Yet Another Blog Dealing with the Tempest!

Now instead of talking directly about "The Tempest" we are to blog about our thoughts on two opinions of literary text. One opinion, as stated by George Will, explains his thoughts of literature being completely pollitical. He believes that "The Tempest" for example, "reflects the imperialist rape of the Third World." He also believes that sex roles determine  a lead role in literature. When talking about Shakespeare's pieces, I do agree with this piece, however not entirely. Shakespeare is very biased of the sexes, and he does indeed use politics in his writing. The man is always the most powerful. That is Shakespeare's style though.

Greenblatt (intersting last name right?!) on the other hand, believes that literary text should be analayzed for its deeper meaning rather than jus thte surface text. This idea is more of what we need to do with Shakespeare's literary works. His plays may be politically biased, however they have a much more deeper meaning behind them. " "The Tempest" has to teach us about forgiveness, wisdom, and social atonment," says Greenblatt. If we were to just notice the continual insults and belittling of humans in The Tempest, we would not be able to grasp this deeper meaning.

Though  I agree with both Will and Greenblatt, my opinion sways more towards Greenblatt, simply for the fact that Shakespeare is more intellectually deep that political. His plays are meant to be analyzed and celebrated.

The Tempest is getting more odd than I thought it would be..

    Caliban is indeed a representation of the native people. He is not like anyone who as washed up on the island because he was born and grew up on that island. In addition, he was never really treated as a person, but merely as a slave. Even when he met Stephano and Trinculo, he was never referred to as more than a "monster," never a human being. Caliban, being a native was able to "show thee the best springs...pluck the berries..." which are all characteristics of a native.

     In correspondence to the Postcolonism article, Shakespeare seems to have connected his characters to this time period. Caliban is indeed a native because he knows exactly of where he comes from and of what is around him. As disscussed by Said, "the basic thought behind colonization: ["] They're not like us, and for that reason deserved to be ruled.["]." Caliban was immediately taken over after his mother was killed. He was different from Prospero and Miranda, therefore making him automatically their slave in Prospero's eyes. Isn't this the case for most natives in one way or another? Natives generally get their land taken striahgt from their fingertips by a more powerful force that sweeps the land. Claiban in a way can also illustrate the term Orientalism- this term explains how Orientals were looked at as being "indolent, thoughtless, unreliable. and demented." Caliban could also fit this stereotype in the eyes of those who meet him. Stephano,at first sight refers to him as "some monster of the isle ith four legs... Where the devil should he learn our language." Stephano had no idea that there were others on the idland and instantly assumes that Caliban knows of nothing, he is merely a souless native.

     

The Tempest. Act I

     As I was reading through Act I, I realized that Prosepero was no where near the man he described himself to be. He conjured up stories in ways to make he himselfdo no wrong, and that he was the one who helped everyone's misfortunes on the island. This idea is twisted from actual reality.
      The first example prensenting this manipulation is when Prospero is telling the story to his daughter Miranda of how they came to the island. His story makes out his brother Antonio to be a wretched man who took everything pertaining to Prospero's country right from his fingertips; Antonio was " the ivy which had hid my princley trunk, and had sucked my verdure out on't." The reader is not sure of whether or not Antonio is at  fault for taking over Prospero's country, or if the country ran to his help to escape Prospero's evil ways. There are always 3 sides to every story, but in most cases the person at fault still creates a nontruthful story to make himself look innocent. Relating this statment to "The Tempest", Prosepero had no intentions of making himself look like the one at fault for losing his country, so he placed the blame on his own blood brother.
      Another example of Prospero's manipulative ways is with Ariel, his servant. Although Ariel has done everything asked of him, Prospero refuses to release him to freedom, twisting all of Ariel's pleas around to make him seem ungrateful. "Though best know'st what torment  I did find in thee.Thy groans of ever angry bears." Ariel was never givin the option of being free; he went from being imprisoned to being enslaved. Though he was Prospero's slaved, he was always promised to be let free every time he was ordered to do something. This is a way of manipulation to get Ariel to do any and all work to help Prospero. He is slowly realizing of what is happening behind the scenes, yet he still is forced to cooperate. Prospero has Ariel rapped around his fingers through threats and promises.
     Caliban too is a manipulative tool of Prospero. He was born to be taken over by Prospero, and soon after being born he too was enslaved. Caliban stated the lines " When thou camest first, thou  stok'st me and made much of me." Prospero did at one time love and take care of Caliban as if he was a son, but soon enough he took advantage of him and made him serve to his every whim. Caliban had no one else to help him out, other than Prospero's own daughter, but she too was under her father's control. This quote does show that Prosero hs love deep down inside, though his thirst for power trembles over his love.

Resolving The "Textbook Issue"

       In 3rd period last Thursday, we as a class debated upon whether or not Texas should take Thomas Jefferson out of the history books because his idea of the separation of church and state. I however do not believe that this should even be an option because he is one of America's Founding Fathers. I honestly do not think we should have the right to delete people out of history just because some of us do not believe in his ideas. Very few people are fans of Hitler, yet we still keep him in our textbooks because his actions made an impact on history. If we were to erase hum out of our textbooks, then what is stopping us from deleting other people out as well, or even changing how we view these people.
       The history books are biased in ways because we are telling history from our point of view. There really is no way to make the textbooks completely unbiased because even with the facts, there are slight opinions.
       This idea of changing the texbooks parallels with 1984 with the quote "The past controls the future." If we were to alter the past, we would never know about the changed events in the future. We might never know of Thomas Jefferson as a Founding Father; he never existed. How are we given the power to change events. It shouldn't be as easy enough to alter facts and replace them with new information!
     History is a priviledge to learn about and to look after. We should cherish all of it no matter its harshness.

Yours Truly,
Deana