After reading through the article and looking at the issue from both George Will’s and Stephen Greenblatt’s positions, there seems to be no conclusion. George Will supports the side that authors already have a predetermined meaning and that literary critics and teachers look too far into the text. Stephen Greenblatt feels that to only look at the surface level of a book and not look for an underlying meaning would be taking away from the text.
George Will believes that, “All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political” (111). However, Will suggests that “the academics who reinterpret Shakespeare in the light of colonialism, feminism, and other current preoccupations are rendering the plays unrecognizable to the ordinary reader and playgoer” (110). Although George Will acknowledges the fact that literature can always be interpreted in the political light, he feels that if these plays or works are reinterpreted to address the issues of feminism or colonialism then the ordinary reader would not look at the meaning of the plays as the author intended. He feels that “Criticism displaces literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning” (112). Will feels that criticizing works of literature takes away the author’s intended meaning. Therefore Will is an advocate for not critiquing the works of author’s and letting the original meaning of the text stand.
On the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt believes in looking for underlying meanings and searching for possible interpretations of a text. He says in terms of interpreting Shakespeare’s text The Tempest that “these are among the issues that literary scholars investigate and encourage their students to consider” (114). Greenblatt feels that it is critical to look at all the potential issues addressed within the text and expand upon the author’s initial meaning.
After reading the article, I still find it hard to find a conclusion. Is there really a correct way to read? I agree with Will in that it is important to understand the author’s intended meaning. However, how will we completely identify the author’s purpose? Therefore I agree with Greenblatt in that we need to be aware of the possible interpretations of the text.
Matt, I thought that you understood both of the articles very well. You took both Will and Greenblatt's view and explained them in a way that everyone can understand even if they had no idea what the articles actually said. I agree with you when you said that it was hard to come to a conclusion because I also felt that way. I feel that your question about there being a correct way to read was a good question to ask. It makes you think about it and really wonder if there is. Furthermore, I agree with your arguments about which side you might go towards. I feel that it is important to understand the author's meaning but also important to be open to other possible interpretations.
ReplyDeleteHey man, I like your posting. I agree that we need to have some guidance when interpreting a body of literature. We just can't get too carried away and make obscure assumptions about a work. You're right that we need to be aware, and that's all we need to be. People need to be able to make their own interpretations about things rather than just accepting something that sounds good to them. I too don't agree with Will as much because there has to be something that the author wants to point out to his audience, and the times render certain parts of literature relevant to the time period.
ReplyDeleteMatt I agree with you that there was no conclusion to the two articles. If authors have a predetermined though about what they are going to right about then they will not be into new ideas that can make the literature more interesting to read. Furthermore, if you do not try to find the deeper meaning of the text then there is no reason to read it in the first place. You make a valid point when you said that Will does not like critics to critique the works of authors because it takes away the writers meaning. In the end, I do find it hard on not critiquing a work of literature. Especially, if the book is poorly written or if the text is very good, the people should know about it. Greenblatt thinks the opposite and wants us to find the deeper message that a writer is giving us. The text will be more enjoyable. So, I would say after reading your comments that I would agree with Greenblatt more then Will.
ReplyDelete