I must be a weirdo, because I liked The Tempest.

In the discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been focused mostly on Shakespeare’s interpretation of the play. On one hand, views on post colonialism argue that Shakespeare wrote against imperialism and had sympathy for the character Caliban. On the other hand more traditional readers contends Shakespeare did intend to write for his audience and encourage imperialism. Others even maintain an opinion in the middle because they can’t decide which point they agree with more. However, my own view is that Shakespeare had two mind sets for righting his plays. He would please the audience but also subtly writes against the universal beliefs of the Elizabethan world.

There are a lot of different characters in Shakespeare’s plays that I think relate to Caliban’s debatable situation. One character I’ve mentioned in a recent blog was Shylock. In The Merchant of Venice, Antonio was the Christian character that Europeans would most likely side with and Shylock was supposed to be hated because he was Jewish. Another play that can prove that Shakespeare had sympathy towards minorities is Othello. Othello is African and of course back in Shakespeare’s days people of that race were usually used as slaves or known as ‘savage’. Othello is the main character (duh) and you wouldn’t expect anything to be written about an African in those times. A lot of the Caucasian characters didn’t like Othello and they tried to ruin his marriage (he was married to someone white) and then they also took him to court. Something that I found interesting was that when Othello got to court, the Duke let him speak and actually listened to what he had to say. This might be how Shakespeare wants people to be treated and not to be stereotypical. Or maybe not, but I want to believe that’s how Shakespeare was. So Shakespeare could have easily wrote Caliban with two mind sets: To please the audience and to please himself.   

The script of A Tempest takes on a slightly different point of view of Shakespeare’s play. The author Aime Cesaire seems to believe that Shakespeare was a post colonist. I didn’t really agree with this interpretation. When I read The Tempest, I didn’t see Prospero as a bad guy, but he just tried to do what he thought was right by teaching Caliban his language. Aime Cesaire’s take on the play made Prospero’s character a horrible person. Shakespeare did not intend for Prospero’s character to be hated, he was supposed to be loved. The viewpoint of the author was opposite from the viewpoint of Shakespeare. In A Tempest, Ariel hates Prospero just as much a Caliban. In the play though, Ariel is actually quite fond of Prospero and does not mind working for him as long as Prospero promises his freedom, and this promise he does keep.