A Somewhat Weird Warm-Up to the Actual Tempest Essay...

In discussions of The Tempest, by William Shakespeare, one controversial issue throughout the play has been whether or not Shakespeare meant to convey a particular view on imperialism. When looking at the opinion of George Will, The Tempest would be about this very issue. Portrayed in the story, Caliban is a native that is “civilized” and taken advantage of by outsiders. This is considered the traditional, black and white-cookie cutter view… what most people consider the play to be about. But could there be another “traditional” view? I mean after all the play was written over five hundred years or so ago. Will argues that “critics strip literature of its authority. Criticism displaces literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning.” So, in this sense, is traditional meaning and historically accepted the same thing?

On the other hand, we have critics like Stephan Greenblatt that believe that “the painful, messy struggles over rights and values” is what ultimately begins progression and prevention of cultural compliance. The Tempest can be interpreted as a direct parallel to someone else’s own experiences, and not just the traditional view. Greenblatt believes that students in this day and age are passive and simply accepting everything they are being told by teachers… just like the traditional way of learning; a teacher lectures, you listen and take notes, study, then regurgitate it on a multiple choice test, forgetting everything the very next week. Stephen Greenblatt would argue that people need to start challenging the ‘traditional’ interpretation of literary works.

All in all, I would have to say that both views have their strengths and weaknesses. Classics become classics because they can be interpreted in ways that can relate to each day in age, every new and emerging decade can benefit from its message. However I do believe it is important to consider its original or perhaps “traditional” meaning.