3 ] It is interesting, and telling of literary criticism at the time, that while Frye lights on this duality in Scott’s work, or tension between “primitive and civilized” representations; however, the fact that Scott wrote poetry romanticizing the “vanishing Indians” and wrote policies aimed at the destruction of Indigenous culture and Indigenous people – as a distinct people, is never brought to light. In 1924, in his role as the most powerful bureaucrat in the department of Indian Affairs, Scott wrote:
The policy of the Dominion has always been to protect Indians, to guard their identity as a race and at the same time to apply methods, which will destroy that identity and lead eventually to their disappearance as a separate division of the population (In Chater, 23).
For this blog assignment, I would like you to explain why it is that Scott’s highly active role in the purposeful destruction of Indigenous people’s cultures is not relevant for Frye in his observations above? You will find your answers in Frye’s discussion on the problem of ‘historical bias’ (216) and in his theory of the forms of literature as closed systems (234 –5).
————————————
I find this question very difficult to answer, not because of a lack of content or understanding, but because of a feeling of discomfort and unwillingness to write the answer that I keep returning to. I must be missing something, and I hope I am, because all I can come up with is: in Frye’s mention of Duncan Campbell Scott, Scott’s role in the purposeful destruction of Indigenous people’s cultures is not relevant because to him, indigenous people’s cultures are outside of what he deems important elements of what forms the Canadian culture, history, and imagination.
Frye argues that Canada’s history, its speed of growth and lack of a rooted social imagination, inhibits Canadian writers’ ability to establish its own unique tradition of writing (Frye 221). He sees the Canadian awareness as lacking something, which lends to its inability to establish a concrete identity. In an attempt to define what is missing, he argues that it is not the question of “Who am I?” that is so difficult to answer, it is the question of “Where is here?” (Frye 222). This brings us back to the connection between land and stories. When I read this sentence of Frye’s I excitedly wrote in my page margin, “if this is your land, where are your stories?” (Chamberlain Intro). Frye alludes to our inability to answer this question with his discussion of the historical disconnect between Canadians (European settlers and their descendants, to Frye) and the land that they began to call home. He points to our inability to answer the question “Where is here?” as the prominent barrier to carving out a definable Canadian identity.
When it comes to Frye’s lack of commentary on the role of Duncan Campbell Scott, as our professor has already pointed out, one key aspect of his theory helps us understand how he views the role of indigenous culture in the formation of the Canadian literary mind. He argues that “the forms of literature are autonomous: they exist within literature itself, and cannot be derived from any experience outside literature” (Frye 234). So, what about orality? It would appear that for Frye, stories found in oral traditions have no influence on the form of literature adopted by a nation. However, he goes on to argue that “literature is conscious mythology: as society develops, its mythical stories become structural principles of storytelling” (Frye 234). I interpret Frye’s argument as coming from a linear understanding of the progression of a society’s form of storytelling. Returning to the idea that the dominant western school of thought views societies as “progressing” from mythology in the form of oral traditions to the eventual discovery of the written word; Frye, in line with this mode of thinking, is perhaps arguing that the literary mind of most societies begins historically with a shared mythology that then “progresses” into a more structured, written form of storytelling unique to that society. For Frye, the problem with the Canadian literary mind is that it hasn’t gone through that progression. The Canadian history of European settlers and their descendants begins with their first steps on this land, plucked from overseas and dropped here without any mythical knowledge of the land’s history (233).
We can’t forget that Frye is a Canadian, formed by Canadian history and not outside the “Canadian literary mind” he is trying so adamantly to dissect. Perhaps for him, he doesn’t feel it is necessary to address the contradictory actions and writing of Duncan Campbell Scott in relation to indigenous peoples’ culture because their culture is outside of the Canadian literary mind he is interested in, and does not belong in his discussion. In the historical establishment of Canadian literature, he defines the role of indigenous peoples, their culture, mythology and land, as “nineteenth-century literary conventions” (Frye 235). I am reminded of King’s ‘imaginary Indian.’
Sierra Gale
Works Cited:
Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: AA. Knopf, 2003. Print.
Frye, Northrop. The Bush Garden; Essays on the Canadian Imagination. 2011 Toronto: Anansi. Print.
Houston, James. “Inuit Myth and Legend.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Feb. 07, 2006. Web. March 10, 2016.
Klymasz, Robert. “Folklore.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Feb. 07, 2006. Web. March 10, 2016.
King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Toronto: Anansi Press. 2003. Print.
Hello Sierra,
Thank you for your post. You did tackle a difficult subject, both in terms of the uncomfortable truth (as you suggest) of Frye’s possible reason for failing to comment on Scott’s policies for systematic elimination of Aboriginal culture, as well as providing documentary evidence for your rationale! I decided to look further back at “Northrop Frye on Canada” to see if I could find any other discussion of Scott by Frye that could provide illumination. In the Introduction to the book it discusses Frye’s education, mentors, and career focus and progression. At one point he provides reviews for the “University of Toronto Quarterly” providing extensive reviews of much of the poetry of Canada produced each year. “Frye approached it as an occasion to work out his growing understanding of mythic patterns within the specific parameters of one art form in one country” (Northrop Frye on Canada xxviii). By the 1960’s Frye no longer reviewed specific literature or art, but turned his attention to understanding Canadian culture. It is at this period that one could have expected him to identify Scott’s role in destruction of Aboriginal culture. However, Frye comments that his literary analysis helps him understand the whole culture of Canada, and that much of what he sees later in life of this literature and culture is just confirmation of what he learned during his early poetic analysis. It seems that Frye, as an academic, focused on literary analysis within structured forms, and then used that literary analysis as a basis to view Canadian culture. True to his assertions that good literature should not reflect the politics or issues of the time, he did not seem to look outside of the literature for additional elements to incorporate in his comments on Canadian culture, or Scott. Therefore, I come to the same conclusion that you did, Sierra – Frye did not consider Scott’s actions in his role in government as relevant to his analysis of Canadian literature or culture.
Works Cited:
Frye, Northrop. “Northrop Frye on Canada”. University of Toronto Press, 2003. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.
Andrea, thank you so much for this super helpful comment. Thank you for looking back at Frye to gather better insight into his mind. That’s so interesting! I interpret this information about Frye as proving perhaps he worked with a bit of tunnel vision, finding an area that worked for him and not branching outside of it? This is probably way to general and an assumption I shouldn’t make based on the limited information, however, I feel like people do that all of the time. We get really good at something, or extremely knowledgeable about one aspect of one topic and sometimes forget to look at the whole picture. I believe that is a mistake as it limits our ability to further grow and understand that topic we’ve become so involved in. It can be dangerous as well, which in this case I believe it has, as when one becomes a respected member of a community, someone people go to for answers, a narrow view can cause serious omissions, like what has happened here with Frye.
Hi Sierra
Thanks for such an elucidating post! Although I also wrote on the same topic, I still found Frye at times a bit of a mystery, so I’m glad you answered many of my questions here. You did a great job connecting the key concepts of Bush Garden with other readings, such as Chamberlin, and I especially appreciated your remarks on the question of orality. From your post, I gather that Frye had a pretty contradicting view of orality. On one hand, “oral traditions have no influence on the form of literature adopted by a nation.” For this reason, Frye is not interested in indigenous culture because they are outside of the Canadian canon he had in mind. On the other hand, Frye insists that the Canadian literary mind lacks mythical knowledge because it never had a chance to “‘[progress]’ from mythology in the form of oral traditions to… the written word.” Frye at once depreciates and holds essential orality, yet in either scenario he relegates it as a relic of the past.
Thanks,
Bea
Thanks Bea,
Your closing sentence containing the idea that Frye “at once depreciates and holds essential orality, yet in either scenario he relegates it as a relic of the past” has added one more dimension to Frye’s contradictory nature that I hadn’t thought of. Thank you for your contribution!
Hello Sierra. What a wonderful post! It’s both insightful and informative. I have been especially struck by your honesty when you say, “I find this question very difficult to answer, not because of a lack of content or understanding, but because of a feeling of discomfort and unwillingness to write the answer that I keep returning to.” I have had the same problem throughout the course. I find it extremely hard having to give the same if not closely related response on the injustices the Aboriginals have had to deal with. It breaks my heart every time. I find myself specifically affected because I have personally been subjected to discrimination and injustices here in Canada. Many people think discrimination based on skin color is over, but that’s not the truth. Despite the obvious fact that Aboriginal stories and cultures have been thwarted, little effort has been put to restore them. In my opinion, mythology is part of story telling. Those who want to authenticate the stories should do so for their own benefit in their houses while draining old matured whisky down their throats in the comfort of their coaches.
Minkyo, thanks for your comment, and for your opinions. It’s funny that you comment on that particular sentence as I almost didn’t write it, it seemed silly. But it is nice to know that probably most of the time when we want to write something that feels true, and isn’t hurtful to others, we should probably write it. Fear of what other people will think or whether or not what we feel is warranted or silly isn’t a reason not to share it, as I have found so often others are probably feeling something very similar. This case is a pretty tame example, perhaps, but a lesson nonetheless!