Maybe it’s some weird imperialistic thing, this new and “better” information has come into my brain and since it sees itself as being superior it has now decided to pillage my brain of all precious information and claim itself the new ruler (or main focus). Thus I can no longer recall anything else except confusing words… Who am I? Perhaps I’m one of those “domestic forces with which [Lyne Cheney] must deal” with which are “less dangerous, in the long run,” than “the foreign adversaries [Cheney’s] husband, Dick, must keep at bay” according to George Will that is.
From what I gather, and keep in mind that I’m just a domestic literary terrorist, I’m not allowed to criticize and analyze literary works so that I don’t “strip literature of its authority [since] criticism displaces literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning.” I’m not sure I fully understand Will’s position in this whole thing? Why is it so horrible to criticize works from a “political” perspective? We all come from various backgrounds and from various beliefs, so who are we to judge which is right and which isn’t? We all look at things through different lenses and it’s what makes the world move forward. If we were to conform to a single ideology, then there would be no room for improvement. It is when we analyze, when we disagree, when we argue, that we can learn and move forward to a better tomorrow. Besides, disagreements make life a bit more interesting.
I will have to agree with Stephen Greenblatt that “art, the art that matters, is not cement... [and that] poets cannot soar when their feet are stuck in social cement.” I believe that when one is able to freely express their opinions, then they can grow to their full capacity. I think that any form of literary work is, in essence, a form of art. It springs forward from the imagination and the mind of the writer. Using their own unique view they are able to share with the world something new in which another can take and learn from. It is when knowledge can flow freely that we can achieve our true potential. Just think about these blogs for example, if you write them purely for the sake of getting it done and getting your grade then you are more likely to just come up with some half-arsed piece of work. However, if you truly feel inspired then you will probably come up with something that you are truly proud of, even if others might not agree. Granted a lot of people just feel neutral, but it’s hard to argue that we don’t produce better work when we feel like it is for our own selves and not because we are being forced to.
So why hinder people’s creative freedom? Why criticize people for how they look at things? We are all entitled to our own opinions. Instead of criticizing other people’s criticisms, why don’t we just embrace them and learn from them? Whether it be learning what to do or what not to do, in the end it’s all learning.
I believe that this is my shortest posting ever... I can’t believe that it’s only a page long… don’t criticize...
I would like to note how this "sad" song became a "nice" song after reading this somewhat, hahaha just kidding, very confusing article.
ReplyDeleteAlrighty, I will admit, my slowness in comprehending, this article for instence, has not gotten any better. Therefore, I am still not fully capable of makingthis full out response to something I have barely any confidence in posting about. I will say this though, I do agree with your agreement with Greenblatt's statement, "art, the art that matters, is not cement..." This I also find very truthful, in that one cannot fully express themselves if tied down and shoved into this box of restrictions on individuality. I like the point you brough up that when people use their own unique way of viewing things people can learn from it. That is something we all do so often. We converse, share ideas and beliefs, and see the same things in different ways, leading to opportunity to combine ideas to produce a whole new one. I really liked that. I think that you are one of the people that actually understood both articles and got how to respond to it. Good job.
Thank you for being honest that you did not understand all of what he said but discussed the part you did. It saves alot of time so i dont hafta try and interpret a bunch of nonesense that you just pulled out of no where:) Okay i agree with you he seems to label political analysis such a horrible thing but did not give evidence of how this is so. This is a political world and it is impossible to not adress politics when analyzing literature because most likely politics or at least the authors beleifs are at its core. I agree with you also that stephan Greenblatt is right literature should not be chained down and you should be free to write about what you want and interpret in a whatever way they can. Ya i most definately agree if you do something for yourself your passion will reflect in your writing. Too bad the majority of the time i do not want to write what they tell me to write about,and it shows. Hmmm how can we solve this problem???
ReplyDelete