MOD A_Jae Kim With Comments
Through the power of textual conversations across time and space, our understanding of
the struggle between one’s self and their society is enhanced amidst a backdrop of
colliding ‘Christian’ to ‘post-Christian’ contexts. In this vein, Shakespeare's tragicomedy
The Tempest (1611) and Atwood's Hag-Sseed (2016) work together as dual mechanisms
to explore the changing……progressive values can influence how ostracised groups
respond to the oppression of their freedoms....(you can say whatever here/answer the
unseen essay question by addressing the keyword). Set within the contextual backdrop
of the 'Age of Discovery' within the early 17th century Jacobean era of English Society,
Shakespeare sparks a textual conversation on the objectification and marginalization of
female figures and their subsequent lack of autonomy. Moving to a 'post-christian'
context, Atwood, extends and resonates a kinship with Shakespeare by illuminating the
progression of mental health and rising second-wave feminism that empowers the
disenfranchised female identity. Hence, the textual conversation between Shakespeare
and Atwood shapes our understanding of how the status quo changes our reactions to
our liberties being imposed on. Ultimately, through the power of textual conversations
between authors, modern audiences are enlightened upon the dual examination of
Shakespeare and Atwood, critically interrogating the struggle of attaining human
autonomy/ between the internal and the external/ one’s self and their society.
Body Paragraph 1:
Shakespeare's the tempest initiates a textual conversation on the colonial mistreatment
of the Indigenous peoples and humanises these disenfranchised groups. Shakespeare
appeals to the humanity of the invaded groups he wrote in to challenge the Age of
Discovery and its colonial perspectives, which justified the robbery of the colonised
groups’ freedoms. Christian norms as a means to dehumanise these groups is explored
when Prosporo condemns the native Caliban as “A devil, a born devil”. This biblical
allusion highlights the baseless othering of the colonised enabled by institutions such as
religion. Furthermore, the enforcement of the colonisers’ culture onto the invaded is
exemplified by the irony of Caliban claiming he ‘know how to curse’ since Prospero ‘taught
me language’. The plight of the colonised being forced to assimilate is humanised through
the symbolic outrage that Caliban shows. Shakespeare further humanises the colonised
people’s struggles through emphasising that Caliban ‘first…was my own king’. The regal
imagery exemplifies the agency of the colonised and entitlement to land ownership that
the colonisers ignore. Shakespeare hence humanises invaded groups by revealing how
the social norms strip their freedoms of their colonisers. Ultimately, Shakespeare sparks
a conversation on the dehumanised groups of English society whose freedoms are
stripped away, precepts that atwood later re-evaluates in her modern piece.
Body Paragraph 2:
Building on Shakespeare’s humanisation of the disenfranchised, Atwood’s Hag-Seed
reveals how the disempowered may reclaim their freedom when encouraged by the
progression of social norms. Atwood incorporates our contemporary advances in mental
health by exploring how the ostracised can regain their autonomy by coming to terms with
their mental state. The universal struggle to regain freedom is encapsulated by the
intertextuality of The Tempest being performed within Hag-Seed, showing how though
social norms may change, oppression remains constant. Christian norms are replaced by
stigma on prisoners’ mental health, a status quo this group must fight to regain spiritual
freedom. Atwood hence explores modern attitudes of self-acceptance via Felix
acknowledging ‘My island domain. My place of exile’, whereby the anaphora highlights
him taking ownership of his mental constraints and beginning to regain control. Felix
confronts Confronting his mental problems to reclaim agency in the extended metaphor
of “His Miranda must be released from her glass coffin”. Atwood’s use of Miranda as an
intertextual symbol of hope hence champions that in the light of advancing social norms,
disempowered groups must confront their oppressors to regain their autonomy. Amidst
the growing trend of empowered female voices within the 21st century, with advents of
globailisation such as social media empowering voiceless individuals, the archaic
archetype of the oppressed female identity is reconstructed, offering new, ‘exotic’
glimpses of hope and liberation. Thus, Atwood engages with The Tempest’s chastise of
social norms enabling oppression, through her counterpoint that when these norms
become favourable we must use them to reclaim the freedoms we previously lost.
Ultimately, we see the purpose of Atwood’s textual conversation with Shakespeare, to
narrate a flawed and patriarchal present day reality, still highly dismissive of women.
Body Paragraph 3:
The Tempest’s blatant objectification of women reveals how social norms may perpetuate
the stripping of agencies from disenfranchised groups even in their portrayal in art.
Through a narrative of victimisation, Shakespeare also probes/sparkes discussion on the
struggles of female identity amidst the social coding that governs a flawed reality.
Embodying the Jacobean relegation of women as the powerless property of men,
Shakespeare’s portrayal of Prospero’s political exploitation of Miranda reveals how the
struggle for freedoms transcends eras. The disempowered state of women is highlighted
through Ferdinand’s characterisation of Miranda as “The mistress which I serve quicken
what’s dead”, chaining the hope that Miranda symbolises to her powerlessness.
Ferdinand’s adoration of her is inseparable from his possession of her a ‘mistress’,
encapsulating the Jacobean norms that a woman is only respectable if obedient.
Contrastingly, the disdain for women in power is embodied by the witch Sycorax.
Shakespeare’s intentional stage direction for her physical absence reveals how
patriarchal norms typically portrayed empowered women in art as purely evil and
inappropriate to be seen. Moreover, Shakespeare’s incorporation of Sycorax is an
intertextual allusion to Ovid’s Medea. This reveals that in art forms across different
patriarchal societies, empowered women are perpetuated as evil and undesirable.
Therefore, Shakespeare’s portrayal of women highlights that certain groups may remain
disempowered across eras due to the influence of patriarchal norms and literary
conventions.
Body Paragraph 4:
Fueled by a contemporary desire to empower voiceless individuals, Atwood sparks an
intertextual dialogue with Shakespeare by challenging the objectification of women by
portraying them in subversive, powerful roles, aligning with the progressing ideas on
women in our contemporary society. Primarily influenced by second-wave feminism,
Atwood not only empowers women as equals to men but as clear agents with unique
strengths and flaws. Atwood acknowledges the ever-present social pressures on women
through Felix’s narrator role claiming “He’s made his Miranda a victim”, whereby Felix
becomes a metatheatrical mouthpiece for the disempowerment of women in past art.
However, Atwood then reveals how progressive ideals have allowed women to rival men
in power through the character of Anne-Marie, who “becomes…a co-director” to Felix.
The extended theatrical metaphor shows how women can attain the same privileges as
men by rewriting their roles in stories and art. Women can even overpower men as
revealed by the symbolic re-casting of Miranda as “a warrior…Caliban’s master”. By
subverting The Tempest’s traditional character roles, Atwood hints at how the newly
reclaimed freedoms of women empower them to create their own stories. Ultimately, by
reframing Shakespeare’s precepts on through encouraging diverging perspectives, a
2024 responder is forced to re-evaluate the values of Shakespeare’s original canon by
seeking a deeper truth and understanding of the ‘ostracized’ identity. Thus, Atwood’s
conversation with Shakespeare reveals that while art can be a medium for perpetuating
ostracisation, it can also allow newfound autonomy and new stories.
Conclusion:
Overall, the textual conversation between The Tempest and Hag-Seed reveals how
changing social norms can give disenfranchised groups the chance to reclaim personal
freedoms. Indeed, despite dissonances in voice, space and time, both composers
resonate and align in their portrayal of the nuanced disenfranchised identity as a vehicle
for deeper interrogation of [answer unseen essay question].
Through the textual resonances and colonial clashes between composers, both novels
unite in the mode of textual conversations to narrate…our ongoing struggle for autonomy.
Specifically, Atwood engages with Shakespeare’s artistic portrayal to show how changes
in storytelling across different social norms can overcome enduring struggles like the
ostracisation of women. As 2024 modern responders, we glean the value of Atwood’s
post-colonial collision with Shakespeare’s {answer unseen essay question/choice}, a
didactic reminder for the present-day audience to consider the oppressed voices of
disenfranchised identities, critical for social advancement.