Robinson lecture video

There are many parallels being drawn by Sir Ken Robinson in this video to the culture in Brave New World. Something similar that was mentioned in this video is medicating the students in order for them to "focus" in school and to become "educated", or what it means to be educated in their society. Robinson theorizes that so many kids are being diagnosed with ADHD these days not because of an epidemic in our country, but simply because students are being distracted. All the new technologies introduced in our society today are distracting the kids and disabling them from being able to focus or become interested in school; therefore, their parents are giving them pills for ADHD to help them become engaged in school, which is really just slowing them down. But that's okay; there becoming "educated", right? These pills taken for ADHD are similar to Soma in Brave New World simply because these medications are altering their intellectual activity in order to meet the "standards" of what their government or society considers to be acceptable. For example, Lenina complains to Fanny how she cannot get John out of her head, even though he shouldn't be. Fanny tells her, "Take soma, then" (Huxley 188). Soma is used to forget things, as the pills used in society today for ADHD is used to "help them learn". Both are altering how one functions intellectually.
Sir Ken Robinson also discusses how in education today, the schools are kind of split up into certain groups  based on their ages. Why do they do this? He also includes that there are some kids that are younger that have more knowledge than the older kids simply because of the environment and the way they learned in school growing up. This is similar to Brave New World because in their society, they produce human beings that are split up into batches based on their intelligence: Alpha, Alpha Plus, Gamma, Epsilon, etc.

Brave New World

Brave New World  focuses on the concept of humans being treated like machines, or robots, that can be programmed to do something. Mustapha Mond, their leader, believes that all men are useful in the industry and should be put to work.  He says, “And if they [people] cannot tend the wheels…The corpses of a thousand men and women would be hard to bury or burn” (Huxley 43). Their society is based on industry. They believe that someone needs to be in control of every aspect of people's lives, and if people do not work, there is no use for them. Therefore, they create their people preprogrammed to "enjoy" certain things like work. There is no individuality in their creations of people whatsoever. They decide what "kind" of people they want to create, and this is based on quality in the workplace. For example, they create the not-so-smart people to be factory workers and the more intelligent to be scientists.

 The controllers manipulate their people by telling them that the "poor pre-moderns were mad and wicked and miserable. Their world didn't allow them to take things easily, didn't allow them to be sane, virtuous, happy" (41).  They are trying to convince them that the valued human experiences like family, monogamy, and desire, are useless and are not needed in order to be happy. They try to say that the "poor pre-moderns" were unhappy with all of these things, and life back then was nothing compared to what it is now. All the controllers are doing is creating robots that they think are making the world a better, easier place to live in. There is no such thing as families or other loyalties besides the industry. 

Tempest Intro

In discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been colonialism. On the one hand, George Will argues that over-analyzing text can lead to unneeded misinterpretations of the text. On the other hand, Greenblatt contends that looking deeper into the meanings of the text allows the reader to get a better understanding of what the author's purpose is. However, my own view agrees a little with both sides. 
I do agree with what Will is saying because I know that not every piece of writing has a super deep, "hidden", meaning. I often find myself overthinking things in literature that are actually pretty simplistic and do not require much thought. Sometimes the reader, like myself, can get so caught up in trying to figure out a "hidden" meaning in the text that they are unknowingly drifting further and further away from the original intended purpose of the author. However, I do believe in Greenblatt's theory of analyzing the text deeper. I think I believe in this theory a little bit more, actually. In order to recognize the real meaning of a piece of literature, the reader needs to spend some time thinking and reading critically, to look for the commonly called "hidden" meaning. 
Regarding The Tempest, I think Greenblatt's theory of analyzing text is more accurate, with this piece of literature at least. I think it is interesting studying The Tempest more than just reading it because you are introduced into different ways of interpretation. For example, the reader's view towards Prospero and Caliban can be very different. Some have sympathy toward Caliban because he got his island taken away from him, and some think of him as a savage. Some could have the postcolonial sort of view of the text, and others can just believe that Shakespeare simply just wrote the play to entertain and to make money. 
We will never know what Shakespeare's real purpose was in writing this; therefore, we should not be straining our brains and overthinking everything. On the other hand, it is good to analyze writing and produce your own opinion of the text and be able to argue it. 

Literary Debate

Finally it worked! Yayyyy! So this is like 5 days late, gotta love computers! Sorry! Anyways, reading these articles was very interesting. At first I was very confused and it took me about double the time to read than it usually does, but I got through it. Stephan Greenblatt's article is talking about how no matter what the piece of writing is about, the author will usually (sometimes unwillingly) include their personal feelings on the subject in the piece. Greenblatt also discusses how because this is happening, all of our literature is going to be the same. All a piece of writing will be is the author's personal beliefs or feelings. Also, usually the authors that live in the same area or feel the same way about a particular subject will have similar ways of writing. Therefore, all literature will end up just being the same, lacking variety and uniqueness.On the other hand, George Will's article is talking about the differences and conflicts between Carol Lannone and MLA. One of the biggest issues between Carol and the association is that Carol is conservative and "not one of [them]." I do not think that is a fair judgement made by the MLA; however, whether some like it or not, all writing can be political in some way. It just depends on if the reader makes the choice to be open to the political meaning behind the literature or not. I think anyone can say any piece of writing is political in some way or another. It's all in the interpretation. 

I agree with Stephan Greenblatt's article. I agree because I have noticed that in many pieces of writing. I know that the purpose of the author in an article or essay is usually to make a point that he or she believes should be made. There will always be some way that the author puts in his or her own feelings, even if its not recognizable to some. I also like how  it was said that "art, the art that matters, is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing." Art is like literature, and it can be interpreted in many different ways. It just depends on what way you choose to read it.