Would you like Frye with that?

Yes, please.

After reading Matt Helm's most recent blog I realized that we are having the same experience with Northrop Frye.  Similarly, I had excitement about Shakespeare, and I still do, but the excitement quickly faded to anxiety once I realized that my "easy last semester before student teaching" was only what I wanted to believe and not the truth.    So, I read, I think, I listen, but when it comes time for writing and putting it all together I get sleepy (aka lazy).  However, I decided early on in the semester that I would read Frye as my secondary text.  I originally ordered Hughes after the rave reviews from Dr. Sexson, but then once Carrie gave her review of the piece I regretted my $30 purchase.  Nevertheless Hughes sits on my bookshelf and occasionally shames me into flipping through the pages, but that is as far as I will be getting this semester.

Having read some of Frye during last year's Bible as Literature class I became a pseudo-fan.  The man is brilliant in his abilities to make connections that I could never fathom even stumbling upon, but it was only after  listening to Dr. Sexson speak about Frye and the Bible that I could understand it.  Still, I decided that Frye was my man and I would give it a shot (again) this semester.  Much to my delight this particular book is written in a less complex language and is much easier to read.  However, don't think for one minute that it isn't filled with a multitude of brilliancy because even my feeble mind can see that it is!

The following is a preview of Frye's Introduction and a few tidbits that were worth underlining in my book.

"...we get obsessed by the notion of using words to manipulate people and events, of the importance of saying things." (1)  NF goes on to say that if we were Shakespeare, or possessed his talents, we wouldn't write some of the anti-sematic, sexist, brutal or farce plays that he wrote, but instead use the drama for more noble purposes.  "One of the first points to get clear about Shakespeare is that he didn't use the drama for anything:  he entered into its conditions as they were then, and accepted them totally." (2)

"Shakespeare doesn't try to do things, he does them..." (2)

"The fact that the plays are mostly in verse means, among other things, that there are two levels of meaning:  a presented or surface meaning, and an underlying meaning given us by the metaphors and images used, or by certain subordinate or played-down events or speeches.  They've been called the "overthought" and "underthought."  (Also mentioned in class by Matt Helm)

"..children seem endlessly fascinated by the fact that a word can have more than one meaning.  The authors should have added that they ought to keep this fascination all their lives:  if they lose it when they grow up they're not maturing, just degenerating." (6)

The limitations of stage vs. film:  "We shouldn't overlook, though, the extent to which Shakespeare turned limitations into positive qualities." (8) 

The four humors:  blood, phlegm, bile, black bile

The four principles:  hot, cold, moist, dry

A few more tidbits exist about particular plays, but I'll wait to share those with you once we begin discussing the plays in class.  If you're not reading Frye...maybe you should...it could be the best $7 you spend towards Shakespeare.