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