In the article, "Literary Study, Politics, and Shakespeare: A Debate", two different people, George Will and Stephen Greenblatt strongly disagree and both make good arguments. They both have completely different ideas of how Shakespeare represents imperialism and colonialism in The Temptest. Greenblatt argues that Shakespeare's readers were not that involved in the political aspect, while Will argues that Shakespeare's writting is "unrecognizable" and works around the topic of politics.
To sum up George Will believes that Shaekspeare's readers are too politicaly light. . Will states that "ideology radically devalues authors and elevates ideologists" He also believes that the topics of colonialism and feminism are things that are not important for Shaekspeare'sreaders to understand. Overall Will is saying that the literary critics are the ones who should be anaylzing and identifying the author's work of his or her peice.
But Stephen Greenblatt believes the complete opposite of Will, saying that the themes such as imperialism is too deepining for the reader. He believes that The Temptest is full of "conspicuous allusions to contemporary debates over colonization".
I personally can not decide what side to take, although i did seem to side with Stephen Greenblatt rather than George Will. I agree with his view more because he believes that readers need to think more deeply so that the readers better understand the authors point of view. I also believe that Greenblatt's evidence was more compelling than Will's.
Simply and beautifully stated. Lisa Hammel, you did a fine job of explaining each side and then giving your thoughts. Although I was a bit like you, I couldn't exactly choose a side but in the end, like you, I sided with Greenblatt.
ReplyDeleteFinely stated!
Toodles!
Lisa!! I agreed with you. In the end I also sided with Greenblatt. As long as the original simple meaning of the text is understood, I do not see why we cannot dig deeper for more meaning. I think it is good for people to interpret texts differently and form different opinions. It seems like it will help us become better writers ourselves. Also, I do not think the authors would mind us having so many creative intellectual discussions about their texts. Hey would probably love to hear all the great ideas we are coming up with that are spurred by their work.
ReplyDeleteHey, Lisa! Great job on your response to the debate. I also found it difficult to agree completely with one point of veiw. Just like you, I am somewhere in the middle. I think that Will is correct in saying that critics can twist literature with political veiws, but I also agree with Greenblatt in that a reader should be able to analyze and interpret literature in many different ways.
ReplyDeleteYay! Good job! (:
Yessssss. i always enjoy reading your blogs, why? because you make them seem sooo easy to get through lol. i agree agree agree with what you have said here and i like how you stated all of this junk and stuff. the way you analyze and axplain things often help me when i am confused haha. good jobbbbbbbbbb. i liked it. haha
ReplyDeleteAsil you are such a smarty when you write, i completely agree with your blog on everything execpttt the decision of yours to stay in the middle. I personally swayed toward Greenblatt's argument because of the point he made to stay more towards arguing for the well being of academia as opposed to Will's stuckupness haha but ill let baigons be baigons <3 :)
ReplyDelete