Mama Day - The Tempest

Although The Tempest by William Shakespeare and Mama Day by Gloria Naylor have many similarities, Naylor uses her loose adaptation of the story in order to cast light on many societal and personal issues. Both pieces are written on small islands with little inhabitants and some of the characters do parallel each other like Prospero with Mama Day but the two pieces are very different because I believe Naylor wanted to add her own social views and personal views to parts of a Shakespearean play. I believe that Naylor had societal values in mind when she changed they story of the Tempest to fit the small island of Willow Springs because she wanted to express racial and key societal dilemmas of her era. Firstly Naylor uses Mama Day to represent Prospero but instead of making Mama Day a somewhat hierarchical dictator due to her magical powers she changed Mama Days image to represent a authoritative but collectively respected figure in her own light. Prospero also uses most of his magic to bring revenge for his misfortunes and to spite those who disowned him. Mama Day acts more of a moderator or overseer role on the island and only uses her magic for relative good and for the community.  I think by casting Mama Day in this similar but clearly contrasting way to Prospero was used to show Naylor's thoughts about strong African American individuals. She sought to cast Mama Day in a respected manner to the rest of her counterparts to show her own thoughts about how educated/respected/ or even powerful African Americans have a duty to look out for their community and use their characteristics for good. I think Naylor found Prospero's character representative of oppression and possibly slavery because of his tendency to use his power for no good and his treatment of characters like Caliban. Naylor used Mama Day to flip this idea on its head and to represent a modern African American cast as a authoritative figure.But contrastingly to Prospero, Mama Day uses her power for good as opposed to oppression. The story is very loose to the characters and the plot for much of this reason, because Naylor wanted to show the contrast between a way of oppression and a setting where magic (representative of power) was used for the good of a community rather than the advancement of the elite and the degradation of others. This could also explain why Naylor consistently rejects the idea of the story being based off of The Tempest because she used her own story to cast a negative light on some ideas in The Tempest and would not want its oppressive messages attached to her own contrasting storyline.

Caroline

One of the more dynamic characters in Jane Smiley's A Thousand Acres would have to be Caroline because she is different from the norm around the area and besides Jess appears to be the only one to have left the farm life. I think Smiley portrayal is very important of caroline because she uses her as a character to compare to Ginny, Rose, and others on the farm to highlight certain differences that occur in people when you spend your whole life in an area as opposed to branching out and experencing life off a farm. I beleive a lot of Caroline's characteristics appear this way because Ginny mentions that herself and Rose were raised in a introverted manner by their parents but once their mother died it was up to the two girls to raise Caroline. When approached at the pool by the family friend Mary and confronted about her mother's wish for Ginny to leave the farm she comes to a realization about caroline. It is revealed through Ginny her stark contrast to caroline by stating " Rose went to college. She has the choices Mom wanted and she chose the farm. Caroline chose the city and she is everywhere now". I believe Caroline is used as an example to Ginny of how she could have ended up had she learned or been raised to think freely and branch out to what she wanted. Without their mother however it was up to the two girls to grow up under their stubborn father who injected a desire to stay on the farm, in contrast the upbringing of Caroline is much different and this is represented in her current life and her relationship with her father. When Ginny is confronted with the news that her mother wished her to leave the farm it is a huge realization point because rather than living the life she wanted to live she has closed her mind to the farm and channeled her own desire to get away through the upbringing of Caroline. Overall I think this type of contrast between upbringings is Caroline's role in the story and it is used so the reader gets an idea of how two different ways of thinking can clash.

Lear and Gloucester

King Lear and Gloucester have quite similar stories that eventually intertwine because the one of the overriding themes of the play is to show how the balance of power and ego always tends to clash with the power of love. The two men are in remarkably similar situations where the direction of their fortunes is left up to their own prerogative. This quite a tough situation and Shakespeare uses the characters like Goneril, Regan, and Edmond to highlight the types of faulty or dishonest influences that can shape ones decision when dividing up spoils amongst family. Lear and Gloucester have paralleling stories because Shakespeare wants to highlight that the balance between love and ego is a fateful decision for most powerful people. Both men choose their ego and in turn their children who love them the most genuinely are out casted and the men are left to the mistreatment of their divisive children who no longer have much need for their powerless fathers. I think this careful balance between genuine love and deceptive flattery is the key in the relationship between the two powerful men and in the end it is both of their choices for flattery and egotism over love that leads to their demise 

Lear's Fool

    Although I cannot exactly remember the exact moment when the Fool disappears for me the he represented the regret and mistakes of King Lear from the first part of the play that haunt him. Any interaction with the Fool seems to be critical and he seems to poke fun at the King in certain times of despair. I think his function in the play is to serve as a sort of conscience or inner lens for King Lear as he goes through his interactions with his unappreciative daughters and slowly loses his own sanity. Sometime around the return of Cordelia is when I first remember losing track of the Fool. I think this is because Cordelia comes trying to act as a a saving grace for her father who is talking to himself and has lost almost all his sanity. Cordelia sends her doctors after the King and they take him under their care. The disappearance of the Fool could be because Lear has been so distraught he has completely lost his mind and therefore the fool who serves as his conscience. It could also be because Cordelia returns and in the first act she plays the role of Lear's critic when he is dividing up his estate so therefore the fool is no longer necessary to critique and prod the King. I think with Cordelia's absence most of the play Shakespeare wanted to create a character in the mold of Cordelia in order to remind King Lear of his follies and to act as a critic in Cordelia's absence. When Cordelia steps back in to take her father under her care and to attempt to nurse him back to normal mental health the fool is no longer necessary and he quickly leaves right before the return of Cordelia to the storyline becomes obvious. The last line that I could find from the fool is "And I'll go to bed at noon" (3.6.90) which is an interesting statement which could reflect King Lear's statement right before that " So, so, we'll go to supper i' th' morning" (3.6.87). I think the fool is stating by the time that King Lear wakes up (supper in the morning) that he will be "going to bed at noon" or gone by the time the King wakes up.

The Epic Intro

My name is Brett Boston. I am a third year student at Ohio State. I am a lot more complicated than this introduction but also a lot more simple.