These two articles discuss the issue of interpreting literature in different ways and the effects the interpretation can have. In his article, George Will comments that straying from the traditional interpretation of a piece degrades it and essentially discredits the very ideas and works that Western Civilization was founded on. He also says that politics play an influential role in literature as he says, "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." In response, Stephen Greenblatt argues that it is not demeaning to literature to explore its "hidden" meanings, but rather it is essential in order to fully grasp the true meaning of the piece. Both sides make a strong argument, but I agree with Greenblatt; literature is meant to be explored and interpreted in a way that may be different from the accepted meaning, the interpretation must be made by the individual.
I agree with Greenblatt because literature is nothing without interpretation and connections with history and issues throughout the world. When discussing how some people feel about the controversial issues in Shakespearian plays such as racism and anti-Semitism, Greenblatt says, "It is, I believe, all but impossible to understand these plays without grappling with the dark energies upon which Shakespeare's art so powerfully draws." This point is powerful because we do not know what message Shakespeare was trying to convey when he wrote his pieces, we do not know if he wrote the Tempest to praise or criticize imperialism; therefore we must form our own opinions about the text and interpet it in our unique way. When commenting on the people who believe in these ideas of literary interpretation, Will claims that, "social disintegration is the political goal of the revolution that is sweeping campuses." His claim is understandable, to him (and others who agree with him) new interpretations of classic texts would be concerning and frightening; however, new ways of understanding literary works is not contributing to "deculturation," but rather to a further understanding of what the author may have been attempting to convey when he or she wrote the piece. Students must interpret pieces in new and clever ways because that is the only way new ideas will be born in to the discussion of literature and not be hindered by the "social cement" of traditional interpretations.
I envy your blogging skills and interpretations.
ReplyDeleteThat's why you ask him for help rosalinda! haha, anyways..
ReplyDeleteSo, I can tell that you were the many few that actually understood this; I on the other hand was not one those lucky few. Like rosalinda said, I am jealous of your interpretations (the making of a journalist!). I agree with you on the whole siding with Greenblatt issue. He sees the whole literary issue on the side of reality and how literature will always be interpreted. People all have different perspectives, and I think it will be nearly impossible for one not to see a different meaning of a piece of work. I think that rather than "deculturing" a text and it's meaning, its bringing more diversity and culture to the literature world. In that I mean that when people bring in new ideas, its adding to a pool of ideas that have been already discussed. Therefore, it is bringing a diversity of ideas and interpretations. G, you are way too good with words and interpretations and understanding!
G, good job. Nice blog. I like it. It was cool. Nice interpretation. Very insightful. helped me a lot. I learned a lot. A lot of reading your blog..
ReplyDeleteAnyways,I as well as Crystal and Rosalinda, am jealous that you understood what the heck those two guys were talking about. You did a very good jobin making clear what the main point of their arguements were. After reading your blof i gained much insight that helped me finally figure out what they were talking about. I agree with your stnadpoint that there are many ways to look at a piece of literature, and that by analyzing it, we fo no strip the culture from it.
Giancarlo, this is a really good posting, and I agree completely, that we need to understand a text's history as well as its story. I like the fact that you kept the summarization simple and comprehensible as well as limiting it to one paragraph leaving the rest to discussing your own personal stand. I also am glad to see someone take a serious and definite stand on the subject and present a reasonable argument as well. I also appreciated the way you dealt with Will's side as well and not completely refuse his points and leave him out. Again, really liked this posting.
ReplyDeleteHey there Giancarlo, First of all i just wanted to say wow I really need to ask you for help next time because you really sound like you know what you are writing about! Anyway, I wanted to say i entirely agree with what you said about a piece of literature and being able to connect it with history. I think that the history of a piece of literature is just as important as the story behind it and we can't lose the meaning of the history otherwise we have opinion. Also I really lost the meaning of the text. I think that you really took both debates into consideration and really analyzed each one very well while stating your liked that you ended with the statement about creating new ideas from literature and how important it is to grow away from the "traditional" way of interpreting a text. Once again good job and i really enjoyed reading your posting.
ReplyDeleteNice job paper weight you really analyzed this text thoroughly. You did a great job picking a side of an argument you were on and using text from the source to explain your self. Furthermore I agree with your ideas in your post and that context and politics mater when analyzing a text and that it is impossible to get meaning form a story when you only consider what is in the print and not what the author was experiencing at the time. This gives you insight to what the author wanted you to fell and lets you get the intended effects of his piece of text.
ReplyDelete