Category: The Tempest

Throughout the ages we have been graced with the finest plays that have been published as books, performed live in theatres around the world and filmed for us to watch on screen. But there has always been a lingering topic of importance, that sadly everyone is not immediately aware of and if they are known to the situation, not many want to acknowledge or even speak out about it at times. Within this essay I will be exploring the history of how race is represented within film and theatre with reference to the relevant plays, films and media of the Tempest, looking closely in particular at producers who have bent the rules and flipped storylines, breaking down their method to how they have cast their actors for the roles instantly placing a changing effect to the characters hierarchy, race and sometimes gender to create controversy and make us ask the question of, why. I aim to use the postcolonial method by referring to particular examples such as Julie Taylor and Jonathan Miller’s film adaptations.

I also plan to explore the marxist theory.I have always loved the work of Shakespeare but the more I study and come to understand the language, clarity unveils the disturbing messages being the text. My motivation towards exploring this topic is being of mixed orient myself, I can relate in some way to those characters within the tempest who are demoralized.

What was Shakespeare’s response to stereotypes of race and religion? Post-colonial criticism is a method of analysis that addresses questions of racial identity and equality, and also of gender equity via two main modes of inquiry. First, it investigates how Shakespeare’s plays relate to the social codes and conventions by which early modern Europeans defined non-European and non-Christian people and races they encountered. Second, it explores the more recent history of the reception of Shakespearian drama within non-Western societies and settings – in Africa, India, the Caribbean, and Latin America.

The history of colonialism beginning in the 1500s is one of brutal suppression to indigenous people. In history there have been many practises of colonisation where the indigenous peoples’ land and population have been conquered and exploited having a completely new language and cultural value forced upon it. The whole concept of colonialism is that of imperialism in which one or a group of people use influence and power to control another nation alone with the people who inhabit it. We saw this practiced by empires like the ancient greeks, Rome and Egypt where the borders of their civilisations were expanded into their surroundings and that began the establishment of the colonies where the population’s resources and physical location where used in order to gain power. Back in that time, race did not have the same symbolic meaning that it stands for today.

England never was nor had it ever exclusively been a white Island. It was full of diversity, especially in the crowded streets of London Shakespeare would have been among black people within, most of them inconspicuous but none of them slaves. Slavery had no legal status or enforcement as of yet. – research evidence critical article by imtaz havin and Duncan salkeld they reasonable social borough side, Southwark: an Elizabethan black family near the rose theatre

The slave trade formed the backbone of the imperial economy during the seventeen hundreds and still to this day has lasting social and economic effects. The English would become among the predominant slave traders in the Atlantic in the seventeen hundreds in Shakespeare’s day the industry was

Shakespeare wrote many thought-provoking plays that even today the texts are heavily questioned. His plays have been accused of being against mixing races and cautionary tales against allowing people of colour into positions of authority. Titus Andronicus, Othello, The Merchant of Venice; All of these plays, play a part in racist and prejudiced beliefs which we want to deny over the thought of Shakespeare contributing to these influences or maybe even because we can not admit to the possibility of him supporting these ideas.

As there were no real women nor were there also no people of colour performing on stage does his work prove that the performances played by white male actors for white audiences, were a critique on early English social prejudices or he follow these values himself?

A lot of aspects related to racism within the play can be connected to events that happened around the time of it was written. The first performance was after England had invaded Ireland but just before this was also just before the colonisation of “New England”. This implies that Shakespeare would have had the influence of these events in his writing. Many traits are shared by Caliban and the Irish as they were viewed as savages, part of outside civilisation.

‘The Tempest’ an enigmatic play written by the famous playwright, William Shakespeare around 1610 to 1611 follows the story line of Prospero, the duke of Milan who is woefully betrayed. Prospero sets off to reclaim his rank as the duke from his brother, Antonio and all with the use of magic.

It has quite often been interpreted as a play based on colonialism due to Prospero arriving at the island that belongs to sycorax and overpowers her to take over ruling and impose his own way of culture on to the people of the land.

In the tempest, language is power and characters use it to bless curse confuse, manipulate or heal. the text reveals …… about the operations of the cultural difference (race, religion, class, gender, sexual orientation, cultural beliefs) The text represents relationships between the characters (culturally dominant,

Financial status plays a large part in the hierarchy. The time in which the tempest is set there would have been six main social classes including the monarch, nobility, gentry, merchants yeoman and laborers. From the nobility class the dukes and earls where considered to be super. The period in which this play is set

Racism has been a topic that is present within the tempest. It is not obvious but with further study into the language of the play we see there are several sayings and actions that would be deemed unacceptable in todays age. Being the only two non white characters within the play, Caliban and sycorax are referred to with neutral or negative terms like ‘they or them’ (QUOTE/EVIDENCE?) These terms of course come from the coloniser, “slave” (1.2.106) “not honoured with human shape” (1.2.283-84) and “servant” (3.2.3) many of these insults are based purely from his appearance and not his qualities as a human which attributes to terms used to describe the Irish or first nations.

The actions of prosper taking over the island are quite parallel to that of the European explorers arriving in America in (DATE/REFERENCE?) especially declaring that Caliban, despite living there long before him was now his subject because prosper ranked higher in power due to his magic abilities and as caliban was a savage, it was his job to civilise him.

Prospero’s magical power not only ensures the enslavement of Caliban, but also demands the servitude of a sprite named Ariel to put his magical designs into action.

We only ever see caliban treated as a slave, constantly receiving hatred and being mocked. It is surprising that we see this when Ariel, who takes the form of something not human is treated better then him. Even trinculo and Stephano treat caliban poorly due to his appearance This can be related to true history that still runs problems today of fairer skin being classed as more superior or elite (PROOF/REFERENCE?)

Caliban shared language with Trinculo and Stephano gives him power to entice them to overthrow Prospero and empathise with him.

Prospero is the most powerful because of his studies in magic and advanced skill in manipulating aerial.

Many people believe the theme of magic represents the power of the playwright to create something out of nothing much like the situation of Prospero being able to controls and manipulate circumstances and people and Shakespeare does the same.

The play explores the role of power and exploitation in families and within the social order. Example Prospero becoming master of Caliban and Ariel despite calibans claim to the island, In the third act of William Shakespeare’s The Tempest (1611), Stephano and Caliban conspire together on the question of how best to put an end to Prospero’s rule, both over Caliban’s island, which Prospero has colonized, and Caliban himself, whom he has enslaved. After protracted debate, Caliban finally advances a programme of insurgency: why, as I told thee, ’tis a custom with him i’ th’ afternoon to sleep: there thou mayst brain him, having first seiz’d his books; or with a log batter his skull, or paunch him with a stake, or cut his wizard with thy knife. Remember first to possess his books; for what without them he’s but a sot, as I am, nor hath not one spirit to command: they all do hate him as rootedly as I. Burn but his books.

What is striking here is Caliban’s recognition of the importance of the role played by Prospero’s ‘books’ in securing and maintaining his subjection. Even though the master is to be killed while sleeping, it is none the less thought prudent to ’first seiz[e]’, ’possess’ and finally ’Burn … his books’ before the projected murder can be carried out. The suggestion, indeed, is that it is the ‘books’ themselves which construct the white colonizer and his native other as human and monster, master and slave respectively, ‘for without them’, as Caliban surmises, the differences between the two dissolve into likeness — ‘He’s but a sot, as I am’. What is radical, in turn, about such a dissolution is that it erodes the legitimating ground on which the exertion of the colonizer’s discriminatory power is based.

Other text?

• Derek Jarmans 1979 not the best example of a postcolonial reading – critique it for the lack of this approach
• Hopkins, L. (2008) Shakespeare’s Tempest: The Relationship between Text and Film. London: Methuen Drama – as it discusses the Jarman film
• Chapter by Philip Crispin: Césaire’s Une Tempête at The Gate, pp. 149-159.
• Ch. 17. Lucy Rix: Maintaining the State of Emergence/y: Aimé Césaire’s Une Tempête, pp. 236-249.

There have been a number of adaptations made to this play and each with a very unique approach taken to the story line where we see displays of slavery and racism, and there is also a strong hierarchy in race within these adaptations of the tempest.

With any production for a film or with a play you have to start with casting. This process involves a series of auditions before a panel of individuals like the producer and director who already have an idea of who it is they are looking for to play the roles.

Post colonial theory and Critical race theory looking closely at the relationship between Caliban and Prospero and possibly look at how the choice of gender casting has played a role within the performances over time.

The royal Shakespeare company: Prospero: Michael Redgrave in 1951; John Gielgud in 1957; Ian Richardson in 1970; Michael Hordern in 1978; Derek Jacobi in 1982; John Wood in 1988; Alec McCowen in 1993; and Patrick Stewart in 2006.

Critical lenses: Marxist theory. The work (unintentionally/intentionally) reinforces capitalism, imperialism values. The literary work reflects (intentionally or not) the socioeconomic conditions of the time in which it was written and the time which it is set, what do those conditions reveal about the history of class struggle. The work in some ways supports a marxist agenda but in other ways (perhaps unintentionally) supports a capitalist, imperialist or classist agenda? In other words, is the work ideologically conflicted. 1904 performance at her majesty’s theatre and Peter Hall’s 1973 adaptation at the National Theatre.

In conclusion, Shakespeare has portrayed those of a race that is not white, as a minority no matter how evolved), we will find that the play still speaks to us on a very deep level, largely because the evils of racism continue to plague us today. Shakespeare’s plays invite us to contemplate our own complicity in imposing such outsider status on others, from individuals to entire groups that we choose to label as different.

The textual conversations between playwright William Shakespeare’s piece of theatrical work The Tempest and composer Margaret Atwood’s analogous novel Hagseed has compelled myself as a reader to undergo a cathartic experience pertaining self-reflection, not only on myself but towards the two texts. The concept that the production of human life is a piece of performance art itself is universal; this timeless value has the ability to endure the test of both time and place, by which I was induced to reconsider my perspective on life as a whole; to perceive it as the “world stage”.

William Shakespeare’s play The Tempest is an exemplary piece of theatre built upon the processes of self-reflection. It is a play of which is highly reflective of itself as a piece of literature, and is considered to be a personal allegory to the life of Shakespeare as a playwright.

In both The Tempest and Hagseed, theatre is presented as the principal device in exploring concepts and values of human morality through the act of self-reflection, thus enabling the audience to coherently view the relationship between theatre and reality.

Both texts, in particular The Tempest explores theatrum mundi; the concept that life itself is a piece of theatre, of which is scripted and directed by the greater producer, God fortune, fate etc, particularly when it draws near to its dénouement.

This is accomplished through the use of mise en abyme, by both composers. There are multiple layers of theatricality occurring, which in turn enables the audience to become aware of the the true nature of the play itself

Shakespeare projects himself through the characterisation of Prospero in his elegiac soliloquy; “our revels now are ended…. To still my beating mind”, found during act 4 scene 1. The speech is a metatheatrical infused metaphor for the impermanence of human life. Certain images are evoked, with purpose to remind the audience of the elusive nature of theatre, thus disclosing the deep meta theatricality of the play.

Connotations to theatre are shown throughout the soliloquy, which refer to theatrum mundi; the greater theatre of the world, the world stage. Terms such as “actors” and “pageant” are examples of such. Aligned with vivid metaphors “melted into air, into thin air” and “like the baseless fabric of this vision”, Shakespeare is able to evoke a sense of emptiness, thus alluding to the ephemerality of theatre.

This is explicitly mirrored in the work of Margaret Atwood’s Hagseed, through the interior monologue of Felix’s, whereby he states “For this talent I clear a time and a space; I allow it to have a local habitation and a name, ephemeral though these may be; but then, all theatre is ephemeral.” – page 80. Moreover, Atwood uses “theatre is the art of true illusions” – page 79 to implement an oxymoron, which effectively forms a paradox between the illusory and reality, in which theatre creates a blur between, obscuring the audience’s perception of reality; it alters our perspective on life as human beings.

Double entendre further alludes to theatrum mundi through “the cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, the solemn temples, the great globe itself”, where the “great globe” not only represents Shakespeare’s globe theatre, but the globe itself; the world.

Composers William Shakespeare and Margaret Atwood both focus on the metaphorical concept of theatrum mundi; pivoting around the focal idea of a production of human life itself as a theatrical performance.

Atwood further advances on this concept by composing a novel of which is centered around the production of The Tempest itself. So while four hundred years prior to this, Shakespeare has used mise en abyme to create a metaphorical play of theatrum mundi within a literal, theatrical play, Atwood plays upon this notion of meta theatricality by forging a play within her novel.

Atwood reacknowledges the role of theatre, particularly that of Shakespeare’s, in enabling humanity as whole to grasp a more profound understanding of performance as a reflection of human existence. She does so by transforming the representation of pertinence of theatre in order to better suit the contemporary audience of the 21st century.

These resonances pertaining the instilled meta theatricality between the two texts The Tempest and Hagseed enables the audience to consider life through the lens of performance, moreover underpinning the power of theatre to provide a cathartic release from one’s own tangible reality.

By observing this paradigm between the two texts, we as the audience are able to grasp an understanding on one of the key concepts and focal motivations behind Shakespeare’s construction of The Tempest; Whereby human life itself is a piece of performance art, a play.

Imprisonment is a source of human suffering whether it be physical, intellectual or emotional. Yet the capacity of the human imagination, the psyche, can allow us to free ourselves from this condition. Atwood uses this concept to explore the value of literature and theatre to both challenge and liberate.

Both texts The Tempest and Hagseed revolve around the centerpoint of imprisonment, whether it may be allegorical or material. Every character of The Tempest has been manipulated and developed by the hand of Shakespeare to be confined in an imprisonment of some form. Margaret Atwood has played upon the prismatic intertwinement of incarceration and captivity throughout The Tempest by amplifying those values within her own analogous novel, Hagseed.

Akin to The Tempest, Theatrum mundi is further intertwined throughout Atwood’s novelistic adaptation, whereby it is through the representation of imprisonment, the audience handed a shift in perspective, to view human life from a divergent point of view; ‘all the world’s a stage’ – William Shakespeare, As You Like It.

Atwood has developed the character Felix as an inmate in the prison of his own mental disarray; he is drowning in his own guilt and sorrow. He lives in his own world of false hope, where he is so enthralled by his own imagination that he trusts that his Miranda will be set free by the production of the tempest, yet ironically she is trapped in his imagination

The characters of The Tempest are no less at liberty of those in Hagseed. Prospero and his daughter Miranda are confined to a “poor cell”, while the “abhorrèd slave” Caliban and merciful Ariel have had their liberty stripped of them by Prospero, thus are confined to slavery under the hand of their master.

Figurative imprisonment is portrayed through the character of Prospero, whereby he is consumed by his own yearning for vengeance. His capability for sympathy and compassion is restricted by his own sentiment of resentment and exasperation. Yet, attaining the ability to empathise and to forgive is what will set him free from the prison of his own consciousness.

This is reflected through Shakespeare’s use of dramatic irony, as his character of Prospero is so enthralled in his magic. His spell books are the symbol of his knowledge and thus power, however they are to blame for imprisoning him further from the reality of his own humanity.

“Let your indulgence set me free”. Prospero’s soliloquy during the epilogue of The Tempest refers back to the concept of theatrum mundi. In this poignant plea for freedom, Shakespeare breaks the fourth wall and speaks to the audience through the character of Prospero, whom he has developed in his own image. Through this act of self-reflection and forgiveness, Prospero is able to be freed from his own state of resentment.

An actor stepping out of a role at the denouement of a play to ask for an applause from the audience was a convention of many Jacobean and Elizabethan theatrical performances. This particular epilogue is distinctly sentimental as the figure on stage is both the character of Prospero and the actor playing the part.

This synchronised duality between liberty and forgiveness is duplicated by Margaret Atwood in her novel Hagseed by resonating the motif of a prison, and refashioning the setting to a real, material prison as opposed to the metaphorical prisons explored in The Tempest, thus examining the concept of imprisonment under a new light. Nonetheless, allegorical confinement is yet reverberated through her work as she characterises Felix to reside in spiritual imprisonment.

Atwood transcends this concept of spiritual confinement by imprisoning the character of Felix within his own thoughts of grief and despair. By setting Miranda free, he may only be set free from his mind. ‘“To the elements be free” he says to her, and finally she is’ – page 283

This textual conversation between the two texts enables the audience to align Ariel of Shakespeare’s The Tempest with the outcome of Felix’s state of despondency and imprisonment within his consciousness; Atwood’s nebulous spirit of Miranda.

“Snap out of it, Felix. Pull yourself together. Break out of your cell. You need a real-world connection” – page 47.

The mental state of imprisonment is portrayed through the language tropes depicting Felix’s emotional collapse. Felix’s emotional confinement is represented by the metaphorical cell referenced. Imprisonment is instantaneously established as a focal aspect of his character. Connotations to the motif of prison are exhibited through the “cell” as a metaphor for Felix being bound to his own imagination

Atwood further writes in the limited third person narrative in order to mimic a Shakespearean soliloquy, again tying back to the intertextuality between the two texts. As a result of such, the audience is able to access the emotional turmoil occurring in Felix’s mind, a lucid illustration of how his mental health is suffering under the hand of his confinement to his own thoughts.

Hence, the textual conversations between the two texts The Tempest and Hagseed regarding the notion of imprisonment, whether it may be elusive or literal,

The idea of considering human life through the lens of theatrical performance is a universal and timeless concept of which it will stand strong in the face of time and place, really from one generation of literature to the next. By virtue of this, myself as the audience underwent a purgative experience of self-reflection, whereby I was able to shift my perspective in the way I view humanity and the great globe itself.

Indigo, Olympos, The Habit of Art, Island, Forbidden Planet, yellow sky. What do these texts have in common? All of these texts are interpretations of William Shaskpeare’s play, The Tempest, but what is it about Shakespeare which garners him a plethora of praise even in modern society and his plays being so universal that they are studied across the globe. “The past is powerfully present”, the complexity of such a statement is captured distinctly by playwright William Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest’ is able to transcend time through its presentation of themes and ideas relevant in contemporary society. The relevancy of themes and ideas can be attributed by the stagnancy of human behaviour and emotions. The themes and ideas which Shakespeare discusses in The Tempest are not exclusive to the Elizabethan era, as there is still the presence of the ambition for power, the quenching desire for vengeance and our ability to forgive. ‘The Tempest’ is presented to the modern audience through Margaret Atwood’s adaptation, Hag Seed, in an attempt to appropriate the text to have a greater connection and relatability amongst the contemporary audience.

What does it mean to have power? What Constitutes power? Would we act differently if we had Power? Upon first reading The Tempest and Hag Seed, an aspect of the text which appeals to most readers is the exploration of the ambition of power within society. The Tempest showcases a constant power struggle between the characters, with the significant example being Prospero’s usurpation, as Prospero recounts to Miranda, “but by being so retired, O’erprized all popular rate, in my false brother Awaked an evil nature, and my trust, Like a good parent”, detailing how his position as Duke of Milan was overthrown by his brother, Alonso, being exiled to an island with his three year old daughter Miranda. The use of an emotive tone paired with Prospero’s metaphorical description, in which he likens his trust to “a good parent”, further emphasises the act of betrayal as unjust act and a violation of his trust, an insight on the extent of actions to which the desire of power can have on an individual. Initially, we may perceive Prospero as an empathetic character, as he was wronged, however the perception may swiftly shift throughout the text, as Prospero is presented as a tyrant, who after being exiled, asserts dominance and control over the island. Prospero’s control is best demonstrated through his relationships with Ariel, an entrapped spirit, Caliban whom Prospero enslaves and his daughter Miranda. Glimpses of his power are shown during such responses with Caliban, “If thou neglect or dost unwillingly What I command, I’ll rack thee with old cramps, Fill all thy bones with aches”, which presents the recurring motif of master and slave. The use of such motif highlights the power dynamic between Prospero and Caliban and Prospero’s abuse of power. Regarding the motif of master and slave, during the Jacobean period, it would have been socially relevant and would have been an aspect of the play which would serve greater purpose in connecting and reminiscing with the audience, in comparison to today’s audience.

The discussion of power is also prevalent in Hag Seed, as it similarly aims to explore the desire for power. Felix Phillips, who is a representation of Prospero, faces a similar act of betrayal, as Tony and Sal, characters who draw parallels to Antonio and Alonso, get Felix fired from the Makeshiweg festival. Atwood alludes to The Tempest regarding Felix’s firing, “Felix the cloud-riding enchanter, Tony the earth-based factotum and gold-grubber”, which symbolically alludes to Felix as Prospero, being concerned with mystical elements, as opposed to Tony, who is more concerned about realistic issues like Antonio. By textually alluding to The Tempest, Atwood draws our attention to the similarities in human behaviour, highlighting our ability to be just as opportunist and manipulative as in the past. A distinctive feature between the texts is Felix’s power and control. As opposed to the Prospero, Felix doesn’t have magical abilities allowing him to gain power and authority. Felix not being portrayed as a fantastical being, allows Margarett Atwood to add a sense of realism and relatability to the story. Miranda is a dissonance from The tempest, as she is represented as an imagination of Felix’s consciousness and also through the portrayal by Anne-marie in Felix’s play of the Tempest. So what warranted Margaret Atwood to disassociate from Miranda’s portrayal in the Tempest? Atwood’s background reveals her as a prolific figure in modern feminism, for which it is fair to assume that Atwood changed the character of Miranda, from Prospero’s Overly Protected and dependant daughter, to being Felix’s hallucination and a strong independent female, to insert her own views and values regarding gender roles within society. The context of contemporary society, allows and demands for strong female characters to be represented.

Tides oscillate the ship up and down, distant sound of lightning echoes through the sky, controlled but aggressive winds push the boat astray. The Storm, synonymous with The Tempest, symbolises Prospero’s revenge. What is Prospero’s motivation behind revenge? Revenge acts as a catalyst for driving the plot of The Tempest, as after 12 years of his exile on the island, Felix plans his revenge, as he conjures the tempest upon the ship carrying Alonso, Antonio, Stephano, Trinculo. Prospero’s demanding tone when commanding Ariel, “At this hour Lie at my mercy all mine enemies” underlines Prospero’s excitement and longing desire for revenge. The Tempest highlights revenge as a reactionary action, as a common desire to inflict upon someone as a source of redemption. Prospero’s self reference as “The wrongèd Duke of Milan” solidifies his belief of being wrongfully overthrown, fuelling his revenge. Can revenge be justifiable? During the play, we witness Prospero’s plan take place, however towards the end of the play, Prospero develops the willingness to forgive Antonio and Alonso during his speech in which he says “The rarer action is in virtue than in vengeance”. The anagnorisis identifies the importance of forgiveness over revenge, as prospero comes to terms with virtue, appropriately aligning with the context of the time of its composition. The Renaissance period pronounced a shift from medieval values, resulting in the formation of new human values, with forgiveness being commemorated. Prospero’s embodiment of the shift in values during the renaissance period was impactful to the value of forgiveness, as it emphasises the importance of forgiveness, as a greater option which frees people from revenge, becoming free of the burden it holds.

What causes Felix’s desire for revenge? Felix’s desire for revenge in Hag Seed allows for the contrast and exploration of the motives behind revenge and the different views on Forgiveness. After Felix’s firing from the Makeshiweg festival, Felix takes up teaching at Fletcher’s correctional centre, however, his motives reveal it to be a ploy for revenge against Tony and Sal, as he utilises The Tempest play to drug the men. Comparably to Prospero, Felix exhibits the desire for revenge against his betrayal. The metaphor and the third person limited narration of the statement “He’s been chewing over revenge for 12 years” accentuates the understanding of Felix’s revenge, as the action of him ‘chewing’ metaphorically, suggests a yearning for revenge which Felix has been awaiting for a long time. A commonality which we can associate between both texts is the Protagonist’s desire for power, which represents revenge as a common human reaction and emotion which many people may associate with betrayal. Felix’s plan for revenge is successful, in which he is able to ‘forgive’ Tony and Sal. Felix’s forgiveness of Tony and Sal contrasts from Prospero’s value of virtue, as Felix lacks sincerity. “He got his revenge, such as it was. His enemies had suffered, which had been a pleasure. Then Felix had strewn forgiveness” The two contrary statements are juxtaposed to represent a conflicted statement on forgiveness, as although Felix verbally forgives his enemies, his enjoyment from the suffering showcases a lack of remorse. Do Tony and Sal deserve to be forgiven by Felix? Does Felix’s insincerity actually discredit his forgiveness? It could be argued however, that as Felix imposes the exile upon himself, he must have mercy upon himself, to relinquish the grief associated with the loss of his daughter. Felix’s insincere apology is more indicative of the way people are forgiven now, as forgiveness is viewed as something to be achieved. Would you forgive someone who has wronged you?

As we come to a conclusion, a very important takeaway should be the influence of Shakespeare on contemporary literature, as The Tempest remains relevant in its themes, ideas and values, which apply to us and our lives. Hag Seed showcases how elements from past literature can be taken and presented to a more modern audience, however that being said, an important point of notice is that certain elements of The Tempest aren’t relevant and would not connect with the audience due to the context of its composition, in which Hag Seed reworks those to be better suited to the audience. The Tempest and Hag seed prove how “The past is powerfully present”.

All through The Tempest the hidden topic of intensity doors the characters into a harming attitude. The utilization will at last swing to mishandle thus strip the characters of all specialist they may have picked up. Basically the subject fills in as power versus want. It is the craving of the characters that will in the long run lead them to the universe of princely power that is sort by each man.

The most critical character, Prospero is the focal impetus in the fight for control in the play and is utilized by Shakespeare to sensationalize the activity of intensity by making these showy scenes to gloat about his matchless quality in the play. Particularly the excessive ‘Masque’ he makes. He utilizes his capacity just to expand his social standing and medical caretaker his broken sense of self. He is constrained by vengeance due to his usurpation from Milan. He wants to battle against his sibling and the lord who have so malignantly abandoned him on the neglected island. Thus the envy and want for vengeance controls the manner in which he utilizes his capacity and defines manipulativeness as a part of his identity which is appeared through his order over Ariel and Caliban. Ironically he is so angry with Antonio, his sibling for banishing him to the island and flabbergasted that he could be so merciless to him, yet he has no reservations about holding Ariel and Caliban. The most dominant thing he controls is Ariel. Ariel has a ton of intensity, as made known when he performs incredible undertakings, for example, making the whirlwind. Prospero has enough capacity to control Ariel which gave him much more noteworthy force. Prospero is the pioneer of the charmed island on account of his enchantment powers. He can control the island anyway he prefers, and he generally appears to know precisely when and where something will occur. He had lost Milan however he picked up another domain, the captivated island.

Prospero digs so far into defilement even his ‘soul’ needs to help him to remember his ‘human’ sentiments thus demonstrating his shortcoming of being so smashed with power he can’t control his ‘human’ feelings. It is additionally Ariel that transforms Prospero’s fury into pardoning. In spite of the fact that it very well may be contended that Prospero utilizes his capacity and control for more prominent benefit, he liberated Ariel from the tree that ‘Sycorax had expelled’ him to and he favored his little girl and Ferdinand’s wedding with remarkable Masque. Prospero is absolutely featured by power and without this and his enchantment, he could do nothing and would be downgraded inconsequential. It is his ownership of mysterious information that gives him a lot of intensity.

Prospero’s supernatural information was gave to him by ‘the great ruler’ Gonzalo, who has figured out how to be the main character to avoid control and not get engaged with it. He is maybe the most dominant character as he is absolved from the debasement. The ‘great master’ is in reality insightful as he has seen the wrongdoings of the rich and incredible and it has just conveyed a despairing air to the play. Alonso lost his child to The Tempest, Prospero lost all control of his emotions, and Caliban, who is a savage, lost all poise by an endeavored assault of Miranda and subsequently lost his position. Gonzalo is the good example in the play to alternate characters. He is constantly hopeful and sees the brilliant side of life. He has a tremendous consideration for every one of the characters, even Stephano and Trinculo who ridicule him. In spite of the fact that being socially irrelevant he transcends the wrongness with his minding, pardoning nature and rises over the disengaged disappointments in the chain of command.

Huge numbers of the characters can’t deal with the obligation of having power. Indeed, even the ruler Alonso, who had enormity pushed onto him, loses all trustworthiness in the play and turns into a defeatist which eventually negates his title. Alonso’s subjects are nearly gotten under the islands daze like setting and want control for themselves in the wake of experiencing Caliban, the savage, and abusing his insight into the island. The three lushes quarrel about who will be top dog and plot to kill their pioneer. Power tainted their psyches into withstanding dangerous contemplations and bad form towards their unwavering ruler. They make a spoof of the utilization of intensity as it had mutilated their brains and changed their identities for the more awful. The Tempest manages control. Power in numerous structures. In it is barest structure, the plot sees Prospero recapture political power which has been stolen from him by a plan driven by his sibling Antonio. Deprived of his social power, Prospero utilizes mystical capacity to accomplish his finishes. The world is out of equalization and a heavenly Prospero utilizes spiritualist powers to bring dependability.

Generally, man’s staggering want for power is repudiated by the duty of keeping a level headed personality. Every one of the characters have a specific measure of intensity; the key is keeping up it and not giving it a chance to maroon you on a disengaged island where a sleeping disorder will show signs of improvement of you. The utilization and maltreatment of intensity resistant is a noteworthy piece of the play and controls the characters who misuse each other to show up the most grounded in the cycle that will eventually end dismally.

A Tempest is a postcolonial revision of William Shakespeare’s The Tempest. Although they revolve around the same characters and plot, for the most part, there are several differences between The Tempest and A Tempest written by Aime Cesaire. The most significant difference is the way in which Caliban speaks. Compared to The Tempest, Caliban’s speech is different in A Tempest, because he reveals speech from his native language, he speaks in a more aggressive manner, more frequently, and emotionally.

The immediate difference in speech with Caliban in A Tempest is the exposing of his native language. In The Tempest Caliban’s native language was never revealed. In contrast, when Caliban is first introduced in A Tempest he exclaims, “Uhuru!” (Cesaire 17). This word means “freedom” in Swahili. The author wastes no time in establishing Caliban as someone who strives for freedom and speaks a foreign language. Ironically, Caliban does this in his own language rather than English, so Prospero cannot understand him. Prospero has taught Caliban English, yet Caliban speaks in his own language as a sign of rebellion against Prospero. Caliban cries out for freedom to Prospero in his language, establishing his unique identity and signifying that Caliban wants to be free from Prospero’s power over him.

In A Tempest Caliban’s manner of speaking is much more aggressive compared to his speech in The Tempest. In The Tempest Caliban exits his first interaction with Prospero stating, “I must obey. His art of such power/ it control my dam’s god, Setebos/ And make a vassal of him,” (Shakespeare 1.2.447-450). Caliban ceases his argument with Prospero, because he has come to terms with the fact that Prospero has power over him. However, in A Tempest Caliban exits by saying,

“Call me X. That would be best. Like a man without a name. Or, to be more precise, a man whose name has been stolen. You talk about history… well that’s history, and everyone knows it! Every time you summon me, it reminds me of a basic fact, the fact that you’ve stolen everything from me, even my identity! Uhuru!” (Cesaire 20).

In this scene Caliban ceases his argument with Prospero with defiance, rather than surrendering to Prospero’s power. The author has made this specific character change to Caliban, making him more resilient and resistant to authority. Despite Prospero demonstrating clear authority and power over Caliban, by enslaving him, dehumanizing him, and taking his land, Caliban challenges Prospero by rejecting the name Prospero gave him and further resists him, by exclaiming “freedom” in his language once again. The Caliban in A Tempest has a much more aggressive manner when speaking to Prospero, demonstrating his resiliency to authority.

A clear contrast in Caliban’s speech between the two books is that he speaks with more frequency in A Tempest. The longest and most empowering speech is assigned to Caliban, when he addresses Prospero, “For years I bowed my head/ for years I took it, all of it-/ your insults your ingratitude…” (Cesaire 61). Caliban calls out Prospero on the horrendous things he has done, but more importantly this speech goes on for two pages. The book is also littered with much more dialogue from Caliban. In juxtaposition, the biggest speech that Caliban has in The Tempest is in act 3 scene 2 where he speaks for 17 lines. There is clear distinction when comparing the two books. In The Tempest Prospero is the main character of the play, but in A Tempest, Caliban is clearly the main character. Anime Cesaire deliberately gives Caliban more dialogue because he has made Caliban the main character of his book, therefore, he speaks with more frequency and this aids the readers in seeing things from his points of view.

Caliban is considerably more emotional when speaking in A Tempest, than in The Tempest. In The Tempest, Caliban’s murderous plan is foiled by Ariel, and he, Trinculo and Stephano are defeated. We see him for the last time in the final act, in a position of abject surrender. Prospero insults Caliban and sends him to his cell. Caliban responds, saying, “Ay, that I will, and I’ll be wise hereafter/ And seek for grace,” (Shakespeare 5.1.351-352). Caliban’s response reflects his defeat, but he also comes to an understanding that Prospero is his superior in every respect, and his resistance was futile to start with. His response does not reflect his anger or despair, rather it is filled with acceptance and indifference. In A Tempest, the confrontation takes an entirely different form. When Caliban comes to attack Prospero, Prospero walks out unarmed, and dares him to strike. Caliban’s response is, “Defend yourself! I’m not a murderer,” (Cesaire 55). When Caliban refuses to do so, Prospero has him taken prisoner. In contrast to The Tempest, Caliban’s response is expressed to a greater emotional degree, making him seem more human. Despite being enraged and wanting vengeance, he halts his attack on Prospero, because he has honor and he reflects that within his speech. Cesaire makes Caliban express his thought with more emotion when speaking, giving him a more human element.

In conclusion, Caliban’s in The Tempest is vastly different form his speech in A Tempest. When comparing Caliban’s speech in Shakespeare’s play to Cesaire’s adaptation of it, Caliban speaks in his own language, he is much more aggressive, he speaks with more frequency, and he bears a lot more emotion when speaking. The Caliban of The Tempest can at best be an object of sympathy and pity, mingled with shock and disgust at his fallen state. The Caliban of A Tempest commands our respect, and makes a claim upon our conscience as an equal human being. That is Cesaire’s enduring contribution in this retelling.

Through comparing texts, one may better understand the values of a text which are inextricably shaped by its context. Moreover, one must also consider the influential role of the composer themselves, who through their depiction of these values shape the responders’ reception to the text. Propagated in 1611, Shakespeare’s play ‘The Tempest’ (TT) examines the key concerns of illusory magic, the frail and defenceless depiction of women and the portrayal of the ‘othered’ character. While Atwood examines the same concerns in her 2016 novel ‘Hag-seed’ (HS), a comparative study highlights the different ways in which composers express and incorporate these values consequently allowing these concerns to be enhanced, transformed and carried through time. Accordingly, the key concerns and values within a text are founded upon the values of the audience and composer alike.

The use of illusion and magic as a central tool of manipulation is a clear point of resonance between both texts. In ‘The Tempest’, magic in the form of wizardry and spells is employed by Prospero to alter events to his powerful advantage. With the effective use of enjambment, he states, ‘My high charms work / And these, mine enemies…They are now in my power,’ highlighting his power in rendering his enemies helpless, binding them through his web of illusions he has weaved. In the early 17th Century Elizabethan era, the inclusion of magic in plays, specifically through pompous stage effects and theatrics attracted an overwhelmingly positive reception from the audience – arguably justifying Shakespeare’s purpose in granting Prospero’s ability to conjure magic. This ability is furthered explored in ‘Hag-seed’ with Atwood reframing and redefining how magic manifests, especially to accommodate a contemporary audience. Felix (the modern embodiment of Prospero) states on separate occasions, ‘Audio and visual checks…MP3s…and pixie dust pills stored in the bottle of painkillers.’ Through the collective use of symbolism and alliteration, Atwood integrates the current modern landscape, alluding to the rapid advancements in technology through computerised special effects and ‘magic’ in the form of hallucinatory drugs – where both are utilised by Felix as devices of power to manipulate his revenge. Thus, as Atwood mirrors and maintains Shakespeare’s perspective that illusory magic is a form of manipulation, one can better appreciate how this manifestation has changed over time.

Shakespeare’s original depiction of women as defenceless and frail collides with not only Atwood’s contemporary, reimagined depiction but her values as an author and feminist. Prospero throughout ‘The Tempest’ calls and dismisses Miranda – his daughter and only female character in the play – as he pleases. He remarks, ‘Will ever after droop. Here, cease more questions. Thou art inclined to sleep. [Miranda sleeps].’ The effective use of a tricolon combined with an affirmed stage action concretes the frailty of women as she, the sole female role, remains perpetually under the control of another. Shakespeare’s Elizabethan era deemed women to lack intelligence, rationality and courage, bidding them to neither be present nor perform in professional theatre roles – further justifying Miranda’s portrayal as defenceless and frail. However, Atwood in her own right as a skilful author and dogmatic feminist simultaneously pays homage to Shakespeare’s contextual depiction whilst vehemently challenging it. As ‘Hag-seed’ incorporates a ghostly Miranda, Felix can maintain his ‘power’ and control over her as she is a mere figment of his imagination. With the use of anaphora, he states ‘She doesn’t have a room. She has no bed. She never sleeps,’ – supplementing her ethereal nature and Atwood’s decision to maintain this common value. However, a dissonant feature between ‘The Tempest’ and ‘Hag-seed’ is the introduction of Anne-Marie. Although cast as Miranda in Felix’s play, she embodies a different persona as ‘[she] takes a hefty pull at her beer’ and states ‘It’s because you think I look like a kid. No tits.’ Her register, mainly spoken colloquially presents her as a fierce and outspoken character, a likely description of young women in the 21st Century. The audience can see Atwood’s firm beliefs as a feminist as she challenges the concept of women as weak; a clear dissonance between the pair of texts. Thus, through the undertaking of this comparative study, one can better understand the societal values that have changed over time, especially in regards to the depiction of women.

Atwood’s ‘Hag-seed’ offers a disparate interpretation of the ‘othered’ character compared to Shakespeare’s canonical portrayal. In ‘The Tempest’, Caliban, the only native on Sycorax’s island is viewed as a ‘credulous monster’, with Prospero spitefully referring to him as ‘A devil, a born devil, on whose nature / Nurture can never stick.’ Through the use of irregular syntax, one can apprehend his clear dislike and distaste for the native creature. Moreover, Prospero’s antipathetic treatment of Caliban mirrored the European colonial societies’ treatment of the natives in 1611 when colonialism was on a sharp rise. Shakespeare clearly expresses his criticism and distaste for England’s colonisation of America through the interplay between Prospero and Caliban, shaping the characterisation of the ‘othered’ character. However, Atwood, in her 2016 contemporary novel, ultimately transforms this belief by reframing what it means to be the ‘othered’. When Felix is counting the votes, he discovers that 15 out of the 20 prisoners nominate themselves to play Caliban. In an active dialogue, he questions ‘Why do you want to play him?’ to which the prisoners promptly respond, ‘We get him.’ In ‘Hag-seed’s’ social setting of a modern Canadian prison, the ‘othered’ is actually what the prisoners seek to be as they are seeming ‘devil-like’. Therefore, one can promptly deduce that even though Caliban is portrayed as a ‘credulous monster’, he is the character that most of the prisoners in this contemporary setting and context feel most ‘free’ to express themselves through. Thus, Atwood’s purpose in transforming this belief allowed the audience to recognise that even the most ‘devil-like’ of characters can still hold a powerful prestige to the right audience.

Thus, through the undertaking of this comparative study, one understands the context’s immense influence in the values that are present in a text to a great extent. Through the close examination of Shakespeare’s 1611 play ‘The Tempest’ and Atwood’s 2016 novel ‘Hag-seed’, their key contextual concerns of illusory magic, the frail and defenceless depiction of women and the portrayal of the ‘othered’ character are enhanced and transformed over time, creating resonances and dissonances between the pair’s interpretations. Thus, the composers’ ability to portray these contextual values differently within their text enhances the audience’s understanding of these values, ultimately shaping their and reception and enjoyment of the text.

Connections between stories highlight the continuity of intrinsically human concerns throughout time. Hag-Seed being an adaptation of Shakespeare’s The Tempest inevitably means there are many parallels. However, being composers of very different contextual periods, Shakespeare and Atwood express different values and perspectives on particular issues. While Shakespeare’s tale is shaped by his theatrical Christian humanist context of England under James I, Atwood is influenced by her more egalitarian, democratic 21st century world. As a reader, it can be understood that Atwood has intentionally woven contextual elements into Hag-seed to bring sharpened relevance to the transformative powers of art, contemporary power imbalances and humanist values.

In Shakespeare’s context, the art of magic was of great cultural significance. In the Tempest, art is shown as a mechanism for manipulation by Prospero as well as an outlet to spark self-reflection and empathy. Prospero uses visual and aural illusions to manipulate his enemies and expose their true selves. From conjuring up the storm in the opening of the play to the illusion of a Banquet, Prospero’s magic gives him total control over others. At one point, Prospero even goes so far as to suggest that all of life is an illusion that vanishes with death: ‘We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep’. Atwood introduces a new kind of magic to a contemporary audience in order to continue Shakespeare’s conversation about the unclear line between illusion and reality. Atwood explores how magic-like qualities can be created using special effects and technological advancements of her modern world. She also plays into drug culture and the hallucinatory effects of such recreational, illicit drugs that have become of significant interest in recent years. Felix is able to conjure his own type of magic through the help of 8Handz, who uses audio and visual effects to trick Tony and Sal into seeing things that are not really there. Here, Atwood asserts how the same issues can pervade humanity, although our changing cultural and technological paradigms certainly can influence the ways in which this is true.

Perhaps, a more recognisable “magic” that exists in both the play and the novel is the magic of art and the form of theatre. The power of performance and art lies in its ability to fashion alternate worlds and shape realities that have the potential to produce. As Felix’s plays in the novel, “the collective indrawn breath, the collective sigh,” but also to allow us to know ourselves better. Perhaps, this is the most important connection one must make whilst formulating a Textual Conversations essay. Both Shakespeare and Atwood illustrate the ways in which art can unite people, can candidly portray the worst of humanity whilst inspiring hope that we may choose to change—Shakespeare by creating this unbelievable, magical world of “oh, wonder!” despite telling grounded stories about humanity’s inherent downfalls and Atwood by immortalising the original text, presenting it in a new fashion to ultimately prove that theatre is as impactful today as it was in 1611. However, the art of theatre helps the reader understand the world as a stage and ourselves as actors with agency and individual choice.

Atwood’s modernised humanist concerns shows there is still a focus on humanist concepts, although it has shifted. Shakespeare’s context was heavily Christian humanism while Atwood’s time involved secular humanism. This is reflected in the themes of forgiveness and mercy in both texts, as well as the education and rehabilitation of prisoners in Hag-seed. While we are prone to inherently human desires of revenge and greed, the characters, like us, are able to choose different outcomes. 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. After Prospero’s merciful refusal to seek revenge, Alonso and Prospero quickly come to an understanding and unite their once warring cities through the marriage of their children. The Tempest suggests that compromise and compassion are more effective political tools than violence, imprisonment, or even magic. Atwood’s context of Secular humanism portrays her belief in humanity through Felix rehabilitating and educating the prisoners on Shakespeare. It is also demonstrated through Felix’s mercy on Tony by teaching his son, Freddie about the theatre. Like Felix chose to teach Shakespeare, Atwood also chose to adapt Shakespeare as she recognised the thematical parallels in her own context. Theatre to shape realities,

Unveiling the complexities of power imbalances is an issue that concerned both Atwood and Shakespeare. The Tempest was written during a time of rapid colonisation for Europe, which Shakespeare explores through the complex and problematic relationship between Prospero as coloniser and Caliban as the colonised. Their dynamic is founded on a power imbalance between the two, with Prospero taking on the superior role of teacher to lift Caliban out of “savagery”. To Caliban, however, Prospero merely represents oppression and abuse of power, eventually turning him bitter and violent, which only reinforces Prospero’s view of him as a ‘savage.’ In Hag-seed, Atwood has replaced the power stemming from colonialism to political power. By integrating ideas of Machiavellian machinations and corruption, she is able to make comment on issues that plaque the modern political scene. This is evident in the manner Felix is vacated out of his position at the theatre. It is also expressed through Felix’s superiority over the prisoners as a free man and his control over the theatre program at Fletcher Correctional. However, Atwood also uses her more progressive context to comment on social inequalities in Shakespeare’s context. Rather than the animalistic treatment of Caliban in The Tempest, Atwood uses Leggs to question ideas of racism and inequality when he states “Why’s he have to suffer so much for being what he is? It’s like he’s, you know, black or native or something… He never asked to get born. “Through this connection, it is almost as though Atwood is telling Shakespeare and her readers that some issues seem to pervade humanity no matter how many centuries have passed and successfully given The Tempest new meaning to the implications of power, politics and revenge to suit a more contemporary, Western audience.

What we can draw from this relationship between texts and their contexts is that, whilst many issues are relevant to a universal audience, the intentional connections between them allows us to reinvent specifically what they mean to us. Atwood’s recontextualization not only transports Shakespeare’s work to a new generation but it allows her to make commentary on issue that are pertinent to her own context. It creates a richer reading experience by deepening our capacity to find new meanings and interpretations of The Tempest.

Elements of context significantly influence the reading of a particular text. The dramatic text, The Tempest (1610) written by the English playwright William Shakespeare explores various themes including betrayal, revenge, magic and family. It depicts an island occupied by the former Duke of Milan, Prospero and his innocent daughter but previously by spirits and inhabited by what Prospero perceived as a savage creature that required his enslavement. Prospero manifests power and thus creates the tempest causing the shipwreck of his enemies to which sets his trail for revenge against his abdication. By utilising aspects of context, I can therefore draw upon different interpretations surrounding the theme of inequality through the certain values and attitudes projected by the text that is represented through Caliban and Miranda. Thus, by understanding that the text was produced during the Jacobean era I can depict that it is representing the dominant attitudes and values of that time. Whereas analysing my own personal context allows me to apply a post-colonial and feminist reading, recognising that the text subtly challenges the dominant ideologies of which it was produced.

The reading of The Tempest can be substantially influenced by the context in which it was produced to convey the minimal tolerance of ethnic minorities and outspoken women that can be evident within the portrayal of certain characters and ideas. The Elizabethan and Jacobean era was a time of increasing exploration, colonisation, political and religious turbulence and high levels of racial resentment and degradation towards women. During the time produced, social stratification was rigid, and white men were those considered superior. And thus, there were prominent ideologies surrounding race and gender, based around the belief of white superiority in which the racial other was deemed chaotic and savage, as well as further discriminatory ideologies placed and sustained on women to be identically mistreated. The original and native inhabitant of the island, Caliban is depicted as the racial other under the oppression and assimilation of Prospero. Within the text he is prevalently described with racially charged language to officialise his inequality to the white men who enter his island, “This is some monster of the isle with four legs, who hath got, as I take it, an ague. Where the devil should he learn our language?…if I can recover him and keep him tame…he’s a present for any emperor that ever trod on neat’s leather.” Stephano is a boisterous and drunken butler of king Alonso who begins to fantasise about becoming a ruler when Caliban self-subjugates himself to escape the slavery of Prospero, “Ban, ban, Ca-Caliban, Freedom, high-day!” Aspects of racism can therefore instantly be recognised, as Stephano when first meeting Caliban already classifies Caliban as sub-human, demonising him and marketing him off lowly as a form of asset to gain power. As already, he is perceived as evil and lower-classed because he is the racial other, being designated as uneducated, a monster, a devil and merely a commodity. The prevailing attitudes of English society towards the racial other can thus be identified as the representation of white supremacy and the ignorance for other races is influenced by the nature of feudal English society and their values and attitudes towards them. Ultimately his self-subjugation emphasises Eurocentrism as he automatically positions himself below white man, not attempting to seize power to gain potential freedom. Furthermore, he is oblivion to the fact that Stephano is foolish and his content with his subjugation further establishes the Jacobean racial attitudes in which the racial other is uneducated and meant to be understanding of their place. Moreover, Prospero’s adored daughter is the only female inhabitant on the island and is constantly situated passively. Throughout The Tempest, Miranda’s desire from men is answered by her virtue as recognised by Caliban’s attempt to rape her for the purpose of repopulation, Prospero commodifying her for personal connections and Ferdinand’s desire for a virtuous and innocent wife, “O, if a virgin, And your affection not gone forth, I’ll make you The Queen of Naples.” Miranda is signified as a prize because she is a virgin and is essentially loved by Ferdinand because she of her considered purity. As her significance is only primarily established when her virginity is of topic. Thus, she is represented as emotional, fragile and weak in the entirety of the text because she accepts the mistreatment and allows herself to appear vulnerable, being aware of the fact that she is prized for her virginity. Thus, she encapsulates the stereotypical attitudes and values that men during that era had and the idea that she is aware of her placement in society by the material value of her innocence reinforces the mindset of most women during the time period. Miranda ultimately portrays the social expectations and stereotypes prevalent in Jacobean society, in which she depicts the ideal woman of that time – being passive and subordinate in society. Therefore, by utilising the context in which The Tempest was produced various interpretations can be made to exaggerate the dominant discriminative values and attitudes of that time.

However, by utilising aspects of my own context to correlate my own ideologies towards the issue of colonisation and the knowledge I have of the long-lasting implications of post-colonialism a post-colonial reading can be applied to The Tempest. From a contemporary point of view, my understanding of the negative effects of post colonialism essentially challenges the perceived benefits that people during the time in which it produced had on colonisation and exploration. As the result of colonisation for the natives of these newly discovered regions was exploitation and slavery where the original inhabitants of the lands were forced to serve those who overtook the land and fit their standards. Thus, by acknowledging the past colonisation of Indigenous Australians and the horrendous forced assimilation that they experienced, my own contemporary ideologies surrounding the idea of colonisation is negative and therefore I can recognise the wrongfulness displayed within the text. Prospero usurps Sycorax’s land and imposes his own culture to enslave Ariel and Caliban by threatening them and thus he is seen as the European coloniser. Therefore, the post-colonial elements are distinctive within the text as it explores the struggle of the oppressed native Caliban to prevail against the subduction forced by Prospero, “The island’s mine, by Sycorax my mother, Which thou tak’st from me. When thou carn’st first, Thou strok’st me and made much of me…For I am all the subjects that you have…whiles you do keep from me the rest o’th’ island.” The tempest majorly explores the complex and unequal relationship between the European coloniser and the native colonised through Prospero and Caliban’s relationship. Because Caliban fails to achieve genuine freedom and control, the understanding of the repercussions of colonisation on the natives and indigenous is exhibited by the the loss of Caliban’s culture and identity described by his displacement and trauma. Therefore, when analysing my own contemporary attitudes and values towards racial equality I am able to apply a post-colonial reading to identify the wrongful mistreatment and subjection enforced onto characters like Ariel and Caliban by the negative portrayal of Prospero as manipulative and arrogant. As my contemporary ideologies validate that the racial other is not inferior, and the white coloniser is not superior. And therefore, applying a reading clarifies that the playwright’s constant reference to all these dominantly portrayed characters wishing to exploit Caliban was a subtle challenge to the text’s contextual dominant ideologies.

In addition to this, by utilising the contemporary struggle and ideologies of women to contrast against how they are represented allows for a feminist reading to be applied to The Tempest. By applying a feminist perspective, I can thus acknowledge the ongoing problematic existing patriarchal values in contemporary society, as well as take to account the effects of the feminist movement that challenge dominant misconceptions of that time. Women in our current society are still subject to the attitudes and values surrounding gender inequality but fortunately this has lessened as time has passed. As on the contrary to the Jacobean era, they have gained a greater voice and role in comparison to men, and thus have readjusted the typical gender customs placed on them due to society’s increasing acceptance for feminist ideologies and attitudes and values towards equality. The Tempest recurringly portrays women as fragile and pathetic beings who are subordinate to man – Miranda and her clear vulnerability in accepting to how men lower her. Specifically, the issue of female obedience and acceptance can be shown through how the feminist interest tends to centre on Prospero’s dominating role as a father figure over Miranda,”obey and be attentive.” Prospero utilises excessive parental power over her to which she becomes subservient, “my dearest father.” Prospero although loves his daughter dearly subjects her under his control and believes that she is incompetent as a woman. This thus establishes their hierarchal relationship and the representation of women in the text as being of lower class than man. And therefore, the inequal relationship between Miranda and her father undermine the contemporary values and attitudes advancing against the oppression of women in society. Thus, analysing how my own personal context through knowledge of the feminist movement allows me to apply a feminist reading practice, in which concludes that women are not just a delicate wallflowers that requires man to be validated and controlled. As fundamentally, the dominant ideologies represented towards women in The Tempest are subtly challenged when implementing a feminist reading from contemporary feminist ideologies, strongly opposing the idea that woman is lesser than man. And therefore by utilising aspects of my own feminist attitudes and values, I can apply a feminist reading to the text to recognise Shakespeare’s underlying intent to subtly criticise man’s ignorance of equality.

The reading of a text can be greatly shaped by elements of context. The tempest is a play that features multiple issues to do with inequality, highlighting the issue of racial and gender disproportions that can be represented and interpreted depending on the context understood. The context in which the text was produced represent the dominant ideologies surrounding the attitudes and values towards the racial other and women being of lowered status than white man. Whereas by analysing contemporary ideologies to apply specific reading practices, the text can be distinguished to subtly criticise and challenge those dominant racial and gender norms. As ultimately the understanding of the text’s context influences the representations that can be identified whereas the utilisation of a personal context allows for that theme of inequality to be interpreted.

The Tempest demonstrates fortune as a theme throughout the story. It may be difficult to see how this play demonstrates luck, but if looked at from the right angle it can be found. In the play there are many times when things look bleak, but if you look for the silver lining then you can see how truly fortunate the characters are, especially for it being a Shakespeare play. The first place where luck takes place in the play is when the boat is in a storm. It may not seem fortunate that they are in the storm, but the fact they live through the storm and end up on an Island is lucky. The fact that no main characters die in the play, also just shows their good fortune when there were murder attempts that failed to kill. By the end of The Tempest, the characters all end up back home and there is a sense of peace between them. This can be difficult to believe with everything that has happened between everybody. Fortune is in short supply, but it tends to show up when needed, but in The Tempest, it can be found in unique places.

Some people are lucky while others are not so much. In The Tempest there were some unlucky events, but based on the definition of luck they did have moments where things turned into a great outcome. What is luck though? I believe it is when despite a difficult situation there is a brighter side just around the corner yet to come. Like in this play a boat goes down, but then there is an island and they get to live longer on that island. This demonstrates the luck of getting to live yet another day. There are people who could argue with that, but then is luck only if you win the lottery. Of course it is not only when you win the lottery. It is when you defeat cancer or beat the odds of winning a state championship when the odds of everything is stacked against you. When you are lost in a sea ready to die and you end up living you will count yourself lucky that you defeated those odds. If you are stuck on an island for years and then a boat passes by and you get to go home after those years of doubt of never getting back home, you will count yourself fortune to get to be home. Luck tends to show up when things are looking dark or bleak.

There are times on the boat and the island where things were not working out, but later on all will end well. The crew on the ship had lost all hope and were getting to the point of giving up all hope and they pray for their lives. “All lost! To prayers, to prayers! All lost!” (Schmidt and Crockett, 1206) They may have been giving up but it does not affect the luck they will face soon after. In events taking place after the storm Prospero and his daughter get stuck on an island for 12 years. With luck they get discovered upon and the boat remains in tack to bring everyone back safely. They would not be able to get lucky without the unfortunate events that happen in this play. On the island Prospero is fortunate to find the spirit Ariel, and he rescues him, and then he becomes Prospero’s worker. “All hail, great master, grave sir, hail! I come To answer thy best pleasure; be’t to fly, To swim, to dive into fire, to ride On the curl’d clouds.” (Schmidt and Crockett, 1212) This is Ariel calling Prospero his master in which shows Prospero’s luck to meet this spirit who will end up helping him. The event of the boat and what happens on the island are not the best situations, but it could always be worse.

Even with the tragedies that happen there is a positive outcome in the end of the play that usually only happens in children’s stories. In children stories there is always a happy ending and a lesson to be learned. The Tempest shows us this by everyone being alive and the lesson of forgiveness. Prospero forgives his brother Antonio for what he’s done. Prospero’s daughter who was stuck on the island with him ends up with the luck of getting married to someone she loves. “Go quick away: the story of my life And the particular accidents gone by Since I came to this isle. And in the morn ’ll bring you to your ship and so to Naples, Where I have hope to see the nuptial Of these our dear-belovèd solemnized, And thence retire me to my Milan, where Every third thought shall be my grave.” (Schmidt and Crockett, 1263) He gets the luck of getting to see his daughter get married after being stuck on the island with her. Most parents count themselves fortune to see their children walk down the aisle on their wedding day.

In The Tempest the characters face challenges, but their unfortune at some point turns to luck. Prospero ends up getting to go home and Ariel gets set free. After being strayed on an island for 12 years, Miranda gets to marry the man she loves. Antonio gets his brothers mercy after attempting to get rid of him. All these events that happen are because of luck. Thanks to these peoples fortunes they all get to go on living in the end and we the readers are left with the morals of this play. Not every play gets a happy ending, but with some luck we get to read at least one book with a happy ending in adulthood.

It could be clearly noted that gender issues have a crucial role in The Tempest. The lack of female characters can be obviously seen when dealing with gender issues in The Tempest. This could be possible because the only present female character is Miranda in the play and the other two characters such as Sycorax and Claribel do not appear. Despite the fact that they do not appear on the stage, they’re even told about by a male character who is Prospero. All the knowledge the audiences have are derived from Prospero and he doesn’t have a positive view of her. Prosper negatively describes her in a conversation with Aries as he states “This damned witch Sycorax” (1.2.264). Not much is known about her and the only source that provided a short description of her is Prospero. What the reader knows well about her is that she is “blue-eyed” (1.2.269), but the few lines describing Sycorax are not enough for the reader to have a clear understanding and vision of her character. Even such little information is not directly told by herself, for this reason, the reader cannot rely on such a description. Judith (1989)

According to Collen (2017), Prospero continuously exploited his daughter, Miranda. She is the only representative of the female gender in the play who has quite contrastive characteristics with Sycorax. She is a virgin, benevolent, and innocent whereas Sycorax is described as evil and licentious. The contrast between these two female characters is interesting, it shows the depiction of female characters as being one-sided, along with considering sex with aberration in women’s cases. The female absent witch does not appear on the stage but her name is mentioned several times throughout the play by the main characters. She has been the angle of attention from a number of points of view, feminism is the most popular one among them. Her strange name is one of the aspects that attracts the reader’s attention. Shakespeare is famous for giving names from a mythological or historical precedent or a newly created name to show significant characteristics about the character. It is not easy to point out the reason why Shakespeare chose such a name, but many scholars have a deep concern about the origin of the name “Sycorax”. There are two common assumptions behind this name, the first one suggests that the origin might be derived from Greek words ”sys” and ”corax” which mean sow and raven, both words relate to witchcraft. The second assumption is based on the derivation from Corax of Syracuse who is one of the founders of ancient Greek rhetoric. Shakespeare was familiar with the study of Greek and he might have known the meaning of Sycroax. Stephan (2012) claims that her name alone on the stage would be a curse without her appearance and action.