Nox

Sentence Summary:  Anne Carson put this book together as a collection of photographs, poetry, and personal memories as an elegy for her estranged brother who died suddenly in Copenhagen.

Paragraph Summary:  Anne Carson’s brother, Michael, got involved with drugs and ran away in 1978.  He traveled across the world under fake identities so that he would not have to go to jail.  Carson spoke to Michael very rarely during adulthood.  He married twice, and died in 2000 in Copenhagen.  His wife was unable to contact Carson for two weeks.  This book is a replica of a notebook or scrapbook that Carson made as an elegy for her brother.  She includes photographs, personal memories, poetry, and information about the ancient historian Herodotos.

Close Reading:

“Multas per gentes et multa per aequora vectus..”

“Many the people many the oceans I crossed…”

This is a poem called Catallus 101 by the Roman poet Gaius Valerius Catullus is an elegy for his deceased brother.  Nox begins with this poem in Latin.  The average reader of this book probably does not understand Latin, so it does not mean a whole lot at first.  Carson breaks the poem down by individual words—providing a page of a dictionary definition for each word.  This can help the reader piece together the meaning of the poem, but it is very fragmented.  It takes a very literal meaning to the idea of translating the poem to tell the story of it.  As readers we don’t get the whole view, because we are too zoomed in on specific words.  Carson uses this zooming technique often when she presents only a portion of a letter or sections of a photograph.  This creates the feeling that Carson is “piecing together” her memories and thoughts of her brother.

About halfway through the book, there is an English translation of Catallus 101.  Unlike the first time the poem appeared, this English translation is actually labeled with “Catallus 101.”  With the shift to English, and the title, the poem as a whole becomes clearer to readers.  Reading the poem entirely in English at one time lets the whole poem sink in and affect us.   Knowing the title just clarifies what we are reading.  Showing the English translation marks a shift because now the poem makes sense, and this perhaps could reflect a tone of revelation in the work.  Perhaps the author is coming to a point of her grief that she is making sense of her brother’s death and their estranged relationship.

The next time the poem appears is about thirty pages later.  This time, it is ripped into strips.  Some of the words are very blurred, as if they got wet.  A few words are clear, but many of the words you can actually read are cut off in the rips of paper.  The words that stick out to me as the most fully legible are “anyway” “down as the sad” “soaked with tears” “into forever brother” “(Catullus 101)” and “accept… the people.”  The last time the poem appeared it made more logical sense to readers, but this time hardly any of it is even legible, making less logical sense.  Perhaps this is to signal the ups and downs of grief.  Sometimes you think you understand tragedy, but the next day it baffles you as it did in the beginning.  To make sense out of the words that stuck out the most to me, I sense the author is very sad about the loss of her brother but is trying to “accept… the people,” “the people” being who her brother was, even with his mistakes, crimes, and false identities.

The poem appears at the end of the book.  Every time the poem appears it looks aged, but this time it looks as if the page is soaking wet, with ink dripping down the page.  Squinting close up, I can tell that it is labeled Catallus 101, and there is kind of a bright spot next to the word brother.  The whole page is very smeared, but it’s a bit less smeared next to the word brother.  The water could be from tears of grief.  But perhaps now at the end of the book, Carson is “washing” herself of grief.  Water can be seen as very symbolic—as a holy part of baptism, a destructive force of nature, and a means of cleaning something.  I think the water smudging the poem can be seen as all of these ways.  Carson was moved by her brother’s death and probably cried; his death was like a sudden, unexpected, unsettling storm in her life.  However, through the process of making this elegy book, the water can be seen as washing away the grief and now Carson is “reborn” on the other side of grief.

This poem is a constancy in the book, because it comes at the beginning, middle, and end.  It anchors a story that sometimes does not make sense.  Also, the fact that the poem appears at the beginning and the end suggests a journey coming full circle.  However, it has taken a different form—in the beginning the poem was in Latin, and at the end it was in English.  This suggests a change in the author, or at least in the perceptions of the author, through the journey.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Sentence Summary:  A young boy, Oskar Schell, whose father died on 9/11 in New York, finds a key in his mother’s closet labeled “Black,” and goes on a quest throughout New York meeting every person named Black to find the lock, believing this was a puzzle his father left for him.

Paragraph Summary:  Oskar’s father died in the terrorist attacks on 9/11.  The two of them used to play games and do scavenger hunts and puzzles, so when Oskar finds a key in his mother’s closet he believes that his father left one last scavenger hunt for him.  The key is in an envelope labeled “Black,” so Oskar travels to see every Black in the New York City telephone book.  He meets many different people, and makes real connections with some of them.  He does not find out until the end, that his mother called every Black before he got there and orchestrated the entire quest.  It turns out the key was not to a lock for him, but nevertheless Oskar finds out about himself and is bonded with his mother and deceased father.  There is also a storyline about Oskar’s mute grandfather and his relationship with Oskar’s grandmother and father.

Close Reading:

Hamlet photograph on page 55

“I felt, that night, on that stage, under that skull, incredibly close to everything in the universe, but also extremely alone… I just couldn’t be dead any longer” (145).

In class we were discussing whether or not the photographs were a part of the novel, and what kind of discourse they were.  I think that this work is a novel, because it is a narrative fictional story about ordinary characters in fairly usual circumstances.  I think that the photographs are just a part of Foer’s creative license to add a new dimension to the novel.  The photographs add an interactive quality to the text.  Our original class definition of discourse was “the language that is operating to tell the story.”  By that definition the photographs are not discourse because they do not use language—they are images not texts.  However, if we tweak that definition to include images, the photographs would be direct discourse because there is no narrator interpreting the photographs, rather they show things as they are.

In the case of the photograph of Hamlet, the direct discourse of the photograph was shorter than the indirect and free indirect discourse used to describe the scene in which Oskar plays out Hamlet.  There are many pages that describe the Hamlet play and Oskar’s thoughts about life during the play that are reduced to a single picture of Hamlet with the skull of Yorick.  Also, the picture is from the movie Hamlet, so it is professional and “perfect” in a sense.  It is how the production of Hamlet should be.  However, in Oskar’s case, many things go wrong while performing Hamlet the last time when he beats up Jimmy Snyder—that is not how it was supposed to be.  So, pairing the text with the photograph creates a disconnect between what should be and what is.  There is another disconnect present in this moment between what is happening and how Oskar perceives what is happening, which is something we talked about in class.  After Oskar has beaten up Jimmy Snyder he thinks the audience is applauding him because he is “making so much sense” (146).  I highly doubt that an audience full of parents would applaud such violence—in fact they are all probably very appalled.  So, what is really happening is much different than what Oskar thinks is happening.

Another interesting thing about this section (145-146) is that it is written as a play.  Oskar and Jimmy’s dialogue is written as a play would be written, including stage directions.  Looking back at this moment reminds me about how Oskar’s mom orchestrates the whole quest to find the Blacks, and Oskar says, “My search was a play that Mom had written, and she knew the ending when I was at the beginning” (292).  Perhaps the author is hinting at some idea that life is like a play?  Maybe it is just a coincidence that I am trying to piece together, but each reminded me of the other, so I thought I would make a note of it.

 

Mrs. Dalloway

Sentence Summary:  This novel takes a look at Clarissa Dalloway’s life in one day of preparing for a party, as she and others around her reflect on the past and contemplate death.

Paragraph Summary:  Mrs. Dalloway is getting ready for a party she is hosting, and she reflects on her past and wonders if she is really happy, especially after a visit from Peter Walsh.  He proposed to her, she declined, but throughout the novel he contemplates whether he still loves her or not.  Mrs. Dalloway is jealous of her daughter’s teacher, because she believes her daughter loves the teacher more than Mrs. Dalloway herself.  There is a subplot of Septimus and Rezia.  Septimus suffers from post-war traumatic stress, and kills himself.  After Mrs. Dalloway hears of this suicide at her party, she seems to come to terms with her life and her age.

Close Reading:

“She felt somehow very like him—the young man who had killed himself.  She felt glad that he had done it; thrown it away.  The clock was striking.  The leaden circles dissolved in the air.  He made her feel the beauty; made her feel the fun.  But she must go back.  She must assemble.  She must find Sally and Peter.  And she came in from the little room” (186).

 

This passage is a mixture of free indirect discourse and indirect discourse.  The passage starts in free indirect discourse, because the narrator is describing how Clarissa feels similar to Septimus, and happy that he committed suicide.  These thoughts and feelings are not recognizable by simply observing her.  Then the lines “The clock was striking.  The leaden circles dissolved in the air.” are both indirect discourse, because these are things that the narrator could observe and describe.  The rest is free indirect discourse until the last line.  By telling how Septimus made Clarissa feel a certain way, the narrator gets inside her thoughts.  The lines that say “she must” do something imply a sense of obligation felt by Clarissa, which is something that can only be seen when inside Clarissa’s mind.  The narrator is describing her perspective of what she must do.  Finally, this passage, and the paragraph end with indirect discourse, describing Mrs. Dalloway’s movements, “And she came in from the little room.”

There is a lot of free indirect discourse in the novel that gives the reader insight into Mrs. Dalloway’s thoughts, her memories, and her contemplations of death.  The free indirect discourse in this passage shows some realizations of Mrs. Dalloway.  She seems to come to terms with life.  Before she “always had the feeling that it was very, very dangerous to live even one day” (8) but now, she feels beauty and fun.  Seeing someone else end his life makes her realize she must enjoy the time she has and not being consumed by the past.  Perhaps this is how the clock striking plays in.  At first, I thought the description of the clock and leaden circles in indirect discourse disrupted the rest of the free indirect discourse.  However, now I think the description of Mrs. Dalloway’s surroundings adds a dimension to her realization about life.  Time passing on the clock can also symbolize the time passing in her life, and her acceptance of the time passing.

The indirect discourse at the end of the paragraph, “And she came in from the little room” (186) is the last time we hear about Mrs. Dalloway’s current state specifically until the end when she appears to Peter.  When she appears again in the novel it is through direct and indirect discourse: “It is Clarissa, he said.  For there she was” (194).  So, the line “And she came in from the little room” (186) marks the end of Clarissa’s free indirect discourse for the novel.  As readers, we do not get any more insight into her thoughts when she reappears at the end of the novel.  The fact that this passage that I chose was the last example of free indirect discourse of Clarissa seemed very significant.  If the entire novel held free indirect discourse about Mrs. Dalloway’s thoughts, why stop before the end of the novel?  I think it is to mark the end of Mrs. Dalloway’s reflection on the past and examination of death.  She has finally come to terms with her age and her life, so there is no need for the narrator to continue peeking into her mind.

Sentimental Education Part 3

Sentence Summary:  While political turmoil is happening around Paris, Frederic’s love life is scattered between affairs with and feelings for Rosanette, Mme Arnoux, Louise, and Mme Dambreuse.

Paragraph Summary:  Dambreuse wants Frederic to run for the National Assembly as he mourns the fall of the monarchy.  Unrest between the workers and bourgeoisie in Paris worsens.  At a party at the Dambreuses’, it is found out that Frederic is having an affair with Rosanette.  Frederic switches from being annoyed with Rosanette and in love with Mme Dambreuse to being annoyed with Mme Dambreuse and being in love with Mme Arnoux, to losing feelings for Mme Arnoux.

Close Reading:

“Her smile, her voice, the words she used, everything about her came to irritate him, and particularly the look in her eyes, that limpid, vacant, feminine gaze” (422).

This quotation comes from when Frederic is in a relationship with Mme Dambreuse and he begins to tire of her.  Again, its focus on eyes caught my attention, because this novel focuses a lot on people’s eyes and where they are looking and what their eyes look like.  Mme Dambreuse’s smile, voice, and the things she says annoy Frederic.  However, what irritates him the most is the look in her eyes.  Eyes matter the most and are at the top of the list of what is most important about liking, or not liking a person.  Her gaze is “limpid” and “vacant.”  Limpid means transparent or clear.  Vacant means empty or unoccupied.  A limpid and vacant gaze could reflect Mme Dambreuse’s personality—Frederic is finally seeing her as she is.  Perhaps he now finds her as a woman without substance, who he has nothing in common with and nothing to talk to her about.  As I have argued in previous reading registers, the eyes are telling about a person’s personality and current state, and her gaze, as Frederic sees it, shows her blank and empty personality.  I think her gaze could also be an indicator or a kind of metaphor for the relationship between Mme Dambreuse and Frederic.  Their connection was mostly based on Frederic’s lust for a higher status in society.  Therefore, they do not have a very deep connection, and their relationship can be seen as transparent and empty—“limpid” and “vacant.”

Sentimental Education Part 2

Sentence Summary: Frederic returns to Paris, but everything is different; he continues to be involved on and off with Mme Arnoux, ultimately declaring his love for her, but they do not end up together.

Paragraph Summary:  When Frederic returns to Paris, Arnoux does not work at the art magazine anymore and has moved.  Frederic buys a house and does not invite Deslauriers to live with him in hopes of someday finding a mistress.  Frederic’s love life is tanged between Mme Arnoux, Rosanette, and Louise.  He also insults Deslauriers, and they have a falling out.

Close Reading:

“Gazing into the fire, she had one hand on the little boy’s shoulder, and with the other she was undoing the laces of his vest; the child, in his shirt, was crying and scratching his head” (120-121).

This is the description of Mme Arnoux when Frederic sees her for the first time after returning to Paris.  It stood out to me because of the reference to sight/eyes and light, which is something I wrote my last reading register on, and have noticed often in the book.  In this case she is “gazing into the fire.”  Gazing has a somewhat sentimental or thoughtful connotation to it—people often gaze when they are thinking about something or longing for something.  Also, Mme Arnoux is looking into the fire.  So the light from the fire is coming into her eyes.  Before, when Frederic first saw Mme Arnoux on the boat, there was “dazzling light which her eyes cast upon him” (8).  First, there was light radiating from inside of her shining out through her eyes, but now there is light from outside shining into her eyes.  This change of direction of light in her eyes can be seen in a shift of her personality or a shift in how Frederic sees her.  In the context of the rest of this sentence, I picture Mme Arnoux to be tired or irritated, caring for her son who is crying.  Since Frederic has been gone she has had another child, and has experienced life.  She is older now, and no doubt more tired.  The shift from light shining from her eyes to light shining into her eyes could represent the shift of her personality shining outward (being younger and more beautiful) to her personality turning inward (being an older, tired mother).  The shift of light in her eyes could also reflect in the change of how Frederic sees her.  Before he left, she was perfect to him, and he took that image of perfection with him to grow while he was away.  So, his expectations of her and his image of her were exalted over time.  He put her so high up on a pedestal that she became a goddess in his mind, that the real Mme Arnoux could never live up to.  Now that he sees her again, as she truly is, she does not live up to his expectation, and therefore does not have light shining from her eyes.

Sentimental Education Part 1

Sentence Summary: On a boat ride home, Frederic meets Mme Arnoux and her husband, and immediately become infatuated with her; in the following years, he befriends Arnoux and frequents his studio to become closer with his wife.

Paragraph Summary:  Frederic is a law student, and on his return home he meets Mme Arnoux and her husband.  He knows very little about her, but becomes infatuated with her and claims to have fallen in love with her.  Soon, everything he does become consumed with her.  He develops a relationship with her husband to have a reason to come see her.  The Arnouxs have a lot of money, and Frederic is able to keep company with them as long as he has his inheritance, which he almost loses at the end of the section.  Also, Frederic’s dear friend, Deslaurier, has been staying with him.  They have had plans for a long time about a future together as lawyers.  Frederic often blows off Deslaurier to spend time with Arnoux and his rich friends.

Close Reading:

“She was sitting in the middle of the bench, all alone; or rather he could not see anybody else in the dazzling light which her eyes cast upon him” (8).

This line stood out to me, especially the words “the dazzling light which her eyes cast upon him” (8).  This is the moment Frederic first sees Mme Arnoux.  Normally when something fantastic is being shown off, there is some kind of light on it—a painting lighted up when showcased at an art show, an actor on stage in a spot light, or a beautiful day after a storm in the sunlight between the clouds.  Putting light on something amazing highlights it and shows it off.  To Frederic, Mme Arnoux is something amazing, but there is not light shining upon her.  Rather, there is light coming from her eyes shining upon Frederic.  The fact that she is producing this “dazzling light” shows some kind of power from within her.  It appears that she is more than a work of art to be shown off, she actually has some kind of power—perhaps the power she has over Frederic.

It is also interesting that the light comes from her eyes.  We see with our eyes and can learn things about the world and the people around us through what we see.  People can also learn about us by looking through our eyes, as if they are portals into our true selves.  Often, people have expressive eyes—even when you can fake happiness on your face, your eyes will give you away.  People always notice when you are tired by seeing bags under your bloodshot eyes.  It is as if Mme Arnoux is looking into Frederic’s being—she can see something about him through his eyes, and he can see something about her through her eyes.  Later, in another meeting with Mme Arnoux Frederic “felt her gaze penetrating his soul, like those great rays of sunlight which go down into the very depths of the water” (92).  Again, Mme Arnoux’s eyes are talked about in relation to light, in this case very bright light.  This time, it is explicitly said that the light from her eyes is “penetrating his soul,” so that she really is looking into his person and examining who he is.

Since I noticed these references to light and eyes in the first section, I believe it will come up more times in the novel, and I will keep a look out for more of these references.

 

Endgame Reading Register

Sentence Summary:  Clov takes care of Hamm, a man nearing the end of his life who cannot stand up or see; Clove always seems to want to leave, but never can.  Hamm’s parents live in trashcans in the middle of his house.

Paragraph Paraphrase:  If you were quiet I would be able to sleep.  While sleeping, I could dream about all the things I cannot do here on Earth, in my fragile and disabled body.  The heart in my head is trickling.

Close reading:  Hamm: “There’s something dripping in my head./ [Pause.]/ A heart, a heart in my head.” (25).

This line stood out to me first of all with the repetition of “a heart” and the alliteration seen in “heart” and “head.”  When I read the first line, “There’s something dripping in my head,” I immediately thought of someone with a head cold with runny sinuses.  What else would “drip” in one’s head?  I put “sickness” in for the word “something.”  However, when you keep reading Hamm clarifies what “something” refers to.  He says a heart is in his head.  But can a heart “drip”?  Or is he referring to the blood of a heart dripping?  If the reader was supposed to think of illness with a dripping head, how can we resolve illness with a heart?  Perhaps the author is trying to connect disease with the feelings of the heart.  A disease attacks your body and makes you weak—it is never good or beneficial for you.  The hopes and wishes of the heart are also harmful to Hamm.  He wishes he could sleep in order to dream of all the things his heart wishes he could do, but his body is unable to do.  His wishes are like a disease, attacking him from the inside, because he can never make them a reality.

“Dripping” could also be taken as “leaking.”  As if the influences of his heart are infiltrating his mind.  Hamm says he has a heart in his head.  The heart and the head are representations of the two extremes in which people live their lives by or make decisions by.  The heart represents passion and emotions, while the head represents reason and logic.  Hamm blurs the line between the two by saying that one is dripping into the other.  He is neither only passionate nor only logical, but both.

He uses “dripping” which is in the present progressive tense.  It is happening right now.  So, if emotion is currently dripping into his mind that implies that it wasn’t there before.  Therefore, he was very logical before, and that this switch to passion is relatively new.  In his old age, Hamm is controlled more and more by his emotions than before.

It is also curious that he says “a” heart is in “my” head.  He uses the possessive when talking about his head, but not when talking about the heart.  Does this mean that it’s not his heart?  That someone else’s emotions are infiltrating his mind?  I don’t have a good answer for this one.  It seems that his only human interactions are with Clov, Nagg, and Nell—and for the play he mostly talks to Clov.  Perhaps one of these characters has influenced Hamm to become more emotion-driven.

The Tempest- Prospero’s Epilogue

Sentence summary (act):

Ferdinand and Miranda have a wedding ceremony facilitated by spirits in the form of mythological figures.  Prospero sets up a trap, clothes at the side of the road, to catch those who are plotting against him.  He gives up his magic, and plans to go back to Milan to be duke.

Paragraph Paraphrase (10-15 lines):  I have given up my magic.  You keep me here instead of letting me go to Naples.  I want to go back to Italy so that I can again be duke.  Please let me go, your goodness, by clapping.  I only wanted to please you.  I will forever be sorrowful unless you forgive me for what I have done and let me go.

Close reading:

“As you from crimes would pardon be, / Let your indulgence set me free” (Epilogue 19-20).

The first time I read this, I was confused what Prospero meant by his epilogue.  After searching online, I found out that he was telling the audience that unless they clapped, he would be stuck forever on stage (http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/tempest/section10.rhtml).  The fact that Prospero speaks to the audience seems kind of Shakespearian—to me it is similar to the “play within a play” seen in “Taming of the Shrew.”  It is interesting that Shakespeare added this interactive aspect to his play.

However, the more I looked over these lines, the more I saw a double meaning to his words.  He addresses his audience as “you.”  This could be addressing his audience, but he never specifically calls them “my audience.”  The pronoun “you” could be used to address one person or many people.  He never makes the distinction of how many people he is talking to.  Why not be specific in addressing his audience?  This is how he leaves room for a double meaning.  I think this epilogue could also be seen as a prayer to God, or another divine being, for forgiveness for the meddling Prospero has done.

There are a lot of religious undertones throughout his epilogue.  In his last line Prospero says, “Let your indulgence set me free” (Epilogue 20).  He could just mean “indulgence” in that the audience should humor him by clapping to let him go.  However, the word “indulgence” also has religious connotations.  In the Catholic Church, an indulgence is granted by the church to a person who has confessed sins and received absolution.  An indulgence would free a person, either completely or partially, from punishment.  Prospero is asking for forgiveness and therefore freedom from punishment—the punishment being stuck on the island.  Also in his speech, Prospero says, “But release me from my bands/ With the help of your good hands” (Epilogue 10-11).  “Your good hands” can be another reference to God.  In literature, and even in art, God is commonly depicted with hands.  God is such an abstract entity/idea, that humans can more easily understand Him when attached to the concrete image of hands.  It is often “the hands of God” that do His work.  Michelangelo’s famous painting in the Sistine Chapel, “The Hands of Adam and God,” is often zoomed in to only the hands.  The idea of God and the image of hands have become associated over time.  When Prospero says that he can be freed with the “help of your good hands,” I believe that he is asking God for help.

Prospero also says, “And my ending is despair, / Unless I be relieved by prayer/ Which pierces so, that it assaults/ Mercy itself and frees all faults.” (Epilogue 15-18).  Again, I believe that these lines, full of religious references, can be seen as Prospero asking God’s forgiveness.  He says that he will die in despair unless he is forgiven through prayer.  Here he admits he is praying.  I don’t see him praying to the audience, since by definition prayer is an exchange between man and God.  There are some interesting line breaks here as well.  This is all one sentence, but it is broken up between four lines.  Why do this?  Maybe it is because the sentence it too long to fit in one line.  Or, perhaps Shakespeare is trying to draw attention to something in particular.  I want to focus on the line break between lines 17 and 18.  He breaks the line so that the first word in line 18 is “mercy.”  This way, mercy is capitalized because it is at the beginning of the new line.  The capitalization makes the word important, and more divine—almost as if he is referencing God here.  It’s almost as if you could put “God” in place of “Mercy.”  “And my ending is despair, / Unless I be relieved by prayer/ Which pierces so, that it assaults/ God itself and frees all faults.”  Prospero is hoping his prayers will reach God, and strike Him in a way that will make Him want to forgive Prospero.

It can be argued that Prospero’s epilogue has double meaning—that he is talking to the audience and God.  But what can we do with that?  Why does it matter?  Perhaps it is supposed to show Prospero in a new light.  Throughout the play he is portrayed as manipulative and revenge-seeking.  Maybe he really has learned from his mistakes, and wants to be forgiven so he can start over again back as Duke of Milan.  Or, perhaps, he just wants to be free from the guilt so he can enjoy his dukedom.  His intent and sincerity is hard to tell without seeing it performed to notice his body language, tone, and facial expressions.

The Tempest

Sentence Summary (act): Antonio tries to persuade Sebastian to kill Alonso to usurp him, while Stephano and Trinculo stumble upon the drunken Caliban.

 

Paragraph Paraphrase (10-15 lines):  (Caliban’s song) I will no longer work for another.  I will not be at his beck and call, doing dirty, degrading work.  Caliban has a new ruler.  I am free, I am free, I am free.

 

Close reading:

 

“Has a new master: get a new man. / Freedom, high-day, high-day freedom, freedom high-day, / freedom.” (2.2.181-183)

 

Caliban sings this when he is drunk.  The fact that he is drunk can be taken a few different ways.  First, it can be seen as he is “drunk” with happiness at the thought of freedom.  It could also be taken as he is impaired and not in his right mind—thus implying that Caliban would only ever believe he could be free while drunk.  There is also the theory that drunken people speak the truth, because they don’t have any inhibitions.  So, drunken Caliban lets out his real hopes and feelings towards freedom.  I tend to lean toward the idea that Caliban is “drunk” with hopes of freedom, or that he is speaking the truth of his want for freedom.  I think he truly believes in the prospect of freedom, because he pursues it.  He enlists the help of Stephano and Trinculo to try to win his freedom.  If he truly thought that freedom was out of reach, I don’t think he would waste the time to try to pursue it.

“Freedom high-day” are the same words that the Caliban in “A Tempest” says at the end of the play.  “A Tempest” has an open ending, where the reader doesn’t know exactly what happened with Caliban—all we know is that he sings “freedom high-day” at the end of the play.  Is he free?  Is he on the island with Prospero?  Is he on the island away from Prospero?  Re-reading the ending with the lens of “The Tempest” could give some insight into what Césaire meant for the ending of his play.  The Caliban in “The Tempest” sings “freedom high-day” when he is hoping for freedom, before he actually starts pursuing it.  So, we could take the same song and its context to “A Tempest.”  Perhaps the Caliban from “A Tempest” is still hoping for freedom as well while he sings his song.  If he is still hoping for freedom, that means he is still under Prospero’s rule, and still on the island.  This supports my initial reading of “A Tempest.”  When I first read the play I got the impression that he was still on the island, eternally singing his song of freedom, in hope of one day having it.  I couldn’t explain why I felt this way; that was just the impression I got when first reading it.  Looking at this scene within the scope of the original “The Tempest” could shed some light on what the author intended.

A Tempest

Sentence summary (play):

Prospero creates a storm to shipwreck a boat of nobles who have wronged him; there are struggles on the island between Prospero and his slave Caliban, and in the end Caliban never gets, but also never gives up on, the freedom Prospero once promised him.

Paragraph summary (scene):

Miranda and Ferdinand flirt while playing chess in Prospero’s cave.  Alonso and Gonzalo appear and reunite with Ferdinand.  Prospero promises Ariel freedom.  Stephano, Trinculo, and Caliban come to Prospero also.  Caliban makes a speech in which he condemns what Prospero has done to him, and warns that he will get revenge on Prospero.  The nobles go back to Italy with Miranda, but Prospero believes that the island will not function without him.  He keeps Caliban as his slave, but in the end, Caliban’s singing for freedom can still be heard.

Close Reading:

“underdeveloped, in your words, undercompetent” (Act III, Scene 5, page 62)

During his speech about the injustices of his slavery, he says that Prospero has made a false image of Caliban that is “underdeveloped, in your words, undercompetent.”  This line in particular stood out to me because of the repetition of “under” in the adjectives.  Caliban takes the take to say “in your words,” which is way of making it clear that this is an image that Prospero has imposed on Caliban, but Caliban himself does not necessary believe it.

The word undercompetent stood out to me, because I’d never heard it used before.  I’ve heard “incompetent,” never “undercompetent.”  So, I looked it up on Merriam-Webster Dictionary online, and there was no entry for the word.  Why use a word that does not exist?  My first thought was that it was sort of ironic.  Here Caliban is saying that that Prospero has created an unintelligent image of him that is false.  At the same time, he says an uneducated thing—he misuses uses “undercompetent” instead of “incompetent.”  This makes it seem like Prospero was not false in creating an uneducated image of Caliban.  However, in the rest of A Tempest, Césaire paints the slaves in a good light, as the oppressed, and the whites (Prospero) in a bad light, as a tyrant.  The rest of Caliban’s speech is full of injustices Prospero has done against Caliban.  So, I don’t think this was meant to make Caliban look stupid.  Maybe this is him succumbing to Prospero’s perception of him—by agreeing with his oppressor, he can take on a sarcastic tone and therefore point out the ignorance of Prospero’s thoughts and actions.

Another reason to use “undercompetent” is to use parallel word structure with “underdeveloped.”  The repetition of “under” draws attention to the statement, but also implies a societal hierarchy.  There is a bar of development and competence, where Prospero and other whites are, and then there is Caliban and other slaves who are “under” this.  Caliban is below those who are developed or competent—or at least that is where society has put him.  The use of “undercompetent” brings to mind the social hierarchy that was established at the time.