Northrop Frye on Shakespeare: The Introduction

First off let me thank whoever it was Professor Sexson asked whether or not they'd started
reading their secondary work. If they hadn't answered honestly and said no i probably wouldn't be writing this now, so to you i owe my inspiration for starting this post.

When i was first looking at secondary works for this assignment i was very unsure about which of the options Professor Sexson presented us with. My first priority was to pick something short. As much excitement as i had for this class i knew i wouldn't have a lot of time outside of it to spend reading secondary pieces. My next priority was to pick something i might actually understand. Initially i didn't think i would choose Frye because i had rough experiences with him and his Anatomy of Criticism the first time i tried to take Lit 300 with Professor Sexson a few years ago. Looking back at it now i realize it wasn't Frye's fault at all but my own struggle to grasp the material that cause the rift between Frye and myself. To my chagrin i realized the fault lie within myself and not what Frye was trying to say about literary criticism. This Brings me to the heart of this post Northrop Frye on Shakespeare.

Like i said earlier i harbored a little ill will toward Frye when i began reading the introduction to this book. Upon finishing the introduction i realized i hadn't given Frye a fair shake. This book seems like it will be extremely beneficial in my understanding of this course as it progresses. Now i'd like to move on and share some of the really interesting things i discovered in the introduction to this book which i apologize if they rehash some of what we've already talked about in class. I'm going to paraphrase some Frye here and quote it when i feel like its necessary or i can't dumb down what he's trying to say.

The first thing anyone who is reading or looking to read this book must understand is that wasn't originally conceived of as a book but came out of a course Frye was teaching on Shakespeare. The next thing Frye wants us to be conscious of is that if we explore only the historical Shakespeare he loses his relevance in our time. I enjoyed Frye's next point i felt like i shouldn't paraphrase it but give it to you directly. "One of the first points to get clear about Shakespeare is that he didn't use drama for anything: he entered into its conditions as they were then, and accepted them totally." Frye enumerates further upon this and i enjoyed how he explained that a modern day dramatist couldn't do this like Shakespeare does because there are so many external influences that we fall victim to nowadays.

The next thing i really enjoyed about the introduction was Frye's concept of "Overthought and Underthought". While i don't think i could do these ideas justice i do urge people to look into them further. Something else that is amazing about Frye's book is that he wants to remain objective. While he acknowledges that people have qualms about Shakespeare that isn't what he intends to go into or write about. Another good point Frye makes in his introductions is that no matter the setting or the characters the hero in all of Shakespeare's plays is theatre itself.

While these are only a few of the great points Frye makes in his introduction to this book i urge anyone still deciding on their secondary work to take a look at this one. I believe its going to be a great read and i look forward to hearing more of what Frye has to say about Shakespeare's works.