Okay to start off I think the debate between the two authors is about analyzing the texts and the finding politics within them. George Will argues that "all Literature is political"(111). He supports his argument with examples of literary works from Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, and Jane Austen. His support includes political models such as feminism, colonialism, and, racism. His believe by criticizing literary work the critic will make the authors intended purpose into a political argument. He feels that literary work should be defined by what the text implies not what happens between the lines. He also says that if literary work is criticized it becomes a matter of "who had power and whom the powerful victimized"(111).
Now on the other hand Stephen Greenblatt believes the complete opposite. When he finds the message in the passage he believes that the message heightens the readers experience. He thinks if we do not find the hidden politics and analyze them we will face “the risk that we might turn our artistic inheritance into a simple, reassuring, soporific life.” Greenblatt doesn't think that there should not be a specific way to analyze the literature. He says that "art is not cement"(115). He believes that the reader should be able to have their own opinion about the text and should be able to state their opinion.
After reading both the debate between both authors I could not decide on whose side I would take. Half of me agreed with George Will and the other half agree with Stephen Greenblatt, but something about Greenblatt made him stand out more to me. So i would probably agree with Greenblatt only, because everyone interprets passages or the message from the passage differently. Whether their belief or thought about the passage or its message be right or wrong, everyone has their own opinion. I believe people should be able to state them too just like Greenblatt believes. Literature is a place were the mind can sorta run free and just be whatever it wants too be.
After reading your post about the articles, I feel that I can relate to you on a lot of the things you said. Yes, basically they were about two guys stating their opinions on how we should, or shouldn't interpret Shakespeare's writings. I can also agree on where you said that you couldn't possibly choose sides. To add on, I also tend to agree a bit more on Stephen Greenblatt's point of view and on how he thinks that we should read more into depth within Shakespeare's text because we will find more meaning to it. Overall, you wrote a lot! Good job :)
ReplyDeleteI thought this blog was pretty good. I mostly agreed with it and found that a lot of the things that u talked about were also some of the things that I had pointed out when doing my blog. I like the part where u talked about that when people try to argue the authors true meaning they turn it into a political debate, because I think today that people always are trying to find the deeper meaning of everything so much that they might miss or misinterpret the authors true meaning. so I thought that u analyze both articles well and showed that not only u read them but that u understood a deeper meaning.
ReplyDeleteKaylee, I agree with you somewhat on your point of people being able interpret writing in his/her own way. There is no right or wrong answer. I also agree with you when you say you couldnt really pick one article or the other because I feel that at some times, going into depth and picking word for word out takes away from the writing and some times you should. Overall though, you did a good job responding to the articles. Good job:)
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the points that you made in your blog Kaylee. I think that your blog shows that you understood what both of the authors where trying to say and analyzed their arguments well. It actually helped me to better understand what Will and Greenblatts were trying to say in the article. I couldn’t really decide who I agreed with more either. I agree with what you said about literature being a place where the mind can run free and be whatever it wants to be. I think that when we over analyze things it takes away from what the author meant to say. I think we should have and open mind when we read some literature.
ReplyDelete