A Literary Debate

After reading the two articles I can understand both George Will and Stephen Greenblatt's views. Will's viewpoint speaks for the "nonacademic common reader against the academic expert, suggesting that the academics who reinterpret Shakespeare in the light of colonialism, feminism, and other current preoccupations are rendering the plays unrecognizable to the ordinary reader and playgoer" (110). Greenblatt's viewpoint argues that "these preoccupations with political power were not at all unfamiliar to Shakespeare and his audience, and that recognizing the presence of issues of colonialism and slavery in Shakespeare should deepen the ordinary reader's pleasure rather than undermine it" (110).

While I can understand both Will and Greenblatt's arguments I have a hard time deciding which one I agree with more. I agree with Will when he talks about how reading too much into a story makes the story unrecognizable to the reader. I personally feel that even in our class readings we look to deep into the story. We seem to over analyze the story which in the end just makes it boring. I feel that the authors did not write the stories thinking that oh I am going to put a symbol here and follow it up with a clever way of making this object an example of something that is an issue today like colonialism or whatever. It is my opinion that most authors write their stories to entertain their readers and not make them have to analyze the whole story just to understand what they were really trying to say.

On the other hand, I do also agree with Greenblatt's argument. There will be times for the rest of our lives that we will need to read deeper than just the surface level to grasp a better understanding of the story. Although this can be time consuming and get rather boring it helps us as readers to make connections to ideas that have been around for years. It can help us see how these ideas have changed or how they have evolved.

The Tempest Acts 2 and 3

After reading the second and third acts I was able to make a connection between Caliban and native people. Shakespeare seemed to have intended for the role of Caliban to be like a native person on the island. He was there before anyone else was and was able to tell them everything there was to know about the island. He also portrays the people who have their land taken away from them when someone else tries to colonize it. In the article we had to read it stated that "the assumption was that Western Europeans, and, in particular, the British people, were biologically superior to any other races...remained relatively unquestioned" (263). This can be connected to Prospero because he took the land away from Caliban and then made Caliban his slave. Prospero made himself seem that he was better than Caliban and that he should be the one to rule the land.

Caliban can also be a representation of native peoples because of the way people think of others who are not like themselves. People always judge others who are not exactly like them and this is shown through Stephano and Trinculo. When they see Caliban who is a native of the island they call him "an abominable monster" (Act 2 Scene 2 page 106). He is not like them so they make fun of him. They continue to make fun of him as Caliban gets more and more drunk and starts to worship Stephano. Stephano and Trinculo take advantage of this so they can take control of the island because they believe that the others have died in the shipwreck. They have him keep drinking because Caliban promised to show them everything there is to see on the island. Caliban believes that they will help him out and take him away from Prospero when in reality Stephano and Trinculo doing the exact same thing that Prospero did when he first came to the island.

The Tempest - Act 1

Throughout the first act there are many examples where Prospero is able to manipulate the people around him through the stories he tells them. One example would be the story he tells his daughter Miranda. Prospero is able to create a fictional story to tell his daughter because when he asks her what she remembers about her life before coming to the island she replies "tis far off, and rather like a dream than an assurance that my remembrance warrants" (Act 1 Scene 2 page16). When Miranda tells Prospero that she only remembers a little, however, it is a bit hazy he is able to tell her anything he wants because she does not remember which will make her believe anything. He then goes on to tell her that his own brother, Antonio took control of Milan and put him and Miranda out to sea. Through this story Prospero is able to control Miranda because he makes her believe that his brother Antonio is evil which in turn make her hate him even though she does not find out what he really did that was so horrible.

Another example of Prospero's manipulation is towards his servant Ariel. When Ariel had asked if he could have his freedom soon it drew an angry response from Prospero who replied "thou dost...I must once in a month recount what thou hast been which thou forget'st" (Act 1 Scene 2 page 34). Prospero feels that Ariel has forgotten that he saved him and must tell him the story again. He uses this story to control Ariel because he says that he saved him from a witch who stuck him in a tree. Prospero thinks that since he saved Ariel he must work for him or else he "will rend an oak and peg thee in his knotty entrails till thou hast howled away twelve winters" (Act 1 Scene 2 page 36).

The last example from the first act that shows Prospero's control is towards his slave Caliban. Prospero orders Caliban to do chores for him or else he will "rack thee with old cramps, fill all thy bones with aches, make thee roar that beasts shall tremble at thy din" (Act 1 Scene 2 page 44). Prospero threatens to inflict pain on Caliban if he does not follow orders. He also says that he was always good to Caliban until he took advantage of his kindness and tried to rape Miranda. However, Caliban says that Prospero actually took the island away from him when he first came there.

Socratic Circle Reflection

To be honest with everyone I was really nervous about the whole discussion thing. I am not one to really share my opinions with other people and really just join in big group conversations for all that matter. However, I have to admit that even though I did not talk that much I thought that the discussion went very well. I got to hear other people's opinions about the topic of the history books and listen to new ideas that I had not thought of before. I enjoyed listening to other ideas because it got me thinking about the subject more and I felt that it also kept everyone involved with the discussion.

To answer some of the questions in the prompt I feel that it would be very hard and require a lot of work on many people's part to create and unbiased textbook. There would have to be much editing by many people all with different viewpoints to create something that they could all agree on. However, I believe that in order to do something like this it would take a very long time because it would probable take a while to have everyone agree on something. This is why I believe that historians should be the ones who create the history books. They would be the most knowledgeable about what is important to teach students.

I also remember from our discussion the idea of constantly learning from the past. If we all know our history and can learn from previous mistakes that were made we can possibly save ourselves from making that same mistake again. This concept however, was not the case in 1984. Their history was constantly being rewritten to make it seem that the party was always right so the people never really learned about the mistakes that were made and could possibly be prevented again because they never knew their real history.