Tempest Conversation!

In discussions of The Tempest, by William Shakespeare, one controversial issue has been the theme of colonialism within the text. Also, there have been many different opinions on the portrayal of Caliban and viewing him as a savage or viewing him as an “other” who was taken advantage of. On the one hand, Will argues that analyzing these statements takes away from the original meaning of the text. He thinks that we are trying to talk about the politics of the text and we are missing the major points. He believes that we over analyze everything and we are missing the artistic work that the author intended to be read. On the other hand, Greenblatt contends the opposite of Will. Greenblatt states that digging for deeper meaning does not distract from the original meaning of the text, but it instead deepens the readers understanding. He thinks that texts should be taught this way. However, my own view is that both ideas are right. I think that both people have valid points. Will's argument makes sense because sometimes texts are analyzed until the original meaning is lost. Or the things that we are analyzing seem like small unimportant details that are only there to describe setting or characters. Sometimes I feel that the things we analyze make the text more confusing and warp was the author wanted to get across. But, on the other hand, I think that analyzing text to an extent is very important. It helps us read better and think critically. I also think that it is important for all of us to interpret texts the way we want. Our different opinions spur so many interesting conversations. As long as the original meaning of the text is recognized, I think it is ok to look for deeper, hidden meanings.