The Abyss of Literature

       If you were to see an abyss, what would you think of it? It would present you with a scene of awesome scale; something both beautiful and frightening, only that of nature can bring. But, is this the only way you can view it? Of course not, but instead you could view it from the abyss itself. Where a small stream runs and strange animals which one has never seen before or even thought could exist. New life is brought to the abyss, and a beauty you could never have known unless you went down there; searching for the answers to how it got there and why it is here. And thus is the debate between George Will and Stephen Greenblatt on the abyss of literature.
        George Will, writer for Newsweek, discusses his position on the state of literature and how it should be read and analyzed. He states that "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." and he says that "The supplanting of esthetic by political responses to literature makes literature primarily interesting as a mere index of who had power and whom the powerful victimized." Will believes that a narrative should be analyzed really by just going on the narratives merit because he believes that if literature is judged in this way, the "...literature canon..." becomes "...an instrument of domination." On the other hand Stephen Greenblatt, believes that critics of delving deeper into a text do not want to deal with "The painful, messy struggles over rights and values, the political and sexual and ethical dilemmas that great art has taken upon itself to articulate and grapple with..." And in rebuttal to Will's statement that the face value of a text "...is the nation's cement..." he says "But art, the art that matters, is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing." In short he believes that analyzing literature in this way is not only essential for an analysis but an essential part to understand the elusiveness of a text and its purpose.
       Personally I believe that we need to analyze behind the text and take it for more than just face value. It needs to be done because it completes the text in a way; causes it to come in full circle and brings it to a new light. Greenblatt is correct in his assessment but Will is not completely wrong; a full analysis still needs the bare text just as much as the back story. But we need to be willing to take the plunge; to face the possibility of something terrifying, or something beautiful to find the answer to the question: why is it here?