Modernism is the thought process that there is such as a thing as ultimate truth which is brought up through this grand narrative concept. On the other hand, postmodernism acts as the break away from the above idea; this leads to postmodernism being based on lies and piling more on top. This is very similar to the basis of the Bokonon religion in Cat's Cradle when at the very beginning of the novel it is introduced with the statement that, "all the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies." Therefore, both concepts have now been based not on the truth, necessarily. Yet, how powerful is any truth or lie if there is no grand narrative to stream it along? Postmodernism kind of let's go of the idea of needing a grand narrative to provide answers. But, what meaning can you withdraw from any answer if there is no narrative behind it giving it meaning? When Newt is talking about a cat's cradle he calls the kids "crazy" because there is literally "nothing but a bunch of X's between somebody's hands." "No damn cat, and no damn cradle." Here, Newt shows how he did not have that narraative to go behind what a cat's cradle is. The father's name who currently escapes me, tried to teach his kids one time that messing with a string creates a cat's cradle and they believe; in fact, many people do. Without the narrative holding it up to this image it falls down to nothing but messing around with a piece of string. Back to the Bokonon religion, which is based on a string of lies, actually "became the one real instrument of hope" for these people since "truth was the enemy" "because [it] was so terrible." Maybe it is hard for us to imagine how everything could be a lie from another person but that is what the set up for Bokononism was. Society had lost it's faith in everything and moreover believing in any narrative before, such as ones that came from the government, that they needed something new to emense themselves in to make-believe their lives once more. This purposely set up religion that was outlawed so all who joined could be "rebels" was the remedy for soceity's thoughts processes just so they could live on. Knowing other "rebels" were out there thinking the same thing as you was enough mental adrenaline to push these people to live their life's. People are said to be put into a karass, yet they are not allowed to know who is in the same one as them. They live to only serve the Bokonon with really not much knowledge of anything else. This connects to postmodernism because these people are told lies that they follow, given just was statements to obey but with no explanation, the narrative does not really exist anymore.

Oh Tempest Preparations..

In discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been how to interpret literary works. On one side, George Will finds that literature should be approached with an objective view. That is to read for the information and find the purpose, I suppose, of it. Yet, oppposing Will is Stephen Greenblatt, who sees that literature and writing as an art form. Therefore, people should read the text and be able to interpret it in any way. They should not have to be forced to read text a certain way and only that way. Readers should be given the opportunity to think their own thoughts and produce their own opinions of any literary work. Although Will believes in this "social cement," which is a ground for how readers should go about comprehending a text, Greenblatt argues that "the art that matters, is not cement," but rather more of a "mobile" and "elusive" concept. So, here are these two views, that differ nearly as entire opposites of one another, that are being thrown back and forth, while new generations of students are trying to figure out how to interpret a piece of literature. Pertaining to our class, we just read The Tempest by Shakespeare of course, and the debating topic is whether Shakespeare wrote this to describe colonialism or imperialism. Now how would we be able to decifer that? Well, I see it as how do you personally read into the play. Depending on how you perceived Shakespeare's description of characters like Caliban, Perspero, and the rest you would have to pick either side. Will saw The Tempest as "imperialistic" with people coming over and trying to take over Caliban and his island. While Greenblatt points out that at the end of the play "all of the Europeans leave the island." Is it still portraying imperialism if they all leave?

Take Aime Cesaire's A Tempest which, in more of a modern day speak, seems to mock what happened in Shakspeare's The Tempest. Again, it is another piece of literature that is made from one person's individual view that how been shared for others to stumble upon and create their own ideas off of. This leads to me agreeing with Greenblatt that, yes, literature is a form of art that should be viewed with any possibility that the read wishes to impose of the writing. Yeah, I can see where the sentence I just wrote can lead to the allowance of things not even pertaining to the text, being able to be someone's personal interpretation. But, I think y'all get what I am saying. So much of literature is left up to interpretation, individual thought, and everyone's ability to add their personal insight to all types of writing.

Will vs. Greenblatt

Both authors, George Will and Stephen Greenblatt, give two different sides on one topic. Each stating their own opinions on how politics and ideology are affecting academic studies in literature and more closely related to us, Shakespear and The Tempest. Although, I found it very confusing to first read, then understand, and finally write what both articles were portraying. Very unsure that I understood them correctly, I got that George Will was against the Modern Language Association (MLA). At first it was confusing to figure out why, but I found that Will was actually against the MLA's reasoning for not accepting the nomination of Carol Iannone. Even though the MLA was "shocked.. that people suspect it of politcal motives" Will says right after that "the MLA is saturated with the ideology that politics permeates everything." So, apparantly Will is against having politics involved in literature and doesn't agree with the statement that "all literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." And thinking that all literature is based off of assumptions that we personally have of class, race, and sex is oppressive. Will says "this ideology radically devalues authors.." which it does. This view on all literature gives no room nor the possibilty that art is free and can be its own pure thing. With this "ideology," since it keeps being repeated, the consequences are becoming more towards this social class type thing where "the result is collective amnesia and deculturation." So, by this point I have been pretty confused, so many words!! But on to Stephen Greenblatt, who is responding to George Will's article, says in response to Will's "nation's social cement" that "the art that matters, is not cement," but rather "mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing." If anything individualism should not be repressed but expressed. Literature is all a form of expression and should not be succumb to politicals views or based off of the views of the ones before us. Greenblatt's resolution would be "to kill our literary inheritance [by turning] it into a decorous liturgical celebration of the new world order." This way people, such as, the poets can have the ability to be free with whatever they wish to expression without having to be tied down to this "social cement."
Not fully conprehending both articles fully is limiting me in writing and choosing which side I personally agree with. From what I understood, I agree with Greenblatt's idea that art should not be tied down and allowed the opportunity to change and fluctuate. But I didn't fully agree with teachers continuously teaching the same thing over and over, thus the social heritage, without tossing in times for students to process things on their own. For instance, students should learn to interpret things on their own accord and come to their own conclusions, not always what is said in the textbooks and/or has been repeated by the teacher.

The Tempest and Colonialism

After reading the first three Acts of The Tempest by Shakespeare and Literarcy Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice by Charles Bressler, I have seen a few similarities with how Caliban is treated and colonialism. When Prospero and Miranda landed on the same island as Caliban, Prospero had his own hegemony, "that is dominant values, sense of right and wrong, and sense of personal self-worth," that he forced onto Caliban (234 Bressler). Meaning when Prospero first found Caliban living his own life on his island, both Prospero and Miranda thought they were helping Caliban when they "took pains to make [Caliban] speak" and "taught [Caliban] each hour one thing or another" (Act 1, Scene2, Lines 356-357). They saw him as a subhuman that was not up to par with what they were. Thus, they saw it fit to colonize Caliban to  become closer to their level of equality.

When Trinculo and Stephano come across Caliban, who was trying to receive firewood for Prospero, they share wine and thoughts that lead to Stephano wanting to keep Caliban around. As Trinculo said, "...he's not much of a monster" yet, "...a poor, gullible monster" (Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 120-122). These words have the same meanign as calling other races subhumans or "savages", a topic discussed in Bressler's article. This leads to "a philosophical concept called alternity whereby 'the others' are excluded from positions of power and viewed as different and inferior" (236). This is exactly where Trinculo and Stephano put Caliban as they call him "servant monster." They see his monstorous looks and savage ways of physical behavior as something underneath them meaning they just have to take Caliban under their wings and teach him anew. Add in their hopes to rule the island, this is colonization happening. So far they've taken over the people inhabiting the island, check; brough in alternity to see them as inferior, check; began to force labor on them, check; imposed their personal hegemony, check. The next step would be to spread more people under their rule throughout the island. With that I think there is evidence showing Caliban as the native people.

Shakespeare does portray the white man as being superior to others around him, in reference to how Caliban is treated so far. From Prospero in the beginning to Trinculo and Stephano now, all have attempted to take advantage of Caliban's gullibility and "savage-ness" to colonialize the native peoples on that island.

Errrrm, Act 1!!

Prospero is able to manipulate the few people around him by telling historical narratives. He goes to tell Miranda, his daughter, of how they both came to be there on the island. Since, Miranda cannot remember much from 12 years ago Prospero is able to give Miranda the only version of a story which she will take as the truth. They live with no one like them and because of their bond she will most likely take the side of her father. He sends an emotional appeal when stating that "he whom next thyself of all the world I loved..." just to trigger how close Prospero was to Antonio.

With Caliban, who was living on the island before Prospero arrived with Miranda, he tells him how he and Miranda helped him pick his self up. But, when Caliban starts to talk back Prospero responds with, "I must once in a month recount what thou hast been, which thou forget'st." Meaning Prospero will, every month, remind Caliban of how he was just a servant with no mother, thankfully rescued by Prospero. Just recalling this story every month to one person to "put them in his place" shows just how hard Prospero is trying to guilt Caliban into not retailiating in any way. Then bring in Prospero's magic that thoroughly scares Caliban gives more leverage to Prospero to make, well more so force, Caliban into doing whatever  he says to do.

As for manipulated the spirit Ariel, Prospero is able to use the fact that he rescued him from a hollow pine tree in which he was locked in for twelve years. He would have stayed there if it were not for Prospero. So, in a way Prospero did help Ariel get freedom. It was just freedom from being locked up in a tree. Although, he now must act as a slave from Prospero. Again, Prospero is able to guilt Ariel into to staying around and doing things for him, because without him he would not be allowed or even capable to do anything.

Prospero will not let any of the people he has control over to let out of his grasp. Nor, will he ever let them forgot how they came to be where they are, apparantly, saved by him to live a better life than before even if it is under his orders.

Balanced?

Last week in our socratic circle several different fiews and ideas were shared amongst one another. While there was a moment of heatedness, people who had something to say were able to voice their own comments and concerns.

While the controversy of the textbook coninuous on, hearing things like it may become (more) biased through race or political backgrounds and/or unbalanced in the way it retells our history really raised concerns in the classroom. Several people commented on what seemed borderline racism in the books. By this I am referring to the way and what the board in Texas wants to have put into the textbooks. For instance, one guy wanted to really the push the violence of the Black Panthers during the Civil Rights Movement. While other people on that board thought it better to leave out the "little details" such as women roles in industrial and militarial jobs during WWII. These are miniorities being pushed out of history. They were and still our important in their own way to our development in this country. Say that these "little details" of how every group in American was dealing with its situation was taken out and the studens only learned about this one group or that one over there, wouldn't that be a bias? What the students should learn about is how every group dealt with it, not what a few people on a board in Texas are opinionated with teaching their views.

That part seems unfair to where the issue of a balanced textbook came about. But, I'll be honest this did confuse me. The way I see a balanced book is that of having equal amounts of each side in every situation in all of history. Now, personally that seems a bit extreme or hard. Having already taken U.S. History (go 6th period!!) I look back and see that not every event that happened was balanced. There were times when one group prevailed and there was no other group of people to stand up against them. Well isn't that unbalanced? How would the fact that there was nothing to "balance out" a time period fit into this idea of a balanced textbook? That is one thing I didn't fully understand.

Ad just to say, if anyone or group of people should be editing textbooks books, those people should definitely all be majors in that subject. Just like you wouldn't want some expert in mechanics being the vet for your dog, I dount you'd want anyone outside the field of history writing the history students will learn about this country for years to come.

Mac n Cheese!!

After finally getting the concept, from Hannah, to change my background to what I want, not what silly templates they trick us into utilizing, I am sitting here eating my yummy Mac n Cheese Three Cheese while playing Rock Band. Do I aspire to be a drummer??? I don't know...

But I do know that I am admiring the crisp taste of a chilled Mountain Dew. =)