In discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been how to interpret literary works. On one side, George Will finds that literature should be approached with an objective view. That is to read for the information and find the purpose, I suppose, of it. Yet, oppposing Will is Stephen Greenblatt, who sees that literature and writing as an art form. Therefore, people should read the text and be able to interpret it in any way. They should not have to be forced to read text a certain way and only that way. Readers should be given the opportunity to think their own thoughts and produce their own opinions of any literary work. Although Will believes in this "social cement," which is a ground for how readers should go about comprehending a text, Greenblatt argues that "the art that matters, is not cement," but rather more of a "mobile" and "elusive" concept. So, here are these two views, that differ nearly as entire opposites of one another, that are being thrown back and forth, while new generations of students are trying to figure out how to interpret a piece of literature. Pertaining to our class, we just read The Tempest by Shakespeare of course, and the debating topic is whether Shakespeare wrote this to describe colonialism or imperialism. Now how would we be able to decifer that? Well, I see it as how do you personally read into the play. Depending on how you perceived Shakespeare's description of characters like Caliban, Perspero, and the rest you would have to pick either side. Will saw The Tempest as "imperialistic" with people coming over and trying to take over Caliban and his island. While Greenblatt points out that at the end of the play "all of the Europeans leave the island." Is it still portraying imperialism if they all leave?
Take Aime Cesaire's A Tempest which, in more of a modern day speak, seems to mock what happened in Shakspeare's The Tempest. Again, it is another piece of literature that is made from one person's individual view that how been shared for others to stumble upon and create their own ideas off of. This leads to me agreeing with Greenblatt that, yes, literature is a form of art that should be viewed with any possibility that the read wishes to impose of the writing. Yeah, I can see where the sentence I just wrote can lead to the allowance of things not even pertaining to the text, being able to be someone's personal interpretation. But, I think y'all get what I am saying. So much of literature is left up to interpretation, individual thought, and everyone's ability to add their personal insight to all types of writing.
