After reading through the two articles written by George Will and Stephen Greenblatt, I find it hard to really take a side on the debate. The articles are arguing about how literature is being read, hence how it is being written in the long run.
In George Will's article he is trying to explain that all is controlled by political agendas and feelings. This is shown when he says, "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political". When he says this he is pretty much stating that all types of literature are based on some type of political meaning. Instead of there being some type of specific meaning this quote is stating that it will always tie back to politics.
On the other hand in Stephen Greenblatt's article he argues against Will's article. He is stating the complete opposite when he says "But art, the art that matters, is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing". This shows that he believes instead of everything being based on one political meaning he believes that there can be several different ways to interpret something. He also strengthens this argument when he says "Poets cannot soar when their feet are stuck in social cement". This also points out that you can not be as creative when you are just using one idea. You need to make it so there can be several different interpretations to make it interesting.
It is hard for me to really choose one side because both prove some pretty good points. I think I can side with both of them in the end. I would side with Will because I believe there are some things in literature that are based on politics and are used to get a certain view across, but this is where I split my decision because I do not believe all literature is like this. I also agree with Greenblatt because other literature pieces usually show many different ideas and not only just one idea.
Yeah i didn't really take a side either, the arguments were so well balanced and all that, it was difficult. However, i support Greenblat more strongly because I found more of a basis in his defence, while I thought that tryhard Will's article was more of an attempted attack... attempted and failed might I add, as pointed out in my blog the latter fellow was intellectually spanked, it was intense.
ReplyDeleteYour blog did a good job pointing out your views on the matter, and your quotations were great. You cat.
Hey mannnnn this was a really interesting post and i really liked the ideas that you had. It seemed, unlike myself, that you actually understood the articles. We had similar stances on which side to choose; also felt like Will's side was the way to go, but then i thought "hey not all literature is like this." Therefore, i am undecided. In my blog post i think i said that i sided with Greenblatt, apparently i didn't fully understand his arguement, but after reading your amazing post i now understand. So thanks Mr.Eberly for opening my eyes....Good job. You cat.
ReplyDelete