Well, Shakespeare is boring enough to read, let alone when I have to THINK about it. Ugh. But the sarcasm used throughout these articles was pretty good, I won’t lie. Truthfully, I don’t know who to agree completely with, but if I did have to choose a side, I think I would go with that of Stephen Greenblatt…and not just because his last name is kind of funny. I choose him partly because of what he has to say, and also, I was somewhat distracted when I was reading George Will’s article, and thus what he had to say didn’t seem very interesting or appealing.
I will start my argument (Is this an argument?) by saying that the only thing, in particular, that George Will stated that caught my attention is that "…culture is oppressive and a literary canon is an instrument of domination." Well, I guess I can admit that SOME areas of culture are oppressive, but I wouldn’t blame that on culture; I would say that that is human nature, to feel the need that we are higher than others and thus are cruel to them to feel that power. So to bring culture into it, to me, sounds oblivious, like he was just saying it to say it. Weak. And about the literary canon: Wow; he really thinks that we are just controlled by the guy with the puppet strings (in his mind, the author), that we fall for whatever we read? I don’t think so. Real life tends to take bigger charge in molding our beliefs, I think. Not what some guy made up. Just saying.
"The student of Shakespeare who asks about racism, misogyny, or anti-Semitism is not on the slippery slope toward what George Will calls "collective amnesia and deculturation,"" says Stephen Greenblatt. So true. Literature is not some disease, in the awful way George Will describes it to be. I may not be some literary scholar or read classics in my spare time, but I do appreciate bits and pieces from them. They’re enlightening, not controlling. So Will can calm his butt down. We read it (or SparkNotes) because we have to, and I don’t think that will be changing anytime soon. In the meantime, let us go on our merry way, reading what is required of us—NOT being subconsciously manipulated by the lines and what may metaphorically lie between—and continue to be enlightened, or not, the way we always have or have not been. Why mess with the classics? They’re classic for a reason, apparently.
Pretty sure I may have gotten the guys' views opposite of what they actually are; I didn't follow the articles a bit, so my opinions are based solely on the quotes I've cited and probably not on the entirity of each article, due to my lack of attempt at comprehension. Just saying..
Pretty sure I may have gotten the guys' views opposite of what they actually are; I didn't follow the articles a bit, so my opinions are based solely on the quotes I've cited and probably not on the entirity of each article, due to my lack of attempt at comprehension. Just saying..
Leanne, I enjoy your honesty. I agree with the fact that George Will was horribly, disgustingly boring. Yet I found his argument to be the more convincing. You seem to have taken the quote about "collective amnesia and deculturation" a bit out of context; George Will does not refer to literature itself as being a disease, but the groups of people who nitpick a piece of writing and decide upon a specific political goal the writer had in mind. Will does not say that students of Shakespeare should not ask about racism, misogyny, or anti-Semitism, but instead argues against groups of readers pulling from the writing a whole new focus merely for the sake of putting that political belief in the spotlight. Basically, he sees it as unfair to read The Diary of Anne Frank and then decide that it is a proud achievement for feminists simply because its main character is a strong woman figure.
ReplyDeleteAlso. You point out that you wish "NOT [to be] subconsciously manipulated by the lines and what may metaphorically lie between," but that is exactly what Greenblatt and his hilariously unfortunate name advocates; finding something that may be hinted at within the text. George Will is a bit more black and white. But he's still pretty subjective, thinking that there is a right answer to the writing. So you're right. I enjoyed reading your writing.
I absolutely loved this blog. You took a stance though you couldn't understand much of it (the exact same thing I did), and I feel those of us that did not really understand very much was due to the excessive language that was used in the articles. I personally feel that they were trying to out do each other and seem more intelligent just by the average number of letters each word contained. Based on the quotes you selected I feel that you made very good, strong, well supported by intelligent commentary, points. I also loved the sarcasm and comedic points of your blog. This was actually fun to read, unlike the articles given (sorry Dominguez). But you definitely made very good points about very valid issues in today's literary criticism regardless of if you were slightly out of context on who said what. (:
ReplyDeleteOh Leanne, why are we always thinking the same? Shakespeare is so impossibly hard to read. I think these articles may have been harder to understand, it was hard for me to get the language down. I really liked your quotes, you had strong commentary that was EASY to read! Haha, you make it fun to read! I agree with what you said about some guy controlling us as puppets. That's dumb. I personally don't agree or believe everything that I read. I think we all have our opinions on things regardless with what the author says. You're pretty honest with all your writing, I love how you just straight up say it. These articles are tough but you take what you can and write on it. I love you and your background :) good night !
ReplyDeleteLeanne I am totally with you! I probably didn't cover any of key points in the articles, but I discussed what I understood, and that's all you get. haha But what you did talk about, you argued very well. I definitely agree that the points Greenblatt made were more convincing and easier to understand. Literature should not be so heavy and controlling, it should be up to the interpretation of the reader. Also, literature is written, as you said, to enlighten the people, not to control the way they think (ooh nice 1984 segway! haha :)) Anyways, you made some great points and I loved the way you were so straight forward with your opinions. Great job!
ReplyDelete