The Breaking of the Virgin-Knot

George Will and Stephen Greenblatt both propose the obnoxious extremes of their opposition, attempting to paint their opponent as absurd and ignorant. Due to this technique commonly employed by most debaters, it is difficult for one to embrace either argument wholeheartedly. However, George Will discloses much enlightening commentary on the modern trend of our society to intellectualize literature to an overbearing degree. Will states, “Criticism displaces literatureand critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning.” Though it goes without saying that each individual will glean different insight from a piece of literature based on his own personal background and experiences, when other’s interpretations become the sole basis for truth and meaning, such that there is no truth and meaning, we forget that, at one point in time, and individual sat down with the intent of expressing himself through writing. He endeavored to write a letter to society, conveying whatever message he pleased, through whatever means he pleased. Though Greenblatt may be accurate in saying that, ‘Shakespeare’s imagination was clearly gripped by the conflict between the prince and the “savage” Caliban,’ Will is emphasizing the fact that Shakespeare was not necessarily taking a political stance on colonialism; he was merely conveying the complexities of human nature and morality, which is why Shakespeare remains so profoundly relevant even today. Shakespeare’s ultimate focus was less on the abuse of power pertaining  to ravenously colonizing imperial powers, and more pertaining to the abuse of power in general, pertaining to all aspects of life. He proposes the question: if one has the power to transform those around him into puppets, does that justify him doing so? When we hone in purely on the politics of literature, we lose sight of the “esthetics.” Literature is no longer appreciated for its sense of pure emotion and beauty, but rather its pure intellectuality, its possible theories of the oppressed and the oppressor. It is not to say that Greenblatt’s “painful, messy struggles over rights and values” and “political and sexual and ethical dilemmas,” cannot be acknowledged in literature. But they should not be acknowledged simply out of a feeling of obligation or necessity, out of a sense that literature could not possible express something other than the strife of a victimized minority so our defensive attitudes can serve as a form of disguised apology. There can be beauty in writing without the complete obliteration of influence and intellectually probing ideas, and there can be a central theme in literature without the complete oppression of individual interpretation.