George Will believes there is too much political interpretation. He argues that by over criticizing literature, it devalues the piece and it devalues the authors as well. He maintains that there is all sorts of political responses which can be derived from a literary work, however all these criticisms are overdone and sometimes done with the intention of making political statements. And such statements may not be congruent with the work. In his essay he states "This ideology radically devalues authors and elevates the ideologists -the critics- as indispensable decoders of literature, all of which is, by definition, irreducibly political."
Stephen Greenblatt argues that Will's essay is unfounded. He states that there is some interpretations that are obviously meant for seeing. The colonialism and its political ties in The Tempest were very deliberately put forth by Shakespeare. He argues that Shakespeare is an art and being so, it is supposed to be widely criticized. He argues all of Will's points and nearly plays the devils advocate towards his statements. He says in his essay "A love of literature may help to forge community, but it is a community founded on imaginative freedom, he play of language, and scholarly honesty, not on flag waving, boosterism, and conformity."
I identify much more with what Greenblatt has to say. I think when authors write a work, especially a poetic one, they are hoping for their work to be analyzed and criticized. The most famous works are the ones with controversy. Although i do see Will;s point in the sense that political responses can most certainly be overdone. Yet i side much more with Greenblatt and his idea that "poets cannot soar when their feet are stuck in social cement."
No comments:
Post a Comment