alright, to satisfy the assignment at hand, here is my best attempt to fill in the templates given. so, In discussions of The Tempest, the traditional view is that Shakespeare wrote it with intensions of interlacing a political agenda of exposing the barbaric nature of colonial expansion. However, there may be other ways to think about this text. For one thing, George Will explains that we are to adopt and accept the ideas that have been impressed upon us by our teachers and other supporting literature. And Stephen Greenblatt says that we need to break free from the impressions that others assume or accuse texts of inferring agendas. and that we should read the texts ourselves and judge them personally according to the impression or influence it leaves on us, in other words "think for ourselves". Therefore, taking these positions into account, we can see that the argument at hand is whether or not to accept this perspective of colonial expansion that has been said to be embedded in Shakespeare's "The Tempest" that many have written about. so do we accept their views as an actual fact of the text...or are they just opinionated views.
i plan on attacking this argumentative subject by basing a lot of it on the debate between george will, and stephen greenblatt. i would also like to strengthen the topic in question by finding other sources that disprove the point and also agree with the my point in that i do not believe that all of these hidden meanings behind his literature. i want to find others who support the unpopular argument that he wrote just to please. and that in fact it was just the way of life and there was no intended meaning behind it all. so i am attempting to take sides with stephen greenblatt and ironically not side with anyone...if that makes any sense...
No comments:
Post a Comment