as i attempt to write this blog posting, i would first like to admit that the debate that was taking place in this article was extremely hard to follow. and i would like to briefly rant about my distain for those who feel like when they write that they have to use a full array of ridiculous vocabulary that is not necessary. i am simple, and in my simple opinion i feel that these two were arguing over something that will not ever be resolved and they use this sort of diction for the pure fact that they are trying to convey their superiority over the other through their speech or word choice. i view it as a form of intellectual immaturity, call me ignorant for my thoughts on this subject of using nonsense vocabulary to try and prove a simple point.
but i must move on to the prompt at hand, i will try and do the best i can to fulfill all of the requirements. ok, so george will was basically saying that having opinions about the literature at hand is how we make it understandable to our own intellect. He states an excerpt from a reference used, "...the transmission of the culture that unite, even defines america." i think he was trying to explain how we in our culture pass down examples to make sense of different elements of life, including understanding literature and how teachers are trying to help us along their path of thinking. now, stephen greenblatt on the other hand pushed the ideals of having every student make their own judgment and decisions based on their personal ideals. he relates us to poets who apparently are some of the elect few who have broken the mold of common or popular belief when he says, "poets cannot soar when their feet are stuck in social cement." meaning that we cannot create our own ideas or opinions when we are influenced by all the things that surround us. he wants us to break the mold and be completely individual thinkers. which i like the sound of, so i am going to attempt siding with him. i say this because i like the sound of not being tied down or influenced by things which i might not even think are influencing me. but wait!! if i side with him on this matter of thinking for myself...does that mean i just allowed him to think for me and therefore lose my opportunity to be an independent thinker trying to break my feet loose of this hardened social cement?!?! independent and individual is what i want to be. the entire argument will tear me in two if i think any harder about the deeper meaning that never ends. it becomes impossible to think.
I don’t think I can agree with you more! That was basically what I was trying to say … I think? I absolutely agree with your opening and how this was incredibly hard to follow. I’ve confessed in my response to Reina’s blog that I could not understand a lot of what I read, but apparently some of it made sense because I can respond to yours feeling pretty confident about my understanding. I totally concur with you about how this is an argument that will never be resolved. These men are debating a subject that is entirely opinion and commentary based which leaves no room for a concrete fact. Yet as you said in order to respond to the prompt I will respond to your blog.
ReplyDeleteWhat I particularly like is your contradictory response to individual thought. You conclude that, as opposed to Will’s opinion that teachers guide the students, Greenblatt believes that students should form their own opinions of literature. The problem with this is that you agree with Greenblatt which doesn’t allow for individual thought which contradicts Greenblatt’s purpose of the article to begin with. Unfortunately I have found myself in the same situation as you, without an explanation or solution to the dilemma. Good luck.
I totally applaud you for voicing your opinion about the use of 'big words' when expressing simple points. I thought the entire argument in general was ridiculous because the two extremist views will never reconcile. In my eyes its basically an "agree to disagree" situation. With addressing the prompt, I liked what you had to say about the rationality of the two authors. Will feels we shouldn't be given the freedom to explore, and Greenblatt says we do. I came to the same conclusion when I read the two articles, however when we discussed them into futher details in class, I guess you and I were both somewhat off the author's points they were trying to make. However if they didn't use such complex and unneccessary words to make their point then we would have understood what they were trying to say in the first place :) go figure.
ReplyDelete