Discussion?

Happy October! :)
Ok, so The Tempest. 
Last week, in the literary analysis essays between Stephen Greenblatt and George Will, we learned that there are different opinions on literary analyisis. Pertaining to the Tempest by William Shakespeare, there can be over analyzation, just as with anything, but there are some rather obvious points to consider. The main concepts referring to Prospero, and how he basically took over the island that was rightfully Caliban's, as well as manipulating and controlling Caliban. Regarding this, I automatically think of the story of Pocohontas. The Native Americans being Caliban, and Prospero representing the English visitors that feel they have the right to take over the land from the "savages," as Caliban is often referred to. Aime Cesaire's A Tempest depicts just this in a play depicts the unfairness and brutality from Shakespeare's original work, in order to further his efforts to restore the cultural identity of black Africans. The play is a simplified version of Shakespeare's classic without such elevated language, and the second scene of act I and first scene of act II blatantly depict the controlling Prospero in his attempts to change and perhaps colonize the native Caliban, who technically owns and should reign the entire island. 

In this portrayal of a classic, one could argue that this is the main point of Shakespeare and the sole purpose of the play is to explain colonialism, and George Will would most likely agree  However, this may not be true. Stephen Greenblatt would argue that although this a good analysis, it may not be the author's sole intent; therefore, by ignoring any other analysis or ideas of the play, this could be described as over analyzation. Greenblatt feels that literature should be open to more than one interpretation, especially since there is no real way of understanding the original author's original intent.