Literary Debate!

Since the beginning of time, there has never really been a right or wrong answer to anything. This is purely apparent when it comes to literature. No two people will ever comprehend and view a piece of literature exactly the same as their companion. Literature is written with open interpretations and different sides that can be presented and represented. The literary debate between Stephen Greenblatt and George Will is a prime example of just this. In both essays, Will’s, “Literary Politics,” and Greenblatt’s, “The Best Way to Kill Our Literary Inheritance is to Turn It Into a Decorous Celebration of the New World Order,” the authors find their argument and stand by it, analyzing works of literature. As easy as this may be for them with their predetermined views, this may not be the intent of the original author. Take Shakespeare, for example. His intent on writing the thirty six plays in his lifetime was for them to be performed on a stage, not read and analyzed in a classroom. However, that is not the case.
George Will feels that an author has a set intent and focus in his or her writing, which is critically over analyzed. Because of this, he feels the critics force some of their own political biases into the original work, that may or may not be true to the original author. He says that “as esthetic judgments are politicized, political judgments are estheticized…” meaning that judgments are formed to please the audience on a political bias.
Stephen Greenblatt blatantly disagrees with Mr. Will. “A love of literature may help to forge community, but it is a community founded on imaginative freedom, the play of language, and scholarly honesty, and not on flag waving, boosterism, and conformity.” He feels that works of literature are open to different interpretations as well as different lessons to be learned and points to understand.
I agree with Stephen Greenblatt’s argument that literature is open to different interpretations through analyzation, and there are many lessons to be learned and different reasonings. On the other hand, I can also agree with George Will in that over analyzing can ruin the intent and vision of the original author. With nearly every writing, like Shakespeare, we will never be able to clearly understand the sole purpose and focus the author was trying to make.