For your final posts on King Lear I'd like for you all to engage in an "open but guided forum".
So, comment on whatever aspects of the play interest you: characters and characterization, plot and plot design, motifs and themes, imagery and figurative language, poetic form (blank verse, rhyming couplets), comparisons to other works we have studied, performances and staging (in the Brian Blessed King Lear that we have been watching or in the clips from the Laurence Olivier King Lear found in this blog's Video Bar). Be specific. Be insightful. Cite specifics. Think of the whole.
Now here comes the "guided" part: Make sure your name (not just your screen name) is at the beginning of your commentary, deal with at least two direct quotations from the play in your commentary (identify the quotation by referring to act, scene, and lines in this manner: act.scene.lines (e.g. 1.2.33-44), respond substantively to at least one peer in your comments meaning: go beyond saying "I like what x said"), and comment at least twice.
I will grade the commentary according to a slightly modified version of the discussion rubric that we used earlier this year.
The comment period will close at the beginning of B-block on Wednesday, March 19. (I changed my mind about the due date to give you some more time and with the expectation that your comments will be of a high quality. And in case you are thinking "why B-block?" that will be my last opportunity to read comments before class on Wednesday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Kathi Kaity. Responding to 5.3.392.
After finishing the play, I found it personally interesting that the final rhyming couplet of the show did not stand out in my memory half as much as the second to last. The first part of Edgar's final words seemed to resonate more to me for the entire theme of the novel, " The weight of this sad time we must obey, speak what we feel, not what we ought to say."
The irony of such a statement ending this play was overwhelming, considering it started with Cordelia making almost the same statement towards her father. The entire story seemed to unfold after Cordelia would not sing the scripted praises of her father to gain love and land. And though she did feel love towards her father, she felt no need to address him with false words that Lear believed were necessary in the situation.
After further reflection, I realized how many of the situations could have been averted if deception wasn't involved, but instead replaced with honesty. Of course, this optimistic take would have curbed many character's ambitions (Edmund, Regan, Goneril), and ruined the overall story line, but the tragedies could have been thwarted. Perhaps this was Shakespeare's (somewhat) veiled moral of the story, as he ended the play with Edgar's words, that honesty can prevent further calamity within the human race.
Ben Tavares
I found Edmund's line on 5.3.207-208 to be particularly interesting, especially after reading Kathi's thoughts on the resonating theme(s) of the play. In response to Edgar revealing himself after their fight, Edmund says, "Th' hast spoken right. 'Tis true. The wheel is come full circle; I am here." Literally, Edmund is on the ground dying. Figuratively, it means that he is at the bottom again, where he began as the bastard son of Gloucester. Edmund meets his comeuppance in the same way he usurped his power: deception. The play shows the duality of deception. The deceiver becomes the deceived.
Also, the theme of nature and what is natural has been on my mind. The dialogue between Lear and Edgar, in which Edgar discovers Lear covered in nature after weathering the storm, is particularly revealing in its brevity. Edgar declares, "O, thou side-piercing sight!" To which Lear responds with, "Nature's above art in that respect." If nature represents what is natural and true, and art represents what one interprets as beauty, Lear means to say that raw truth elicits a more heart-wrenching response than formalities and lies, like those told to Lear by Goneril & Regan. The sincerity of one who carries the outside around (the outside being worldly experience)with care and understanding is of greater value than the narrowminded foolishness of one who tells lies to attain a higher status.
Molly Griffin. Responding to other works, characters. (e.g.4.1.35-40),
I found it very strange and amazing that this book had similar motifs to works such as Grendel. The motif of snake or worm, "He has some reason, else he could not beg. I' th' last night's storm, I saw a fellow, Which made me think man a worm. My son came then into my mind, and my mind Was scarce friends with him. I have hear more since." is a great insight into the meaning of the book as a whole. Man as a snake, out to harm others for its own gain. Gloucester is very insightful about his family in this passage.
e.g. 4.3.29-37
Another motif, the one of storms, is brought up constantly
(like above). Storms reveal truths, they put nature back in order, because nature is powerful. "Faith, once or twice she heaved the name of "father" Pantingly forth, as if it pressed her heart; Cried "Sisters, sisters, shame of ladies, sisters! Kent, father, sisters! What, i' the storm, i' the night? Let pity not be believed!" There she shook The holy water from her heavenly eyes, And clamor moistened. Then away she started, To deal with grief alone." IT is the gentleman talking about Cordelia, and how she cried for her father. She loves him, and she had nothing to hold back. The entire part about "Holy water" proves that nature is holy, and that it is the only thing that can show other's true selves.
Kathi
I really liked your comment about the only couplet that resonated with you was the one you said. The irony did not really come across to me until you mentioned it. I really skipped over the entire thing.
Ben
I liked your quote about the wheel coming around full circle. It summed up the play.
Dan Aloisio
For whatever reason, I paid very close attention to the actual edit of King Lear while reading it. Sometimes I found myself reading the left side of the page more closely than the right. Most of this was a distraction, but one technical element in what we read stood out to me. This was the editor’s inclusion of lines at certain times that appeared in the Folio, but not the 1st Quarto [shown with these brackets.] Among other times, this occurred at 5.3.13, the very last line of Act 5 Scene 3. The scene includes Edgar instilling hope into his again-depressed father. Edgar asserts, “What, in ill thoughts again? Men must endure / Their going hence even as their coming hither. / Ripeness is all. Come on.” This edition prints, in brackets, Gloucester saying, “And that’s true too.” Without this addendum, it would be up to the reader whether Gloucester is hopeful before his death. This would cause further ambiguity on the optimism of the play. With it, it is clear that Gloucester accepts his death, which is more fitting with the overall meaning of the play. Gloucester, in “going hence,” in being in the lowest state possible (on the verge of death), has the wisdom and patience to “endure,” to die on his own terms.
Reading Death of a Salesman and King Lear in such close proximity caused me to notice their striking dissimilarities as far as stage setup. In Death of a Salesman, there are elaborate 2-page-long descriptions of how the stage should appear, and there are times when there are multiple stages—one for what is happening in reality, and one for what is happening inside of Willy Loman’s mind. In stark contrast, Shakespeare’s sets seem very bare. He has no description of props or anything of that sort, and even stage directions are largely added in by editors. However, this does not correlate with bleakness in Shakespeare’s message or meekness in his topic of study. Rather, it strips the play to its bare elements, much in the way that his plays strip the nature of humanity to its core. By eliminating situational elements reinforced by props, Shakespeare focuses intensely on the characters and how they react to a broad situation, one that can translate over centuries. For this reason, the movies about Shakespeare are sometimes too intense, too much information to handle at once, in my view.
John Ryan
After finishing the play there was one short passage that confused me a bit. It’s at the end of act five after Cordelia’s death. Lear kneels at her body and says 5:3:325-327, “A plague upon you, murderers, traitors all! I might have saved her. Now she’s gone forever. - Cordelia, Cordelia, stay a little. Ha!” Lear then imagines Cordelia speaking with him. What I found interesting about this was that the only characters alive at this time are Edgar, Albany, Kent, and some gentleman. All of which have been nothing but loyal to Lear and his cause. I’m wondering whether Lear is speaking specifically to those who betrayed him, like Edmund, Goneril, and Regan, who, of the three, Goneril is the only one to directly murder someone, or the other possibility being that Lear is addressing the ills of man as a whole. This would infer that Lear believes that human nature inherently leads to the growth of corruption and murder. Even while trying to decode the direction of his anger one has to wonder how Lear might have saved Cordelia. Does he claim to have been able to literally save her from hanging, or is this a confession that his actions have led to this fate and could have been avoided if only he had not been blinded by his power and hard-headed beliefs. This is similar to Kathi’s point about how simple honesty could have saved many of these characters from destruction. Lear seems to have taken personal responsibility for these disasters.
A second line I found interesting takes place shortly after the one I have just quoted. Kent approaches Lear and asks him what has happened to his servant Caius.(5:3:343-348),
LEAR: He’s a good fellow, I can tell you that.
He’ll strike and quickly too. He’s dead and rotten.
KENT: No, my good lord, I am the very man-.
LEAR: I’ll see that straight.
KENT: That from you first of difference and decay
Have followed your sad steps.
What I found interesting about this passage was that Lear assumed Caius’ death. I wonder whether or not Lear knew that it was Kent in disguise, and if he did, when he could have discovered it. What’s more is that Kent corrects Lear when Lear makes sense. Caius is dead and rotten, he is no more, Kent has taken off the mask. I have a strange suspicion that Lear had seen past Kent’s disguise while out in the storm. I believe that Lear had unraveled not only the truths of human nature and its evils and corruptions, but gained the ability to see past the disguises of his peers. This leaves me to wonder whether or not he ever realized the true identity of Poor Tom. He obviously thought him more than a poor beggar, but whether this was simply his madness or some subliminal omnipotent understanding I do not know. Then when Lear makes the note that he’ll set the confusion straight, seemed almost comical to me, as if he was letting Kent believe he was nothing but a confused old man.
In response to Ben’s comment about Lear literally wearing nature, I had never thought of Lear wearing nature as a metaphor for carrying worldly experience. I had only really thought of it as another example of his dire circumstances. I very much like the idea of Lear walking about in the storm wearing his experiences and troubles.
Dan Aloisio
Some comments on comments!
Ben's comment about the duality of deception raises an interesting point. The act of deceiving (being dishonest, in Kathi's way of thinking) motivates change, but does not necessarily indicate direction. This also seems to be the case with death. Death is dual if applied to a hierarchy. As one falls out of existence completely, another assumes his/her place.
I think John raises an interesting point with his first comment. Especially the part, “Cordelia, Cordelia, stay a little. Ha!” is telling. This seems to suggest, as John shrewdly discerned, that Shakespeare is using Lear to comment broadly on human nature. Also, Lear is visibly laughing at the absurdity of the situation, that the “good” character is the one that cannot “stay a little.” This further muddles the optimistic/pessimistic view on humanity.
To be honest, I was not quite struck by the motif of nature and its relationship with beauty when I first finished “King Lear”. I thought there were many more interesting (and supportable) themes throughout. But after reading Ben’s second portion of his comment (discussing the quote from Lear and the contrasts of nature and art), I immediately thought of Act Three Scene Seven, when Gloucester’s eyes are pried from his head. As Gloucester exclaims, “All dark and comfortless! Where’s my son Edmund?—Edmund enkindle all the sparks of nature to quit this horrid act.” (3.7.103).
The reason I connected this quote to Ben’s explanation was that he talked about the contrast (and suggested superiority) between the natural and the beautiful (art). This being pointed out to me made me connect these two motifs to those that were ripped away from Gloucester along with his eyes. When the art (anything beautiful as wrought through vision) was separated from him, Gloucester was able to immediately focus back on what was natural and true – his son (even though at this point, he is still unaware that he is seeking refuge and trust in the wrong child…he figures it out within only a matter of a few lines). Nevertheless, the first words to spill out of Gloucester’s mouth after his suffering refer back to the naturalness of feelings between a father and son, calling for revenge on his behalf.
Later on, in Act Four Scene One, Gloucester reflects upon what he has learned from his blinding: “ I have no way and therefore want no eyes. I stumbled when I saw. Full oft ‘tis seen our means secure us, and our mere defects prove our commodities.” Gloucester has recognized that what is supposedly natural (sight) does not necessarily promise understanding, and that when he had vision before, it blinded him to the truth because he took things at face value. While in prosperity, he foolishly took for granted his resources. And so, now I find myself slightly confused. I get that sight is natural, but sight made Gloucester blind. So is nature bad? Does Shakespeare want us to think that relying on nature is equivalent to resting on our morals? I have to sleep on that.
Jessica Wong
I personally was really interested in all of the animal imagery in the play. I found that it was used to show the unnaturalness of a character’s behavior in comparison to how they should behave if they followed the natural social order. Goneril for example finds fault with Lear’s behavior and his knights, when she confronts Lear, he calls her a “detested kite”(1.4.254). Regan is said to have a “wolfish visage” (1.4.299-300). When Lear speaks to Regan about Goneril’s attitude, he describes it in terms of animal behavior, “Thy sister’s naught. O, Regan, she hath tied Sharp-toothed unkindness, like a vulture, here” (2.2.323-324). Albany also speaks of them in comparison to animals, “Tigers, not daughters,” (4.2.41) and names Goneril a “gilded serpent” (5.3.84). All of these animals prey on other animals to satisfy their hunger. This idea follows Albany’s quote that “Humanity must perforce prey on itself, Like monsters of the deep” (4.2.50-51).
After we talked about power and the cause of corruption, I started to think how it tied into the animal imagery. The character’s that displayed animal characteristics were the ones that seemed to be corrupt. Edmund, Goneril, and Reagan all fended for themselves and displayed a survival of the fittest approach to life. While their idea of nature was that of animals, King Lear and Cordelia’s idea of nature was that of nurture. Shakespeare seemed to commenting on the fact that a character needed to be stripped of power and that thirst for power to be able to undergo a transformation.
In response to Kathi's first comment, I found that Edgar's couplet really stayed with me as well. I think that it's because it can be applied to today's society as well. There are too many people speaking what they ought to say instead of how they feel. That’s one of my favorite parts of this play, the fact that so much of it is still true of people today.
Melanie Tobey
After completing King Lear I found the many uses of irony that Shakespeare used in particular scenes interesting. I believe at the beginning of the play Shakespeare took more of a serious approach towards the characters and the plot but at the middle and end he used irony to add both humor and leave the audience wondering. The play uses irony to incorporate its many themes such as the senses, love, and betrayal.
What I found the most ironic in acts scene four and five and is perhaps the most obvious was the relationship between King Lear and his daughter Cordelia. What causes King Lear to disown Cordelia at the beginning of the play is the fact that she wouldn’t profess her love for her father as her two sisters did. The irony in this case is that Cordelia loved and cared for her father more then her sisters did but did not find it necessary to profess it in such a manner. When King Lear asks her to say how much she loves him she responds, 1.1.100-102 “Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave, my heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty according to my bond, no more nor less.” Cordelia explains that she only loves her father because he is her father but for nothing else. The truth is that Cordelia cares and loves her father the most and in the end of the play reconnects with her father whereas her sisters betray her father. Cordelia’s true feeling towards her father are revealed in act 4, 4.7.31-34, “O’ my dear father, restoration hang, Thy medicine on my lips, and let this kiss repair those violent harms that my two sisters have in thy reverence made.” This quote reveals how much Cordelia cares about King Lear in the way that she feels sorry for how he has been treated.
Tuany Lopes
What I found interesting in Kind Leer is how a person’s value is measure, especially those of children. Lear finds value in his daughters on how much they can proclaim their love for him. Ironically, the child that actually does unconditionally love him finds his method of expression shallow and refuses to declare her love for him like Goneril and Reagan do. This theme seems apparent in As I Lay Dying as well. There doesn’t seem to exist common love between family members and the constant betrayal that occurs. It is similar to Addie’s statements explaining her children are not actually her children, but Anse’s. Lear does not view his daughters as valued possessions. In fact, he easily rids of Cordelia after her refusal to confess her love to him. In 1.1.23-29 Lear tells Burgundy that Cordelia is his if he wants her, but to Lear she no longer is of value to him; “ When she was dear to us , we did hold her so, but now her price is fallen.”
Response to 5.3.9-20
Another topic that became apparent to me during the end of the play is the role of one’s fantasies. It seems that at the end Lear’s only salvation is the fantasy he forms in his head about those who remain loyal to him. He knows that his power is lost and the real intentions have been revealed so the fantasy he forms in his head is an attempt to repress dealing with the real world and creating some type of hope. On the way to jail he tells Cordelia, “We two alone will sing like birds I’ th’ cage.” This is obviously unrealistic, but it is what keeps him alive. After a point of desperation one might create a fantasy in their head as a way to keep hope. He creates this happily perfect world including Cordelia in order to escape the real though that he was once king and is now being put in jail. The thought of them “laughing at gilded butterflies” shows his somewhat connection to the corruption around him. The butterflies are deceptive options outside of the cage that might give him and Cordelia unrealistic hope. The fact that they are “gilded” means they are too good to be true. Prison will give them the option to sing and laugh while the insects outside of the cage will resemble fraud. Shakespeare describes butterflies as “gilded” and therefore not truly real, they are illusions.
Following along the lines of Kathi’s comment, I agree with the fact that the plot seemed to unravel after Cordelia refused to praise her father. This was something that I had not recognized until reading this comment. Kathi’s comment also goes along with the topic of my response because Cordelia and her father King Lear played a major role in the irony that Shakespeare created. Cordelia also refusing to praise her father caused him to go on a downhill spiral which was one of the main issues throughout the play.
Tuany Lopes
In response to Kathi's comment I agree with her statement that often deception did not have to if character's were honest. The play is entangled in webs of lies that character's create since each have alternative motives. It is the lying and plans of deceit that create betrayal and several deaths.
Jessica’s comment on how character’s take different roles in nature seems connected to the play. I agree that those who are dishonest have an animalistic sense towards nature. It is a fight to be the alpha dog and show power. Edmund, Reagan, and Goneril develop cutthroat instincts and in turn betray members of their families. Cordelia and Lear have a more natural role with nature in their struggle to find meaning in each other’s lives. Their struggle goes against what one would expect to be normal father/daughter behavior. Their connection to animal imagery is the relationship between child and parent. It is how they interact and their roles in context to power.
Throughout the play King Lear the characters continually strive to control through knowledge. The characters continually use their understanding of others to advantage themselves. There is a great deal of spying in throughout the play.
Edmund tricks his father the Earl of Gloucester into thinking that Gloucester’s legitimate son was plotting to have him murdered. Edmund knew the power of a story and what falsified information would convince his father. Edmund ultimate goal is to defy the natural social order for self benefit. In a quote by Reagan (4.5. 13-15) she describes Edmund’s sneaky nature: “Edmund, I think, is gone, His knighted life; moreover to descry The strength o’th’enemy.” Edmund is spying of the armies of France to determine their strength and numbers. Spying is a common motif throughout the play. In a confrontation earlier in the play the courier Oswald fights with Kent when Oswald asks the disguised Kent if he could tell him the contents of the message Kent is caring. Kent takes offense to this, but Oswald did not seem to find it out of place to spy. The banished Edgar too, in a sense spies. Edgar leads his father dressed as a crazy peasant/beggar even when he could be sentenced to death for being in England. Edgar is disturbing the balance by remaining in England while by law he is banished.
Some characters at times seen to accept their role in nature, they stop trying to control their destiny. In the beginning of act IV Edgar seems to be welcoming his new position: “The lamentable change is from the best; the worst returns to laughter. Welcome then, Thou unsubstantial air that I embrace. The wretch that thou hast blown unto the worst Owes nothing to thy blasts. (4.1.4-8).” Edgar accepts his natural fate and embraces the air, the air is a powerful force a part of nature that can not fully be controlled and understood. King Lear also ends his phase of life as a controller and reverts to the natural world, man verses nature survival against a non-human force.
Kent, like Edgar has been banished from the kingdom and becomes a spy. Kent watches and advises the king under a new alias as a servant and messenger. On the final page of the play Albany says to Kent and Edgar: “Friends of my soul, you twain Rule in this realm, and the gored state sustain.” Kent responds by saying: “I have a journey, sir, shortly to go: My master calls me. I must not say no.” Kent’s quote seems to allude to many meanings. Kent could be suggesting that his spying days are over and he must literally serve his master the king, and perform burial wrights as is suggested in the movie. Or Kent could be alluding to his master being god; perhaps Kent may be dying and is going to literally become part of nature. Albany seemed to suggesting that Kent help rule England, it seems strange that he would turn that offer down.
Responding to Dan's comments about editing, it does make a differnce in many places where adding elements from other editions of the play could seriously alter the meaning of a sense. Such as Kent's final line, Albany could be asking just Edgar to help rule England but by including the stage direction, which is indictated as not being in all editions,it seems that Albanay is offering Kent power as well.
I like Molly's comment on nature being holy. Despite all the references to gods intefering in human affairs in negative ways, perhaps the few human acts of kindness were ordained by the god and are in a sense holy. The god's did't make it all bad, think on the bright side, not all the characters die.
Jessica Muise
The issue that was most interesting to me was the relationships between the characters revolving mostly around power. throughout the play many of the characters relied to raise their status by increasing there power. As they rose in hierarchy others fell. Edmund gained power, as Gloucester lost his. Somehow power is always tries with an illegitimate love. When Edmund is talking about being a heir he also mentions love. (2.2.18/19) "Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land. Our father's love is to the bastard Edmund." Power and love are also seen again when Lear is splitting his power between his 3 daughters. Cordelia who does not speak of her love is given no power. Goneril and Regan who present there false love to the king, get all the power. In 1.1.55-56 we see love and poer mentioned together again. "Interest of territory, cares of state, which of you shall we say doth love us most."
In response to Kathi, I think it is interesting in how Edgar ended the play with the words on honesty. If each character was honest instead of power hungry the play would change the goals of many characters , and altered the play. As to think how boring the play would have been without the evil personalities of Edmund, Goneril, and Regan.
This is perhaps a slight digression, but going off of what Dan said about the films being intense, does anyone find watching the films to be a totally different experience from reading the play? I mean, aside from the obvious moving pictures versus straight dialogue. I find it interesting (and sometimes overwhelming) to watch and think about the choices the directors have made regarding the casting of the characters, the set, camera angles, the placement of character's lines out of order (such as the Fool having the last words in the King Lear we watched in class), et cetera. I haven't had a lot of time to actually think deeply about all these things, but the mentality of the director certainly peaks my interest and it's a shame we can't spend more time analyzing (well done... or even poorly done) film adaptations.
Avery’s comment in class regarding power really did strike a chord with me. I had not really given it much thought but after we discussed it was interesting to me. This power theory was tied in with the question that was asked of us while reading King Lear. Does one have to lose themselves to be able to find themselves? Having power often seems to corrupt and when one loses this power they are able to see their corruption and learn from it. When the power is taken away they discover who they really are without the power and the fakeness that may come with that. In King Lear power is often followed with fakeness and flattery. Once this flattery is taken away with the power you see what you are really left with. You see what was fake and what is real. Lear talks about this fakeness and flattery in Act 4 Scene 6 Lines 117-119 “ To say ay and no to everything that I said ay and no to was no good divinity.” He then later says in lines 122-124 “they are not men o’ their words; they told me I was everything. ‘Tis a lie.” Now that Lears power is taken away from him and his daughters have abandoned him he sees right through their fake flattery and sees how they have betrayed him.
A theme that really interested me in King Lear was the use of animals and how this relates to the common theme of nature in the play. Throughout the play there is a question that is raised. What is human nature? And are we any different from animals themselves. Act 3 Scene 4 Lines 140-143 “ and the ditch-dog drinks the green mantle of the standing pool; who is whipped from tithing to tithing, and stocked, punished and imprisoned…” The significance of the animal motif to show that humans may have animalistic views or they may be very different. This motif helps raise the question of what is human nature and are we all just animals who are tamed by society.
As Shakespeare lets pieces of himself live vicariously through all of his characters, in this particular play he draws the most intriguing connections between the fool and forgiveness within humanity. The fool and Cordelia both could potentially represent the idea that no matter what the degree of betrayal and misjudgment made by humans, there are still observers who witness truthful alterations and in return forgive. It is evident in the present that experiences such as this occur frequently, however just as before some beings are never affected positively by these changes.
The fool makes one comment in act two scene four line 84-92 he is speaking to both Lear and Kent.
Fool- And sir which serves
And seeks for gain,
And follows but for form,
Will pack when it begins to rain
And leave thee in the storm
But I will tarry; the fool will stay,
And let the wise man fly.
The knave turns fool that run away;
The fool no knave, perdie.
Just by the way the fool structures what he says ignites the feeling of riddles and puzzles which adds to the themes that Shakespeare is trying to convey. The fool reveals that those who left Lear during this time as he decreases in rank are really the fools. Those who brave the literal and metaphorical aspect of the "storm" with Lear are the ones who end up realizing how hopeful he truly is. Cordelia then echoes these views later while accepting her father's revelation after his downfall. It is sappy yet so incredibly quick of Shakespeare to combine a mending process between Lear and Cordelia, and follow with the scenes of steady deception concerning the plans that the two other daughters and Edmund have.
To counteract such a perspective Edmund and Edgar have their confrontation exploding with pent up rage that ends in understanding, yet ends only with the force of a sword. It took weaponry and absolute severity to reach the genuine mind of Edmund.
In this scene Edgar makes a very mocking statement taking into account the position he is in.
Act five scene three line 241
Edgar-
This would have seemes a period
To such as love not sorrow; but another,
To amplify too much, would make much more
And top extremity.
It seems as though Edgar yearned for the moment shared by Cordelia and Lear, however the only similarity to one another would be that his relative recognized the extent of his cruelty, however never made or could make in the future and attempt of redemption.
Not to stray from directions, but i'd like to respond to Mr. Cook's parting question in class today.
From the best of my memory: "So what would/should/could we choose to be clever , ..ooooor good?"
If it is possible which I hope and believe it is, maybe we could be partial to both. Just as the world around us questions our own thoughts and throws us all into the confusion of others, we end up being subjected to the morphing of perceived wit which in turn could lead the others that surround to honesty. With that those who begin with kindness should also be reminded and perhaps experiencing the importance of all this contradiction.
Emily Munroe
5.3.369
Shakespeare's tendency to have mirroring characters is what stuck with me the most. It is true that life there are people with similar lives or personalities, yet it is clear that Shakespeare has done this for reasons other than just to show their similarities. When looking at Cordelia and the Fool they were of the few characters who stayed true to what they believed and never strayed from Lear. "And my poor fool is hanged." Here it feels as if it has been purposely shown that there are only few that are good in life and those are the people who stay true to themselves.
Emily Munroe
As we have discussed, nature and what is natural has been a common theme throughout King Lear. As Edmund is brought back to what is natural, something that everyone does at one time, and dies, he is brought back to feeling compassion. Here was a clear example that even the worst of people when stripped of all that they have made for themselves and left with only what the world has to give realize who they are. Edmund finally realizes that "he has come full circle." Edmund went from the bastard son of Gloucester to maliciously gaining power back to nothing. It was when he went back to the nothing that he realized what he had done.
Rebecca MacDougal-
Throughout “King Lear” runs the theme of powerful people becoming weak, and people of low rank gaining power. The fact that the king would become the one without anything is backwards. I like how Shakespeare uses paradoxes to reinforce this theme: the blind man is the one who really sees, the fool is the one who is wise, and Lear fully understands after he has gone mad. In 4.1.19-22, blind Gloucester states “ I have no way and therefore want no eyes. I stumbled when I saw, full oft ‘tis seen our means secure us, and our defects prove our commodities.” Before he was blinded, Gloucester thought Edmund was good and Edgar was bad. Now blinded, he sees better. Again, Edgar says of Lear “Oh matter of impertinency mixed, Reason in madness.” 4.6.192-193. Lear has just said that even a dog is obeyed in office- he understands that he was “honored” by Regan and Goneril only because he was then in power.
In response to Kathi’s musings on Lear’s eyesight, I thought about how Shakespeare has multiple meanings to so many things. I saw this aspect of it: Shakespeare’s using blindness/sight as a paradox to underscore the themes in Lear of deception, things not being what they seem, changes in fate bringing about clarity, etc. Kathi’s recognition that Edgar at the end is echoing Cordelia’s words at the play’s outset draws the plot of Cordelia the good daughter closer to the subplot of Edgar, the good son
In response to what Annie has to say about being clever or good, I too hope that one can be both. Actually I think to be good, one has to be clever or have an understanding for those around them. This comes back to the theme of nature and that power. When everyone is stripped from all the power that they have we are all just human. This would give one an understanding that it makes more sense to be good.
Avery
The idea of nature interested me the most while reading King Lear. The word has several connotations throughout the play and is constantly brought up in different situations. I think the different usages of the word portray the complexity of nature both in humans and the world. Shakespeare mainly focuses on human nature but connects humans and their environment using this motif. I believe that the characters and plot show that human nature is corrupted and made evil by the want to rise in the chain of being and gain power over others. Although, I interpreted the play to be slightly more optimistic than pessimistic. It portrayed to me that it is in our nature to be inherently good, but aspects of culture can taint it. Culture and society in King Lear creates divisions among people based on their wealth and power. Rather than living in pursuit of love and companionship, characters in the play pursue wealth and power, which ultimately corrupts them. For example, Cordelia is a moral character and does not wish to inherit her father’s wealth and land. Her sisters on the other hand, lie in order to inherit wealth and then dismiss their father who is responsible for their power. King Lear is initially portrayed as an immoral character when he banishes Cordelia because she will not profess her love to the extent that her sisters do. Once Lear loses his power, he begins to see the world in a different way and eventually acknowledges his faults. Lear’s passage during the storm reveals his new perspective of nature and life. “ O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars/ Are in the poorest thing superfluous./ Allow not nature more than nature needs./ Man’s life is cheap as beast’s. Thou are a lady;/ If only to go warm were gorgeous,/Why nature needs not what though gorgeous wear’st/ Which scarcely keeps thee warm” (2.4.305-311) Lear now believes that it is not power or material possessions that make life fulfilling and as long as humans have the fundamental needs such as family they will be successful in life. Lear compares humans to beasts, which suggests that our needs are almost as an animals and uses the word nature to signify humans.
King Lear believes that rejecting family in order to gain control in society as unnatural which also seems to be a message in the play. The animals throughout are often used as comparisons to the characters and show that humans are not above nature, but rather a part of it. The scene when Lear is in the violent storm shows that humans have no control over the environment, and that nature, which is depicted through the natural elements, has more power than we can ever achieve. In Lear’s madness he becomes a part of nature and begins to view life in a different way. Cordelia describes Lear: “As mad as the vexed sea, singing aloud/ Crowned with rank fumiter and furrow-weeds/ With hardocks, hemlocks, nettles, cuckooflowers” (4.4.1-4)
The character’s transformations also show that humans are constantly evolving and changing. Humans distance themselves from their environment and nature surrounding them when they seek to gain power, and in doing so become unnatural, immoral, and corrupt.
In response to Kathi’s comment in response to Ben’s comment about nature, I do not think Shakespeare wants us to think that nature is bad. Sight is natural, but the means by which it was removed from Gloucester was unnatural. Violence in war throughout the play portrayed the corruption and unnaturalness of humans. Gloucester losing his eyes embodies the idea that corrupt and ill intentioned humans are unnatural. Gloucester’s blindness may have strengthened his other senses and made him more appreciative of what he was naturally born as well as the companionship and help he now relies on from family and friends.
Willie Norris
I remember questioning the idea of pain when I was fairly young. I explicitly recall asking my father "what did people do or say when they got hurt." Did they say "ow" or did they not recognize that they hurt because they did not know what pain was? After discussing the idea of humans having to force themselves to nurture- inventing their nurturing persona- this came to mind. In other words- what is natural/ what's "invented"- is anything natural? I don't have a distinct quote to relate this to. I just wanted to make the connection.
4.2.39
ALABANY:
"O Goneril!
You are not worth the dust which the rude wind
Blows in your face. I fear your disposition:
That nature, which contemns its origin,
Cannot be border'd certain in itself;"
This line stood out to me because it references to nature in more than one facet. Albany fears Goneril's nature-"fearful of his disposition," of which despises it's origin. In other words, Albany is fearful of Goneril's nature because Goneril hates his natural origin.Goneril has no reliable boundaries to keep his nature in line- it cannot be border'd certain in itself;" It seems that Shakespeare is playing with the meaning nature in the whole of King Lear, but especially in this passage. It's an almost recursive situation- ALbany is fearful of Goneril's nature therefore being fearful of his natural origin.
I was also going to talk about the passage that Ben referenced. The idea of art vs nature is something that has interested me the entirety of the year. I like and agree with Ben's interpretation. Interpretation of nature is often very personal- seen through art- "one's song." However, there is a certain virtue that comes with observing the song inspiration before the song.
John’s observation of how King Lear says that Caius is dead – even though he has no reason to believe so – is really interesting. Why would Lear assume that he is dead? Maybe John is right in saying that the King (in his brief moments of sanity) did know that Kent was in disguise. It definitely makes sense since Lear was so inviting to Edgar, who was supposedly a peasant possessed by the devil. It makes me wonder how insane Lear really was.
King Lear is, ironically, gifted with the most insight following his madness. When Edgar and Gloucester meet up with him by the sea, I found his speech about justice very poignant (4.6.174-179). “Why dost thou lash that whore?” he says, “Strip thy own back. Thy hotly lusts to use her in that kind for which thou whipp’st her.” I think this is really deep. Lear compares sinful desires like adultery and thievery to the misuse of power and the desire to punish someone just to get that sense of authority. Lear tells Gloucester that he should forgive himself for his sins, but Lear still feels ashamed of his actions towards Cordelia. I like this scene the most because it’s really intense but at the same time kind of funny, what with Lear acting crazy and all. I think this play uses the concept of perception and opposites as a motif – Lear is enlightened when he goes crazy, Gloucester sees the truth when he goes blind and the two favored sister’s real wickedness shows when they fall in love.
Lear being stripped down to nothing has caused his enlightenment. Gloucester’s loss of eyes causes him to focus inward instead of outward, ignoring superficial things (the result of which was Edmund’s birth). Cordelia, Kent and Edgar all have their things taken away from them and their lives shaken, but they are still unaltered in their passions and moral convictions, which I think proves them to be the true heroes of the play. Cordelia’s forgiveness of her father (which, I think, would have been a lot more powerful actex out) is expressed in these words; “No cause, no cause.” (4.7.86-87). Some love is unconditional, in which nothing and no one (not even fate, nature or other people) can shake.
John Castellucci
One thing that struck out to me throughout the play is the parallel between Gloucester and Lear and their "redemption". Both of these characters are rejected by one ( or two in Lear's case) of their children in the name of redemption.
In act 4.6.51-78 describes Gloucester's attempted suicide and how Edgar tells him that the "gods" have saved him, even though it is Edgar who saved him. Edgar redeems his father for his initial betrayal, and takes him in without reserve.
Now the parallel exists from Lear's point of view during act 4.7.68-87. In this scene Lear is awoken in the French camp by his daughter Cordelia. She forgives him of his past rejection, and welcomes him back inot her life.
I agree with Kathi's response regarding Gloucester's blindness. It is when Gloucester loses his eyes that he realizes that they all along blinded him to true vision.
John Castellucci
Another thing I noticed throughout the play is the motif of sight. Sometimes it comes literally like in Gloucester's case with him physically losing his eyes, or in his wisdom of which he gains from losing that eye.
In act 3.7.103-112, Gloucester loses his physical sight by the duke of Cornwall plucking out both his eyes. But what we see after is that the moment after he loses both eyes he calls out for his son, Edmund, with which Regan responds to by saying that Edmund has betrayed him. Gloucester instantly realizes that Edgar was his true, loyal son and Edmund was the evil one.
Another scene where the motif of sight comes is act 5.3.195-209, where Edmund is mortally wounded. What seems to connect all the characters is when they come close to death they all go through a transformation. Edmund realizes his error in ways, and in a sense repents.
I really liked Ben's comment on the wheel of fire in Edmund's speech in act 5 scene 3. The bottom not only symbolizes death but also the chain of command where Edmund is back to where he started.
In response to Shakespeare having different meanings for the same words, I also saw this very much in Hamlet, especially with "eye" and "I."
Since reading Mary Beth’s comment, I’ve been thinking about the power struggle between the sane and the insane. It seems that Shakespeare has put the most foolish, superficial people in power and then shown us how they are usurped, which eventually leads to them falling into the same pattern of irrationality with power and, ultimately, how “the wheel comes full circle.” These usurpers are psychic vampires, sucking the life out of their victims through heartless degradation. They are made to look ridiculous, and after Mary Beth’s comment have I considered that Lear is not as crazy as we may initially perceive him to be. Only after Gloucester and Lear come close to death, experiencing their world crashing down on them, do they finally begin to see sense.
I also noticed that the most absurd or outrageous characters were the most cunning or clever. Edmund stole the show every scene he was in. Only after Lear goes crazy does he become so sassy as to say, “Strip thy own back. Thy hotly lusts to use her in that kind for which thou whipp’st her.” Does the parallel of insanity and cleverness have any significance? I can’t help but think of Invisible Man, another novel where the most truthful characters are made to look ridiculous or grotesque. Some of the most revealing passages in that novel like Jim Trueblood’s dream story and Brockway in the boiler room present characters that are both poignant and repulsive. Conversely, however, the Invisible Man asserts that, “the truth is the light and light is the truth.” This theory does not ring true for King Lear, the reason being that only after the fools are “put in the dark”, so to speak, that they “see” truth and reason.
Post a Comment