Taking a Stand on Literature

       In the analyzation of literature, especially those of controversy ( really all literature is controversial, I know), such as Shakespeare's The Tempest, one issue has been brought up that is quite serious and the decision on this issue can heavily impact the educational community and the analysis of this play; that is, the issue of whether to judge a piece of literature on at its face value (by what is on the page), or by its history and its context (the story behind the story). On one hand, we have George Will, a political commentator for Newsweek. He sets his  position on the former of the two sides. He believes that people should go on what is presented them on the page and that the over analysis of literature makes "...the literary canon...an instrument of domination..." and "...radically devalues authors..." He thinks that the text itself is the "concrete" that should be tread upon in analysis. Thus something as The Tempest is to be judged primarily or solely on the fantastical revenge story presented. On the other hand, we have Stephen Greenblatt who believes that the historical context is extremely necessary, and in the case of The Tempest, all the stories behind the story makes for a better, more detailed, and righteous analysis of the text. However, my own view has yet to be seen, so thus I have to say that there needs to be a balance been the two because the fact is that both are extremely important for a full analysis; and to find that The Tempest has more to say than the text presents and presents a view on colonialism and its treatments of its victims that was appropriate for the times but considered wrong for the present day. In my analysis I plan on using both arguments to support my thoughts as well as Aime Cesaire's A Tempest because it insinuates Shakespeare's intentions. That's all folks, buenos noches.