Literature has always been an abstract subject, with no definitive right or wrong answer. As a result, opposing views shall always be formed. Our job for this assignment was to read the two articles: George Will's Literary Politics and Stephen Greenblatt's The Best Way to Kill our Literature is to Turn it into a Decorous Celebration of the New World Order. Both authors had differing ideas on the content of literature. George Will argues that authors already have a predetermined motive in their writings, and that critics over analyze the writings, thereby incorporating some of their own political bias in their analysis.
As Will describes it, "The supplanting of esthetic by political responses to literature makes literature primarily interesting as a mere index of who had power and whom the powerful victimized." He states that political analysis only serves to devalue the author while giving the critics the title of decoders of literature. He criticizes "the eruption of group politics in literature". Will believes that if critics keep analyzing the text with political bias it will only take away the intended meaning of the author. Will's alternative solution is to just let the original meaning of the text take its way.
In contrast, Greenblatt has an opposing view. He believes that texts should be read and analyzed in search for possible interpretations. In terms of The Tempest, he encourages students to ask questions about colonialism and sovereignty. Greenblatt states, "These are among the issues that literary scholars investigate and encourage their students to consider, and I would think that the columnists who currently profess an ardent interest in our cultural heritage would approve". He believes that connecting the text to outside themes allows the student to fully understand the writing better. Greenblatt believes that if students relate colonialism to The Tempest than it can serve to teach us about "forgiveness, wisdom, and social atonement".
In my opinion I think both articles have a right answer to them. If you analyze something you might inherently form some political bias. Then there is also the potential to over analyze something. For example, I could over analyze Dr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham and twist it to say that it is a critic of modern society. Obviously, it wouldn't reflect the author's original meaning. However, I agree with Greenblatt in that, I think to fully understand some novels, you must take into account the time frame when it was written and also try to relate it to other events. Overall, I guess I agree with both articles.
I totally agree with you. I think that both are right in a certain way. It is very hard to write a book without political bias, and it is also very easy to over analyze what you read. I think in English, a lot of teachers have their students over analyze literature. This actually does strip the literature of its power. We sometimes form it into something that we feel fit, when the author never intended it that way. I do also realize that there are some complicated meanings in some works of literature. It might feel like you are over analyzing, but the author may have wanted you to dig deep. Therefore I agree with both writers to a certain degree on this literary debate, but I find myself leaning more towards George Will's argument. I think that in most cases students over analyze the text and strip the subject matter of its true meaning.
ReplyDeleteSundeep, i think you did an awesome job at summarizing both sides of the article, and explaining your personal point of view. i completely agree with you that both articles are right in their own way. it is completely possible to over-analyze a text in such a way that there is no sign, of any points the author was trying to make, in ones understanding. on the otherhand, like you said, when reading some novels in order to fully understand whats going on, you need to analyze. i think that either way, an opinion is going to be formed by the reader whether it is consious or not. good job analyzing, and you did a great job using quotes to support your findings.
ReplyDeleteVery good post. Good job of summarizing the articles and using relative quotes. I think that you captured the essence of what was said. I personally believe that both articles have areas in which they are right and areas in which they are wrong as well. I would say that there are three ways in which texts' meanings can be interpreted: by what the author intended the text to say, by what you (the reader) believe the text is saying, and by how the text's meaning relates to the truth of the universe. The problems with this are that: we can never know for sure what the author wrote into the text, we can't know exactly what parts of our conclusions we are reading into the text compared to what is in it, and we cannot know the entire truth about everything in this universe (though I say we can learn all that we need to know through the Bible and science). Thus, I say that there is an absolute truth, but that we must keep analyzing to find it. At the same time, we cannot completely discard tradition as it is often correct.
ReplyDeleteI apologize in advance for the complexity of this.
I like your post just as usual. You clearly compared both of the argument provided by Greenblatt and Will about how literature really should be. The way you separate the paragraph is just awesome; I was not cofused at all. Basically what I am saying is that you have really good structure in your comment. Just like last time’s comment, I really like the way you highlight the quotes you uses to support your main idea. “In my opinion I think both articles have a right answer to them. If you analyze something you might inherently form some political bias. Then there is also the potential to over analyze something.” I believe that this is your idea of demonstrating the argument. You used the examples later on to support your claim, which is a very good thing to do. At last, I have to accolade your ability of analyzing an argument, or usually an essay. I cannot wait to read your next phenomenal comment to a specific argument.
ReplyDelete