A Literary Debate

It has always been true that people interpret pieces of literature differently, especially in the case of Shakespeare’s literary works. The two authors, George Will and Stephen Greenblatt, from the Literary Study, Politics, and Shakespeare: A Debate, have completely opposing views on how literature should be interpreted. Although George Will’s Literary Politics states that “all literature is...political” he goes on to say that people over examine the meaning of literature in order to create their own ideas on what the author originally meant. He states, “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.” On the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt in The Best Way to Kill our Literature is to Turn it into a Decorous Celebration of the New World Order states “ it is very difficult to argue that the Tempest is not about imperialism” meaning that culture and politics have and do influence authors’ literature. He believes that there are hidden meanings in the art of literature and they need to be examined and studied. He goes on to say that the beauty of literature is that these meaning can change with time and evolve to mean different things therefore each piece should be carefully analyzed.

I completely agree with Stephen Greenblatt’s ideas. I think that every author writes something with a clear purpose and for a certain reason. Although we can never be quite certain on what the author originally intended the piece to mean, we should analyze the piece to form our own ideas. In fact, I think a good writer should leave their meaning hidden so each person can analyze and eventually interpret their work differently. Shakespeare has done exactly that in his book The Tempest.

Shakespeare and Colonialism

In my opinion, Shakespeare's writing in The Tempest present an image of native people that justifies and somewhat glorifies colonization. Shakespeare uses Caliban as an example of the natives and describes him as a “villain”, a “tortoise”, and a “poisonous slave, got by the devil himself”. Shakespeare has managed to show the white man’s generosity towards the natives by casting Caliban as the deformed monster that has been adopted and raised by Prospero after his mother, Sycorax, dies. Caliban has been burdened to teach Prospero how to survive on the island while Prospero has been teaching him religion and language in return. What people fail to realize is that Prospero is really trying to force his culture on Caliban by teaching him his own religion and language. In reality, Prospero’s intellect is in no way helpful to Caliban while Caliban’s knowledge is essential for survival. In The Tempest, Shakespeare also manages to show how unappreciative the natives are when Prospero states “ filth as thou art, with human care, and lodged thee in my own cell, till thou didst seek to violate the honor of my child”. I believe that Shakespeare’s writing in The Tempest is an example of men trying “to justify their territorial conquest by propagating a manufactured belief” using stereotypes that suggested the natives like the “so called Orientals were indolent, thoughtless, sexually immoral, unreliable, and demented.” as stated in Bressler’s Literacy Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. Still, one cannot blame Shakespeare for the way he viewed things around him. In the video How Hollywood Stereotyped the Native Americans we can see that these negative images and stereotypes are embedded into our minds from early on. Therefore, Shakespeare must have believed that the way he described Caliban and the natives in his book was right.

The Tempest Act 1

In the first act of The Tempest, the official Duke of Milan, Prospero, is planning to restore his and his daughter’s title by manipulation everything around him. Although the most apparent way was the storm he created in order to bring his enemies to the island, his manipulations did not stop there. Prospero manages to control and govern all the creatures and spirits of the island, and Ariel is one of them. Even though Ariel seems somewhat willing to serve Prospero, in a closer look we can see that he is enslaved by Prospero’s manipulations. Prospero has rescued Ariel from a tree in which the witch Sycorax had trapped him in and he has made a point to never let Ariel forget. He warns Ariel that he will “once in a month recount what thou hast been, which thou forget’st.” He constantly reminds Ariel of how great his life has been ever since he was rescued. He talks about the horrible demands of Sycorax and reminds Ariel about the “torment I did find thee in” before he saved him. This way, Prospero is able to manipulate Ariel by making him feel guilty and extremely grateful. What Ariel fails to understand is that he is still a slave and his life is no better.

Over the years, Prospero has also managed to obtain complete power over his daughter, Miranda. Since the age of three, Miranda has been separated from the outside world. She has never seen another human being other than herself and her father. She sees the world and the people in it through her father’s eyes. This way, she shares her father’s ideas and believes his words without needing much proof. So, when Prospero goes on to tell the tale of how they came to live on the island, Miranda immediately believes him. Prospero can therefore manipulate his daughter into believing anything he says.