Like many of my peers, I found the literary debate a little difficult to follow at times. I do; however, believe I got the gist of the positions expressed by both George Will and Stephen Greenblatt. The debate between the two men concerns Ronald Reagan’s appointment of Carol Iannone to the NEH Board and what it means with regards to literary criticism.
Will is very much in favor of Iannone’s appointment. He says that her appointment will help restore balance in the literary world so that literary criticism will be tamed slightly and not reflect the liberal political agenda as much. Will states that , “All literature is, whether writes are conscious of it or not, political.” He goes on to highlight several social issues that come out politically in literature, such as feminism/sexism and colonialism. Iannone is quoted to say that “the eruption of politics in literature….have become instruments of racial, ethinic, and social reparations for Western Civilization’s sins.” He declares that literary criticism, which dares to speak for the author, is bad and robs the reader. In short, Will declares that Iannone should be put on the NEH board despite the board’s disapproval of the action because it would balance out the politics involved in literature.
On the other hand, Greenblatt says that the social issues that present themselves in literature are essential to its greatness. He challenges Will’s position regarding Shakespeare’s The Tempest not truly being about imperialism. “The play,” he says, “-set on a mysterious island over whose inhabitants a European prince has assumed total control- is full of conspicuous allusions to contemporary debates over the project of colonization.” He continuously contradicts Will’s claims regarding The Tempest, justifying his position over and over again. Greenblatt says that his chief concern with the appointment of someone like Iannone is that literary criticism that highlights the social issues for which, according to him, literature is supposed to represent , will disappear completely.
Like I said, I didn’t totally understand a lot of this article. It was hard for me to really make a connection between Iannone’s appointment and the issue of literary criticism. I did get a something out of it though.
Blair I found your analysis of the argument presented to us down to earth and very feasible to read. You addressed both of the critics’ positions accurately and were truthful about your understanding of the material at hand. Your careful reading of the debate is illustrated in your use of quotations from both George Will and Stephen Greenbalt and your precise breakdown of the article. I too found it comforting that you too didn’t understand the document completely and admitted to it in your blog as well as the confusion over the connection between Iannone’s appointment and the issue of literary criticism. However despite this you managed to gain knowledge from it and grow, which is the main purpose of the assignment. Although you observed the argument in great detail, your own opinion on the issue wasn’t stated. Nonetheless you still presented the information in a respectful manner and touched base on its complexity. As a result Blair you did an awesome job!
ReplyDeleteHey there Blair! First of all I just wanted to say that i really liked reading what you had to say and your opinions on this topic! I also agree with you in that these two articles were pretty confusing and hard to understand. Although you seemed to explain the two point very well and I think you really shed some light on both sides of the debate. I liked that you brought up the point about Will supporting Iannone’s appointment and how he thinks it will restore literature. Also I liked how you took the part from when Greenblatt referred to the tempest in your blog as well. The only thing i would have liked to read is your own opinion on the two debates because i think your insight on it would be quite interesting! Other then that one thing, you did a really great job on your post!
ReplyDelete