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.