So What Does That Mean?

In my reading of the articles by George Will and Steven Greenblatt, I found how 2 opposing views can each hold truth of their own. Before I get too far into it, I should explain their views.

In my reading of George Will’s article from the April 22, 1991 Newsweek titled Literary Politics, I found him to be someone who strongly believed that all literature was influenced by political agendas and feelings. He states, “The reductions of the study of literature to sociology, and of sociology to mere ideological assertion, has a central tenet: All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political,” (Will, 111). By saying this he concludes that writers may not know the root of their writing but everything that they do write comes down to some ingrained political meaning.

In Steven Greenblatt’s rebuttal, the June 12, 1991 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, he expresses that literature is not only founded on the narrow views of politics. He says that professors and critics are “bent on sabotaging Western civilization by delegitimizing its founding text and ideas,” (Greenblatt, 115). What he means by this is that professors and critics, who “translate” the meaning of literature, are taking away the authority of the writers and placing it on the critics. With this people can not take literature and define what the specific piece means to the reader.

In my opinion I think each author holds some truth. I feel that many pieces of literature are based off of political views. Take 1984 for example. The entire novel is based on how the government can manipulate reality to make itself look good. But not all literature is politically based. I think that culture, not politics, affects the writers. My sister is writing a book right now. She has no political agenda, and no real influence with the exception of the culture she is a part of. She is just writing what she thinks people will enjoy. People can find whatever they want in literature if they are looking for it. Most things relating to politics tend to be symbolic such as the bird and the cage in To Kill a Mockingbird. These symbols may or may not have just been something the author chose because it fit. So I agree that in every form of literature the culture determines the writing, but that doesn’t mean that all forms of literature express a political agenda.

Monsieur Monster

In my reading of Shakespeare’s The Tempest this week I found evidence of Caliban being portrayed as an “other”. The term “other” comes from postcolonialism and is defined in Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism, And Queer Theory, as “any person defined as ‘different from’” (Cultural Studies, 239). I don’t think that Shakespeare was an evil person for this or that he held an awful view point (though I don’t agree with or condone his attitude) but I do believe that this was the view point of the entire world at the time, or its hegemony. Hegemony is a Marxist term referring to a culture’s ideology, “that is, its dominant values, sense of right and wrong, and sense of personal self-worth” (Cultural Studies, 234).

Shakespeare took the view of natives of foreign lands as savages and incorporated them into his play in that such way. Throughout The Tempest Stephano and Trinculo refer to Caliban, a native of the island, as a monster. When Trinculo first comes upon Caliban he says, “What have we here? A man or a fish? Dead or alive? A fish” (The Tempest, ACT II Scene 2 line 24, page 96). Shakespeare also depicts Caliban as dumb and animal-like, hungry for a master who he believes will be nice to him. When Caliban finds Stephano, he takes a liking to him and believes that Stephano can protect him from anything.

As the play continues we find Caliban to be bloodthirsty as well. He seeks revenge on his former master, Prospero, through the “superior” Stephano and Trinculo. He can take the two “superior” individuals to the subject, but the “savage native” can not build up the courage to avenge himself. This is an example of Stephano and Trinculo being the “superior race” since they are white & from Naples, while Caliban portrays a dumb, savage who is native to the island and thus, of a lesser race.

Excuse me, but i have mind to twist and values to warp

After reading the first act of William Shakespeare’s The Tempest, I saw that Prospero has a strong grasp on controlling others and their perception of reality. Not necessarily through his magical powers but through his articulation. For example when Ariel begins to question Prospero about when he will let him go, Prospero responds by saying “Thou liest, malignant thing! Hast thou forgot the foul witch Sycorax, who with age and envy was grown into a hoop? Hast thou forgot her?” (Shakespeare 34). In this quote Prospero turns Ariel’s accusation towards him around, so that Ariel looks like the bad guy and not Prospero. Prospero also does the same thing to Caliban, by again turning the situation around to make Caliban the bad guy and even to make Prospero look like the good guy.


In the story Prospero tells his daughter about how he was overthrown by his own brother, Antonio. Throughout this narrative he describes how evil his brother is and how wronged he felt. This would manipulate Miranda into believing that her father truly is the good guy.

By choosing his words carefully Prospero is able to persuade others into following him without questioning him, or feeling too guilty to question him. Just like how the telescreens in 1984 were able to manipulate the citizens into believing and trusting in the Party and Big Brother through propaganda and biased news, Prospero’s sophisticated oration and unquestioned sovereignty allow him to influence the others on the island to do his bidding and trust him.

I notice that the only person that Prospero is forced to use his magical powers on in the beginning is Ferdinand. For Caliban, Miranda, and Ariel all Prospero has to do is appeal to their senses of guilt and empathy and he can control them and how they serve him. However, since Prospero does not know Ferdinand, he has no knowledge of how to influence and manipulate his mind so that he will serve him. In this case Prospero is forced to use his magic to protect himself. What I wonder now is, how long will it take Prospero to learn how to manipulate the royal Ferdinand?

History: What Story are You Hearing?

Over the past 2 weeks we have been discussing how important history is to the molding of young minds and how the perception of history can determine the future of civilizations. In Adichie’s presentation, she discusses how some of this works.


By telling stories about experiences in her life she helps illustrate how hearing one story about something, someone, or a type of something, can alter your perception of them. After these stories she closes by saying, “What if…” I really liked this, because it made you think about her examples and how those situations may have been different “if” people had more than one story, such as if she knew that just because someone was poor didn’t mean that they weren’t talented or able to do things. One thing I really liked was her example about starting everything in African history as, “secondly.” This is a reference to how the English could portray the barbarianisms of Africa. For example, the English could skip the part of their militaristic invasion and go straight to the arrows of the natives, and how they discuss the failures of the colonial African governments without discussing the British colonials who established them.

With this knowledge, our minds our open to question the relevance of what our “history” is and if it holds true to the facts. The problem is where can we find the facts except from history? We have learned to believe the most commonly accepted perception of history, which allows it to become historical FACT, no matter if it is a bit skewed. Just like in 1984 where the government controls the records in order to allow them to seem immortal, by giving one side of a story we, in essence, accomplish the same thing.

According to Dr. Don McLeroy in James C. McKinley, Jr.’s The New York Times article Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change, “History has already been skewed.” As of now we don’t know for sure what happened in history, because we weren’t there, but there is something we can do. Thanks to the internet and our ability to communicate all over the world in a matter of seconds, we can create the most accurate historical record of today’s world because we have the ability to compile hundreds of different stories all of the same subject in order to develop an unbiased review of a multiple events in the present and thus establish its place in history. It’s up to us. We can leave posterity with our vision of our life, or give them all the evidence so that they can decide.

MY Blog assignment! =)

This is me sitting in my great grandparents 1968 Mustang Ragtop Convertable! It was one of the coolest things I've ever driven! It's so cool! Not so much in the summer cause there is no A/C and the seats are leather! Talk about sticky!