Mama Day and The Tempest

The relationship between The Tempest and Mama Day is very vague. You could say Mama Day is a loose interpretation of The Tempest, however these works are so different that if you had no idea to connect the two; you wouldn't. But since we read The Tempest and Mama Day consecutively, it is easy to parallel the two, and we probably should since this class's focus is American Shakespeare after all!

The obvious correlations would be the tempests (violent storms) in each and the fact each of them are set on an island. Other parallels you could make would be with the characters. The first being with Mama Day and Prospero and second, Ruby and Sycorax. Mama Day's "magic" per se is highlighted in the book as beloved, good, and helpful which can be associated with Prospero's magic in The Tempest because Prospero was never seen as vengeful or harmful to other with his magic, just like Mama Day. Ruby on the other hand dealt with black magic. By poisoning Cocoa with nightshade she showed her immoral behavior and wickedness- as shown in the witch like figure of Sycorax when she is cruel to Ariel in The Tempest. 

Another correlation could be with Caliban and George. In The Tempest, Caliban was the outsider on the island and he was taught by Prospero and Miranda the way of the land and how to speak their language. They also put him to work by having him do chores for them and get them essentials they needed for survival. 

Some of this same stuff happened to George as well when he went to Willow Springs and stayed with Abigail and Mama Day. George was taught some things by them but was ultimately put to work by them. They had him fixing their homes and helping them with farming, as well as trying to get him recognize what they believed in and how they lived in a place like Willow Springs. 

There are many aspects in Mama Day that are different than The Tempest, to name a few basic ones there's the fact that the tempest occurs at the end of Mama Day and at the beginning of The Tempest, there are fatalities in Mama Day and not The Tempest, and finally that George and Cocoa don't get married on the island like Miranda and Ferdinand in The Tempest. I think Naylor was inspired by Shakespeare since he was an amazing playwright. However, I don't think she reworked the story, I think she used Shakespearean elements, just like a lot of other writers, to tell her own unique story better. A lot of the time people unconsciously put other works into their own and not even recognize it. I think this was the case with Naylor because her story, especially the plot has no validity with Shakespeare's plot in The Tempest. 

The Inner Workings of Jess Clark

At the beginning of A Thousand Acres, the event where all the characters meet up together for the first time is at Harold Clark's hog roast for Jess' homecoming. Since Smiley chose to begin the story here, I believe that makes Jess Clark in the middle of this intense plot. The first time we see a big revelation from Jess is when he's speaking to Ginny about his mother's death:

"I was so furious at her. I wrote her twice, you know, that first year. I told her I didn't believe in the war and I knew she didn't either. I just wanted a single letter, or a postcard from her saying she understood, or at least that she was thinking about me... She knew where I was in 1971, or she could have found out, if she called the address on those letters... Can  you believe how they've fucked us over, Ginny? Living and dying! I was her child! What ideal did she sacrifice me to? Patriotism?... Don't you realize they've destroyed us at every turn? You bet she was sad, of course she was sad! But why didn't she give me a fucking chance?" (Smiley 54-5).

What this passage does is introduce the reader to the troubled side of Jess Clark. Up until this point in the book Jess comes off as this mysterious figure that's been missing from Zebulon County for thirteen years. With this revelation you find out why he was gone for so long and you empathize toward his character; he's lonely, hurt and upset because he was drafted at eighteen, his fiance died in a tragic car accident, his mother died while he was away, and also, he felt abandoned by her (his mother). While reading this I felt like he was an unstable character and that he should find comfort and help in Ginny. This caused me to question what I was feeling because Ginny is married for one and Jess doesn't want to stay on the farm; he wants to go back 'home' to Seattle. 

So in questioning the empathy and sympathy I felt toward Jess allowed me to see this passage as  revealing the anger in Jess Clark. After Jess finishes his tirade, Ginny admits she's shaken and afraid; her hands were even trembling. This could be Smiley foreshadowing what a volatile being Jess is and that bad things will come because of his resurrection, but possibly she's pointing out yet another man Ginny is afraid of. Now that wouldn't just involve her relationship with Jess it would involve all the relationships Ginny has with men in this novel. I think Smiley wanted to show Jess as the dynamic character he really is and that he could turn Ginny's world upside down. 

This is MY Generation

A huge distinction made in the play King Lear is the difference between the old and the young characters. I think Shakespeare did this parallel to further emphasize the power change from generation to generation.

 The plot of the play is with King Lear and his three daughters; Cordelia, Goneril, and Regan. They are told to profess their love to him so he can divide up the kingdom amongst them in accordance to how much they love him. Lear ends up casting off the only daughter of his that has true love for him, Cordelia, because of his other daughters' trickery. Lear eventually is betrayed by the ones who professed to love him the most.

In the subplot a nobleman, named Gloucester, essentially has the same betrayal from his sons as King Lear had with his daughters. His illegitimate son, Edmund, lies to him and tells him his bastard son, Edmund is out to kill him; which is untrue, and Gloucester ends up becoming physically blinded because of it.

 In Lear's case the kingdom is at stake here. As a political figure Lear should take into consideration how the kingdom will be ruled after he is gone and who will be the best fit for that title, instead of solely basing that decision on who supposedly loves him the most. Once he gives up his authority and political power to Goneril and Regan, he is not important to them anymore; they have what they want and will do what they see fit no matter the cost. At this point Lear should see reason and understand that they only said those professions of devotion and love to him out of greed. Lear however doesn't and starts going crazy as the play progresses.

Gloucester, doesn't hesitate in believing Edmund's accusations of Edgar because Gloucester doesn't think of Edgar as a real son. The actual truth here is Edmund is just greedy and wants his father's status and for him to be out of the way. Gloucester doesn't see the deception right in front of him. Edmund plots against Gloucester and Edgar, and takes sides with Cornwall, Regan's husband, who ends up gouging out Gloucester's eyes. 

It seems that Lear and Gloucester can only 'see' reason when their world have completely fallen apart. Once Lear has gone insane he finally comes back to reality enough to reconcile with Cordelia, yet both of their lives still end tragically. I believe Shakespeare's point in all this was to show that we don't live forever and we pass over power and authority to next generation and once that happens they ultimately have power so it is important to be logical and have reason when doing things and making plans because it may not just affect them, it'll effect others too, and if someone can't do that and aren't wise they and others around them will suffer the consequences. 

About Me!

Hi, I am Melanie! I am a sophomore at OSU.  I am from Grove City and work at the Kohl's there. My major is Exploration right now but I want to major in Communications and will hopefully end up working in television or radio someday. I look forward to working with you all! :)

King Lear's Fool

In the play King Lear, by Shakespeare, the King's Fool disappears from the play entirely in the play in Act III, scene vi. At this point Lear had just been out in the storm rambling about his suffering and then he took shelter with the Fool, Edgar (disguised), Kent (disguised), and Gloucester. Lear is totally insane by this point in the story, and I believe the Fool gives up trying to help Lear and plays into his craziness (e.g. Lear was putting his daughter on trial and the Fool went along with it).
The Fool's role toward 'King Lear was simply, just to make him laugh. However, the Fool would try to help Lear and bring him back to the wise man he once was through verse. I thought of the Fool as Lear's sanity trying to come back to him. The Fool kept trying to show Lear reason and to see the deception from his daughters Goneril and Regan rather than Cordelia. In Act III, scene vi, someone asks who the King and Fool are. The Fool responds with "A wise man and a fool". This made me question at this point in the book who is really the Fool? Lear or the Fool himself? I say Lear, because he has gone completely mad and has exiled the one daughter who truly loved him.