Module A Tempseed
Module A Tempseed
theatricality’s multifaceted ability to empower and restrict individuals across temporal and
cultural boundaries. Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest’ (1611) establishes a pivotal use of metatheatre
to exemplify the power over reality afforded to individuals who create art through theatricality,
which Atwood escalates in Hag-Seed (2016) through the construction of a metanarrative with
postmodern influences. The Tempest also initiates a complex conversation surrounding the
morality of oppression within accepted social structures in a Jacobean context, entirely reframed
for contemporary audiences and sensibilities in Hag-Seed to uplift those suppressed by
comparable structures.
Shakespeare’s reflective approach to his theatrical craft in his final work The Tempest,
manifests in the incorporation of metatheatre, informing Atwood’s post-modern consideration
of the power and limitations of theatrical recreation. In his final play, by drawing attention to
the theatricality inherent in the act of creation, Shakespeare establishes its dual natured power
over reality. Prospero’s magical prowess is euphemistically prescribed a theatrical quality as his
“art”, as Shakespeare implies the artist is all powerful over their work, as Prospero ensures “no
soul” is lost in the eponymous tempest. Shakespeare’s purposeful connection of The Tempest’s
world and his performance space through the double entendre of the “great globe itself” evokes
the audience's understanding of his power as a playwright to temporarily transform their
experience of reality. The implied great power of this theatre begins to be limited in scope by
Shakespeare however, as Prospero’s metaphorical musing that “we are such stuff as dreams are
made on” implies Shakespeare’s understanding of his theatrical power to be ultimately limited
in its ephemeral nature. The artist's ultimate need for a more meaningful yet simpler existence
is evident in Shakespeare's final metatheatrical message through Prospero, the religious
symbolic value of his need to "be relieved by prayer" expressing both figure's desire to distance
from previous explorations of unorthodox, humanist ideologies in their theatricality, and align
with dominant Christian values. Shakespeare’s reflection on his own power and career forms the
basis of Atwood’s work.
Atwood mirrors Shakespeare’s introspective tone, marrying this with her postmodern
understanding of artistic creation, representing the potentials and pitfalls of theatrical power
for individuals. Felix’s awareness of theatricality’s capacity to regain power over his own destiny,
hyperbolically exclaiming “It conjures up demons in order to exorcise them!” is Atwood’s first
integration of metatheatricality to affirm the power of the form. His further assertion of this
power in the cynical religious reference that the “text is not a sacred cow” exemplifies the
influence of Atwood’s postmodern context. This influences her belief in the kaleidoscopic
nature of narratives across temporal contexts, demonstrating the self-awareness of artifice and
unoriginality in both author and character. Despite the heightened degree of control this
theatricality affords, Atwood purposefully selects the culmination of the motif of prisons to be
Felix’s metatextual assertion “the ninth prison is the play itself”, suggesting theatricality is
inherently binding. Resonating with the values Shakespeare grasps in his final reflection, Felix’s
moment of catharsis to let Miranda “to the elements be free” reinforces his understanding of the
ultimately limited capacity of theatricality to restore balance to his own reality, through
Atwood’s metatextual reuse of the hypotext’s dialogue. Atwood dialogues with Shakespeare on
the strengths and limitations of theatre from her distinct cultural context, but ultimately mirrors
his approach.
Shakespeare’s The Tempest and Atwood’s Hag-seed approach, from their distinct contextual
paradigms, similar notions of the layered power afforded by theatricality, initiating a
conversation across time. The ever evolving role of the artist, explored through a common
feature of metatheatricality, and the restrictions placed upon disadvantaged groups by social
structures, are both considered through the dialoguing of these texts.