Today in lecture we talked about Aphra Behn’s various names and what they might mean, which led me to ponder on the subject of naming.

I love studying the names of literary characters because names authors choose are often relevant to the role a character plays in the work. A few examples of these from this semester’s selections would be the names Adam (from earth), Caliban (anagram for cannibal), Miranda (wondrous) and possibly Gulliver which sounds like “gullible”.

As an aspiring writer, I love naming characters for my stories (finding names for locations and titles are much more frustrating and annoying though). I often spend way too much time looking up names in baby books and on the internet. But I never feel like picking the perfect name is a waste of time because to me it is a meaningful task. I wonder how many readers actually search up the origins of names to see if they reveal a trait about the characters.

In reality names are very interesting too. For example, when I look at a picture of a stranger, sometimes, for an inexplicable reason I will just feel like she is an “Eleanor” or a “Jennifer” etc etc. and I know I am not the only one who says “she looks like a [insert name]” since many of my friends act the same way. I think that part of the reason why this phenomenon occurs is because certain names have been associated with certain images throughout the years. The name “Jane” and its connotation as a plain name is probably the most well-known example of this tendency, having been started by the Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre (I love this book). Since we have been discussing the idea of canonization, I want to note that in a way many names have been canonized by literature. It will be interesting to see if Katniss and Peeta will become familiar names in the years to follow.

While reading The Tempest, the character of Prospero confused me to no end. I just didn’t know what to make of him. He is disillusioned about his right to rule, a puppeteer who treats his slaves horribly, but yet has this wonderful “art” (at least wonderful to me) that can enchant and mesmerize, creating spectacular shows for his audience.

I personally love the idea of Prospero as a representation of Shakespeare, especially considering the epilogue he gives, bidding his long-time audience farewell. However, if the playwright really intended to write himself into this character, how then are we supposed to interpret Prospero’s self-centered demeanor and actions throughout the play? Like the introduction found in our Oxford editions of the play notes, The Tempest has “…been used to support radically differing claims about Shakespeare’s allegiances” (pg.11).

Ambiguity certainly is a defining trait of this play, causing confusion and mayhem not only for the characters but for the audience as well. In that aspect I am reminded of Midsummer Night’s Dream (which is one of my favourite Shakespeare plays) where the characters get in huge mix-ups. However, at that play’s conclusion everything is resolved whereas in The Tempest I am left with questions such as what happened to Caliban and does Prospero really give up his art?

I feel like this is one of those literary works that can be viewed a hundred times from different perspectives but still have some nugget of thought hidden in it. I wonder if I will ever be able to see Prospero and his story in a definitive way in the future.