The debate over literature

     These two articles discuss the issue of interpreting literature in different ways and the effects the interpretation can have.  In his article, George Will comments that straying from the traditional interpretation of a piece degrades it and essentially discredits the very ideas and works that Western Civilization was founded on.  He also says that politics play an influential role in literature as he says, "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political."  In response, Stephen Greenblatt argues that it is not demeaning to literature to explore its "hidden" meanings, but rather it is essential in order to fully grasp the true meaning of the piece.  Both sides make a strong argument, but I agree with Greenblatt; literature is meant to be explored and interpreted in a way that may be different from the accepted meaning, the interpretation must be made by the individual.
     I agree with Greenblatt because literature is nothing without interpretation and connections with history and issues throughout the world.  When discussing how some people feel about the controversial issues in Shakespearian plays such as racism and anti-Semitism, Greenblatt says, "It is, I believe, all but impossible to understand these plays without grappling with the dark energies upon which Shakespeare's art so powerfully draws."  This point is powerful because we do not know what message Shakespeare was trying to convey when he wrote his pieces, we do not know if he wrote the Tempest to praise or criticize imperialism; therefore we must form our own opinions about the text and interpet it in our unique way.  When commenting on the people who believe in these ideas of literary interpretation, Will claims that, "social disintegration is the political goal of the revolution that is sweeping campuses."  His claim is understandable, to him (and others who agree with him) new interpretations of classic texts would be concerning and frightening; however, new ways of understanding literary works is not contributing to "deculturation," but rather to a further understanding of what the author may have been attempting to convey when he or she wrote the piece.  Students must interpret pieces in new and clever ways because that is the only way new ideas will be born in to the discussion of literature and not be hindered by the "social cement" of traditional interpretations. 

The Tempest and Colonialism

The Elizabethan Era was a time of vast imperialism for England. Their empire invaded unknown lands and encountered unknown people. In the Tempest, Shakespeare uses Caliban to portray these foreign people and allow the reader or viewer ot identify him as the helpless native who must be introduced to a "more civilized" life. It appears Shakespeare is demoralizing Caliban, and therefore native people, as he describes Caliban as, "A most ridiculous monster, to make wonder of a poor drunkard." This characterization forcers the reader to look down upon Caliban and native people. This makes sense because Shakespeare often wrote for the Queen and royalty always likes to be told whatthey are doing is right. In addition, Shakespeare made his audience feel superior to the native people in the colonies, which made more people attend his shows. However, a less-biased interpretation of the play may show that Shakespeare allows the reader to discover an intelligent aspect to Caliban. Caliban realizes Prospero mistreats him, so he encourages Stephano to kill him, Caliban says, "There thoust mayst brain him, having first seized his books or with a log batter his skull..." While this appears to be a savage request, is is actually logical. Caliban wants Prospero out of h is homeland, just as the Native Americans wanted English settlers out of their land. It is impossible to know if Shakespeare was for or against Colonialism, but in The Tempest he allows the story to be read from either angle, enabling each reader or viewer to interperate the play which ever way that person chooses. Furthermore, in the piece Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, the author comments that the dominant culture sends the message of, "conform and be quiet, deny yourself, and all will be well," to the minority culture. In the same way, Prospero threatens Caliban earlier in the play and Caliban's "brutality" is just a reaction to being oppressed. Shakespeare skillfully presents the play so a person who wants to believe Caliban needs the saving of  white men is able to, but at the same time he is telling every one else that the native people are not fragile and in need of rescuing, but rather powerful people with a strong grudge who are eager to take back what is their own.



Why Rosalinda is so amazing is beyond me.....

Prospero's Grip on History

          Prospero influences those around him by manipulating history and portraying it in a way that only suits him.  He tells Miranda, his own daughter, the history of his life, yet he portrays it as he has made no faults and that it was only his enemies who did anything wrong.  While telling his story, he mentions, "I pray thee, mark me (that a brother should be so perfidious)."  This emphasizes that it was Antonio who performed an evil act, when he was just reacting to the laziness and irresponsibility of Prospero.  Prospero's angle of telling the story causes Miranda to hold him in high regard.  She says, "Your tale, sir, would cure deafness," and, "I, not remember how i cried out then, will cry it o'er again," meaning she considers it as amazing and shocking that someone could betray her father.  Also she assumes she must feel for her father because she is basing her feelings on the story Prospero has told her and nothing else.  Prospero has presented Miranda with a single story-a single story of his life.  Miranda holds her father's story in high regard because it is the only version she knows.  She is oblivious to the fact that Prospero did not perform his duty as duke because Prospero purposely hid that information from her for his benefit.  Furthermore, he repeatedly asks if she is listening because he wants to make sure she hears only what he is telling her and will not be side-tracked by anything that could contradict his story. 
           Also, Prospero belittles Ariel when he asks for a year to be removed from his service.  Through this tactic, Prospero hopes to intimidate Ariel in to thinking that he needs Prospero.  While reciting the story Prospero, he says, "Though, my slave," and calls him "too delicate" to do anything.  This diction in his story allows Prospero to demean Ariel so he will never ask for freedom again.  By rearranging historical facts and changing how history itself is told, he effectively manipulates the people around him.   

The Dangers of a Single Story

    This video addresses important issues concerning the way people's opinions are formed.  Too often people accept what they are told or what they read from TV or newspapers without any hesitation because it is convenient, rather than seeking multiple accounts of an event in order to form their own opinions.  Consequently, the individuality of people does not show, instead societies as a whole can be represented by one idea like how Adichie's room mate assumes she does not know how to use a stove and listens to tribal music because she is African.  If people are told something enough times they will begin to believe it, even if it is not true.  Every person is unique, yet certain places are identified by certain actions or beliefs according to the single story as Adichie points out.  The danger of this is what if the public opinion is formed to be aggressive or hateful towards a place or society.  If this happens, then the government (or whoever created the public opinion) will be able to manipulate the public in the same way as the public is manipulated in 1984. Therefore, individuality and personal opinions are valuable to ensuring freedom.  In today's day and age, so much focus is put on finding a supreme answer of some kind that will solve all problems, settle all disputes, and create uniformity, but this is not what we should be trying to find, nor what we should want to find because the problem is not being unable to solve all disputes, the problem is assuming there is an answer to fix everything.  An example of this is the textbook issue.  There will never be an objective history textbook that represents everyone equal, but the history book should be just one source of knowledge, people should use the textbook, but also use a variety of other sources before their opinions are formed.  As it pertains to the video, Adichie believed the negativity she had heard about Mexicans, but when she traveled to Mexico, she found it was not true.  In this case, the other source she used was going to Mexico, and she used it to changer her opinion in to her own opinion.  The beauty of being human is the diversity that exists between people.  Two people may see the same thing, but describe it in different ways, this is not a bad thing, rather it is good because it allows a third person to make his or her own opinions after hearing both of the other people's accounts of what happened.  People have a remarkable ability to think for themselves, but a lot of times they do not because it is easier to believe what they are told, but in order for the world to move forward, people need to form and believe their own opinions.