From: "seiferle" <[log in to unmask]>
> >I've never thought of The Tempest as a political play.  My own
> >interpretation of it is that it's basically about Prospero's incestuous
> >passion for Miranda -- he is, after all, living out the stereotyped male
> >fantasy of being stranded on a desert island with a beautiful young
women,
> >though in this case it's his own daughter.  Prospero's lust for Miranda
is
> >projected onto the id-like figure of Caliban (who, remember, had tried to
> >rape her,) while his longed-for fantasy vision of himself as superior to
the
> >hideous demands of the flesh is sublimated into the shining purity of
Ariel
> >(whom, remember, he had freed from the hideous female sorcery of the
> >"blue-eyed hag" Sycorax.)   For Prospero to heal and for Miranda to be
> >fulfilled, Prospero has to resolve his Ariel complex by realizing that he
is
> >not wholly Ariel (setting Ariel free from himself) and resolve his
Caliban
> >complex by consciously admitting that he is part Caliban ("This thing of
> >darkness I acknowledge mine.") This is why at the play's closure the
> >liberation of Ariel, the redemption of Caliban, and the maturation and
> >integration of Miranda into human society by the universal acceptance of
her
> >engagement, all happen at the same time, since they are all the same act
of
> >healing.  If this view of the play has any validity, it will generate
> >outraged denials.
> >
>
> Well, this is an interesting reading, though it does remind me a bit of
Leslie Fieldler's No in Thunder where, among other things, he reads Jim's
remark to Huck Finn "Come back to the raft, Huck, honey," as the key to a
homoerotic reading of Huck Finn.
>
> Your last sentence is a mystery, "if this view of the play has any
validity, it will generate outraged denials." How about somewhat bored
refusals?  You seem to be trying to suggest that any disagreement with your
reading only proves the validity of your reading!
>
> I have the same view about imposing these later psychological definitions
upon a work that I do of imposing later definitions of the political. One of
the characteristics of a psychological reading is that it is invariably
narrow, the Freudian reading always uncovers the incestuous, the sublimated
taboo, but since that is its premise, should we be surprised?  Lo and behold
we find what we expected, everywhere. I don't know, this reading seems too
narrow, particularly when you suggest that it is some moment of
psychological "healing." The play seems so much more interesting than this.
>

yes, Rebecca got it right. I think we should ask ourselves what we are
looking for in life when we venture outside. I can recognize both Jon and
Rebecca in myself. When facing any author, I can see tricks and highlights,
the good and the bad. Jon is bloody right. Shakespeare, in his time, was
fundamentally a practical man who read through men and could represent only
what touched them deeply (we are more into minimal fringes nowadays), by
cutting through psyche he could have the effect. A great interpretation Jon,
even if - as Rebecca said still by acknowledging his previous notes - it
takes away all the magic from it, but we can anyhow enjoy it and by
reflection, come to know things in their entirety, even if it means that we
have to go through their simplest forms - and also be able to accept them as
a sine qua non. One of the miseries of being an adult, whatever age that
happened to be; and doesn't the act of denouncing show a wounded cry?
And Rebecca's faith in a higher partaking shows more optimism and a trend I
have been trying to follow lately. With a heavy binding to my awareness of
facts.

a nice Sunday to all, here it is quite chilly, still a marvelous sunny
winter, as usual