Immigration adaptation of The Tempest.

If The Tempest were to be re-worked around a college-aged immigrant to the United States, there would be some radical changes made. I think that the story and trajectory of the plot would be greatly different because both Mama Day and Tempest were reworkings that still had the main character as a leader in their place of residence. In Mama Day, Miranda was seen as an idol and head on Willow Springs. In Tempest, Phillip was seen as the "boss" on the Greek island. If the main character in a re-working like this were an immigrant, the scope would be altered. He or she would no longer be "in charge" so-to-speak of wherever the novel was set. Immigrants are usually forced to leave their old ways behind them and acclimate to the culture that they are now living in. If Prospero's character were an immigrant from somewhere, like Norway or another European country, I can see how the plot would be different. This is because people would not view this character with any kind of authority. So if he or she had a daughter (a Miranda character), there would probably not be such a huge desire to please and appease as there is with the original play, and the two adaptations we have studied. The adaptation would probably end the same, with the main character going back home. The motives for the emigration from their home town would probably be slightly different as well. In the original play, Prospero and Miranda were sent away to sea. In Mama Day, Miranda wasn't really "sent away," and neither was Cocoa, but Cocoa left the island to get away. In Tempest, Miranda and Phillip also left Greece and went to the island to hide from Alonso and Phillip's wife. If the immigrant was leaving their home country to run away from something, then the plot's trajectory might be somewhat more parallel to the original text, than if the emigration was due to the seeking of new and better opportunities. In the end of these adaptations, the characters return home, grant forgiveness, and also seek forgiveness. But the motives for the immigrant character may not be the same as in the other texts, so, in the end, the character may want to stay in America. I think the adaptation would also depend on whether or not this immigrant is moving to American on their own, with family, or with a friend. In Mama Day, Cocoa moved away by herself, but she brought George home to Willow Springs with her. In Tempest, Phillip took Miranda and Aretha to the Greek island. If the immigrant was traveling alone, I think the ending may be drastically different.

Obviously, there are some main characters in the movie that are representing characters in the play. Phillip is Prospero and Miranda is Miranda. I found it interesting that the director/writer kept Miranda's name constant, but changed Prospero to Phillip. This goes back to our discussions about the importance of naming in Mama Day. I think that Freddy and Miranda's relationship is not focused on as much in the movie as it is in the play. In the play, much of Prospero's actions are driven by the relationship forming between Miranda and Ferdinand. But in the movie, their relationship is barely given any attention. I think the plot in the movie doesn't really follow closely to the play. The tempest is not a direct result of something Phillip called for. The film tries to portray Phillip conjuring up the storm, but he didn't have a spirit that was causing the storm, based on an order- like Prospero had Ariel do. I think the film reflects Mazursky's perspective on contemporary American life in a way that does not focus much on magic. Naylor includes magical realism in her portrayal of the play, but Mazursky focuses more on reality and things that can actually happen. He puts the play in context of the world of the 1980s. The music, clothing and business of the eighties is accurately portrayed. Naylor also puts the play in context of a southern island, but there are definitely more magical and spiritual themes that are kept alive in her version. I think Mazursky wants the focus to be more on Phillip's personal conflicts and journey, rather than the magic. The play focuses on the trajectory of Prospero's growth as an individual and father, while the film doesn't really show his growth. He seems very stagnant in the film. The end of the film shows him somewhat forgiving those who hurt him, but we don't get much sense of how he actually comes to terms with it all. I think the film lost a lot of his personal journey through trying to focus on the entertainment factor of the film.

Mama Day and The Tempest

As we discussed in class, many of the parallels that we are able to draw between The Tempest and Mama Day are made possible through the knowledge we already have about Shakespeare. Some of the commonalities between the two stories are the "rough" magic, the significance of love between two people, the setting of an island, the importance of family, and betrayal. Some of these may be coincidences. Many mystical novels take place in secluded towns where the people are disconnected from civilization. This sets up for many things to go awry. Many stories also focus on a budding romance between two young people. This too sets up the plot for many things to go wrong because love does not always turn out perfectly as people think it is supposed to.

The Tempest is not the only Shakespeare play that resonates throughout Mama Day. We see themes of Romeo and Juliet as well. George and Ophelia are the star-crossed lovers who are deeply in love with one another, but are from two very different worlds that clash. Their worlds are so different that it ends up causing the demise of their relationship because George cannot accept to do things the way that the islanders do them- he'd rather do them his own way. On page 302 of the novel, Mama Day states, "he went and did it his way, so he ain't coming back." This shows a fundamental problem in having two people from very different worlds- it's tough to compromise. And this is what we see in Romeo and Juliet.

Many of the name choices are also the same names from different Shakespearean plays, including Ophelia and Miranda. There are many references to Shakespearean literature throughout Mama Day, including the reading and analysis of King Lear by George and Miranda. Cocoa talks about how Shakespeare did not really have the much depth to his literature. If we look at Mama Day as a post-modern African American novel, we can see some of Gloria Naylor's use of dialogue between the characters in a special way. In the beginning of the novel, Cocoa states that Shakespeare simply wrote about a slave on an island, and that there wasn't substance to his writing. This is a HUGE parallel between The Tempest and Mama Day. Here, Cocoa was referring to Caliban as the slave on Prospero's island. Sapphira was the slave in Mama Day who was literally trapped in slavery until she got her eternal freedom from Bascombe Wade. In a way, though, all of the islanders were kind of enslaved by the island. Cocoa seems to be the only who to ever really leave permanently, but even she finds herself stuck on the island with George when the bridge burns down. Both of these islands have a way of trapping their residents.

 I also see a parallelism between Ariel and Cocoa in a way. Prospero is able to work his magic through the workings of Ariel. Without Ariel, Prospero's actions and magic would not be as potent. Similarly, Mama Day's magic and intuition lives through Cocoa. Without having Cocoa as the so-called "beneficiary" of the family's supernatural powers, Mama Day's magic and extra sense wouldn't be as potent either.

Even though Naylor has stated that she did not consciously correlate her novel with Shakespearean novels, I think there was some loose adaptations that were crafted for some reason, whether it was an obvious one or not. Shakespearean literature was based around an audience that was mainly white Europeans. But the audience of Naylor's Mama Day is much more diverse than that. So I think that she tailors her novel to the audience, to allow for different interpretations of Shakespearean literature, themes, characters and plots in a time setting that related to them.

Prospero- The Mastermind

Prospero- The Mastermind 

Prospero may come across as a loving father, but he definitely is a master con-artist. His original plan at the beginning of the play is to seek revenge on the men who sent his daughter and him away at sea. Antonio and Alonso are the two main characters that Prospero is seeking revenge on. Obviously, Prospero has negative feelings toward his brother Antonio because he took over his land, stripping Prospero and his daughter Miranda of all their rights and property. His original plan is to use Ariel- his sidekick spirit- in order to crash the ship that the men are on, and have them stranded and separated on the island. I think his ultimate goal was to reclaim his crown as the duke of Milan. How he was planning on doing this is not very clear, however he does seem to encourage the marriage of his daughter Miranda to Ferdinand, since Ferdinand is of royal blood. I think Prospero's plan does deviate somewhat because he starts to feel guilty for having Ariel cause a massive storm. In act 5, scene 1, Prospero is talking to Ariel and exclaims "Now does my project gather to a head. My charms crack not, my spirits obey, and time goes upright with his carriage." You can see, even toward the end of the play, that Prospero sees himself as being in charge of everything going on. I think that Prospero tries to control all of the other characters vicariously through Ariel. But we see the progression of Prospero's state of heart and mind even within the very same scene. There is a huge passage from lines 20-33 where Prospero realizes that all of the men are truly sorry for sending him and Miranda into exile over twelve years ago. The passage is as follows:

And mine shall. Hast thou, which art but air, a touch, a feeling of their afflictions, and shall not myself, one of their kind, that relish all as sharply passion as they, be kindlier moved than thou art? Though with their high wrongs I am struck to the quick, yet with my nobler reason 'gainst my fury do I take part. The rarer action is in virtue than in vengeance. They being penitent, the sole drift of my purpose doth extend not a frown further. Go release them, Ariel. My charms I’ll break, their senses I’ll restore, and they shall be themselves.

Here, Prospero's plan has completely changed. He no longer wants to seek revenge on the men. This may, in part, be due to the fact that he knows of their plan to kill him. But, nonetheless, he decides that he is satisfied with their genuine apologies. I think that Prospero's original plan did not successfully carry out with the other characters. They seemed to be able to come together and plan an attack on Prospero, regardless of his work with Ariel against them. 

Jess Clark- Black Sheep or Homewrecker

Jess Clark

At the beginning of A Thousand Acres I found myself sympathizing with Jess Clark and his "black sheep-ness." Even though he was drafted and chose to evade the draft, it seemed as though his father Harold and brother Loren outcasted him and intentionally excluded him, even after he returned home. He seemed so dark, misunderstood and different from everyone else in Zebulon County. But after I got deeper into the story, certain aspects of his character began to unravel and reveal themselves to me. A major turning point in my sympathy for him was at the end of chapter 17 on page 128. Jane Smiley writes:

"Jess said, "I feel better. The more I talk about it, the less important all of this seems. Something will come to pass. Thanks." He smiled warmly at me, then wrapped his hand around my arm, pulled me toward him, and kissed me. It was a strange sensation, a clumsy stumbling falling being caught, the broad, sunlit world narrowing to the dark focus of his cushiony lips on mine. It scared me to death, but still I discovered how much I had been waiting for it."

I don't want to even begin to analyze the character of Ginny here because I have far too much to say about her. But she is predictable and obvious, where Jess Clark is not as easy to read. This passage reveals his cunning qualities, and how he is able to manipulate Ginny into falling for him... when he knows very well that she is married! I realize that in order to have an affair it takes two people, and that Jess is not the one in a marriage, but if you look at this passage along with the following chapters, you can observe how manipulative he is.

In chapter 21 when Jess and Ginny get together, she explains how not frightened, pleasured and joyed she was that she had finally slept with him, even though she had just slept with her husband the night before. Although it still seems as though Ginny is the one to blame here, if you keep reading, you see how nonchalant Jess acts. He is still able to hang out with Ginny's whole family, including Ty. I think that this is a fundamental point in understanding his character. Most people would have a guilty conscience of some sort if they were around the husband of the woman they just slept with. But Jess does not. He goes about his daily business on the farm and around the house as if nothing had happened. 

I think Smiley wants Jess to come off as the character not to blame for all the behind-the-back scenes that are going on between he and Ginny. I think she wants the reader to blame Ginny for the affair (which I agree with to some extent). But, like I stated before, it takes two parties to commit adultery. And it seems as though Smiley is still trying to make the reader sympathize with Jess. After Jess and Ginny's first kiss, there is a part in the book where the family is playing Monopoly and Rose gets overwhelmingly upset and flips the game board over. Jess is portrayed as the calm and collected one who recollects all the pieces and seems completely cool about the whole situation. 

I think that as the book progresses we are going to start to see a breakdown of Jess's character. Maybe he will start to feel guilty, or develop stronger feelings toward Ginny. Or maybe he will have a change of heart and realize that what he is doing is wrong. But until then, his name sits on my naughty list.

Parallelism between Lear and Gloucester 

When I first started reading King Lear, the major conflict that was staged was between Lear and his daughters. As his oldest two daughters repeatedly mention, Cordelia was his “favored” child. But because of his egotistically-driven need for affirmation of his daughters’ love for him he finds himself lacking the very same love he had so desired. As the play goes on, we notice a parallelism between Lear’s conflict with his two daughters and Gloucester’s conflict with his son. Gloucester’s situation couldn’t be more alike Lear’s. Both Gloucester and Lear are heavily manipulated by their children. The major difference I saw in their situations, however, was that Lear set himself up for the manipulation. He demanded that his daughters declare their love for him in return for a reward. 

As it is now, and probably was back during the time of Shakespeare, most children would do, or say, anything to receive a reward- especially one as big as a kingdom. Gloucester, on the other hand, is manipulated by Edmund, his illegitimate son, into thinking that his first-born son Edgar is trying to murder him. Even though Lear may have set himself up, and Gloucester may have been innocent in this sense, they both made a fundamentally destructive decision to disown their children who cared for them the most. Edgar and Cordelia had nothing but loyalty and love for their fathers, but because of their fathers’ blindness, they were living their lives fatherless.

In the end of the play, we see how both Lear and Gloucester become aware of what is really going on with their families and all the conflict surrounding them. Both Cordelia and Edgar still care about their fathers despite the fact that they were disowned for no logical reason. I think that’s where there is another parallel between Gloucester and Lear- they both do not possess much logic. King Lear’s decisions were ego-driven, while Gloucester’s decisions were fear-driven (disowning Edgar and listening to Edmund’s claims about how his brother was trying to murder their father), but they both did not possess basic reasoning skills to try to understand what was going on in their situations.

 After going back over the story and looking into certain scenes more deeply, I have observed that Gloucester and Lear’s situations are almost one and the same. The details may have been different, but I think Shakespeare’s use of the parallelism was to amplify the themes he was trying to convey. The subplot of Gloucester and his sons supports the main plot of Lear and his daughters to a tee.

Lear's Fool

I started to notice that Lear's fool was no longer actively in the play once the conflict turned to battle. I am not sure why this is. It is also shortly after Edgar disguises himself as Tom o'Bedlam that the fool seems to be less present. This could be because Tom now serves Lear in the way that the fool had beforehand. The fool seemed to provide an ironic role. He was full of mockery and side-jabs at other characters. Even though he was labeled "the fool", he would often refer to others as fools. He seemed to be very involved with Lear during the stages where his sanity was questioned. The fool says during in the third scene of the third act, "This cold night will turn us all to fools and madmen." It's almost as if he is claiming that he is not already a fool. King Lear is on a teeter-totter between being clear-headed and mad. I think that the fool's function during this time is to exaggerate Lear's loss of sanity. I observed that he speaks in verse more commonly than most characters in the play. When he speaks in verse, it seems like he is almost narrating what is going on in his surroundings. That is where I see the irony. King Lear is royalty. He is supposed to be wise, profound and sophisticated. But when he starts to lose his sanity, the fool acts as his sanity, even though he is supposed to be less sophisticated than someone of royal status. The fool thinks much more logically than Lear does. He sees the actions that Lear is doing, such as dividing up his land, and knows they are irrational. In the first act, he repeatedly says, ". . . take my coxcomb . . ." as if what everyone else around him is doing is of foolish origin. That is where the irony plays in.