March 1, 2005

The Balance of Symbolism

i think that it was intresting to see in the articles to entirely different approches to the same play. It brings the fact to mind that Shakespears plays could be interpreted in all kinds of ways, so much like somebody can spot the relationship between Caliban and Prospero as slave and Master, one can also see in it father and son. Just like they might interpret Caliban to a black man symbolizing the slave trde that was begining to be present in Shakespeare's time others can also see him as the personification of the human side of man.

Just like so many people saw Miranda's character as the weaker link that was manipulated and obedient to follow Prospero's wishes. Others can see a strong character that speaks her mind and even at a point in the play speaks against her father in order to save Ferdinands life. Honestly i think we will never know wether the meaning of the play was meant to express this or that view of a relationship or a meaning, i think deep down is just up to the reader to make his and her mind about a certain opinion.

One thing that i found intresting though about Leinninger's essay was the observation that if Miranda would had been a man instead of a woman the context of the play would had been very different. Mainly because Caliban would had never been punished with the accusation that he tried to "violate" prospero's daughters chasity and plus a son would not have to serve a father' wishes as ardorly as a daughter could.

I mean when you think about it, if Miranda would had been a son and her character would had still followed Prospero's wishes as they did on the play, how would it make that character seem? Week...frail? You would even think him even a weak link to Prospero an unable to be a king and inherrit the throne, for who wants a king that allows himself to be governed by other influences easily. Yet in a queen, obedience, dedication, and love for a father are concidered virtues, and i don't think its because of a anti feminist statement that Shakespeare wanted to portray it was just the a main fact that existed in the society that he lived in.

What do you all think?

Posted by MisheilaPellot at March 1, 2005 2:13 PM | TrackBack
Comments

The article, as you said was claiming that if Miranda would ahve been a man Caliban could not have been puncihed for "violating" Miranda. However, i believe it was the David Dabydeen article we read where it talked about how Caliban might have been a woman who was a lesbain.

So I'm a bit confused: Do you think the author meant if Miranada were a man Prospero wouldn't have been so overprocted of her, and thus not puniched Caliban, or is she making a blantent claim Caliban is defiantely a man. I think it the latter of the two. What do you think?

Posted by: kellyn at March 2, 2005 9:30 AM

I felt I had more to add to this so let's start from scratch. Please ignore the comment listed above:

The article, as you said was claiming that if Miranda would have been a man Caliban could not have been punished for "violating" Miranda. However, I believe it was the David Dabydeen article we read where it talked about how Caliban might have been a woman who was a lesbian.

So I'm a bit confused: Do you think the author meant if Miranda were a man Prospero wouldn't have been so over protective of her, and thus not punished Caliban, or is she making a blatant claim Caliban is defiantly a man. I think it the latter of the two. What do you think?

Ashley's blog (http://blogs.setonhill.edu/AshleyThornton/007980.html) makes a good reference to the homosexuality debate. Sorry I don't know how to make links in blog entries!!

Also, I completely agree with you on the fact Shakespeare was not anti-feminist but following the ideals of the time. This is actually my paper topic!!

Posted by: kellyn at March 3, 2005 9:39 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?