A Literary Debate

This argument is primarily on the topic of how Shakespeare’s works are analyzed and interpreted. George Will believes that interpreting Shakespeare’s literature in order that it reflects on supposed current day issues (feminism, colonialism, etc.) works against the commoner simply attempting to enjoy his works by making them not understandable. On the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt claims that the very cores of Shakespeare’s works were concerned with these types of issues, and that his audience understood the controversial topics such as slavery and colonialism. Greenblatt argues that getting to the deeper meaning of Shakespeare’s works show his intentions and allow the reader to truly enjoy what they are reading. Greenblatt believes that George Will simply wants to ignore the seemingly obvious connection Shakespeare attempts to make with his works like The Tempest. George Will claims that professors of literature are destroying Shakespeare’s literature by portraying it as symbolic of issues like imperialism. He claims it is “collective amnesia and deculturation,” while Greenblatt claims it is impossible to understand Shakespeare’s works without “grappling with the dark energies upon which Shakespeare’s art so powerfully draws.” After reading both sides of the argument, I feel that I agree with Stephen Greenblatt more so than George Will. While I do understand why George Will feels the way he does about how Shakespeare’s works are portrayed, I believe one should have the freedom to analyze literature. If one does not analyze literature, it is meaningless in my opinion. The work is useless if no one attempts to extract the potential meaning, no matter how pessimistic it may be. I believe Greenblatt’s comment on how the dark energies must be “grappled” with sums up the entire situation pretty well. In order to truly analyze Shakespeare’s works, we have to dig deeper than the surface, and be willing to unearth some controversial beliefs.

Post-colonialism and Shakepeare's The Tempest

There is evidence in The Tempest that suggests that Caliban is indeed a representation of Native peoples. In Act 1 Scene 2 when Caliban says “This island’s mine by Sycorax my mother, Which thou tak’st from me. When thou cam’st first Thou strok’st me, and made much of me.” He is claiming that he had been born on the island and been there first, yet he was made into a servant.  The article on post-colonialism claims that the native people’s cultures are oppressed by the dominant Anglo-Saxon’s. The article asks the question, “What happens, however, when one’s ideas, thinking or personal background does not conform? What happens, for example, when the dominant culture consists of white, Anglo-Saxon men and you are a black woman?” In The Tempest, I believe that Caliban represents the oppressed native minority, who is dominated by the incoming conquerors’ culture and literature. Caliban is portrayed in Act 2 Scene 2 negatively when Trinculo says, “What have we here? A man or a fish? Dead or alive? Were I in England now, and had but this fish painted, not a holiday fool there but would give a piece of silver,” referring to Caliban. This shows how those of Native origin are looked down upon and dominated by the superior “white man.” In Act 3 Scene 2, Caliban once again is shown to portray the Native who is wronged when he claims, “As I told thee before, I am subject to a tyrant, A sorcerer, that by his cunning hath Cheated me of the island.” I believe that Shakespeare portrays Caliban in a negative light because he wants to show what the Natives have gone through. Many mentions of Caliban’s mother’s island being “stolen” from him can be compared to the claims that the white man stole the Native Americans’ land. By allowing Caliban’s point of view to be shown and expressed lividly, Shakespeare is arguing against colonization and the oppression of Native people’s ideas and culture.

The Tempest

Prospero uses his words to control Ariel, Caliban, and Miranda. He is able to say exactly what is needed to keep them under his power. For example, when Ariel says, “Let me remember thee what thou hast promised, Which is not yet performed me,” he is telling Prospero to let him free because he had finished his part of their deal. However, Prospero is able to manipulate Ariel into doing another task for him. Prospero is able to use guilt to control both Caliban and Ariel. For example, he says to Ariel, “Dost thou forget From what a torment I did free thee?” when asked about the year of freedom, which leads Ariel to comply with Prospero’s additional demands. Caliban is also reminded of what Prospero has done for him when he curses at Prospero for imprisoning him on the island that had once belonged to his mother. Prospero calls Caliban an ungrateful slave, and explains to him how he taught him as if he were his own child. The guilt is too much for Caliban to handle and it causes him to wilt. Prospero is able to control Miranda by manipulating Ferdinand. When Prospero says, “What, An advocate for an impostor? Hush! Thou think’st there is no more such shapes as he, Having seen but him and Caliban. Foolish wench, To the most of men this is a Caliban, And they to him are angels,” he is able to keep Miranda from Ferdinand simply by claiming Ferdinand is not the true Prince of Naples. Even though Ferdinand draws his sword, Prospero simply tells him to obey and he is left defenseless. How the scene ends also sums up Prospero’s grip on Miranda. What Prospero says, “Come, follow. Speak not for him,” explains the true power of simple rhetoric in commands.

Socratic Circles

I believe I learned a lot from the socratic circle activity we did last week. I really enjoyed the topic where it was being questioned if history books should be changed to show more right wing type ideas. I like how many people expressed different opinions on the matter, and really kept the entire discussion civilized and respectful. I learned that people will tend to stand up for what they believe in no matter how many people go against them. If they support what they believe strongly enough, there Is no changing of their minds. I also enjoyed the topic I had a chance of discussing in the inner circle. I do believe that the article made some good points on how teaching methodology these days is pretty flawed. I like how the author claimed that simply giving students a list of dates and names to remember is useless, because at the end of the day, the student will only remember what they were able to make a connection with. By encouraging critical thinking, students become more immersed in the knowledge and even history can be made interesting. The discussion we had in the circle over this topic was very calm and professional, and everyone who wanted to chime in had a chance to. Everyone seemed to be on the same page about how critical thinking and influence students to work harder and really enjoy learning the material. I believe many of us supported the ideas in the article due to the fact that many of the classes we have taken at Clovis High School have been based on the very same principles. Not merely memorizing random facts, but actually piecing information together and creating connections and networks of knowledge in our brains. Challenging ourselves, always asking questions, and digging deeper than the surface are what learning is all about.