I recently had the displeasure of reading a previously
undiscovered (for me) Shakespeare play that was, to be charitable, subpar for
the Bard (The Winter’s Tale, see my
review http://stevesofgrass.blogspot.com/2016/03/review-of-winters-tale-by-william.html). So, it was with a healthy bit of
skepticism that I picked up yet another previously undiscovered (again, for me)
Shakespeare play, The Tempest. My edition was published by the Folger
Shakespeare Library, edited by Barbara Mowat and Paul Werstine.
While not a complete stinker like The Winter’s Tale, I still found The Tempest disappointing--certainly not Shakespeare’s best
effort. The main character, the
betrayed and exiled Duke cum sorcerer Prospero, is the main source of this
disappointment (all plays-on-words intended). Shakespeare could not seem to make up his mind about
Prospero’s motivation or basic character, and the play really does suffer as a
result.
Prospero does not hesitate to use his own beloved
daughter to the furtherance of his vengeance, even though it causes her
psychological torment--this does not do much to make him loveable. Using his magical powers, he enslaves
an innocent island native, Caliban (an anagram cannibal--well, almost), as well
as an innocent spirit and makes them do his bidding--the former hard labor, the
latter paranormal pranks against his enemies. This makes him unlikeable, even despicable, despite any
sympathy for his unjust betrayal and banishment.
There might have been a chance for Prospero to become a
sympathetic anti-hero or even a likeable villain, but then, bafflingly,
Shakespeare has Prospero abandon all of his revenge schemes, forgive his
betrayers, allow plotting assassins to go unpunished, and tops this off by
having him marry his daughter literally to the first man she meets. Pick a side, Shakespeare!
Anyway, if you have a chance to see this one, it might
not be worth your time. I’m not
sure it would have been worth my time to read it, but for my son having to read
it for a college lit course.
