"Literary Study, Politics, and Shakespeare: A Debate"

Man, I sure hope that I did this right. I felt the Literary Debate was a bit confusing but I tried! (There’s a reason why I don’t like political debates….or debates in general.)

There was a debate between George Will and Stephen Greenblatt in a "Literary Study, Politics, and Shakespeare: A Debate" where Will believes that "all literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." Afterward, he then states, "Shakespeare's 'Tempest' reflects the imperialist rape of the Third World." (111). Basically what he means to say is that changing books and translating them for others to get the true underlying text is a wonderful thing. Not only that but Will believes the topics of colonialism and feminism are unimportant issues that Shakespeare’s readers do not need to know of.

However, Greenblatt states, “It is, I believe, all but impossible to understand these plays without grappling with the dark energies upon which Shakespeare's art so powerfully draws.” What he means to say is it is okay to explore beyond what an author has written. You don’t have to stay in the bounds of what they’ve created for you. Therefore he states, "the art that matters, it is not cement."

If anything, I think I’d rather take the side of Stephen Greenblatt. I personally think that both are correct in their own way because there is no “one way” to see things. You can see things from all sorts of views (exactly why they’re in debate). However, I’d personally rather side with Greenblatt because I see it as this: you don’t have to stay in the bounds of what has been said or written. They might have given you things to think and talk about (I.e colonialism, feminism, etc) but you are “allowed” to think outside the box. You aren’t confined to limited issues and topics. Feel free to think my child!