I don’t quite understand these two articles. But I can explain a small bit of what I do understand, though these could be entirely incorrect interpretations. Both writers argue about the nomination of an uneducated woman with a dominant political lean to the NEH advisory board. George Will fights against the higher academic powers, pointing out that the presence of such political skews in literature results in the destruction of the literature itself. However, Stephen Greenblatt argues that the presence of these strong political opinions reflects the true intentions of the author or play writer as long as the readers recognize the presence of such bias.
As I mentioned before, I am not sure if I have these arguments summarized correctly. From what I have written so far though, I find myself agreeing with Greenblatt and his persuasive piece. Through Will’s essay, he proves his point that “critics strip literature of its authority” by “’deconstructing’ or politically decoding or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works”. However, I don’t understand how criticism takes away the “authority” of literature. To me, criticism reveals numerous ways to interpret a work. But criticism never defines the literature itself. Critics cannot know the intentions of the author; they can merely make an educated guess. Criticism only offers another perspective to an interpretation.
Greenblatt mentions in his essay at one point that art “is not cement”, but rather, is “founded on imaginative freedom, the play of language, and scholarly honesty”. Greenblatt finds importance in students creating their own interpretations in literary works and delving deeper into the context of the piece at hand. Even if this means that the student may or may not uncover a political lean. I still continue to agree with Greenblatt’s ideas, even after reading each article a few more times. I may not have captured the entire meaning of Greenblatt and Will’s arguments, but I found it interesting that both quoted The Tempest and used its context in different ways to prove different points.
Hey Kelsey! Well let me just say I was in the same boat as you. I thought I understood the articles and then I had so much trouble trying to summarize them. I am pretty sure that you are on the right track.
ReplyDeleteHowever I do not believe that Will was stating that the woman nominated for the NEH Board was uneducated. I believe she was a professor who encouraged education without the impact of political influence. Possibly, haha I am not really sure either. Plus when I read the articles I had a hard time figuring out which author wanted her on the board and who did not.
I also completely agree with you on your point of view. We will not be able to ask Shakespeare exactly what he was trying to portray in The Tempest therefore any analysis is an opinion. When dealing with opinions there will never be right answer. But I guess it is hard to say that the right answer even exists for the masses anymore.
i totally agree with you about the whole criticism thing. it only serves to reveal one persons personal opinions and its not meant to completely derail any value of the original text. also it makes things way more interesting. i also agree with Greenblatt, cause i agree with his view, he's got a cool name, and green is an awesome color. so i think its inevitable that... sorry im getting sidetracked. anyways, yea we should be given the freedom to interpret things by ourselves and not just go with what some people believe to the the "true" meaning. that just makes things boring and pointless and kinda defeats the whole purpose of learning. besides how can there ever be a right answer when everybody has their own version of it.
ReplyDeleteI’m starting to believe that nobody was able to completely comprehend the debate between these two. You seem to understand it better than me though. I can’t keep track of who is who…Oh well. Anyways, I agree with you about how Greenblatt’s opinions regarding the un-cemented state that literature should be taking. I also just want to say that it’s quite ridiculous that politics once again is spilling over into basically every aspect of life. Since when was a book the basis of the a political agenda. A book is a book that was written for a purpose that only the author of that said book can understand. I think that people read into things with too political of a mind. It’s a book, not the Declaration of Independence. Instead of claiming that the book or literary work is a piece of trash because it highlights feminism or whatever controversial social issue you want to use, why don’t you use it to examine your disgusting power hungry soul…… Books aren’t speeches…They are for entertainment purposes. And politicians are omnipotent so that can’t testify with full validity that some random books favor one party over another. It’s the author’s book!!!! Let the author’s voice be heard instead of your whining.
ReplyDeleteHahaha, I love how you didn't even bother to pretend to know what you were talking about. I didn't really inderstand it either. The only thing I took away was how great the name Greenblatt is and if it would be possible to change my name to it...Olivia Greenblatt...yeah. I'm doing it. I agree with what you said about critisism and how there can not be one concrete interpretation of anything. I think we could solve this whole "there's only one interpretation" thing if the authors were forced to write down at the end of their book what everything sybolized and what their intent was with the piece. I know. I'm a genius. Well, I think I said everything that needed to be said, good job cupcake. Have a good one.
ReplyDeleteKelsey!!!!! I totally agree with you. These articles were so hard for me to understand! I also agree with Greenblatt. I liked that you added in “art is not concrete.” I have to agree with this. We are given works of art to enjoy an discover. Artists typically want their audience to interpret things for themselves. One person may look at a painting and see something different than the person standing next to them. This is similar to literature. Someone may read a Harry Potter book and interpret or relate to it in different ways than someone who has lost both of their parents. Someone who does not believe in God may interpret it differently than a fundamentalist christian. Literature is an art and requires a certain amount of political interpreting. Over all it was a swell blog. Keep it up girl!
ReplyDelete