In our natural state, we are glorious beings.

In the world of illusion, we are lost and

imprisoned, slaves to our appetites and our will to false power. Marianne Williamson

In her conversation with Shakespeare's "The Tempest", to what extent does Atwood's
"Hag-Seed" align with this statement?

Margaret Atwood’s 2016 postmodern novel Hag-Seed aims to recontextualise and converse
with William Shakespeare’s 1611 tragicomedy The Tempest. Both explore the ideas of illusion,
vengeance, forgiveness, and imprisonment, however, due to the 400-year difference, both texts
differ in this examination. The mirroring, aligning, and aforementioned collisions of ideals allow
for a textual conversation between both texts. Both texts align significantly with the above
statement through their exploration of how the characters Prospero and Felix come to embrace
the value of forgiveness and reject illusion and vengeance.

“The world of illusion” is quickly established as a central idea in both texts. Act 1 Scene 1 of The
Tempest starts in media res, utilising elements of the absurd to bewilder the audience and
introduce the concept of illusion. Frenetic stage direction, as the boatswain swiftly switches
between yelling “To the courtiers” and “To the Mariners”, as well as other directions such as “a
confused noise within” works to immerse the audience in Prospero’s illusion as soon as
possible, but also positions the audience, in their moment of disarray, to be against Prospero’s
illusory tempest. Atwood immediately introduces this concept in both the prologue which mirrors
the first scene of The Tempest, and the first chapter in which illusion is imbued in the character
of Felix. “He smiles: the illusion of a smile. Pretense, fakery, but who’s to know?” Atwood’s use
of caesura illustrates the importance of illusion and employs a rhetorical question to implicate
the audience in Felix’s illusion. This rhetorical device aligns with Atwood’s context as a
Postmodern author, who challenges and questions binary oppositions such as real and fake.
Atwood questions whether illusion is truly ‘false’, as it is the only thing the viewer perceives,
similar to philosophical ideas such as ‘Plato’s allegory of the cave’ in which perception of what is
directly in front of a person is all that that person can believe to be true. Where Atwood
challenges the reality of illusion, Shakespeare manipulates illusion to engage his audience,
linking to the context of the Jacobean era in which the publication of “Daemonologie” by King
James I led popular opinion to be fascinated by the supernatural. Both texts position their
readers to question illusion, and not trust it.

The characters of Prospero and Felix in the respective texts mirror each other, made obvious by
their similar fall from grace, their connection to their daughters, and most importantly, their spite
and desire for revenge. Vengeance is portrayed in both texts as a self-destructive trait but for
differing reasons due to each author’s respective context. During Shakespeare’s milieu, the King
James Bible had just been written, reviving the concept of Christian forgiveness. As a
tragicomedy, Prospero has a narrative requirement to forgive the characters he has been putting
through torment, and this is realised through Ariel’s begging him to do so in Act 5 Scene 1.
Prospero’s following line “the rarer action is in virtue, than in vengeance” encapsulates this
Christian need for forgiveness. Shakespeare’s context shapes the manner in which Prospero
needs to forgive and renounce illusion, ultimately freeing himself from the “lost and imprisoned”
state that illusion forces him into. This leads to the play's final moment in which Prospero is
“set..free” by the “indulgence” of the audience. Shakespeare manipulates dramatic structure,
knowing that the audience will always clap at the end of a play, and uses that to fulfil Prospero’s
arc of redemption, itself a reflection of the Christian values of the time.

Similarly, Atwood’s context shapes how Felix must forgive and renounce illusion. Felix as a
character both aligns and collides with Prospero. As previously mentioned, both are governed
by vengeance and illusion, but for different reasons. Where Prospero feels guilt that he was not
a responsible leader of Naples, itself a small issue that is ultimately left unresolved via his
forgiving of Antonio and sudden return to Naples, Felix’s guilt is far more established in
Hag-Seed. Felix is led by a much darker guilt, as he feels responsible for the death of his
daughter due to his absence. This leads to him constantly imagining a version of Miranda, a
severe psychological manifestation of his grief. These imaginings grow to hallucinations when
“He actually heard a voice. It was not a consolation. Instead, it frightened him.” Atwood’s
truncating of these phrases contributes to a troubled psychological tone, grounding what was
illusion in The Tempest into the delusions of a disturbed father who lost his daughter This aligns
Felix with the modern context of current medical science which would describe his
hallucinations as the outcome of intense grief or even PTSD. Where Shakespeare’s Prospero
had to forgive to fulfil the Christian character arc of his context, Atwood’s Felix must let go of the
version of Miranda he has captured in his mind to fulfil his respective character arc, which is
more based on the individual and their psychology. This leads to one of the major dissonances
between both texts. By the end of The Tempest, it is Prospero who is let free by the applause of
the audience, whereas in Hag-Seed, it is Miranda who is set free “to the elements” by Felix. This
ultimately leaves Felix’s character arc strangely unresolved. By the end of the novel, he barely
even forgives his enemies, only tormenting them and regaining his place as artistic director.
However, this was an intentional choice by Atwood which reflects a postmodern subversion and
turn away from the values of Christianity. Atwood, an outspoken atheist, reflects her context
through the subverting of Felix’s character arc. However, Felix still renounces illusion in his
freeing of Miranda, ultimately freeing himself from being “imprisoned” and a “slave to [his]
appetite” of vengeance, aligning with Prospero in The Tempest.

Another point of alignment between both is the heavy feature of the idea of “imprisonment”, but
once again, where they collide is how each author's context affects their exploration of this idea.
In Elizabethan and Jacobean England, imprisonment and brutality were common, and often
exciting aspects of daily life. Obsessed with the macabre, citizens would line up to watch
beheadings and other executions at notable prisons such as the Tower of London. This aligns
with The Tempest, as characters like Caliban are imprisoned and often abused by their captors.
This is illustrated throughout the play, for example through the oppressive sibilance of
Prospero’s tormenting of Caliban “Thou shalt have cramps, side-stitches that shall pen thy
breath up”. This and other brutal moments of the play, such as Caliban, Stephano, and Trinculo
being pursued by hounds summoned by Prospero, would have engaged Shakespeare’s
audience at the time. However, Atwood’s postmodern portrayal of the text uses the idea of
imprisonment to explore social commentary on the modern prison system. “Prisons are for
incarceration and punishment, not for spurious attempts to educate those who cannot, by their
very natures, be educated.” Atwood’s manipulation of caesura emphasises the wicked and
prejudiced nature of authority figure Sal O’Nally, detailing the postmodern distrust of authority
and also revealing another ideal, that prison should rehabilitate not punish. This belief is
encapsulated through the character of 8-Handz who goes from criminal to performer and
assistant through Felix’s theatre-in-prison program and is ultimately rewarded by the end of the
novel. Atwood mentions that “The sea air would be so liberating for him”, intentionally
referencing the elements closely related to Ariel from The Tempest, another point of alignment
between both texts. As well as this, the use of the word “liberating” reflects the healing and
rehabilitative effect that Felix’s program had on him. Atwood’s exploration and critique of
modern prison systems, and the encouragement of rehabilitative practices such as
theatre-in-prisons, align with her postmodern context, whereas Shakespeare’s brutal torturing of
prisoners like Caliban reflects the 17th-century fascination with the macabre.

Atwood aligns, mirrors, and collides with Shakespeare’s The Tempest in her postmodern novel
Hag-Seed. Both texts inspect ideas of illusion, vengeance, and imprisonment, but their
respective contexts drastically differ in the exploration of these concepts. However, the major
alignment between these two is how they agree with Williamson’s statement. Both texts feature
protagonists who follow vengeance through illusion, only to realise that ultimately illusion is
self-destructive. Both Felix and Prospero renounce the “world of illusion” by the end of their
respective stories, freeing themselves from being “imprisoned” and a “slave to [their] appetites”
for self-destructive revenge. Atwood’s Hag-Seed and Shakespeare’s The Tempest align with
this statement to a significant extent.