I really like the idea of looking at myth and fairy tale and the idea of displacement, but I have to admit that I was very resistant to Frye's obsessive compulsive categorization. In one of the previously mentioned notebooks, I found class and reading notes Dylan had made on Frye, and found such gems as, "Was he constipated? What would make someone do something like this?" referring (I think) to the preponderance of schemata and organization in Frye. I couldn't help taking some comfort in such a small moment of agreement and convergence, even coincidence that I happened upon that passage in the notebooks, even from beyond the veil, as it were. While I still have reservations, I think that rereading is softening my heart and making me somewhat willing to go along for the ride, even if I'm not sure if the destination has much to offer.
One of my major reservations has been the issue of universality or the euro-centric nature of Frye's work, wondering what it might have to offer for an increasingly interconnected world or literature that does not owe debts to the Bible or Greco-Roman mythology. But at least Frye is aware of this bias and understands it as one of the unavoidable limitations with which he is working. If nothing else, this is making me want to read more. Where goes the time?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hmmmm...interesting comment on the euro-centric nature. Do literary critics in non-European nations form their theories primarily around their dominant religion. And, is that even the right way to say that...because they are forming their theories based on what is in the literature, not the other way around - or is it a circle, chicken/egg thing? Very, very interesting, and do they read our literature knowing our constructs? Is it possible for us to read "non-European" literature in a "non-European" way?
Post a Comment