The Debate Between Greenblatt & Will

Okay to start off I think the debate between the two authors is about analyzing the texts and the finding politics within them. George Will argues that "all Literature is political"(111). He supports his argument with examples of literary works from Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, and Jane Austen. His support includes political models such as feminism, colonialism, and, racism. His believe by criticizing literary work the critic will make the authors intended purpose into a political argument. He feels that literary work should be defined by what the text implies not what happens between the lines. He also says that if literary work is criticized it becomes a matter of "who had power and whom the powerful victimized"(111).

Now on the other hand Stephen Greenblatt believes the complete opposite. When he finds the message in the passage he believes that the message heightens the readers experience. He thinks if we do not find the hidden politics and analyze them we will face “the risk that we might turn our artistic inheritance into a simple, reassuring, soporific life.” Greenblatt doesn't think that there should not be a specific way to analyze the literature. He says that "art is not cement"(115). He believes that the reader should be able to have their own opinion about the text and should be able to state their opinion.

After reading both the debate between both authors I could not decide on whose side I would take. Half of me agreed with George Will and the other half agree with Stephen Greenblatt, but something about Greenblatt made him stand out more to me. So i would probably agree with Greenblatt only, because everyone interprets passages or the message from the passage differently. Whether their belief or thought about the passage or its message be right or wrong, everyone has their own opinion. I believe people should be able to state them too just like Greenblatt believes. Literature is a place were the mind can sorta run free and just be whatever it wants too be.

PoStCoLoNiAliSm :)

The video I watched this weekend “How Hollywood Stereotyped the Native Americans” it explains how the Native Americans had a rough time in the past years with negative stereotypes. It made me feel bad because the man that got interviewed said when he was a young boy he did not no a lot about his culture. He said he did not know anything more than the white kid sitting next to him. In a way this is very bad, because not everyone knows who and what Native Americans are and how they live. This video along with the packet we read on postcolonialism all have something to do with The Tempest. In Act II and III there is proof that Caliban is a part of the native people . For example, Prospero says to Caliban “thou poisonous slave, got by the devil himself upon thy wicked dam, come forth!”, and in the text about postcolonialism alternity is said to be “the others” being “excluded from positions of power and viewed as different and inferior.” In the Tempest Prospero does the same thing to Caliban in. Prospero treats Caliban really bad and makes him a slave. Caliban had to give over his island to Prospero even though he was a native, because he did not have any more power. Prospero the manipulated Caliban just like on George Orwell's book 1984. So all these stories relate to each other in some way. The Tempest and the article relate to each other between Caliban and the Native Americans. Caliban had to give up his land to Prospereo and the same thing happened to the Native Americans.

The Tempest :)

According to the Tempest Prospero is manipulating reality. Prospero does this by twisting the stories around so people do not know what really happen. By doing this he can get any kind of reaction out of the people that he wants. He also has a servant who can obviously make things happen when he wants them too. For instance the storm. He made it seem like it was real and everyone believed him. He also only told one side of the story and left the other part out. He only says he was pushed out of power by an evil force. This make Miranda think differently about who he is. Right now she thinks of him a s a good guy that was treated bad, but she does not know the other side of him. Miranda tells Prospero how she feels about him, but with a few words he can totally brain wash her into thinking totally different about him. For example Prospero’s personality shows when he causes problems between Miranda and Ferdinand. Prospero says, “They are both in ether's powers, but this swift business I must uneasy make lest too light winning make the prize light.” By saying this he is explaing if how, if he does not cause problems they won't appreciate his love. He makes up these dumb lies about Ferdinand so that the couple will have to go through turmoil. He also puts Miranda in hard situations. For example when she has to choose between her father and Ferdinand. He does this because he thinks it will help their relationship. He uses his manipulative personality and words to get change reality just like in 1984.

Text Book issue

To solve the text book problem in Texas, I think the parents and the children from Texas and maybe through out the United states should take a vote on what they would like to see in the history books. All the parents and kids have their own opinion, but it may help the board realize what is the most important thing to there buyers. There is not going to be an unbiased text book, because everyone has their own opinion in what is the most important thing their children should learn. The children may not want to learn about history, but if they have a say in what is in the books it may help them want to learn about history. There for if you take the majority of the children and parents at the high schools in Texas or even in the United States and have them vote it will be less bias as to having 15 people at the board vote for everyone.

In my opinion I think they should give the students and the parents a variety of things that the board and others in the committee believe are the most important and have them chose what they would like to see in
the history books. If we let the kids participate in choosing what they learn, they will be more willing to pay attention and want to learn in my opinion. Then their school participation may go up too. I think it matters what you include in the books, because in order to make our future better we must know what we did wrong in our past. But that puts us back to choosing what goes in the history books. Like I said before I believe the students and the parents should have a say and including the members of the board in that department.

This relates back to our summer book 1984 by George Orwell. By taking out Thomas Jefferson after a while people will forget and it will be like changing history.