I strongly dislike choosing sides in most situations, but in this case, I must agree more with Greenblatt. We need to look deeply into classical works and look for the author’s intended purpose, but scholars and professionals should not try to identify and create such abstract ideas as Will illustrated (albeit kinda inappropriately). What I think literature needs, like most other things, is moderation in its teachings and interpretations. I know that it’s impossible to get people to take a neutral or at least moderate stance with things like these, but I see that as maybe the most effective way to settle things. They just need to learn to compromise a little, but that’s only what I think.
I still like some of Will’s points though; I agree that over-interpreting classics makes understanding them difficult and confusing if you have little or no prior experience examining them. He tries to speak for the common person, but I don’t think he gives people enough academic credit. I think that it is relatively easy to see the messages about imperialism in The Tempest, but other works are sure to be more difficult. I can see where he comes from.
A.J. I really enjoyed reading your ideas on this article...well maybe it was just the picture that made it better hahaha. Anyways, I feel that you understood the articles well and was able to explain them clearly. I also agree with your point that you do not like choosing sides because it is the same way with me. Even though you said that you do not like choosing sides I feel that you explained them both very well and had good ideas that went with them both. The one that I liked the best was the idea of moderating the teachings and interpretations of literature. I agree with this because I believe that it would make it clearer for everyone and it would not make the reading so boring after tons of analysis. Overall I think that you did a good job analyzing the article.
ReplyDeleteAJ, I do agree with your thoughts and insights. It is difficult to choose a side in this scenario, and yes, I would like to stop the debating as well! Both Will and Greenblatt make good arguments with Will speaking for the common people and Greenblatt speaking for the literary critics. I think Will does a good job of considering the common people, but he almost looks at it that common people are unable to see different meanings.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I would say that I agree with Greenblatt. There are so many different meanings that can be perceived from a text. I think it is important to look into these meanings and not ignore potential underlying interpretations. Some scholars and critics do take it too far and create really confusing meanings. You really said it well by stating that we need moderation in teaching and interpreting texts. There are endless possible meanings out there, and people will always have different onions on a particular text.
That was a good blog! I liked how you expressed sooo many ideas that i didnt even think about, and when i read your blog it was like so calm haha and i agreed with ya 1oo%!! I agreed with Greenblat too and that language was innapropriate, i was like "what the heck am i reading!?" haha. Anyways, what reakky made your blog the best was when you were talking about modernization, so true. I liked and appreciated your points of view and how you related most things to the text. By doing that i think you opened up alot of things that i know i didnt talk about but it made the article so much better to understand. To bad i didnt read your blog before i posted mine i probably would have ubderstood the article better and my blog wouldnt have been dumb haha but anyways nice job.. :)
ReplyDelete