Response Paper #3: an Argument About the Meaning of Aimé Césaire S a Tempest

English 123 – Rosichan

Response Paper #3: An Argument about the Meaning of Aimé Césaire’s “A Tempest” Using the Lens of a Literary Criticism (just one)

Value: 40 points

Format: Typed, MLA style

Length: 500-750 words (approximate)

Due Date: See Syllabus.

Directions: In three to five paragraphs, write a claim-driven paper about Aimé Césaire’s play A Tempest in relation to Shakespeare’s The Tempest, using just one literary criticism to focus, support, and develop your claim and analysis. (Select one of the prompts below and select one of the following criticisms: New Criticism, Reader Response Criticism, Psychological Criticism, Gender Criticism, Marxist Criticism, Postcolonial Criticism, or Deconstruction.)

Remember the claim should present a single, focused argument about the meaning or purpose of the play, one which reflects the concerns or questions raised by one of the literary criticisms.

Name the literary criticism in your intro and also in the assignment line of your heading. Support your claim with evidence from the play and interpretation/analysis of that evidence, keeping the literary criticism in mind and using its terms in your interpretation/analysis of the evidence in support of your argument.

Quote (paraphrase, summarize), and cite the text correctly, using proper MLA parenthetical in-text citation. As long as you’re using the assigned textbooks/versions of the texts, you do not need a Works Cited page. Do NOT use outside sources. Prompts: Select one of the following:

A. Psychological Criticism: What (fears or desires) motivate the character(s)? Do you see a character or characters exhibiting self-destructive or self-preserving behavior? So what? B. Gender Criticism: According to the play, what traditional or stereotypical roles are men expected to play? Be specific. What attitude does the play demonstrate toward those roles? Is it upholding them as ideal? Is it reflecting them as natural or simply as truth? Is it questioning them, challenging, or denouncing them? What evidence in the play suggests this attitude? C. New Criticism: What is the significance of the word “tempest” to the meaning or argument of the play? And why does Césaire call it “a tempest” instead of “the tempest?” What does this have to do with his purpose or argument? What in the play qualifies as a tempest? What is this play (in contrast to Shakespeare’s) saying about tempests? The truth is whatever literary theory you adopt, you use the methods of New Criticism to support it. The New Criticism approach just means you find a stand alone argument about the meaning of the play or really an aspect of the play and then prove it with your close analysis of the text. D. Marxist Criticism: What different classes exist in the play? How do they interact? What privileges and responsibilities does each class (or simply the class you wish to focus on) have and so what? What can each expect from life? Who has the power and how does he/she use it? Who wants power, and how does he/she go about attaining it? To what extent are the characters oppressed by the society they live in and especially the class they belong to? E. Postcolonial Criticism: What different cultures seem to exist in the play? Who belongs to the dominant culture? Who is considered or portrayed as “other?” That is, who is the colonizer and who is the colonized? How is each characterized? How do they interact? Who has the power and how does he/she use it? Does the play seem to uphold the status quo or question or challenge it? How do you know? F. Reader Response Criticism: Whom do we sympathize and/or identify with in this play? What in the play elicits this sympathy or identification? Why? What meaning and/or purpose does it promote? G. Deconstruction: Consider looking at two conflicting ideas of what men are like (noble and savage, for example) or what one particular character is like, which the play presents and stands behind equally or nearly (Ariel, in particular but also Prospero or Caliban). Or consider two conflicting ideas about freedom (what it means), etc. Then consider how both of these views are communicated and why both are allowed to stand. That is, come up with a claim about Césaire’s purpose or the play’s overall meaning based on the co- existence of both views. Note: Deconstruction is always difficult because Deconstruction rejects the possibility of unity; however, arguments and especially claim- driven essays demand unity in order to be effective and successful. Who while you analysis and close reading of the text will identify an inherent contradiction in the text, your claim will argue for a unified purpose of that contradiction.