To Read or Not to Read

I think the most important question to ask in relation to this text is; are the pieces of writing we read meant to mean something specific, or is it solely for entertainment or a single purpose that the author has already decided?
George Will believes that people delve into the meanings of literature too much, when they should not be because the author wrote the piece intending it to mean something in particular. While Stephen Greenblatt believes that when you take away the thought that the reader has to put into it then the piece of writing is not necessarily meaningless, but less influential in a sense.
Greenblatt states "The best way to kill our literary inheritance is to turn it into a decorous liturgical celebration of the new world order" (115). He believes that what George Will called "collective amnesia and deculturation" is really a sense of understanding for meaningful literature. Without this the reader cannot possibly understand not only what the author meant, but other ways of looking at it as well. Every novel can be read with multiple outlooks and understandings,which Greenblatt reinforces. "Poets cannot soar when their feet are stuck in social cement".
George Will is sort of an advocator for the author. He supports that they know what they want to say and how they want their audience to perceive it. " All literature on which canonical status is conferred represents the disguised or unexamined assumptions and interests of the dominant class, sex, race. Hence culture is oppressive and a literary canon is an instrument of domination" (111). Will feels that people read way too far into literature, and they do it for their benefit, more often for the benefit of their political party. They influence the canon used by the author to support themselves selfishly.
Both of these views seem kind of radical. Obviously, well in my opinion, a reader must look past just the words and plot and try to understand the authors canon. So, in between both you know? You have to try to understand, but do it from what the author attempts to display. There is definitely no right way to read. But i think if you put these two people together (you could name them George Greenblatt) then that would at least be a safe way to perceive another writers art.

Shakespeare's Unsalvageable Savage

In the Postcolonialism piece we read it presents two sides, the colonizers and the colonized. The colonizers made the colonized "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" (Postcolonialism, Page 236). The Tempest agrees with the assertion that "as soon as the colonized were forced to speak the language of the colonizer, the colonized either accepted or were coerced into accepting the collective consciousness of the colonizer" (Page 239). In The Tempest Caliban curses the fact that he was taught how to speak because it led him to show Prospero where all of the materials for living were on the island. But once Prospero witnessed Caliban attempting to rape Miranda, Caliban became lowly in his eyes. "These subhumans, or 'savages' quickly became the inferior, and equally 'evil'" (Page 236).
When Stephano comes upon Caliban he states: "If I can cure him from his fever and tame him, and get him back to Naples, he’d make a great present for any emperor" (Act 2, Scene 2, Page 4). The colonizer goes straight to asking himself 'How can I use this 'savage' to benefit me?' It seems that sympathy was not a part of any ones vocabulary until slavery began to be looked-down upon. Shakespeare presents Caliban as an evil, disgusting, creature though, leading a reader to see him as a colonizer would. When I read about him, I didn't necessarily think the word "inferior", but I sure didn't see him as an idol. Shakespeare diction in describing the "filthy savage" fulfills the stereotype that any race not colonized is menial.
By making Caliban praise the European man he comes across Shakespeare further belittles the colonized. "These are beautiful creatures, if they’re not spirits. He’s a good god, who brings liquor from the heavens. I will worship him" (Act 2, Scene 2, Page 5). Material things can persuade the primitive Caliban to worship a human man as a god. A stereotype for the "uncivilized" has flowed from generation to generation, and it succeeds in ours as well. As can be seen in the hundreds of westerns and John Wayne movies I've been forced to watch with my father. The Native Americans are constantly the enemies and besides that, never win. The white man is always the hero.
Caliban is portrayed as an idiot. Once cursing the fact that he had showed one man the resources on 'his' island, and now offering to do the same. "I’ll show you every inch of the island, and I’ll kiss your feet. I beg you, please be my god" (Act 2, Scene 2, Page 7). He is unable to apply simple human understanding to his situations, and it is as if Shakespeare blatantly points out that Caliban is primitive and incapable of succeeding.

The Tempest! Believe it.

Prospero is a self-indulging man who felt no disdain toward accenting his reputation. "Prospero the number one duke, famous for my dignity and my education" (Shakespeare, Act 1, Scene 2, Page 4). He was once a high duke of a powerful land, but was cheated out of his position because of his self-absorption and ill-placed trust. "As I neglected practical matters, being totally dedicated to solitude and to improving my mind with subjects more valuable than most people imagine, I was so shut away from the world that I unwittingly stirred up evil wishes in my disloyal brother" (Act 1, Scene 2, Page 5). His brother Antonio tricked Prospero and his daughter Miranda onto a secluded island where Prospero immediately deemed himself king and ruled over all of his subjects (Miranda, Caliban, and Ariel).
Prospero has many techniques in controlling his 'subjects'. As for Miranda, Prospero utilizes his fatherly role and encourages her and her role in his life."My dear, you were a little angel who kept me going. You smiled with a strength you must have gotten from heaven" (Act 1, Scene 2, Page 7). He mentions it was "With God's help" that they made it to shore and "his luck" that his enemies landed on the island. Prospero tries to entice the idea that it is in his destiny for all of this to happen, and he deserves it all. Since Miranda's only relationship in life is with her father she has no reason not to believe him and follow all of his words. He also works on controlling her heart when it comes to Ferdinand.
When it comes to Ariel Prospero uses black-mail and false hope to control all of her actions. When she asks about her promised freedom Propero goes straight to reminding her all that 'he had done for her'. "It was my magic that saved you when I arrived on the island and heard you" (Act 1, Scene 2, Page 13). And then he goes straight to threatening her by placing her back in a tree where she could not escape for twelve more years. This use of threats and black-mail cause Ariel to listen without question, and understandably, for under no circumstances would she want to go back how he had found her, especially after all the work she had done for him. And then when he is more satisfied he promises to "set her free in two days for doing such a great job" (Act 1, Scene 2, Page 20). Instilling this false sense of hope causes Ariel to follow Prospero with even more zeal because she is looking forward to an upcoming event.
Caliban is a different story. Caliban seems to recollect a different happening than Prospero. According to Caliban "This island belongs to me because Sycorax, my mother, left it to me. But you’ve taken it from me" (Act 1, Scene 2, Page 16). Caliban recalls that Prospero tricked information out of him by treating him nicely and then double crossed him. And Prospero states that Caliban attempted to rape his daughter and that is why he was seized of 'his island'. (Act 1, Scene 2, Page 16). So he was sentenced to live in a cave, which is 'better than being in jail' if they were in an acting society. Caliban is also manipulated with continual threats and insults aimed at he and his mother.
Prospero is certainly a devious creature.

Our Ignorance of History:

During our discussion on Thursday we reflected on the thought that if we do not learn about the past, then we are doomed to repeat it. Just as Hitler's army invaded Russia, like Napoleon, and could not survive the harshness of the Siberian winter. History is one of our most vital classes and should be presented to us without any bias attached. However, this is impossible. It is human nature to present opinion with fact, and I do not expect our teachers to just read to us straight from the books, calling that a lecture. And they cannot even do that, because as was said, we do not even know if our history books are telling us the truth. But on the basis that they are, in the most part, we should make a note to implant major details in our minds so that we do not make mistakes that ruin our lives or the lives of others. For my whole life my parents have been telling me that we "are the future". So we have to work hard and learn from them. From the past.
It has come to the point where I do not know if the past is presented to us with a bias, or without, and if so in which direction. We read that it was leaning to the left, and that needed to be fixed, but how do we know it isnt leaning at all, or that it is leaning down or something? It complicates the whole situation. I want us as a whole to learn from our history as it is now. And i do not know if it is slanted. I do not see how, does anyone? Because I do not feel like it represents any party or race unfairly. But is that because that is how it was taught to us, so that is how we see it? I personally feel like I have a decent grasp on this world, and that I can realize when something is prejudiced or bias. And if that isnt true, I dont know if I want to know that. I dont know if I want to live in ignorance or not. But thankfully I do not have to decide. Because we will never know.