A Few Good Reasons Why Not To Think So Hard.

For as long as literature has been around, there has always been that one person who decided that there MUST be a deeper meaning to what they were writing. After reading two essays on the deeper meaning of works of literature, I have come up with my own theory that would suffice in looking further into literature than necessary. But first, I must explain the opposite views these writers posed.
The first of the essays was written by George Will, an intelligent man with a knack for writing, not to mention a Pulitzer Prize in his pocket. To start off his essay, he blatantly stated that "all literature is.. political". This poses the question, why exactly? He dives a little deeper into saying "culture is oppressive and a literary canon is an instrument of domination". Oh? So what he's really trying to say is every book ever written has a certain reason as to why it is being written, whether it is to show the oppression of the domination culture of to drop slight hints on feminism. This is a very interesting take on the perspective of books, but lets take a look at the other side of things..
Stephen Greenblatt, a professor at Harvard University, takes us on this walk on the wild side (according to George Will at least). His ideas are rooted in that fact that professors of the "curriculum" of looking in the deeper meaning of books are "bent on sabotaging Western civilization by delegitimizing its founding texts and ideas". Interesting. What does he mean by "delegitimzing you say? Greenblatt goes a little further by saying "[literature].. is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing" and that "[writers] cannot soar when their feet are stuck in social cement". So in a sense he is saying that looking at literature through the peep hole of everything being political, the readers and everyone else are missing the fact that there is actual beauty in literature. One could go so far as to saying it is a form of art.
After all this, do you really want my point of view? Well too bad if you said no, because here it is anyways. Yes, I believe that there are some books and stories that have a deeper political meaning, but to say that every book has one? Now that is just too far. Looking at literature with different "lenses", such as the political lens, the religious lens, or even the ethical lens, distorts and manipulates one's self into thinking and seeing something in a piece of literature that may or may not be there. An example of this is the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The majority of the Christian community believes that the entire story is a giant allusion to Christ's death and resurrection and rapture. In all honesty, why not? You can see whatever you want to see in stories such as those and who's to say that you are wrong? It is all opinion, with no right or wrong answer, unless of course you ask the writer yourself, then maybe there is a right answer. Just maybe..

I'm not really enjoying this book..

After reading, and rereading due to the failure to understand what happened the first time through, I believe that Caliban is definitely a correlation to the natives today and the effect of the dominating culture. Before Prospero and his daughter Miranda came to the island, Caliban was there learning all there is to know about what was on the island and how to live in harmony with it. When Prospero arrived, Caliban taught him everything he needed to know about living there and in return Prospero decided to civilize Caliban up to the standards of the rest of the world. Likewise, this also occurred when the Europeans came to the Americas for the first time and pushed the Natives out for there own good.
After further investigation and deeper thought, I believe that Shakespeare is actually sympathizing with Natives today because when Caliban was telling Stephano about Prospero's unrighteous overtaking of the island, he said "'... he used witchcraft to take this island. He stole it from me.. take revenge on him for that...'" The connotation of the word stole makes it seem like Caliban was the innocent one with Prospero acting out of selfish ambition to take the island away from him. Literacy Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practic also gives some valid points as to the sympathy of the "Others", such as it "has already been articulated by the dominant class and its accompanying hegemony: silence." Pondering this statement, you will find that it has been brought up that the minority of those oppressed are forced into silence, denied their natural rights, and virtually erased from the thought of the dominant culture.
The video on Native Americans was very accurate and is very dangerous their portrayal to the public. Since the white man won over Natives, they have the obligation to show what the Indians did in any way they chose. Although there were not many similarities between mine opinion on Shakespeare's Caliban, it shows the other spectrum of Natives being evil, bloodthirsty criminals; which causes racist prejudice which is not easy to reverse.

The Tempest. bleh.

Although Prospero is alone on an island, it is fair to say that he is not without his subjects. His power reins over Miranda his daughter, Caliban, and Ariel by manipulating what actually happened in the past and what they believe. This manipulation is most evident with his daughter Miranda such as when he was telling her about him being the Duke of Milan, he asks her, "But how is it possible that you still remember this, through all the darkness of the past?" This is meant to make Miranda to question her own sanity and if Prospero does this enough times she will begin to believe that whatever she remembers is false, therefore leaving her mind as a blank slate so it may be written with whatever nonsense Prospero chose. With this ultimate power, Prospero decided that it would be best to make him out to be the good man who had been done wrong in his life by saying "We were pushed out of power by evil deeds.. But we were blessed being helped toward this island". This is his effort to justify that everything that he had done during his reign as Duke of Milan by saying that he was done wrong and unfairly sent away to the deserted island.
As well as manipulating the past, he also uses his power of magic to make people do whatever pleased him. When Caliban did unsatisfactory work, Prospero was far from pleased and screamed at him "If you neglect my orders or do them grudgingly, I'll double you up with pains and cramps, and make all your bones ache, and make you scream so loud that the wild animals will tremble when they hear you". Prospero is able to use this threat effectively because he has the ability to conjure magic and issue pain to anyone he wishes ill-will upon. This reigning power over everyone else helps him to further manipulate them to do his will and nothing else because the ultimate factor of fear of pain and suffering sparks their behavior without question.
These examples, although from an entirely different time period, correlate with the book 1984 exceptionally well. From the manipulating of history in books and magazines to the sheer power over the citizens, Big Brother has dominating characteristics that correlate with the demeanor or Prospero. These characteristics are necessary because it shows that power is present, but not to an extent to where their subjects are able to tell that they are being swayed in their thinking and logic.

The Dangers of a Single Source.

When I first heard about the Socratic Circle, I was very skeptical about how it will be beneficial to me and thought that it would be just a complete time waster. However, I am pleased to say that this is far from the truth because it is actually very beneficial in expanding knowledge and deepening your understanding of the world around us.
During this time of discussion, there were many great ideas brought up, but the underlying question of what are the dangers of a single story or source must be pondered. One problem with a single source is that there is complete bias from the creator and that the reader must accept what is being told to him, for he knows no other way. A parallel of this truth comes from the book 1984, written by George Orwell, it is about a totalitarian government that holds a monopoly on all information and with this stranglehold of power, they are able to tell their citizens whatever they like and the citizens must go along with it because they don't know any better, thus open to whatever lies they are fed. An example from this book would be the Ministry of Truth in general. The reason for their existence was to blot out any errors that Big Brother made in newspapers, books, and broadcastings because they wanted to show the people that Big Brother is always right and there should never be a reason to question them. Since Big Brother was the only outlet of news and information, lies could be fed be fed to the public and it would be soaked up as fast as a sponge absorbing water, with no conscience challenging it.  The biggest problem with a single source is that one cannot tell if it is the truth or a bundle of lies unless there are other sources that back them up. Personal bias has a profound effect on single sources in that it lets the reader in on only what the writer wants them to know, throwing everything else out deeming it unnecessary information. From this, I hope you gain the knowledge to challenge whatever is told to you until there is further sources to back it up.