Literature Debate

In these two articles, the two authors give very different views on how literature can be interpreted.  George Will believes that if we were to interpret a piece and stray from the traditional interpretation of a piece, then we would essentially be destroying the original meaning or message that the piece was trying to give.  Will also brings up the interesting point that "All literature is... political".  This arguement is interesting because it explores the fact that no matter how how we may try, we are almost always going to be biased upon a topic.  Stephen Greenblatt on the other hand argues against was Will believes.  He says that it is not demeaning nor destroying the purpose of a piece of literature if we were to not interpret its traditional meaning.  Rather, he states that we should try and uncover a piece of literature's "hidden" meaning or deeper purpose. 

After reading the articles,I moreso agree with Greenblatt.  I would agree with him because as we read a piece of literature, everyone has their own interpretations.  For example, as we read a novel, different lines may mean different things to different people based upon our experiences.  Because we all dont lead the same exact life, it would be nearly impossible for everyone to have the same exact interpretation of a piece.  Although i agree with Greenblatt on this point, i also agree with Will's point that it is nearly impossible to write an unbiased piece of literature.  Naturally, we a re inclined to take certained sides on a debate and although we may try to remain objective while writing, we will always have some kind of bias towards one side of the arguement.

Acts II and III and Postcolonialism

As the Play developes, we see that Shakespear does not sympathize towards Caliban and the natives.  Rather, it seems as if he supports more Prospero.  This is symbolic of the fact that During this era, there was much expansion into other parts of the world.  Prospero represents the people of Europe who were exapanding and "civilizing" other parts of the world, and Caliban represents the natives.  One example of how Shakespear supports Prospero, is he shows Caliban's stupidity.  Also, Shakespear constantly describes Caliban as being a monster and how hideous he is.
In the article about postcolonialism, Bressler has a similiar thought on natives.  He refers to them as savages or subhumans.  By describing these people this way he denounces them and implies that they are inferior.  In the article, Bressler states that "works of Literature are not merely exist".  This is interesting because it implies that a work of literature is not only about the plot of the story being told.  It also includes the idea that author that is writing the story is most likley biased and therefore possibly not entirely correct.
The video about the Native Americans is a great example of how we see the bias of a story.  It enbles us to see the stereotype that has developed today of the Native Americans being "savages" when in reality, most were peaceful farming people.  The film describes how the stereotype wrongly depicts these people and includes the thoughts of several Native American actors/actresses.  These people explain that their culture is very different than what the white population believes it to be and shows the stereotype that exists.

Prospero's Manipulation

Prospero controls the characters: Ariel, Caliban, and Miranda all through the use of rhetoric. 

To control Ariel, he constantly reminds her of the "torture [he] freed [her] from".  He gains her complete obedience by constantly reminding her of that fact that he had rescued her.  Whenever Ariel shows that she may be straying from complete obedience, he reminds her of how he saved her and thus renews her greatfulness towards him.  Prospero is very similiar to the figure head "Big Brother" in the novel 1984.  Just as Prospero has saved Ariel from her suffering, Big Brother rescues the citizens of Oceania from their past.  In addition, he uses threats such as threataning to "rend an oak . And peg [her] in his knotty entrails till [she] hast howled away twelve winters".  By making threats such as this, he uses fear as a way to keep control over Ariel.  This is very similiar to how the thought police and ministry of love in 1984 use fear to keep their citizens "loyal".

To control Caliban, he issues many threats.  Initially when Caliban and Prospero met, they were very kind to each other and shared knowledge.  But, Prospero took advantage of this and made Caliban his slave of sort.  To keep Caliban under his control, Prospero gives many threats and uses fear to control him.  For example, when Caliban would not come out, he threatened to torture Caliban for his Disobedience.

To control Miranda, he creates tales that we do not know are true or not.  For example, he tells her the story about howw he was once a great man and the Duke of Milan, but was driven out of Milan by his greedy brother.  Miranda believes this all to be true and reveres Prospero although in reality, what she is hearing could all be lies since she is only hearing one side of the story.  This is similiar to 1984 in the fact that the citizens were only told one side of a story and because of this, many people began to love Big Brother just as Miranda loves Prospero.

Through these different ways, Prospero is able to control Ariel, Caliban, and Miranda.

Class Discussion

There are many dangers of having only a single story.   For example, is there was ony one side of a story, then the story that is being told would most likely be biased.  Since it is biased, the likelihood of the story being all truth is slim to none.  By only hearing one side of the story, you are only able to hear what the teller wants you to hear and often restricts you from hearing the whole truth about what happened.  In our discussion, an example of hearing only one side of the story is happening in Texas.  The textbooks veing produced are now being changed and showing only conservative ideas.  They are taking away from the whole truth an adding what they deem important or neccesary.  Another idea was proposed by Kristen Gardner who is a proffessor of history.  She believes that we should not only be taught about dates and events, but we should learn more in depth about why things happen.  In doing so, there is much more critical thinking and helps one understand events that happen as a whole versus just what the books teach or say.  She not only preaches this, but she believes in the intergration of more multi-cultural historical figures.  She believes that we must learn more about people such as women, or people of other races or colors.  As a result, i believe that we should not just learn about one side of a story, but learn more about thhe events as a whole and understand why they happened.


p.s.  Sorry about the late post.  My internet has been down so I have not had access at home, and the school library blocks this site.