Literature: What's Right, What's Wrong?

After today’s class discussion on how multiple choice tests on literature are flawed, and after reading this two articles, I’ve come to find that literature; whether it be poems, novels, etc., are subjective. Not every single individual can read a piece in the same way. Literature is a way to develop our critical thinking and come up with different interpretations to its meaning, and provide evidence to back it up.

If multiple interpretations can come about when assessing the right meaning, is there truly a right meaning? If so, which one is ‘right’? Two authors have opposing issues on what’s considered right when analyzing literature. George Will’s “Literary Politics” exercises the idea that readers interpret too much into the text, most often creating false inside on what the author really wanted to portray. The second author, Stephan Greenblatt points out that more evidence points to the idea that culture, politics, religion and so on influenced authors, more so than not in his article “The Best Way to Kill Our Literature is to Turn it into a Decorous Celebration of the New World Order.”

In George Will’s article, he argues that political inference become unnecessary; in a comical and absurd sort of way. “By deconstructing, or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority. Criticism displaces literature. Critics displace authors of bestowing meaning,” affirmed Will. Contrasting, Stephan Greenblatt expresses that literature has subliminal messages and ideas reflecting more than just the literal story. Greenblatt states that “art, the art that matters, is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing. A love of literature may help to forge community, but it is a community founded on imaginative freedom, the play of language…” He believes that literature in itself is an art form, it can evolve over time to mean different things relating to the current season, and taking this aspect of literature away could be detrimental.

In my opinion, I must say I don’t agree entirely to either party; both sides have some valid points. However, I do tend to lead in Stephan Greenblatt’s direction. I believe that each person’s perception; whether it be literature, movies, music, etc., is different. We as individuals have the right to view any piece the way we want to, or what they believe the author intended. I think that’s what makes some books and movies classics; because they can relate to each period in time a little differently.

Acts II and III: Shakespeare and Colonialism

After many attempts of reading the I, II, and III Acts of Shakespeare’s The Tempest, I finally can to somewhat of an understanding that Caliban is without doubt a correlation to the natives and the effect of the dominating culture today. When Prospero was duke, he spent the majority of his time gaining knowledge about the island (which he is currently now living on with is daughter Miranda) and how to ultimately live in harmony with it. Like when the Europeans first came to America and the Native Indians thought them how to survive on the unfamiliar territory, Caliban taught Prospero everything he needed to know about living on the island when he arrived. In return, Prospero decided to civilize Caliban to meet with the customs of the rest of the world, just as the Europeans did.

         

When taking a step back from the book I came to realize that possibly Shakespeare is sympathizing with the Natives today. Evidence of this sympathy is when Caliban was telling Stephano about Prospero’s depraved overtaking of the island, “he used witchcraft to take this island. He stole it from me.” With this statement it makes it seem that Caliban was the innocent one and Prospero was the wicked one; only looking out for his own selfish ambition to take the island away.

When watching the video on Native Americans, I found it to be very accurate in a sense of what they portray to the public eye. Because the white Europeans won over the Natives of America, they have the responsibility to show what the Indians did, whether it’s entirely accurate or not. In the old Hollywood films Indians were seen as bloodthirsty animals who killed the whites. Because the audience was under the influence of a one-sided story, they had very negative views of the Native Americans and very positive views of the white Europeans.

The Use of Manipulation in Shakespeare's The Tempest (Act I)

When reading Act I of The Tempest it introduced me to the world of Shakespeare, and his mysterious leading character Prospero. Because of Prospero’s vindictiveness and absolute power over the other characters in the play, it makes him very hard to like or admire, regardless of his unfortunate past.

When sharing with Miranda, his daughter, about their past experiences, Prospero in my eyes seemed to have an attitude of arrogance, and constantly asked Miranda if she was ‘paying attention’. “To what tune pleased his ear, that now he was the ivy which had hid my princely trunk, and sucked my verdure out on ’t. Thou attend’st not.” Prospero was able to gain self-respect and pity from his daughter by telling her the story of how he was taken out of power in Milan by his brother, Antonio. By manipulating her perception of her past, Prospero is able to win over her loyalty and trust.

It is evident in the play that Prospero uses violent powers as a means of controlling the world around him. For starters, he used his powers to conquer a terrible storm in the beginning of the play. “If by your art, my dearest father, you have put the wild waters in this roar, allay them” (Act I, Scene 2). Also, he threatened Caliban to comply with his wishes; otherwise he would use his powers of magic against him. After the treat, Caliban remains hesitant and rude, but ultimately follows orders; secretly wishing harm upon Prospero.

Additionally, Prospero seems to take advantage of the debts Ariel possesses to him. Ariel was a servant to Sycorax; who treated him terribly. She ended up locking him up in a pine tree; who died before she could let him out. Only people with magical powers could let him out, and Prospero did just that. However even after her debt was payed, Prospero still believed she had another year remaining.

Eliminating Bias in Public Schools by Analyzing the Text

So I must say, I enjoyed reading An Incomplete Version of the Past that Silences Important Struggles because it really opened up my eyes to the world of public education. The author, Kirsten Gardner, specifically points out the education system in Texas, and how the board changed the curriculum to favor conservative views of the United States.

 Before I negatively judge Texas however, it would be best to get both sides of the story, something that I feel Kirsten emphasizes.

When teaching our history, it’s almost impossible to not add one’s own personal bias, possibly slanting another’s view. So why, instead of just listening to the teacher lecture, shouldn’t the students participate themselves, and decipher for themselves why an occurrence happened? It’s inevitable that teachers will slant the view of their students by added one’s own personal opinion, not to mention the bias of the author who wrote the textbook. So instead of students being passive learners, they should be ACTIVE learners. Not only will this change the way students view the world, but it will also help the students develop critical thinking skills, an ability needed to acquire before entering college.

“The contemplation of different versions of the past, the analysis of evidence, and the willingness to complicate linear narratives-is not being taught in the current or proposed curriculums.”

With stating this from the article, we as students lack the ability to understand the meaning behind our past. Yes, we know that the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Japan in 1945, but do we fully comprehend why? What was Truman’s reasoning behind it? Did he consider the pros and cons? How did Japan feel after the incident? THIS is the type of history we should be learning. Because after all, the reasoning behind our country’s decision is what makes us who we are today; as a society and even as an individual.