Will Vs. Greenblatt

Ok, so to be honest I was a little confused with the two articles, but I think I got the most part of them. The debate going on within the two authors essays is about analyzing texts and finding politics within them. For example, Will explains that he views hidden messages in Shakespeare’s works, such as feminism and colonialism, as unimportant and taking away from the original text. Greenblatt thinks the exact opposite. He sees these messages and thinks they enrich the readers experience and should be analyzed in classrooms. He believes that if we do not realize these hidden politics and analyze them we face “the risk that we might turn our artistic inheritance into a simple, reassuring, soporific life.” Will’s views contradict Greenblatt’s ideas that we should dissect texts to find inner meaning. He uses examples like, “Emily Dickenson’s poetic references to peas and flower buds are encoded messages of feminist rage.” Will believes analyzing these little details until there is nothing left to analyze takes away from the original meaning of the text.


I find all of this pretty interesting. I have actually been thinking about this a lot in class. Will’s opinions make sense to me. When we read “Reunion”, I felt like we were seriously dissecting every part of the short story until what the author was probably trying to say was lost in minor details that were merely there to describe setting or feeling. Obviously there were details that meant something more than their surface meaning, but sometimes I think we dig deeper than necessary. On the other hand, I love the way works like “The Tempest” can be viewed so many ways. There really are a million different ways to view Caliban. I think my conclusion is that sometimes we do dig way deeper than necessary, and sometimes that is not what the author intended or meant to say, but who says that’s bad. Some things that are simply written with no underlying meaning can mean something to one person and something completely different to another person. That’s the beauty of opinion and individuality. Most writers would probably love to hear all the intellectual conversations their simple thought spurred.

Caliban and Post Colonialism

I think that the article we read definitely had some concepts that could be applied to The Tempest, specifically Caliban. Caliban states, “As I told thee before, I am subject to a tyrant, a sorcerer that by his cunning hath cheated me of the island.” He is saying he was living peacefully on the island first and was enslaved by someone who got there after him. I think he is very comparable to a Native Americans when our country was being colonized. Both were forced into slavery and had their customs and culture erased and replaced with someone else’s ideas of how people should live. In the article, the author states, “The message sent to these ‘others’ by the dominant culture has been clear and consistent-conform and be quiet; deny yourself and all will be well.” Caliban is forced to do this to avoid getting punished by his master. He is seen as an other, or monster, and that scares people. I do not think Shakespeare wanted to justify colonialism by writing this. In my opinion he was trying to do the opposite. He includes information that causes you to feel sympathy for Caliban. He keeps getting changed by other people and it is obvious that he was enslaved by people who were on the island after himself. Shakespeare makes it easy to see both sides of the situation, but I do not think he was trying to justify superiority of the white man in writing this.
I think there are a few parallels between Caliban and the Native Americans in the video. Caliban was seen as a monster; similarly, the Indians were all seen as savages. They were portrayed as monsters and killers when that is not historically true. When Caliban was discovered under his cloak, the men are scared of him and think he is some horrible creature. After they get to know him they realize he is actually harmless. It just shows how people think of others who are different than themselves.

Tempesttttt

Obviously Prospero is manipulating reality. He has a servant who can make things happen when he wants them too, such as the storm. He can make things happen that seem real to everyone else. Prospero is very influential. He can manipulate people around him by twisting the connotation of stories to get the reaction he wants, for example, Prospero states, “By foul play, as thou sayst, were we heaved thence.” He is saying that evil things were done to him. He does not state the other half of the story. He only says he was pushed out of power by an evil force. This sways Miranda’s way of thinking. She thinks of him as a wonderful man that was treated poorly, but she does not know all the facts. Miranda states, “Oh, my heart bleeds to think o' th' teen that I have turned you to, which is from my remembrance!” Miranda is explaining how Prospero’s story makes her feel. She expresses pain and sorrow for him and idolizes him for going through that. Just by choosing his words carefully, Prospero can totally change Miranda’s feelings towards him. Another good example of Prospero’s manipulative personality is when he causes trouble between Miranda and Ferdinand. Prospero says, “They are both in either’s powers, but this swift business I must uneasy make lest too light winning make the prize light.” He is explaining how he needs to cause trouble or they won’t appreciate their love. He makes up lies about Ferdinand so that the couple will have to go through turmoil. He puts Miranda in a situation where she has to choose between Ferdinand and her father because Prospero believes this will make their relationship better. He uses lying as his tool to get the desired results from Miranda. He uses language and magic to change reality around him.

"Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change"

This week we had discussions about two articles. The one I was assigned to was “Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change” by James C. McKinley Jr. The article talked about a select group of people in Texas who wanted to exclude Thomas Jefferson from the textbooks in schools. Most people in our group thought this was wrong, but there was a counter argument.


I guess I think the best solution would be to have an objective textbook. Everyone who was important should be included and nothing they said or did should be changed. But it would be hard to determine what should stay and what should be left out. People would have to decide, making the book subjective. What is in the book definatly matters, but what stays in matters differently to everyone. It would be impossible to create an objective book unless everything that has ever happened in the world was included, and that would be difficult.

I do agree that history could be taught fairly and more effectively. Everyone would have to have an open mind though. There are things that a lot of people do not want to learn about such as the holocaust or African American racism, but both were huge in history. If everything is taught to everyone its fair. When emotions are left out it creates a more objective learning environment.

I think that the way things are presented would change history. If Hitler is portrayed as a hero, people will want to recreate the things he did. This is why its important that history is taught in the most objective way possible.

Obviously there are a lot of 1984 parallels with this topic. The changing of history is a big one. To me it shows how the society in 1984 started. Little things like taking out Jefferson kept happening until everything was changed completely.