Analysis of the story “Shakespeare in the bush” Essay

In the paper Shakespeare in the Bush, source Laura Bohannan has an argument with a friend more or less the interpretation of Shakespeares literature. Her friend stated that Shakespeare was a very English poet and that people of early(a) farmings could certainly misunderstand his literal meanings. The designer then argues that the plots and motivations of Shakespeares tragic plays will always be apparent because human nature is more or less universal through out the world. She does however pull away into account that the customs duty and translation of his works could produce slight differences in their interpretations. The argument remained a stalemate as she was preparing to travel to Africa. Her friend gave her a copy of juncture as a parting gift with hopes that maybe she would learn the sure interpretation. On her trip to Africa the author finds out that custom, translations, and culture play a larger role in the interpretation of Shakespeare and that his meanings we re non as universal as she previously thought.During her stay with the Tiv in Africa, Bohannan gets a chance to relay the story of crossroads to the tribe. She began the tale with the appearance of settlements fathers ghost. Right away the elderly questioned this. The concept of someone having a ghost or living after they die was very external to them. They were convinced that the author had gotten the story wrong because the single explanation for a spirit could be that it was an omen sent by a witch. Horatio was withal viewed as a fool for non bringing much(prenominal) an measur satisfactory matter before a person with proper knowledge of such omens. The Tivs perspective was that hamlet this matter should look at never been brought to Hamlets attention. It is obvious that their customs and traditions were already biasing their interpretation of the story. If Hamlet were non informed of this omen he would have never sought strike back for the destruction of his father, thus changing the plot dramatically.Another major complication with the story the Tiv had, was Hamlets uncles succession to the throne. In Tiv society it is moreover natural for the brother of the chief to become chief in the take of his brothers stopping point. The Tiv also commended the speed with which Hamlets mother remarried after the death of her economise. A wife of one of the elders overheard this part of the story and explained that a lovesome remarriage is ideal. She stated thatwithout a husband the farm would not be cultivated, because a quick remarriage was essential so that lack of food would not occur. It was obvious to the Tiv woman that the mother had done this in the best interests of the family so Hamlet had no reason to feel negatively about it.The author tried in vain to explain why these things would make Hamlet miserable. Fear of famine was not on the mind of Hamlets mother for she was powerful enough not to rely on her husband for food. Western society would view this remarriage as a form of incest and would not be socially acceptable. Also a mourning period would be expected before a widow could be remarried and this was not done. In the elders minds these were normal notwithstandingts and which should not motivate anyone to be depressed. This proves that the authors argument of motivation of the immense tragedies being work out everywhere is flawed.The Tiv elders had many explanations for the behavior of Hamlet, which held the authors interest. They all agree that Hamlet was being bewitched and this was the cause of his strange behavior. They clarified that only a male member of ones family had the power to bewitch people and then it was clearly king Claudius who was behind this. The Tiv also had an explanation for he wizardly events that occurred. They believed the presence of his fathers ghost was understandably an omen sent by a witch to Hamlet to tell him the truth of his fathers death while trying not to offend the c urrent king. Although these answers were not the verbalize(prenominal) the author viewed she found them fascinating and she modeled the remaining parts of the story around them. Bohannon was learning that the Tiv culture and belief systems did not allow the plot line to progress in the same way as Shakespeare wrote it.After audition of the death of Ophelia from the author, the Tiv elder wished to know whom her male relatives were in order to find who was responsible. Upon hearing that Laertes, Ophelias only living male relative, had returned from France the elder was forward enough to offer his prediction for the end of the story. He proceeded to tell how Laertes was collusive to get money to pay off his debts. According to the elder, Laertes had bewitched his sis in order to sell her body to the witches. The Author protested to this by formula that the body was in fact buried and Laertes had jumped into thegrave and was followed by Hamlet.The elder then concluded that Hamlet had jumped in after him to prevent Laertes from snatching the body. He continued to say that the son of a chief would not requisite to see another man to become rich and powerful. He said Laertes would be angry with this and try to kill Hamlet. Bohannan had to agree with this although it may not have been exact Laertes did wish to kill Hamlet. Perhaps the elders abstract interpretations of the story had led him to universal conclusion after all. In his own eyes, the elder understood the meaning of the story correctly even though his thoughts did not match with the authors.After the stories conclusion the elder added his thoughts about the tales finish. The poison beer that killed Hamlets mother was obviously meant for the winner of the fight. According to him if Laertes won the duel, the expectant chief would have given him the poison. This way no one would no that the king arranged Hamlets death. In addition the elder claimed that the chief would have done this also for fear of Laertes witchery. Someone who kills his own sister with witchcraft is potentially very dangerous. Very pleased that he had correctly construe the story, the elder told Bohannan that she should tell them more stories from her country. The elders would then instruct her about the true meaning of the stories so that she could return home unlighted by their wisdom. The Tiv matte that the author was the oneReexamining the argument, which fueled this story, it is clear to see that the authors friend was correct. The difference in culture had a large contact on the interpretation of Hamlet. The argument Laura Bohannan presents is flawed. Even though the Tiv elder was able to loosely predict the outcome of the story, Bohannan failed to prove that the plot and motives of Shakespeares great tragedies were universal. The Tiv had very different rationalizations for the plot progression and the character motives. The author did not take seriously enough the enormous impact the Tivs different customs and traditions would have on their analysis of Hamlet. Through out this story you hobo see that human nature does plays no part in the Tivs interpretations of Hamlet. The author learns that culture is the main reason for these differences of opinion. Taking into account the cultural differences of the author, her friend, and the Tiv it seems clear why theywould interpret Shakespeare in very different ways.