The Arguments of Brown and Willis about The Tempest - Essay Example

Topic: Compare the arguments of Brown and Willis about "The Tempest" (William Shakespeare) and discuss how their arguments and/or comparison might help us in understand something about “The Other”. Deborah Willis has made a complaint on the critics’ literature on historicism passively repeating the same discourse on social and political contexts through Shakespeare’s The Tempest in Shakespeare’s Tempest and the Discourse of Colonialism. Quoting Paul Brown’s view on “The Other” where the colonial discourse “producing” a threatening “Other” refers to the reality of colonial power. This otherness is represented by the master-less characters of Stephano and Trinculo, by the sexuality of Miranda and Ferdinand, and particularly of Caliban. Through this otherness of the above characters, colonial powers show their rank, royalty, and piety to substantiate the validity of their colonial existence. As Willis says, in the words of Brown, the colonial power uses the “The Other” element to “further its workings” by changing the desire in themselves. This desire is certainly the desire to enslave and rule the downtrodden. The colonial discourse of the “The Other” represents the negative powers that can destabilize their colonialism. The “Otherness” in the characters of Stephano and Trinculo points towards a positive otherness in the modern context where all are born free; no one is the master, all are equal but in the times of Shakespeare, this feeling of “otherness” by becoming master-less was something not associated positively. The same holds true of the sexuality of Miranda and Ferdinand. Both love each other and the exhibition of that love borders on sexuality, which embodies “otherness”. Coming to the “Otherness” of Caliban, it is more explicit than the otherness of Stephano, Trinculo, Miranda, and Ferdinand because his voice against the domination of Prospero on him and his island is more vocal. Being a human subject, he is barbaric like Stephano and Trinculo are master less and Miranda and Ferdinand are sexual. All these feelings are inherent in human beings and are natural. Like Caliban, all human beings have these vices and human virtues too. Actually, the extent of a trait determines whether it is a virtue or vice. Being colonial does not relate with being barbaric, sexual or master less. One may be colonial or not but being colonial or not is not related to possess any of these feelings of “masterlessness,” “sexuality,” and “barbarism” To Brown, the masterlessness, illicit sexuality and barbarism create similar feelings in the “civil” man, endangering by revealing the internal complexities affecting the colonial rule itself. Brown interprets this colonial discourse as never ending because if it rests, it would face revolt from ‘The Other’. To suppress the potential power of the ‘The Other’, on which the existence of colonialism survives, it is crucial to take action against it. Brown feels that the identity of the play gets lost in the depiction of colonial discourse. The ambivalences erupt from the colonial project itself. The play to Brown is an “intervention” that fails in its powerful effects that cheat the play itself. Actually, Shakespeare wants to represent himself a protagonist of colonial powers but cannot control the desire to expose the wrong ways of colonialism because of the inherent flaws of the project, i.e. colonial discourse. Willis disagrees with Brown on the representation of ambivalences as automatic endorsements. To Willis, there are other inherent meanings that Brown has ignored, which are more crucial than colonialism. Brown’s arguments have made the criticism of The Tempest a mistake of merging Prospero with his creator – Shakespeare. Prospero views Caliban as a danger to his colonial identity but audiences sympathize with this character. Caliban brings into focus the objectionable features of Prospero’s behavior in a way that is the strategy of the play. To prove her argument that to Shakespeare too, Caliban is not a threat; a speech is delivered by Caliban on his legal right to possess the island. Thus, Brown erred in projecting Prospero’s character merging with its colonial intentions with that of Shakespeare. Actually, Willis feels, Shakespeare wants the audiences to recognize the claim of Caliban to the island and the weaknesses of Prospero. ‘The Other’ that is threatening, according to Willis, is not Caliban but Antonio. Prospero has found the traits of this dangerous “Other” in Antonio. While describing their history to Miranda, he reveals his hatred of Antonio because of Antonio’s “evil nature”. Prospero contrasts his benevolent nature with the deceitful, violent, and evil nature of Antonio whose rebellion and cheat on his brother becomes the reason of Prospero’s ousting from the state to an unknown island. The whole play, according to Willis, supports Prospero’s presenting Antonio as a dangerous “Other”. It is somewhat evident from the fact that Antonio finds no sympathizers for his treachery and deceit to his brother while Caliban is not alone while demanding his island back from Prospero; audiences share his cause to fight for the island which he wants to reclaim from Prospero. The threatening “Other” represented by Antonio is a representation of evil in human nature, which cannot be totally discarded. Antonio’s incitation of Sebastian to takeover the kingdom from Alonso and murder him points towards a morbid nature to do treacherous acts. He is simply not capable of feeling the family bonds dear to all. He is a perennial enemy of the state whoever the ruler is. Prospero calls Antonio “unnatural”. It indicates lack of warmth for the blood relations in Antonio. Feelings of love and regard come naturally; Antonio is bereft of such feelings, so he is “unnatural.” That’s why we should like Willis consider Antonio “The Other”. The question raised indirectly is: why some people become ‘Others’; is it because they side with the evil forces of nature like Antonio? Antonio is cold and cynical in humor and is full of hatred for the feeling of conscience. At the end of the play, his silence gives the impression that he has no remorse for what wrongs he has committed. Prospero can make Alonso feel sorry for his misconduct by arousing feelings in Alonso for his son Ferdinand but Antonio can not be made to share such humane feelings, so easily Antonio is the type called ‘Other’. Prospero himself is not totally opposite of Antonio as he recalls at one point of time, he renounced power. Evil flourishes in the congenial environment and that congenial environment was provided by the goodness of Prospero, as having belief in the doings of one’s children cannot be good parenting. It was this trust in his brother Antonio that gave birth to falsehood in Antonio. Willis finds a cause and effect relation between them. Antonio’s provoking of Sebastian once again brings the past live. It makes Prospero rigid and not to trust Antonio again and prompts him to secretly follow Antonio’s activities. After once again becoming the Duke, Prospero sees to it that the powers of dukedom are in the right hands, as Prospero himself is not keen to fulfill the responsibilities of the rank of Duke. Antonio is quite threatening in the role of “Other”. Had he been bestowed with the powers of the rank he would have been worst. Keeping this in mind the shortcomings in the character of Prospero can be easily sidelined. Prospero was not eager in his duties, might have affected the fall in Antonio but these shortcomings in Prospero are not big enough to offer a comparison with that of Antonio’s flaws. The terms “savagism”, and “masterlessness”, as stated by Brown can be attributed to the character of Antonio. Willis finds the authenticity of moral right of Prospero to rule in the stark show of evil design of Antonio, as his savage attitude requires a “civilized” and divine power to control. Antonio is perennially a disruptive power even when corrected by Prospero. In the final scene, Antonio is unable to come out of the changed circumstances; he is still adamant and not participative. Shakespeare has through the character of Prospero shown his unforgiving nature responsible for Antonio’s behavior. Prospero feels very indecisive on how to react with a close relation because of his past misdeeds. He doesn’t want to be unnatural by sending Antonio to be executed for his sins. The sins of Antonio are so close to his heart that redemption can not be the final alternative. Prospero knows that he has to live with this threat forever. Brown has also analyzed the term “Other” in his analysis of Prospero, as used by him for his brother who needs to be in the gaze of Prospero for he is a “site of disruption”. On the other hand, Caliban may not be a “print of goodness”, and is a born devil but he is not the threatening “Other” type, as is Antonio in the mind of Prospero. It is clearly indicated in the initial scenes of the play where Prospero shows anger to Miranda, Ariel, and Caliban too in the same row although being so benevolent and godly. Willis has clearly elaborated “The Other” by quoting Brown, interpreting the traits through the character of Antonio leaving no doubt that “The Other” belongs to Antonio, not Caliban. Our understanding of “the other” gets enriched after discussing the arguments of Brown and Willis. We come to know the positive and negative sides of “the otherness”; being master of our own self, arousing of sexual desires and rough behavior are not as negative traits as scheming to usurp power, plotting a murder and always showing adamant nature that cannot be improvised. Some human feelings are just natural as these are implicit like sexual desires arising out of love relationship because that takes to the climax of love making. Man is barbaric by nature. When we express our feelings without analyzing the pros and cons, we show barbaric reactions of anger, loosing temper and using abusive language. We disobey our teachers and elders knowing well that it is not good but because we want to be free from any shackles. In other words, we want to be our own masters. Do we want to kill others to usurp their belongings? Of course, not! Life gives so many chances to all of us. Some of us may get overpowered by natural human emotions some times but not always. This “otherness” is there in all of us but we should need to differentiate between the positive and negative “otherness” of the characters represented in The Tempest. Read More