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.