I was going to post a great picture of my initial reaction to The Tempest--me asleep in the library. It was golden. It seems to have disappeared, however, and I'll just blame Prospero.
Never fear, that was only after a few pages, and my exhausted body was hardly giving it a chance. I was completely unfamiliar with The Tempest before reading it this week, and it changed the reading more than I thought it would. My interaction with Hamlet, for instance, was different because I knew something of what I was getting into, even without reading the play, or even a summary, beforehand.
I can see why this play wasn't recognized until after Shakespeare's death. The plot isn't what seems to get critics going. The importance of this play hinges on the importance of the man that wrote it. If Prospero is Shakespeare giving a farewell to his art, then it's a good thing we know who wrote the play. No one would care if I wrote such an adieu.
So the question is, do you think this play would be acclaimed by anyone (assuming it was still read by enough people) if the writer was anonymous?
Haha, you are funny Kayla! That is a great question. Would people still be reading it...honestly, I don't think so. Not because it is not any good, but in my opinion, it is the context that makes it interesting. Knowing that it was Shakespeare's last casts a light over the whole thing! As an anonymous, it may seem a bit silly and unimportant.
ReplyDeleteI would like to respectfully disagree and say that I think it would still be acclaimed because it is still incredibly well written, like any of Shakespeare's plays, and although the plot is not as grandiose as his others it is still full of great insight, incredible language, and unparalleled connections. It may not be quite as famous, but it would still be highly praised by readers.
ReplyDelete