What is the "Right" Way to Read?

Literature has always provided the reader with the opportunity to apply different interpretations to its meaning. However, when people begin to label what is the “right” meaning, conflict begins. Two authors in this chapter do just that. George Will’s “Literary Politics” examines the idea that people read too much into the meanings of literature, creating artificial insight as to what the author meant, usually taking the shape of political ideas. On the other hand, Stephan Greenblatt notes in “The Best Way to Kill our Literature is to Turn it into a Decorous Celebration of the New World Order” argues that more evidence points to the idea that culture, politics, religion, etc. influenced authors, than does not. Will argues that the political inferences become ridiculous and comical, as they grow more far-fetched. Will states that, “By ‘deconstructing,’ or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority. Criticism displaces literature. Critics displace authors of bestowing meaning.”  Additionally, this author argued against the ideas of Lynne V. Cheney, chairman of the National Endowment of the Humanities, because she supports exactly what he opposes. On the contrary, Stephan Greenblatt writes that literature must have subliminal messages and ideas reflecting more than just the “story.” Greenblatt reveals that part of the beauty of the art form of literature is that it evolves with time to mean different things, and that taking this quality away would be detrimental. “Poets cannot soar when their feet are stuck in the cement,” he states. Greenblatt uses the example of Shakespeare’s The Tempest to show that it is highly supportable that the author was reflecting ideas about imperialism in his play.

            I agree partially with both opinionated authors, leaving my opinion somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. I think that although literature may indeed be written to allude to cultural ideas, politics, or religion, this is not always the case. I think that any reading of any piece of literature results in subjective feelings about the selection, so one can never be quite certain about what the author intended the piece to reflect. In fact, I think that authors know that literature is interpreted in this manner, and may even purposely write with a level of vagueness to inspire the reader to insert their own ideas into the text. Or, authors have an idea in mind, but are comfortable with the fact that, just like any form of art, different people will “see” and respond to different aspects of it. On the other hand, however, I do not support forcing any one person’s view of any text on others as the “correct” reading. Who is one person to say what a text means? After all, why should people have the ability to read between the lines?