(I numbered the weeks in a weird way above ^^^ because WordPress does this stupid thing of putting 10 after 1 instead of 9, as if it’s a word rather than a number, and the “0” is just a modifier of the “1”. And I want the current week to continue appearing always at the end of the list, so I’ll keep numbering them this way as the weeks go on.)
Anyway. Our readings for this week are really different from each other! We have an administrative document by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o and a play by William Shakespeare. Wut?
The argument that Ngũgĩ* makes here will be familiar to you if you’ve studied postcolonial theory. If you haven’t, you might have to puzzle through the claims to figure out what the argument is, partly because this isn’t a theoretical document– it’s an actual policy proposal, at an actual university. So, what is the theoretical argument here, and how is it relevant to our ongoing discussions?
And: Shakespeare. I’m going to try an experiment here. Instead of suggesting a possible way to read this play, or even posing questions to you, I’m going to let you get into this rich text as you like it and tell us where to go.
What is the story here, and what do you want to make sure we discuss when we meet?
What passages should we discuss, and what do you wonder about them?
What do you like about the play so far, and what do you want to figure out as we keep reading together?
I’ll tell you this, though: I don’t picture Ariel like this at all.
This Prospero is ok with me, though.
And what about Caliban and Miranda? How would you stage them?
Also: I promised that I would post for you the first page of Anne Boyer’s excellent book, A Handbook of Disappointed Fate, because it is *so relevant* to our discussions this week about Bartleby’s preference not to and related things.
*Note that Ngũgĩ is known by what looks like his first name, because that’s how it’s done in Kenya.