Literary Debate

After reading the two essays on the deeper meaning of works of literature, I have come to the conclusion that both writers are right to a certain point. They both have some different views on literature that I believe to be true. In some cases I think that texts are overanalyzed and students try connecting the subject matter with something totally different from what the theme really was. In cases like these, sometimes the work of literature loses its purpose or intended value. However, I do also believe that in some cases it is beneficial to link some literature to things going on around us now.
The first of the essays was written by George Will, a Pulitzer prize winner and an established political commenter who writes a column in the newspaper. To start off his essay, he wrote that "all literature is.. political". So he's saying that every book ever written has a tendency to have some political opinions. I think this is a very interesting view on literature. Will’s main thought is that critics of literature many times over analyze works of literature . He thinks that literature is over analyzed and for the most part, it is interpreted into something it’s not meant to be. Will believes that when critics overanalyze literature, they strip it of its power.
Stephan Greenblatt wrote the second essay. Greenblatt is the Cogan University professor of the humanities at Harvard University. He believes that linking the text to outside topics allow the student to completely understand the writing better. Greenblatt believes that if students relate colonialism to The Tempest than it can educate us on "forgiveness, wisdom, and social atonement". He thinks it is beneficial to dig down deep into the writing and get the most meaning out of it as you possibly can.

Tempest Act 2 &3 / Cultural Studies packet

I think that Caliban does represent a native people by drawing conclusions from chapters 2 and 3 of the Tempest. The situation he was in is just like the Native Americans. He was living on the island peacefully and then along came Prospero. Caliban taught Prospero all that he needed to know about the island and then Prospero took over the island and banished Caliban and made him his slave. Caliban said to Prospero "I showed you all the features of the island, the freshwater springs, the saltwater pits, the barren places and the fertile ones. I curse myself for doing that!" Prospero took advantage of Caliban after he learned everything he needed to about the island, and Caliban was furious about it. I think Shakespeare intended for the reader to sympathize with Caliban. Prospero came into his home and forced him to be his servant while torturing him in the process. Prospero believed he was superior to Caliban. In the cultural studies packet it explains that the Western Europeans and British once believed that they "were culturally superior to any other race". The belief that they were superior than all the other races affected the way that they treated the other cultures. Slavery was common for the colonized. The Western Europeans had them do forced labor. Prospero represents the Western Europeans in the Tempest and Caliban represents a minority (like the Native Americans). Prospero invaded Caliban's home land and forced him into being his slave. If Caliban disobeyed, Prospero would punish him. There are some astonishing similarities between the Prospero and the Western Europeans. Caliban was also portrayed in a bad light by Prospero in the book. He was thought to be disgusting and filthy. Not even worthy of the cave he was living in. This is how the Western Europeans treated the colonized. They had no respect for them.

The Tempest. Prospero's manipulation.

Prospero seems to have a tight hold on the people on the island with him. He tells stories of their past that make him seem like the hero. He takes advantage of the other characters by making them feel like they owe him something. Prospero saved Ariel from a witch's spell, and if she back talks him, he threatens to put her back into the spell. He tells her that she is lucky to have him, otherwise she would still be under the curse. When Ariel asked for a reduced sentence, he reminds her of the witch. "You lie, you nasty, ungrateful thing! Have you forgotten the horrid witch Sycorax, stooped over with old age and ill will? Have you forgotten her?" Prospero also tells Miranda of how he used to take care of her when she was little, and that he saved them both from drowning by not giving up because of her smile. He told her that she "was a little angel who kept [him] going". Telling her this, might have given her the feeling of gratitude and comfort towards Prospero, and might make her feel that she is in debt to him. Prospero keeps tabs on Caliban because earlier Caliban tried to rape Miranda. So now Prospero makes Caliban serve him. He tells Caliban that he deserves worse for what he did. Prospero makes all the characters on the island feel subordinate to him because of the things that transpired in the past. He uses the past to manipulate people into getting them to do what he wants. Prospero also uses other tactics of manipulation. He manipulated Miranda and Ferdinand into loving each other at the end Act 1. He uses Ariel to put his manipulation into action so that he succeeds. Prospero uses his control over Ariel to manipulate Miranda and Ferdinand.

Socratic circle discussion

Our class had a great discussion on the Texas conservatives winning the recent curriculum change. A lot of great points were brought up and discussed. Emotions were flaring up. The conversation seemed to base around the topics of what is and is not opinion and changing history with bias. I didn't really like that people were saying that everything is an opinion. However, it was a good point. They thought that if someone thinks the holocaust was bad, then that is their opinion. They also thought that teaching that slavery was bad is also an opinion. This is occasionally true, however it is just a technicality. Humans are wired with thoughts telling them what is right and wrong. That should be included as a factor. We all know deep down that the holocaust was wrong. We are wired to realize this. Anyone who likes Nazis either don't know the facts or are not mentally stable. We have laws that are "based on opinion". If everything is an opinion then the law telling us that murder is bad and we shouldn't murder people is an opinion. It just frustrates me to hear people talking about everything being an opinion. That was kind of off the subject of the paper, but this is a blog on our discussion and that is what we discussed. Getting back to the paper... We also talked about the Conservatives changing history in the circle. I don't think they were changing history, but I think they were balancing out the liberal and conservative influence in history. Public schoolbooks seem to be loaded with liberal views, and it is nice that they are balancing it out in Texas. I don't think what they were doing was wrong because liberals have already done it. Thanks for reading and happy holidays!