How far, is too far?? ... ;)

The article contrasts the views of two well-respected individuals of literature, George Will and Stephen Greenblatt. Both present arguments to which the boundary of analysis should apply when considering the context of a piece of literature.

Will believes that these works are being over-assessed by critics who deem that the context of a play is vital when considering the meaning of a piece. He states, “By “deconstructing,” or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority.” Will believes that overzealous critics become in control of a text’s purpose when they analyze it too far. “Critics displace literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning.”

Greenblatt, on the other hand, believes that the time period in which a work of literature is written is completely relevant to the meaning of the text. He believes that these pieces are intended to be interpreted through context: “But art, the art that matters, is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing… The best way to kill our literary inheritance is to turn it into a decorous liturgical celebration of the new world order.” A major focal point to Greenblatt’s argument is derived from the Tempest. He feels that Shakespeare was most definitely commenting on the nature of imperialism—a prominent subject during Shakespeare’s era. “It is, I believe, all but possible to understand these plays without grappling with the dark energies upon which Shakespeare’s art so powerfully draws.”

            After reading both arguments, I would have to say I agree with both. I don’t see how it’s possible to come from only Will’s or Greenblatt’s perspective. I believe many pieces of literature call for the attention of someone both considering the context as well as respecting the author’s territory over the purpose of his/her work. It would be ignorant to throw out the importance of the time period in which the piece was written; which allows readers to better understand where an author is coming from. However, it is also important to respect the boundary between the author’s intentions for the piece and the temptation to over-analyze. At that point the reader begins taking too much from the text, and thus taking away from it desired purpose. 

Poor, Poor, Caliban...

In the Postcolonialism article it clarified the different perspectives of the colonialism era; in both the light of the colonizers and colonized. It helped understand the character of Caliban in The Tempest.

In the Postcolonialsim article it explains how, “As soon as the colonized were forced to speak the language of the colonizer, the colonized either accepted or were coerced into accepting the collective consciousness of the French, thereby identifying blackness with evil and sin and whiteness with purity and righteousness.”  In The Tempest Caliban was forced to speak the language of Propsero, and therefore submitted himself under his control by accepting his way of thought.

The article also talks about the generalization given to the “others” that existed among those outside of the newly enforced hemonegy by the colonizers. It explains that the others were considered “subhumans or savages,” and “were indolent, thoughtless, sexually immoral, unreliable, and demented.” Caliban definitely represented this group. When Stephano and Trinculo first encounter him they refer to him as “a monster” and conclude that he was what the inhabitants of the island looked like.

Also the article explains that the colonized were made to “…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.” In The Tempest Caliban states, “I’ll show you where to get fresh water. I’ll pick berries for you. I’ll fish for you and get you plenty of firewood… I beg you, let me show where you can find crabs to eat. I’ll use my long fingernails to dig edible roots for you, find you a bird’s nest, and teach you how to catch a nimble monkey.” In return Caliban wanted Stephano to be his master.

So far, I feel that Shakespeare is sympathetic towards Caliban and against the “colonizers.”  He shows the conniving plots of Antonio, Prospero, and Stephano in a somewhat negative and ridiculous light. And although Caliban is depicted as a fowl mouthed savage, I think Shakespeare centralizes on  his innocence in a way as caliban becomes so willing to rule a different master while never really concerning himself with having no master. 

The Tempest (Act 1)

In The Tempest, Prospero shows a mastered understanding of manipulation. As seen in the first act he utilizes unique historical narratives to control the three “subjects” in play so far: Miranda (his daughter), and Ariel and Caliban (his slaves.)

As scene two opens in act one the reader is immediately informed of the so-called “history” that lays the foundation to the rest of the novel. Prospero shares with Miranda of their past and how they ended up on the island. Miranda inquires at the beginning of her father’s story, “You have often begun to tell me what I am, but stopped.” This suggests that Prospero has built up the story he is about to reveal to Miranda, making her slowly over time more susceptible to what he says. Prospero conveys a story to her that makes himself seem in deserve of her reverence and sympathy; which leads to control.

Ariel and Caliban also succumb to a similar control. When reminding Ariel of the witch he saved her from, Prospero tells Ariel, “Have you forgotten the torture I freed you from? ... I’ll have to tell the story again every month, since you seem to forget it.” This, much like in Miranda’s case, suggests that Prospero has been installing the story within Ariel for awhile now. Again by using sympathy and building reverence, Prospero is able to recruit the command of another subject.

In slight contrast, however, Caliban is told a history conveying self-fault and guilt. Prospero recalls, “I once took good care of you—piece of filth that you are—and let you stay in my own hut until you tried to rape my daughter.” More effective though, Prospero used fear to control him and maintain control. Caliban states, “I have to obey. He’s got such strong magic powers that he could conquer and enslave the god, Setebos, that my mother used to worship.”

Like we’ve been discussing in class, isolation is the key to these historical narratives. In The Tempest the characters are plotted on an isolated island in which the account for the past is conveyed by the sole figurehead, Prospero. 

The Terrifying Tale of a History Textbook Bias ...(dun, dun, dun!!!)

In last week’s socratic circle I learned a lot from other people’s perspectives, as well as my own, from discussing the article.

The importance of history was highlighted in 1984, and our class was awakened with a new outlook on control and its tie to the past. As we discussed the article, however, I was surprised by the legislation being past in Texas. It startled me to think that our own reality, in reality, can be so easily manipulated by officials in charge of history book content.

It was hard to imagine a history textbook with bias, but after discussing it in class, it is now hard to imagine a purely objective history textbook.  When our education, especially of something as malleable as the past, is written by a select few it makes our reality and interpretation of history much more questionable.

It was brought up in class that the problem of bias material in history books can be avoided if the textbooks stuck with solely facts. However, history is much more than just facts. It is an interpretation of facts and events, and the importance they play in our country. To just lists events would do nothing but explain “who,” “what,” “when,” and “where” something happened, and would probably fill the pages of a small pamphlet for that matter.  But it lacks the vital and ever-expanding details of “why” something happened. …which is where the bias becomes an issue.

It was also brought up in class that history books should consist of “both sides.” But, in my opinion, there is no “both sides;” there are many, many, many sides! It would be impossible to list EVERYONE’S side, which is the foundation of an objective text.

Luckily we continued on to another solution in which I felt was the most sufficient. Discussion in class, I feel, is the most important aspect of an objective learning environment. I think it is necessary for history teachers to allow time for class discussion.

Although bias in history books can never be cured, it can certainly be treated.