A Literary Debate

During the course of my education thus far, I have been taught that there are only one right answer to English standardized multiple choice questions. I have only begun to realize that there are often many correct answers due to a person's experiences, and reading materials in different ways may create more that one 'right' answer. In the articles written by George Will and Stephen Greenblatt, Will argues for more of the 'people may read things in different ways' position, and Greenblatt argues the 'one correct answer' point of view. Their entire arguments were based upon the selection of a woman to the position of chairman on the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the MLA refusing her selection based upon what they said was her merit. Many people however felt that the refusal of her getting the position was based upon her political views.

Will stated many good points, saying that based upon a person's life experience, many aspects of literature can take on different meanings. He also stated, "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political", in support for his argument that regardless of what is written or said, politics will be involved because it is a large aspect of life that a writer will include in what they do. He thinks that the particular woman in question is completely qualified for the position and the MLA should allow for more personal opinions to be allowed. In an almost indirect way, he was saying that no matter what a person reads, and what a writer may intend, that person's personal experiences will bring something different to the table and as a result, the writing may take on a different meaning to them than the next person.

Greenblatt seemed to be an older gentleman that still seems to believe that literature has one, concrete meaning that anyone could figure out. He stated that the poor woman in question for the position of chairman should not receive the position because the MLA stated she is not qualified, therefore she is not qualified. The biggest example of how his arguments applies to our class learning recently is when he said, “This is a curious example--since it is very hard to argue that The Tempest is not about imperialism", implying that there is one correct way to read the piece and there is a 'correct' meaning to it.

I tend to agree more with Will. Going through the multiple choice questions every Monday, and sometimes being shocked at the 'correct' answer, I have found that there truly are many ways to read pieces of literature. There are politics in all writings because politics influence everyday life regardless of what anyone thinks. And if politics don't affect the writing, they undoubtedly affect the way the reader will read said writing.

Shakespeare and Colonialism

"They're not like us, and for that reason deserve to be ruled". This statement from Edward Said seems to be a recurring theme through history when it comes to colonizing previously uncolonized territories. Literature has been one method of exposing these attitudes, and Shakespeare does just that in Act 2 of The Tempest.

Throughout what I have read of The Tempest so far, it seems to me that Shakespeare is creating a "native people" character through Caliban. I am not sure if I would necessarily call it "unfair", but he is intended to be a native of the island. I feel that Shakespeare over emphasizes the justifications the other characters use for making Caliban their servant, which makes me think that in actuality, he is sympathetic towards Caliban's character and making an argument against colonization.

Shakespeare shows how entirely anxious people can be to take over a group of people (or in this case 'beings') that are unlike them, to make them serve their own purpose. Stephano says, "If I can recover him and keep him tame and get to Naples with him, he’s a present for any emperor that ever trod on neat’s leather." referring to Caliban. This is one of the first impressions we have of Stephano, implying they have not been on the island for very long at all, and the first thing he thinks of doing once he sees something different than himself is how he can train him to be a servant.

This text draws exteme parallels to the video about Native American's portrayal in Hollywood. In the beginning, many Americans held the belief that anything other than themselves was 'bad' or 'inferior'. Hollywood only aided in this belief by using Native Americans as antagonists in almost every film they were represented in. It fueled the colonization beliefs of the superior white male, and greatly hindered America's tolerance for "others".

The Tempest Act I

There are many instances in Act I of The Tempest in which Prospero uses his words to manipulate those around him to do what he wants. He manipulates his own daughter Miranda, a slave which he despises, Caliban, and his servant Ariel who is just trying to gain his freedom.

He uses the story of how he was taken out of power in Milan by his treacherous brother to gain pity from his daughter. These feelings cause Miranda to love and trust him undoubtingly. He uses her good nature and emotions to win her unwavering loyalty. An example of this is when he was telling her the story of how the brother took him out of power, she says "Alack, for pity! I, not remembering how I cried out then,will cry it o'er again. It is a hint, that wrings mine eyes to ’t". She was so young she does not really remember all this happening, and upon hearing the retelling of the story she believes that she must have been crying when it all happened, but it is such a terrible story she will cry again because of the torment her father went through.

Prospero uses a threat of violence due to his powers of magic to make Caliban comply with his wishes. During their conversation, Caliban is rude to Prospero because Prospero took away the island from him before enslaving him. After Caliban curses Prospero, wishing malicious things on him, Prospero responds by saying, "For this, be sure, tonight thou shalt have cramps, side-stitches that shall pen thy breath up. Urchins shall, forth at vast of night that they may work, all exercise on thee. Thou shalt be pinched as thick as honeycomb, each pinch more stinging than bees that made 'em". After this threat, Caliban remains as rude, but he does not blatantly wish harm on Prospero.

He also uses the good things he has done in the past over Ariel. Ariel was a servant to Sycorax, and she treated him horribly. She locked him up inside a hollow pine tree and died before she could let him out. Only people with magical powers could let him out, and Prospero did so. Ariel was then forced into a certain number of year's servitude, which Prospero took a year off for being a good servant who never lied or complained. When Ariel's time was up, he asked Prospero for his freedom, but Prospero maintained that his sentence was not up and he had another year remaining. He also reminded Ariel what he had done for him saying, "Dull thing, I say so. He, that Caliban whom now I keep in service. Thou best know’st what torment I did find thee in. Thy groans of ever angry bears. It was a torment did make wolves howl and penetrate the breasts to lay upon the damned, which Sycorax could not again undo. It was mine art, when I arrived and heard thee, that made gape the pine and let thee out." This causes Ariel to thank Prospero instead of fight and argue for his freedom that was rightfully his.

The Danger of a Single Story

Going through school, we have always been taught to trust the text books we have been given, but also to hear both sides of a story before we make a judgment. When it comes to the history text books in Texas, it is almost unclear what those students should do. Should they trust the text book their educators have approved for them, or should they investigate all of history, including the parts the educators are taking out?


In my opinion, it should not matter so much what is in the text book itself, but the teachers should engage students in a more analytical discussion about events that happened in history. As one of the authors stated in the article, they should have students question why certain historical events took place, not just memorize what happened on what date.


It seems to me that the Texan educators mentioned are trying to give students an exceptional view of America. However, learning from the mistakes the United States has made in the past will keep the next generations of Americans from making the same mistakes. The entire point of learning about history is finding out what people did in a certain situation, and what they could have done differently to have a more positive outcome.


All in all, it is the job of the text book to present students with the facts about what happened in the past. Having an unbiased view of history will allow people to make their own judgments about what is right and wrong about the past, and how to change their future to make sure positive things happen again, and to make sure negative things do not re-occur. If the text book is not putting this opinion in, it is the teacher's job to make sure the students are engaging in the analytical thought that will lead them to their own conclusions.