Literary Debate

In these two different articles, two men, George Will and Stephen Greenblatt,  argue about the main point or purpose of the Tempest, or just overall Literature itself. The articles display both their different views on how literature emphasizes on politics and ideology, most commonly in Shakespeare's literature. 


George Will, a Pulitzer Prize-winning political commentator, believes that literature is based off of Politics. For example, George states that, "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." He believes that literature's main purposes revolve around politics. In the Tempest, he explains that it "reflects the imperialist rape of the Third World." He thinks that literature is first and for most about Politics and everything else falls under that. 


Stephen Greenblatt, the Cogan University Professor of the Humanities at Harvard University, has a whole different view on literature. He states that, " The Tempest is not about imperialism. (It is of course, about many other things, as well, including the magical power of the theatre.)" He believes that literature can be about politics, but that's not the main focus. He stresses the fact that literature teaches one a life lesson. For example, he explains that, "The Tempest has to teach us about forgiveness, wisdom, and social atonement if we do not also come to terms with its relations to colonialism." He thinks that literature conveys the emotions we feel and experience within our lifetime. 


I myself believe that literature is more like what Stephen Greenblatt describes it as. He argues that literature is an expression of everything, and I don't feel like it is only limited to politics. To me, good literature is something I can connect with, whether or not it's something I am going through or am emotionally feeling. It's interesting to see and learn about certain things in a book that symbolize politics; however, I believe that an author uses the expression of human experiences and emotions to create good literature.


That's all folks! :) 

Tempest Acts 2-3 and Cultural Studies

After reading Acts two and Three from the Tempest, by Shakespear, and "Cultural Studies," by Charles Bressler, I found some contrasts between Caliban and Colonization.

In the Tempest Acts Two and Three, Shakespeare reveals the true natures of his characters. Stephano makes Caliban look like a fool when he forces Caliban to drink his wine in order for him to calm him down. As a result, Caliban wishes to be Stephano’s slave and praises him, calling him “thou wondrous man.” This makes Caliban look like a savage or as Shakespeare describes it a “monster of the isle.”

In the article called “Cultural Studies,” Bressler describes savages similarly to how Shakespeare portrays Caliban, since he is native to this island. Caliban also represents all the native people to that island, who are also in need of a ruler. Caliban becomes known as a savage just like the native peoples after worshiping and praising Stephano for his amazing wine. Shakespear describes Caliban as scummy, worthless, ignorant, and even a "monster.”

What I also found interesting was how Stephano taking over Caliban was similar to how Great Britain took over or “dominated her colonies.” After drinking the fine wine, Caliban saw Stephano as a superior, just like how the colonies gave up their countries “in exchange for what material goods the colonized desired or were made to believe they desired by the colonizers.”

I enjoyed reading both The Tempest and the “Cultural Studies” article, even if they did take forever to read. However, I learned a lot about postcolonialism and colonization that I never knew about, so I guess it was pretty interesting. There were some similarities that clicked for me between Caliban in the Tempest and the “savages,” described in the article. Well that’s pretty much it... See ya! :)

The Tempest

 I really enjoyed reading Act 1 of The Tempest by William Shakespeare; however, it was really hard to understand the way Shakespeare writes, so thank goodness for the modern day translation, because I would have been lost the whole way through it!!!

In the first Act of The Tempest, Prospero manipulates and controls other characters by making them do what he says. Out of everyone, Prospero controls Ariel the most. The character, Ariel, is Prospero's slave; however, Ariel is grateful to be under the control of Prospero. Prospero retells his story once a month to Ariel to reassure him that Prospero saved him from his past, so Prospero's salvation should be imprinted into Ariel's mind. Prospero has a way to almost brain washing Ariel into making him think that he his some kind of hero for saving Ariel from his pervious life. He takes away Ariel's sense of reality and what is and what is not the truth. This type of brain washing and manipulation can be compared to the totalitarian Party in the novel, 1984. Ariel is brain washed into thinking that his life is better with Prospero when in reality, it’s not any better than his previous life. This relates to 1984, because the citizens of Oceania are controlled and brain washed into thinking that their lives are better with Big Brother watching over them. They learn to worship Big Brother and believe that he is their hero, just like the way Ariel thinks of Prospero being his hero and savior. Prospero in The Tempest, and the totalitarian Party in 1984 both know how to distort reality by brain washing, controlling, and manipulating others. 

Socratic Circle Observation

During our block period on Thursday, September 2nd, we read an article concerning the issues on the fact that Texas is wanting to change the content of their history books that are being used in their classrooms. By doing this, they plan to keep the main focus of their history books on white conservatives rather than minorities that have also made an impact on American history. For example, Latinos wanted more role models that represented their culture, but were immediately denied. I myself do not agree with this, because we live in a diverse country, therefore our main focus should not be on one dominant skin color or culture. There are a lot more historical figures that students should learn about that are not white. I myself do not know of a lot of diverse historical figures which I think is saying something. I haven't learned about a lot of minorities, instead I've learned more about white conservatives in American history. I believe that every part of American history is important and should be taught to students. 


When my group was put in a circle to discuss this issue, I really enjoyed hearing others voice their opinions. Everyone was very open and made some really good comments that I agreed with. However, things got a little chaotic and hostile when not everyone agreed with one's comment. This should not have happened in my opinion, because everyone has their own opinions and shouldn't be shot down for them. I feel like one person had a target on them and almost couldn't even say anything after being totally looked down upon by his/her peers. When this happened, I was afraid to voice my own opinion in the fear that I would be shot down or criticized for what I said. I'm not saying whether or not I agreed with everyone's opinions, but I did respect them all, and I only hope we can all do the same. 

These are my most important friends in my life. My boyfriend, Zach Nevills, and my best friends Molly Clutts, Christina Wesson, Nicole May, and Barrett Clutts. They all mean the world to me :)

AP Lit