Answer TWO of the
following as a Comment below:
1. At the beginning of Act
V, Prospero swears to “break my staff,/Bury it certain fathoms in the
earth,/And deeper than did ever plummet sound/I’ll drown my book” (Norton,
67). Though he releases everyone from
his magic and offers mercy, do you think he makes good on this promise? He never does it in the play, but how should
you stage the ending of the play to reflect what he does—or doesn’t do? Has he finally retired from the ‘stage’ as
the Epilogue suggests? Or are these
just words, a way to end the play in a ‘comedy’?
2. After all the business
of the previous acts, Act V is very cursory and somewhat anti-climactic (as is As
You Like It). How do you think
Shakespeare intended us to experience this?
Why are all the plots to murder Alonso/Prospero dissolved so
quickly? What might this suggest about
the nature of the play itself? Is this
why the play is a ‘romance’ rather than a comedy or tragedy?
3. Caliban is more or less
silenced in the final act, though his final words are notably penitent: “I’ll
be wise hereafter,/And seek for grace” (Norton, 76). How should we interpret his sudden change? Is this the forced conversion of a
Shylock? Or the practiced guile of a
servant who will attempt murder and revenge again? How should you instruct the actor to play this scene in keeping
with the previous acts?
1. Initially I was shocked at the anticlimactic ending. I thought I had somehow skipped an act or something. However, the more I thought about it, it really did make sense. If we are supposed to see this play as autobiographical in a sense then it makes sense for it to lack resolution. Life, after all, doesn’t really resolve. Even after we die, it just continues on. I don’t think that Prospero, or Shakespeare, really retired from the stage in the sense that they stopped manipulating people. However, when you do manipulate people sometimes you find yourself satisfied just to fool them. I’m sure many of us have been angry enough to promise all kinds of dire retribution, only to decide that it wasn’t worth it in the end. Prospero did get what he wanted and he even had dirt on the plotting murderers. His position was secure, he didn’t need to kill anyone.
ReplyDelete3. I think that when you consider this line in conjunction to his berating himself for believing that the drunk Italian sailor was a god, that perhaps he is saying he will be wise and seek the grace of a better god, one better able to face Prospero. I think it appears a forced conversion, and in some ways it is because he has no choice, but to act contrite. He has no allies and suddenly everyone is on Prospero’s side. However, I think he is simply biding his time until he can garner the grace of a new god.
1. Although Shakespeare may have intended for Prospero to fulfill his promise to give up his magic, I think it is unlikely that he did. Prospero’s personality requires him to be in control—he would not have enslaved Ariel for so long if it did not—so I don’t see him willfully giving up that much power.
ReplyDeleteFurther, if we believe the claim that Prospero is an avatar for Shakespeare himself, then I don’t think it too far-fetched to also consider Prospero’s “magic” as a placeholder for Shakespeare’s ability of a playwright. Perhaps, much like Prospero, Shakespeare fully intended this to be the last play (magical act) he ever had anything to do with. If this is indeed the case, then I think we can expect the same level of commitment to that promise as we received from Shakespeare.
2. As I said above, I think Prospero’s magic can be read as a metaphor for Shakespeare’s play writing abilities. Similarly, I think that the nature of the various spirits and servants conjured by Prospero also reveal how Shakespeare felt about his own characters.
Samuel Johnson, in The Preface to Shakespeare, writes that “ [Shakespeare’s characters] act and speak by the influence of those general passions and principals by which all minds are agitated…In the writings of other poets a character is too often an individual; in those of Shakespeare it is commonly a species.” I think what Johnson says here is true; further, I think it is an idea demonstrated by Prospero’s spirits.
Ariel is an avatar of the elements Air and Fire, both of which are associated with the “good side” and a higher order of thinking. Caliban on the other hand, is associated with the earth, which reinforces his role as the “villain” or the lower order creature throughout the play. Both of them can be read as representations of “generally good” and “generally bad” character types; although, we must allow for some overlapping qualities if they are to be true generalizations—no one is completely benevolent, just as no one is completely evil.
2. Sudden, as if the "dream" of the play ended before it really got resolved. The plots are resolved in a way that makes it seem as if Prospero's very wish to restore everything makes it so, without explanation or justification. The play is as ephemeral as dreams come--even moreso than A Midsummer Night's Dream! It could be why it's a romance--it has a mix of both, and as a dream needs no real ending.
ReplyDelete3. This sudden change is as if he saw (offstage) the reality of the men he took for gods, and realized Prospero is smarter than they are. He doesn't seem to have been forced to change. It's harder to read him here than anywhere else--if it were guile, he'd better hope his best opportunity would be when no one was awake, or everyone would be at his throat for being a traitor to his erstwhile master. I think it might be that he ought to be played as a subdued character who realizes--possibly bitterly--how varied humans are and how hard it is to get anyone to agree with each other, much less with him.
Jessie Randall
Melissa Williams
ReplyDeleteDr. Grasso
Shakespeare
April 8, 2014
1. I do not see Prospero keeping to his end of the bargain. Maybe, it is because I see Prospero being Shakespeare in that Shakespeare supposedly gave his final farewell here. No writer ever quits writing no matter if they say this is their final publication. Just like a writer during Shakespeare’s day would never break anything as precious as a pen, neither would Prospero break his staff which he forsook his kingdom for. A playwright releases everyone from his spell at the end of a play, but does the spell on the audience not linger? Look at the end of the epilogue. “Now I want / spirits to enforce, art to enchant; / And my ending is despair. / Unless, I be relieved by prayer / Which pierces so, that it assaults / Mercy itself and frees all faults. / As you from crimes would pardoned be, / Let your indulgences set me free (77).” Basically, Shakespeare wanted his final audience to be longing for more, and perhaps he hoped to write more. I cannot see Prospero ending his spell since he wants the audience to be indulged in his magical workings even past the end.
3. Caliban already knows how to feign innocence and make others feel sorrow for him even when he states to their face he would like nothing more than to rip it off. So, I would like to see it like Caliban being both sneaky and hateful at the same time. The actor would need to hiss out the words in clear spite, but at the same time look down on the ground as he slinks away as if afraid that he would be beaten again.
2. I can't imagine that most people would be satisfied by the end of the play, but I don't think that's the point. There are many ways to look at Prospero and break down why his character has changed suddenly: was it because he's manipulating them, or did he have a quick change of heart? Regardless, I think the audience is meant to be left confused, and unsatisfied, by how fast everything moves and by how neatly the story is wrapped up. Shakespeare always tells the story he wants to tell, and if he had wanted it to end less anti-climatically, he would have written it to be that way. The way it ends kind of shows just how meaningless most of the peoples' lives and actions are in the play, and how things can come suddenly to an end with no resolution. Not every story should end neatly.
ReplyDelete3. With Caliban being, in my eyes, that of smart, gifted man brought down low by those around him, I see him as biding his time until he can exact revenge on Prospero. There's no reason for him to forgive Prospero or any of the others for the pain they've caused him throughout the years. Torment like that doesn't drop away that easily. Does Prospero forgive Caliban for attempting to “rape” his daughter? Does he give him back his island? 'No' is the answer. Caliban, unlike the others, doesn't get to leave as he'll be stuck feeling pain and anger for the rest of his life – until he can get true revenge on Prospero. I would instruct the actor to play Caliban as a learned creature who has learned how to show fake emotion to others in order to get what he wants, as I think that is consistent with his character.
- Casey Fowler
1) A true magician never reveals his tricks. In that same idea, a true master manipulator never quite stops manipulating. I think Prospero's sudden change of heart is yet another way influencing those around him and having the upper hand. Shakespeare chose to happily end the play, manipulating it into a comedy. I see great parallels between the two. You thought the play was going one way, and then Shakespeare manipulates it into another way.
ReplyDelete2) Just as actors turn into "vapor" and "mist", so is a play, by the same light, just as insubstantial. Someday, Shakespeare will no longer be alive and what will his plays mean then? Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to show the fickleness of time and man by quickly changing and evolving the plot.
2) I strongly believe that Shakespeare created this anti-climactic ending in order to disappoint his audience members. This being the last play he wrote, one can suspect he was growing weary of the pressures and tedious work put into creating a play. This could have been a stand against his audience saying that if they let him go in peace he will create more unsatisfying endings and possibly that it would only get worse. I think that Shakespeare created this play to be almost a summary of all of his greatest works. In knowing that this was his last play it is apparent that he is saying farewell to the role in which he had played for so long. It was time for him to let the audience deal with the fact that he was ready move into the next stage of his life. (See what I did there?)
ReplyDelete4) From the very beginning I could see Shakespeare in Prospero. Prospero is the one who is manipulating everyone just as a playwright manipulates and controls his or her (though his being the more likely) characters. When in consideration of the ship and the storm and the people panicking thinking they are about to die, it was hard for me not to think about how much hell Shakespeare has put some of his most famous characters. Although, like the ending resolving as a happy one, there were also very well-off characters, too. This play can show both aspects of Shakespeare's talent. It's as if he rolled it all into one as his big grand finale!
Kelsey Jackson
1. I was kind of suspicious of Prospero's last few speeches. He was so engrossed in the power and manipulation that I don't see how he could just go cold turkey on his magic.Yeah he got his dukedom back, but he's been practicing magic since at least when his brother took control. I think he was trying to humble all of these men who had wronged him not just seek revenge. He's being generous in his forgiveness because of how much he has manipulated everyone. He wants to just pick up where he left off before the island, but he has all of this power over the elements and spirits which supersedes insignificant earthly authority like 'kings' and 'dukes'. He could be seen as a rival or potential usurper himself. So he's symbolically giving up his magical power and authority over these men on the island with this speech, but probably not going to completely walk away from them.
ReplyDelete4. As a more recent cultural reference, Prospero reminded me of Dumbledore because he was behind the scenes manipulating everything even when he wasn't present. As a playwright, Shakespeare might of copied his ideas from older works, but he could still create new endings or change the character development. Maybe his last plays ended happily even if absurdly because he knew he'd be retiring soon and wanted a happy ending for himself at any cost so he wrote it out too. I think it was Kurt Cobain that said it's better to burn out than to fade away. His last plays were different, and they'd be remembered that way instead of him continually writing plays that may have been a comedy or tragedy or good or bad. If he knew this was his last solo play and he envisioned himself as Prospero, he's telling the audience good-bye. He's putting down his pen as Prospero is putting down his staff.
Kim McCreery, woops
Delete1) I did not see this coming. Or did I? The play seemingly ends with Prospero turning over a new leaf and giving up magic all together. I do not know if I buy this ending. Much like it is hard to think Shakespeare ended with this play. A writer never dies; they also never stop writing. As old ages creeps up, they may move on to writing their own eulogy, but they never stop. I think Prospero is too deeply rooted in manipulation to have no hidden agenda in these final speeches. He can leave the play in this facade, but I do not believe him for one second.
ReplyDelete2) In both this play and As You Like It, people claim everything ends so happily and the reader/audience is pleased. Maybe I'm a weirdo (most likely), but I hated both endings. I mean cool, thank you for the nice little bow. Everything has a resolution. It is so romantic that everything has a place and everything was in its place. Bull shit. I believe that was the entire point, the reaction Shakespeare wanted from his audience. He wanted dissatisfaction in such simple satisfaction. Nothing comes this easy, and as I said above, I do not trust any of it.
1. No, I do not think that Prospero/Shakespeare released them or us for that matter from his magic. It is written how he intended I believe with him still manipulating and holding the power because we the audience are unsatisfied and want more but he is withholding therefore who is in power really? I think that it should be staged leaving it just as Shakespeare did unsatisfying and unconcluded just another way of manipulating only he isn’t manipulating the characters now he is manipulating the audience and reader.
ReplyDelete2. How do you think Shakespeare intended us to experience this? He intended for us to be unsatisfied because this play is “as he likes it”. He is in complete control. Why are all the plots to murder Alonso/Prospero dissolved so quickly? Because throughout the play he builds us up, this is what is going to happen…we become to expect it. We know what is coming and have already prepared for it to happen all that is left is how? And he changes his mind. What might this suggest about the nature of the play itself? It suggests that Shakespeare is still in complete control of his writings beyond the grave. He is or wrote this play to continue to manipulate as long as we cared to keep looking back at his works. Much like Sonnet XVIII he was confident then that we would be reading him for many years to come. In Sonnet XVIII he writes about his lover claiming,
“When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st,
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
Is this why the play is a ‘romance’ rather than a comedy or tragedy? I think it is a romance because we expect it to be a tragedy or comedy because it is written by Shakespeare. Again he is still practicing his magic (writing is his magic) and manipulating through his writings.
Lisa Edge