What on earth...

I don’t quite understand these two articles.  But I can explain a small bit of what I do understand, though these could be entirely incorrect interpretations.  Both writers argue about the nomination of an uneducated woman with a dominant political lean to the NEH advisory board.  George Will fights against the higher academic powers, pointing out that the presence of such political skews in literature results in the destruction of the literature itself.  However, Stephen Greenblatt argues that the presence of these strong political opinions reflects the true intentions of the author or play writer as long as the readers recognize the presence of such bias. 

As I mentioned before, I am not sure if I have these arguments summarized correctly.  From what I have written so far though, I find myself agreeing with Greenblatt and his persuasive piece.  Through Will’s essay, he proves his point that “critics strip literature of its authority” by “’deconstructing’ or politically decoding or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works”.  However, I don’t understand how criticism takes away the “authority” of literature.  To me, criticism reveals numerous ways to interpret a work.  But criticism never defines the literature itself.  Critics cannot know the intentions of the author; they can merely make an educated guess.  Criticism only offers another perspective to an interpretation. 

Greenblatt mentions in his essay at one point that art “is not cement”, but rather, is “founded on imaginative freedom, the play of language, and scholarly honesty”.  Greenblatt finds importance in students creating their own interpretations in literary works and delving deeper into the context of the piece at hand.  Even if this means that the student may or may not uncover a political lean.  I still continue to agree with Greenblatt’s ideas, even after reading each article a few more times.  I may not have captured the entire meaning of Greenblatt and Will’s arguments, but I found it interesting that both quoted The Tempest and used its context in different ways to prove different points. 

Acts Two and Three

As the play continues, Shakespeare implements even more twists and turns to the plot, making it twice as confusing for novice Shakespeare readers like me.  In the second and third acts of The Tempest, Shakespeare reveals some of the true and wicked natures of the characters I thought I had understood before.  Additionally, he further depicts Caliban as a savage of the native people, or a “monster of the isle”.  Shakespeare uses the characters Stephano and Trinculo as comic relief for the dramatic play, but he uses Caliban as the punch line for the comedy.  Though both Stephano and Trinculo each joke about the evil four legged monster they see, their jokes ultimately reflect Shakespeare’s attitude towards the native peoples.  Shakespeare highlights the stupidity in Caliban as he grows drunken from the alcohol he consumes and begins to worship Stephano, calling him “thou wondrous man”.  His mocking depiction of the native slave here further reflects the attitudes of not only the author of the play, but also the audience that he addresses with this theater work. 

In the article on cultural studies and postcolonialism, Bressler comments on the nature of colonization, mentioning the inferiority of the “subhumans, or savages”, similar to the way Shakespeare describes the nature of Caliban.  What I also found interesting about the article was the “Methodology” segment of the chapter.  One aim of postcolonialism is the realization that “works of literature are not merely texts”.  To me, this suggests that a postcolonialist understands literary works not only includes a particular plotline and theme but also the opinions and bias of the author at hand.  If we can recognize this fact as well, would we be so quick to believe the first representations presented to us?

The video regarding the Hollywood portrayals of Native Americans provides an excellent example for the wrongly portrayed “savages” that make up more than 4,000 films today.  The short documentary investigates the awful image the white audience gives to the Native Americans.  It included several interviews of Native American actors and actresses where they each described their experiences growing up with such attitudes floating about their communities.  The actress Casey Camp Horinek mentions how she “never saw her own image in its reality” because it was considered a joke to be true to her culture.  In the same way Shakespeare depicts Caliban as a part of the comic relief to his play, Horinek finds herself viewing her own culture as humor in comparison to the “traditional” white audience culture.  Because of the skewed representation of Native Americans, Horinek along with many others of her culture feel the unfair stereotype that exists.  The Hollywood film industry demonstrates significant evidence of this, ultimately “turning history around” according to the superior party.    

The Tempest, Act One

Like the Party in 1984, Prospero too manipulates his people in order to portray a less-than-true image of reality.  He crafts new stories for Caliban, Miranda, and Ariel, each story being different than the next.  Through this method, he captivates his audience into believing a false story, persuading them the “good” in his intentions.  In this way, he dishonestly controls these characters into believing he is the better person in the given situations. 

In Caliban’s situation, for instance, Caliban explains to the audience that he treated Prospero with much respect when he first arrived on the island, eager to show Prospero "the qualities o' th' isle".  He later states that Prospero treated him cruelly in return, keeping the island from him.  However, Prospero replies to his explanation he truly was kind to Caliban until he attempted to rape his daughter Miranda.  Being true or not, Prospero’s story immediately demonstrates the wicked nature in this slave by pointing out his biggest flaw.  With such a vivid image as attempted rape, Prospero persuades not only his audience of terrible nature of Caliban but also his sheltered daughter, who views the slave as a “villain” before she even meets him.  Thus, Prospero achieves his goal in influencing these negative opinions towards Caliban with his one-sided explanation.  He subtly enforces his power upon the people around him in such a way that they hardly notice the lies in his tales.  His aggressive threatening techniques further pull Prospero into complete control and power over Caliban.  Prospero forces Caliban to see what Prospero wishes him to see, and this demonstrates the frightening amount of power he holds. 

For Miranda’s case, however, Prospero uses a much different technique.  He retells the story of his coming to the island, but instead of telling the truth, he bends reality farther than necessary to show his daughter that he is a hero.  During the story, he emphasizes his time spent on “secret studies” and being “so reputed in diginity”, eagerly highlighting the good deeds he performed for his country.  However, he additionally mentions without haste the negative qualities about his “false brother” and the awful circumstances that the brother created.  Already Prospero understands the importance in influencing his daughter to believe that he is as pure as he seems.  This understanding ultimately proves his power over his subjects.  His daughter all too quickly swallows the one-sided story he feeds to her, feeling the need to "cry all over again" after his moving story. This only further reinforces Prospero’s power over her life. 

Prospero shows control over Ariel as well through his frequent, violent threats and his constant story telling of how Ariel arrived at the island.  Prospero’s “once in a month recounts” for Ariel continually show Ariel why he listens so closely and loyally to Prospero.  He once again highlights the good deeds he accomplishes, explaining that only his “art” saved Ariel from the “torment” in which he found his slave in.  By consistently reminding Ariel of the favor Prospero gave to him, Ariel soon forgets even the slightest possibility of a second side to the story he hears.  Like the message Adichie lectured about, Prospero forces one story upon his slave, thus demonstrating his power in controlling the thought process of his subject.  Similar to his treatment towards Caliban, Prospero enforces threats often so that Ariel simply has no other choice but to listen to what he is told.  Through this method, he controls his subjects into believing what he pleases, demonstrating the true power Prospero holds. 

Prospero molds the reality of these three characters into the shape he wishes to see: one that recognizes him as the ultimate power. 

Rejecting the Single Story

While patiently waiting for the video to buffer, I found myself already making my own judgments about the lecture, thinking it to be another boring, lengthy discussion.  However, after listening to all twenty minutes, I saw Adichie's lecture as something new and interesting, even more so than the discussions we held in class the other day.  She brings about the issue of the single story and how easily many listen to only one side of a given situation.  She even admits to herself falling into this trap too.  From her discussion, I gained the knowledge that the danger of a single story leads to incomplete information, and this incomplete information leads to a number of unnecessary and hurtful ideas and judgments.  Because her roommate only listened to the single story of Africans, she felt a "patronizing, well meaning pity" towards Adichie upon their initial meeting, unaware of the wrongness, or danger, in her judgments.  But she is not wrong for acting according to the story she had always heard.  Rather, it is her fault that she did not gain further insight about the culture by obtaining another story from a new point of view.  In the same way, most people only act upon the first story they hear without even acknowledging the presence of another story at all.  This leads to further inaccuracies and bias, but most fail to see the errors in their thought processes because they can just see a small side to an issue instead of the entire picture.  So, this means that the person or group who places the initial "single story" into place ultimately has the power to control the masses.  Adichie mentions the importance power plays into shaping the stories that circulate around the world.  After hearing this, I better understood the importance the textbook issue in Texas.  The Democrats and Republicans fight and will continue fighting to take control over who includes what in the textbooks.  Whoever wins this battle will have shaped the millions of students who only see the single story to US History. Students will be manipulated directly in front of their faces, and they will not notice.  They will listen to what they initially hear because they probably won't think about the possibility of another side to the whole picture.  And this is the danger Adichie warns us about: the ignorance to see what is past the surface level.  Similarly, Orwell warns us of this ignorance through 1984 with the government that eliminates all evidence of a second story with the constant rewriting of history.  How can we fight against this ignorance?  Perhaps just by knowing the presence of another story could help.  But then again, even with this knowledge, how will we know that each person will take the initiative to look past the first story?  Even when it is so much easier to listen to the first thing we hear?  Here lies another problem that Adichie mentions, and through her lectures, she hopes to begin solving the problem.  If she can inform her audiences of the dangers to the single story, then maybe her audiences will learn to reject the single story and see beyond it.