In Canada, comparing books with the best the language has produced is a ‘hopeless task’
So, speaking of Northrop Frye’s refusal to assess degrees of greatness, said George Woodcock in ‘Canadian Literature‘ 1971 from The Rejection of Politics (1972). Quoting Frye: " If evaluation is one’s guiding principle, criticisms of Canadian literature would become only a debunking project…" "But," says Woodcock, "if Frye’s critical conscience and – I suspect – his personal kindness, debar him from debunking, they also debar him from the kind of idiotic inflation of the claims of Canadian writing which has so often marred what in this country passes for criticism. He does not seek greatness or futility in a work, for these, it seem to him, are irrelevant to the central task of finding what the writer has sought to do and discussing how well he has done it."
In other words, Frye refused to do what John Metcalf has done. Both approaches are worthwhile. One is far less harmful to the critic. If forced to choose, I’d go with the debunkers.