Yeah, This is Fun...

After reading through the two articles written by George Will and Stephen Greenblatt, I find it hard to really take a side on the debate.  The articles are arguing about how literature is being read, hence how it is being written in the long run.

In George Will's article he is trying to explain that all is controlled by political agendas and feelings.  This is shown when he says, "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political".  When he says this he is pretty much stating that all types of literature are based on some type of political meaning.  Instead of there being some type of specific meaning this quote is stating that it will always tie back to politics.

On the other hand in Stephen Greenblatt's article he argues against Will's article.  He is stating the complete opposite when he says "But art, the art that matters, is not cement.  It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing".  This shows that he believes instead of everything being based on one political meaning he believes that there can be several different ways to interpret something.  He also strengthens this argument when he says "Poets cannot soar when their feet are stuck in social cement".  This also points out that you can not be as creative when you are just using one idea.  You need to make it so there can be several different interpretations to make it interesting.

It is hard for me to really choose one side because both prove some pretty good points.  I think I can side with both of them in the end.  I would side with Will because I believe there are some things in literature that are based on politics and are used to get a certain view across, but this is where I split my decision because I do not believe all literature is like this.  I also agree with Greenblatt because other literature pieces usually show many different ideas and not only just one idea.

Native as in AVATAR!!!???

Caliban is being portrayed throughout Acts I and II as being a native person there on the island.  Native people are referred to as "subhumans or "savages" who are inferior" in the Post colonialism article.  This is exactly how Caliban is being treated throughout this whole story.  First he starts out just living on the island with his mother and WHAM out of no where Prospero comes and makes Caliban his slave.  Caliban is not only treated as if he is a savage or native by Prospero but also by Trinculo and Stephano.  Stephano impresses Caliban because of his wine and his courage so Caliban wants to serve him because he believes that this could lead to the death of Prospero.  Stephano is treating Caliban the same way though by stating "Get down and swear it" he is telling Caliban to swear his life to him so he can serve him now.  Caliban adds to the role of him being a native in the story because he knows everything about the island. He says "I'll show you where the fresh water is... pick berries for you... catch birds on the rocks for you".  This shows that he is innocent right now because he believes that Stephano can help him.  Just as in the article when it states that "Western Europeans, and, in particular, the British people, were biologically superior to any other race" the same idea is going around when Prospero or Stephano take advantage of Caliban and his knowledge of his homeland.  Caliban is representing what actually happened when the Native Indians decided to help and lend knowledge to the settlers or at least tried too.  They were taken advantage of and then thought of as lesser people and "savages".  I believe Caliban will help out Stephano but in the end if Prospero will perish, Stephano will do exactly what Prospero did and make Caliban his slave and treat him like an animal.  Well that is why I believe Caliban is representing a native person on the island.     Bye now!

Ze Tempest Blizzog!

        In Act I of The Tempest Prospero showed many ways on how he could control peoples thoughts by telling them stories in certain ways to sway their perceptions.  He uses his variations of stories of the past in order to talk to "control" people in the present.  Some examples of this are when he talks to his daughter (Miranda), his servant (Ariel), and his slave (Caliban).  Prospero used his tactics to perfection when he told his daughter the story of what happened when she was a daughter and he was the Duke of Milan.  He pointed out all of the evil deeds that were done to him by his evil brother.  Throughout this whole process he never gives a true reason for why his brother is doing this.  It is always that his brother is evil...He wants my throne, but he really fails to mention the true reason why his brother did this.  I believe that Prospero might be hiding something that he did to his brother which caused his brother to be so mad.  But he is changing it around so that his daughter hates his brother and he seems like he is the good guy. I also believed that he changed up the stories about Ariel and Caliban to gain more control and power over them also.  For Ariel I believe he did not give the whole story about what happened when he supposedly "saved" her.  I have a feeling that it will end up that he did not even save her but she just does not remember so he uses this to his advantage.  He makes her feel bad by making her seem like she is asking for too much when she asks for his freedom.  This really contradicts itself because he saved her from "torturous" labor to make her his slave?  What is so good about that?  Another idea I have is that I believe that Caliban was also not told the true story about what happened with his mother and how he is being treated.  He probably changed up his story as well in order to gain more control over him and make him his slave.  I know it sounds pretty repetitive but I believe he used the same tactics on all three of these victims in order to gain the upper edge on them and more control over them.

TEE HEE!! ;)

If you are reading this, You might DIE!!

        I learned a lot of new information when we did the socratic circle in class.  I enjoyed doing the circle idea because it really helped me see different views and ideas that I would not have thought of.  My thought throughout the article that we read was how were they making all of these decisions to change the textbooks for specific reasons.  But the thing that confuses me is that all of the people making these decisions have knowledge of history but they are not historians or scientists, so how do they know what should be taken out and inserted into the textbooks.  I believe that a way to fix the situation for the textbooks is to allow the colleges help determine what is going to be in the books.  This way it benefits everyone because then it would make an easier jump from high school into college and all of the high school classes would be learning the same curriculum.  Instead of the AP classes learning the information that the colleges are learning but the regular history is learning something else.  Another way I believe we could fix the situation is to actually let the historians determine what should be learned, because they do know what would be best for everyone to learn.
        Another idea that pops up is how do we really know what is more important?  How can we truly tell what happened throughout history because we were not actually there so how do we know if it is true or not?  All of the information that we have learned for out whole lives might not even be true because what if whoever was writing told a lie to make it sound better or even give it completely different outcome.  We could be learning lies and we do not even know it.  This idea is how I am going to connect my ideas to 1984.  In 1984 the people were being fed lies about what happened in the past because the government changed it so they were always right.  They did this in order to make it that nothing would change and that they would have all time power forever.  This could be what is happening now because we technically do not really know what had happened in the past because we were not there unless we had "time machines" obviously, but it is impossible to every know if our history is true or  not.  The people in the past might have just made up what happened to control our thoughts of what did happen now and we do not even know it. :)