Stephen Greenblatt & George Will

I think Mr. Greenblatts points out states that not all literature ia political. Unlike George Will who says "All literature...is political." Greenblatt questions why will cant enjoy Sheakspeares writing without trying to find a political meaning behind it. Throughout Greenblatts article he seems distraut that will finds all literature one way. He is troubled by how will thinks too much about the peices he reads. George Will seems to think that if you argue that all literature isnt political you are full of stupidity. I think the reason will is so passionate in his opinion towards Greenblatt is only partly because of how Greenblatt veiws literature, i think it is also how Greenblatt veiws politics that shapes wills opinion of him and throughout his article it turns into that than the issue of Lynne v. Cheney being on the NEH advisory board? I agreed moreso with Stephen Greenblatt because i agree that all literature is NOT political. Certainly someone could argue that but in my opinion not verything has a political meaning. Sure, Many authors, playwrites, and journalists write their works with this hidden agenda but i think itsall about how you interpret what your reading. Take StarWars for example, George lucas didnt purposely create all the hidden symbols and connections to religion when he wrote the saga, but many people watch those films and mold their own opinions about what Lucas was trying to say.

Caliban

In many ways caliban is much like the native American Indians who lived here yaersago and still do today. Throughout Shakespeare's  Tempest Caliban is portrayed as a "monster". In many ways so were the indians according to "white men" They were called savages and beasts. The native Americans lived here first. The "white man" came along and was taught how to live off the land like the Indians did. Instead of seeing the indians as actual people they abused and took advantage of them. In many ways Caliban experiences the same things the indans did. Caliban states "He stole it from me.. ". The "white man" also stole the native americans land with no remorse for taking there homes and disrespecting them. Stephano and Trinculo get him drunk and delusional in order to take advantage of the fact the he is a native on the island. Caliban proceeds to tell them that he will show them how to survive of the land. I think that hollywood portrays the indians to be bloodthirsty violent people when that is not the case. Im sure some tribes were violent but there are some people in American society that are crazy and phycotic but that doesn't make our society bad as a whole. It isn't fair to portray indians as only savage beasts. How can they all be this way if they showed us how to survive using their techniques in the beggining? So far i would say Shakespeare presents a semi sympathetic tone towards Caliban. I feel sorry for him. I think he is arguing against colonization because Prospero sent them there as part of his elaborate plan and i don't think he is saying that people should go colonize in other places, i don't get that vibe at all.

The Tempest Act one

Throughout the first act Prospero manipulates people around him through his magic. He threatens Fernidad and Caliban countless times. I think that through his magic he makes people believe he is very powerful and that they should do as he says. He also manipulates people by telling them something that isn't necessarily true. For example,he constantly asks Miranda if she is listening to him when he explains how they got to the island and why he is no longer Duke of Naples. I think this shows he wants to make sure she is taking in everything he is saying and making sure she knows his "single story".

The danger of a single story

The danger of a single story is that with one story we only have one perception of someone or something. When we only know one thing to be true about Africa for example that stereotype is a single story. Out of that one story there are many others besides Africa being a poor country. Adichie's speech relates to our discussions because like her single story, Texas is creating a single story of history. Just like the danger of a Adichie's single story, Texas' single story is in my opinion dangerous to our counrty because in our discussion it was brought up that if history is changed and rewritten how will we learn from it to benefit our future? My answer is we cant learn from it if what we are reading is only half correct. In that sense it is dangerous because we are predisposed to repeat our mistakes.