Dear George Will and Stephen Greenblatt, i hate you.

Although this text was very confusing and challenging for me to read I'm going to attempt to analyze and explain it's points. :) These two debates written by George Will and Stephen Greenblatt are based upon the idea of whether or not a certain piece of literature is always going to reflect political beliefs or if an author's text is influenced by politics, colonization, religion, and other things of that matter that can also be interpreted differently throughout generations. George Will believes that a certain piece of literature is always going to reflect political beliefs and states in the text that "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." By stating this Will makes it very clear that all literature is meant to mean something very specific and all major authors, although they may not realize it, are always going to produce a work that reflects political beliefs. On the other side of the debate, Stephen Greenblatt thinks that an author's text is influenced by politics, colonization, religion, and other things of that matter that can also be interpreted differently throughout generations. In his article Stephen Greenblatt states that "A love for literature may help to forge community, but it is a community founded on imaginative freedom, the play of language, and scholarly honesty, and no t on flag waving, boosterism and conformity." In this statement, Stephen Greenblatt is saying that although a piece of literature may reflect and create an idea of political view, the most important part of writing is the fact that the author has the freedom to be imaginative and write to an audience that may interpret their writings in each a different way. In my opinion I agree with Stephen Greenblatt considering I feel that when I read a piece of literature I usually relate to the creative and individuality of the authors writing and not so much the political aspect of it. This may be because I don't pay much attention to politics as it is so my opinion and view on this may change as I get older and become more involved in politics. Although I personally agree with Stephen Greenblatt I think that both of these men made very strong and interesting points within their debates.

The Tempest & Postcolonialism

Yes I believe that in act 2 of The Tempest Shakespear does portray a sense of postcolonialism through the character of Caliban. In this section after Stephano finds Caliban and labels him as a "monster" Stephano forces Caliban to drink his wine to calm him down and to stop his trembling. After drinking and feeling the effects of Stephano's wine Caliban instantly wants to worship Stephano and become his slave. He says, "These be fine things, an if they be not sprites. That’s a brave god and bears celestial liquor. I will kneel to him." Here Caliban is saying that because this wine that Stephano has given him is shockingly amazing and like nothing he has ever had before that means Stephano must be an amazing god of some kind that he should worship. In the chapter on cultural studies and postcolonialism it states that "Using its political and economic muscles, Great Britain, the cheif imperialist power of the nineteenth century, dominated her colonies, making them produce and then give up their countries' raw materials in exchange for what material goods the colonized desired or were made to believe they desired by the colonizers." After reading this I realized that in the Tempest Caliban represents the colonized or the countries that were taken over by the colonizers and Stephano represents Great Britain. Caliban thinks that he needs to serve Stephano because Stephano has introduced him to this amazing wine which represents the material goods that he desires just like Great Britain did to the colonized countries in the nineteenth century. Now Stephano has complete control over Caliban all because of the fact that he was the one who introduced Caliban to this amazing material good, the wine. Also, I do believe that Shakespear created an unfair stereotype of "Others" with his characterization of Caliban. Shakespear portrays Caliban as a dirty, almost worthless, and ignorant "monster". This shows that Shakespear believes that the "others" may be like Caliban which is unfair and definately an insult to the "others" talked about in the chapter of cultural studies and post colonialism.

The Tempest Manipulation

In the first act of The Tempest the magical character Prospero practically controls the world around him by manipulating the other characters to work for him. The main and most obvious way Prospero manipulates his surroundings is the way he has complete control over Ariel. Ariel is Prospero's slave. Unlike most other slaves, Ariel is grateful to be under the control of Prospero. This is because Prospero constantly makes Ariel think that Prospero is his hero for saving him from his horrendous life he previously once lived. When referring to the story about Ariel's past life Prospero states that " I must Once in a month recount what thou hast been, Which thou forget’st." Here Prospero is saying that once a month he must retell the story to Ariel in order to keep it fresh in his mind so that Ariel won't forget of the terror Prospero saved him from. Because Prospero is going to constantly be reminding Ariel of his past life and how bad it was he will also be constantly reminding him of how much better his life is now that he is Prospero's slave. Forcing this into Ariel's mind will keep him from thinking anything else that might contradict Prospero or his plans. It's almost like Prospero is brain washing Ariel into thinking exactly what Prospero wants him to think so that he can use him as his slave. This type of manipulation can be compared to the manipulation by the government party in 1984. Both Prospero and the big brother party use the past events to manipulate other people’s reality of the present. Ariel is being manipulated into believing that his life now is extremely better than his life before when in all reality Ariel is still a slave just under a different master. Ariel is told to be grateful for being saved when really his new reality is just as manipulated and terrible as his past.

Socratic Circle Observation

During our block period on Thursday September 2nd we discussed a very controversial subject having to do with the fact that Texas is wanting to change the content of their history books used throughout their classrooms. The officials of Texas education are trying to rewrite the content of the history books in a way that will showcase and focus on more white conservative movements which is what they think is most important. By doing this they will be forced to focus less on the minority movements that have been made throughout history. I believe that every part of history is just as important as the next. Our history is what makes us who we are today and without many of the minority movements that were made in the past we wouldn't be the same nation we are now. Having said that, I also believe that students should have the right to learn about every historical figure who changed history and made an impact on the world, no matter what color their skin or what language they spoke.


I really enjoyed some of the comments that were made while I was observing this discussion. It was reassuring to know that many people agreed with how i felt about the changing of the history books. I think that this subject was really interesting and appealing to us as students because this is something we have in our lives every day. Changing text books and the material that students learn would strongly affect us being high school students. I know that as a student I want to learn about everything and everyone that made a difference in the past. After listening to the discussion and listening to my peers express themselves about this subject I can conclude that many students strongly feel that this change really isn't fair and defiantly isn't necessary.