Word Choices - AP English Literature - Blog

Feeling It In My Spine

A few times since the year began, Mr. Heidkamp has mentioned "feeling a reading in your spine". At first, I was a little bit confused by this idea. I had no clue how you could feel something like that in your spine, and I was certain it had never happened to me. Never the less, after some thought and reflection, I realized I had actually experienced something like this while reading "The Tempest Tales". I can't remember exactly, but I believe it occurred somewhere around forty pages into the book. Tempest was arguing with Joshua about why he should not be damned, and to me, he was saying some incredibly powerful words. The way Tempest looked at life, society, and the struggles of life really struck a nerve in me. While reading his analysis of life and evil/the reasons behind evil, I actually got chills all through my body. I felt like what he was saying really applies to a higher level of living, and for some reason, I just really connected with Tempest. It's sort of hard for me to explain exactly what I felt, but after looking back on this experience, I now definitely have a better understanding of what Mr. Heidkamp was talking about.

The Break Between Harlem and Heaven

In the Tempest Tales, Mosley distinctly separates the morals of Heaven and Harlem.  I don't think he does this to villify the moral values of Harlem, but rather to question the validity of Heaven's standards in the modern world.

The people who live in Harlem have to act a certain way to survive, and also rarely have a chance to escape the conditions they live in.  They have no choice but to break Heaven's rules and yet they are put into Hell.  Tempest questions Heaven's ideal view that people are all born with the possibility of going to Heaven.

Do you think that the individual situations of people deserve individual moral rulings, or can the same morals apply to everyone?

semi parallel: like the euphrates and tigris or a river runs through it or some fruity comparison

On the surface Dead Man may seem like pointless weirdness, or in high school terms "super random." And although I find the symbolism loose and confusing, I do think that there is still a very clear message to the work. This is one of many times I have seen the film but i think it made more sense this time because of the work we had done with, Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse now. 

Besides all of them having a symbolic river in it (as I cleverly alluded to in the title), these three works have many parallel motifs and they all serve similar purposes as works of art in their respective culture. It was because of the close relationship Dead Man had to more explicit work like Heart of Darkness that I could figure out these Purposes. 

All three of these movies form a powerful message on a couple or more different levels. At least two or more levels. One level being sociological or a criticism of actual tangible events in a culture (imperialism, savage wars, western bruteness) and the next a more ontological or 'deep' meaning. It happens that we may be blessed with several 'deep' meanings in each work.

I personally I have noticed allusions to intellectual discovery and universal development as an allegorical theme in each.  to be continued for the extra points...

Folsom Prison Freedom

A prison-the accepted antithesis of freedom-becomes a place of liberation for Merseault. It is the prison that reassured the strength of his beliefs.

Merseault had realized that the incarceration of existence cannot truly be escaped. We see this through the reacurring descriptions of the sun, the heat, and the light. Whether it is inflicted by human attempts or the inevitable, no one will ever really be free. 

In saying this, we still cant help but think one situation of life is more free than the other. For example, the rich verse poor, or the business man in cubicle verse the wondering vagabond. However, this is where Merseault rebukes all of our deep rooted fallacies.

When a man can be just as satisfied in prison on deaths row as when he is frolicking on the beach then we must think something is wrong with our system.

For america, everything we do is focused towards a notion that there is some better way of life. We term it as success. But lifes absurdity is noticed when one hundred memories are no more valuable than one. 

The past is based on memory, and what we thrive on is the past. The past is our romantic tool for hope. But the past is also the most elastic of all time. The past is a twisted creature. The past can be created into anything making the present useless.

Insolent Noisemaker!

I would just like to commend Shakespeare on his insults, namely in The Tempest because that's what we're reading. Seeing as this is a comedy, I don't feel bad emphasizing the insults as one of THE BEST parts of the play. They're funny, witty, and abundant. Here are a few of them I picked out for your enjoyment in celebration of being DONE with this unit.

Hang cur, hang, you whoreson, insolent noisemaker!

Hell is empty and all the devils are here. 

Toads, beetles, bats, light on you.

Watch out he's winding the watch of his wit, by and by it will strike.

What strange fish hath made his meal on thee? 

Most wicked sir, whom to call brother would even infect my mouth

What have we here?, a man or a fish, dead or alive ? 

Futile Intensity

Towards the end of the Tempest, Prospero becomes increasingly attached to the execution of his plan shown by his unwillingness to be distracted whatsoever. For example, following his celebration for the upcoming marriage of his daughter to Ferdinand, Prospero almost forgets about Caliban's plot to murder him. This threat which seems like it should be a serious concern of Prospero yet he decides to continue his plan first.

Ironically, as Prospero's plan to gain revenge on his past acquaintances reaches its desired outcome he detaches himself somewhat and chooses to forgive instead. His violent will had been building up during his imprisoning of the people on the island yet he lets them off without any other punishment. This may have been a result of Prospero's lacking confidence in his plan at the start leading to a very pleased state when he succeeded. This also may have been Prospero's plan all along, and the different times may have just required different amounts of involvement. This radical change in Prospero's treatment of his captives definitely is the result of some external motivating(or de-motivating) factor.

Conflict and Consensus

Our class has produced many different themes for Shakespeare. And we all seem to campaign for our own idea or allegory. But I don't think that they have to be mutually exclusive.

Some of us see the play as an allegory for Shakespeare's life. Which makes a lot of sense in terms of Prospero's speech in act four, when he apologizes for his manipulation, but does not seem to fit very well with the rest of the book. And then there is the forgiveness as an ideal interpretation, which goes very well with Prospero's forgiveness in act five, but ignores the rest of the play. And finally, the third common reading that I have picked up on is the post-colonial reading, which speaks well for the power struggles in the book but not at all for the ending.

I don't think that these views necessarily conflict. Shakespeare was a genius, and I believe he was capable of producing multiple themes about a work, not just one exclusive one. Mr H called this view conflicted or confused, but I do not think that it is confused, in that Shakespeare's intentions were to attest to all of these themes, and it is not conflicting, in the fact that none of the themes conflict eachother. Are there any other readings that I have not mentioned that do conflict? or that weren't volitional?

Postcolonialist vs Traditionalist

In any great piece of literature, critics can take many different approaches for the intentions of the author. The Tempest can be presented to imply politics or simply as a wonderful literary piece of work. It is possible to connect Shakespeare's work to the time period it was written in. 

The European's began to dominate the New World natives at the time. Caliban could be perceived as a monster and a villain yet with this political outlook it is more likely that he would be a heroic rebel. Caliban being from Africa and Prospero being from Europe can be related to the European's relationship with the natives in the New World. In the end Prospero helps everyone become content and restores harmony, Caliban eventually accepts Prospero's punishment.

A traditional outlook would be saying that Shakespeare wrote an amazing play and the only thing to be taken from it is what is written in the text.  That can be difficult because it was written so many years ago that their use of words could of had a different meaning then than they do now.

Personally I agree with the political view of The Tempest. However, I do believe that Shakespeare created a great story for this play but I think the underlying historic connections are undeniable.

Shakespeare's Two Weeks Notice

A man who is the most powerful in his field.  One who can control even the spirits with his magic. Ring any bells?  Shakespeare was and still is the most prolific writer to ever walk the earth.  His plays captivate the minds of millions, and dare I say enslave some to its intricacies.  Is the Tempest Shakespeare's last hurrah?  By the end of the play Prospero tires of both his consuming plan and the magic which he possesses.  Is Shakespeare really pointing to his wish to retire from playwriting? 

The best evidence to me is after he puts on the parade for Miranda and Ferdinand, and goes on and on about the temporary nature of what we leave behind. He even says that the "great globe itself" will dissolve.  I think that this globe is a pun for both the globe on which we live and the Globe theater in which all of Shakespeare's magic was brought to life. 

This passage by Prospero infers that Shakespeare towards the end of his life was doubtful about the lasting impact of his plays.  In the end of the play Prospero even relinquishes his magic, and returns to the life that he had left.  I believe that this is Shakespeare's two weeks notice, his letter of retirement, to go back to the life which he left to become the most prolific writer the world has ever known. 

Fairy Tale Love?

The Tempest tells a love story that is somewhat similar to a fairy tale story. Although it was written prior to fairy tales, it has the same plot line. The two characters meet (they even happen to meet through song which is slightly Disney Princess movie-esque), the moment their eyes meet it's love at first sight, the couple accepts this beautiful love but there is something that is stopping them from being together (Prospero), and last the couple manages to work through their one problem and finally they get married and live happily ever after. While the language of Shakespeare creates a more complicated read than the normal story book, this is essentially the story line between Ferdinand and Miranda. 

 Reading this plot made we wonder, what is the point of these fairy tale love stories? And also, why is Shakespeare including such a strange courtship within his play? While this adds a romantic twist to the deception and power struggles that crowd the pages of The Tempest, I don't think that this radical of a love story is necessary. I'm not sure why there is such a call for this crazy, uncontrollable, love at first sight relationship. 

Perhaps this head over heels relationship creates more of a sense of romance and passion. However, I believe that maybe this relationship is so intense within the play because every other relationship is ridden with anger, grief, hate, pain, or revenge. This relationship is radical but it is the opposite of those things because it is pure love between two people. Still, I'm at a loss as to why there is such a draw towards the idea of fairy tale love. Maybe people want a fantasy that is better than their reality. 

Why Prospero?!

As I read the end of the play, I could not understand why Prospero wanted to give up so much of his power when he talks about giving up his magic, "I'll break my staff, bury it certain fathoms in the earth, and deeper than did ever plummet sound. I"ll drown my book." pg 149 lines 63-66

How is it that a man who boasted of all his power and plan to take revenge is suddenly forgiving everyone and giving up what distinguishes him from every one else. Prospero is the only man who can control the spirits and convince them to do what he pleases, he uses his spells and charms to fool others and uses his magic on Caliban, Stephano, and Trinculo to stop their plot to kill him. He tells Ariel how sorry he feels and instead of satisfying his desire to kill them, he says he must feel compassion, forgive them and he lets them go. I wonder if his magic was ever a burden to him, otherwise, why would he want to give it up all of a sudden?

Altered States

It seems as though the state-of-mind of the Characters in The Tempestplays a large role in the character development.  First off there is sleepiness.  At the beginning of the play we are introduced to Prospero's controlling nature as he consistently enchants his daughter to sleep and wake.  However, near the end of the play, his consistency in enchanting her slowly fades away, although not all together does it disappear.  Another example of sleepiness is in Act II scene i, where the various nobles/lords are found on the island.  As all but Antonio and Sebastian fall asleep, Antonio and Sebastian begin to plot to kill Alonso, the King of Naples.  The second major state-of-mind that enhances the characters is that of drunkenness.  As Stephano and Trinculo continue to drink more and more, they treat Caliban harsher and harsher.  Later in their drunken state, they conjure the idea to murder Prospero and rule the island.  The various states-of-mind reveal the true nature of some characters, while it develops the nature of other characters.

The Speech that Leaves not a Rack Behind

At the end of the masque in Act IV, Prospero launches into an unexpected philosophical monologue.  He says, "Like the baseless fabric of this vision, the cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, the solemn temples, the great globe itself, yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, and, like this insubstantial pageant faded, leave not a rack behind.  We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep" (IV.i.168-175).

I found this quotation unexpected, as previously Prospero didn't seem concerned with anything other than his power, his revenge, and his daughter.  I came up with three possible explanations for his speech.  First, he could be facing an internal crisis in which he begins to doubt whether his plotting is worth the trouble.  However, since right after this he puts Ferdinand in harm's way and shoos away Caliban, Stephano, and Trinculo, this explanation seems unlikely. 

Second, he could be using this philosophy that life is all a dream to justify his revenge against Antonio and Alonso.  If the whole globe will fade away anyways, what's to stop Prospero from fulfilling his natural desire for revenge?  I'm also unsure of this explanation, because I don't recall Prospero ever hinting at this belief before.

Finally, I came to the conclusion that Prospero was just spewing a bunch of hot air.  His elegant words were no more than a smokescreen with which he could escape and leave Ferdinand in his place, lying in the cell.  If this explanation is true, though, why did Shakespeare even include Prospero's dreamy speech?  Or is there another, more logical explanation for everything?

False Alarm?

While I was reading Act 4 of The Tempest I had a moment of true worry.

"If you be pleased, retire into my cell and there repose..." The second Prospero said this on page 133 on line 178, I panicked. I instantly remembered Caliban's plan to kill Prospero while he took a nap in his cell! I quickly hated Prospero for knowing this plan and thought he was doing this on purpose.

Although Stephano accidentally killing Ferdinand would add an interesting twist and definitely make the play more tragic. I grew so concerned in several lines of text I was slightly embarrassed. How could Prospero do that!? And poor Miranda! Luckily as the scene continued I ended up being able to relax as Stephano and Trinculo become distracted by the fancy garments.

I let out a huge sigh of relief, but still wondered whether Prospero could actually do something like that? Will this play be tragic?

Oh Seb...

In Act Two, Scene One, after everyone fell asleep Antonio sees a perfect opportunity for Sebastian to become King of Naples. Unfortunately for Antonio, Sebastian is a little slow to catch on.

Beginning on page 67, line 226, Antonio first notices the chance. "Worthy Sebastian... Th' occasion speaks to thee, and my strong imagination sees a crown dropping upon thy head". Sebastian obliviously responds, "What, art thou waking?" and I can only laugh at this. Come on Seb take a hint.

So two pages of the play later, line 307. Sebastian finally realizes what Antonio wants him to do, with a simple response, "Methinks I do." For some strange reason I don't see this plan being to successful and I don't believe silly Sebastian will ever be King of Naples. But can Antonio? Will this plan simply be a failed attempt or will Antonio maybe take matters into his own hands?

Typo or No?

"Abhorred slave, which any print of goodness wilt not take, being capable of all ill! I pitied thee, took pains to make thee speak, taught thee each hour one thing or other. When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning, but wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish, I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known. But they vile race, though thou didst learn, had that in't which good natures could not abide with. Therefore wast thou deservedly confined into this rock, who hadst deserved more than a prison" (Page 39).

In our Folger's this line is said to be Miranda's, but yesterday in class Mr. Heidkamp addressed the possibility of an error. When looking on writing prompt A my group noticed what we though was an error on his part and we thought it took away from the question if it were Miranda. He then said it was most likely an error in our version of the play and many people believe this line is one of Prospero's.

So here's the question, is it Miranda or Prospero? Miranda is very oblivious and naive, most people don't think she is capable of saying this line. But I can see Miranda teaching some poor person who ended up living with them and then being mad if Caliban did attempt to rape her. Though this line being Prospero does make more sense, but for some reason I struggle with the idea that Propero said this. Who do you think said the line, is it a typo or no?

Why Does There Always Have To Be A Hero?

Today, during the class discussion I was struck with the question: why are we constantly searching for a hero and a villain within any text? In my opinion, this seems much too simplistic of a reading for most texts with a more complicated plot than say a Disney movie.

 During class we were discussing who is the hero and who is the villain within Shakespeare's The Tempest: Caliban or Prospero. However, I don't think that many characters can simply be defined as good and evil within a text which is essentially what the hero, villain phenomena is attempting to create. I believe that within the play, Shakespeare also conveys the difficulty of creating a character that is only good or only evil. This is obvious because the reader is constantly struggling with who is in the wrong, specifically within the Prospero, Caliban relationship. Both seem to have traits that define them that neither force them into the mold of good nor bad. 

So, why do we try to fit characters within this mold if they are not supposed to be? I believe that although the characters may not fit, looking at them in this way allows the reader to completely dissect the character, looking for pieces which will fit on either side. This model is a good way to analyze, however, I do not think that we should constantly be looking for a distinct answer, sometimes ambiguity in the right places, is what creates beauty and complexity within a piece of literature. 

The Subjugation of Women in the Tempest

In Act 3 scene 1 of The Tempest, Shakespeare portrays women as unequal to men through Miranda's lines, lines 94-103. Miranda begins crying, and when Ferdinand asks her what she is crying because of, she replies, "at mine unworthiness." Later, although Miranda wants to marry Ferdinand, she says that even if he won't marry her, "I'll die your maid." This gives Ferdinand all of the power in their relationship, and shows Miranda's belief that she cannot have a life independent of him. Miranda thinks that she only has two options in life, she can marry Ferdinand, or spend her life loving and being loyal to Ferdinand, even if he will not marry her.

Near the end of the section, Miranda says, "To be your fellow you may deny me, but I'll be your servant whether you will or no." In the context of this line, fellow means companion. Miranda acknowledges that she isn't considered one of Ferdinand's equals, but consents to be his "servant" if he refuses to consider her an equal.

Miranda's lines portray the message that women are unequal to men through her acceptance of Ferdinand's superiority and her own submission.

The Fantastick Tempest

I love musical theater. So when we started reading Shakespeare's The Tempest, I felt a little nagging in the back of my brain telling me that his particular play was reminiscent of a show I knew.

Then, one day it clicked.."The Fantasticks!" This show is about about two best friends and next door neighbors who conspire to get their children to marry each other. They do this by pretending to hate each other. Seriously, it works. They also stage a crime against the daughter, forcing the son to rescue her, thus solidifying their relationship. This causes real friction between the two families, providing the show with a conflict.

Their manipulation reminded me heavily of Prospero. hey pretends to hate Ferdinand in order to get Miranda to fall in love with him. He stages a shipwreck so as to easily pray on the emotions of everyone involved. In the musical, the story ended with the two children realizing that what they knew of the world wasn't enough. Their entire perception of life and love was warped by their fathers' staging and deception.

So many musical draw from famous plays. I can only hope that the Tempest ends in a similar fashion. As characters of pure naivety, Miranda and Ferdinand leave quite a bit to be desired.

ProspaHero?

Prospero hasn't sold me as a hero.  Usually in Shakespeare's plays, there is a tragic hero with his tragic flaw that leads to his downfall and you feel really bad for him. But I wouldn't feel bad if Prospero got killed.  He used to be in power and was irresponsible with it, and sat back with his wizardry while his kingdom got taken from under his nose. So he is lazy, or at least doesn't understand the corrupting nature of power. Actually, he definitely doesn't  understand the corrupting nature of power. After whining about how his brother was so conniving and manipulative, he completely exploits the only people that he comes into contact with, and sacrifices Caliban's liberty and Miranda's knowledge in exchange for an elusive revenge on the man who took what Prospero put on a silver platter.  Prospero is hypocritical in his stance on power, and is just as bad as his brother who took the throne from him. 

Who is Ariel?

I must say that of all the books, Shakespeare gave me the hardest time. It is difficult to understand what this man is trying to say and I hope I am not the only one. The character development is so embedded in dialogue that I have no real sense of who every one is and the role they play. Such as Ariel, who is this person? In the beginning he/she (Shakespeare never really makes it clear) is talking to Prospero and asking for freedom, but Prospero basically shuts him/her down. Then Ariel shows up again as a type of spirit, who flocks around singing men to sleep. Is Shakespeare purposely making the distinction between man and spirit, and between reality and fantasy unclear?

Caliban: Man or Monster?

Throughout the first three acts of the play, the repeated description of Caliban as a monster causes the reader to question whether he is human or another type of animal.  Caliban's mother, Sycorax, was not portrayed as human, which implies that Caliban is of a different species as well.  However, though they refer to him as "monster", Stephano and Trinculo describe him as having arms, legs, and eyes in his head, suggesting that he is, in fact, a man.  In Act 1, Miranda and Prospero criticize Caliban and call him a monster.  The fact that Miranda states that Caliban gabbled "like / A thing most brutish" (I.ii.) suggests that english was not Caliban's first language.  Prospero also claims that at first, he gave Caliban "human care" (I.ii.), illustrated that Prospero does not think Caliban was worthy of such humane treatment.  The question of Caliban's identity is closely related to how the reader is supposed to feel about the character.  If he is a man, then he should be pitied due to the harsh treatment form Prospero.  However, if he is truly and evil monster, then Prospero's hatred for Caliban seems a little more justified.

The Barren Island and The Garden of Eden

The farther I got into The Tempest the island on which Miranda and Prospero are forced to reside, I saw a reversed parallel between the island and the Garden of Eden. Prospero very well can represent a God-like figure, for he is filled with powers and rules the island. But the reversal aspect of this parallel, is that in a sense Prospero was rejected from the "real world" that is political and strict, and cast into the magical world of the island. The similarity of the mystical aspect of the island and the Garden of Eden, are easily interpreted, but it in the story of Adam and Eve, they are banished from the magical Garden of Eden, and banished to the harsh realities of the political world, the opposite of Prospero and Miranda's situation.

Another interesting connection, is that the reason for Adam and Eve's banishment, is that they were tempted by the "tree of knowledge", and Prospero was banished because he was so absorbed in his books, that he neglected his political duties as duke of Milan. Prospero even admits this " I, thus neglecting worldly ends, all dedicated To closenessand the bettering of my mind" pg 19 lines 109-110

Ariel vs. Miranda

In the second scene of The Tempest, we first begin to discover the complex relationships that Prospero has with his own daughter Miranda and an island spirit, Ariel.  (note: I believe that Ariel is a boy spirit)  During the exchange between Miranda and Prospero, Prospero treats his daughter like she is much more dimwitted than he is and doesn't respect her at all.  He is constantly referring to her as "wench" - and even in Shakespeare's time, I still think that wasn't a compliment - and when he is explaining his life's story he acts as if she is too dumb or naive to be able to follow a simple story and is constantly asking her if she understands what he's saying.  Prospero even goes so far as to charm her into doing whatever he wants, showing that he has no cares for her basic human rights nor any respect for her freedom.

When Ariel enters the scene, Prospero greets him in a kinder manner - almost lovingly.  Although Ariel is Prospero's servant and wants to be free, he still respects Prospero and even seems to look up to him.  Ariel's willingness to do Prospero's bidding seems to be more than just the natural deference of a servant to a master.  On top of that, Prospero seems to reciprocate the affectionate feelings.  He treats Ariel as a son who has made him very proud.  Ariel probably knows all of Prospero's secrets and because of their shared magical abilities, Prospero sees Ariel almost as an equal.

I believe that Prospero has far more respect and love for Ariel than he does for his own daughter.  Although he does love Miranda she does not have any special ability or use for him so she is not very important to his grand plan and doesn't quite register on his radar.  Ariel, on the other hand, has been detrimental to the success of Prospero's plans and would probably be an adoptive son of Prospero if he wasn't so useful as a servant.

Caliban's Worship of Alcohol

When Trinculo and Stephano chance upon Caliban in Act II, a very odd exchange takes place. After Caliban is disturbed by the pair entering his shelter, Stephano offers Caliban wine. A transformation seems to instantly occur in Caliban in which he discards his loyalty to Prospero and pledges his allegience to Stephano. The aspect of this scene that I find significant is the allusions made to the devil and heaven.

The first bit of text that shapes the pattern in this scene is when Stephano refers to drinking as 'kissing the book (bible)'. I find this phrase to be a contradiction within itself because temperance from consuming alcohol was seen as a heavenly virtue and kissing a bible is quite the opposite as getting drunk. Also, Caliban asks Stephano, "Hast thou not dropped from heaven?" (85). It's hard to derive the significance of what he is saying because it seems to go against what would be considered a gift from heaven, especially one endowed to a devil. Finally, Caliban asks Stephano to be his god, which would make Stephano the god of all devils. I think it is very interesting to think about what alcohol represents to a devil. Does Caliban's immediate subservience have anything to do with the alcohol's representation as a form of evil?

An Aid That Causes Me To Mow

As I read through the tempest, I'm struck by all the changes and additions that the Folger's Guide has given. Its almost as if they don't trust us to "correctly" interpret the work without them. However I think that some of the beauty of Shakespeare's work is that so much of it is open, that so many options exist. By presenting only one view as the meaning, Folger skews my perceptions enough to question my interpretations of the work, which leads me to believe these "Learning Center Notes" are a curse in disguise.

Folger's glossary can be somewhat helpful in interpreting a word, but it must be used with caution. These definitions range from practical, supplying outdated terms such as "ague: a fever that makes him shiver"(80), to unnecessary when explaining the word 'mind' as "notice" in the context of "I'll fall flat/Perhaps he will not mind me."(76), to downright insulting when words such as"overblown"are updated to "blown over" (82) I believe the reader can be trusted with some degree of interpretation, and responsibility with a dictionary.

However  presumtuous these definitions may be, I find Folger's insertion of stage directions to be a complete fraud. He often inserts asides, ruling out all options of having an unusual dialog take place between the characters. With their actions as well, Folger expresses everything from invisibility to drunkenness. On pages 78 and 79, Folger inserts a direction that Trinculo is to crawlunder the cloak with Caliban. This action is then explained in a half-page footnote which shows which textual evidence leads to this conclusion. But if this evidence really is so abundant, and nearby (it falls on just the next page, just 40 lines ahead) why can't the reader be trusted with creating this image by his or herself?

Overall I find Folger's footnotes to be useful, albeit annoying. For every one word or phrase it helps me to identity, there are two I can understand by myself. In the ones I do understand, subtle variations make me wonder if I would see the story differently without these "aids". I think I would.

What Would Ebert and Roeper Say?

One of the most fascinating parts of The Tempest, at least to me, is the witty repartee between Antonio and Sebastian and occasionally Gonzalo. What I am referring to in this case is the dialog in the first part of Act 2 Scene 1. While King Alonso is busy being a debbie-downer, the rest of the crew is going about having one of the most entertaining dialogs I have read. The witty use of word play is astounding, however, Im sure this dialog would be even more entertaining for people in Shakespeare's time who would have had a better understanding of the references. However, I think that this part of the play is one of those times where Shakespeare is appealing to the humor of the upper classes, those who would have been seated in the upper and middle levels of the Globe Theater. I imagine the lower classes would not have had much of an understanding of the references to the Golden Age or other references to Greek mythology.

Gonzalo's Innocence

After reading Act 2 scene i in The Tempest, it is apparent that Gonzalo's has the qualities of innocence and purity. First off, Gonzalo is the apparent optimist when him and the other characters arrive on the island. Antonio, who views the island as " perfumed by a fen" is in opposition with Gonzalo's opinion of the nature of the island, who sees it as " lush and lusty" ( p.55). Also, Gonzalo's is very positive when they first awake from landing ashore, also in contrast with the other characters. Gonzalo reveals that if he were to colonize the island, he would rid it of sovereignty, labor and a built society so that all the people could be equal, pure, and innocent. Through this speech it is evident that Gonzalo has a spirit of innocence. He, unlike Sebastian and Antonio who plot to overthrow kings and dukes, is not yet corrupted by the lust for power, thus why he envisions such a equal utopia. 

The Magic of Plays

As we discussed in class this in not a book that can just be read. I tried to just read the book the first time through and it did not work. I found my thoughts drifting and rereading the same line two or three times without actually gaining any meaning from the work.

Then I attempted reading the novel by acting it out in my mind. This approach was much more effective. By doing this the characters and scenes really take on a life of their own and the play is much easier to follow. I was wondering if anyone else had the same experience as me while they were reading the first act of this book.

Journeys

I found it interesting that only one act into The Tempest, we've already been given narratives of three different histories, all coming into interaction through naval journeys to Prospero's island. These are:  Alonso & co.'s journey from Naples to Tunis and thence to the island, Sycorax's journey from Algiers to the Island, and of course Prospero and Miranda's journey in the "rotten carcass of a butt" to the island. So here we have Shakespeare set up an interesting motif of voyages, which all happen to be webbed together by Prospero's magic. 

I have no conclusions, but I'm interested to see how much farther this motif will go into the narrative, and especially what role Prospero's magic will play in it, as clearly the powers to enslave, beguile, paralyze and destroy (which are as much literary as magical)  go far beyond eye-catching stage effects or an interesting plot device.