One of the ways that Shakespeare's The Tempest is different from his other major works is that it seems to deal most directly with the concept of colonialism. Many scholars, for instance, have seen Prospero as a kind of colonizer, while Caliban is seen as the oppressed or enslaved native. While it can be difficult to ascertain if Shakespeare developed this theme intentionally, it's important to recognize that the play certainly does seem to deal with issues at least similar to colonialism: Prospero, a European individual, arrives at the island and establishes himself as a kind of king and forces Caliban, the native, into service. Caliban, likewise, is portrayed as a savage, while Prospero is portrayed as wise and learned. While connection to colonialism is not the only major difference in The Tempest, it certainly is one of them, and it's important to recognize, as it fundamentally changes the way you read the text or view the play.
However, for all that, Shakespeare still employs some conventions seen in his other plays. There is, for instance, the usurping brother Antonio who resembles the usurper in Hamlet, Claudius (although, to be fair, Antonio doesn't kill his brother and marry his sister-in-law) or the treacherous brother in King Lear, Edmund. Additionally, much of the plot centers around Ferdinand and Miranda's romance, thus connecting it to any number of romantic Shakespearean plays. Finally, at the end Shakespeare surprises us by showing that the ship was not actually shipwrecked after all, thus conveniently saving all the characters from spending the rest of their lives marooned on the island. This surprising and miraculous solution to one of the play's major problems resembles the quick fix at the end of The Merchant of Venice, which reveals that Antonio's ships didn't actually sink, making him fabulously rich once again. As such, though The Tempest is certainly groundbreaking in many ways, it still ascribes to some familiar Shakespearean conventions.
Comments
Post a Comment