A Literary Debate

During the course of my education thus far, I have been taught that there are only one right answer to English standardized multiple choice questions. I have only begun to realize that there are often many correct answers due to a person's experiences, and reading materials in different ways may create more that one 'right' answer. In the articles written by George Will and Stephen Greenblatt, Will argues for more of the 'people may read things in different ways' position, and Greenblatt argues the 'one correct answer' point of view. Their entire arguments were based upon the selection of a woman to the position of chairman on the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the MLA refusing her selection based upon what they said was her merit. Many people however felt that the refusal of her getting the position was based upon her political views.

Will stated many good points, saying that based upon a person's life experience, many aspects of literature can take on different meanings. He also stated, "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political", in support for his argument that regardless of what is written or said, politics will be involved because it is a large aspect of life that a writer will include in what they do. He thinks that the particular woman in question is completely qualified for the position and the MLA should allow for more personal opinions to be allowed. In an almost indirect way, he was saying that no matter what a person reads, and what a writer may intend, that person's personal experiences will bring something different to the table and as a result, the writing may take on a different meaning to them than the next person.

Greenblatt seemed to be an older gentleman that still seems to believe that literature has one, concrete meaning that anyone could figure out. He stated that the poor woman in question for the position of chairman should not receive the position because the MLA stated she is not qualified, therefore she is not qualified. The biggest example of how his arguments applies to our class learning recently is when he said, “This is a curious example--since it is very hard to argue that The Tempest is not about imperialism", implying that there is one correct way to read the piece and there is a 'correct' meaning to it.

I tend to agree more with Will. Going through the multiple choice questions every Monday, and sometimes being shocked at the 'correct' answer, I have found that there truly are many ways to read pieces of literature. There are politics in all writings because politics influence everyday life regardless of what anyone thinks. And if politics don't affect the writing, they undoubtedly affect the way the reader will read said writing.