Literary Debate

     Well those articles were... interesting. I definitely understood the second article more than the first. So I will attempt to summarize them even though I do not fully understand them. :)

     The first article by George Will is attacking the idea that text should be analyzed according to political beliefs. He states that "all literature is, whether authors are conscious of it or not, political" (Will). He is arguing that the nomination of Carol Iannone to the National Council on the Humanities, though chosen by the President and the leader of NCH, is being questioned by the MLA. They believe that this is strictly for political reasons even though Iannone stands for higher education without the influence of politics. Will believes that it is negative to look at text with political intentions. He said that you can use literature “as a mere index of who had power and whom the powerful victimized” (Will). He finishes by stating that this is an important decision of if Iannone should be on the board because the NCH is helping direct culture. (I think???)

     Stephen Greenblatt of course takes the opposing view of the argument.  He believes that even though the past is filled with horrible things we wish not to be attached to; we have to come to terms with the fact that it did happen, and many people wrote about it. He states that it is hard “to come to terms with what The Tempest has to teach us about forgiveness, wisdom, and social atonement if we do not also come to terms with its relation to colonialism”(Greenblatt). He believes that the political agenda is important to have for anyone who takes a position of power to ensure the country is not affected by “collective amnesia”. If people ignore what happened and simply teach what is safe, then students are not going to be able to escape the “nation’s social cement”.

     I am leaning more towards the idea that when analyzing a text it is important to evaluate the political side of the story as well. The more information we gather surrounding the text with lead to a better understanding of that text. When talking about The Tempest it is very hard to deny that colonialism is present inn the story.  However, I also believe that an individual should never state that a text means something unless that is exactly what the text says. I believe this because we will never know what exactly Shakespeare wanted to accomplish in his writing and we cannot ask him. He could have had in mind a completely unrelated topic to what has been discussed by scholars of today. Therefore we can guess at what the author was trying to accomplish but we should never state that it “means” a certain idea.

Caliban and Colonialism

As the article on postcolonialism states, " [Postcolonial] thinkers insist on questioning what part not only the text but also the reader and the author play in the interpretive process". Therefore the critic should base his or her opinion on not only what the physical text states, but also the culture of that time period, the intended reader, the author, as well as other main events that could impact the view of new events. A postmodernist critic looks for all sides of the story to form opinions about characters. In The Tempest Act two and three I saw a very negative view of Caliban as the men continuously called him a monster and made fun of him. In his ignorance Caliban stated, "These are beautiful creatures, if they’re not spirits. He’s a good god, who brings liquor from the heavens. I will worship him". According to Shakespeare's writing I very much believe that Caliban is a representation of native peoples. He paints Caliban as an easily manipulated individual who would take up servitude simply for a drink of liquor. He places Caliban on the island first, gives him primitive language, and then sets him as a slave for the white man. According to this I definitely believe that Shakespeare was portraying Caliban's character as an individual who was unable to be civilized and lower class compared to the white men. This was embracing the act of taking over lands where the culture wasn't as "advanced" as their own.  Shakespeare was a modernist writer and therefore wrote for the more "elite" individuals. These are also the individuals who believed that colonialism is alright according to the belief that natives were not even human and therefore could be treated as slaves. I believe that Shakespeare was supporting colonization in The Tempest, which caused many others to embrace the idea that it is alright to believe that you are superior to others.

Prospero's Manipulation in The Tempest

    As we have been discussing in class, if you can manipulate reality; you can control those with lesser knowledge than yourself. The character of Prospero illustrates this in Shakespeare's The Tempest. Through Prospero's magic and use of narratives to distort history in his favor he is able to control what others think of the situations they find themselves trapped in. 
     One person that he uses his power over is his daughter, Miranda. Prospero began to explain what had brought them to the island and began speaking of his brother as, "Being once perfected how to grant suits,

how to deny them, who t' advance and who to trash for overtopping, new created the creatures that were mine, I say—or changed 'em, or else new formed 'em—having both the key of officer and office, set all hearts i' th' state to what tune pleased his ear, that now he was the ivy which had hid my princely trunk, and sucked my verdure out on ’t" (Shakespeare Act 1 Scene 2). He portrays his brother as a traitor who cared only of himself, and threw his own brother and niece out of power for his own good. He also tells his daughter that the brother had no interest in caring for the people; he simply did what he pleased. However, Prospero himself admits to letting the government slide while he was busy reading. So from what we have read so far we cannot make a valid decision on who is the better leader. According to this statement we can assume that Antonio would have a much different story to tell about the event if he was given the opportunity. Since his daughter has very few influences she trusts entirely in her father's words.  She has learned everything she knows from her father and would never question what he says. Miranda cannot see any other point of view because in her reality there is not another.   

    By putting himself in complete power over Ariel he is able to change his grip on reality as well. When his will is questioned Prospero reminds Ariel of the events that occurred to result in his current state of bondage. Prospero asks Ariel if he remembers what he has been saved from, and when he answered Prospero proclaimed " You lie, you nasty, ungrateful thing! Have you forgotten the horrid witch Sycorax, stooped over with old age and ill will? Have you forgotten her?"( Act 1 Scene 2). This shows that Prospero continually uses the past to remain in control of the spirit Ariel. When He brings up the fact that his time as a servant is decreasing Prospero raised the topic of the past events. In doing this he oppresses Ariel, and keeps him in a constant state of trying to pay back a debt. Though Prospero had promised that time would be taken of Ariel's sentence he overlooked that until he realized that in order to keep power over Ariel, he needed an incentive. This is his ultimate plan for revenge after it is finished he will simply no longer need Ariel. So he promises to give him back his freedom in order to keep complete control over him for the time being. By perpetually bringing up a moment in which created the debt that Ariel feels ha must pay for, Prospero retains control over Ariel and his sense of reality.

    Lastly Prospero dominates Caliban's reality by forcing him in complete enslavement. When Caliban resisted  Prospero's control, he stated, "For this, be sure, tonight thou shalt have cramps, side-stitches that shall pen thy breath up. Urchins shall, forth at vast of night that they may work,all exercise on thee. Thou shalt be pinched as thick as honeycomb, each pinch more stinging than bees that made 'em"( Act 1Scene 2). When Caliban insulted Prospero he would threaten intense punishment. Since Caliban was practically taught how to speak by Prospero and his daughter their ideals were also imposed on him. However, due to the fact that he was also taught by his mother  he was able to decide what he wanted to believe. Prospero continually put down Caliban's mother; in doing so he was trying to limit Caliban's grip on his own version of reality. Prospero forced his dominance over Caliban by using his magic and his version of the past; thus limiting Caliban's freedom. 

    Throughout the first act Prospero illustrates his dominance over Miranda, Ariel, and Caliban. To limit his daughter's view of reality he simply tells her a version of the past altered to fit his own needs.To keep his power over Ariel Prospero simply reminds his liberation, therefore, also the debt that resulted.To control Caliban he uses techniques of punishment and highlighting events in Caliban's mother's life that make her seem evil. He uses these three techniques in order to manipulate the reality that these three characters find themselves trapped in, and as of the first act they feel they cannot escape due to his power of magic.   

The Danger of a Single Story

       I highly agree with and appreciate what Cimamanda Adichie had to say. If you have only one example of a group of people then that is how you will perceive them. Therefore it is dangerous to close your mind to the possibility that there is more to that group of people than you originally perceived. Stereotypes become rampant in a society where only one story is given for a population. Negative stereotypes become hate and that continues to become racism and so-on until people can be controlled through their hate of one another. This is how it relates to what we have been learning in class, control of another person's reality.
      If the government only gives one point of view and the people simply believe without seeking other points of view then the citizens are allowing the government over control over reality. After I read 1984 I did not believe that our government was using similar techniques to control us. I now believe that if the government keeps anything from the people then they are practicing the control over reality. This also relates to the textbook issue. If anything is left out or filtered it is altering the past. Therefore a textbook cannot be impartial unless everything that happened during that time is included, point of view is removed, and every event is stated without emphasis. I feel that this is quite hard to do, if not impossible. Due to the fact that history is altered by perspective, an individual cannot form their own opinions based on the history books in use today. History is defined as a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account. This is no longer the case; history has become filled with the writer's opinions.