In discussions of how a text should be read, the traditional view is formed by George Will and his view of analyzing the text for its aesthetics. However, there may be other ways to think about this text. For one thing, Stephen Greenblatt explains that texts should be read for their political value to forward society to learn from previous mistakes or triumphs. And Greenblatt also contends that if we only discuss text for its aesthetic value we will lose on the value of the text as a learning mechanism. “The best way to kill our literary inheritance is to turn it into a decorous liturgical celebration of the new world order. Poets cannot soar when their feet are stuck in the social cement.”. Therefore, taking these positions into account, we can see that both argument have a sense of truth and must find a perfect medium for literature to fully be appreciated for its worth.
For this essay the best source would be the article entitled “Literary Study, Politics, ad Shakespeare: A Debate” This article outlines everything one needs to know about this debate, giving both side to the debate in a lengthy fashion. I can quote from these articles to further the development of my essay, but in the same token, it allows me to conjure up my own values in this debate. Another beneficial essay to use would be Cesaire’s A Tempest. Her interpretation of The Tempest completely amplifies the amount of post colonialist values in the play. Her text could allow me to make an argument for both sides of the debate showing how it could add or detract from the literature of the play itself. I think these articles in combination would be the right recipe for a great essay. & that’s what I’m throwin’
(Posted 10/20/2010 but like the previous blog the date has been changed to reduce confusion and interference).
No comments:
Post a Comment