As students of the post modernism society we have begun to see ideas not backed by millions of dollars flood the world. Through the help of the internet people have started to realize that only one interpretation of everything is not feasible. No piece of literature can mean only one thing to everyone who reads it. On the other hand, schools have not caught up with this idea. English classes still expect you to read a piece and know the authors tone. Only one problem. I do not hear the author, and neither does anyone else. Welcome to multiple guess.
George Will takes a very similar position in saying that the purposes of literary writings has become a matter of political gain, not related to the culture of the time period it was written in. George Orwell states that literary works are considered "a literary canon [as] an instrument of domination." If this were true then all works ever written would have been with the intention of keeping someone below them. But what about the feminists such as Emily Dickinson. She was obviously not in a position of power over anyone and yet she still wrote poems. Poems alluding to feminist rage for being dominated over. George Will believes that literary interpretations have become centered about politics.
Stephen Greenblatt assumes a much more liberal approach to the interpretation of literature. He is bold enough to challenge that Shakespeare's The Tempest is not about imperialism. He states this because "it is very difficult to argue that The Tempest is not about imperialism. It is, of course, about many other things. These other things are what literary scholars should investigate. It should not become a matter of politics and only one way to read a text.
Nice post, I liked the quotes from each side of the debate that you chose to include. I thought each quote summed up each side just right. The only problem I found is that you didn’t obviously state which side of the debate you were on. I assumed you were on Will’s side because you seemed to expand more on his ideas. If you are with Will, then I agree with you. I feel the same as Will, and possibly you, in that I think people and critics try to analyze the heck out of literature, even when it’s a clear, obvious piece of literature. It bugs me sometimes that critic’s pull out pieces of information from literature that you would have had to have previous knowledge about a different debate or novel. Anyways, I thought you summed this debate up fine and gave justice to each writer’s side. Good job.
ReplyDeletegood job on the post, i think my favorite part was "internet peoples" lol, but i agree with AJ in that i think that you did a really good job quoting from the text, which really helped to strenghten your blog. I personally agree with Greenblatt more than Will, but you did a good of explaining why you supported Will in the debate. I also liked the way that you tied in back into what we were talking about in class, that there is always going to be more than one interpretation of an idea, and that the school system hasnt caught onto this yet, which is proven through them still using multiple choice as a means to test us. I could tell that when you read the article that you were able to develop a clear understanding of it, i struggled in understanding it, so after reading your post it became more clear, so yeah ... good job on the post
ReplyDeleteI figured I’d finish it out and have all three of us comment this thing(: I feel like you didn’t really pick a complete side, I think like myself you agreed with parts of both, which is understandable. They both have an upside and a down side. You can never know what the author truly meant in a piece of work, I’ve said that plenty of times, but some do need to be analyzed and thought completely through. While others, may not be quite so complex. I fond that people have trouble picking what is complex and what is not, that’s why there is so much over analysis. However just as you and Zach have both said, I don't think you can ever settle on one meaning of a text, multiple guess and such. Anyways, good job. See you in class(:
ReplyDeleteYou're right Zach, I did forget that comma. It was those darn internet people. And why not have all four of us comment on a single post? Mission completed.
ReplyDelete