In discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been whether or not there is a specific political interpretation to be taken from the writing. On the one hand, critics argue that the main focus on The Tempest is based on Imperialism (or any other specific interpretation for that matter). On the other hand, other critics argue that this interpretation of the text has been taken way too far out of context. Others even maintain neutral in their thoughts, believing that it could go either way. However, my own view is that to say the interpretation of The Tempest to be focused on imperialism is far too much of a stretch. Like I talked about it my last blog posting, I believe too often critics over analyze works of writing. Not all authors write a book or novel with a specific almost "hidden" interpretation, they just write to write. I believe it is unrealistic to say that Shakespeare wrote The Tempest with a basis on Imperialism. I take George Will's view in saying that "Critics displace literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning." You cannot just say that a piece of writing has a certain meaning, and that the meaning it has was specifically written by the author. Lots of times it seems that critics and readers can make their own interpretation of the text and believe it to be the author's intention. I think critics and readers need to stop over analyzing works of writing and focus more on the interpretation they personally took away from the story.
And that is my two cents!
**Oh by the way I was absent, hence why this is late.
I'm glad that The Tempest contains unlimited appeal for you. Since you've got it nailed, I'm looking forward to an amazing draft!
ReplyDeleteThat said, you mention how "I think critics and readers need to stop over analyzing works of writing and focus more on the interpretation they personally took away from the story." But doesn't it matter what we argue? What if women were always represented in a demeaning manner? If every female character were subservient and airheaded? Wouldn't this influence the way people relate to the world around them? Would we not want to critique that and question the "official" meanings? Wouldn't that make a difference to people's lives in the actual world--if we were able to change the way that people think about something? What if Big Brother was in charge of determining the official version and we couldn't talk back? There's more to this than just empty academic talk . . .