I wish I could "vaporize" The Tempest...

In discussions of Shakespeare's The Tempest, one controversial issue has been deciphering the meanings and characters Shakespeare uses and whether said characters portray the events that paralleled its time period . On the one hand, many scholars, such as George Will, argue literary works should be viewed distinctly from the text, leaving inferring out of the question of analyzing its meaning. He goes as far to say that "by 'deconstructing,' or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority. To only look for political meaning in books and make it the only perspective you, or the people you influence, look at, then it takes away what the piece of literature is bring forth to the world. On the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt contends that it is suitable, and even sometimes necessary, to look between the lines of literature and seek out meanings that are intended for the reader to discover. "I am deeply committed to passing on the precious heritage of our language, and I take seriously the risk of collective amnesia." He feels that looking for political values in literature is a necessary component in reading literature and to take that away is to take away and wipe out the memory of all that has occurred in the past. Language is what intertwines us as a people and the collective history our ancestors have created, and, according to Greenblatt, taking that away is like taking away all that they have done. Although I do agree to this perspective somewhat, I believe that limiting ourselves to analyzing literature with only one lens to spark our creative thinking causes us to miss the bigger picture of what message the piece of literature is actually portraying. It is good to let keep open the possibilities of each perspective, but the ultimate conclusion of what each work is about should not come from anyone else except for what the individual believes. Nothing more, nothing less.