Notes Introduction 1. Reprinted from William Shakespeare: The Tempest edited by Stephen Orgel (Oxford World’s Classics, 1998) by permission of Oxford University Press. All references are to this edition © Oxford University Press 1987. 2. See, for instance, Peter Holland, English Shakespeares: Shakespeare on the Eng- lish Stage in the 1990s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); and Charles Marowitz, Recycling Shakespeare (London: Macmillan, 1991). 3. See Alan Sinfield, “Introduction: Reproductions, Interventions,” in Political Shakespeare: Essays in Cultural Materialism (1985), eds. Jonathan Dollimore & Alan Sinfield (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994), p. 154. See also his “Making Space: Appropriation and Confrontation in Renais- sance British Plays,” in Graham Holderness, ed. & pref., The Shakespeare Myth (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988), pp. 128–144. 4. I have, in several articles, outlined a methodology to make sense of all these Tempest-rewrites beyond a postcolonial reading and encouraged criss-cross- ings over linguistic boundaries (francophone studies being neatly separated from Anglophone studies) and over genre boundaries to consider literature and film. Since I wrote the first article on Canadian, Québécois, and Caribbean Tempests in 1985, a few articles were published but they invari- ably addressed issues in isolated fashion, i.e., dealing exclusively with either postcoloniality (Jolly 1986; Brydon 1989) or postmodernism (Donaldson 1988; Skura 1992); with a particular country (Canada: Laframboise 1991) or countries (the Caribbean: Wynter 1990). More recently, books have ap- proached a character and provided its “historiography” (the Vaughans’ Shakespeare’s Caliban, 1991; Harold Bloom’s Caliban, 1992; Theo D’Haen & Nadia Lie, eds., Constellation Caliban, 1997) or the history of the play’s production (Christine Dymkowski, The Tempest: Shakespeare in Produc- tion, 2000) or within the “Shakespeare Studies” paradigm (The Tempest and Its Travels, eds. Peter Hulme and Bill Sherman, 2000). Book chapters have also been devoted to The Tempest from, for example, a queer (Kate Chedgzoy, Shakespeare’s Queer Children, 1995), “performative” (Susan Ben- nett, Performing Nostalgia, 1996), or a women’s perspective (Julie Sanders, Novel Shakespeares, 2002). 270 Tempests after Shakespeare 5. Edward W. Said, “On Originality,” in The World, the Text, and the Critic (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), p. 135. My italics. 6. From writing, i.e., composing (“making sense”); righting, i.e., reforming (“set- ting right”); wright (ing), i.e., constructing with craft, as in the “playwright.” 7. See, for instance, Kenneth Muir’s The Sources of Shakespeare’s Plays (London: Methuen, 1977); and Geoffrey Bullough’s Narrative and Dramatic Sources to Shakespeare, vol. 8 (London & New York: Columbia University Press, 1975). The scholarly tracing of sources is also an ideological enterprise. To wit, Peter Hulme and Francis Barker’s questioning of Frank Kermode’s use of sources in the Arden edition such as the Bermuda Pamphlets, which he deemed not fun- damental to the play’s structure of ideas, when in fact such sources connect the play’s characters to the colonists aboard the Sea-Adventure off the coast of Bermuda in 1609. For a discussion of the Bermuda pamphlets and the influ- ence of the New World on The Tempest, see The Arden Shakespeare: The Tem- pest, ed. Frank Kermode (London: Routledge, 1954), pp. xxv-xxxiv; and Francis Barker & Peter Hulme, “Nymphs and Reapers Heavily Vanish: the Discursive Con-texts of The Tempest,” in Alternative Shakespeares, ed. John Drakakis (London & New York: Routledge, 1985), p. 199. 8. “A Sequel to Shakespeare’s Tempest,” in which Caliban, Antonio and Sebast- ian betray Prospero on the return voyage to Milan. This is done, in the Vaughans’ words, “in imitation of our immortal Shakespeare.” In Alden T. Vaughan & Virginia Vaughan, Shakespeare’s Caliban: A Cultural History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 101–102. 9. See my article, “Wreaders: On the Practice of ‘Rewriting’ at the End of the Twentieth Century,” Alizés/ Trade Winds 20 (2001), 191–205. 10. See Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author,” “Musica Practica,” and “From Work to Text” in Image-Music-Text, trans. Stephen Heath (London: Fontana, 1977), pp. 142–164. 11. Fredric Jameson, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (London: Methuen 1981), p. 16; and André Lefevere, “‘Beyond Inter- pretation’, Or the Business of (Re)Writing,” Comparative Literature Studies 24:1 (1987), 19. 12. Said, p. 132 & p. 138. 13. Qtd in George D. Painter, Proust: The Late Years (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1965), p. 100. 14. Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 5 & p. 11. See also Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight (New York: Methuen, 1983), pp. 182–83; Frank Lentricchia, After the New Criticism (1980) (New York: Methuen, 1983), p. 283; and Thomas Docherty, After Theory: Post Modernism/Post Marxism (London: Routledge, 1990), p. 127. 15. The term is borrowed from Judie Newman, The Ballistic Bard: Postcolonial Fictions (London: Arnold, 1995), p. 21. 16. Pierre Macherey, Pour une théorie de la production littéraire (Paris: François Maspero, 1970), p. 267. The combined concepts of Lyotard’s métarécit or grand-narrative, of Genette’s “hypertextuality,” and of Bloom’s grand pre- Notes 271 cursor come close to Macherey’s notion. See Jean-François Lyotard, The Post- modern Condition (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), p. xxiii. Originally, La condition post-moderne (Paris: Ed. De Minuit, 1979); and Gérard Genette, Palimpsestes (Paris: Seuil, 1982), pp. 235–236. 17. Diana Brydon and Helen Tiffin, “‘The Thematic Ancestor’: Conrad, White and Atwood,” in Decolonizing Fictions (Sydney, Mundelstrup, West York- shire: Dangaroo Press, 1993), p. 89. See also Diana Brydon, “The White Inuit Speaks: Contamination as Literary Strategy,” Past the Last Post: Theo- rising Post-Colonialism and Post-Modernism, eds. Ian Adam & Helen Tiffin (Calgary: Calgary University Press, 1990), pp. 191–203. 18. Linda Hutcheon, A Theory of Parody: The Teaching of Twentieth-Century Art Forms (New York & London: Methuen; 1985), p. 32. 19. Mikhail Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Austin & London: University of Texas Press, 1981), p. 76. 20. John Fowles, The Ebony Tower (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1974), p. 18. 21. Hutcheon, Theory of Parody, p. 35 & pp. 69–83. On satire versus parody, see pp. 78–79. On pastiche, see, for instance, Linda Hutcheon, “The Politics of Parody,” in The Politics of Postmodernism (London & New York: Routledge, 1989), pp. 93–117, esp. pp. 94–98. 22. Jacques Derrida, Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourn- ing, and the New International, trans. Peggy Kamuf; with an introduction by Bernd Magnus & Stephen Cullenberg (New York and London: Routledge, 1944), p. 4 & p. 10. Originally Spectres de Marx (Paris: Galilée, 1993). 23. Virginia Woolf, “The Mark on the Wall,” (1921) in A Haunted House and Other Stories (1944) (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975), p. 46. 24. Hélène Cixous and Catherine Clément, “Sorties,” in The Newly Born Woman, trans. Betty Wing, intro. Sandra Gilbert (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986), p. 65. Originally published as La Jeune Née (Paris: Union générale d’éditions, 1975). 25. Adrienne Rich, “When We Dead Awaken: Writing as Re-vision” (1971), College English 35:1 (October 1972), 18–25; rpt in Adrienne Rich’s Poetry, ed. Barbara Charlesworth Gelpi & Albert Gelpi (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975), pp. 90–98; and in Rich’s On Lies, Secrets, and Silence: Selected Prose 1966–1978 (London & New York: W. W. Norton, 1979), pp. 33–49. Rich’s poem “When We Dead Awaken,” was published in Diving into the Wreck: Poems 1971–1972 (New York & London: W.W. Norton, 1973), pp. 5–6. The title is lifted from Henrik Ibsen’s play When We Dead Awaken (Naar Vidde Vaagner) (1899). 26. Marianne Hirsch, The Mother/Daughter Plot: Narrative, Psychoanalysis, Fem- inism (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989), p. 160. See also Rachel Blau du Plessis, Writing Beyond the Ending: Narrative Strategies of Twentieth-Century Women Writers (Bloomington: Indiana Uni- versity Press, 1985), p.4. 27. Liz Yorke, Impertinent Voices: Subversive Strategies in Contemporary Women’s Poetry (London & New York: Routledge, 1991), p. 1 & p. 15. My italics. See 272 Tempests after Shakespeare also Liedeke Plate’s Ph.D. dissertation, Visions and Re-Visions: Female Au- thorship and the Act of Rewriting (Indiana University 1995). DAIN: DA9614560. 28. See Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, Helen Tiffin, The Empire Writes Back (London: Routledge, 1989), p. 97. 29. Jack J. Jorgens, Shakespeare on Film (Bloomington & London: Indiana Uni- versity Press, 1977), pp. 12–14. See also, e.g., Brian McFarlane, Novel to Film. An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. 7; Geoffrey Wagner, The Novel and the Cinema (Rutherford, N.J.: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1975), pp. 222–231; William Luhr, Peter Lehman, Authorship and Narrative in the Cinema (New York: Putman, 1977), p. 192; Andrew J. Dudley, Concepts in Film Theory (New York & Ox- ford: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 98–104; and Eric Rentschler, Ger- man Film and Literature (London: Methuen, 1986), p. 3. 30. Frank Kermode, The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 8. Part I 1. Russell Hoban, The Moment under the Moment (1992) (London: Picador in collaboration with Jonathan Cape, 1993), p. 83. Chapter 1 1. Ernest Renan, Caliban: Suite de “La tempête” (Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1878). All translations are my own. Hereafter page numbers are indicated in the text. 2. See, for instance, Koenraad Geldof, “Look Who’s Talking: Caliban in Shake- speare, Renan and Guéhenno,” in Constellation Caliban: Figurations of a Character, eds. Nadia Lie & Theo D’Haen (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997), pp. 81–112, p. 91. Translated by Ortwin de Graef. 3. See Ruby Cohn, Modern Shakespeare Offshoots (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976), p.