The Tempest blog post #3

-

I appreciated getting to actually read the Tempest in class and act out all the parts, because it gave us the unique opportunity to experience the characters as Shakespeare intended. The Tempest is definitely plot driven, and it is interesting to analyze because Shakespeare used supernatural powers and spirits without including any explanation or background. The audience never figures out how or why Prospero has access to this. The Tempest is a play about revenge, and many would argue, forgiveness. However, this is not completely the case. Prospero orchestrated a very complex plan to isolate and manipulate the people who have wronged him in the past. He spends much of his time convincing his daughter Miranda and the newcomer Ferdinand that they were in love and should commit to marriage, while tormenting the island’s other inhabitants with Ariel, the spirit he controls. While many people have the opinion that Prospero was a changed man who exchanged revenge for forgiveness, it is not that simple. Prospero only forgave Antonio after his dukedom is restored. The emotional bonding between Antiono and Prospero over their respective children’s deaths was completely fabricated by Prospero himself. His character was conniving and intentional with every action. The entire premise of the novel is set up by the storm stranding the passengers on the Island, a storm that Prospero conjured. I do not think that Prospero is a changed man who decided that friendship and forgiveness is more important than the material wealth he just acquired. In fact, being the one to forgive Antonio actually sets him in a positive light, even though it took no sacrifice at all. The lack of character evolution in many characters in the play only emphasizes this, there was no gradual feeling of doubt. Prospero continues with his plans until they succeed, and he does so with certainty and confidence. His character never showed any sort of internal conflict that would be indicative of this switch of thought. 

Comments

  1. Ally DixonOctober 7, 2019 at 3:47 PM

    While I agree with your point that Prospero did not have a major character transformation, I would still argue that he did express an interntal conflict that is indicative of his switch of thought. For example, it is clear to see how paramount this decision is for him, as he decides to remove his initial source of power—his cloak. He deliberately takes off his cloak at two points in the play: once when he tells Miranda of their history, and again at the end of the play when he gives up his magic. This symbol of power that he relinquishes signifies his new perspective gained when he says, “I’ll drown my book” (5.1.57). As a result, the fact that he is now readily able to give up a piece of his former identity, demonstrates his new outlook on life. Ultimately, it is only when Prospero breaks the cycle of violence by refusing to take revenge on Alonso, Antonio, Sebastian, or Caliban that the political tensions in the play are calmed and reconciled.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Davis CommentariesOctober 8, 2019 at 8:51 AM

    While I agree that Prospero is, in many senses, a cunning political mastermind, I do not agree with your conclusion of the play. While his plan was certainly devious, when it came time to execute he simply could not follow through. Prospero still would have been Duke of Milan, and potentially even more if he had killed Antonio and the King of Naples, yet in the end his humanity wins over his ambition. This is evidenced by his line, “The rarer action is in virtue than in vengeance. They being penitent, the sole drift of my purpose doth extend not a frown further” (5.1 89). When Prospero's enemies have learned the error of their ways, and with his Daughter Miranda's newfound engagement to Ferdinand secured, Prospero sets off to reclaim only what is rightfully his. This sentiment is echoed by his returning of the island to Caliban, which goes against everything readers know about Prospero. Typically, he would not be one to give away an asset as practical as a magical island, but his guilt and reservations conflict too strongly with his hunger for power. In this way, Prospero is a greatly changed man.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Poisonwood Bible Blog post #5

-
I appreciate the author’s style throughout the novel. She is able to change her voice to fit the perspective of each chapter, as it shifts between the sisters and Orleanna. She doesn't just change her own language and that of the character's to match their descriptions and mannerisms, but their habits , their demeanors, their thoughts, and reactions. Because she is embodying so many different characters, she has to cultivate a unique characterization for each of them. I think that the inner monologues all fit their character seamlessly, as if five different authors were inhabiting the roles of the girls. The author is able to blend each character into the story as an individual, and eventually we come to a point where readers have enough knowledge to gain insight with each characters’ monologue.  Many times before I've critiqued a book for a lack of individuality in the voice's of different perspectives. While the author clearly shines as Orleanna and uses Leah ...
Read more

Poisonwood Bible Blog post #6

-
Why do you suppose that Reverend Nathan Price is not given a voice of his own? Do we learn from his wife and daughters enough information to formulate an adequate explanation for his beliefs and behavior? Does such an explanation matter? The main character Nathan Price is the only family member to not have chapters from his perspective, but also, thought his journey he does not really change his religious and social views of the Congo and it’s people. He does not really evolve, but rather drives the plot with his continued efforts to convert the Congolese. His character is essential to the character development and progression of his family, especially Leah. By giving them his own perspective, the author risks taking away some of the voice that the girls develop while living under the conditions of the Price household. Nathan is a man, and the head of the family. Therefore, he is free to voice his every thought and opinion out loud, so there is really no need to build his inner mo...
Read more

Poisonwood Bible Blog post #3

-
In one of the first chapters from five-year-old Ruth she points out that there are only 6 white people in the village of Kilanga. She describes the tribesmen as sinners who are the sons of Ham (Ham’s children were cursed to be slaves—“that’s why they are so dark.” It is an important voice for the author to use when trying to express the racial tensions in this time period, because Ruth is the perspective of a young, impressionable child. Ruth is saying these things to the readers (not out loud) and does so with no aggression or hostility. She says it as fact, and explains that it is the word of God. She completely believes that segregation is put into practice for a reason and that her race was biologically and religiously created differently than the Congolese, because that is what she is told. She does not hold the same responsibility of an adult, who can form an opinion for themselves (whether they are religious or not).  She does not say these things from a place of ange...
Read more