Critical Critics

In discussions of The Tempest and the boundaries of interpretation by critics, a major controversy has broken out over whether or not Shakespeare intended to connect The Tempest to the political issue of imperialism and colonialism.  On the one hand, critics such as Aime Cesaire argue that the context of the Shakespeare era is at full works in The Tempest.  In her rewriting of The Tempest titled, A Tempest, she highlights what she thinks to be the central theme of the play—imperialism. Advocators of this interpretation include Stephen Greenblatt who states, “It is, I believe, all but possible to understand these plays without grappling with the dark energies upon which Shakespeare’s art so powerfully draws.” He advocates the importance placed on imperialism inferred from the context of The Tempest. Both support that the characters of Caliban and Ariel are enslaved by the foreign figure of Prospero, representing the waft of imperialist on native inhabitants. On the other hand are the critics who believe that such analysis by contextual supporters goes too far. Among these individuals stands George Will. He argues, “By “deconstructing,” or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority.” Will believes that overzealous critics become in control of a text’s purpose when they analyze it too far. “Critics displace literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning.” Taking these extremely polarized viewpoints into account I lean towards the argument made by Will, and I believe that it is too far a leap to connect The Tempest to imperialism and colonialism. I feel that Shakespeare intended no reference, or at least very little reference, to be made to the imperialism of his time through his writing of the comedic and highly controversial play, The Tempest.