Final Work
1. Post again in the thread of comments below. Explore themes. Discuss literary techniques. Quote the text. Make connections to other works of literature. Respond to peers and to ideas from class. Be as thoughtful, insightful, and specific as you would be in a thesis driven paper but allow yourself to be a bit more open and exploratory. (300 words or so.) Due Friday, March 21 by B-block.
2. Write a personal essay on an aspect of King Lear. Start with a quotation. Start with a character. Start with a relationship. Start with an image. Start with a scene. Then reflect on the meaning of this aspect of King Lear in your own life. Be thoughtful. Be specific. Invent an engaging narrative voice and an appropriate essay structure. Observe standard American English writing conventions. I want you to use this essay as an opportunity to fine-tune your sense of composition (a.k.a organization) and your use of language (a.k.a. stylistic resourcefulness and observation of conventions). (600 words or so.) Complete workshop draft due Wednesday, March 26. Final draft due Monday, March 31.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
John Ryan
After finishing the play I began to wonder where Albany’s character first appeared. He has close to no part during Lear’s land for love contest, and is completely ignorant to his sisters’ schemes up through act one. Albany has a quote in which he explains to Lear, “My lord, I am guiltless as I am ignorant [Of what hath moved you]” (1:4:286). Albany is a character that slips through the cracks of the plot and ensuing action constantly trying to calm the situation, restore order, and act as a structural track for the story to follow.
Albany may not fully understand the plot that his wife and sister-in-law plan in Act one, yet he is sure it is ill-conceived. He tells Goneril, “How far your eyes may pierce I cannot tell. Striving to better, oft we mar what’s well” (1:4:368). Albany is trying to feel out the extent of Goneril’s plans, and warning her that in trying to gain power one often destroys what’s already well. Albany seems to have such an understanding of the downsides to power that he hands over the kingship when he is rightful heir.
It is hard to discern whether Albany has a significant transformation in the story. On one hand he transforms from a character of relative ignorance to the situation, to a character of complete understanding of all plots and subplots. He ends the play with a complete explanation to each of his friends’ journeys including their disguises, actions, and fates. On the other hand, Albany’s strong need for balance and calm does not change throughout the story, Albany maintains the same feeling and vocalizes it whenever possible, and even takes charge towards the end and confronts this unnatural imbalance.
I’m under the impression that Shakespeare created Albany as an anchor to the play that the reader could fall back upon whenever the madness and unnaturalness became a little disorienting. I think that Albany was present to remind the reader that at least one character is unraveling this situation, acknowledging this madness, and proclaiming it whenever possible. Albany’s character helped create a straight path from the beginning to the end of the play in which all of the characters could return and the play could successfully conclude.
The story of King Lear is Shakespeare’s adaptation of an already existing story with added uniquely Shakespearean twists. There are many parallels between the story of King Lear and that of Antigone by Sophocles, these connections in these classic tales suggest that the characters traits expressed in the story are common to humanity.
Cordellia shares many similarities with Antigone, both women have strong opinions. They both suffer hardship to uphold there morals and both end up being killed. This seems to reflect the stubbornness of the individual. Antigone was willing to put her life on the line to properly burry her brother, while Cordellia expressed her honest opinion when she knew she could face repercussions. Cordellia and Antigone did not protest their punishments, they knew their place. Other characters such as Gloucester from King Lear and Haemon from Antigone die protecting those they love. Gloucester tries to protect the king while Haemon attempts to spare the life of Antigone. In ancient Greece and Victorian England there are martyrs of morals.
Common also to both plays is the theme of monarchs overreacting. King Lear banishes Kent and Cordellia after they offer truths in hopes Lear will see reason. Creon has Antigone executed for burring her brother when Creon knew the taboo- breaking law against the burial of Antigone’s brother would be difficult to Antigone to accept. History acknowledges the flaw of man, kings are just a flawed.
King Lear and Antigone for there times herald times of reasoning. Ancient Greece was a time of great leaning. The Renaissance during which King Lear was written marked the end of the Dark Ages. The two plays express many of the basic characteristics of people, of basic humanity.
In response to John R.’s comment: Albany is another steady character, he unknowing in many cases is threatened by the other ruling parties for upholding his morals. It is odd that he does not get killed, but Shakespearean plays have to end with royalty in power to appease the intended Victorian audience.
During pieces of the play I found myself so in the moment that I nearly forgot what led up to that moment. More so, I never truly felt like I was entirely grasping anything that was happening, as it was all intricately weaved in to other parts of the story. This, I think, plays into Shakespeare's whole premise for King Lear. A lot of the play is about limits- like with the daughter claiming who can love their father the most, or with the idea of "limits of nature."
If I read the text correctly, the last scene was in Dover. Now, this may be somewhat far-fetched, but its interesting that with this idea of limits ends in such a place which is literally at the end of England, geographically speaking.
Of course, this is very easily related to As I Lay Dying, a book nearly based on limitations. Characters struggle with the limits of language, love, familial relationships.
4.1.30:
EDGAR:
And worse I may be yet. The worst is not/So long as we can say "this is the worst."
I find this passage very similar to Addie's talk about the word "motherhood." Edgar is saying that nothing is the "worst" if you can say it is the worst- almost as nothing will ever "formally" be the worst- (no limit to pain?)> Addie is seen in the book talking about the word motherhood, and how a mother did not invent it because they would not need to acknowledge it- someone who is in the "worst" situation would never need to say they are in the worst situation because they do not need to acknowledge it. Motherhood and worst, according to Lear and As I Lay Dying, must then be created words from on-lookers.
I like John's casting of Albany as the "anchor of the play," and always somewhat thought of Albay like that, but was never able to put my finger on my thoughts. Albany is almost keeping the limits on the play.
Jessica Wong
In King Lear the idea of imprisonment is seen throughout the play. King Lear seems to be imprisoned physically, socially and psychologically during the play. He suffers from both social and psychological incarceration. Lear is imprisoned by his responsibility to society; he is bound to serve as a leader. Once he ends his time as King it creates chaos for everyone. He is not only responsible for the harmony of a nation but also the harmony of his house. He does with little success when he “bribes” his daughters for his own satisfaction. “Which of you shall we say doth love us most, that we our largest bounty extend,” He is imprisoned by societies values, as a man and the King he has control which he abuses, to his own demise.
Lear suffers psychological imprisonment by his society, in that he has certain expectations of how his daughters should treat him and when these are broken he is staggered. “Though women all above but to the girdle do the Gods inherit, beneath is all the fiends,” this violent reaction is caused by Goneril and Regan. Lear is customed to the natural social order of things in which his daughters would comply to, however this does not happen. This breaks the social order of things that he has set in his head and therefore he is shaken.
Ironically in the end, when Lear is free of his social and psychological chains, he becomes literally imprisoned. “You must bear with me. Pray you now forget and forgive. I am old and foolish,” right before Lear and Cordelia are captured he sees his faults, his psychological restraints are broken and thus his social ones no longer matter. This should have outraged Lear that he was physically imprisoned but his emotional journey allowed him to accept it. He also is able to see that social order does not matter “Poor fool and knave, I have one part in my heart that’s sorry yet for thee,” in this line Lear acknowledges his fool and faithful servant, while he is not as high on the social hierarchy , he understands that it does not matter.
I agree with John Ryan's comment on Albany about him being an anchor in the play as well.
Dan Aloisio
In reflecting on King Lear, it seems as though Shakespeare does not want to portray any one character as a traditional hero, one whom we may model or aspire to be like, one that is unquestionably “good,” brave, heroic, etc. There is certainly no Beowulf here. Instead, Shakespeare riddles us with various antitheses to this classic hero, and it is ambiguous who is intended to be heroic, if anyone.
Lear himself is no hero, though at times he appears to be one. Initially, Lear is extremely generous, willing to cede the entirety of his kingdom to his daughters. However, when Cordelia refuses to stoop to sycophantism like her sisters, Lear loses his temper, and disowns her completely. Then, he expels his most loyal servant for trying to advise him. Even here, though, Shakespeare instills in Lear more than a wrathful temper, but a sense of heroic pride, the same kind of hubris that Antigone and others have. Lear succinctly shows this, “The bow is bent and drawn. Make from the shaft.” Later, Lear and his knights are “riotous” in his daughter’s castle. In the storm, Lear’s “wits begin to turn” and he loses the sanity characteristic of a hero.
Other characters also fall short of true heroism (in the traditional sense). The only other character that has a chance at being a hero in the traditional sense is Edgar. Edgar, though easily duped in the beginning of the play, is consistent in his goodness. He, though banished by him, twice prevents his father from total despair. Edgar also ends the play with power, suggesting (again, in a traditional way) that he is deserving of it. However, Edgar is not a traditional hero for the same reason that King Lear is not a traditional play. If Edgar was made to be a hero, then it would suggest that heroes win, that good triumphs over evil, that there is good and evil, that one is rewarded for goodness. Instead, the play focuses around the characters more fit to be antiheroes than heroes, and Edgar’s is only a minor role. Similarly, the most duplicitous character, Edmund, is also minor. The secondary plot, on further reflection, is more ordered and tidy than the main plot. This parallel then serves as a foil for the disorder and general entropy of the main plot. Thus, Shakespeare’s lack of a clear hero underlies his lack of a clear stance as to the hopefulness of the play, and serves to make the play more realistic and lasting, able to explore human nature and nature’s nature directly.
I particularly found inspiration in Willy’s comment. In describing the limits that Shakespeare highlighted both in his style of writing and in the ways that characters interacted, Willy spurned me to think of the limits of a “hero” in reality. For a traditional hero to work, the world—the nature—around that hero must be in compliance with the wishes of that hero. If these different desires are joined, it makes for a hopeful effect.
Avery
The role of women in King Lear was important to the plot, but also seemed ambiguous. Lear's daughters are key characters even though there is a much larger presence of male characters. I found it interesting that neither Gloucester nor Lear had wives. Both men were portrayed as the heads of the family. The only glimpse the reader gets of the mothers of Gloucester's children are not particularly flattering: " A son for her cradle ere she had a husband for her bed" (1.1.15) and " Though this knave came something saucily to the world before he was sent for, yet was his mother fair, there was good sport at his making and the whoreson must be acknowledged." (1.1.20-24) Family is a major theme in the novel and yet mothers were left out of the play.
Besides from Cordelia, women are portrayed quite poorly (as are men in the play as well). Both Regan and Goneril betray their father after taking his money and power. They are both immoral and conniving and attracted to Edmund, who has an "evil" nature. Both sisters are willing to sacrifice their relationships to their father, Cordelia, and even each other in order to rise in society and gain prestige. Cordelia, on the other hand, is honest and faithful to her father. She is the only woman character in the play that is honorable and magnanimous.
Cordelia is strong-minded in that she declines power and upholds her honesty, yet she is constantly described as weeping throughout the play. She is prone to crying and has trouble controlling her emotions: " It seemed she was a queen over her passion, who, most rebel-like, fought to be king o'er her." (4.3.14) Cordelia's tears are described as beautiful and compared to pearls. This portrays Cordelia as delicate, and her tenderness seems to be attractive to men.
As opposed to the men in the play, the sisters use words and commands rather than direct violence in order to indirectly commit cruel acts. For example, Regan does not actually remove Gloucester's eyes out, but orders it to be done: "One side will mock another. Th' other too". (3.7.86) Regan then orders him to be thrown out of the castle and to rely on his sense of smell to get to Dover. Both Goneril and Regan hold a lot of power, as is shown in the previous situation, but they use it in a devious way.
By the end, not one woman survives. Cordelia's army is defeated and she dies in prison. Goneril poisons Regan and then commits suicide herself. Regan and Goneril illustrate cold-hearted and power hungry women, where as Cordelia is represented as genuine and delicate. The nature of women presented in this play is mysterious and controversial. The sharp contrast between the sisters makes me wonder how Shakespeare wanted to depict the character of women, or if he chose not to include many because he didn't want women relationships to be a main focus.
Mr. Cook mentioned that there is a choice as to whether or not one should fight against what is happening to them or go along with it. When Lear exposes himself to nature, he is giving in to what is happening, but also changing himself. The fool is the most adept at showing what is happening to Lear. His metamorphosis from saying everything to “I will be the pattern of patience. I will asy nothing”(3.2.40), is a true testament to his change of identity to a better being.
The dynamic between Edgar and Edmund really strange; I find Edgar to be a very noble character, and Edmund, under the circumstances, had potential to be a better person than he was. His dying words were meant to save others, but his transformation seemed to not fit. Edgar stabbed him and he became good. “I pant for life. Some good I mean to do Despite of mine nature” (5.3.291-292).
Albany, Kent, and Edgar are the last men who are alive at the end. They are the only men who were behind the main powers, but they were left. Identity and power are very intertwined because who one is in terms of power affects oneself. It looks as if power (in his form) makes people lose their humanity. Cordelia is the only one that had power but did not lose who she was. It was only in times of death or loss of power that one could be innocent and pure to oneself. Lear was his best when he had nothing, as was Gloucester and Edmund, as well as Cordelia. They were blind by riches. It was only through finding strength in oneself that they ended up becoming good. In their darkest hour, they were their best. I find this to be the most hopeful insight into humanity.
I was going to comment on the women, but Avery made good comments about them already.I agree for the most part with what she had to say, but I do not think he would leave out women because he just did not feel connected to who they were.
Both during and after reading Shakespeare’s “King Lear”, I kept asking myself “where’s Cordelia?” This character, more than any other, was fascinating and confusing to me. After reading the first act, it is clear that Shakespeare set her up to be a character of reason. She seems intelligent but passionately obstinate in her views – those views, I believe adding to the overall “moral” of the story. In my opinion, the first act seemed to line up Cordelia as a character of substantial weight within the plotline of the story, and indeed she was. But I found myself wondering where she was during most of the play, expecting her to have a more active role in plotline.
I understand that, even without being present for almost the entirety of the show, Cordelia’s opening words set the tone and conflict for the entire story: the debate over what is natural, and the battling relationships between rank and family. But I wanted to see more of her within the play, become more involved in her backstory, and thus more attached to her when she is executed. I think, though, that this was exactly Shakespeare’s intent; giving the audience an interesting character and purposefully allowing her to continue to be an enigma.
Strangely enough, I saw a lot of Antigone within the character of Cordelia, and vice versa. Although there seemed to be far more character development within “King Lear”, and Cordelia was played off to be more sweet that obstinate, both characters represented strong females of notable rank. Both consciously risked banishment or execution, and both seemed to accept their fate. Although Antigone was a lot less graceful with her ways, both her and Cordelia represented two facets within a similar spectrum. Just as we’ve voiced interest in seeing a spin-off with the pirates of “Hamlet”, I’d be interested in learning more about both these characters, through a more contemporary author.
Previously, I only wrote briefly of the idea of cleverness, kindness, naturalness and power. After I wrote I continued to think about it. There is a possibility to be clever and kind, as I had stated before. I believe that only those who have a complete understanding of people in general are those who should naturally be kind. If all were naked of power one can see that everyone is made up of the same physicality’s. Yes, some may be more intelligent than others but most natural instinct will be the same. Also, I believe the meaning of cleverness is multi-layered. One may use their understanding of life in different ways. People may convince themselves that because they have the cleverness that some people lack they ultimately should be higher up in life’s hierarchy. I think that this idea is evident in many of the characters in King Lear. AT first, Lear seems to have no understanding of other human beings. He is enveloped in the power that was given to him by birth, yet when he is physically stripped of all of his power. Lear becomes clever and with that, kind. Cordelia is clever from the beginning. She understands that Lear is no greater than any other and refuses to profess an undying love for him. By the end Cordelia does not stray from her understanding of others. Although Lear has done her wrong she understands that all make mistakes and she is still kind. When thinking of the other layer of cleverness, one can automatically think of Edmund. Edmund understands that he is no different than any other, yet he was born a “bastard son”. Because of this Edmund is bitter and uses his understanding not for kindness, but to manipulate others.
Post a Comment