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.

Hello!

I'm Ashley. I just transferred to Ohio State this year. I am a bookworm and a Reds fan. I love the month of October. I am a swim team coach, swim lesson instructor and CPR instructor at the YMCA. I love my jobs because I love to teach. I cannot wait to be a high school science teacher!