Literature’s fusion of contextual and intertextual influences creates a literary conversation that

helps texts to transcend their respective contexts. Shakespeare’s tragicomedy, The Tempest

(1611), examines the ethnic ‘other’ and the imprisonment caused by solipsism – the illusion that

one’s mind is the only thing that is certain to exist. Inspired by Montaigne’s essay, Of Cannibals,

Shakespeare embraces the boundary between cultural relativism and the universal denigration

of the colonised that was prevalent during the predeterministic Jacobean era. Likewise,

Atwood’s contemporary pastiche, Hag-Seed (2016), condemns through a metamodernist lens the

rejection of unique artistic interpretation and explores how imprisonment is an inevitable part

of the hyperreal digital age. Thus by using distinctly modern concepts to modernise the ideas

originally illustrated in The Tempest, Atwoods allows Shakespeare to become once again relevant

for modern audiences.

As an avant-garde play of the Renaissance era, The Tempest fuses both universalist and culturally

relativist representations of the ‘other’ as a means to criticise the prevailing Judeo-Christian

beliefs that scorned dissimilar customs. Shakespeare clarifies this in Miranda’s diatribe in Act 1

Scene 2 as she denigrates Caliban as a “savage… [who] wouldst gabble like/A thing most brutish”.

Shakespeare’s use of dysphemism illustrates Miranda’s othering of Caliban as she enforces her

own moral and linguistic perspective. However, similar to Montaigne’s critique that “there is

more barbarity in eating a man alive, than when he is dead” (Of Cannibals, 1580), Shakespeare

censures the ethics and language deemed objectively superior by one culture against another’s,

illuminated by the irony in Caliban’s monologue. His lucid expression in verse of “the clouds

methought would open, and show riches” and his “crie[s] to dream again” subvert his usual

barbaric depiction, juxtaposing against Miranda’s original description. This irregularity in

Caliban’s portrayal manifests Shakespeare’s relativist disparagement of the imposition of

eurocentric Judeo-Christian morality. Similarly, Atwood defends, from a metamodernist

framework, the transformative value that contemporary reimagination can bring to literature.
Loaning the words of Vermeulen in “Notes of Metamodernism” (2010), Atwood illustrates Felix

as “exhibitionism for engagement”, embodying the modern artistic other’s freedom to express in

a secular society. For instance, Atwood’s description of Felix’s plays as “those escapades, those

flights of fancy, those triumphs…” employs anaphora to encapsulate the current aesthetic

metamorphosis in art, that being Felix’s shift towards increasingly unorthodox and flamboyant

productions. Furthermore, the motif of the “animalskin cape” which will soon “be nothing but a

souvenir” resonates with the supposed barbarity of the Shakespearean ‘other’, insinuating that

modern adaptations still manifest their hypotexts authentically. That is, Atwood disputes the

present-day criticism that is against radically reimagining classical literature, advocating

instead for novel literary settings and interpretations. In this way, by illuminating the

commonality between evolving Judeo-Christian morals and contemporary perspectives, Atwood

transforms Shakespeare’s relativist criticism into a metamodern pastiche that reimagines the

ethnic into the artistic ‘other’.

Moreover, The Tempest examines how solipsism incarcerates and isolates the illusioner,

reaffirming predeterministic hierarchical structures. Reflected through Prospero’s Act 4 Scene 1

monologue, the description of “these actors” as “all spirits” alludes to the Theatrum Mundi,

illustrating Prospero’s egocentricity and his self-appointed salience in Shakespeare’s

metatheatre. As he is not a divine being, Prospero’s ostensible authority represents an inversion

of the Jacobean caste system, ultimately imprisoning him in the epilogue. Mirroring the Grecian

parabasis, Prospero’s appeal to “let your indulgence set me free” reflects a transgression of usual

dramaturgical boundaries, placing his fate outside the mise-en-scène. Thus, Shakespeare

indefinitely incarcerates Prospero, tethering his freedom to the inconclusive applause of the

audience. Indeed, the polysemy of “prayer” in “Unless I be relieved by prayer/Which pierces so

that it assaults”, which can be interpreted as the aforementioned applause in this context,

insinuates that only divine intervention can free Prospero. Shakespeare thereby punishes
Prospero’s egotistical theatrics where he casts himself as the lead and hence condemns

Prospero’s solipsistic paradigm, ratifying instead the predeterministic social hierarchy which

centralises the Jacobean deity. However, rather than solipsistic withdrawal, Atwood illustrates

imprisonment in the digital age through the congruent contemporary framework of

hyperrealism, cautioning against the increasing virtualisation of experience. Coined by

Baudrillard, hyperreality refers to “the implosion of the medium and of the real” (1994) meaning

that manufactured mistruths are indiscernible from reality due to their disseminating system

being subtly integrated into the real world. In Hag-Seed, this disseminating system is

represented through the fusion of technology and theatre. For example, while 8Handz interprets

Miranda’s voice as “this weird feedback thing… [which], like, got in the way”, Felix perceives the

voice as genuine, communicating with it in “sotto voce”. The juxtaposition between 8Handz’s

colloquial language against Felix’s dramaturgical jargon illuminates how the distinct mediums

each manifest disjunct perspectives. Through this breakdown of the underlying reality, Atwood

then deconstructs imprisonment in a digitalised society by simultaneously alluding to Huxley’s

Brave New World and The Tempest’s 5th Act 1st Scene in “all those wondrous people inside their

brave new world.” The intertextuality with a dystopia that uses technology to dismantle

individual agency is accentuated by the concurrent allusion to Miranda’s celebration of the

human spirit. Atwood thus clarifies her precept which is that in the 21st century, individuals are

incarcerated through various forms of media. Consequently, she reimagines Shakespeare’s

representation of imprisonment, using it not to uphold contextual hierarchical structures but

instead to criticise the intensifying expansion of digital mediums in a technologically advanced

society.

Hence, by recontextualising cultural relativism and universalism into metamodernism and

solipsism into hyperreality, Atwood fully explores the possibilities with reshaping Shakespeare’s

ideas of the ethnic ‘other’ and imprisonment. She employs distinctly modern concepts while also
interweaving Shakespeare’s meta-theatrical form, allowing both texts to thoroughly anatomise

the pertinence of Jacobean themes, even in contemporary environments.