2 articles

          George Will's article argued that the critics were being too frigid with literary works. Will disagreed with the critics because the critics that are performing this, is overpowering the author's original intentions of the piece's motivation of why it was written and the tone the work was composed in. He also states that all literature is political. I believe that Will's argument is to just tell us that as critics overwrites or retells the story or the literary work, it doesn't make it seem quite right. It sort of destroys the meaning of the work that the original author wrote.
         Stephen Greenblatt argued that at least on should know political and historical knowledge before actually going into a piece of literature. He talks about the "cement" that artists get stuck in, due to the closed society, "but art, the art that matters, is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing. A love of literature may help to forge a community, but it is a community founded on imaginative freedom, the play of language, and scholarly honesty, and not on flag waving, boosterism, and conformity". This quote tells of how Greenblatt feels about how art should actually be and not just some type of wall with figurings on it but art should have meaning and passion to it.

article

mine wont upload!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :(

The Tempest - Act 2 and 3 and cultural studies.

After reading Acts 2 and 3 from the Tempest I soon came to realize the similarities between Caliban and the Natives. Caliban was a free man until Prospero came to the island. Caliban taught Prospero everything of the island and he taught him to speak and learn how to survive on the island. After all this gaining of information Prospero had the knowledge to gain control of Caliban and take over his island. It is just like when the Europeans came here and the Native Americans taught them everything there was to know of how to survive and learn their culture the Europeans felt as though they need to civilize the Native Americans to regain power.

I believe that Shakespeare is not taking a side because he shows the sympathy on both sides. He showed both sides just like how the Natives would have a different story from the Europeans. For example, although we may feel empathy for Caliban for losing his island, he does and says things such as "he used witchcraft to steal this island. He stole it from me." Although Prospero may see like a bad guy Caliban is just as bad. I'm not picking sides but it seems quite right to me. Another thing is that while Gonzalo was sleeping, Antonio and Sebastian were plotting to kill him while he was asleep. Ariel sang, "While you lie here snoring men are plotting against you." This shows that Shakespeare show both side sympathy. In addition to that Caliban somewhat signifies the stereotype of the "Others". In the postcolonialism packet the "Others" are known as those that "conform and be quiet; deny yourself, and all will be well "(234).  Caliban signifies the Others because Caliban asked Stephano to help but was pleading and begging him in a way that made Stephano feel bad for Caliban and he gave himself to Stephano in order for him to help himself. 

The video clip was really good. It helped me see their side of the story compares to the white mans story. This opened up my eyes because there has always been a one side story.  

The Tempest Act 1

So far I can see that Prospero has a very good way of constructing historical narratives to manipulate all those that are around him. For example, the way he told his daughter, Miranda, the whole story of how they got to the island he was telling a story that would meet his needs and one that would satisfy him so that way Miranda would feel bad and definitely be on his side. By doing so he is able to control the way his daughter think and felt. He also kept making her feel bad for him because the way he was telling the story made it seem as though he was being tortured. Prospero said, "Which was that he, in lieu o' th' premises Of homage and I know not how much tribute, Should presently extirpate me and mine. Out of the dukedom, and confer fair Milan. With all the honors on my brother (Act 1 Scene 2)". He told her how bad of a brother his brother was and by doing so this made Miranda feel bad towards him. He was also able to control Ariel and Caliban by making them both go through a guilt trip and using enslavement towards both of them. For example, Prospero said to Ariel that he was the one that saved him from being trapped in the tree, and he said, "If thou more murmur’st, I will rend an oak. And peg thee in his knotty entrails till. Thou hast howled away twelve winters (Act 1 Scene 2)". By doing so he is able to use that against Ariel to make him feel bad. He was able to control and manipulate Ariel's thoughts of ever wanting to go against him. As for Caliban Prospero uses the whole " I raised you and fed you and taught you everything" kinda deal that makes him able to use that against Caliban whenever Caliban ever thinks of doing something against him. This also relates to 1984 because in that story the government were able to use the people's weaknesses against them and they can't do anything about it.

socratic circle

i can and will say that the socratic circle was very excited and fun. i liked the fact that everyone gets to let out their own opinions about what we were talking about during the session. although i can honestly say i did not say anything because a lot of people did have the same opinions as i did and that kind of shut me up. i didnt know what to say because a lot of people were just throwing out words and it gives me less time to think of what to say. but then it did not bother me much to not say much because a lot of people sort of said it for me and i did not want to repeat after the other person. i can see that a lot of us kind of had that face expression to where we were just like this isnt going anywhere because no one was really thinking of what to say but throwing out opinions that were some what unnecessary. overall i enjoyed the socratic circle because i like seeing tension in some people and thats what makes it all exciting.

 my opinion about the article "Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change" i believe that everyone has their own ways to teach history but i can and do agree with the woman that is trying to argue her opinion. trying to teach the kids a whole different way of history can be interesting because history to me sometimes do get boring with so much information and time it just gets lame and feels like everything is just repeating over and over. i can and will say i do find myself falling asleep in class sometimes and feel as though i have to cram soo much information in my head in such a short time. but then again school only lasts a few months and teachers are required to teach us what we need to learn. im sure so many teachers would rather have students like history and love for the kids to enjoy it but there is such a short amount of time to be able to make it seem enjoyable.