Literary Study, Politics, and Shakespeare: A Debate Response

                In the language world, there is not only one way to see or read each text but many ways. You may have an idea and I could have another idea on the same topic and both of us can be right. Usually, people with different background and culture tend to observe things differently. In Literary Study, Politics, and Shakespeare: A Debate, it demonstrates the argument between George F. Will, a political commentator, and Stephen Greenblatt, a university professor of how literary should or should not be view.

                George Will argues in his article, Literacy Politics, that when people tend to use political view to read a text, they could strips away the author’s purpose of the text. For example, he states that “the supplanting of esthetic by political responses to literature makes literature primarily interesting as a mere index of who had power and whom the powerful victimized” (110). From political perspective, the people are only interest on who have the power and who the power is using against. The reader is not focusing on the author’s teachings or purpose. They are reading in too much of the text that they are losing sight of the theme of the text. Will wants people to see that politic have mostly nothing in literature. In addition, Will wrote that “’by deconstructing,’ or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority” (112).

                Stephen Greenblatt’s The Best Way Kill Our Literary Inheritance Is to Turn It into a Decorous Celebration of the New World Order debates that texts should be read and analyze as much as possible. For instance, he wrote that  “it is, [he] believes, all but impossible to understand these play without grappling with the dark energies upon which Shakespeare’s art so powerfully draws”(115). Greenblatt believes that without doing researches and understanding Shakespeare himself, one cannot understand the true meanings of his writings. Therefore, by analyzing and researching the text, one gain the understanding and in the making of the thought-process. He encourages readers to view the text from any perspective, which allow the readers to comprehend what they are reading. Without ideas and opinion, literature would fade away.

                From both perspectives, I cannot help but agree with both Will and Greenblatt. I do agree with Will when he wrote that “’by deconstructing,’ or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority” (112). Sometime if the people, with a political bias, can view the text in a totally new and different meaning then the author intended. The purpose of literature is taken away and is left with nothing. However, it is inevitable that the readers do view the text a different way because of their culture and background. Greenblatt states that “the risk that we might turn our artistic inheritance into a simple, reassuring, soporific lie” (115). Without different ideas and opinions of different literature can lead to a boring and simple lie. They are what are keeping literature alive by passing on our knowledge to the next generation and so on. People will always come up with different conclusions.        

Shakespeare and Colonialism Response

                “’They’re not like us,’ and for that reason deserve to be ruled” (Bressler 240). During the sixteenth century, the Old World competed to colonize in the New World. In the New World, they discovered different kind of people. The people were judged for having different skin and characteristics; they were look down on and conquered. The Whites believed that it was their duty to dominate and change them.  Shakespeare’s The Tempest reveals his unfair stereotype of “Others” through how he characterizes Caliban.  

                Others were considered as inferior to the White people. For example, in the Literarcy Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, it stated that “all races other than white were inferior or subhuman”, a concept called alternity (Bressler 236). The White people came to the New World and took over as if they have the right to do so.  They came and conquered the natives’ home. The natives were discriminated and bestowed as an inferior race. The Whites believed that it was their rights and power to change these people.  Furthermore, Caliban said to Miranda and Prospero that “this island’s [his], by Sycorax [his] mother, which [Prospero] takest from…” (Shakespeare 43). Caliban represents the natives that once lived on the island and Prospero symbolized the Whites. He came to the island and took over the island as if it was his. He did not give a thought to who lived on the island or whose home it was. He thought that he was the one who found it and declared the island as his. Prospero did not even bother to adapt to Caliban’s culture and way of life; however, Caliban was forced to transform his living style and culture to fit Prospero’s. The White seems to think that they are the superior ones and others should believe their beliefs instead. Shakespeare seemed to agree to the thought that whites are dominated and superior to others.

                The Old World took advantages of the colonies for their own benefits. For example, in Literarcy Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, it said that “Great Britain… dominated her colonies, making them produce and then give up their countries’ raw materials in exchange for what material goods the colonized desired or were made to believe they desired by the colonizers” (Bressler 236). The reason why the Old World colonized in the New World was because they were looking to make fortunes and profits from them. They persuaded the natives to give their precious materials for something that is worthless to the Whites. They cheated and took advantages of them. Similarly to The Tempest, Caliban “showed [Prospero] all the features of the island, the freshwater springs, the saltwater pits, the barren places and that fertile ones” (Shakespeare 43). Prospero used Caliban to show him all over the island and where all the food sources are. After all this, Prospero made Caliban into one of his slaves. He did not care for him after all. Prospero just took advantage of Caliban.

                Earlier Hollywood tends to make the Native Americans seem like the bad guys. Similarly to this, Shakespeare portrays Caliban as a savage who badmouthed his owner and tried to rape Miranda. This is important because it demonstrate the stereotypes that people have on Native Americans. Native Americans are thought to be savages and cruel people. They would eat whatever they kill, murder the Whites or rape wives and children. But have you ever thought that it was their fault if they do these things? Their homeland was invaded by White people, claiming the land to be their own. The White tried to eliminate their culture and convert them into one of them. The Native Americans were just trying to save their culture and homeland.           

The Tempest: Act 1

            As we all know that Prospero is the protagonist of the play, The Tempest. He could use magic to control others; however, he used historical narratives to manipulate others through guilt. Prospero used this technique to either glorify himself or order others to carry his commands. For example, when Prospero was telling Miranda the story how and why they came to be on the island, he told Miranda that it was because that she “have [him], [her] schoolmaster, made [her] more profit than other princesses can that have more times for vainer hours and tutors not so careful”(26).  Prospero glorifies himself to Miranda, making him look like is a god himself. He wants Miranda to think that thanks to him, Miranda has the best education than others. Miranda would believe that her father was the most significant and declared her loyal to him. She would believe that her father is the only good person in the whole world compare to his brothers and enemies. Prospero even manipulate his own daughter. Furthermore, when Ariel asked for the freedom that Prospero promised him, Prospero reminded him that when Ariel was trapped under Sycorax’s trap spell, “it was [his] art, When [he] arrived and heard thee, that made gape The pine let [him] out” (36). Prospero brought back the past to gain control over Ariel again. He is manipulating Ariel’s feeling and thoughts. By reminding Ariel of his past, it made him felt guilty for asking and feeling that he still need to repay his debt to Prospero. He felt that he should have been lucky of been saving; therefore, it is his duty to follow Prospero’s commands. In addition, when Caliban told Prospero that the island was his and that Prospero stole it, Prospero relied back, “…[He] have used [him], filth as thou art, with human care, and lodged [him] in mine own cell till thou didst seek to violate the honor of [his] child”(42). Prospero reminded Caliban that it was not his fault because he did take good care of him before he tried to rape Miranda. It was Caliban’s own fault for doing so. He could have had a good life with them but he put this upon himself when he tempted. Prospero manipulated Caliban thinking that it was his fault and that he owes Prospero’s his servitude. He cannot blame anyone but himself for his misery. Caliban is also afraid of Prospero’s magic powers of having painful cramps. Prospero made himself seem like a savior of all of them, making them think that it was their fault.

My Thoughts On Altering History

I am not sure if I am viewing this correctly, but this is my analysis of our whole discussion.

I believe that all the fighting over history (of whose views get to be publishes) is all over power, the power to control the people. The person’s whose point is getting across, is going to be the person who have access to more power and control over its citizens. For example, in 1984, one of the techniques the Party used to control its people is the alteration of history. They changed history to brainwashing the people into believing that the Party had always been there throughout history. Oceania had always been to war with Eurasia then later on, Eastasia. Altering history has allowed the Party to obtained power over its citizens. The government wanted the authority; therefore by demonstrating that the Party was always good, makes the people support and follow the government.     

 For instance, in the article, Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change, quotes that “Cynthia Dunbar… thinks the nation was founded on Christian belief, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson…, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, William Blackstone,” just because Thomas “Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”  This reveals the political war between the Republicans and Democrats of how the history textbook should be like to increase more support on either side. Just because of the party wanting gain control, they could erase the historical character from history just like that. For example, if the history books were to say that the Republicans were the best, I believe that many people would follow that writing and support the Republicans. This would allow power to the parties. History can take control of the people’s mind. Parties can gain control of the people’s votes and rise into power in cities, states, or even in U.S. The party wants to be in dominance over its people. I think that any parties would change history so the citizens would side with them.

For addition, in The Danger of a Single Story, Adichie stated that “There is a word, an Igbo word that I think about whenever I think about the power structures of the world and it is ‘nkali.’ It’s a noun that loosely translates to ‘to be greater than another.’”  Every single race or person wants to look and sound better than others; therefore, in history, they write about other people being and doing "this and that", and attack others' physical and mental characteristics. Other people can read this and assume that they are like this. This leads other to have a negative feeling toward the others. People spread rumors and gossips around making each other look horrible. They want to be superior over the others. They criticize others to make themselves feel as a better person or race.  

History is always view from a bias point. Everyone always have their own opinion(s) about the past or current events. Nobody is wrong or right because s/he is only telling from what s/he had experience. They are telling others their point of view, so it is whether you believe it or not. No matter where you go, there would always be opinions. You would never know the truth until you meet the other or experience it, and form your own opinion. (Sorry if my analysis does not make any sense.)