in the two articlles we read they were arguing about who is a better choice for the chairwoman of MLA. they aregued that having this woman wouldnt be a good idea since she was not acredited an enough college courses. George Will argues that "all Literature is political"(111). He supports his argument with examples of literary works from Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, and Jane Austen. His support includes political models such as feminism, colonialism, and, racism. His believe by criticizing literary work the critic will make the authors intended purpose into a political argument. He feels that literary work should be defined by what the text implies not what happens between the lines. He also says that if literary work is criticized it becomes a matter of "who had power and whom the powerful victimized"(111).
Now on the other hand Stephen Greenblatt believes the complete opposite. When he finds the message in the passage he believes that the message heightens the readers experience. He thinks if we do not find the hidden politics and analyze them we will face “the risk that we might turn our artistic inheritance into a simple, reassuring, soporific life.” Greenblatt doesn't think that there should not be a specific way to analyze the literature. He says that "art is not cement"(115). He believes that the reader should be able to have their own opinion about the text and should be able to state their opinion.
After reading both the debate between both authors I could not decide on whose side I would take. Half of me agreed with George Will and the other half agree with Stephen Greenblatt, but something about Greenblatt made him stand out more to me. So i would probably agree with Greenblatt only, because everyone interprets passages or the message from the passage differently. Whether their belief or thought about the passage or its message be right or wrong, everyone has their own opinion. I believe people should be able to state them too just like Greenblatt believes. Literature is a place were the mind can sorta run free and just be whatever it wants too be.
I found this article a little confusing and your description of the article definitely helped me out in understanding it. Both of these authors had some great points and I agreed with both of them. Overall though I would agree with you because I also found Greenblatts ideas insightful. I think that analyzing the text is very important. Most pieces of writing have latent meanings that are very important. I like how you said that in literature our mind should be be able to run free. Its so important to see all the points of view that are hidden beneath the surface content. Greenblatt explains why we need to analyze the text rather just take in what the literal writing says. If you only see one side of a story it can take away from the writing. A good author incorporates multiple meanings in their writing. Well good job I appreciated what you had to say on this text.
ReplyDelete