Will vs. Greenblatt?!?

            George Will’s main argument is that not all literature has political tendencies. He firmly argues that scholars and academics are looking for political messages in everything and that it is ruining literary pieces. Will describes his belief on why Carol Iannone’s nomination to the NEH advisory board is being met with so much opposition by the MLA. Will’s thought is that the MLA, which is “saturated with the ideology that politics permeate everything,” does not accept Iannone because she is not “one of them.” He describes how she is the vice president of the National Association of Scholars whom firmly believe against the politicization of higher education. In short, Iannone is against the MLA’s most dear beliefs.

            Stephen Greenblatt’s response to George Will’s article focuses on the belief that literature, most specifically The Tempest, are filled with highly politicized messages. Greenblatt believes that “it is very had to argue that The Tempest is not about imperialism” and that Shakespeare clearly wrote with a political stance in mind. Greenblatt then casts off the idea of “a wicked plot by renegade professors bent on sabotaging Western civilization by delegitimizing its founding texts and ideas” as an insane conspiracy theory. In short, Greenblatt portrays George Will as a lunatic.

            I am more inclined to agree with George Will for several reasons. Will gives more information about Carol Iannone and clearly describes her and her beliefs. He gives strong evidence to support his portrayal, such as the fact the she is the VP of a group that is against the politicization of higher education. Will also shows his opinion about the MLA and their beliefs by giving other’s political interpretations about famous works. In doing so, Will shows how people often find political messages when the author had no intention of doing so. I also found George Will to be a more credible source simply because of how Stephen Greenblatt responded. Greenblatt spends more time describing and attacking Will and making him seem like an idiot than arguing Will’s assertions. I felt that Greenblatt had a weaker argument because he spent so much time creating a crazed persona of Will than arguing and rebutting Will’s remarks. Also, Greenblatt said very little about Carol Iannone and the MLA specifically.