I'm right, you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Both George Will and Stephen Greenblatt present very interesting and opposing views on the subject of literary study. Will believes that literary writings have become a tool used for political gain, like “a literary canon”, and states that all writing is essentially a political statement.  He argues that by reading too far into the text and over-analyzing it, critics are completely misinterpreting the author’s original implications to fit whatever argument they are trying to make.  He supports his point with the example of the NEH nominations in which he claims that Lynne Cheney’s writings were over-analyzed and interpreted to a meaning that differed from her intention. He suggests that there should be one concrete interpretation of literary text that is derived from the words rather than the stuff that lies between the lines.

Greenblatt could not disagree more. He feels that “we might turn our artistic inheritance into a simple, reassuring, soporific life” if we refuse to play around and look deeper into possible meanings and interpretations of a writer’s work. In fact, he thinks that interpreting only heightens the reader’s experience. He claims that art isn’t concrete and that there should not be a cut-and-dry way to interpret literature.

I think my own argument lies somewhere in the middle of Greenblatt and Will’s, more leaning towards Greenblatt. Although I agree that text can often be overly interpreted to mean things that are completely off the spectrum of the author’s original intent, I feel that it is impossible to establish any one interpretation of anything; especially when the artist is no longer living. The whole fun of art is the process of taking what the artist has given you and deriving for yourself some sort of meaning or message from it. Once the author has released it, it is put entirely into the public’s hands and should be open for interpretation. Of course there will be disagreements, and of course it will be used in the wrong way from time to time, but that’s what art is. And literature is art.

The Tempest: Appealing to your audience.

There is an article on postcolonialism that introduces the idea of hegemony, or, “the dominant values, sense of right and wrong, and sense of personal self worth” that minorities are consciously and unconsciously asked to mold themselves to. This idea most heavily applies to the colonization of numerous indigenous lands and their inhabitants by the domineering white man, and the portrayal of Native American Indians in early Hollywood westerns. There is no doubt that when writing The Tempest, Shakespeare wrote the character of Caliban as a representation of these native peoples. We are shown this through the initial encounter between Caliban and Stephano. When Stephano first sees Caliban, he believes that he has become the victim of a practical joke asking, “Have we devils here? Do you put tricks upon’s with savages and men of Ind, ha?” He then goes on to say that he will “keep [Caliban] tame” and sell him as a present to a wealthy emperor. Because Caliban is not of the same race or upbringing as him, Stephano immediately names him a savage, believing him to be of a lower and inferior species that can be sold and traded. Stephano’s attitude directly reflects the Colonist’s attitude towards those they met in Africa and the Indie’s. They believed themselves to be of a superior race and felt that it was their duty to save these “others” from their plight by teaching them their ways and molding them into their own hegemony. Because Shakespeare was financially dependent on the wealthy colonists and government officials, he had to write The Tempest in a way that would compliment colonization by writing the character of Caliban into a negative light that ultimately gave natives an unjust stereotype in the same way that movie producers needed to make films that would most appeal to the dominating white population.. Shakespeare did this by composing Caliban as a deformed, crude, and gullible man who will believe and do anything about and for the man who has the liquor; in the same way, movie producers made Indians come across as bloodthirsty savage killers. By making Caliban and Indians truly come off as a “savages”, Shakespeare and Hollywood are both justifying and glorifying the obtainment and enslavement of natives, and by doing this, are naming white colonists the hero and natives the enemy.

The Tempest: Manipulation of a Former Duke.

 

Prospero is one of Shakespeare's more powerful and controlling characters. He is able to manipulate those around him not only with his extraordinary powers, but with his clever use of speech as well. With simple words Prospero is able to twist any situation to make him appear to be the victim so that he can maintain the support of his daughter and servants when he needs to use them for his schemes.  When accused by his daughter Miranda to have conjured up the storm that bared his enemies, he immediately denied having anything to do with the weather claiming that "by accident most strange" the storm had occurred, and that he had taken every care to make sure that "not so much perdition as an hair betid to any creature in the vessel". He then delves into an epic story explaining how he was deceived, robbed and then banished from his Dukedom, by his brother, and marooned on this island. Now of course none of this is true, but because Miranda has grown up with no other company or mentor besides her father, she automatically has to trust and believe everything Prospero says simply because she has no one to tell her otherwise. With no other person to provide her with guidance or company all her life, Prospero has become to Miranda an omniscient god, father, and friend; a consequence he uses this heavily to his advantage.

But Prospero does not use his powers of persuasion exclusively on his daughter. He also uses his rhetoric and powers to manipulate his two servants Ariel and Caliban. Prospero keeps and abuses Ariel and Caliban as slaves, justifying his actions with exaggerated stories that once again, make him appear the victim and they the one’s in debt.  When Ariel requests her freedom, Prospero throws back a fuming no, reminding her, as “he must once in month recount”, how she was enslaved by a horrid witch and trapped in a tree for twelve years before he came along and freed her. Now we don’t know how much if this story is actually true, but the fact that Prospero has to keep drilling it into Ariel’s head every month suggests that this story is too somewhat bogus and that he is brainwashing Ariel into feeling indebted towards him. Because Ariel feels she must continue to repay him, she will continue to serve him until he sets her free. Prospero also defends his reasons of slavery against Caliban, explaining how the reason he went from being treated lovingly to as a slave was because he attempted “to violate the honor of” his child, Miranda. Although Caliban knows the real reason for his mistreatment is Prospero had sucked all of the information he wanted out of him and no longer needed him, he will continue to serve him because he knows how powerful Prospero is and fears that he may use this magic against him. In this way, Prospero is able to maintain control over everyone around him.

A Single Story Response.

          Chimamanda Adichi's speech took an issue that I had already been familiar with and brought it into a new light that had me seeing the situation very differently. Most of us are already aware of the government's manipulation over society by means of changing the way we think and feel towards certain things, but we can't seem put our finger on exactly how or why it happens. As Adichi explains, the views and opinions that we have towards certain peoples, places, and cultures are sprung from an exposure to a single (or one-sided) story; sometimes this is due to the government's manipulation, and sometimes it's result of nothing more than a basic lack of information. Whatever the case, the truth remains that most of the world's opinions and "certainties" are false. Adichi provides many examples of this that are derived from her own childhood. For example, Adichi tells of when she first came to America how her roommate was surprised to find that she was not poor, abused, uneducated, or enlightened in traditional African music; her roommate was exposed to only a single story of Africa, a story that labeled Africa as a single failing country rather than a continent filled with both successful and unsuccessful countries. We are so quick to snatch up anything that is fed to us and  label it as an absolute truth without really taking the time to validate anything, and as result we have created many stereotypes towards people and countries that we don't even fully understand. We have made it only too easy for the government to manipulate our minds and influence us in shameful ways. We need to take the time to hear the full story, too see the real truth, before we make any great judgments.