Will vs. Greenblatt

Well I was quite confused by the two articles. I am not sure exsactly what both people are arguing about, but I will try my best.
I believe it is basically broken down into Shakespeare or no fear Shakespeare that is the question. Will is in favor of the original text, where as Greenbalt is more for the no fear version. Though many students would be able to read the original text, and deduce what the text is about, I believe the no fear version is a great key that allows for insight into what everyone is actually saying. I enjoy a good Shakespeare piece as much as the next person, and the way he writes it truly is an art form, I would like to be able to quickly read his writing and be more apt to understanding what he is saying. It is similar to having a description under Picasso’s Gernica. On first glance you see the art. You see the shapes and colors and deep values. You see that it has meaning and purpose, but you may not know that is about a battle. You may not on first glance be able to see into the piece that deeply. Artists and "Poets cannot soar when their feet are stuck in social cement." Artists want their work to be understood. They want you to interpret and feel what they have created. It is similar to a German writer wanting their work translated into other languages. I think that because we are translating an older text in English into a more watered down modern English version people have trouble. Shakespeare created a language all in his own, and though it was a branch of English it was not even the same type of language people of that time spoke in. He was ahead of his time, you could even say he was timeless. No fear Shakespeare gives you both the art and the description. I would have to say this is why I agree with Greenbalt.