Literary Debate

Literature has always been an abstract subject, with no definitive right or wrong answer.  As a result, opposing views shall always be formed.  Our job for this assignment was to read the two articles: George Will's Literary Politics and Stephen Greenblatt's The Best Way to Kill our Literature is to Turn it into a Decorous Celebration of the New World Order. Both authors had differing ideas on the content of literature.  George Will argues that authors already have a predetermined motive in their writings, and that critics over analyze the writings, thereby incorporating some of their own political bias in their analysis. 

As Will describes it, "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."  He states that political analysis only serves to devalue the author while giving the critics the title of decoders of literature. He criticizes "the eruption of group politics in literature". Will believes that if critics keep analyzing the text with political bias it will only take away the intended meaning of the author.  Will's alternative solution is to just let the original meaning of the text take its way.

In contrast, Greenblatt has an opposing view.  He believes that texts should be read and analyzed in search for possible interpretations.  In terms of The Tempest, he encourages students to ask questions about colonialism and sovereignty.  Greenblatt states, "These are among the issues that literary scholars investigate and encourage their students to consider, and I would think that the columnists who currently profess an ardent interest in our cultural heritage would approve".  He believes that connecting the text to outside themes allows the student to fully understand the writing better.  Greenblatt believes that if students relate colonialism to The Tempest than it can serve to teach us about "forgiveness, wisdom, and social atonement".

In my opinion I think both articles have a right answer to them.  If you analyze something you might inherently form some political bias.  Then there is also the potential to over analyze something.  For example, I could over analyze Dr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham and twist it to say that it is a critic of modern society.  Obviously, it wouldn't reflect the author's original meaning.  However, I agree with Greenblatt in that, I think to fully understand some novels, you must take into account the time frame when it was written and also try to relate it to other events.  Overall, I guess I agree with both articles.

The Tempest: Caliban

After reading Act II and III in the Tempest I believe that Caliban is indeed supposed to parallel the natives to our world today.  Caliban is the original being who was born on the island, but his seemingly "primitive" nature makes him submerse to the authority of others, namely Prospero.  Caliban teaches Prospero and his daughter everything they needed to know about the island.  In exchange, Prospero and his daughter "civilize" Caliban by teaching him language and teaching him about the stars and the moon.   Caliban represents the native Americans because when the Europeans first came to the New World it was the Native Americans who taught them where to find food and got them acquainted in the mainland.  After the Europeans became settled, they eventually fought against the Native Americans for dominance.   

“They’re not like us, and for that reason deserve to be ruled.”  The article on post colonialism describes the justification of colonizing others.  In the same way I think Shakespeare justifies colonization because he portrays Caliban in such a malevolent manner, with his desire for Miranda and his switching loyalties from Prospero to Stephano.  "I'll show thee every fertile inch o' th' island. And I will kiss thy foot. I prithee, be my god." Caliban's manner parallels the early Aztecs who, upon first seeing Cortez and his army of Spaniards, believed him to be the prophesied god Quetzalcoatl.  They then started treating the foreigners like gods, until they were betrayed and annihilated.  

The video on Native Americans was pretty accurate.  Over the last decades, Native Americans have been portrayed in a negative manner in the media.  In the long run, this inaccurate portrayal could have dangerous consequences.  The later generations will have a preconceived notion towards Native Americans and other ethnic groups and will be exposed to the danger of a single story.  This in turn can fuel racism and hatred towards other cultures and beliefs.

The Tempest-Act I

In the play, The Tempest,  the main character, Prospero believes himself to be a banished king that does not have control over his subjects anymore.  However, upon closer observation of the text, one can see that this statement is not entirely true.

Though it is true that Prospero is isolated on an island,  the statement that he is without subjects is a false matter.  Prospero has control of Miranda, Caliban, and Ariel by manipulating history.  This manipulation is parallel to 1984 when the Party manipulates reality by presenting a false view on history.  Prospero manipulates his world through not only magic, which he uses to conjure up a storm, but also through the use of rhetoric, the art of using language effectively.  His historical narration to his daughter, Miranda is one example of this.  Prospero recites history by saying that he and his daughter were cast out of Milan through foul play, "By foul play, as thou sayst, were we heaved thence, But blessedly holp hither."  Through the use of careful wording, he makes it appear that he and his daughter were wrongfully banished from his kingdom, thus swaying the opinion of his naive daughter.  Thus he succeeds in making his daughter pity his status, and wins her loyalty.  Also, Prospero also describes himself rather pridefully, "And Prospero the prime duke, being so reputed In dignity, and for the liberal arts Without a parallel." so that he appears as an almost godlike entity, just like how Big Brother is portrayed as an omnipotent being. 

Prospero also displays control over the island by using his rhetoric to his servant Ariel.  "It was mine art, When I arrived and heard thee, that made gape The pine and let thee out." The previous quote describes how  Prospero seems that he was  a savior to Ariel by releasing him out of his torment.  Prospero purposefully tries to bring guilt out of Ariel, and uses Ariel's emotional disarray to his advantage.  This can also compare to 1984, how the Party proclaimed that it released all the citizens from the torturous restraints of capitalism, and transforms the citizens moment of emotional weakness into unwavering loyalty.  Prospero's success in bringing guilt to Ariel helps him control the island because he now has the service of an all powerful spirit to carry out his plans.

Prospero's greatest asset is his skillful use of narratives and rhetoric to bring other beings under his control.  This, along with his endless supply of magic, allows him to constantly alter and manipulate the world around him so that he can carry out his plans of revenge.

The Danger of a Single Story

I chose to write about this option because I think is an interesting topic that we should be aware of, because of what’s happening in the world today.  If we just base our opinions just from one side of the story, our opinions will always be flawed and inaccurate. Around school and the community I always hear about people talking about events in the Middle East and how all the people from that country are radical terrorists. But the reality is, it’s not true. Just because we hear about car bombings and religious wars in the Middle East doesn't mean that everyone from that region is a explosion-seeking maniac. I also observed  how some people always try to assert their opinion about others, when it is obvious that all they are doing is just reciting racial stereotypes.  If we continue to form single stories about other ethnicities,  the future generations will have an altered view of other cultures and the world around them.

The problem of single story is that it just excludes facts from us that are necessary for us to better understand others. This compares to the topic that we discussed in our Socratic Circle in class. I personally think that textbooks should have the voice of minorities in it because like Adiche mentioned, if we just read about accomplishments that were done by white men, eventually we'll come to associate that only white men can have the power to triumph and succeed and that minorities can never stand up to themselves.  For example if the textbooks chose to omit the accomplishments of African-Americans in civil rights, then in later generations African-Americans won't have the courage to stand up for their rights because they never learned what their ancestors did, so in their mind they will always think they are inferior to the white man.  Likewise when news stations become politically biased like Fox News or msnbc  people only tend to hear one side of the story which can radically alter the views towards the government, and possibly reality.

In regards to history,I believe that if we just present the history in a single-story format, a lot of history will be altered and forgotten. If the history presents a single-story on the cruel nature of early Native Americans, students like myself will come to associate that ALL Native Americans had cruel and unusual rituals early in the day, rather than focusing on the beneficial rituals they accomplished, like medicine and science.