This play left me with many questions…The tempest’ setting is within unfamiliar grounds,  mysterious and irrational.  The Genre of this play should be Science Fiction not Romance.  THere is this “Magical Island” where Prospero finds strange creatures like Caliban & Ariel and “miraculously” gains some magical powers …If this “Magic” was so true and powerful, and With all the “Magic” going on throughout the play why didnt Prospero just return to his Country and work his “magic” on his brother and reclaim his original position?  Why didnt he return to civilization if he had the “Magical” powers to do so?   Why didnt he reclaim Miranda’s Mother’s life so that they could live “happily ever after” on this “magical island”?   Was this “Magic” Prospero’s way of mentally manipulating and oppressing the people around him?

How ironic that his brother et. al. landed on this specific island.. I think that being in isolation for so long lead Prospero to imagine/create all of these events for closure.

The following post is by Melissa Williams:

Is it me or is Miranda a slave, just like Caliban and Ariel? Prospero has in some ways physically enslaved Caliban and Ariel, but one of his great successes was his ability to have mental dominion over Miranda. He seems to have done so purposely. Because of this she is so naive. When she offered to marry Ferdinand, she also offered to be his servant should marriage plan not work out, which shows her inexperience. Miranda mentioned that other than her father, Ferdinand is the only man she has ever laid eyes on. Ferdinand has had other women but, what about Prospero? Now that there are no women other than his daughter Miranda within reach, does he secretly desire her(sexual cravings are only human)? If not her, is he sexless or interested in the same sex? I found it odd that with all the desire going on( Caliban supposedly trying to rape Miranda, Ferdinand and Miranda being in love with each other) Prospero’s desires for companionship fail to be recognized.

-MW

The Tempest has some magic elements. I tend to think of The Tempest as a play that has love and betrayal on it. Caliban represents the slave who wants to freed from his former kind master, Prospero, the real and exiled Duke of Milan, uses him because he was the only person in the island. Let’s just say Prospero represents the Christian who was betrayed by his only kin brother and takes his anger out on Caliban because he was displaced in life. He has a daughter called Miranda whom he loves with his every last breath. Ferninland, the son of the King of Naples, was Prince Charming and Miranda was Cinderella. But alas, let’s forget, Christians do not practice sorcery and magic, so let’s place Prospero as a wizard who wants revenge on the three men who wronged him. Prince Charming (Ferinland) and Miranda (Cinderella) both eventually got permission from Prospero to start dating, but Prospero, the wizard who wants to takes his revenge, decides to hulimate the three that banished him from Milan. Caliban decides to find people to displace Prospero. Caliban represents the rebellious slave who wants out from their masters because they have enough of their treatment of suffering, now they want revenge, just like the rebellions of Nat Turner and Gabriel in the early 17th century.

Alonso, Antonio, and Sebestian represents the betrayers. Let’s say Alonso, who had enough of the violence he did, was a sinner who wants to be forgiven by Prospero. Having lost his only son, he had lost his joy in life and would do anything to have his son back and be forgiven by the wizard Prospero. Antonio and Sebestian were unrepentant men who would kill and do bad deeds and they were not satisified with Prospero out of the throne. Now they want Alonso out of the throne, too. Antonio and Sebestian represents the Judas (Antonio, who betrayed his brother for the kingdom, just like Judas betrayed Jesus for money) and Sebestian represents another Judas (who wants his brother’s kingdom, too). However, I called Prospero a Christian (partly, not fully, because of his magic) because he has forgiven the three that betrayed him a decade ago. In Christian rules, you must forgive your enemies before God will forgive you. Despite being forgiven, Antonio and his sidekich Sebestian want to continue being evil, even though Ariel, who represents an angel that does the bidding of its master, for revenge against Prospero’s enemies. Caliban the slave was caught in his act and was fearful of being punished by Prospero. Perhaps Prospero has forgiven Caliban, too, after all, if he had forgiven the three that stole his kingdom a decade ago, perhaps Caliban the slave would be forgiven? There are different answers to this question.

Do you think Caliban would have been forgiven by Prospero because he had forgiven the three men that betrayed him in the past? Here are my opinions:

YES! After all, if Prospero could forgive the three that upsurped his throne, surely he can forgive Caliban, who was a slave’s son who tried to rape his daughter and disobeyed Prospero by rebelling. Perhaps Prospero would be merciful to even a slave….

NO! Caliban tried to rape Miranda when she tried to help him. Angry at the fact that his daughter almost got raped by the hag Synxax’s son, Prospero decides not to forgive Caliban (which conflicts forgiving the other three villians) because Miranda was the pearl of Prospero’s eye. Perhaps it might take time for Prospero to forgive Caliban? We shall see….

First thing, is it just me or is the Tempest a prologue of the American colonization? So far this play is screaming out British settlers and Native Americans to me.

Caliban is a native of the island the play takes place in. He is deformed, and disfigured. Caliban’s physical appearance symbolizes primitive, unchanged culture. Prospero and the characters on the shipwreck (Ferdinand, Stephano, Trinculo) represent the polished, civilization (settlers) and the spirit Ariel who is light represent the European immigrants.

As we learn more about the relationships between Caliban, Ariel, Prospero and his countrymen in the play we can see the american colonization theme even more. Prospero finds out all about the island from Caliban; Stephano and Trinculo from the shipwreck also does this by offering him alcohol. After Caliban gets everything (mainly knowledge) from Caliban, he imprisons him. Prospero tries to change Caliban by teaching him his language, just like settlers tried to change the Native Americans by converting them to Christianity. Ariel however used to be imprisoned by evil witch, Prospero frees him. Ariel representing the European immigrants who is freed and accepted by the settlers. The way Prospero and his countrymen look at Caliban is the way “civilized” cultures look at “primitive” culture. Caliban’s innocent, trusting nature also reflect the Native Americans’ accepting nature towards the settlers. Stephano, Trinculo, Prospero all represent the manipulative civilized settlers.

After reading this play up to act II, I really wonder if the Mayflower had The Tempest on board as a mandatory reading.

Secondly, the thing that caught my attention was the use of magic and illusion in this play. Midsummer Night’s Dream comes closest to the level of using magic but still doesn’t compare to The Tempest. also, we are not in Rome anymore! All jokes aside, the magic and fantasy works here because the whole island works as a green space.

The play opens with so much confusion of characters and action that it sets the mood for a messy play. But all the characters and their motifs start to come out from under the cloud as the play develops. Shakespeare plays usually open with introduction to our plot or main theme. For example Othello opens with Iago’s jealousy, King Richard III opens with his evil planning.This play starts with the tempest in action, which is actually responsible for bringing the people in the ship on the island, the central plot of the story.

“…the great globe itself,/Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,/And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,/Leave not a rack behind.  We are such stuff/As dreams are made on, and our little life/Is rounded with a sleep” (IV.i.153-158).

Upon my first reading of The Tempest, I took away two things: the quote above and the riddling of the word “art”–with its many connotations–used throughout the play.  I have to forewarn you that I am partial to this play because I feel it is a culmination with so many of the elements and aspects encountered in other plays we’ve read.  But as much as I would like to spill the beans, I will stick to my thoughts of what we as readers find in the exposition of Act I.

Right from the start, the characters are in the throes of a tempest with a feeling of chaos on board.  As we come to discover, the tempest–much like death–has an equalizing, democratizing aspect to it which inverts the social order of the “rude mechanicals” of the ship–in this case, the boatswain and mariners–with that of the gentlemen (king, prince, duke, councilor, etc.).  The boatswain says it best to Gonzalo: “What cares these/roarers for the name of king?” (I.i.16-17).  Rich or poor, high-born or low-born, royalty or plebeian, all of those distinctions go out the window once one faces the inevitable “elements.”  I’d also like to think that the manipulation of the elements and weather are somehow tied to Prospero’s psyche filled with vengeance.  According to the Norton Critical Edition, the earliest recorded performance of The Tempest was 1611.  That would put our friend, Will the Bard at 47 years old, so it should come as no surprise that he shifts his attention of subject matter to contemplating what one’s life amounts to during the declining years.

Professor D. likes for us to be mindful of settings.  I find it interesting that Shakespeare sets the scene of The Tempest on “an uninhabited island.”  We will come to find out that it does in fact have inhabitants, but something about the lack of a tie to an imperialistic power/nation allows for unconventional happenings to occur.  I think we can very much consider it as another “green space” similar to the forest in Midsummer Night’s Dream or Portia’s residence, Belmont, in The Merchant of Venice.  The topography of the island is actually quite similar to the liminal grange where Mariana is stashed away in Measure for Measure.  Anyhow, it may be worth keeping an eye out to see how the setting of the island coincides with the events that are about to unfold.

The last thing I want to bring up is how my reading of Prospero has changed slightly.  Upon my first reading, I had somewhat of a woe-to-Prospero empathy.  However, this time around, I’m not feeling as sympathetic towards Prospero.  When he finally decides to reveal to his teenage (pure and virginal, mind you) daughter, Miranda about their origins leading to their current circumstances, Prospero recounts how his “perfidious” brother, Antonio usurps his dukedom.  This bequeathing [usurping] of power is similar to what happens between the duke and Angelo in Measure for Measure; however, Prospero doesn’t share in the duke’s design when the duke states: “Hence shall we see,/If power change purpose, what our seemers be” (Measure for Measure, I.v.53-54).  Prospero admits to his negligence of ducal duties in favor of books and learning: “I thus neglecting worldly ends, all dedicated/To closeness and the bettering of my mind–” (I.ii.89-90), as well as: “I loved my books…From mine own library with volumes that/I prize above my dukedom” (I.ii.166-168).  Now, we’ve come across enough characters to know the corrupting effect(s) that go along with power.  Are we really supposed to feel for a guy who turns his back on the responsibilities that are part and parcel of his position?  I don’t find it surprising that Antonio would be seduced by this taste of power and want more of it for himself.

Another point that turns me off about Prospero is the master/servant power dynamic he has with Ariel and Caliban.  It is also here that I’d like to share somewhat of a digression.  Is it me or can we possibly read Ariel as the supernatural embodiment of Prospero’s learning and “art” rather than a separate entity?  True, Prospero recounts for us how he saved Ariel from his/her previous master, the “foul witch Sycorax,” but, can’t Ariel be another manifestation with magic powers like his “robe?”  Hmmmm…Okay, back to the point.  I bring up the relationship because there still seems to be a sense of entitlement and hierarchy in Prospero (you can take the duke out of Milan but you can’t take Milan out of the duke, I guess)…but all the while, how far would he have gotten without the domination he has over Ariel and Caliban?  It is this slippage–again, reminiscent of the duke in Measure for Measure–afforded to Prospero which makes him slightly more complex/complicated a character.  And while Caliban is a fascinating character in his own right, I feel like I’ve over-shared (like I do in class).  🙂

Thoughts?

-CT

PS – for those of you possibly considering a reworking of The Tempest for your casebook assignment, here is a link of the recent movie adaptation directed by Julie Taymor (the same director of the stylized Titus Andronicus which we saw in class).  How does your perception of the play change–if at all–by having our main character converted to a duchess: Prospera?

http://youtu.be/ZdpQcFdfXdY

I am not sure if it’s just me, but is Antony becoming like Cleopatra?  Just by the reading I’m pretty sure we are all in accordance with the fact that Antony is not the most responsible or resolute character that we meet in Antony and Cleopatra, but in my opinion now he’s becoming  overtly lacking in realm of leadership and the skills that come with the title.  Antony is listening to reason even less than Cleopatra, who we see talk all over everyone in the play.  Antony is becoming like Cleopatra in this sense, and by not listening, he blurs his vision when making decisions about this war.   In the scene where they decide to duke it out with Caesar at sea he needs a soldier, A SOLDIER, to inform him that taking on Caesar at sea is a sure defeat for Antony and Co.  Antony, there really should not be a guy in the play that goes by “soldier” rather than by an actual name telling you what is best in your war.

I think Scarus was absolutely on point when he pretty much blamed Cleopatra for the defeat at sea, making her the jinx to Antony and his crew that Jessica Simpson was to Tony Romo and the Dallas Cowboys a few years ago.

If you are a member of team Egypt in this play, however, I think this is the point that you should start praying that Antony and Cleopatra become free agents and Enobarbus takes over.  Enobarbus and Canidius can tell that Antony is not living up to his potential as a leader.  Canidius even tells us that Cleopatra is the one wearing the pants when he responds this to the soldier who claims to think he is right for not wanting to take Caesar on at sea, “soldier, thou art, but his whole action grows not in the power on ‘t.  So our leader’s led, and we are women’s men.” 3.7.85-88.*

Enobarbus also goes on to tell us that his love for Cleopatra is a detriment on his ability to make quality decisions.  He says, “and I see still a dimunition in our captain’s brain restores his heart.  When valor preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.” 3.13.248-241.*  Enobarbus is pretty much saying that Cleopatra’s love for Antony is in an inverted relationship with his ability to reason.  So while Enobarbus does not want to leave Antony’s side, he is kind of telling us that their love is an expense to everyone but them.

I almost forgot I was going to write about Octavia, because she is so easy to forget.  I wish that Fulvia had half the lines that Shakespeare gives to Octavia; but instead we get to hear from the tool instead of the strong woman in this play.  Octavia is a pawn, she seems oblivious and seems to need to be explained every little detail so she’s not lost in translation.  Her I-don’t-get-it kind of nature forces me to ask myself sometimes, does this woman even know she’s in Rome?? She is merely an instrument to keep Antony and Caesar from one another’s necks.  Once we see that the peace cannot be maintained either way, submissive Octavia just takes a backseat, and does not speak one more word for the entire act.  Octavia, you’re a Caesar for god’s sake, act like one!  I sure hope that in Acts 4 and 5 she will redeem herself in  my eyes, because as it stands now, she and Antony are like neck and neck for the most foolish characters in this play.

* = the line number may differ in other editions of this play.

Posted by Ms. Taniqua B.

I’m not sure if it is just me, but within any of Shakespeare’s romantic tragedies I get a bit annoyed/angry with the two lovers. In Antony and Cleopatra, Antony starts off the play by falling in love with Cleopatra. Now, this would be fine if Antony took one second to realize, “oh wait, I have a wife, I control one third of the Roman Empire, I’m betraying my fellow comrades and Romans, all for the satisfaction of claiming to be in love with an actress/prostitute name Cleopatra.” But, Antony does not really think things through now does he? In fact, feel Antony is thinking a bit too much with his other head. (haha?)

Like Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra rush into things way too fast. Maybe it might be because we live in modern times, but doesn’t Cleopatra find it weird that Antony is still married and confessing his love to her? Granted she does get upset about the whole situation, until Antony feeds her with some political nonsense that somehow relates to the reason why he abandoned Rome and his wife for Egypt. All I know is once a cheater, always a cheater. He is not going to mourn your death, and he WILL easily get over you Cleopatra. Girl, check yo self.

But I digress.

What bothers me about the whole situation with Antony and Cleopatra is the fact that Antony is abandoning Rome and his wife for what he “thinks” is love. When Cleopatra asks Antony about his abandonment, he simply states;

“Let Rome in Tiber melt, and the wide arch Of the ranged empire fall. Here is my space. Kingdoms are clay. Our dungy earth alike. Feeds beast as man.”

And I thought George Bush was a crappy leader. Thank god Antony doesn’t rule one third of the U.S. with that statement.

There is something about Antony so freely abandoning his Empire for Alexandria and Cleopatra that makes me dislike his character right from the start. I’m all for love, but you have responsibilities Antony, and those are to your Empire and your wife. Which brings me to his wife’s death. A tear, a sniffle, or even a whimper would have been nice. Not only does Antony so freely get over his wife’s death in just a few pages, but his comrades Philo and Demitrius also pass judgment upon how little Antony cares for his homeland.

All-in-all the beginning acts of Antony and Cleopatra have me disrespecting the two main characters because of their obscured moral values, and Antony’s lack of loyalty to his country and late wife Fulvia. At the end of Act 1, Antony departs Egypt claiming the distance will not affect his love for Cleopatra. Yea…right. I guess we will see the truth behind all of this nonsense between these two “lovers” as the play goes on.

Desdemona and her father’s relationship don’t seem to be the only complicated relationship in Shakespeare’s plays. I feel that in most of his plays, father-daughter relationship was anything but normal or usual. For example in Tempest, it was rather strange that Miranda stays with her father on an island for twelve years and her father deprives her of social company of anyone other than himself. One theme that seems to mark most of his plays is the selfish motives of the father who wishes to get something through his daughter but does that mean they don’t love their daughters. I doubt that. We cannot make that claim or can we? It appears that in all plays, the fathers did care as much about their daughters as fathers of that time would allow themselves to. We shouldn’t compare them with fathers of today because now due to increased knowledge fathers tend to be far more gentle and demonstrative than they were before. But the feeling of deep love and care was always there. Othello where Brabantino’s relationship with her daughter is often discussed. Brabantino wants Desdemona to marry someone of their own status. So what’s really wrong with this? Most fathers even today would want their daughters to choose a man who is financially and socially their equal. So I feel that we cannot consider Brabantino anything out of the ordinary because he loved Desdemona with all his heart and it is her elopement that eventually leads to his death due to a broken heart.

Throughout the first few acts of Othello, the audience is presented a two different depictions of Othello.  One, presented to us by Iago is that of a warlike brute.  The other, presented to us by the senators of Venice is that of a mighty protector and an invaluable member of society.  What is not so apparent at first is that Othello suffers from a serious lack of confidence despite his many accomplishments.  It is this lack of self-confidence that I believe leads to his downfall.  He does not believe he is worthy of Desdemona, which makes it easier for him to fall into Iago trap.

The lack of confidence I am referring to begins to reveal itself in Act III, Scene 3.  At the beginning of the scene, Othello has complete faith in Desdemona.  He says, “Nor from my own weak merits will I draw/The smallest fear or doubt of her revolt,/For she had eyes, and chose me.”  That’s what he says when Iago’s in the room anyway.  Once Iago leaves Othello begins to reveal his doubts.  But it sounded to me like he was doubting his value more so than his wife’s virtue.  He says, “Haply for I am black/And have not those soft parts of conversation/That chambers have, or for I am declined/Into the vale of years-yet that’s not much-/She’s gone.”  In my opinion, Othello has taken his own inner feelings of self-hate and turned them outward, aimed directly at Desdemona.  At this point, Othello’s doubts have overtaken him.

I have conflicting feelings about basically all the characters in Shakespeare’s Othello (except Roderigo, he’s just pathetic) starting with Othello himself. The general is a victim, certainly, but to what extent is Iago fully to blame for his fall? If another man were subjected to Iago’s cruel tricks would the end result have been the same? Or would he have been able to remain composed and see through the charade? The play begins with Iago and Roderigo depicting Othello as a savage and a beast, someone completely uncivilized. He is a stereotype and a caricature: The Moor. But, the audience is finally introduced to Othello, and we meet a composed, eloquent, and loving person that does not resemble Act 1, Scene 1’s depiction in the slightest.

However, Othello’s character is continuously degraded as his suspicion and then conviction of Desdemona’s infidelity grows. His skills as an orator fall apart, he sees no reason, and he is reduced to a quivering incoherent mess on his knees in front of Iago in Act 4, Scene 1. He hits Desdemona then ultimately murders her, becoming the beast called jealousy personified and living up to Iago’s initial painting of him as a brute and an animal. But, after realizing that he was fooled by Iago and killed his innocent and loving wife under a false belief, he returns to the masterful orator that we see in the start of the play where Othello was able to not only move the audience, but the other characters with his words.

With all the talk of nature within the text, one can’t help but wonder, which of these personalities is Othello’s true nature? Did Iago see something inside Othello that made him recognize the beast he describes in the beginning of the play? Did he somehow know Othello had rage and jealousy in his nature and that this was his Achilles’ heel, that Othello would be susceptible to his trickery and deception if he hit him where it hurts: his marriage? No one can doubt Othello’s civility and sincerity in the first acts of the play. But is this part of his behavior something that he learned to adapt after years of being in Venetian society? Can this polished behavior be undone, leaving the “real” Othello in it’s wake: the warrior, the beast, the murderer.

Or, perhaps the Othello we see plead his case after Desdemona’s father accuses him of witchcraft, the Othello that calmly escorts his wife back to bed after upsetting news from the state instead of smacking her across the face, and the Othello that tells Lodovico, Gratiano, and Cassio to “Speak of me as I am”, is the real Othello. Maybe his fall is meant to be a testament to Iago’s powers of deception: his ability to make people see what he wants them to see, thus forcing them outside their nature rather than having them fall into their true one as the former view suggests. Iago does seem to perform an Inception-like mind-F by planting a seed and letting Othello cultivate it himself, making him believe it was his idea and thus poisoning his view of Desdemona in a stronger way than just straight-up slander.

Or, maybe it is pointless to think about nature in the simple way that the play’s characters do. A man is neither simply a brute nor a scholar; he can encompass the entire spectrum of human temperament, even in the short span of three days. A woman is neither a virgin nor a whore. She can express a healthy sexual appetite without warranting the title of adulteress and being condemned to death, as in poor Desdemona’s case. The only character that seems to grasp this is Emilia, who is an enigma herself. She proposes to Desdemona that the moral lines are blurred when a woman’s infidelity is caused by a man’s promiscuity or abuse and basically encourages her to find someone other than Othello when he proves himself to be a jealous psychopath. However, she is blind to her own husband’s vices and is in fact the cause of that whole handkerchief fiasco that Othello sees as proof that his jealousy is justified and ultimately undoes them all, so who is she to talk right?

All in all, this play is filled with duplicity, and “nature” talk, and its a debacle of epic proportions. I find myself even hating my favorite character, Desdemona, for her love and loyalty to Othello even as she is dying by his hand (also confusing is her three-part death/re-death/resurrection plus speech plus death … again … but that’s besides the point) after showing such independence and ferocity in her choice of Othello over her father.

If my blog post seems like it’s a mess, it’s because my thoughts on this play are. Help me?