![\"\"](\"http:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2011\/08\/fryemcluhan1.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
A great deal has been made of the claim that Frye and McLuhan were rivals.\u00a0 But were they?\u00a0 W. Terrence Gordon\u2019s Marshall McLuhan: Escape into Understanding: A Biography<\/em> says twice that they were rivals, without indicating any basis for the claim.\u00a0 Philip Marchand\u2019s Marshall McLuhan: The Medium and the Messenger<\/em> (Toronto: Random House, 1989), takes a different view, showing McLuhan to be jealous of Frye\u2019s eminence and noting several small-minded actions on the part of McLuhan to chip away at that standing.\u00a0 Take for example this episode from Marchand\u2019s biography:<\/p>\n A panel of graduate English students was organized by the Graduate English Association at the University of Toronto to discuss Frye\u2019s book [Anatomy of Criticism<\/em>] <\/em>shortly after its publication.\u00a0 One of the panellists, Frederick Flahiff, recalls, \u201cOne morning after the announcement of the panel had gone out, Marshall appeared in my room carrying a copy of [an] essay entitled \u201cHave with You to Madison Avenue; or, The Flush Profile of Literature.\u201d\u00a0 The essay, written by McLuhan, was an attack on Frye\u2019s criticism as the formation, via literature, of a perceptive mind to a pseudo\u2011scientific charting of the features of literature vaguely analogous to Madison Avenue profiles of consumer groups (\u201cFlush profile\u201d is a reference to a method of measuring viewer response to radio and television programs by gauging the incidence of toilet flushing. [\u201cFlush Profile\u201d is reproduced below.]<\/p>\n McLuhan was not at his best in this essay.\u00a0 His argument, studded with tortured metaphors, was extremely convoluted, and would have succeeded in confusing any audience, no matter how well versed in Frye\u2019s book.\u00a0 One thing was clear though: no one but McLuhan could have written it.\u00a0 Nonetheless, McLuhan asked Flahiff if he would read the essay on the panel as if it were his own response to Frye.\u00a0 We went out and walked around and around Queen\u2019s Park, Flahiff recalls.<\/p>\n McLuhan was at his most obsessive.\u00a0 I don\u2019t mean that he was hammering away at me to do this thing, but he was obsessive about Frye and the implication of Frye\u2019s position in the same way he had talked about black masses.\u00a0 It was the first time I had seen this in McLuhan\u2013\u2013or the first time I had seen it so extravagantly.\u00a0 As gently as possible I indicated that I could not do this and that I was going to write my own thing. . . . Later, on the night of the panel, he phoned me before my appearance and asked me to read to him what I had written.\u00a0 I indicated that he could come to the session if he wanted, but he said \u201cOh, no, no.\u201d<\/em> (105\u20136)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Marchand also reports on a letter from McLuhan to a close friend in which \u201cMcLuhan mentioned Frye\u2019s leaving Toronto for a conference and added that he hoped Frye would not bother to return\u201d (105).\u00a0 Perhaps McLuhan did see Frye as a rival, but I find no evidence in all of Frye\u2019s comments on McLuhan that Frye considered McLuhan to be a rival.\u00a0 Nor does Frye say anything unkind about McLuhan, except perhaps for the remark that McLuhan had a reputation as a great thinker but he didn\u2019t think at all.<\/p>\n If Frye saw McLuhan as a rival it seems doubtful that he would have argued long and hard that McLuhan should be given the governor general\u2019s award for Understanding Media<\/em>. Or that, as David Staines reports, he would have said to Corrine McLuhan after Marshall\u2019s death, \u201cI always wanted to be closer to Marshall than I was.\u201d<\/p>\n After the jump, McLuhan’s review of Anatomy.<\/em><\/p>\n Have with You to Madison Avenue or The Flush-Profile of Literature<\/p>\n by Marshall McLuhan<\/p>\n [Review of Northrop Frye\u2019s Anatomy of Criticism<\/em>]<\/p>\n It is natural for the literary man to underestimate the relevance of Professor Frye\u2019s archetypal approach to literature. The man of letters expects the literary form to offer a good deal of private consumer satisfaction, and there is nothing private or consumer-oriented in Professor Frye\u2019s approach. The Frye\u2019s approach to criticism as a science turns from the training of taste and discrimination by literary means to the collective producer-orientation of the new mass media of the electronic age. The archetypal approach is the groove of collective conformity and of group-dynamics, which may explain why a uniquely opaque and almost unreadable book should have become a book-of-the-month choice.<\/p>\n In the same way, the off-Madison Avenue of the run-of-the-mill graduate student finds it quite unimportant that he does not understand Professor Frye. He knows that Frye is \u201cwith it\u201d and that group participation or togetherness in the aura of such leadership is far more satisfying than private interpretation.<\/p>\n Professor Frye has interpreted the message of the new media aright. Print had in the sixteenth century commanded private interpretation. The fixed stance of the private silent reader, identical with perspective in painting, suggested subliminally the need for an individual viewpoint in all matters. Hamlet confronted by his father\u2019s ghost asserts that \u201cthy commandment all alone shall live within the book and volume of my brain.\u201d Then he snatches his \u201ctables\u201d: Meet it is I set it down, that one may smile and smile and be a villain; At least I\u2019m sure it may be so in Denmark.\u201d<\/p>\n It had occurred to Montaigne that the snap-shotting of the impressions of the mind was the real message of the printed and written form. Shakespeare certainly made that point in this scene, even joking over the Montaigne technique of doubt, \u201cAt least I\u2019m sure it may be so in Denmark.\u201d For four centuries we have been conditioned by the printed word as snap-shot of the postures of the individual mind. Segmental analysis of all motion, mental and industrial, has long been for us the norm of education and of civilized life.<\/p>\n But in recent decades Western culture has spawned totally new techniques of snap-shotting the postures of the group-mind. Statistical charts of group postures reached a kind of lyric pause or \u201cmoment out of time\u201d with the discovery of the \u201cflush-profile\u201d which put the shaky intuitions of individual students of public attitudes on a scientific basis. The flush-profile which hoicks the poet out of his ivory tower and puts him in the partners\u2019 room of B.B.D. and O., as it were, is derived from the data of the city water engineer. At program breaks the additional water used in toilet-flushing was seen to provide a reliable archetype of the group posture of mind for that program.<\/p>\n Now it is obvious that such an archetype or profile of collective awareness offers small consumer satisfaction in itself. And Professor Frye would disclaim the notion that even the most diaphanous archetype could afford consumer satisfaction to a reader. These profiles or nuclear models of collective postures are not literary bon-bons for passive savoring but rather scientific data suited to the austere producer-oriented mind, data necessary to the public relations engineer and the shaper and ruler of societies. Like Sputnik they have a hook in outer space whence they relay signals to us, blip calling unto blip in the universe of the pictorialized word.<\/p>\n It is natural, therefore, that Professor Frye should have betaken himself to the anthropologist and to the folk-lorist for his profiles of literature. These students of pre-literate man provide the scientific archetypes or snapshots of the postures of collective man which now recommend themselves to many keen spirits in the post-literate age of conformity and of global stereotypes. For the characteristic mode of learning and knowing since the telegraph offers a pattern of instantaneous inter-cultural x-ray, very different from the enclosed spaces of literature. Man is no longer monad but nomad.<\/p>\n A literary man describing a people past or present adopts a slant, a point of view. He selects. He structures his image with syntactical bonds of perspective in the style of Hume, Gibbon, or Macaulay. But a century ago, with the photograph, there came new presentation. The photo, as William Ivins explains in Prints and Visual Communication<\/em>, permits total statement without syntax. And the student of pre-literate man found this kind of non-personal recording of collective social behaviour very needful. Not the personal point of view, nor the partiality of perspective and self-expression, but the catalyst role of the non-personal chemical medium became the natural bias of the social sciences and symbolist artists alike.<\/p>\n That is why the archetypal profiles of literature offered as a new science of criticism may strike literary people as too much like the world of Mighty Mouse, of Space Cadet, and of the Madison Avenue portraitist of public postures. They are not quick to see that Professor Frye has devised a kind of nomadic bookcase for the cosmic man of today who is inevitably a mental D.P. A bedouin\u2019s rug of timeless patterns which include all possible arrangements of human experience is indispensable equipment today.<\/p>\n Seen from the split-level picture-window House of Archetypes, the receding world of Western literature may look appallingly like a silent movie on a late TV show. But for those who recognize the importance of aligning all education with the dynamics of the new mass media, the deft and decent burial of literature provided by the Anatomy of Criticism<\/em> will come as an exhilirating climax to the slower-paced preliminaries of the literary centuries.<\/p>\n Professor Frye is not, perhaps, sufficiently cognizant of one major resource adjacent to his enterprise. The world of ancient and medieval rhetoric was vibrant with archetypes referred to as \u201cthe figures of rhetoric.\u201d These figures are, it is true, postures only of the individual mind which had become accessible to observation and control after phonetic writing. The written word arrested the mental and verbal flux of the fast-talking Mediterraneans and gave them the means of classifying hundreds of mental postures such as chiasmus, catachresis, and scatalogie. These figures or postures of the mind were like so many whales left immobilized amidst the shallows and sands of the written word. And in due time their odor began to be abroad in the land. Writing, however, as a means of capturing, or perhaps of fashioning, the postures of the individual mind has proved to be fatally committed to the fostering of individual expression and eloquence. It is flawed by preference for the humanistic and might well prove to be but a feeble prop for a scientific enterprise such as that of Professor Frye. As it is, even without the aid of such a pipe-line of natural gas from the farther shores of rhetoric, Frye has secured a vehicle which by-passes all rhetorical expression of this personal type, and makes possible the deploying of the total resources of pre-literate culture on to the Madison Avenue testing ground. This in turn will greatly hasten the mopping up of remnants of private awareness and expression such as now give a confused and unsettled character to the literary and educational scene. So that what has here begun as a momentary flush-profile of literary postures will develop into a genuine chain reaction, and the remnants of a decadent form of personal expression can be dispatched down the drain.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A great deal has been made of the claim that Frye and McLuhan were rivals.\u00a0 But were they?\u00a0 W. Terrence Gordon\u2019s Marshall McLuhan: Escape into Understanding: A Biography says twice that they were rivals, without indicating any basis for the claim.\u00a0 Philip Marchand\u2019s Marshall McLuhan: The Medium and the Messenger (Toronto: Random House, 1989), takes […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[12,16,66,96],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25443","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-biography","category-bob-denham","category-frye-on-marshall-mcluhan","category-marshall-mcluhan"],"yoast_head":"\n