Just a head's up for you, I'm pretty much ready to crash, so this blog might not make sense. If you have anything to say that might help me, you should comment on this. It would be greatly appreciated. :)
In discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been whether or not Shakespeare intended for an emphasis on colonialism to be analyzed. While it is agreed upon that the play does highlight colonialism throughout, the issue of whether or not it should be analyzed has been debated. George Will argues that the analysis of literature is "rendering the plays unrecognizable to the ordinary reader and playgoer." On the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt says that analyzing literature through a "lens" such as postcolonialism will deepen "the ordinary reader's pleasure rather than undermine it."
Even though I've said previously that I was on the fence between who I agree with more, I have decided that I agree with Greenblatt moreso than I do Will. While they both make valid points on the analysis of Shakespearean literature, Greenblatt's stance on analyzing in order to find a deeper meaning within literary works allows me as a writer to have a lot more freedom when writing about The Tempest. When I say that I have more freedom, I am talking about the fact that looking at and analyzing the play through different perspectives, I will begin to see and develop new insights to the play itself. Through the use of analyzing Shakespeare's emphasis on colonialism through lenses such as postcolonialism, I can formulate my own ideas, and therefore contribute to the overall discussion between Will and Greenblatt on the analysis of literature. By using both Will and Greenblatt's ideas and combining them with my own, I think that my overall paper on The Tempest will be stronger and have a valid contribution to the debate presented.
No comments:
Post a Comment