literary study, politics, and Shakespeare oh my! :o

So I really had no idea what George Will was trying to say. His writing was all over the place for me. And the parts that I did understand were just his opinions about other books and how they were wrong in some way or another. “In “Wuthering Heights,” Emily Bronte, a subtle subversive, has Catherine bitten by a male  bulldog.” I have read Wuthering Heights twice, and I fail to see the importance of Catherine being bitten by a male dog. That bit of information is just a minute detail compare to all of the other events that happen in the book. He goes on to take small events from other pieces of writings and says that  they “reflect the imperialist rape of the third world… references to peas and flower buds are encoded messages of feminist rage…” Okay I get that these are his opinions but where is he coming up with this stuff! It just sounds plain crazy to me.

                I really like and agree with what Stephen Greenblatt has to say. He sticks to his own beliefs, but also acknowledges that writing can have more than one meaning. He did this with Will’s thoughts about The Tempest, “Since it is very difficult to argue that The Tempest is not about imperialism. (It is, of course, about many other things as well, including the magical power of the theater.)”  I also really like what Greenblatt says about trying to control and sort out the arts that they like and dislike. “But art, the art that matters, is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing.” For me this quote means that there is more than one way of looking/ reading a piece of writing. There is no right or wrong way of writing, it’s expressing and sharing your emotions and ideas with others.