In discussions of The Tempest by William Shakespeare, one controversial issue has been over whether or not Shakespeare was in favor of colonization. On the one hand, we are able to have an insight as to how Caliban feels towards Prospero. Because of this, we are able to see that all of Prospero’s customs were forced upon Caliban without Caliban’s consent. On the other hand, we see that Caliban wasn’t always treated as a monster, but as one of the family. It wasn’t until Caliban tried to rape Prospero’s daughter Miranda, that he was thrown out and treaded like a slave. Before that we are also shown that Prospero treated Caliban as his son, caring for him and teaching him how to speak. However, I think that Shakespeare wrote about both sides of colonization so that his readers could decide for themselves what they want to believe. Throughout The Tempest he gives evidence that supports both sides.
In discussions of The Tempest I think the traditional view is that through his writing, Shakespeare was in favor of Colonization. However, there may be other ways to think about this text. For one thing, I think Aime Cesaire’s Tempest shows us his interpretation of what Shakespeare was trying to say in his writing. This is one persons view of what the story means to them. I also think that Stephen Greenblatt and George Will’s debate supports the idea that there are many different ways to approach a piece of writing. They both strongly believe differently how writing should be read and interpreted. Therefore, taking these positions into account, I think that we cannot determine what side Shakespeare was taking when he was writing this play, but we can each have and defend our own opinions of what we think Shakespeare was trying to tell his readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment