"There is no private symbolism: the phrase makes no sense" (283).
Reading Frye's essay, "A Critical Path," reminded me of the "I Spy" books I used to look at with my sisters when I was little. In one of the books, a little plastic green froggy was hidden on each page. We would search and search, our eyes scanning a the jumbled tiny objects on the page, until one of us would shriek with pride and delight, "I found it! Look! It's right there!" Frye's description of "image clusters" and "archetypes" in literature seems to mirror my childhood search for that crafty little green frog. Just as my sisters and I squealed with glee when we would find the frog, as an experienced reader, I now smile with satisfaction when I recognize an allusive or well known image within any text that I read.
Out of all the literary theories we have studies thus far, I think I find intertexual studies to be the most appealing for that certain sense of accomplishment I find when I am able to link one text to another. For lack of a better description, it makes me feel smart. I know that all the hours I've spent reading are paying off, for the more I read, the more satisfying connections I'm able to make.