I have not had so much trouble getting myself to even start on a blog post until this one. Seriously, this was ridiculous. But that may be because I don't understand very well what is going on. But I swear, I'm working on it. Okay anyhow, down to business sorta.
In the argumentative articles regarding the views of Stephen Greenblatt and George Will, the issue at hand was the presence of politics in literature. One guy sees politics in literature, the other guy does not; they argued about it. It was lovely, long-worded, long-sentenced, and just beautiful...yeh, not. As in my last post, I will stand by my own idea that politics are not incorporated in literature unless it is intended that they be. However, it is all up to one's own upbringing to decide what he or she gets or does not get out of the piece being read.
When it comes to Shakespeare, though, well he always has something different to say. Every one of his plays is different from the next, and I find that beautiful, amazing even. I do not see politics in his pieces, no. But each piece has its very own meaning. I don't understand his style most of the time, but I do respect his diversity. And that is how I see all literature; every novel, poem, play, whatever has its own unique style to portray its theme, or moral.
The way I see it, literature is just literature (the "just" isn't being said out of nonchalance or ignorance; I just mean that people are putting all these extra and unneeded ingredients into it). It is a way for the writer to express himself or herself in whatever way he or she pleases; it doesn't matter how things are said. And as far as the readers go, well we should read with just the same freedom as the writers write. We do not have any set format in how we should interpret what we read. Nonetheless, we should have complete and utter freedom in doing so. That is literature.
