Analysis of the story “Shakespeare in the bush” Essay

In the drool Shakespeare in the Bush, creator Laura Bohannan has an argument with a admirer nigh the description of Shakespeares literature. Her title-holder stated that Shakespeare was a very side poet and that people of other cultures could certainly misinterpret his literal meanings. The writer past argues that the plots and motivations of Shakespeares tragic inclines will always be apparent because hu bit disposition is to a not bad(p)er extent or less ecumenic with out the world. She does however push back into bill that the springer and translation of his works could set up slight differences in their interpretations. The argument remained a stalemate as she was preparing to travel to Africa. Her maven gave her a copy of crossroads as a parting gift with hopes that maybe she would maintain the true interpretation. On her charge to Africa the author finds out that custom, translations, and culture play a larger role in the interpretation of Shakespeare and t hat his meanings were non as universal as she previously thought.During her stay with the Tiv in Africa, Bohannan gets a chance to relay the fabrication of small town to the tribe. She began the tale with the appearance of junctures fathers cutaneous senses. Right away the old questi peerlessd this. The concept of someone having a ghost or animateness subsequently(prenominal) they let on was very foreign to them. They were convinced that the author had gotten the romance wrong because the only bill for a spirit could be that it was an signal send by a witch. Horatio was in addition viewed as a fool for non bringing such an important study before a person with straight-laced cogniseledge of such omens. The Tivs location was that hamlet this matter should bring never been brought to small towns attention. It is obvious that their customs and traditions were already biasing their interpretation of the bilgewater. If Hamlet were non informed of this omen he would build never sought r eveningge for the death of his father, thus changing the plot dramatically. other major complication with the story the Tiv had, was Hamlets uncles succession to the throne. In Tiv bon ton it is only natural for the brother of the old-timer to become chief in the particular of his brothers death. The Tiv also commended the speed with which Hamlets mother remarried after the death of her husband. A wife of one of the elders overheard this part of the story and explained that a quick remarriage is ideal. She stated that without a husband the farm would non be cultivated, whence a quick remarriage was inbred so that lack of food would not occur. It was obvious to the Tiv woman that the mother had through 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 seduce Hamlet miserable. Fear of famine was not on the mind of Hamlets mother for she was powerful liberal not to rely on her husband for food. Hesperian society would view this remarriage as a form of incest and would not be socially acceptable. Also a mourning plosive speech sound would be expected before a widow could be remarried and this was not done. In the elders minds these were normal events and which should not motivate anyone to be depressed. This proves that the authors argument of motivation of the greater tragedies universe complete everywhere is flawed.The Tiv elders had many explanations for the conduct of Hamlet, which held the authors interest. They all agreed that Hamlet was beingness beguile and this was the cause of his strange behavior. They clear that only a male atom of ones family had the power to bewitch people therefore it was clearly king Claudius who was behind this. The Tiv also had an explanation for he supernatural events that occurred. They believed the front of his fathers ghost was understandably an omen sent by a witch to Hamlet to c ertify him the truth of his fathers death while trying not to offend the current king. Although these answers were not the like 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 storyline to progress in the same way as Shakespeare wrote it. later on hearing 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 commited from France the elder was bold enough to offer his prediction for the end of the story. He proceeded to tell how Laertes was scheming to get specie to pay off his debts. concord to the elder, Laertes had bewitched his sister in order to fail her body to the witches. The Author protested to this by adage that the body was in fact bury and Laertes had jumped into the grave an d 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 verbalise that the son of a chief would not want to see another man to become rich and powerful. He express Laertes would be angry with this and try to land Hamlet. Bohannan had to agree with this although it may not give birth been exact Laertes did wish to kill Hamlet. possibly the elders abstract interpretations of the story had led him to universal conclusion after all. In his own eyes, the elder dumb the meaning of the story correctly even though his thoughts did not match with the authors. after(prenominal) the stories conclusion the elder added his thoughts about the tales finish. The envenom beer that killed Hamlets mother was obviously meant for the winner of the fight. According to him if Laertes won the duel, the great chief would leave 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 witchcraft. somebody who kills his own sister with witchcraft is potentially very dangerous. Very pleased that he had correctly interpreted 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 mat that the author was the oneReexamining the argument, which fueled this story, it is clear to see that the authors title-holder was correct. The difference in culture had a large tinct on the interpretation of Hamlet. The argument Laura Bohannan presents is flawed. Even though the Tiv elder was able to loosely predict the aftermath of the story, Bohannan failed to prove that the plot and motives of Shakespeares great tragedies were universal. The Tiv had very antithetic rationalizations for the plot increase and the chara cter 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 can 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 they would interpret Shakespeare in very different ways.