How does Hag-Seed bring new meaning to The Tempest in terms of reconciliation?

Margaret Atwood’s prose-fiction novel Hag-Seed (2016) both extends upon and problematises William Shakespeare’s tragicomic play The Tempest (1611), exploring the complexity of reconciliation by asserting that although it may go against our human tendencies, it is essential to overcoming our self-imposed human weakness. In The Tempest, Shakespeare suggests the importance of reconciliation through Prospero’s ultimate forgiveness of his usurpers, reiterated by Atwood who suggests that reconciliation continues to be fundamental in a modern context. However, Shakespeare justifies the oppression and imprisonment of Caliban contradicting the notion of reconciliation, with Atwood problematising this representation by asserting that the reconciliation of society and the imprisoned is also vital. Thus, Atwood’s reinterpretation of the canonical text goes beyond a spatial- temporal and generic shift, bringing new meaning to Shakespeare’s representation of reconciliation through an exploration of its difficulty, but importance to the human experience.

Prospero’s obsession with attaining immoral vengeance through means of ‘rough magic’ emphasises the necessity of reconciliation and compassion in order to transcend human weakness. Prospero’s vindictive position as the ‘Prince of Power’ is demonstrated as Prospero malevolently manipulates the royal court in order to re-achieve his Dukedom. Prospero deceives Alonso in believing that Ferdinand had perished at his hands, with Alonso’s repetition of ‘O, it is monstrous, monstrous’ not only demonstrating the extent of Prospero’s abuse, but also suggesting that the conjurer himself, may be

monstrous. However, Prospero ultimately comes to realise his own obsession with revenge and wrongdoing through the symbolic double entendre: ‘this thing of darkness I acknowledge mine’, referring both to Caliban and also Prospero’s own capacity for evil. Drawing upon contextual notions of Renaissance Humanism, Prospero ends his cathartic monologue with ‘all which it inherit, shall dissolve’, a truism functioning as an extended metaphor for the impermanence of human life and the need to act upon one’s flaws in their limited existence. Through this realisation, Prospero proclaims ‘You… would have here killed your king: I do forgive thee’, finally forgiving his usurpers, emphasised by the juxtaposition of virtue with Antonio’s attempted assassination of the king, an immensely immoral act in the context of the strict Jacobean Monarch and Great Chain of Being. Thus, Shakespeare asserts the importance of virtue and forgiveness in order to surpass the confining iniquities of revenge.

Asserting the continued importance of reconciliation in a modern context, Atwood explores the power of forgiveness in relation to sorrow through the grief-stricken mirror of Felix. Shifting the discussion from Prospero’s ambition to Felix’s guilt and mental health, Atwood brings new meaning to Shakespeare’s leitmotif of water. Whilst in The Tempest, water is used as a metaphor for Prospero’s complete control demonstrated through his illusory tempest and alliteratively threatening of ‘wild waters’, Atwood subverts this meaning to bring light to a discussion of Felix’s grief, who is ‘lost at sea, drifting here, drifting there’. The ocean symbolically represents Felix’s entrapment and his loss of autonomy, succumbing to the currents of the sea. In overcoming such profound grief, Atwood re-asserts the Shakespearean notion of the forgiveness as a mechanism to set ourselves free from the self-

imposed prisons we suffer under. Atwood intertextually incorporates a direct allusion to Shakespeare’s Tempest, as Felix comprehends that ‘the rarer action is / In virtue than in vengeance, he hears inside his head. It's Miranda’, a moral aphorism that privileges virtue and mercy over immoral actions of vengeance. The antithesis of two extremes emphasises Felix's self-growth; he polarises the human experience, choosing virtuous values of reconciliation that benefit wider society. Thus, Atwood continues Shakespeare’s assertion of the importance of virtue and forgiveness through an exploration of Felix’s mental imprisonment, contending that it is through forgiveness that he is able to escape from this.

Shakespeare contradicts his assertion of reconciliation through the justification of the imprisonment of Caliban through his depiction as a ‘New World Savage’ engulfed by animalistic desires. Prospero immediately positions Caliban as a submissive slave, reinforced through the high modality language in Prospero’s dialogue – “Slave! Caliban!... Got by the devil himself’. The biblical allusion of the ‘devil’ further degrades Caliban by presenting him as fuelled by satanic desires, especially significant considering the prominence of Christianity in Jacobean society. Caliban’s intelligence is further questioned through Shakespeare’s use of slapstick comedy in his interaction with Stephano and Trinculo. This comedic depiction of Caliban emphasises his heteronomy – “That’s a brave god and bears celestial liquor. I will kneel to him”. Shakespeare employs dramatic irony by having Caliban worship the very antithesis of divinity: the court jesters, thus demonstrating Caliban’s low intelligence and justifying his servitude. As the play ends, although Prospero reconciles his woes with his usurpers and finds peace with Caliban, he remains derisive towards Caliban, evoking strong imagery through the simile ‘he is as

disproportioned in his manners as in his shape’. Furthermore, the final dialogue between the characters suggest the continuation of a divisive social hierarchy that has failed to reconcile society with the native, emphasised through Prospero’s use of conditional language that asserts his dominance of Caliban in ‘as you look to have my pardon, trim it handsomely’. Hence Shakespeare presents contrasting views in terms of reconciliation, affirming the oppression of the ‘other’, rather than a resolution of the conflict.

Critiquing Shakespeare’s assertion of division and divergence, Atwood emphasises the importance of reconciliation and compels the modern-day reader to understand the ‘outcasts’ of our own society. Atwood critiques Shakespeare’s pejorative depiction of Caliban by disembodying and re- constituting him as a multifarious collective, a repository of the very human foibles and failures of humanity. Atwood reimagines Shakespeare’s Masques in Team Hag-Seed’s rap: ‘Hag-Seed’s black and Hag-Seed’s brown, … Hag-Seed’s yellow and Hag-Seed’s trash white’. The accumulative listing of racial backgrounds emphasises the universality of isolation and oppression and its prevalence within all of humanity, an extension of Prospero’s similar revelation when he says ‘this thing of darkness, I acknowledge mine’. The meta-fictive novel form of Hag-Seed also invites a more intimate reading of the text than Shakespeare’s play form is able to achieve, utilising third person direct narration to explore the prisoner’s capability for change. Felix proclaims that ‘for once in their lives, they loved themselves’. Atwood also challenges stigma against prisons by presenting a unique perspective on the prisoner’s, directly appealing to pathos through a metaphor of their children as a ‘cherubin that helps them get through the rough parts’. Through such humanisation, Atwood asserts that the outcasts do have the capacity to be reconciled within society,

and thus, Hag-Seed engages in a critical conversation with The Tempest, changing a reader’s attitude towards reconciliation.

Ultimately, Margaret Atwood’s Hag-Seed both extends upon and problematises Shakespeare’s The Tempest, asserting the importance of reconciliation in a modern context. Shakespeare asserts the importance of virtue and forgiveness in order to surpass the confining iniquities of revenge, with Atwood continuing this discussion through an exploration of Felix’s mental imprisonment. However, Shakespeare presents a contradictory stance in terms of reconciliation, affirming the oppression of the ‘other’, with Atwood asserting that even the outcasts in society do have the capacity to be reconciled within society. Thus, Atwood explores the complexity of reconciliation by asserting that although it may go against our human tendencies, it is essential to overcoming our self-imposed human weaknesses.