There is a question on The Tempest that directly delves into the core of education; should we critique a piece of literature solely by face value, or should we dig deeper and take the history and context of the piece into consideration? There have been many discussions on the subject, particularly surrounding The Tempest, and there are numerous opinions. Stephen Greenblatt agrees with the later. He finds it extremely necessary for the reader to search into the text and derive for themselves any and all possible meanings from the words that lie between the lines; especially in the case of The Tempest. To him, researching and interpreting can only heighten the reader’s experience and is the reason why we read in the first place. On the other hand, George Will finds this method of reading to be highly counter-productive and insulting to the author’s original intent. He thinks that by reading too far into a text, we can completely destroy the author’s meaning and replace it with our own. He argues that this is what political powers often do to strengthen their arguments, and that we should just enjoy the work for its face value and nothing more. In the case of The Tempest, enjoy the beauty of the words that Shakespeare artfully designed unto the page and leave it at that. To help keep it at this, he suggests that we establish one concrete interpretation of every literary work. My own argument lies somewhere between the two. I think Shakespeare's views on colonialism can be found without having to dig unnecessarily deep into the text and it is my plan to make and support my own argument on the interpretation of The Tempest by pulling evidence and ideas from both Greenblatt and Wilson. Mmhmm. I do. It’s a fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment