Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The Tempest
Though each Shakespeare play differs, I love how certain elements are kept consistent throughout. The Tempest draws on magic to play a part in plot events, and yet, unlike many fantasy pieces in literature, it does not allow itself to get consumed by magic. When applied, magic should have a realistic part in altering plot points, but it should not interfere with character development. Many fantastical works suffer from this, allowing magic to become a sort of crutch to keep the story going and letting characters be forgotten. However, this isn't the case in The Tempest. The sorcerer Prospero is an interesting character, and I especially enjoy seeing his different sides. The way that he interacts with his daughter Miranda and the way he interacts with his subordinates (Ariel and Caliban, his "slaves") is realistically contrasting. More than the romance and the conspiracy, I enjoyed the reluctant servitude of Ariel especially, and all of Prospero's empty promises (with the exception of one) to free him. The romance felt a bit fake to me; the only redeming part of it was Miranda's infatuation: naturally she would act in that way, having only seen a few men ever in her life. The conspiracies were amusing, but they did not turn out the way I had expected. Overall, I enjoyed the play, but not as much as the others I've read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was curious to know which elements you thought were consistent throughout because it seems as though there were some unexpescted turnouts in the play. Is this something you consider happens with most Shakepearian plays or were there some elements of the play that may not be parallel to Shakespear's usual themes?
ReplyDeleteWell, I think that there's a pretty strong current of dramatic irony throughout a lot of his plays; there are always little plots to alter circumstances, and either they are successful in their secrecy or something goes terribly wrong, because someone discovers the plot. Once someone discovers the plot, there's always the risk of misunderstanding. In this case, the rebellion plots don't even seem to be much of a threat...Prospero seems completely in control of the situation.
ReplyDeleteI think it's unique in its use of magic. There are other plays with a mystical sort of quality- Midsummer comes to mind- but Midsummer has magic that causes all of the problems in the first place. Prospero seems to know what he is doing and sets everything right with his magic. He uses Ariel to trick and trap his enemies. Trickery for use of revenge is used in Titus Andronicus, but in that case the avenger is so obsessed with his goals that it leads to savagery. Thus, Prospero seems to be the only one who has control over his magic and his mind.
I read The Tempest several years ago, and quite enjoyed it. Actually, it is one of my personal favorites out of all of Shakespeare's plays. (As is Julius Caesar) I remember the characters being very interesting and intertwined and the plot being interesting and a little unexpected at times. (Although it has been long enough that most of the specifics of the story escape me) Out of curiosity, what about The tempest made you not like it as much as other plays?
ReplyDeleteI liked your comment that magic shouldn't consume a story, and I agree Shakespeare does a good job of keeping magic in its place throughout The Tempest. Shakespeare uses it only when its needed and to keep the story interesting. This, unfortunately is lacking in many modern "fantasy" stories.
I suppose it just didn't affect me as much, emotionally. I remember reading Midsummer and Measure for Measure and finding them genuinely funny. In Titus Andronicus, intense moments would actually make me shudder. In my favorite Shakespeare plays, the beautiful wording does so much to elevate the situations. In The Tempest, there were times when I thought it was just beautiful poetry- it didn't make me laugh or anxious to see what happened next. I want to read it again eventually to see if my opinion changes, but as it stands, it's not my favorite Shakespeare play. I hope that made sense!
ReplyDeleteYour description is nice :) I like how you added the bit about the whole "fantasy" aspect of the play and I understand how you feel about overwhelming magic, sometimes I feel that way too. I mayself have not read the Tempest but my sister did when she did a Classical works class over at Oxford last year. It wasn't one of her favorites either. I do not know why. I believe she said it was just different than most she liked although she did mention it was still a good play.
ReplyDeleteThe reason the style is different than most other plays you have read by Shakespeare is because he wrote this one as well as The Winter's Tale, Cymbeline, and Pericles, after Queen Elizabeth I died. Once she died he started to write for King James I, and he normally wrote to please the ruler of the time. It is for this reason that his female characters were not as strong in this play as others he wrote when Elizabeth I was queen. Just thought I would mention that, it might solve some mysteries.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it just horrible how most of the women in his plays are really mean (to say the least)? But I really like the way you described Miranda's infatuation, Danielle. I agree, it was probably not up to her to be completely in love with the first man she saw other than her father. Her "love at first sight" is something Shakespeare liked to write about, I guess. He just seems so romantic and such a smart person,but I still tend to underestimate him. I don't know the true reason why but I think the way he writes is unnesccessary. The only reason I say that is because I don't have the patience sometimes to decipher what he really means to say. But there are also times (which I am sure all of us have experienced) when you read a line or a monologue from one of his plays and they explain every emotion known to man. He had a gift with words, ironically.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Deborah :). The input was very interesting...that would explain a lot. And yet, there does seem to be a lot of vindictive, powerful female characters as well- who were they meant to please?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Aida! Yes, Shakespeare is fond of "love at first sight". I don't think it's realistic, but I definitely agree that he writes it brilliantly.
So you are saying Prospero has two sides, kind of like Dr. Jekyl and Hyde? I definitely agree with Aida, whats with Shakespeare and his women characters? He seems to make them horrible on purpose
ReplyDeleteWell, honestly? If you were locked away for like...ever, wouldn't you jump after the first appealing thing you saw? I love how Shakespeare seems to repress women in both "The Tempest" and the "Taming of the Shrew." And by love, I mean I think it's rude. But since that was normal for that time, I guess that could be why the romance doesn't seem realistic to us? Women are aloud to choose a man nowadays, they are aloud to do so much more. Plus, marriage and starting families were big things back then so I guess since it's different from our modern society's way of thinking about women and relationships that make the romance in this book unrelatable or unbelievable to you. If that makes since?
ReplyDeleteOH! And by the way. Apparently the blog is bugged or spamed or something and I can't do my third blogpost about the book I read. So if that isn't fixed by monday, then I blame the internet. Fix it please! (this is going to Mr. Bruno since I'd hope he'd read this eventually)
ReplyDeleteNice discussion going on here all.
ReplyDeleteI do have one suggestion to make: Leave poor Miranda alone.
Why do I say this? Let me answer this question in what will become a typical fashion over the course of the year-with a question.
What is the purpose of Shakespeare's play? Is it to portray a naive young girl who falls in love with the first Y-chromosome she sees? Is it to make her horrible? My guess would be not. So, again, what is his purpose in writing this play? What is his theme? These larger perspectives may allow you to investigate some other corners of this play.
Ok, now that I think of it I don't feel that Miranda is crazy to fall in love with the first man she meets. In Iran, everything is separated by gender. Schools, mosques, taxis, everything basically. When young women and young men enter college they are exposed to a completely different world. The colleges and universities are not separated by gender (they sit in separate places in the classroom) but they are still in the prescence of each other. They look at the first girl or boy and they fall in love. It isn't their fault. They cannot differentiate their feelings of lust and their true feelings of "love". Now, love is very hard to define but lust is only one part of it. There are many other factors that contribute to love and the whole "love at first sight" thing is common in those circumstances. So I take back what I said thanks to Mr. Bruno's method of answering questions with questions.
ReplyDeleteChris: I don't think he's quite divided enough to resemble Jekyll and Hyde, because he still retains the same essence of self while acting differently- if that makes any sense. Although it's been twelve or so years since he was Duke, he still has that aristocratic air; he likes being control of people as well as magic, and when he addresses his "slaves" and they show yearning to be free, he gets upset because he thinks that they are defying him openly. Kind of like a parent talking to a rebellious teenager...except he's not used to it with Miranda, because she's obedient. Nice question, though!
ReplyDeleteTJ: Yeah, I definitely agree that there's a different current of societal standards in Shakespeare. I do try to keep that in mind, but declaring love before knowing names just isn't agreeable to me.
Mr. Bruno: I think it was intentional that Prospero and Miranda almost defy our expectations; being stranded for 12 years would be enough to drive anyone mad with desperation and thoughts of revenge. Prospero does take matters into his own hands, but not with the sick obsession that plagues most vengeful minds. Although he's been imprisoned, his mind is free to think clearly. What's more astounding is that, once trapping his enemies, he forgives them and then surrenders his magic forever. He had opportunities to release his frustration of being wrongfully imprisoned upon his captors, and to yield magical power. He respects his power and control, and relinquishes it because it has done his purpose. I think the theme is forgiveness, and acknowledging the rightful application of power.