Battle of the Critics

                Like many of my peers, I found the literary debate a little difficult to follow at times.  I do; however, believe I got the gist of the positions expressed by both George Will and Stephen Greenblatt.  The debate between the two men concerns Ronald Reagan’s appointment of Carol Iannone to the NEH Board and what it means with regards to literary criticism.

                Will is very much in favor of Iannone’s appointment.  He says that her appointment will help restore balance in the literary world so that literary criticism will be tamed slightly and not reflect the liberal political agenda as much.  Will states that , “All literature is, whether writes are conscious of it or not, political.”  He goes on to highlight several social issues that come out politically in literature, such as feminism/sexism and colonialism.   Iannone is quoted to say that “the eruption of politics in literature….have become instruments of racial, ethinic, and social reparations for Western Civilization’s sins.”  He declares that literary criticism, which dares to speak for the author, is bad and robs the reader.  In short, Will declares that  Iannone should be put on the NEH board despite the board’s disapproval of the action because it would balance out the politics involved in literature.

                On the other hand, Greenblatt says that the social issues that present themselves in literature are essential to its greatness.  He challenges Will’s position regarding Shakespeare’s The Tempest not truly being about imperialism.  “The play,” he says, “-set on a mysterious island over whose inhabitants a European prince has assumed total control- is full of conspicuous allusions to contemporary debates over the project of colonization.”  He continuously contradicts Will’s claims regarding The Tempest, justifying his position over and over again.  Greenblatt says that his chief concern with the appointment of someone like Iannone is that literary criticism that highlights the social issues for which, according to him, literature is supposed to represent , will disappear completely.

                Like I said, I didn’t totally understand a lot of this article.  It was hard for me to really make a connection between Iannone’s appointment and the issue of literary criticism.  I did get a something out of it though.

Breaking Free

            The Tempest’s Acts II and III possess quite a few parallels with both the text provided in class and the video with regards to the opinions of people about natives.  Shakespeare’s portrayal of Caliban as a “savage” matches the typical portrayal of natives that is testified to in the video.  Our society’s insistence that natives, such as Caliban, are barbaric and unworthy, prevents us from being able to see these people and give them credit for their actual value.

            In the provided text, it is stated that the interpretations of novels are largely limited by post-colonialism.  Post-colonialism affects literary interpretation because the studies rooted in it “are based in the ‘historical fact’ of European colonialism.”  This means that the way that people are viewed by readers, such as how Caliban is by readers, is subject to the beliefs that gave rise to colonialism.  Consider when Shakespeare wrote The Tempest, that is the 1600s.  During this point in time, Europe making its way to the New World and encountering the Native Americans.  Once there, the Europeans took advantage of the Native Americans by learning the secrets of the land, stealing it from them, and then quite often enslaved them.  Likewise, Prospero has done the same to Caliban, which Caliban tells Stefano in Act III, Scene II.  He tells Stefano that Prospero, “‘by sorcery he got this isle.  From me he got it.’” What’s more the way in which Miranda and her father taught him their ways also reflects an issue addressed within the article.  They, like the British, who thought they “were biologically superior to any other race”, wanted to force Caliban to “conform and be quiet” and “deny yourself” so that he would be “well”.  Never is it even considered that Caliban may like himself and not want to know their ways as he proclaims.

            This struggle for an identity because it has been robbed by those dominant (the white man) is also addressed in the video.  The Native Americans talked about how they often had trouble distinguishing who they were when they were always in the shadow the inferior portrayals they saw of their culture.  Likewise, we see that Caliban really struggles to maintain a sort of independent identity as he opts out of real freedom and merely changes “masters”.  He degrades himself, telling Stefano, “ ‘I’ll kiss thy foot.  I’ll swear myself thy subject.’”  Because he himself has for so long been walked on and made a “subject” to a “master”, he appears to believe he actually requires one when in fact he could be on his own.  This characterization of Caliban as an “other” by Shakespeare is quite unfair.  It ties in with the concept of the White Man’s Burden that says that white people should help other races out by enslaving them. 

            Basically, The Tempest is largely racist and promotes suppression of un-white races with the treatment of Caliban.  The text voices a suggestion for how to remedy this suppression of the voices that are not status quo such as Caliban’s and non-post-colonial literary interpretations and that is “refuse to conform to…hegemony.”  No matter what.  Just break free from the chains that enslave your thoughts.  This will set free all things, most especially your thoughts and bring people to a new found sense of liberty.

Prospero's Powers of Manipulation

            In Act I of Shakespeare’s The Tempest, one of the principal characters, Prospero, manipulates those around him in order to get his way.  This is apparent in his dealings with several characters including his daughter Miranda, Caliban, and Ariel. Prospero, by rhetorically expressing stories to those around him so as to make him seem like their hero to whom they are ungrateful, effectively gets things to go his way and control those around him.

            One of the most blatant examples of Prospero’s attempts at controlling those on the island with him is his relationship with his daughter.  In Act II, it at first appears that the relationship between Prospero and Miranda is quote genuine and loving.  However, as the play progresses their relationship begins to fall under a shadow.  This shadow is cast in the conversation during which Prospero relates to his daughter how he lost his Dukedom in Milan and how they came to live on this island.  Throughout this discourse, Prospero paints a picture of himself a good lord who was cruelly usurped by his own brother who tossed him out to sea.  He continually manipulates the story so as to make his seem as the victim.  Miranda, who is obviously of a naïve and innocent nature, is so taken with his elaborate tale, that she at one point goes so far as to cry out, “‘Alack, what trouble I was then to you!’”  By, for lack of better words, belittling herself in the situation, Miranda exposes that she has been swayed by her father to see things in his perspective and, thus, turn against his enemies that he ship wrecked onto the island.  By constructing his narrative in a way to lift him above the malevolency of his enemies and ensure his daughter’s loyalty.

            In addition to using specific rhetorical tactics to ensure Miranda’s loyalty, Prospero uses narratives of the past to control both Caliban and Ariel.  For example, when Ariel, his magical assistant reminds him that he has promised her her freedom, he reacts very angrily.  In a fit of rage, he embarks on a spiel his rescue of her.  “ ‘Hast thou forgot the foul witch Sycorax who…did confine thee…into a cloven pine’”?  Through conversations like this, in which he threatens Ariel no freedom at all because she is ungrateful for his having freed her from captivity in a tree, Prospero manipulates Ariel to do his every bidding.  Similarly, he uses Caliban’s past and his own involvement in it to control Caliban.  He presents it in a way so as that he has done Caliban immense favors.  When Caliban continues to argue, he continues to pull out supposed offense after offense, going so far as to bring up that he had tried to “‘violate the honour of [his] child’”.  Finally, he goes so far as to threaten each of these individuals with magical punishment, solidifying their obedience to him

            All in all, Prospero’s character is a slippery one.  While he presents himself as a good lord who was himself wronged, he appears largely to be the one in the wrong.  He continuously employs twisting of the past to guilt trip and manipulates those around him into doing his bidding.  Through rhetorical strategies, Prospero controls his surroundings and gets his way.

            

Curriculum or Selfish Political Agenda????

The textbook issue that our class dealt with in the Socratic circle was not only interesting to me, but also profound. Unfortunately, I don’t really think that this problem is fixable. In the discussion concerning the article I read, which addressed how a conservative board in Texas changed the curriculum of textbooks in order to reflect more Christian values and Republican doctrine, person after person was addressing the issue of bias and whether the board was actually evening the influences of the left and the right in education.


However, whether or not the influences are even now after they supposedly were made to be even, is questionable. Now, the left believes that things have been tipped in favor of the right. Basically, no matter which side acquires changes to favor them, it will never be equal. For if there are concessions made to the left, the right will say that these changes are unfair and will protest them and if there are concessions made to the right, then the left will be up at arms. Essentially, there is no way to make both parties happy because life is not fair. Life is not a bundle of rainbows or a sack of lollipops. Life is a never ending struggle between disagreeing ideals.

The saddest part of this entire right vs. left argument about the textbooks is that no one appears to consider what is best for the children and their education. Education is for the enrichment of the children. Children should learn what is best for them and what will help them grow into wise adults who are equipped with skills that will lead to be successful citizens. In the article; however, the only consideration is what political doctrine the children should be brainwashed with. It’s disgusting that there is so little consideration for the actual purpose of the textbooks and absolutely no consideration for what is best for the children. The only consideration made is whether the curriculum distributed will advance a particular political agenda.