Answer TWO of the
following as a Comment below:
1. Cesaire’s language (in
translation, at least) hews close to Shakespeare’s original, though he is happy
to modernize expressions and ideas to make them closer to the audience’s
experience. Where do you feel the play
is most successful in modernizing (without changing the essentials) of The
Tempest? Why does this work? How might it help us read/understand this
scene in the original?
2. How does Cesaire
re-write (or expand upon) the relationship between Ariel and Caliban? Why does he give them a scene alone, whereas
in the actual play they are always in the presence of Prospero or
Stephano/Trinculo? Do you feel this is a
plausible reconstruction, or is this a full-scale re-interpretation by
Cesaire?
3. Discuss the scene
between Prospero and Caliban in Act I, Scene 2. How does he make the characters and relationship between the two
less ambiguous? Additionally, how does this scene betray the author's own identity and politics?
Melissa Williams
ReplyDeleteDr. J. Grasso
Shakespeare
April 15, 2014
A Tempest Acts I & II
2. Although Ariel and Caliban felt like they should have been close all along, the scene that Cesare gives seems forced. Sure, they might see each other as close friends, but Ariel proclaiming that she and Caliban are siblings does not fit well. In the original play, Ariel is older than Caliban and would still see Caliban’s mother as a threat even after her death. Another reason why this scene feels forced is that Ariel refers to herself as a brother to Caliban, and even speaks very much like a man. Also, both Ariel and Caliban speak to each other in way too formal of a manner to give much of a reconstruction of their relationship. They do not feel attached, but rather slammed together (Cesaire 26). Basically, it merely rewrites their relationship rather than expanding upon it.
3. Actually, Shakespeare already made the relationship between Caliban and Prospero as bluntly as possible. All Cesaire did was change the language in the argument between Prospero and Caliban.
Prospero: “Good God! You tried to rape my daughter!”
Caliban: “Rape! Rape! Listen you old goat, you’re the one who put those dirty thoughts in my head (19).”
The argument remains nearly the same except Cesaire tried to change Caliban’s personality. In the original Shakespeare play, Caliban openly admitted to trying to rape Miranda to produce children of his own lineage. Here, Cesaire tries to clean up Caliban’s personality too much because then it gives no reason for Prospero to hate Caliban. However, in that sense he failed because Caliban still unwittingly admitted he wanted to rape Miranda because he blames Prospero for an act he could not do. Why would a protective father make a person want to rape the daughter he protects so much?
Ariel is still viewed as a woman to me, reading the Shakespeare version first makes me connect the name as more feminine. Caliban and Ariel agree on being “brothers” and connect through being enslaved. Ariel, however, has a distinct plan for Prospero, Caliban, and him/herself which basically includes freedom from the island. Ariel represents a peaceful defiance through obedience and patience while Caliban offers only a violent pure denial of realistic outcomes. Caliban is right about many things including his civil rights and the claimed opinion of Prospero’s conscience.
ReplyDelete3. Prospero’s reasoning behind creating the Tempest is more expanded upon. On page 15 of A Tempest his lines read that, “We brewed up the storm you have just witnessed, thereby saving my possessions overseas and bringing the scoundrels into my power at the same time.” The shipwreck itself is less ambiguous leading Caliban to rebel even more. Caliban insults Prospero with more identity calling him a Uhuru (whatever that may mean). He also defies him in more direct language, “With that big hooked nose, you look just like some old vulture.” He uses a lot of animalistic language. He becomes himself through the diversity of animals, plants, and details of the island itself.
Felicia Doyle
2. I feel that Cesaire's writing on Ariel and Caliban is both a reinterpretation and an expansion. In the play, Ariel as Prospero's servant pretty much hates Caliban as much as the next guy. In this scene, Ariel tells Caliban that he's worried about him and that the escalating relationship with Prospero is getting so out of hand that Caliban is likely to die. Caliban asks why he cares--Ariel just says that he does, and Prospero has to be influenced into doing good, not fought, because he can destroy anyone who comes at him. Caliban just calls him a coward and a yes-man. But in this it seems to me that Ariel genuinely cares and is trying to keep the peace--unfortunately, despite his vitriolic friendship with Caliban, the other just won't listen to him, so determined is he to stick it to Prospero. It's fairly plausible as a reconstruction, and as a reinterpretation, it just makes the situation with Caliban more tragic.
ReplyDelete4. In A Tempest, Caliban is pretty much the lone rebel against a corrupted island society. Cesaire's play has echoes in both Muller and Hughes--in the former, Prospero becomes a tyrant, which he is in the play, and in the latter, the relationships of the people are highly dysfunctional, which everything is in A Tempest, because Prospero is an overbearing self-appointed leader, Miranda agrees with whatever he says, Caliban hates them both as a rebellious character determined to reject everything about them, even what they thought was good at first, and Ariel just can't catch a break. He's either chided and threatened by Prospero, or Caliban keeps accusing him as a traitor, and everyone has their own idea of how events should play out.
Jessie Randall
2. I enjoyed the solitary scene between Caliban and Ariel. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect some type of comradery to form between two people oppressed by the same man. Cesaire creates a whole new level to both of their characters by allowing them to speak alone and as equals. In The Tempest, Ariel and Caliban are almost forced into their roles by the audience, so to have a scene where they’re free to act as themselves was refreshing to read.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I really liked it when Caliban called Ariel an Uncle Tom. I was starting to think of Ariel and Caliban’s attitudes as reflections of two different types of slaves—one the low ranking field hand and the other the more expensive house slave. I don’t think it’s too farfetched to assume that Caliban probably viewed Ariel as a traitor to their station and race.
3. Act One’s Scene Two really reviled Cesaire’s love of Caliban. In a way, I think this scene represents how Cesaire would want his fantasy Caliban to react to Prospero’s orders. This scene also really emphasizes Shakespeare’s allusions to native people made through Caliban’s character—every “helpful” thing that Prospero says he has done for Caliban is a reflection of the “helpful” things done by colonizers for the indigenous people they encounter.
Plus, I really liked the little nod—or at least what I assumed was a nod—to Malcolm X in this scene. A Tempest was most likely written sometime between 1965 (Malcolm X’s death) and 1969 (its publication date), so I definitely think that X’s life and death influenced him.
I must ask: what does Prospero’s reference to Hannibal have to do with Caliban? Is it riffing on some love of Rome that I am unaware of, or some rumor about Hannibal that I don’t know about? For about two seconds I seriously though about Hannibal Lecture but then I remembered when A Tempest was published.
2. Perhaps because of the Chinese opera version of The Tempest we viewed, I have always pictured Ariel as a slight, airy woman, but I understand that the character is intended male, or maybe genderless because Ariel isn't even really human. Thinking of Ariel as a man, especially when he refers to himself and Caliban as "brothers," gives the role an entirely different feel for me. I think the nuances of servitude are heavily dependent on gender; when I see this Ariel and Caliban interact in this version, they are very much balanced opposites, while when Ariel is portrayed as a woman, I sense a sort of sibling bickering and rivalry. A Tempest very much gives agency to those kept in servitude and allows the two characters to have common ground. Ariel even says to Caliban, "We both want our freedom. We just have different methods." In this version they are essentially equals, but each portray the opposing characteristics present in The Tempest (beautiful/ugly, mystic/natural, etc).
ReplyDelete4. In connection with the previous answer, I identified the new Ariel/Caliban relationship with At the Top by Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis. The poet speaks of being at the top with Ariel, who disappears, and (presumably) Caliban's hand appears to take the subject down the mountain. An example of the different methods of the two servants, it can be inferred that Ariel's cause was to help Prospero, be an obedient and loved servant, and then abandon him in his fear. Caliban, who hates violent Prospero, will be more than willing to drag him down the mountain. This poem embodies the "teamwork" sentiment present in A Tempest, giving both servile figures authority when they use their different forces to effectively eliminate the master.
1. I really liked Cesaire’s language in this play, I was able to read it more quickly and it was a lot more immediately funny to me compared to Shakespeare’s Tempest. Aaaand he dropped an F bomb on the second page of text, so I was totally in from then. One of my favorite lines was Caliban talking to Ariel “your Uncle Tom patience and your sucking up to him.” The language there was awesome. Using that comparison made me see Ariel’s and Caliban’s different outlooks about slavery, much like the characters in Uncle Tom’s cabin act differently in their slavery roles. I really liked that line from Act 2 Scene 1.
ReplyDelete2. Ariel refers to Caliban and he as “brothers” which I thought was pretty significant. They are both slaves to Prospero, and the scene with them alone reiterates how they are both in very similar situations, or predicaments. I think it’s a possibility that this could have been happening in Shakespeare’s Tempest, but since it really wasn’t hinted at, I feel like this is a re-interpretation of the original text. I really like this interpretation though, it reminded me of some of the ideas the poems invented. Like Caliban is a woman? Still can’t get over that. Ariel and Caliban should have banned together and staged a mutiny against Prospero!!
-Tori
1. The language is much more modern and easy for us to relate to even the ideas, feeling about slavery, and pursuit of freedom ring closer to home through Cesaire’s language. The lines from act 2 scene 1 where Caliban tells Ariel that, “your Uncle Tom patience and your sucking up to him” made me think of slavery as we know it. In that I mean the house servant (Ariel) treated better, with better living conditions and freedom that the filthy field servant (Caliban). I could have totally seen Ariel remarking back smartly, “And the way you’ve handle things is working out for you sooooo….much better! Like your living arrangements, duties I see how your savage defiance has served you? No thanks! I’ll stick to doing things my way and be better rewarded for it. No ghetto for me.”
ReplyDelete2. Like Molly I too have always seen Ariel as a feminine character. In both the reading of the Tempest, and the Chinese Opera version we watched might have something to do with that but I think that it is more than that granted the name screams femininity but so does her response to servitude, her docile patience with Prospero and looking to Prospero for approval and love for good deeds seems more like the actions of a daughter. The characterization of Ariel if feminine therefore that is how I see or imagine her.
Lisa Edge
2. I feel like this scene is designed to show more of Caliban and to reveal just how similar Ariel is to Caliban. Both are slaves to Prospero, the only difference is that Ariel has the prospect of being let go, while Caliban has to deal with the prospect that Prospero will never treat him as anything other than a slave and a monster. By giving Ariel and Caliban a scene together it also humanizes Caliban even more, because of the respect Ariel gives to Caliban, partly by calling him “brother.” This acknowledgment moves Caliban away from a monster and shows him as more of a human, while also showcasing the bond that the two of them have, which makes sense given the circumstances the two of them are in. The scene therefore ends up feeling very natural due to the result of the circumstances they're both in.
ReplyDelete3. The scene between Prospero and Caliban have the two of them being very direct with one another, and Caliban is portrayed as a much more outspoken character. Immediately, the animosity between Prospero and Caliban is shown when Caliban speaks up to say that the only reason Prospero taught him anything was to make him a better slave. What's more damning, however, is Caliban's reveal that Prospero put the thoughts of rape into his head, and that he had never planned to do anything to Miranda. This is just another example of Prospero's manipulative side, which one could consider to have been another play he came up with that involved Caliban and Miranda.
The directness of Caliban's actions (such as when he says he wants to be called X) lets loose the author's intentions and doesn't leave much for interpretation. It's clear from the beginning that Prospero is the evil one and Caliban is the wronged one, because of the clarification the author gave to Caliban.
- Casey Fowler
Nikki Ennis
ReplyDelete1. One way that I feel Cesaire's translation is successful in modernizing is the use of more modern curse words. I feel these can be often missed, or looked over in Shakespeare's plays because they are so unfamiliar to us. Curse words can add emphasis or set the tone for speech, so I think this helps us better understand not only what is being said, but the way it is being said.
3. One way Cesaire makes Prospero & Caliban's relationship less ambiguous is through the addition of clear animosity. Several of the words Prospero uses towards Caliban are in direct link to that of a white person during the time of slavery (For example, "ape", "emancipate", whipping") and I feel that gives us a much clearer idea of Prospero's feelings toward Caliban. This is reflective of experiences in Cesaire's own culture.
1. I think its modernization works because he stays true to the essential storyline parts, and the aspects, including underlying issues, of the play. He plays with the language and really, really modernizes it, but in staying true to the rest of the plays major parts the language works, it even makes the play a little more understandable and comical because of it. This language works well though because it gives reader a modern twist on a classic. It really helps to understand the original because it brings the language to our level of speaking, our level of understanding. The modern language makes the situation a lot more relatable, even though the storyline itself may not seem to relatable to modern day audiences.
ReplyDelete2. I feel like Cesaire creates a relationship between Caliban and Ariel. Before they seem like enemies and two different people, but he creates a slight camaraderie between them. Using the fact that they are both slaves to Prospero he is able to create this relationship between Caliban and Ariel. I think that the scene with them alone solidifies the idea that they are not out to get each other. Ariel goes out of his way to meet with Caliban alone and warn him. This shows a little more respect between the characters then if Cesaire were not to give them this time alone. This is a plausible reconstruction. I can see this as something that happened behind the scenes with Ariel and Caliban, in The Tempest. After reading this in Cesaire’s version you can see the hints that this may have happened in The Tempest.
3. I personally did not think that Cesaire staged the relationship of Caliban and Prospero any different than Shakespeare did. Shakespeare portrayed their relationship as very blunt and forced. The only obvious changes seen in Cesaire’s “A Tempest” are the use of language. It is brought down on a whole other level to the dialogue. It becomes more normal in a sense that modern day readers could appreciate it. Even with the dialogue change is the argument between Caliban and Prospero remains about the same. Caliban does; however, seem to have changed more than Prospero has when it comes to personality.
ReplyDelete2. In Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” Ariel and Caliban’s characters were never close at all. It kind of seemed at times that they had the potential to be close and share similar qualities. I thought it was interesting how they suggested that they were siblings. It did not seem to fit well with either the play or the adaptation but it was interesting to look at it from that perspective. I also felt that there relationship never really developed any detail. There was potential to show so much more and it lacked.
Forgot to put my name....... Kayci Snider
Delete2. I think that it is easy to see Ariel and Caliban as opposites within Shakespeare's play. Yes, they are in similar
ReplyDelete"slave" positions, but Shakespeare's audience would sympathize with Ariel. After all, Ariel submits to Prospero's will. Cesaire takes these two characters and essentially makes them equal. It also implies that they see value in each other. I think that their interaction shows that they do not have to have masters to have an identity. They are their own beings, and that they have a presence outside of servitude. This particular interaction shows that they have personalities, and that they both have their own minds. Caliban is a little more forceful, while Ariel is more passive. This shows that they can reason, and that they can sympathize with others. It also shows that they feel deep emotions about being ruled by Prospero. Essentially, it gives them a concrete form instead of the parameters of slave or servant.
3. I think that this scene shows that Caliban and Prospero have a deeper connection than either one would like. If I remember correctly, Caliban tells Prospero that if he did something wrong it was his fault for teaching him to be that way, or to understand that his was wrong. It definitely implies that Cesaire is associating Caliban with natives who are taught to be "English," but then knocked down when they attempt to think independently. Prospero probably educated Caliban. In fact, I think the tempest says something about how Prospero taught him to speak. Yet, now that he has the tools needed to vocalize his unhappiness, Prospero is trying to suppress him. It is a way to keep him cut down to the role of slave, and as an "other" of society.
-Cayla Odom