Let's Stop Debating, Please!

In the two essays, George Will criticizes scholars and experts for making classic works irrelevant and difficult for the common reader by interpreting the texts as having hidden political undertones, whereas Stephen Greenblatt contests his position on the matter because the classics are saturated with them. Will writes about how William Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, and Jane Austen's works have been interpreted by scholars to include "imperialist rape of the Third World...feminist rage"and "boiling fury about male domination" (Will, 111). Greenblatt argues that "it is very difficult to argue that The Tempest is not about imperialism," because it "is full of conspicuous allusions to contemporary debates over the project of colonization" (Greenblatt 114). 

I strongly dislike choosing sides in most situations, but in this case, I must agree more with Greenblatt. We need to look deeply into classical works and look for the author’s intended purpose, but scholars and professionals should not try to identify and create such abstract ideas as Will illustrated (albeit kinda inappropriately). What I think literature needs, like most other things, is moderation in its teachings and interpretations. I know that it’s impossible to get people to take a neutral or at least moderate stance with things like these, but I see that as maybe the most effective way to settle things. They just need to learn to compromise a little, but that’s only what I think.

I still like some of Will’s points though; I agree that over-interpreting classics makes understanding them difficult and confusing if you have little or no prior experience examining them. He tries to speak for the common person, but I don’t think he gives people enough academic credit. I think that it is relatively easy to see the messages about imperialism in The Tempest, but other works are sure to be more difficult. I can see where he comes from.

I wish I could read this a little easier

European countries presented the notion that "all races other than white were inferior or subhuman" (Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiftin, 236). Like Caliban, their subjugated nations were taken advantage of both economically and culturally, as the more powerful countries reaped the benefits of raw materials and the institution of European religious beliefs. He is an example of a native who is taken advantage of by a seemingly godlike European. Shakespeare created Caliban as a representation of native peoples. His position in the play is meant to provide an argument against colonization. Even though he guided Prospero around the island and showed him the "freshwater springs, the saltwater pits, the barren places and the fertile ones," Caliban is treated only as Prospero and Miranda's "horrid slave" (Shakespeare, 43-45). He was perfectly happy to remain alone on the island without European language or culture, but Prospero and Miranda thought otherwise. They could have let him live with his own interpretations of things, but they only saw him "babbling like an animal" and decided instead to enslave him (45). Caliban did not need to learn the language; he was content by himself on the island.

This parallels the Native Americans in early North America and the video. Native Americans were originally portrayed as savages with a minimal understanding of their surroundings, as portrayed in "How Hollywood Stereotyped the Native Americans". They are characterized as murderous and unintelligent. However, they were really peaceful people who lived off the land and practiced their own unique ancestral beliefs. Like the Native Americans, Caliban is easily controlled by Stephano's alcohol and kind(ish) words, but he is still referred to as an "ignorant monster" and a "drunken fish" by Trinculo (123). Shakespeare created Caliban to depict the unfortunate struggle of the colonized.

The Tempest Act I

Prospero creates his own version of the past to influence the thoughts of Miranda, Ariel, and Caliban. When he finally tells Miranda about her origins, he presents himself as the rightful Duke of Milan who was overthrown by his once trusted and loyal brother Antonio. He explains to her that Antonio and Alonso didn’t kill them because “they didn’t dare, because the people of Milan loved me too much“ (Shakespeare, 7).  It is when he includes the people’s love for him that Shakespeare hints at Prospero’s verbal manipulation. He also exalts himself by emphasizing his knowledge of magic and the arts to create an even more powerful figure in Miranda’s eyes.  Such manipulation is comparable to how the Party altered historical records to match its current goals.

He also molds his own image into one similar to Big Brother’s. Prospero manages to do this by forcibly reminding her that it was he who saved her from imprisonment in a hollow pine tree. It was his magic that made the “pine tree open and let [her] out” (13). He does the same thing as the Party by keeping him oppressed and preventing him from knowing a better life. Like the people of Oceania, Ariel feels indebted to Prospero and endures service to him.

Like the Party, Prospero controls Caliban with threats of physical torture. He keeps power over Caliban by threatening to “rack thee with old cramps, fill all thy bones with aches, make thee roar that beasts shall tremble at thy din” (17).  Caliban only knows how to comply with threats of physical pain. Prospero once treated him kindly, but after attempting to rape Miranda, Caliban lost his opportunity for a normal life. He is like Winston in the fact that the worst thing, in his mind, is physical pain. 

Socratic Circle Reflection

            After hearing the discussion in the classroom setting, I honestly can’t say that I favor a conservative leaning over a liberal standpoint in textbooks. I would however, like to make note that some of the problem comes from the textbook companies’ willingness to appease the school boards for monetary gain. They have direct control over what is written into the history books and consequently influence the subject matter that students learn. These companies should be a little more concerned with what students are being taught rather than how they can sell their books.

            There were points in the discussion that stood out and influenced my viewpoint on the matter. It was pointed out that we may be reading and studying history based on liberal views, and that Texas is just trying to restore balance. It was also noted that our generation can’t say what is right and wrong because we weren’t there during past events in history. These comments helped me shape my own thoughts on the subject.

            I don’t have a problem with the Texas board of education adding more to the curriculum, but they shouldn’t be removing anything. They also shouldn’t let political alliances corrupt the information feed in schools. In my opinion, everything in history is important, good or bad; it helps us learn from our mistakes and thereby improve on our shortcomings. I now believe that in order to have a fully balanced and unbiased history book, textbooks must include every aspect of every historical event, no matter how it was influenced by politics. An unadulterated record of history would let people see a more truthful story of human relations.