"Literary Study, Politics, and Shakespeare: A Debate"

Man, I sure hope that I did this right. I felt the Literary Debate was a bit confusing but I tried! (There’s a reason why I don’t like political debates….or debates in general.)

There was a debate between George Will and Stephen Greenblatt in a "Literary Study, Politics, and Shakespeare: A Debate" where Will believes that "all literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." Afterward, he then states, "Shakespeare's 'Tempest' reflects the imperialist rape of the Third World." (111). Basically what he means to say is that changing books and translating them for others to get the true underlying text is a wonderful thing. Not only that but Will believes the topics of colonialism and feminism are unimportant issues that Shakespeare’s readers do not need to know of.

However, Greenblatt states, “It is, I believe, all but impossible to understand these plays without grappling with the dark energies upon which Shakespeare's art so powerfully draws.” What he means to say is it is okay to explore beyond what an author has written. You don’t have to stay in the bounds of what they’ve created for you. Therefore he states, "the art that matters, it is not cement."

If anything, I think I’d rather take the side of Stephen Greenblatt. I personally think that both are correct in their own way because there is no “one way” to see things. You can see things from all sorts of views (exactly why they’re in debate). However, I’d personally rather side with Greenblatt because I see it as this: you don’t have to stay in the bounds of what has been said or written. They might have given you things to think and talk about (I.e colonialism, feminism, etc) but you are “allowed” to think outside the box. You aren’t confined to limited issues and topics. Feel free to think my child!

Tempest, Acts 11 & 111

First off, I want to start by saying that Hollywood and Americans have usually portrayed Native Americans as “foreigners” and anything but the winning side. And by the “winning side” I mean the dominant group that is either always portrayed as good or better. Even the video states this, “They say history is written by the winners.” They’ve made the representation of Native Americans (and other races) look worse off than they really are which is horrible because history must be seen from two sides, not just one. (Which eventually builds on to be a dangerous one-sided story).  I dislike colonialism and from just watching that 5 minute video, it made me feel disgusted by what Hollywood has done. They make Native Americans look like “savages” that are brutal and blood-thirsty and those aren’t even my own words. It says, “Yes they fought savagely for they were a primitive people and self-preservation is a primitive instinct.” They have poorly depicted other races or, Native Americans to be exact and from that, they falsely represented a certain group of people. “A nation that does not know its history has no future.” 

I personally think that Shakespeare purposely made Caliban represent that of a foreigner and has made Stephano and Trinculo attempt to be the dominant group. Of course there’s evidence to prove this because I’m sure at one point in time the Americans found Native Americans and others to be “monsters”, “foreigners”, “others”, and/or “savages”.  Just like how Stephano and Trinculo call Caliban a “monster…an awful monster.” (107). However, although throughout history they’ve described the Natives to be violent, I don’t think that was the same as Shakespeare because he hasn’t and he didn’t show Caliban to be violent in any way besides the cursing.

Representation is important and I can’t stress that enough. It reveals and attempts to show others how a certain peoples are and if you are misrepresented in any way, of course that makes that certain group look awful.

Tempest, Act 1, Scenes 1 & 2.

So far it seems as if the main topic of The Tempest is manipulation just as it was for 1984. It’s obvious that Prospero influences the characters through the past, and some by “magic.” Every time that he speaks to either one of the characters, like Ariel, Caliban, or Miranda, Prospero always brings up the past and either uses it against them or uses his “magic” to manipulate the way he wants them to think. An example of this would be when Prospero talks to Ariel and uses her past to control them. “You have forgotten, and you think it’s a burden when I ask you to walk through the ocean, or run on the north wind, or do business for me underground when the earth’s frozen solid…You lie, you nasty, ungrateful thing!” (Act 1, Scene 2) As stated, Prospero manipulates Ariel into thinking that she’s ungrateful. Not only that but when he talks to Miranda about the past and what happened with his brother and him, he twists the words so well that it’s actually believable. When all you know is the “past” and your “father” tells you so, of course you’re going to believe it. It’s history. Hm, or so you think it is. That’s the way that Prospero controls and manipulates the very own people on that island. As long as you can control the past and what it’s made up of, you can control anything that happens here and now. All Prospero has to do is twist a few words, a few events that happened, and bam! You’ve got yourself a good way to manipulate others into thinking and believing what you believe.

Socratic Circle

I believe the socratic circle for third period did well even though we were short on time. I love that people had evidence to prove their opinion and I also loved that the discussion got heated in the sense that everyone had something to say and prove. Everyone did well when it came to speaking about how they felt, although I felt like some could have expanded their point of view and others could have tried not to be so repetitive. Not to mention, some were "beating around the bush" which made the whole process slower, but over all, everyone did well. I enjoyed the class discussion =)

In my opinion, I don't think that they should take out Thomas Jefferson from textbooks just because he said that church and state should be separated. Personally, I believe that Thomas Jefferson plays a huge role in history. If the Texas Board of Education is going to take him out, that's going to wipe away a good amount of history that a good handful of students could really take and learn something from. Of course, this all ties into 1984 where government starts to take out history and form it the way they want it. I believe that if they take one thing out, they'll find another topic or saying to take out and before you know it, it's going to be an on-going cycle. My question is, why is it such a BIG deal that they HAVE TO take it out. If they've got a good enough reason for it, maybe, but for now, I don't think it would hurt to just leave it.

Any way, the circle was good, it really got me thinking. It got intense and I'm hoping that in the future, the discussions will continue to get better and better and that more will be able to voice and speak their opinions. (Same goes for me!)

Toodles! =)