take an outward form, such as a novel or script. In relation to McCullough's speech, the facts gained and learnt can be applied into the imagination to assist with the creation of literature. McCullough states, "Cervantes is a part of us, whether we know it or not." This is because certain quotes by Cervantes have stuck inside the reader's mind: they have begun to live in the reader's home. Imagination, the mind, is where it all begins, and where everyone can go back to. It a person's individual, portable home, with a roommate called literature.

Imagination vs. Experience

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


I think Frye is saying that since we are human and we have the ability of consciousness we can imagine another world of things that we want. He goes on to say "In the world of imagination, anything goes that's imaginatively possible, but nothing really happens". I think he is just showing a contrast of how we can think of things and not do them because of our level of consciousness. I noticed that he only said "possible models of human experience". I believe the reason he only said human experience is because we can only see in our imagination a humans perspective and nothing else and you can't truly imagine the perspective of another animal because they don't have this consciousness or the ability of imagination. I agree with what Frye is saying because if you really think about it when you imagine something, most of the time it is something of human desire or something you have heard happen and you want to happen to yourself. For example, you could imagine what winning the lottery is like because you've heard of other human's experiences of this happening.

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.

A complete human being

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

What Frye means is that a person, although may be a singular being, can not be complete without a society that effects, and shapes who they are. Within a society a human being must adapt to the given environment and situations of that society. I agree with Frye and believe that human beings learn from others around them, not necessarily by direct teachings, but by what human beings unknowingly learn from those around them within each and every interaction. Frye's quote relates in many ways to McCullough’s speech "The Love of Learning". McCullough discusses an example of Charles Sumner, and when he was at a lecture at Sorbonne the society ignored the difference of skin colours. Charles Sumner brought this idea back to the United States and later as McCullough stated, changed history. McCullough’s speech and Frye's quote both show the crucial need for interaction with a society to learn and grow as a human being, and to become a complete human being.

assignment #1

"One person by himself is not a complete human being" (p.6)


I agree with Northrop Frye. I don't think someone can be a complete person all by them self. What he means by this statement, is that it takes more than just the knowledge and abilities your born with to be complete. It takes the influences of other people around you, because everyone we meet, see or hear about, whether positive or negative, impacts us. If you took a person and kept them secluded for their entire life they would not be considered, by today's standards, a normal, functioning human being. They would have developed ways of living, but with no human interaction, they would be lacking all social capabilities. We as humans learn by example, therefore with no interaction, we would be unable to understand social cues.

In David McCullough's commencement speech he said, "In writing or trying to understand history one may have all manner of "data", and miss the point." This applies to Northrop Frye's statement because, as Mr. McCullough said a person could have all the "data", the ability and knowledge of how to function, but not actually be able to function in life outside of their own solitary world.

Blogging assignment #1 - "The unthinkable"

"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)

tyr·an·ny 
–noun, plural -nies.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

Throughout history, boundries have been drawn, rules have been created and we have been taught to listen and to follow. Stay there! sit quiet! however, as a child we as the question "why do such a thing? why stay quite when we have a voice to be heard? I want to do it my way!" Us as human beings are born to rebell, born to cross those boundries and push the human standard to something new and exciting. Moreover I completely agree with Mr. Frye in way's were we both believe:

In order to achieve greatness one must do the unthinkable.

assignment #1

When i first read the line “One person by himself s not a complete human being…” (p.6)

Frye means in my opinion that behind every successful person there is something there either it is a mentor a book or just an event that as impacted that persons life. I do agree i think that people are only themselves because of events that have taken place in their lives and that is what shaped them into who they are today

Dreams vs. Reality

I believe that when Frye stated “What produced the aeroplane is not so much a desire to fly as a rebellion against the tyranny of time and space.” (p.14) he was discussing the idea that humans may invent something for one purpose and realize that what they’ve created could be used for something entirely different. Therefore, giving us the understanding that the desire to fly isn’t as important as the desire to get somewhere quicker and more efficiently. I agree with this phrase for one specific reason that Frye proclaimed “…people don’t get in planes because they want to fly; they get in planes because they want to get somewhere else faster.” It is without a doubt that some aspects of Frye's lecture coincide with McCullough's speech. For instance, when McCullough discusses "The Love of Learning" he doesn't believe you learn information for a specific reason. You learn information for a variety of reasons and Frye has demonstrated the exact same concept through his quotation on aeroplanes.

Science and Literature

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

I think Frye means exactly what he says here, but it is rhetorical and he doesnt think that we will outgrow it. I tend to agree with him because in class today we discussed that without literature we would be missing something, just like without science our world would be completely different. I think that even though our society has moved away from more formal writing and poetry etc, when we read poetry we can relate to it still affects us in some way. This can relate to "The love of learning" because both men have a passion for english, both are speaking to students (this is how Frye said he was going to convey his message) and they both put a huge emphasis on literature and reading and the meaning behind it all.

Literature and Children

When I first read the line “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), The way I interpreted Frye's point was that it meant that every child will react to literature in their own unique way; however, most will react the same way:by "[complaining] loudly about [it]." I agree with Frye's point because looking back and reflecting on my own personal experience with literature was that it did not send me in any immediately useful direction.

The Gift of Imagination

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



Why do children have imaginary friends? Because childhood is a stage of preparation and exploring. By having imaginary friends children can experiment with different personalities, how to solve problems and live a different way. I believe that Frye means that these "models of human experience" stimulate creativity and as a result, curiosity, like imaginary friends do for young children. Imagination, creativity and curiosity is starting point for innovation, for opinions or values, for change. This day and age in society, the possibility of imagination is under-minded and somewhat discouraged. Children with imaginary friends might be deemed weird or that their development is hindered because their creativity is beyond the concrete world. We as a whole could grow from the power of imagination and the possibility curiosity can bring.

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)