What is the "Right" Way to Read?

Literature has always provided the reader with the opportunity to apply different interpretations to its meaning. However, when people begin to label what is the “right” meaning, conflict begins. Two authors in this chapter do just that. George Will’s “Literary Politics” examines the idea that people read too much into the meanings of literature, creating artificial insight as to what the author meant, usually taking the shape of political ideas. On the other hand, Stephan Greenblatt notes in “The Best Way to Kill our Literature is to Turn it into a Decorous Celebration of the New World Order” argues that more evidence points to the idea that culture, politics, religion, etc. influenced authors, than does not. Will argues that the political inferences become ridiculous and comical, as they grow more far-fetched. Will states that, “By ‘deconstructing,’ or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority. Criticism displaces literature. Critics displace authors of bestowing meaning.”  Additionally, this author argued against the ideas of Lynne V. Cheney, chairman of the National Endowment of the Humanities, because she supports exactly what he opposes. On the contrary, Stephan Greenblatt writes that literature must have subliminal messages and ideas reflecting more than just the “story.” Greenblatt reveals that part of the beauty of the art form of literature is that it evolves with time to mean different things, and that taking this quality away would be detrimental. “Poets cannot soar when their feet are stuck in the cement,” he states. Greenblatt uses the example of Shakespeare’s The Tempest to show that it is highly supportable that the author was reflecting ideas about imperialism in his play.

            I agree partially with both opinionated authors, leaving my opinion somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. I think that although literature may indeed be written to allude to cultural ideas, politics, or religion, this is not always the case. I think that any reading of any piece of literature results in subjective feelings about the selection, so one can never be quite certain about what the author intended the piece to reflect. In fact, I think that authors know that literature is interpreted in this manner, and may even purposely write with a level of vagueness to inspire the reader to insert their own ideas into the text. Or, authors have an idea in mind, but are comfortable with the fact that, just like any form of art, different people will “see” and respond to different aspects of it. On the other hand, however, I do not support forcing any one person’s view of any text on others as the “correct” reading. Who is one person to say what a text means? After all, why should people have the ability to read between the lines?

Caliban: The "Other"

Interpreting texts has evolved to a point where one can choose to look for the “right” interpretations of a text, or analyze how the reader, time period, and author’s influence together compose a text’s central message. I believe that Shakespeare’s The Tempest can be read with several different perspectives, as postists (those who believe literature is a from of discourse and that the language used to compose work is relevant) would agree. From this standpoint, my interpretation as a reader may be used as argument towards Shakespeare’s main idea. With my current knowledge of the novel, I believe that the author portrays Caliban as a savage, inferior individual, and therefore reveals that Shakespeare does not oppose colonization. However, I also think that Shakespeare wrote with outside influences and his own’s cultural hegemony weighing on his thoughts. No one is free of their culture’s influence, and Shakespeare may have written this play in a manner that he thought would please the audiences of his times, and thus may have written his play to further his career more than to broadcast political and cultural messages. As Bressler states, “All people in a given culture are consciously and unconsciously asked to conform to the prescribed hegemony.”

Shakespeare points out that Caliban is unhappy that Miranda taught him the language that she and Prospero speak, because he now expresses himself through the influence of the offending culture he so dislikes. By doing so, the author provides evidence that Caliban in not just a single character, but a symbol of other natives that may have been colonized and forced to conform to a new culture. Bressler supports Caliban’s thoughts on the idea of learning a new language by describing Fanon’s thoughts on the matter. “Fanon believes that as soon as the colonized…were forced to speak the language of the colonizer…the colonizer either accepted or were coerced into accepting the collective consciousness of the French [the colonizers].”

Alone and forced to provide for his master, Prospero, Caliban serves as a symbol to any race or group of peoples that have been oppressed or colonized. As Bressler calls these unlucky individuals, Caliban is one of the “Others.” Although Shakespeare appears to give hope to Caliban’s cause of freedom by providing him with a new “master,” Stephano, he is indeed not sympathetic towards Caliban, and what Caliban represents in The Tempest. Instead, Caliban meets his new master with an unflattering display of affection, thus portraying him, and those who have been colonized, as desperate and pathetic. “How does thy honor? Let me lick thy shoe,” Caliban grovels. Shakespeare thus paints the colonized as he portrays Caliban: pathetic and subservient.

Prospero's Influence

Prospero is able to control those around him with a magic possibly more powerful than that found in his cloak: his words. In the case of Miranda, his version of history is the only history she can recall. "I have done nothing but in care of thee, Of thee, my dear one—thee my daughter, who Art ignorant of what thou art, naught knowing Of whence I am, nor that I am more better Than Prospero, master of a full poor cell, And thy no greater father," Prospero claims to Miranda. He admits that Miranda is naive and knows nothing of her past, or even Prospero's, except for what Prospero informs her. Miranda then replies, More to know did never meddle with my thoughts," furthering the reader's conclusion that she can be molded by Prospero to believe anythig he desires. Later, when explaining to Miranda her past Prospero describes Miranda's uncle as dsloyal. "Your disloyal uncle—are you paying attention?" he asks. Prospero single-handedly tells Miranda here to distrust her uncle, without letting her form her own opinion. Prospero also continually reminds Miranda to pay attention, as though his words may  be more important to his own agenda, than to Miranda.
Even Ariel is vulnerable to Prospero's words, causing her to change her attitude from disagreeable to obedient in one swift change. "Once in a month recount what thou hast been, Which thou forget’st. This damned witch Sycorax, For mischiefs manifold and sorceries terrible,To enter human hearing, from Argier, Thou know’st, was banished. For one thing she did, They would not take her life. Is not this true?" Prospero tells her. Prospero continually reminds Ariel of how he rescued her, although it seems that Ariel cannot remember the detais herself.  Prospero always has a word or two up the sleeve of his magic cloak, in case those aroun dhim do not do his bidding.
In response to Caliban's belligerent attitude, Prospero once again retalliates with his rhetoric explaining how those around him owe him something. "Thou most lying slave...I have used thee, Filth as thou art, with human care, and lodged thee, In mine own cell till thou didst seek to violate, The honor of my child." Even Caliban, the most angered of all of Prospero's "helpers" gves in to Prospero's version of what occurred. Nothing seems to be able to stop Prospero's influence.
Finally, Prospero tells Ferdinand things to anger him, in order to manipulate the situation and help Miranda and Ferdinand fall in love. "One word more. I charge thee, That thou attend me. Thou dost here usurp, The name thou owest not, and hast put thyself, Upon this island as a spy to win it, From me, the lord on ’t," Prospero persuasively states. Frdinand plays right into the hands of Prospero without even realizing it, and quickly becomes angered. Additionally, Prospero's magical incantations further create people to act at his wll. Howeer, Prospero's words seem to work just as well as his magic to accomplish what he desires.

Socratic Circle Analysis

The Socratic Circle provided our AP Literature class with a unique opportunity that allowed me to expand my ideas and thought process in ways that I hadn't before. The topic of a "fair" or at least unbiased textbook particularly caught my attention. I believe that to alter what history that has been recorded and is now common knowledge would be a huge undertaking that may not be successful. However, we do have the opportunity to learn from our mistakes.Our time would be better devoted to making sure that future generations have the opportunity to learn about all sides of history, even those events that may put the U.S. in a bad light. In order to do this, an unbiased textbook would be essential. How do we create an unbiased textbook? Just like any scientific process, this creation would need to undergo lots of editing and revision, and may never be perfect. But who wants to go to sleep at night knowing that they allowed a few self-righteous individuals on a school board decide for the nation what the next generation will know as the truth? In order to insure that all sides are represented, I believe that a large public forum should be established following events in history (maybe a year after the event so that tempers may cool down some) and individuals can have the opportunity to share their ideas of what occurred. Any event may be written about, no matter how seemingly insignificant, but at least two sides would need to be presented for it to be reviewed. This opportunity to write and submit data would need to be available to all social classes, races, etc., so  drop off locations for written ideas would need to be established. Then, a specially elected part of the government (whose members serve only a short period of time, so no biases are developed) would review the material and record the information without a certain point to view. Although news channels, newspapers, etc. will have already presented the news in a certain light, at least the textbooks would be less opinionated. Although history books may be not as exciting, the public could be assured that they included as factual information as possible. The public would also have the opportunity to read any other form of material regarding these events that may be written, and recieve biased information elsewhere, if they so desire. Children would then have the best chance possible to form their own opinion about history, although nothing can really stop outside influences such as teachers and parents from slanting what they teach. Howver, at least history would be protected for future generations to judge, for how can we learn from our mistakes if, according to "history," we didn't make any?