In discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been theme of colonialism. On the one hand, Will argues we are over-analyzing the text and steering away from its original meaning. On the other hand, Greenblatt contends in-depth analyzing gives readers more of an understanding. However, my own view agrees somewhat with both.
George Will strongly believes that too much analyzing of a text can distract readers from the true meaning. Totally understandable. Sometimes when analyzing texts in classes I highly doubt that a dad wearing a black raincoat means he's going to die tomorrow. Some of the things people come up with just seem ridiculous. Over analyzing and trying to dig deeper and deeper on one subject can really ruin the true meaning. Readers get so caught up in analyzing and analyzing that they forget what it is truly about. Although I do agree with his opinion, I also agree with Stephen Greenblatt.
In opposition, Greenblatt thinks that digging further into texts helps readers understand more what the intent it. Also very true. When I am analyzing something in class, I get many different perspectives and ideas. Maybe it could mean this or maybe the author really was portraying him that way. There are so many options on how to interpret texts. Despite the fact that analyzing deeper into a text can better help me understand it, I do not want to be told how to interpret my text.
As for the Tempest, I can see both perspectives of Will and Greenblatt. In the instance of Caliban, some think he is a savage, while others see him as a victim. Greenblatt would delve deeper into Shakespeare's' writing, coming up with possible ideas that he may of had. I find these opinions of portrayal interesting, however I cannot be 100% sure of what exactly Shakespeare was trying to get out of the character. We could spend hours and hours debating over Calibans' character, or we could look at it, think about it, and form an opinion. I feel there is no need to dig so deep into something that we lose the original meaning. Shakespeare wrote the Tempest for a reason, and although we may not know the exact reason why, we are free to interpret it in whichever way we want.
If you haven't had enough of this play, you're in luck: we're going to turn this into an essay.
ReplyDeleteYou mention how, "I feel there is no need to dig so deep into something that we lose the original meaning. Shakespeare wrote the Tempest for a reason, and although we may not know the exact reason why, we are free to interpret it in whichever way we want." Does it matter how we interpret it? Does it matter how people are represented in texts? Should we read critically--or just blithely accept whatever information passes our way? You might consider some of these questions when grappling with the purpose of critial reading . . .