After reading both of the arguments made in each essay, I can see truths to both sides of the story. The argument being made by George Will is that all works of literature (i.e. The Tempest by William Shakespeare) have a political interpretation of some kind. On the other side of the argument, Stephen Greenblatt says that writing includes a message other than it's literal interpretation, such as religion or . He believes that the world is saturated with the beliefs that all works of writing have unnecessary political ties. Will states, "The MLA, composed mostly of professors of literature and languages, is shocked-- shocked! -- that people suspect it of political motives." Greenblatt argues, "these preoccupation with political power were not at all unfamiliar to Shakespeare and his audience, and that recognizing the presence of issues of colonialism and slavery in Shakespeare should deepen the ordinary reader's pleasure rather than undermine it."
I really don't think I could pick a side with either of the arguments because honestly, they both have their truths. However, with that being said, I think works of writing are often over-analyzed and are read too far out of context. I really don't think EVERY writer sits down and decides they want their writing to have some out of the blue meaning that isn't expected in the text. I can see their arguments in their own way, because I do think most writings can have a deeper interpretation, but not all writing has either political or religious ties.
I also don't believe with the claim that all writing should be interpreted one way. I believe writing was meant to have multiple interpretations, and that a reader should decide what they take away from a work of writing.
I agree with you completely. Most writers don’t just sit down and choose their meaning. I feel a lot of people over analyze literature and then claim that as the only way to interpret that writing. A lot of literature does involve religion and politics but that doesn’t mean that you need to find that meaning in every work you read. Analyzing and interpreting writing will produce different outcome for every person. Some may feel that that literature is reflecting about religion and politics and others my find that it means something totally different. Overall it just depends on the reader. I liked reading your analysis on both the articles. I thought it was funny because a lot of what you said was similar to what I wrote in my own blog. I’m glad we both agree.
ReplyDeleteRachael Renberg, I am in agreement with your blog posting. I like that you can understand both sides of the argument, and that you agree with some ideas from both debators. I wrote some similar things in my post. I also can see both points of view and agree with some (not all)of the ideas that were brought up. I think critics sometimes use the analysis of literature as a political tool, but I also agree that there doesn't have to only be one interpretation of a text that is set in stone. Excellent work. Job well done.
ReplyDeleteHey Rachael! I definitely agree with most of the points you made in your blog. I thought it was nice that you took both sides of the argument and came up with a middle ground between the two radical viewpoints. I completetly agree with the idea that writing can be interpreted in multiple ways, and I enjoyed how even though you said this, you still made sure to identify how authors usually have their own specific meaning while writing. Great job! :)
ReplyDelete