Will vs. Greenblatt?!?

            George Will’s main argument is that not all literature has political tendencies. He firmly argues that scholars and academics are looking for political messages in everything and that it is ruining literary pieces. Will describes his belief on why Carol Iannone’s nomination to the NEH advisory board is being met with so much opposition by the MLA. Will’s thought is that the MLA, which is “saturated with the ideology that politics permeate everything,” does not accept Iannone because she is not “one of them.” He describes how she is the vice president of the National Association of Scholars whom firmly believe against the politicization of higher education. In short, Iannone is against the MLA’s most dear beliefs.

            Stephen Greenblatt’s response to George Will’s article focuses on the belief that literature, most specifically The Tempest, are filled with highly politicized messages. Greenblatt believes that “it is very had to argue that The Tempest is not about imperialism” and that Shakespeare clearly wrote with a political stance in mind. Greenblatt then casts off the idea of “a wicked plot by renegade professors bent on sabotaging Western civilization by delegitimizing its founding texts and ideas” as an insane conspiracy theory. In short, Greenblatt portrays George Will as a lunatic.

            I am more inclined to agree with George Will for several reasons. Will gives more information about Carol Iannone and clearly describes her and her beliefs. He gives strong evidence to support his portrayal, such as the fact the she is the VP of a group that is against the politicization of higher education. Will also shows his opinion about the MLA and their beliefs by giving other’s political interpretations about famous works. In doing so, Will shows how people often find political messages when the author had no intention of doing so. I also found George Will to be a more credible source simply because of how Stephen Greenblatt responded. Greenblatt spends more time describing and attacking Will and making him seem like an idiot than arguing Will’s assertions. I felt that Greenblatt had a weaker argument because he spent so much time creating a crazed persona of Will than arguing and rebutting Will’s remarks. Also, Greenblatt said very little about Carol Iannone and the MLA specifically.

 

Caliban & Post Colonialism

Now after reading three acts of The Tempest, I have more of an insight of Caliban, and Shakespeare's intent of his character. Caliban was a native to the island, until Prospero came and took over. After showing him all of the natural resources of the island, Caliban became his slave, just as the Native Americans were first to America, and then "white man" took over. Similarly to Prospero and Caliban, the "white man" took all the information from the Native Americans and then made them into their slaves, regardless of them being human beings as well. Both had their customs and beliefs changed by a "higher authority" as they were forced into slavery. Caliban says, "As I told thee before, I am subject to a tyrant, a sorcerer that by his cunning hath cheated me of the island". He tells Trinculo, and Stephano of how Prospero took his island from him, and should get revenge. This information of Caliban provides sympathy from its readers, showing that poor Caliban has had everything stolen from him. I definitely do not think that Shakespeare was trying to justify the superiority of the "white man" in this play. It seems as if he was trying to do the opposite, by showing the poor quality of Cailbans' treatment, and how everyone that comes to the island just uses him. It is possible to argue either side, however there is more evidence of sympathy shown towards Caliban than not.
The article discusses how any race other than white was inferior or subhuman, "These subhumans or "savages" quickly became the inferior and equally "evil" Others". Likewise, Prospero calls Caliban a savage, and therefore assumes him inferior and evil. When Trinculo finds him under the cloak, they think he is an evil monster of some sort. Once he talks to him and realize he is just a native, he makes him tell him everything about the island just as Prospero had.

The Tempest Act 1

As seen in 1984, Prospero manipulates the past in order to get people to do things for him. Anything he wants he can get, because of the control he has over everyone.

Firstly, Prospero "explains" his and Mirandas' story to her, making it sound like it was gruesome and haunting. Automatically, Miranda pities her father, believing every word that comes out of his mouth, "Oh, my heart bleeds To think o' th' teen that I have turned you to, Which is from my remembrance! Please you, farther." As Prospero goes on, manipulating the story, he gets Miranda's opinion formed about him and his enemies. Just as in 1984, the people of Oceania believed everything in "the book" because it was all they knew. Miranda was too young to have any memory of how she came to live with Prospero, so she believed everything from his story. 

Similarly, Prospero "reminded" Ariel of how horrible his torture was, how he saved him, and how he is so much better than Sycroax. The fact that he has so much power and is so forceful, Ariel agrees with what he tells him. When reminding him, he manipulates the story to make him sound like the "good guy", "It was mine art, When I arrived and heard thee, that made gape The pine and let thee out.". For saving his life, Ariel has no choice but to perform every task he asks him to. Even though he treats him badly, making him his slave instead of merely freeing her, he has brainwashed him into believing he is not mistreated. 

By making the stories unfold the way he wants them to, Prospero can make anyone believe what he tells. Ariel and Miranda look up to him, because according to his stories, he "saved" them, and now have a better life thanks to him. Even though he mistreats Caliban now, Prospero has still assured him that if it weren't for him, "I have used thee, Filth as thou art, with human care, and lodged thee In mine own cell...". His false narratives allow him to maintain power because none are able to test his authority. All believe he has done good to them, and therefore must "repay" him with labor. 

Reflection of the Wonderful Socratic Circle

When I first heard about the socratic circle I was a little nervous about not knowing what to say or that it would be awkward and no one would talk, but I was pretty impressed with the way our group discussed it. There were no huge disagreements, everyone was respectful to each other and their opinion, and everyone seemed very open-minded to different views on the topic. When I first read the article, I thought, well that was dumb, they should just leave things the way they are and that was it. Once we started talking about it in the circle I began thinking more about it and gaining different insight. Some of the things people brought up really made me think. What if the things that we have been learning isn't actually true? Is America portrayed differently because the way history was written? All these things made me think, well maybe it isn't that big of a deal to change some things in the book. However, I found that it was not right that just because some parents didn't like the way some things were written or displayed they want to completely cut some people out of history. I don't think that it is fair or right that they change history books so drastically. The idea of books being biased also really made me think. Is it possible for a book to be un-biased? If it is, can't people still take it as being biased? Or have an opinion that's different from others. As hard as it may be, I think history books should be as factual and unbiased as possible. That way, it gives everyone a fair chance of learning and understanding it. However, I think that what you learn also depends on the teacher and how they teach it. This socratic circle really made me think about a lot of different issues presented in the discussion.