Long since the first critic put his pen to paper to prove why a piece of literature or art was good, bad, heretical, or even a treasonable offense, have facts been bent and spun in order to further a particular agenda; and while most every critic hails Shakespeare’s The Tempest as a thinly-veiled political commentary, it too falls prey to the convenient emissions and wild distortions that plague the world of criticism. “Traditional” critics revere the play as a complete, thematic work of art that passively reflects the social and political conditions in which it was written. “Post-colonial” critics, however, purport that traditionalist ignore the implied politics that the power of art and order suggest and that the play is conflicted in ideas. While these two very different readings of The Tempest have long thought to be at odds with each other, an in-depth analysis shows that both readings have their merits, share many of the same critical short-comings, and are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Traditional critics acknowledge the politics evident in the play. The Tempest, like almost any piece of literature, passively reflects the politics in which it was written; but by turning the play into nothing more than a vehicle for Shakespeare’s political agenda, the reader is blind to the many virtues this masterpiece possesses.
The plot did not involve the purposeful overtake of a land. Prospero and Miranda were deceived by Antonio and did not willingly leave their home. They made the best of the island once they got there, and that involved getting help from whomever they could find on the island.
One cannot overlook the fact that this play includes many characters and subplots, which are similar to other plays Shakespeare has done. The character Ariel is similar to that of the many fairies in Midsummer Nights Dream and Caliban is similar to the many servant characters found in almost all of Shakespeare’s plays. The idea of an overthrow of royalty has been present in other Shakespeare plays such as Hamlet, MacBeth, and Othello. Shakespeare could very well be continuing with a systematic way of writing that has always worked for him. Just because The Tempest happens to involve the landing on an un-colonized island by royalty, on cannot assume Shakespeare was writing a political commentary on colonialism.
In any post-colonial study there exist a tendency to promote and side with the non-westerner, the indigenous inhabitant victimized by imperial conquest. This bias would obviously emotionally cloud the mind of any critic, who feels like he must apologize for the historical acts of the westerners. Post-colonial critics have been accused of presenting Shakespeare’s plays as monarchial ideological retrograde and reducing the importance of the relationship between the text and the context in which it was written, focusing on politics at the expense of textual, artistic, and formal merits of the play, and is disrespectfully attacking Shakespeare’s body of work.
Critics have time and time again equated Prospero with Shakespeare, and assume the character serves as a voice for the author. It is important, however, that we question the one-sided and convenient politics of this assumption, and research a higher, more realistic critical position. Prospero, though at first presented in a god-like manner, is later faulted with a bad temper and limited insight. In Deborah Willis’s, Responding to the Challenge she notes the faults that Shakespeare intentionally worked into Prospero’s character.
“While we are at first led to see Prospero as a wonder-working and benevolent ‘god of power’ his displays of bad temper, to Miranda and Ariel as well as to Caliban, raise doubts in subsequent scenes.” (Pg 264)
Later, when assessing Caliban’s character, Prospero’s understanding of character seems to be binary and very limited. He describes Caliban as a “born devil on whose nature / Nurture could never stick”. (4.1.188-89) Shakespeare, however, paints a very different, infinitely more complex version of Caliban for the reader, a “noble savage”, and at times half-human, capable of learning languages, enjoying music, and forming relationships with others. Willis states, “Caliban’s speeches encourage the audience to sympathize with his suffering…” (Pg 264)
Shakespeare’s mind obviously created and contained that of Prospero and Caliban, but he creates realistic, three-dimensional characters out of both, removing the god and beast, conqueror and conquered ideology often wrongfully assumed about this play. Ironically, Shakespeare who is himself seen as capable of recognizing the humanity as well as the bestiality of Caliban, continues to be equated with Prospero, an ethnocentric, aristocratic colonist.
There is a notable undertone in contemporary critical writing, apologizing for past imperial conquest and resulting enslavement of indigenous peoples. While evaluating the merits and faults of both post-colonial and traditional critiques of any work makes any binary argument much more difficult to further, it indeed is the only path to a balanced and comprehensive evaluations incorporating the pluralisms, conflicts, and, consequential, human aspects of any work of art. The Tempest should be regarded as a successful, entertaining endorsement of the political environment in which it was written, while hinting at the prevalent apprehension felt about the imperial conquest and future colonization that was happening at the time.
Traditional critics acknowledge the politics evident in the play. The Tempest, like almost any piece of literature, passively reflects the politics in which it was written; but by turning the play into nothing more than a vehicle for Shakespeare’s political agenda, the reader is blind to the many virtues this masterpiece possesses.
The plot did not involve the purposeful overtake of a land. Prospero and Miranda were deceived by Antonio and did not willingly leave their home. They made the best of the island once they got there, and that involved getting help from whomever they could find on the island.
One cannot overlook the fact that this play includes many characters and subplots, which are similar to other plays Shakespeare has done. The character Ariel is similar to that of the many fairies in Midsummer Nights Dream and Caliban is similar to the many servant characters found in almost all of Shakespeare’s plays. The idea of an overthrow of royalty has been present in other Shakespeare plays such as Hamlet, MacBeth, and Othello. Shakespeare could very well be continuing with a systematic way of writing that has always worked for him. Just because The Tempest happens to involve the landing on an un-colonized island by royalty, on cannot assume Shakespeare was writing a political commentary on colonialism.
In any post-colonial study there exist a tendency to promote and side with the non-westerner, the indigenous inhabitant victimized by imperial conquest. This bias would obviously emotionally cloud the mind of any critic, who feels like he must apologize for the historical acts of the westerners. Post-colonial critics have been accused of presenting Shakespeare’s plays as monarchial ideological retrograde and reducing the importance of the relationship between the text and the context in which it was written, focusing on politics at the expense of textual, artistic, and formal merits of the play, and is disrespectfully attacking Shakespeare’s body of work.
Critics have time and time again equated Prospero with Shakespeare, and assume the character serves as a voice for the author. It is important, however, that we question the one-sided and convenient politics of this assumption, and research a higher, more realistic critical position. Prospero, though at first presented in a god-like manner, is later faulted with a bad temper and limited insight. In Deborah Willis’s, Responding to the Challenge she notes the faults that Shakespeare intentionally worked into Prospero’s character.
“While we are at first led to see Prospero as a wonder-working and benevolent ‘god of power’ his displays of bad temper, to Miranda and Ariel as well as to Caliban, raise doubts in subsequent scenes.” (Pg 264)
Later, when assessing Caliban’s character, Prospero’s understanding of character seems to be binary and very limited. He describes Caliban as a “born devil on whose nature / Nurture could never stick”. (4.1.188-89) Shakespeare, however, paints a very different, infinitely more complex version of Caliban for the reader, a “noble savage”, and at times half-human, capable of learning languages, enjoying music, and forming relationships with others. Willis states, “Caliban’s speeches encourage the audience to sympathize with his suffering…” (Pg 264)
Shakespeare’s mind obviously created and contained that of Prospero and Caliban, but he creates realistic, three-dimensional characters out of both, removing the god and beast, conqueror and conquered ideology often wrongfully assumed about this play. Ironically, Shakespeare who is himself seen as capable of recognizing the humanity as well as the bestiality of Caliban, continues to be equated with Prospero, an ethnocentric, aristocratic colonist.
There is a notable undertone in contemporary critical writing, apologizing for past imperial conquest and resulting enslavement of indigenous peoples. While evaluating the merits and faults of both post-colonial and traditional critiques of any work makes any binary argument much more difficult to further, it indeed is the only path to a balanced and comprehensive evaluations incorporating the pluralisms, conflicts, and, consequential, human aspects of any work of art. The Tempest should be regarded as a successful, entertaining endorsement of the political environment in which it was written, while hinting at the prevalent apprehension felt about the imperial conquest and future colonization that was happening at the time.
0 comments:
Post a Comment