Published 30 January 1980
From an untitled typescript in NFF, 1988, box 60, file 3. The interview, based on pre-submitted questions by interviewer Branko Gorjup, was taped in Frye’s office at Victoria College. It was published in Naše Novine, the newspaper of the Yugoslavian community in Toronto, 30 January 1980. Gorjup is a scholar and critic who has taught Canadian literature in universities in Canada and Italy.
GORJUP: It has been a fact that your theory of criticism, developed in your masterwork Anatomy of Criticism, has had a much greater and more persuasive influence on a generation of critics in both English- and non-English-speaking countries than that of any other literary critic in recent history. Could you tell us how and why you came to construct your “systematic” framework for the critical study of literature in view of the fact that literature has always been thought to be that aspect of the human mind which opposes itself to any “systematization”?
FRYE: It is hardly possible to explain how I came to construct the framework of the Anatomy of Criticism. I had worked for fifteen years on a study of Blake. As a result I got various pieces of insight into the structure of literature as a whole, which I had considerable difficulty in disentangling from my book on Blake. The question says that “literature has always been thought to be that aspect of the human mind which opposes itself to any systematization.” In the first place, there is a considerable difference between literature and criticism. Criticism has a framework of its own, and is one with which the writer himself does not need to bother. The work of literature itself is not a part of the systematic study, but it still has to make sense. It does this by working itself out within the conventions and genres of literature. The writer of a detective story knows from the first sentence that he is not producing an epic poem, and every word he writes conforms to the convention he adopts. All the critic has to do is to recognize this fact.
GORJUP: Is it true that the myths of the past, which have thus far informed our Western thought and our values, are becoming more and more obsolete for the twentieth-century technological mind? You have often said that a given myth in a given society has always had the power to explain that society to itself. If twentieth-century technological man ceases to be a mythmaker how is he then going to comprehend himself and the world which he creates?
FRYE: It is not true that the myths of the past are becoming obsolete, and there is nothing in technology which opposes itself to myth. Our choice is only between good myths and bad myths. It is certainly true that if man ceases to be a mythmaker he will become totally unable to comprehend either himself or his world. But I think man has too much sense of self-preservation for this to be likely.
GORJUP: Until very recently the literature of English-speaking Canada has hardly been known outside the borders of this country. In your opinion, what has been the cause of such a long delay? and do you think that Canadian literature has finally emerged as an important force in the world?
FRYE: I think the explanation for the emergence of Canadian literature in English is very simple: its quality and quantity have dramatically improved and increased since about 1960. Canada does not belong to the “third world” economically or politically, but I think it does culturally, and this fact in itself is one of the elements in its organization.
GORJUP: Can it be still maintained that the notion of the “two solitudes” regarding the two main cultures, the Anglophone and the Francophone, is as real as it was some decades ago? If this is still the case, what is or has been, in your opinion, the factor that has prevented a greater degree of interpenetration between them?
FRYE: There is still a great deal of the “two solitudes” mentality in Canada. On the English side the reason for it is simply the unwillingness of English-speaking people to learn any other language. When MacLennan wrote Two Solitudes two decades ago the separation was religious (Protestant and Catholic) as well. That aspect of the separation has largely disappeared. The movement known as separatism is something that affects every part of Canada, but I have a feeling that it is becoming a spent force in the political and economic arenas.
GORJUP: In the past few years there has been a significant arrival of native cultures onto the Canadian scene, mainly in the field of the plastic arts and the theatre. It is curious that this aspect of the Canadian reality has been neglected for such a long time. In your opinion, is it possible for the white man’s culture to come to terms in a beneficial way with the ancient cultural heritage of the native peoples?
FRYE: I think that the white man’s culture in Canada is now sufficiently mature to feel that the culture of the indigenous peoples is a part of its own ancestry. This is being explicitly said by an increasing number of Canadian writers. At the same time the Indian and Inuit cultures have also matured to the point of detaching themselves from the routine of rituals and handicrafts.
GORJUP: The question often asked of a Canadian is the one regarding the search for a Canadian identity. Can we consider this near-obsession with a single, uniform identity as a positive mental outlook, or a negative one? In your opinion is it possible and necessary for a country as enormous and diverse as Canada to evolve one single identity? If not, what is the alternative?
FRYE: My view about Canadian identity is that I think identity is a cultural and regional matter. There should be a dozen identities in Canada, and they should increase and multiply. In short, identity is not the same as unity. Unity is a political and economic matter, and it is, or should be, the opposite of uniformity. Identity is cultural and limited in range.
GORJUP: Besides the three oldest cultures in this country—Native, English, and French—now we find a mosaic of cultures which have come from all continents. What is or will be their role with regard to this search for Canadian identity? Do you believe the idea of multiculturalism positive, or would it be better for Canada to become another “melting pot”?
FRYE: From what I have just said it is clear that the increase in variety of cultures in Canada is a positive factor in the growth of Canada’s identity. It has been a great advantage to Canada that it has never insisted on being a “melting pot,” and its different ethnical groups seem to me to feel a minimum of strain in adapting to a Canadian environment.
GORJUP: Can you tell us if any of your books were translated, or are being presently translated, in Yugoslavia?
FRYE: I understand that Anatomy of Criticism has been translated into Serbo-Croatian, but I have not yet seen a copy of the book. 1