Author Topic: Tempest, The ~ William Shakespeare ~ October Book Club Online (Read 60338 times)

JoanP · « **Reply #160 on:** October 14, 2012, 03:06:59 PM »

The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.

Please join us here all through October....

October Book Club Online

The Tempest, Shakespeare's last play, was written in 1611 in the final period of his career. The play is not really a comedy, but combines elements of tragedy with comedy, a tragicomedy.

Shakespeare set the play on an unnamed island in an unidentified age. In it, he portrays an aging magician, Prospero, who has been living in exile with his young daughter on a remote island for the past twelve years.

Over the course of a single day, Prospero uses his magic to whip up a tempest to shipwreck the men responsible for his banishment. He then proceeds to dazzle and dismay the survivors (and the audience) with his art as he orchestrates his triumphant return home where he plans to retire in peace.

For a lot of audiences and literary scholars, Prospero seems like a stand-in in for Shakespeare, who spent a lifetime dazzling audiences before retiring in 1611, shortly after The Tempest was completed. Its epilogue seems to be a final and fond farewell to the stage.

When Prospero (after giving up the art of magic he's spent a lifetime perfecting) appears alone before the audience he confesses, "Now my charms are all o'erthrown, / And what strength I have's mine own," we can't help but wonder of Shakespeare is speaking through this character here. From multiple sources, including Shakespearean Criticism, Gale Cengage

Discussion Schedule

Act III	October 15~21
Act IV	October 22~28
Act V	October 29~Nov.4

Some Topics to Consider
Act III

1. Using three words or very short phrases describe how you see each character. E.g. Prospero: Authority figure, Loves and Reads Books, Disposed Leader - or what three words would you use to describe him and then the others.

2. On an Island where gold exchange has no value what is the exchange currency and how do characters relate to that currency?

3. In Act I, Ferdinand loses his freedom to Prospero regardless of Miranda's pleas. How, in Act III does Miranda speak-up, soften, soothe Ferdinand's reactions to his loss of freedom and forced labor? How does Miranda disobey her father, Prospero?

4. What does Caliban's suggestion of Miranda as booty and part of the perks of power have to say about a woman's power and role in the seventeenth century? What valuable replacement could be a perk of power on a small Island?

5. What does the scene in which Caliban suggests to Stephano that Miranda is a prize if he is king, say about the characteristics of a man worthy of a 'white' girl? What is the benefit to Caliban if Stephano becomes king? Did you see Caliban as leering at Miranda or stating matter of fact a commonly accepted benefit?

6. "The isle is full of noises", what noises have you noticed? How does the noise add to our understanding the characters?

7. What various connections are there to a table laden with food for the "Three Men of Sin"?

8. What do the association with Harpies and Ariel's early captivity on the island have in common and assuming the audience read Dante, is this the fear for the "Three Men of Sin"?

9. In traditional Greek myth, Harpies were the destructive nature of wind. Harpies are vicious, cruel, and exceedingly violent. Harpies are sisters to Iris, the Greek personification of the rainbow. To what ends is Ariel as a Harpy, meant to scare the "Three Men of Sin"? Do you foresee them experiencing a rainbow?

10. What about this play seems unbelievable? - Do you see the play as a fantasy (i.e. as the author's vision, rather than an entire culture's psyche, often introducing new words and scenarios) or an early example of Magical Realism (i.e. illogical scenarios appearing in a realistic or "normal" setting) or possibly as a simple Fairytale (i.e. reflecting the traditional, handed down values, morals, and world-views of the cultures which produce them)?

Relevant links:
The Tempest (Electronic Version) , BookTV: Hobson Woodard: A Brave Vessel ,
Translation of W. Strachey's long letter describing the shipwreck to the Excellent Woman,
Listen to Ralph Vaughan Williams' "Full Fathom Five"
Memorable Quotes from The Tempest - a list in Progress

DLs: Barb, Marcie, JoanP, JoanK , Babi

JoanP · « **Reply #161 on:** October 14, 2012, 03:13:29 PM »

Quote

"I'm dying to ask her (Marjorie Garber) who she thinks is the hero of this play. She's a Professor of English at Harvard."

Where will you be seeing Marjorie Garber, Jonathan? By the end of the month, we will be nearing the end of the play. It will be interesting to listen to her answer to your question, but to tell the truth, I will be even more interested to hear your answer to that question first, before you hear her answer.

JoanK · « **Reply #162 on:** October 14, 2012, 03:51:49 PM »

I just noticed that the notes to my book say that Gonzalo's speech about how he would rule was based on an essay by Montaigne about cannibals. I'm guessing that it was thought then that "savages" got along perfectly well without the social trappings of civilization (government, social class, division of labor etc.) Not true, of course!

JoanP · « **Reply #163 on:** October 14, 2012, 03:58:23 PM »

JoanK. These were cannibals, right? So we need to qualify that - "some of the savages got along without the social trappings of civilization."

JoanK · « **Reply #164 on:** October 14, 2012, 04:06:32 PM »

The others found the trappings of civilization didn't help them get out of the pot!

We start Act III tomorrow. We were all taught in High School that Shakespeare's plays build in Acts I and II and climax in Act III. I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of climax we get.

JoanP · « **Reply #165 on:** October 14, 2012, 05:45:51 PM »

Just checked our list of memorable Tempest quotes in the heading and see that this one from Antonio in the first scene of Act II has not yet been entered..

"What's past is prologue."

Here's a note on the metaphor...

Quote

"The Tempest is full of theatrical metaphors, such as "what's past is prologue." The metaphor has been forgotten, and the phrase has devolved into distorted forms (like "past and prologue"). When Antonio tells Sebastian that they have the opportunity to "perform an act," he means Act I of their own heroic drama. What's happened so far (that is, "what's past") is the prologue to that play, and the script is henceforth in their hands (in their "discharge").

Prologues were common in Renaissance drama, though Shakespeare himself wrote few of them. The prologue usually set the scene and presented the givens of the play (this is the kind Antonio has in mind). "What's past is prologue," then, translates roughly as "What's already happened merely sets the scene for the really important stuff, which is the stuff our greatness will be made on."

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #166 on:** October 14, 2012, 06:13:20 PM »

Did anyone answer and I missed it -- 4. What are the arguments that Antonio uses to convince Sebastian to commit murder? Are you persuaded by any of the arguments that Sebastian has a right to the throne?

Need to look that up because if it was posted I do not remember the arguments used.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #167 on:** October 14, 2012, 06:28:41 PM »

Found it - sorry if someone did post this - please let's see this as galloping old age memory loss - but this is what I found...

Antonio begins persuading Sebastian to kill his brother so that he, Sebastian, will become King of Naples. Antonio argues that Ferdinand is surely drowned, and that Claribel, the next heir, is too far away to make an effective claim. When Sebastian shows a concern of conscience, Antonio points out that he took Prospero's dukedom, and he isn't at all bothered by a bad conscience.

JoanP · « **Reply #168 on:** October 14, 2012, 07:53:06 PM »

We did touch on Antonio persuading Sebastian to kill his brother so he Sebastian would become of King of Naples. But I didn't remember how he was able to to that. I remember thinking that the idea must have appealed to Sebastian. He really didn't hesitate too much. But really, because Antonio didn't suffer from a guilty conscience, how could Sebastian have accepted that as proof that he wouldn't either?

I remember thinking this whole scenario was unbelievable - but now I'm thinking of the times in which the story takes place - the kidnappings, the beheadings - all to wrest the crown from close relatives...brothers especially. Not so unbelievable to Shakespeare's audience. This sort of thing happened all the time!

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #169 on:** October 14, 2012, 08:32:42 PM »

Yes, beheadings and being quartered by four horses and death for sport and public theater - so many of the plays especially, the history plays someone is killing someone for power.

marcie · « **Reply #170 on:** October 15, 2012, 01:31:21 AM »

Jonathan, let us know what you think of the book SHAKESPEARE AFTER ALL by Marjorie Garber. It should be interesting to hear her speak.

Killing family members seems to happen to this day.

It seems as if Antonio persuaded Sebastian to attempt to kill his brother Alonso primarily by setting himself as a successful example (together with presenting the scenarios that Ferdinand was dead and Claribel out of reach).
Sebastian says:

Thy case, dear friend,
Shall be my precedent; as thou got'st Milan,
I'll come by Naples.

Babi · « **Reply #171 on:** October 15, 2012, 09:27:24 AM »

So now we are into Act III, with a most challenging list of questions to stimulate our thinking. I will resist the
temptation to plunge right into Q. 10, and begin my small observations with Scene I.
'Admired Miranda!' See how quickly and aptly Fernand makes the play on words. Admired: to be wondered at. 'Miranda', meaning wonderful. I wonder if such word play has become the hallmark
of clever wit in Elizabethan society? I suppose it must have been, or the audiences would not have
understood it, either.

I'm glad Ferdinand is so frank and open as to tell Miranda that he has known and liked many women---adding, of course, that only she was "perfect and peerless". Miranda needs to consider that she has known only one man since she was little more than a babe and has only her father for comparison. She feels quite sure, tho', that she could not wish or imagine a finer man than Fernando. (sigh) She is so young!

We have a cue here to what was considered important in valuing a woman in Shakespeare's time. Miranda's words:
"..my modesty, the jewel in my crown.." She does not remember Milanese society, but it is apparent Prospero has raised and educated her as though she was still the heir to Milan.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #172 on:** October 15, 2012, 11:35:02 AM »

A quote Babi that makes me wonder if modesty had other meanings in the early seventeenth century as compared to our understanding of the word and what was the modest behavior aspired to that has even changed dramatically in our own lifetime.

Yes, so young and so romantic, the way Ferdinand speaks to Miranda - I would think this was the dreamy eyed hope for a similar experience from a young man for many a teenage girl reading this play - and as a stage performance a far different bit of flirting and declaring love than the wordless passion we see in a movie. For that I think a bit of both would make us all dreamy eyed.

It appears that carrying wood around is part of the work for both servants and prisoners on this island - did you notice Caliban was also carrying wood and now we have Ferdinand carrying larger and heavier wood. Is that degrading Ferdinand or elevating Caliban I wonder.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #173 on:** October 15, 2012, 12:44:26 PM »

Well here is some of the answer on modesty

Quote

“modesty” The word, originating in the 16th century, comes from the Latin word modestia, which is closely related to the concept of moderation. There are three distinct entries in dictionary.com:

• The quality of being modest; freedom from vanity, boastfulness, etc.

• Regard for decency of behavior, speech, dress, etc.

• Simplicity; moderation.

...Modesty is not related exclusively, or even particularly, to women’s dress; it is a broad concept that governs the behavior of all God’s creatures.

The first dictionary entry relates modesty to humility. One should not be haughty, think too much of oneself or be a braggart. Certainly, the triumphalism that would lead one faction to say, “all others must live in accordance with our rules and conceptions” slaps this notion of modesty in the face.

The second entry implies a sense of normalcy and decency. One should not try to act in a way that stands out, but should act with decorum appropriate to the situation.

The third entry is closely related to the other two. One should not focus on money, grandeur or extravagance, but should do things simply and politely, with a balanced sense of moderation.

From this we know that modesty does not describe Propero

Jonathan · « **Reply #174 on:** October 15, 2012, 02:48:50 PM »

'Modesty does not describe Prospero.' That's a fine observation, Barb.

Early on, Marcie posted a link which included among many interesting things this question: which of the four best describes Prospero?

1. self-centered, controlling, egotistical, disdainful

2. god-like, manipulative, forgiving, loving

3. autocratic, controlling, arrogant, mean-spirited

4. cold-hearted, inhuman, manipulative, dangerous

To which I would like to add: unimaginative. Which we can see in the tasks he assigns to those he controls. Barb asks the interesting question: does the wood carrying degrade Ferdinand or does it elevate Caliban? Neither, in Prospero's book. It's his modus operandi. Those murderous, dirty tricks of 16c politics certainly make modern ballot box games seem harmless.

JoanP, I'm looking forward to meeting Professor Garber at the Friends' meeting at the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library here in Toronto. After reading her fine chapter on The Tempest, I've decided it would be a dumb question to ask her about any hero in the play.

JoanP · « **Reply #175 on:** October 15, 2012, 03:22:14 PM »

So many interesting ways to regard Miranda - Yes she is young, romantic, admirable, - naive, "modest" too - compared to the other young women that Ferdinand eyed back in Milan. But they were not perfect, they were not innocent and pure as is Miranda.

Miranda's reaction to his admiration was an honest one, I thought. She tells him she doesn't know what other women are like, she's never met one. I couldn't help but think what Miranda would have been like, had she grown up in Milan. She is headstrong. She gives in to her passions, is heedless to the admonitions of her father. She's revealed her name, contrary to her father's wishes - why she's even married Ferdinand when you consider the definition of "handfasting" - without confiding in her father. Do you think she would have maintained her perfect and innocent state if she had grown up in the society of Milan?
I'm wondering how Prospero will respond to the news? Hopefully we will see the adjectives in #2" relate to Prospero, Jonathan!

I've a note in the Folger edition - that caught my attention. It states that the passage in lines 94-98 has a sexual undertone -that Miranda might not even be aware of. Do you see get it? Did Shakespeare's audience pick up on it"

Quote

"At my unworthiness, that dare not offer, 94
What I desire to give, and much less take
What I shall die to want. But this is trifling,
And all the more it seeks to hide itself,
The bigger bulk it shows. Hence bashful cunning,
And prompt, me plain and holy innocence."

I hate it when I don't see something others do - especially the sexual undertones in Miranda's case!

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #176 on:** October 15, 2012, 04:18:40 PM »

JoanP - do you think less of the quote would help you get the {undertone

}

What I desire to give, and much less take
What I shall die to want.

Good list wasn't it Jonathan in marcie's link describing Prospero

Let's share our thoughts on who are all these characters - Babi and JoanP offered their summery of Miranda - think their three words would probably be - please correct the trio Babi and Joan if that is not the three you would choose.

Young - Educated - Modest
Innocent - Passionate - Headstrong

We have a whole host of descriptions for Prospero from someone else's observations - let's share our own observations.

So far we have Jonathan's thoughts on Prospero as; unimaginative - controlling

What do y'all think - Let's recap and just share our reactions to who these characters are or really, what it is they bring to the story.

We have on this island in addition to Miranda and Prospero - Ariel - Caliban - Alonso - Sebastian - Antonio - Ferdinand - Gonzalo - Trinculo - Stephano

I enjoyed the earlier bit in Act II scene II with Trinculo - based on that I am going to say I see Trinculo as;
Timid - Dependent - Observant

Gonzalo;
Compassionate - Uplifting - Grateful

Antonio;
Conspirator - Devious - Ruthless

JudeS · « **Reply #177 on:** October 15, 2012, 04:24:25 PM »

Dear Leaders
Your question # one interested me and since no one else is taking a stab I'll give it a try. Hopefully others will correct my views and have their own. If not-well then I get to ring the victory bell.
You asked for us to describe in three words, or a short phrase, each character;

Prospero....Conducts the action. (Producer? Writer, Author?)

Fernando....Young, Handsome, Lusty.

Miranda....Young,Beautiful, Learned.

Antonio....Evil, Sneaky, Driven.

Ariel....Intelligent, Insightful, Spritish.

Alonso....Self-involved,Weak, Loving-father.

Caliban....Part-man, Part-beast, Part-innocent.

Stephano& Trunculo (3+3=6 words) Foils for Shakespeards truths to out.

Feel free to add or change any of the above.
.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #178 on:** October 15, 2012, 04:32:42 PM »

euwww Jude I love your description for Antonio -

JoanK · « **Reply #179 on:** October 15, 2012, 09:45:34 PM »

Overtones? What Miranda dies to want, Antonio has --

"And all the more it seeks to hide itself,
The bigger bulk it shows."

Shakespeare's humor can be crude.

JoanP · « **Reply #180 on:** October 16, 2012, 07:03:52 AM »

Oh, Joank - NOW, I see it...after you point out what Miranda has not missed!

I'm always the last one! This girl doesn't waste time. In no time she proposes to Ferdinand - "I am your wife, if you will marry me." And then they clasp hands! They clasp hands! Doesn't consult with her father...they just seal the deal.
I've a note that explains that "such an exchange consitutes a legal betrothal in Renaissance England." And what's more, the clasping of hands, usually done publicly, but even done privately, the 'handclasping' made the contract a legal marriage!"

So the plot thickens. Sooner or later the castaways will discover they are not alone on the island. Wait until Sebastian finds the prince alive and well! Will this cause him to rethink his plan to kill his brother, the king? I'm wondering how much of this is part of Prospero's plan.

JoanP · « **Reply #181 on:** October 16, 2012, 07:36:42 AM »

Quote

" I see Trinculo as Timid - Dependent - Observant" Barb

Do you see Trinculo as a 'jester' at all? As comic relief? If so, your three adjectives don't include an indication of that. It seems we need another adjective to describe him.

In the 1623 First Folio edition, he was listed as Trinculo, "jester".
But in the modern cast of characters, I see him listed simply as Trinculo, "servant" to Alonso. I read elsewhere, maybe it was in Hobson Woodward's Brave Vessel, that Shakespeare's audience would have recognized the jester as soon as he came on stage wearing the apparel of a court comedian.. including the classic belled cap of a "motley" fool. Caliban insults him, calling him a 'pied ninny' and a 'scurvy patch' - which is noted, refers to the patchwork, multicolored costume of the jester - something the audience would immediately recognize - and be ready for the 'comedy' to begin. Stephano would not be wearing such a costume, but he would be drunk. The two together provide the slapstick.

I'm going to read again to look for examples of this - and maybe come up with an adjective to add to Trinculo's description...

nfarm · « **Reply #182 on:** October 16, 2012, 08:03:46 AM »

Quote from: JudeS on October 06, 2012, 12:53:37 PM

Pat
You gave me my first laugh of the day. A good omen.
You asked :"Does love have to overcome adversity?"
Well in a Shakespeare's plays it certainly does.
I have here the first glimmer in my mind of why this play is sometimes called a tragicomedy.
In the tragedies, like Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet their is huge adversity to love. But the ending is tragic with death instead of a loving future. In the comedies there are also many barriers to a successful joining of the lovers but they don't die but DO have the future together by overcoming that adversity that is the Drama of the play and keeps us waiting to see what will happen.
We immediately identify with the lovers and ,in a comedy, their goodness, and wait to see how their story will unfold.
So, Pat
You didn't expect that your question would unleash all of these thoughts in my mind. But not being an expert on Mr. S, I don't know if they are right or wrong.
What say you?

what aterrific way to differentiate between the two-very very good!

Babi · « **Reply #183 on:** October 16, 2012, 09:16:05 AM »

Modesty, of course, is approved in anyone. It appears to have been a most important
feature expected of a female of these times, though. An 'immodest' female would be not
be considered as a candidate for marriage by any respectable family. Actually, the
ideal of modesty, in the sense of behavior, speech, dress, etc., continued to be
expected even when we were young. Ah, how things have changed.

Hmmm. I would pick #2, JONATHAN. 'God-like' only in the sense that he can apparently
call up or calm down storms. But unarguably manipulative! Loving..well, Miranda.
Forgiving? We have yet to see.
Oh, and I'm quite confident that you could find an insightful question for Prof.
Garber...especially after hearing her talk.

Very good question, JOANP, about how growing up in Milan would have affected Miranda.
Can't argue with your description of her, and it is quite possible she would have
far less modest and innocent, and certainly less naive. I did see the sexual undertones
in Miranda's words, but I'm reasonably certain she was unaware of them. Fernando, tho',
would surely have been affected by them. Happily, he doesn't make the mistake of
misunderstanding Miranda.

No changes from me, JUDE. I think your choices are entirely apt.

Ah, JOANK, I missed that one entirely! I just found it puzzling.

Oh, yes, Question 6. The reference to noises was apparently Caliban's explanation of
the music the castaways kept hearing, coming from apparently nowhere. I'm not sure
why Caliban doesn't want to tell them about Ariel. They are certainly prepared by now,
as we read earlier, to believe anything! Any ideas on Caliban's thinking here?

JudeS · « **Reply #184 on:** October 16, 2012, 11:20:55 AM »

Question ten gave me a start... what do I find unbeleivable?
It's like asking what I find unbeleivable about Star Wars or Star Trek.
Once you start pulling threads of what is beleivable and what isn't you destroy the play.
Reality is the Warp and imagination is the Woof.
That is Shakespeares genius. He pulls together differeny worlds , puts them on his loom and voila-
REALISTIC MAGIC.Words that enchant and charm us into an audience of beleivers.

You may analyze people in that way but not Shakespeare's plays- unless, of course, you do that for a living and want to
make yourself famous by doing the impossible.
I wouldn't attempt such a thing.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #185 on:** October 16, 2012, 12:54:53 PM »

JoanK you were able to see even more - hurray - she is speaking of her bigger bulk that reminds me of so many of todays reporters telling us about this or that actress's 'bump'

Actually, the ideal of modesty, in the sense of behavior, speech, dress, etc., continued to be expected even when we were young. Ah, how things have changed. Now that is a mouthful Babi - so true...

nfarm it appears don't you think that Prospero is making sure the lovers face some adversity - I wonder if you are pointing us to one of the turning points in this play - love conquers adversity - hmmm not only the Love of a young couple but the love of a father who took care of his daugher and educated her and now wants the best for her without a dowry that is the usual mark of a loving father - do not know the play well enough to know if there are any other 'love versus adversity' issues that we will uncover - something to watch...

JoanP, do you have two more words to describe our Jester - We can all bring our ideas of how we see these characters when we are reading - just as some folks see one actor over another playing a part - for me I really simply thought what he was as a given - as I did not add to my way of describing Prospero as a wizard or a deposed Duke.

This whole bit about fools and jesters is a fun area to explore - pulled down John Southworth, Fools and Jesters in the English Court He explains the types of fool, includes a Bio of many of the fools, and the relationship they had with the King and others in the courts including, court Cardinals who had personal fools. He explains the word Jester was only used infrequently starting during the Tudor Period. At court they were "simply a court of king's fool." So that may explain the First Folio's use of Jester - Shakespeare was writing during and immediately after the last of the Tudors.

There were Warrior Fools, war veterans, who was often called a Joker - in Normandy and as early as the courts of the Pharaohs they were Buffoons, the Philosopher Fools of Greece, 'treasured' Dwarfs with children "deliberately stunted to fill the gap in the market". There were Minstrel Fools who also kept the hounds and acted as messengers - the Innocents were popular with the Tudors - often mad or appearing slow witted - in Tudor accounts Fools were allowed one mess (meal) a day. Which may account for why actors playing fools if not dwarfs are often very thin.

I know, who would expect this much about fools but it is fun to know about this stuff - fascinating Southworth writes, the fool for James I was Archibald Armstrong - he goes on to say that "James was the most literate and learned individual ever to have occupied the English throne, a respected Latinist, theologian and author whose love of peace and dislike of religious persecution were in advance of his age;...there was a courser side to his nature that revealed itself in a predilection for crude jokes and late-night horseplay with his male buffoons."

Here we go... He does say that "Shakespeare's fools (with one notable exceptions) were jesters rather than innocents." Innocents spoke the truth "because they can do no other." OK pulled down "Fools are Everywhere" by Beatrice K. Otto. She describes a Jester as having a "sparkling, death-defying wit" - that surely would fit the kind of actor Will would write into a play far better than an innocent.

With that bit about James you have to wonder if Propero, written as a Duke who lost his kingdom to his library and furthering his education was a message to King James I.

Ah ha found it -

Quote

The Tempest Shakespeare uses as a character, Robert Armin, called a Jester, given at court in 1611 - "In the best tradition of his predecessors, Trinculos sees through the self-deceit of Stephano and Caliban to tell the unvarnished truth about their situation in the strange new world in which they have found themselves. 'Servant-monster!', he declares, echoing Stephano. "The folly of this Island! They say there's but five upon this isle: we are three of them: if th' other two be brain'd like us, the state totters."

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #186 on:** October 16, 2012, 01:13:02 PM »

REALISTIC MAGIC - shall we coin it Jude - really says it well - and yes, it is magic but there are so many bits and pieces that stretch the imagination much less logic that at times I wonder if I am reading a book by García Márquez or Italo Calvino - this is an aspect of this Shakespeare play we have not heard as a description and yet, it seems so apt.

I keep wondering this broken down boat that this entire library was transported - my imagination had a skiff like boat with maybe one mast and a sail with maybe enough room for 2 dozen books but if the library was extensive how did all the books fit. A larger boat at this time in history had many sails - ok fine - the wind was favorable while he was at the wheel - no one needed to attend to the sails - but, you can't bang into an island - you must trim the sails to slow down - how does he do that while steering and so a bit of suspended belief must fall over the crowd starting with the first scene.

How often during this play is Shakespeare asking us to trust him and suspend logic in the name of a magical world unfolding on stage. Does he ask for suspended belief only in his comedies I wonder - surely not in his history plays. Is this then a characteristic of a Shakespeare comedy I wonder...Jude you have seen many a Shakespeare play - do you know, is this a characteristic of his comedies?

JudeS · « **Reply #187 on:** October 16, 2012, 05:14:19 PM »

3BarbStA
What are the characteristics of a Shakespearian Comedy?
I will list as many as I know and thus we will see that there are elements of Comedy in the plot of The Tempest but it may be one considered a PROBLEM play-i.e. there are some elements of a comedy but also the background is almost tragic, but not quite, since no one dies, and all ends well.There are theories that suggest that Shakespeare had been trying to combine the elements of the Comedy and the Tragedy in other of his plays. The ones that have been suggested are Othello, Measure for Measure and a third that at the moment I can't recall. Hard for me to think of Othello as a tragicomedy but I'm not the expert that decides these things.

Comedic Elements:
1: Greater emphasis on situatiion than character.
2:Separation and unification.
:Deception, especially mistaken identity.
4: A clever servant.
5:Disputes between characters, often within a family.
6:Multiple intertwining plots.
7:Uses all styles of comedy -slapstick, puns, dry humor, earthy humor, witty bbanter, practical jokes.
8:Pastoral elements.

In dividing Mr. S's plays it is said that there are 17 comedies. The Tempest is always included in that list.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #188 on:** October 16, 2012, 06:10:56 PM »

Jude I do see the last four elements that you shared included in The Tempest - maybe it is us reading in this discussion. We seem to talk more about the characters so that the characters in this play seem to have greater emphasis - What do you think? - Do you see in this play a greater emphasis on the situations they are in...

Maybe to be curious and taken with how the characters act and with the captivating magic of Prospero and Ariel is about the situation do you think?

So far no mistaken Identity - seems to me that was part of the story in All's Well That Ends Well however, the list does not include this magical element or willing suspension of disbelief - Mid-Summer's Night Dream is filled with it but the others I do not know well enough to know.

OK found something - in this link there is reference to Shakespeare saying something to this affect in Henry V - Not specifically called by any of the names we have attached to this magical theatrical devise in the last century or so.

http://janepublic.blogspot.com/2012/03/shakespeare-and-use-of-suspension-of.html

JudeS · « **Reply #189 on:** October 16, 2012, 11:55:45 PM »

Barb
I read the article you posted.Thank you.
It validated for me something I was totally insecure about posting. That was the comparison of The Tempest with Star Wars and Star Trek. In these shows we must suspend our disbelief in the surrounding, that is, the very strange circumstances in which the action takes place, and concentrate on the characters and their interplay.

Thus, if done well, and the writer gets us to suspend our disbelief, we become embroiled in the characters and their adventures. Shakespeare obviously was the greatest English writer to do this. Aesop, with his talking, thinking animals was not far behind.
However Mr. S made us care about his people and what happened to them.His comic relief was just icing on his brilliant play-confections.
I am too tired to continue but there is a lot to ponder on this subject.

JoanP · « **Reply #190 on:** October 17, 2012, 07:51:05 AM »

nfarm's post emphasizes the difference between comedy and tragedy... there were no unsettling indications for the audience that the Tempest would end on a tragic note - even though there are plots of mutiny galore - As you read the play, do you anticipate a tragic ending? If your answer is no, then which issues do you think will be resolved by the play's end? nfarm's post assures us that the comic plot to gain power will unravel and we are in for a satisfying resolution of the issues raised. We are free to enjoy the comic elements, puns, etc.

The problem plays are those which seem to end on a happy note, but leaves you scratching your head as you leave the theater, wondering about how that happened - with many questions left unanswered. All's Well That Ends Well is one of these. Much Ado about Nothing is another. But not The Tempest.

Quote

"We seem to talk more about the characters so that the characters in this play seem to have greater emphasis - What do you think? - Do you see in this play a greater emphasis on the situations they are in..." Barbara

Freedom seems to me the main issue. ... Considering the time in which he is writing, I'm curious to see how Shakespeare resolves the questions he is raising.

Caliban wants his freedom from Prospero, that's understandable. Stephano wants to depose Prospero - and become the king of the island... But what persuaded Trinculo to go along with the plan? What's in it for him? Was it Ariel's interference? Ariel has appeared to both of the wandering groups, presumably to lead them all to a reunion with Prospero, don't you think? This all must be Prospero's plan.

I'm looking forward to the reaction when Trinculo and Stephano are reunited with their master, the king of Naples.

Babi · « **Reply #191 on:** October 17, 2012, 09:09:53 AM »

BARB, I think 'fool' was probably a safer designation. One had to make allowance for
fools; they were not considered mentally responsible. On the other hand, one might
easily take offense at another man' 'jest'.
The more I read about jesters in your post, the more certain I became that a good
jester would need a strong and powerful patron. "A sparkling, death-defying wit"
surely required a safety net.

My impression of the times is that private libraries (and I don't believe there
were any public ones), tended to be small by today's standards. However many Prospero
had, it's not likely they had time to pack them all. I would think that the books
Propero took with him were the ones he chose himself; that he valued most. The
good scholar had been studying 'magic' for some time and obviously become fairly
adept at it. That may explain how he managed a boat single-handed.

I agree that "Measure for Measure" seems to fit the category nicely, JUDE. But Othello
I can only see as a tragedy. I don't think humor/comedy was confined to his 'comedies',
tho'. BARB, consider Falstaff in the Tudor histories, for example. Nowadays, when
a story becomes fantastic, we generally just decide to 'go with the flow' and enjoy.

JOANP, the quote from Barbara was something I had overlooked. Re-reading the
question, the thought that occurred to me was it's not an either/or issue. The important
thing, imo, is how the different characters react to the situations as they arise. Both are
essential to give the drama any depth or impact.

JoanK · « **Reply #192 on:** October 17, 2012, 03:28:48 PM »

We seem to talk more about the characters so that the characters in this play seem to have greater emphasis - What do you think? - Do you see in this play a greater emphasis on the situations they are in..."

I wonder how much our impressions of this play are skewed by the fact that we are reading, not seeing it. Thus the magical elements don't (at least for me) have the same effect that they would on the stage. If any of you have seen it, what do you think?

JoanP · « **Reply #193 on:** October 17, 2012, 05:20:54 PM »

An interesting point, JoanK. A different experience, reading the play with the description of the magical elements - and being caught up with the characters on the stage. I've seen The Tempest on stage a number of times. As I remember, the magical elements were just part fo the stage set - like the storm effects - and the emphasis was on the characters' desire for power and position. I think I'd be watching for a lot more, after examining the play as closely as we are this month.

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #194 on:** October 17, 2012, 05:52:04 PM »

"It validated for me something I was totally insecure about posting." That is the croix of it isn't it Jude - we want to be correct and in the process we do not give our own impressions the high marks they should be given until we get some direction from others who have studied more of Shakespeare than the average reader or average theater buff -

To my way of looking at it we are having this discussion not to just repeat and justify our reactions with the reactions and opinions of those who have authored a book - so let's please set aside our insecurities and just share how we perceive the play. And you, Jude do see the magic in this play and open our eyes to that view so that anything that was a question for reality was beside the point much as the two examples you have offered - That does not mean the rest of us must agree - I assume we are in agreement there is no consensus expected - we do want to hear all sides of how we each perceive the play and the characters.

JoanK I think you are right and a great piggy back to this issue of how we imagine the play - to read it we are reading it in our voice even outloud it is our voice - trained or not to catch all the drama - reminds me of the new Richard Burton book of his diaries where he speaks of how dull most poets are in their ability to read their own work where as, when he reads to the amazement and envy of the poet it sounds like the magic they hoped to achieve.

For me reading and interpreting contracts to clients for years I am inclined to approach something new that is painting an image with a practical mind - and I too like to dig deep and read support material and yet, I love the magic of poetry but then, most poetry is not trying to paint a scene with a series of events. I imagine we each approach our reading from our own mixed bag of life experiences. So please, let's hear all your viewpoints and impressions.

Babi your idea on what books were on the Island sounds good - magic - lots to understand and then other books to educate Mirana - wow - this was a time when there were the 7 disciplines considered for an education - Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic were the core and included were mathematics, geometry, music, and astronomy (which included the study of astrology). And with JoanP reminding us that the boat did not even have a sail there was not much room for necessities and more than a dozen books. I remember seeing photos of early books and they were not the neat bound books we know today. And so I am thinking this is where Jude's coined phrase, Realistic Magic takes hold.

Looks like JoanP you have included in your post a couple of themes -

"nfarm's post assures us that the comic plot to gain power will unravel"

Which characters are looking to gain power - Prospero has power - Ariel has power - Alonso and Antonio have power but not on the Island - their power as an extension of themselves is in Milan and Naples.

We have Antonio suggesting to Sebastian how to gain power and so maybe that could be considered Antonio having the power of coercion.

Miranda is taking power to satisfy her own dream with Ferdinand - Gonzalo does not seem to be on a power quest except to uplift the spirits of Alonso.

And the three rolling around on the hillside remind me of puppies playing - they do not strike me as having a clear idea of power except to satisfy a whim. I get the impression if any of the three had power they would not know what to do with it - and yet, in the play they seem to be pivotal so that without them there would be no play.

JoanP also shares this one "Freedom seems to me the main issue."

Ariel says she/he wants freedom - Miranda never said she wanted her freedom however, given the time in history she would go from her father's loving care to that of a husband - Ferdinand is temporarily a prisoner but he does not know it is a test - however, as of Act III he would like his freedom.

We know Caliban wants his freedom but he has such a perverse concept of freedom I think he really just wants to be acknowledged for the knowledge he brings to the existence of those on the Island and to return him to the pride of ownership he felt before Prospero came and educated him and he wants to do less labor. I just do not see him on his own on the island as sole proprietor after his exposure to what Prospero brought. The others want their freedom to get back home except I get the impression Prospero can take it or leave it when it comes to being free of the island.

I still see love in the mix - Alonso's love for his son and desire to find him - Ferdinand and Miranda's love for each other and her's for her father - Prospero's love for his daughter.

However, in this Act we just have to wonder how repudiation fits into all this. And maybe it becomes an issue of forgiveness - we shall see what we shall see...

JoanK · « **Reply #195 on:** October 17, 2012, 08:52:55 PM »

I admit I am a little confused at the end of Act III as to what exactly happens to the three men of evil. They go off disraught, but under a spell?

JoanP · « **Reply #196 on:** October 18, 2012, 08:40:32 AM »

JoanK, we seem to have several 'groups of three' with evil in their hearts - keeping Ariel quite busy. I'd say they are all under Prospero's spell, at this point.

Trinculo seems to be part of the trio intending to kill off Prospero - out of fear. Stephano threatens to hang him, Caliban will deprive him of water. He has no choice but to go along with them. But Ariel makes music to distract them from their purpose and leads them in another direction. I'd say they are under Ariel/Prospero's spell.

"The isle is full of noises" - I notice that Shakespeare has taken this from Strachey's account of the strange noises heard on the island of Bermuda...
the noises I've heard so far are those of the invisible musicians distracting Stephano, Caliban and Trinculo.

When Caliban advised Stephano to burn all of his books first - because without them, Prospero is a fool, I thought of a parallel between Prospero and Shakespeare himself. I think I hear Shakespeare saying that without his knowledge of literature and his his readings of current affairs, he'd have no material for the stage. Without these books, he'd be nothing - a fool. What do you think?
Am I reading too much into these lines?
What do you know about Harpies?

BarbStAubrey · « **Reply #197 on:** October 18, 2012, 01:13:26 PM »

Without these books, he'd be nothing - a fool. - I love it JoanP - talk about being a fool's fool -

Reminds me of the link to a youtube sent to me yesterday of a women calling a radio station because no other government office will give her any attention - her story is that she has had 3 expensive accidents from Deer bounding into her vehicle and if the highway department would just move the Slow for Deer signs so that the deer would cross in a less populated town or road - the signs she believes are encouraging the deer to cross the busy roads and highways in the area - she just went on and on with the radio folks not knowing what to say

I guess to this day there are folks who do not connect that animals do not read - tht signs about animal crossings are for them any more than the idea that folks who read would have no memory of what they read as Caliban is imagining. But then we learned that Caliban had a terrible time retaining the bit taught to him by Prospero.

It is hard for me to imagine Trinculo, Stephano and Caliban actually carrying out their threats but yes, they sure have it in for Prospero and would like to see him hurt and gone. I wonder if there threats would better fit under plot to gain power or the freedom issue?

JoanK · « **Reply #198 on:** October 18, 2012, 02:37:16 PM »

It was the other three I had in mind: Alexandro, Sebastian, and Alonso (who is blamed for supporting Alexandro's usupation of Prospero).

Jonathan · « **Reply #199 on:** October 18, 2012, 02:57:34 PM »

Aha! That must be it. Thanks, Barb. This resolve to murder Prospero must be the traditional Third Act Climax. I was laughing so hard at the antics of the three clowns that I missed this important piece of dramatizing technique. I had accepted the storm in Act One as the only perceivable climax. The play seems to be unconventional.

A Shakespeare Handbook I have classifies The Tempest as a Romance, so neither a Tragedy nor a Comedy. Describing a Romance as a 'storybook adventure' is a simplification, but it does suggest the main thrust of the genre.

Prof. Garber, in her book Shakespeare After All, describes The Tempest as 'sublimely beautiful'. I'm sure she would insist that the play should be seen and heard as well as read.

'I think I hear Shakespeare saying that without his knowledge of literature and his his readings of current affairs, he'd have no material for the stage. Without these books, he'd be nothing - a fool.'

Very significant statement, JoanP. You must know that Shakespeare scholars have wondered why Shakespeare left no books behind.The only significant thing in his will was the bed he left to his wife. It must be assumed that he had a lot of books at some point. Just like Prospero. I believe that Prospero's 'books', couldn't have been more than one or two, and those, books of charms, that enabled him to call up the spirits.

Not everyone thinks highly of this play. It has had it's critics. Prof. Garber mentions one, a descendant of the William Strachey who supplied Shakespeare with some curious information about storms and other tempestuous features on lonely islands.

Three times in the book Lytton Strachey is quoted for his negative appraisal of The Tempest:

'an infallible indication of the sad decline of a once great writer who turned to the genre of romance out of boredom.'

' (this) play is a sign of Shakespeare's dotage, a falling-off from greatness'

'the work of a has-been, a washed-up playwright with nothing left to say, a Shakespeare so tired of the theater that he was, as Lytton Strachey famously remarked, 'half bored to death'

Perhaps L. S. thought that Shakespeare could have done more and better with his anscestor's report from the island.

All power in the play is sinister. Confinement and freedom are the human issues in The Tempest. I think, in my confused state.

News:

Author Topic: Tempest, The ~ William Shakespeare ~ October Book Club Online (Read 60338 times)