In response to Question # 3:
I think there’s two things that are important to consider when we question why Frye didn’t take into account Scott’s actions when he wrote about the difference in his writings: Frye’s theories of literature, and the era when this essay was originally written.
So, Frye’s theories. His conjectures about Canadian literature is one that I think a lot of students who have studied it may agree with. For Frye, Canadian literature is one that the reader is “aware of the circumference” of the work (Frye 216). In other words, Canadian Lit is like many aspects of Canadianism: we are forced to claim what is different about ourselves. We feel we must distinguish ourselves against the backdrop of all others like us. I usually have a reactionary cringe when novels proclaim themselves to be “Canadian lit”. I pray that I don’t run into any beavers or the Southwestern Ontario pronunciation of “about”.
So what does this have to do with Scott? Well, Frye writes of First Nations as “nineteenth century literary conventions” in Canadian literature (235). I think this is one aspect of what Frye is talking about when he calls Scott’s subject matter “primitive”. Frye is one harsh son-of-a-gun when it comes to Canadian literature conventions. But I do think there’s more than meets the eye with his language in this section, and that leads me to my other point.
As contemporary Canadian readers, we don’t expect to read words like “squaw” or even refer to First Nations as “Indians” by someone who writes so eloquently as Frye. Although I knew at the beginning of the essay that it was dated, I was certainly reminded by his language. And his language points to a clue as to why he didn’t include Scott’s job description with his description of his writing.
Now I’ve already taken a look at the use of Frye’s words “primitive” and “sophisticated’; one being a Canadian convention, another being something distinctly not a Canadian convention. But I have to admit, my first thought when he referred to the Scott’s poetry about First Nations as “primitive” was not about his theory. My contemporary reading kicked in. Did he really just refer to Scott’s subject as primitive?
In any case, I had to remind myself of the times of when Frye wrote the essay. Could it be possible that he was strictly speaking of Canadian convention? Or was his use of “primitive” more malicious?
Work Cited:
Frye, Northrup. “Conclusion to a Literary History of Canada.” The Bush Garden: Essays on the Canadian Imagination. Concord: Anansi Press, 1995. . Print.
Roberts, Taylor. “Canadian raising and other oddities.” Canadian raising and other oddities. Web. 21 July 2014. <http://www.yorku.ca/twainweb/troberts/raising.html>.