Why don't you sit down and read this?
>>25257940a critic is a failed artist
>>25258054>in the same way that a man becomes an informer when he cannot be a soldier.
>>25257940I own it but its long
>>25258054i don't think you can really fail at art without criticism......
I feel as if my scheme essentially writes itself with this book.
>>25257940Because 1) I already read it and 2) it’s an incomplete work, as stated somehwhere-or-other in the preface or introduction. Northrop Frye (stupidest name ever?) meant it to be the beginning of a new academic system but the sun came out and dried up his snowball before it rolled ten feet.
>>25258138Ok but why are you telling me that that 4 dimensionalism makes sense
>>25258143What do you mean by “that four dimensionalism?”
>>25258155the part where you read the book is different from the part where you think about the book, which is in turn different from the kind of book it is
>>25257940>English ""literary"" ""criticism""
>>25257940I have. Most of the book is sales pitch. >>25258138It was the beginning of a new academic system and what we have now, which is why it has remained in print all these years. The thing is he went about it far too autistically even by academic standards, instead of presenting his method he goes on and on about how he developed and evolved his method and his cherry picked examples used to demonstrate it all ended up demonstrating how to develop the method to the work, which worked perfectly with and was in line with what had been going on in literature for the past few decades; analysis as a dialogue between writer and reader/critic.Had he been less autistic and just published his method it would have been forgotten outside of maybe classics programs but that is where his method would have been the hardest sell despite being where it was most applicable. Frye approved of where things went, it is why he stopped pushing for his own method and did not complete it, but his personal analytical model is presented completely within the text and what he had left to do was more about implementation and administration, the teaching and all that sort of thing.
>>25258054an artist is a failed critic
>>25258054I don’t know. Criticism, especially at the time this guy wrote, was mainly regarded as an historian’s tool. You do criticism on difficult literary texts to derive higher insights suitable for intellectual historiography. Is an historian a failed artist?
princeton university press has that and fearful symmetry which is frye's study of blake on 50% rnhttps://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691278100/fearful-symmetry
>>25257940I love this book; I've read it four times. He sheds light on a lot of essential structures while dissipating hindering ideas in the field. It was ignored largely because 1. people didn't understand what he was doing very well (kinda his fault) 2. what he was trying to do (find an ideal unifying perspective of literature that combined all of the opposing forces of the tradition into a common and freely available intellectual order) was not something other literary academics gave any kind of a shit about. He's still extremely based though, but he's not for everyone, certainly not for people who are afraid of totalizing systems. >>25258138If you actually read it and paid attention, you'd know that it's incomplete because it can never be completed; it was a monstrous feat, and Frye was the only one to actually come as far as he did in discovering the secrets of our creative tradition, and if by the "sun" you mean thoughtless detractors that were frightened of being made superfluous by Frye's monster cock (Northrop Frye is the chaddiest name ever), then yes, I agree.
>>25258357Someone obviously stopped at the introduction; most of the book is analysis (pretty bottomless analysis at that).
>>25257940Based. My favorite work of literary criticism. Equipped me with the knowledge and skillset to analyze literature at a higher level (like just how shit Gaddis and Pynchon are).
>>25258678FRYE let alone this text was not largely ignored. That’s a ridiculous assertion.
>>25258861>Marcia Kahan, writing in Books in Canada in 1985, reports on a debate between Frank Kermode and Terry Eagleton. “About the only subject on which they could agree,” she says, “was Frye’s obsolescence,” adding that Eagleton asked what was a decidedly rhetorical question, “Who now reads Frye?” (3–4). That was twenty-two years ago.Sure, he's got a statue, and he was peak literary criticism for like a decade and a half, but come on. I meant ignored in a broader sense than how you took it.
>>25258931Sadly intention is not one of the quantities communicated by the written text. Vouloir-dire is just that: want-to-say… but can’t, it so often seems.And your quote clearly implies Frye’s eminence, even “obsolescence” marks its eclipse. In 1981 Jameson had extensive occasion to engage Frye’s system of levels, and The Political Unconscious, enormously influential within and without the English department, can be said to be a partisan resumption of Frye’s level system for exegesis.
>>25258931>>25258951Besides, that quotation, composed of hearsay, has about the same value as barber shop gossip.
>>25258630>Criticism, especially at the time this guy wrote, was mainly regarded as an historian’s tool.retard detected
>>25258954How many quotes should I bring before this notion stops being hearsay (especially since this is actually about hearsay, considering names don't die like men, screaming and bleeding everywhere)? Or are you one of those literalists who stick to terms, and forget about reality? >>25258951Well, I already said he was eminent (and I think you mean "qualities"); at any rate, yes, he was influential, yes, he wasn't literally ignored or literally forgotten about, yes, but please, you are being delusional if you think this guy didn't stop being relevant once the poststructuralists and historicism raped everything. >"Why am I so respected and yet so isolated? Is it only because I take criticism more seriously than any other living critic? (Late Notebooks 1:120).From the horse's mouth himself. Few took up his gauntlet. An example of a critic kinda like Frye who hasn't gone out of style, is Kenneth Burke; the man is still taught in rhetoric course, although him and Frye were kinda doing the same thing.
>>25258682The analysis is part of the sales pitch, it is the demonstration of everything he talks about between the analysis.>>25258678The whole idea of it being incomplete is pretty much meaningless, Frye was smart enough to know that if he gained any traction he would lose all control of where it went; he would not be made dictator for life of theory and criticism and architect of the new world, at most he would get to nudge things on occasion. Which is what happened, it got traction and he lost control.
