Monthly Archives: July 2010

Harvey Pekar at the Frye Festival, 2007

Harvey Pekar3

Harvey Pekar autographing copies of American Splendor in Moncton in 2007

Here are some photos I’ve been able to find of a book signing with the late Harvey Pekar at a local comic book store in Monction.  This event was part of our festival in 2007.  Unfortunately, we don’t seem to have photos or any press clippings covering Harvey’s main event at the festival, a 90 minute appearance alone on stage where he took questions and comments from about 200 people, a very candid exchange during which he revealed a lot about himself and his creative process.  Sadly, I don’t believe we videotaped this event.  However, I retain the unforgettable image of him sitting alone on stage under a bright light, holding his head in his hands, patiently welcoming and answering all questions.  Like a character out of Beckett.  He said things like: I can’t believe this is happening.  Why do you care what I have to say?  I don’t deserve this.  You’re actually paying me for this?  He talked a lot about the movie American Splendor and the burst of fame it brought, along with the headaches.  The audience was made up of a lot of people we don’t usually see, and everyone was thrilled.

Our earlier post here.

New York Times obituary here.

More pictures of Harvey in Moncton after the break, along with a recent extended  interview with him at Penn State.

Continue reading

Petrarch

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ5GoHfnbls

Petrarch’s “Giunto Alessandro”

Today is Petrarch‘s birthday (1304-1374).

Frye in “The Survival of Eros in Poetry”:

There is no need to rehearse in detail the familiar story of courtly love in medieval poetry.  Influenced largely by Virgil and Ovid, the poets worked out an elaborate correspondence between sexual love and Christian agape.  One might be living one’s life carelessly, in complete freedom from the perturbations of love; then the God of Love, Eros or Cupid, would suddenly strike, and from then on one was Love’s abject slave, supplicating the favour (usually) of a mistress.  Sometimes, as in Dante, the cult of Eros is sublimated, in other words assimilated to the Christian one.  It is Eros who inspires Dante with his vita nuova that started from his first sight of Beatrice, but Beatrice in the Paradiso is an agent of divine grace.  In another medieval epic, however, The Romaunt of the Rose, the climax of the poem is clearly sexual allegory, and in Petrarch, who did far more than Dante to popularize the theme, at least in English literature, love for Laura is rooted in Eros throughout, even though again it is sublimated, involving no sexual contact and easily surviving death.  (CW 18, 255)

Translation of the poem after the jump.

Continue reading

Category: Centre for Comparative Literature

complitbanner1

We seem to be getting a lot of traffic from people interested in following developments with the Centre for Comparative Literature.

Please note that we have created a distinct Category to accommodate such people.

You’ll see the live link at the end of this post.  Simply hit it, and all the posts — including all the external links we’ve gathered so far — will come up on a dedicated page.

If you have come across something you think we should know about on this or any other topic, just drop us a line via a Comment or an email: fryeblog@gmail.com

Centre for Comparative Literature: Where “literature, culture, and the imagination itself can flourish”

col

Neil ten Kortenaar, director, Centre for Comparative Literature, University of Toronto, in a letter to the Editor of the Globe and Mail

Northrop Frye lives on. His books continue to inspire readers, scholars of literature and editorial writers. To remember Mr. Frye’s legacy, as the editorial Fearful Anatomy (July 17) does, is one way to honour it.

Another way is to maintain a space where ideas that measure themselves against the world and that seek to be as large as literature, culture and the imagination itself can flourish. Frye himself established such a space at the University of Toronto, and the work of the many graduates from the Centre for Comparative Literature testifies to the value of a space between languages and disciplines, where one can see what they share and appreciate their diversity.

U of T is the premier place for studying comparative literature in Canada, and its degree programs in comparative literature are now at risk. That is the important news item here.

Northrop Frye Professor of Literary Theory and the Centre for Comparative Literature

complitbanner2

The Centre for Comparative Literature has for three decades invited a professor of international reputation to come to the Centre and deliver a series of lectures, a seminar course, a pro-seminar, and so on, as the Northrop Frye Professor of Literary Theory.  The professorship is a visiting position and in recent years, at least since I started at the Centre, those obligations require at least a week long commitment.

During my time at the Centre, I’ve had the chance to talk to scholars about my research, and they have often made interesting suggestions or asked provocative questions.  I think here particularly of Emily Apter, who was instrumental in getting me to think deeper about the relationship between Harold Bloom and Northrop Frye.  Or, more recently, David Damrosch, who lectured on the virtues of World Literature.  For those who do not know, the study of World Literature — and what precisely is meant by it — is a current debate in Comparative Literature Studies.  Simon Fraser University recently initiated a “World Literature Program.”  And yet the University of Toronto now suggests that it is time to shut down its famous Centre for Comparative Literature just as other universities are beginning to re-conceive and re-imagine the possibilities of comparative literature.

Over the years, some of the most important books in literary theory were written, in part, at the Centre for Comparative Literature: Paul Ricoeur’s Time and Narrative; The Political Unconscious by Fredric Jameson (the first Frye Professor); Culture and Imperialism by Edward Said.  The full list of scholars who have been Frye Professors is impressive.  And, I should point out, many Frygians have also held the post, such as Alvin Lee and Jonathan Hart.

In 2011, the Centre will welcome Carol Mavor as the Northrop Frye Professor.  She will be at the Centre for about two weeks and her visit will conclude with the annual graduate student conference, which has become, in many respects, one of the (if not the) most important comparative literature conferences in Canada.  This year, the theme of the conference will be “Iconoclasm: the Breaking and Making of Images“.  The theme of iconicity could not be more relevant than right now, especially after the image of Northrop Frye this past week appeared on the front page of the Globe and Mail.  Indeed, even David Naylor recognised this in his response to my letter on behalf of the conference committee.

In the coming years, the Centre has already confirmed that Franco Moretti will teach a seminar in the 2011-2012 academic session; and in the 2012-2013 session, we will welcome Judith Butler as Northrop Frye Professor in Literary Theory.  As you can see, I hope, the Centre has, through the Northrop Frye Professorship in Literary Theory, managed to invite some of the most exciting theorists of literature who constantly challenge, in Dean Gertler’s words, “what was revolutionary or radical in the 60s.”

The proposed disestablishment of the Centre for Comparative Literature puts the position of Northrop Frye Professor in Literary Theory in significant doubt.  Many of those who have accepted the invitation have explicitly done so because of the name attached to it.  Piero Boitani, for instance, writes in his letter to President Naylor: “I have the honour of having been Northrop Frye Professor at the Centre in 2006 (and of having met Northrop Frye during a conference devoted to him at this University), and must confess my astonishment at this announcement.”  Likewise, James Phelan in his letter says: “I am writing as a former Northrop Frye Visiting Professor at UT’s Centre for Comparative Literature to urge you to reconsider the plan to close the Centre in 2011. […] The Centre for Comparative Literature has long been a jewel in the lustrous crown of UT, because of the quality and diversity of both its faculty and its students. The reputation of the Centre—and its connection to Northrop Frye, a giant in the field of literary studies—made me feel deeply honored by the invitation to serve as a Visiting Professor.”

The loss of the Northrop Frye Professorship in Literary Theory is significant, and for Dean Gertler not to take this into consideration is distressing if not irresponsible.  Thanks to this Professorship, students at the University of Toronto have had the opportunity to meet, work with, and learn from some of the most significant figures in Comparative Literature, Cultural Studies, and Literary Theory.  This is yet another loss that the Dean of Arts and Sciences has failed to consider in his plan to “disestablish” Northrop Frye’s Centre for Comparative Literature.

CompLit Centre / Frye Sculpture Reminders

poorpalmpilot

Your daily reminder about the two issues we’re really pushing these days.

If you have not already signed the Save Complit Centre petition, you may do so here: http://www.petitiononline.com/complit/petition.html

You may also visit the Save CompLit Facebook page here: http://www.savecomplit.ca/Protest.html

*

Remember also to VOTE DAILY for the Northrop Frye Sculpture here: http://www.refresheverything.ca/fryefestival

We are currently in 4th place.  We need to finish first or second to receive the $25,000 prize.

Edgar Degas

ballet-dancers-on-the-stage

“Ballet Dancers on the Stage”

Today is Edgar Degas‘ birthday (1834-1917).

Frye in notebook 31:

Aesthetics seems, as I say, to rest on the fallacy of idealized forms.  We idealize a slender, youthful naked woman’s body & call that beautiful, so when Degas claims for “beauty” a study of haggard ironing women or thick-arsed middle-aged matrons washing their hairy privates, we get horrified.  One of the functions of satire is to break down these external theories of beauty, which at bottom are always theories of property & decorum.  (CW 15, 91)

Frye in The Modern Century, “Improved Binoculars”:

Impressionism portrays, not a separated objective world that man contemplates, but a world of power and force and movement which is in man also, and emerges in the consciousness of the painter.  Monet painting Rouen cathedral in every aspect of light and shade, Renoir making the shapes in nature explode into vibrations of colour, Degas recording the poses of a ballet, are working in a world where objects have become events, and where time is a dimension of sense experience. (CW 11, 32-3)

Frye and Comparative Literature

norrie

An editorial in the Globe and Mail for 17 July begins by claiming thatNorthrop Frye was not much attached to the term ‘comparative literature,’ and it would be a mistake to gather, from a controversy at the University of Toronto about the merger into a larger entity of that university’s Centre for Comparative Literature, which he founded, that his legacy is embodied in any academic institution.”  I am not aware of anything Frye wrote that would affirm his attachment to the phrase, and whether he harbored some secret dislike of the phrase, we can never know.  But in the thirty volumes of his Collected Works there is never a hint that he was not attached to the term.  Far from it: his writings are replete with all manner of references to comparative literature, comparative morphology, comparative religion, comparative mythology, the morphology of comparative symbolism and other forms of comparative study.  To be sure, Frye’s presence is too large to be confined to any institution, such as the Centre for Comparative Literature.  But this does not gainsay his support of the institutions of comparative literature––its journals and yearbooks, its conferences and colloquia, and its professional organizations.  Frye published in the journal Comparative Literature and the Yearbook of Comparative Literature.  In 1958 he attended the Second Congress of the International Comparative Literature Association, where he delivered a paper.  He also presented papers at the eleventh and fifteenth triennial congresses of the Fédération Internationale des Langues et Littératures Modernes (1969, Islamabad; 1981, Phoenix, AZ).  In 1974 he delivered a paper at the Comparative Literature Colloquium at the University of Toronto.  In 1978 he gave a lecture on “Comparative Literature: What Gets Compared?” at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.  Frye may not have been attached to the term “comparative literature,” but he was clearly supportive of its institutions, including a number outside of the University of Toronto.

Aristotle says that the ability to discover likenesses in the mark of genius, and Frye, who was an analogical thinker of the first order, was forever discovering comparable conventions in mythology, literature, and religion.  “[E]very problem in literary criticism,” he wrote, “is a problem in comparative literature” (“Literature as Context: Milton’s Lycidas”).  In his Diaries he says that “an exhaustive comparative study of symbolism” is part of the job he must complete.

The editorial writer for the Globe and Mail says that what we should pay attention to are Frye’s books rather than to such institutions as the Centre for Comparative Literature.  One of those books, Fearful Symmentry, concludes with this appeal: “Blake’s doctrine of a single original language and religion implies that the similarities in ritual, myth and doctrine among all religions are more significant than their differences. It implies that a study of comparative religion, a morphology of myths, rituals and theologies, will lead us to a single visionary conception which the mind of man is trying to express, a vision of a created and fallen world which has been redeemed by a divine sacrifice and is proceeding to regeneration. In our day psychology and anthropology have worked great changes in our study of literature strongly suggestive of a development in this direction, and many of the symbols studied in the subconscious, the primitive and the hieratic minds are expanding into patterns of great comprehensiveness, the relevance of which to literary symbolism is not open to question.”  What better way to understand these symbolic patterns than in an program devoted to comparative study.  Frye then adds, “myths and dreams are crude art‑forms, blurred and dim visions, rough drafts of the more accurate work of the artist.  In time the communal myth precedes the individual one, but the latter focuses and clarifies the former, and when a work of art deals with a primitive myth, the essential meaning of that myth is not disguised, or sublimated, or refined, but revealed. A comparative study of dreams and rituals can lead us only to a vague and intuitive sense of the unity of the human mind; a comparative study of works of art should demonstrate it beyond conjecture.”  This is not the voice of one who wants to detach himself from comparative study.

*

Save the Comp Lit Centre Facebook here: http://www.savecomplit.ca/Protest.html

Petition here: http://www.petitiononline.com/complit/petition.html

Jane Austen

austen

On this date Jane Austen died (1775-1817).

Frye in notebook 27:

I’ve often noticed that great novelists, from Jane Austen to Henry James, are conventional to the point of prissiness.  There are many reasons for this: one is that novelists deal with people under ideology.  The ideology is usually shaped by both the author and the public.  Authors who are aware of another perspective (myth) are rare: Dickens is one.  (CW , 95)  LN

In “Framework and Assumption”:

At present there is a widespread impression that flexible conventions are a mark of serious writing.  The days are gone when Jane Austen could protest against the snob phrase “only a novel,” and point out that a “novel” could be on the same level of seriousness as any book of sermons.  But of course she had her conventions: there are no writers who are unconventional or beyond convention.  Sometimes a writer may seem unconventional because his readers are accustomed to different conventions and do not realize it, or else assume that what they are used to is the normal form of writing.  Such reactions to convention may vary from Samuel Johnson’s dictum, “Nothing odd will do long; Tristram Shandy did not last,” to the claim of a twentieth-century formalist critic that Tristram Shandy was the most typical novel ever written.  (CW 18, 424-5)

In “The Context of Romance” in The Secular Scripture:

The sketches Jane Austen produced in her teens are nearly all burlesques of popular romantic formulas.  And yet, if we read Pride and Prejudice or Emma and ask the first question about it, which is What is Jane Austen doing? What is it that drives her pen from one corner of the page to the other? the answer is of course that she is telling a story.  The story is the soul of her writing, to use Aristotle’s metaphor [Poetics chap. 6], the end for which all the words are put down.  But if we concentrate on the shape of her stories, we are studying something that brings her much closer to her romantic colleagues, even to the writers of the horrid mysteries she parodied.  Her characters are believable, yet every so often we become aware of the tension between them and the outlines of the story into which they are obliged to fit.  This is particularly true of the endings, where the right men get married to the right women, although the inherent unlikelihood of these unions has been the main theme of the story.  All the adjustments are made with great skill, but the very skill shows that form and content are not quite the same thing: they are two things that have to be unified.  (ibid., 28)