Frye's Archetypes of Literature

To me, reading Frye is like reading Darwin. Both are brilliant, but so scientific! Or perhaps it is my ignorance that makes all things intelligent sound scientific. Maybe I should get some 'intelligent-reading eyes' so I can understand more of what he is talking about. It's not that I dislike his writing, or Darwin's (I actually like them both) but I struggle. But I guess that the best things in life don't come without struggle, so it's probably right. He does say a few things that are really profound and stood out to me though. Like "art, like nature, is the subject of a systematic study, and has to be distinguished from the study itself, which is criticism." This is beautiful, but I guess I got spoiled by Shelley and Keats and have to look a little harder to see the appeal. I also love the way he talks about poets "the fact that revision is possible, that the poet makes change not because he likes them better but because they are better, means that poems, like poets, are born and not made." I really agree with this because it is hard work to be a writer, and I think many times people take all the work it actually takes for granted when they see the finished project.