George Will's article argued that the critics were being too frigid with literary works. Will disagreed with the critics because the critics that are performing this, is overpowering the author's original intentions of the piece's motivation of why it was written and the tone the work was composed in. He also states that all literature is political. I believe that Will's argument is to just tell us that as critics overwrites or retells the story or the literary work, it doesn't make it seem quite right. It sort of destroys the meaning of the work that the original author wrote.
Stephen Greenblatt argued that at least on should know political and historical knowledge before actually going into a piece of literature. He talks about the "cement" that artists get stuck in, due to the closed society, "but art, the art that matters, is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing. A love of literature may help to forge a 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". This quote tells of how Greenblatt feels about how art should actually be and not just some type of wall with figurings on it but art should have meaning and passion to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment