In his article, George F. Will suggests that academics are rendering their readings to an unrecognizable state, reinterpreting the original to a state that is undistinguishable to its everyday audience. Stephen Greenblatt replies back with an article of his own, arguing that there is a far greater risk if academics refuse to question about the past, since the understanding and recognition of literary and political issues are needed to deepen the reader’s insights.
The argument I would have to agree with would be Greenblatt’s, because I believe that what he argues about is true. Unlike his, Will’s argument seems a little more impossible to me. Maybe the fog of sleep is getting to me, but what Will argues about does not seem to reach my agreement, nor even reach me; I am partially confused with what he is arguing about half the time. Except from what he tells of Carol Iannone, only some of his writing got across to me. For example, I think I get it when he states that “by attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority” (Will 112). By “attacking the meaning,” it would mean for people to have read and studied the meaning, and therefore replace with their own interpretation, right? And because everyone has their own opinions and their own view on things, our interpretations would differentiate if not the same, right? Maybe, I do not get this line as much as I claim to because why would having one’s own interpretation “strip literature” of its own powers? Literature has its own ways of spelling out what it means with words of feeling, phrases of imagery, symbols, etc, but cannot we all analyze our readings differently still? By rendering a reading, would we not understand it more? Or am I not even close to Will’s train of argument?
Although Will’s article is harder, still, for me to understand, I find Greenblatt’s to be easier and more compatible with what I believe. In his article, he states that “art… is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing. A love of literature may help to forge community, but it is a community founded on imaginative freedom, the play of language, and scholarly honesty, and not on flag waving, boosterism, and conformity” (Greenblatt 115). The freedom of speech is at work here or should be at work. Whatever we think of cannot be tamed with our professor’s values or point of view; unless we are on the wrong train of thought; in a way, this reminds me of our multiple choice questions. Anyways, the curriculum of literary scholars should not be built of uniformity because there are several ways in which people can make their argument. Like how there are several roads in which our lives can head to, or like how we have not one but many choices to life, or something of the sort. Literature is not meant to be tamed, quite, or grey; it should be like something of a painting with expression shown through every shape and color.I know this has been very off topic, but I could not exactly get to the point, so... sorry for a poor analysis.
I totally agree with you that Greenblatt's argument was more understandable than Will's. I sided with Greenblatt as well. I agree that his views are more agreeable because he is saying that literature has many interpretations, not just the one the teacher or professor suggests. Now that we went over the whole issue in class I understand it a bit more; Will is basically saying there is one correct way to interpret a novel or any work. In my opinion, he is trying to give a higher power to himself and the "writer" authority. When you talk about the freedom of speech, do you mean that the readers have a freedom of speech? I think it would be better understood when you say that although there is a freedom of speech, that comes along with the freedom of interpretation(if the right were ever placed in the Articles). But nonetheless, I can still understand what you're trying to say. Good job on interpreting this hard piece of work!
ReplyDeleteSigh…hi Paya sweetie. I have to say I really enjoyed this blog post. It’s so “Paya.” Well to start off with, I think we all did really well on this blog post like really good. My favorite quote from this blog post is “Maybe the fog of sleep is getting to me.” You are so cute. I can totally picture you falling asleep. Don’t stay up so late okay? You’re getting sleep deprived and that is not good for your health. But anyways, back to the subject. I loved how you asked questions in your blog like saying “right?” I agreed with your reasons for siding with Stephen Greenblatt because I also sided with him. Oh, and about your last sentence, there is no right or wrong and I’m sure everyone’s blog post went off topic and this was NOT a poor analysis. It was done very well with very much thought especially when it’s so early in the morning too So there you go, keep up your amazing thoughts and sorry for the very random comment. Comment you later!
ReplyDeleteWoah! Hi Miss Paya!
ReplyDeleteWell, to start off, great job! The way you interpret the article is very insightful! I like how you stated,"Maybe the fog of sleep is getting to me, but what Will argues about does not seem to reach my agreement, nor even reach me; I am partially confused with what he is arguing about half the time." I like you you used "fog" to describe your tiredness. Very great job! I love it! You also used a lot of qoutes to back up your side. One thing I like reading about your posting is that you have such a great mind! aha. You just use a lot of text-to-text and text-to-world. You have a lot to relate back and forth to. That is also why I like reading your blogs:) You also took a lot of thoughts into writing this and I would totally appluase you for beating me-5:47am!! Paya! Come on! I have excuses for staying up late for these stuff! aha! Just kidding with you! Keep up the great work! I am looking forward to your next one.