A Literary Debate

This argument is primarily on the topic of how Shakespeare’s works are analyzed and interpreted. George Will believes that interpreting Shakespeare’s literature in order that it reflects on supposed current day issues (feminism, colonialism, etc.) works against the commoner simply attempting to enjoy his works by making them not understandable. On the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt claims that the very cores of Shakespeare’s works were concerned with these types of issues, and that his audience understood the controversial topics such as slavery and colonialism. Greenblatt argues that getting to the deeper meaning of Shakespeare’s works show his intentions and allow the reader to truly enjoy what they are reading. Greenblatt believes that George Will simply wants to ignore the seemingly obvious connection Shakespeare attempts to make with his works like The Tempest. George Will claims that professors of literature are destroying Shakespeare’s literature by portraying it as symbolic of issues like imperialism. He claims it is “collective amnesia and deculturation,” while Greenblatt claims it is impossible to understand Shakespeare’s works without “grappling with the dark energies upon which Shakespeare’s art so powerfully draws.” After reading both sides of the argument, I feel that I agree with Stephen Greenblatt more so than George Will. While I do understand why George Will feels the way he does about how Shakespeare’s works are portrayed, I believe one should have the freedom to analyze literature. If one does not analyze literature, it is meaningless in my opinion. The work is useless if no one attempts to extract the potential meaning, no matter how pessimistic it may be. I believe Greenblatt’s comment on how the dark energies must be “grappled” with sums up the entire situation pretty well. In order to truly analyze Shakespeare’s works, we have to dig deeper than the surface, and be willing to unearth some controversial beliefs.