Sara’s W100 Journal Week 7

Now that we’ve got our midterm paper topics, it’s up to us to decide which text to choose. In my decision process I’m trying to remember that I have to write at least six pages on one of these works, and the fact of whether I liked either one or not shouldn’t be the deciding factor. It’s tough for me though, because one of the reasons why I enjoy stories is complexity and analytical possibilities. I feel, personally, that both Charlotte Temple and The Tempest lack depth and complexity.

On one hand we have Charlotte Temple. On the surface it appears to be a very frothy piece of literature. The characters are extremely one-dimensional, the style of writing is fanciful but doesn’t seem concerned with stylistic elements on the whole. One could, if they needed to dig up six pages of analysis on this book, read the text as a subversive piece, as we talked about in class. Ms. Rowson, who makes many a guest appearance throughout the course of the story, could be seen as a pre-feminism feminist, playing the role of power in the novel as she directs the actions of the characters and the thoughts of the readers. Alternatively, Ms. Rowson could be read as a self-conscious female author who finds it necessary to interject in order to maintain credibility. While I find the former more appealing, I find the latter more likely.

On the other hand we have The Tempest. While I do admit that the play offers some delightfully analyzable characters, there is absolutely zero in the way of evolving them or even explaining a lot of them. At the beginning of the play the audience is introduced to Caliban, a pitiful slave under Prospero’s control. At the end of the play they watch Caliban exit stage right, sill a pitiful slave under Prospero’s control. In between? …Nothing happens. We see two failed treason attempts that never even get past a few lines of dialogue, a promise made and kept, a romance that isn’t thwarted or put through any suffering, and a revenge plot that is abandoned at the climax. All in all, I have no idea what is going on here. I can’t really say that Shakespeare was a subversive writer disguising great messages under poorly presented material. I know that isn’t true because I’ve read a lot of his other work and found it quite good. The explanation that I found most likely was what Drew proposed in class, that as one of Shakespeare’s final plays he felt like throwing everything he had done in his other works together into one, fun hodgepodge. (Some of that phrasing is my own.)

To sum up, I’m finding both of these texts extremely difficult, which I both enjoy and despise. I’m quite sure that if I can write a six page paper on either of these works, I can write one on anything.

ETA: Apparently, you have to hit the “Publish” button for this to work…