Literary Debate!

Since the beginning of time, there has never really been a right or wrong answer to anything. This is purely apparent when it comes to literature. No two people will ever comprehend and view a piece of literature exactly the same as their companion. Literature is written with open interpretations and different sides that can be presented and represented. The literary debate between Stephen Greenblatt and George Will is a prime example of just this. In both essays, Will’s, “Literary Politics,” and Greenblatt’s, “The Best Way to Kill Our Literary Inheritance is to Turn It Into a Decorous Celebration of the New World Order,” the authors find their argument and stand by it, analyzing works of literature. As easy as this may be for them with their predetermined views, this may not be the intent of the original author. Take Shakespeare, for example. His intent on writing the thirty six plays in his lifetime was for them to be performed on a stage, not read and analyzed in a classroom. However, that is not the case.
George Will feels that an author has a set intent and focus in his or her writing, which is critically over analyzed. Because of this, he feels the critics force some of their own political biases into the original work, that may or may not be true to the original author. He says that “as esthetic judgments are politicized, political judgments are estheticized…” meaning that judgments are formed to please the audience on a political bias.
Stephen Greenblatt blatantly disagrees with Mr. Will. “A love of literature may help to forge community, but it is a community founded on imaginative freedom, the play of language, and scholarly honesty, and not on flag waving, boosterism, and conformity.” He feels that works of literature are open to different interpretations as well as different lessons to be learned and points to understand.
I agree with Stephen Greenblatt’s argument that literature is open to different interpretations through analyzation, and there are many lessons to be learned and different reasonings. On the other hand, I can also agree with George Will in that over analyzing can ruin the intent and vision of the original author. With nearly every writing, like Shakespeare, we will never be able to clearly understand the sole purpose and focus the author was trying to make.

Native Anericans?

"A nation that does not know its history has no future."
-Russel Means, "How Hollywood Stereotyped the Native Americans" video. Seeing this video, as well as reading the chapter from Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism and Queer Theory and understanding and analyzing Caliban’s character in the second and third acts of Shakespeare’s, The Tempest, this quote comes to life. This video portrayed to me the fact that white males have always been and most likely will always be portrayed as the ‘hero,’ in a sense. The video elaborates on the chapter from Cultural Studies, especially when it discusses the hegemony of a culture being predominately white males. “For people of color… Native Americans, females, gays and lesbians, and a host of others, the traditional answer has already been articulated by the dominant class and its accompanying hegemony: silence. Live quietly, work quietly, think quietly.” In this, the author is trying to convey the idea that minority groups (meaning all but Anglo-Saxon males) are just manipulated by the dominate class, and therefore have no little or no status in society. To tie this in with The Tempest, in the first act, we learn that Caliban believes that “This island is [his] by Sycorax, [his] mother,” but as we know, he serves as Prospero’s servant. In the second scene of Act II, Caliban is victim of torment and teasing by Trinculo, the jester from the shipwreck. Caliban would be a native to the island, and should have rights, but we see this is not true. Caliban is subject to being tormented because the others, the white males of the situation, feel they have the right to do so. By doing this, Shakespeare is exemplifying the postcolonial beliefs that are discussed in chapter ten of the book, as well as the “Native Americans” video.

I heart Shakespeare. (The Tempest, Act I)

The Tempest,By William Shakespeare.
In Act I of the Tempest, we meet Prospero and his daughter Miranda. Prospero immediately shows manipulation in the opening act of the play, most evidently through the conjuring of the storm, but also in mental manipulation through his words. Specifically and initially, when Miranda asks her father to stop the storm, he merely replies,

"No harm.
I have done nothing but in care of thee,
Of thee, my dear one—thee my daughter, who
Art ignorant of what thou art, naught knowing
Of whence I am, nor that I am more better
Than Prospero, master of a full poor cell
And thy no greater father."

In doing this, Prospero uses cautious words to portray himself as innocent, while completely avoiding the questions and concerns of his daughter, Miranda. Additionally, we learn that Prospero has never really discussed with Miranda the true story of his past and who she really is. She says,
“You have often
Begun to tell me what I am, but stopped
And left me to a bootless inquisition,
Concluding, 'Stay. Not yet.'"
to which he merely shakes off and ignores, and finally begins to discuss his past with her; however, it is a slightly different story than that he later tells to Ariel. With Miranda, he is sure to discuss the story of his past in a light mood in the nicest way possible, being sure to speak of her mother in the nicest way. When speaking to Ariel, his helper, Prospero is crude and ruthless, describing with sords such as “sunken-eyed hag,” and “groans [that] made wolves howl.” It can be said that Prospero has a way with words. He knows who he is speaking to and knows exactly what words will affect that person emotionally. In doing this, he has a power of rhetoric that can manipulate people into believing what he wishes and portrays to them.

Socratic Circle

This week's socratic circle was interesting... To say the least. I had never experienced a socratic circle before, but I rather enjoyed it, which is why I chose to reflect on it more this week.
The first half of the circle seemed to be more of an interesting topic to cover, dealing with opionions and biases in textbooks, specifucally in Texas, while the second half (where I was part of the discussion) was supposed to deal with ways of learning history and if students should be required to analyze the thought processes and procedures of the past. Reading the article in my seat, before the circle formed, I felt that students should not be required to analyze history, since we get analytical skills through literature and Englis, etc... but sitting in the circle and hearing the few things that were said relating to our specific topic, my views changed. I learned that it is necessary for students to be able to analyze what happens in history, because the entire point to learning about history in school is so that students know what happened in the past, and we can prevent the bad things from repeating themselves. To learn from other people's mistakes, in a sense...