The Abyss of Literature

       If you were to see an abyss, what would you think of it? It would present you with a scene of awesome scale; something both beautiful and frightening, only that of nature can bring. But, is this the only way you can view it? Of course not, but instead you could view it from the abyss itself. Where a small stream runs and strange animals which one has never seen before or even thought could exist. New life is brought to the abyss, and a beauty you could never have known unless you went down there; searching for the answers to how it got there and why it is here. And thus is the debate between George Will and Stephen Greenblatt on the abyss of literature.
        George Will, writer for Newsweek, discusses his position on the state of literature and how it should be read and analyzed. He states that "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." and he says that "The supplanting of esthetic by political responses to literature makes literature primarily interesting as a mere index of who had power and whom the powerful victimized." Will believes that a narrative should be analyzed really by just going on the narratives merit because he believes that if literature is judged in this way, the "...literature canon..." becomes "...an instrument of domination." On the other hand Stephen Greenblatt, believes that critics of delving deeper into a text do not want to deal with "The painful, messy struggles over rights and values, the political and sexual and ethical dilemmas that great art has taken upon itself to articulate and grapple with..." And in rebuttal to Will's statement that the face value of a text "...is the nation's cement..." he says "But art, the art that matters, is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing." In short he believes that analyzing literature in this way is not only essential for an analysis but an essential part to understand the elusiveness of a text and its purpose.
       Personally I believe that we need to analyze behind the text and take it for more than just face value. It needs to be done because it completes the text in a way; causes it to come in full circle and brings it to a new light. Greenblatt is correct in his assessment but Will is not completely wrong; a full analysis still needs the bare text just as much as the back story. But we need to be willing to take the plunge; to face the possibility of something terrifying, or something beautiful to find the answer to the question: why is it here?  

The Bastardization of a Culture and its Victim Caliban

       In complete knowledge of stating the obvious, the world is big. In a word enormous. IT is full of varying cultures with their different beliefs and cultures; each one special in its own right, making that culture unique. Yet, in this glorious present day, with the days of Imperialism are supposedly over, why is it that, according to Charles Bressler's Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, "Colonialism is not a thing of the past but continues today-albeit in subtler and less open ways..." Maybe people need to be reminded of the obvious, because this as Bressler says is "...a form of oppression..." and needs to be eradicated.
       This impulse is not as subtle as it is today as it was long ago; these ideals of superiority existed long before our time and as early as there was the feeling of supremacy of another. The beliefs of what is right and what is wrong is spread by its culture as propaganda and as seen in the colonization of the 17th century, goes to infect the cultures of others. What to a people may seem wrong or uncivilized in another may be perceived as being just as civilized. And thus the cycle begins in which there is no real end; a cycle filled with false perceptions, misinformed, interpretations, and the inevitable impressment of a culture to another.
       This is just the case with the character Caliban. This was a man who was forced to adopt the "ways of civilization." And as described in the chapter in Bressler's book, "Forced labor of the colonized..." ensued. Shakespeare in a way both sympathizes with Caliban while also projecting the stereotypes of the era. Caliban is constantly being treated as he is described as the characters, "savage" or "monster", but is someone who in fact only wishes to have his own home back; without any foreign disruptions. And there is the only sympathy we have for Caliban, the kind of sour feeling of the maltreated creature, and the rest turns to stereotypes. Caliban is so quickly turned to saying "I will kiss thy foot. I prithee, be my god." to Stephano (the drunk butler no less), because he gave Caliban a drink of wine or as Caliban recounts "...liquor from the heavens...". That idea that a person can be so taken by the gifts that only a "civilized" world could bring forth is not only stereotypical but also presenting Shakespeare's own beliefs of the natives of the New World, being able to be bought for so little and willingly do anything luxurious from the Old World. And then we have the violent prospects of the "savage" exemplified in Caliban's description of ways to kill his present master. As he speaks to Stephano of what he may do he says the following, "...thou mayst brain him...", "...or with a log Batter his skull...", "...paunch him with a stake..."(to stab into the belly), "...Or cut his weasand with thy knife."(to cut the windpipe of). These suggestions give of this feeling of viciousness and ferocity that can only come from stereotypes.
       The question is will Prospero die because of the actions of Caliban and will Caliban ever be able to reclaim his home?     

Prospero, the Conjuror, the Real Duke of Milan, and a Guilt Abusing Old Codger

       Wow, what an intriguing first act of The Tempest; and even early on we can notice the similarities between Shakespeare's  fantasy classic and Orwell's science fiction masterpiece. Two works of two very distinct natures with a similarity important in both. That is of course, the obscuring of history to appear in the right. As in 1984 it was the Party and their need to always be correct, to appear to always be in a state of absolute perfection; it is the case in The Tempest. History is altered by the scorned Duke of Milan so that he may use it as a persuader to justify his actions to all those whom he controls.
       We first get a taste of this in his discussion with his daughter, Miranda. She is both sickened and saddened for she has"...suffered with those that..." she "..saw suffer." at the hands of her father and the "supposed" cruelty in which he stirred a storm and a sank a vessel thereof. Even though she tells how "... the cry did knock against my very heart!" Yet, how does her father justify this action? But with nothing less than a horribly sad story. He tells of his brother who, as he says, "...whom next thyself of all the world I loved and to him put the manage of my state..." and of how his "perfidious" brother would "...should presently extirpate me and mine out of the dukedom..." of Milan and did. He then goes on to explain how after arriving on the island by "providence divine," how he, with no doubt a purposefully placed attempt to extract from guilt from her describes how he "...made thee more profit than other princesses.." And only after he has a control over her emotions, and having made her mourn their bitter history, does he reveal the reason for his actions.
       In a similar way, does he control the actions of both Ariel and Caliban. Even though Ariel has"..done thee worthy service, told thee no lies, made thee no mistakings, served without or grudge or grumblings." He is in a supposed debt to Prospero for him so kindly "...that made gape the pine..." from whence he was trapped "...and let thee out." And is the case of Caliban the deformed slave of Prospero "... born of an old hag..." and as Prospero says "... I have used thee, filth as thou art, with human care, and lodged thee in mine own cell..." There is a definitive pattern to Prosperos persuasions, that he was never once in the wrong in anything that he had done or any any action he has committed. He tries to rely on the sympathy of the audience in question. The question now is, how long can he control these very desperate peoples with this technique and what will come next?


 

Fighting Against a Single Story View

       What a wonderful world we live in. A world full of ideas and opinions that can coincide with one another or contrast but either way not all of them will be the same. My question is, how can we just take and accept one view as truth, when we should explore all others as well?
       The fact is we are all guilty of this, whether it be consciously or unconsciously, we will have a limited view of something. We share the common flaw of, as the writer Chimamanda Adichie calls it, going by a "single story." What Adichie believes and what I believe as well, is that we need to destroy this limitation of the "single story" view and be willing and able to decide our beliefs for ourselves and not have to depend on others to form them for us. In Adichie's interview "The Danger of a Single Story," she reveals many different examples of having these limiting views and from them spring an immense mix of ignorance and stereotypical thought. Her description of her time in America is composed primarily of her being constantly singled out by her ethnicity more than anything else. She tells of a roommate she once had and the shock she had when she heard her speak English so well, not knowing that English was the national language of Adichie's native country Nigeria. And then the same roommate continued to assume that Adichie was in fact unfamiliar with simple technologies like a stove for instance. For much of her time in school she was expected to know things about Africa whether or not it was involved with her home country or not. She herself formed these ignorant type of ideas in her own life about the illegal immigration of Mexicans into the U.S.; people, as she was told by the media, were desperate and miserable, only to find that they were just a group of people living their lives.
       We cannot allow ourselves to be reliant on one view presented us; we need to be capable of looking at other view and must escape from these shortened views of a much larger world and only then can we determine what is right what is wrong, what are lies and what are truths.