For this post, please refer to another student's comments on King Lear from our discussion, and respond to, extend, polite criticize, amplify, connect with or complicate what they had to say. This post will be due on Monday, April 13.
The idea that love does not have anything to do with King Lear is not true. The love between family and the love between lovers is used and corrupted to help play into the idea of the lack of trust. King Lear is about trust and the lack of trust. The love between family and the love between lovers is corrupted to show that lack of trust. The daughters fake love at first to get land but Cordelia, the daughter that doesn't confess her love is the only one who truly loves Lear. The love between Edmund, Goneril and Regan is also corrupted because Edmund is just trying to use Goneril and Regan for money and power. Also Goneril is married. So it is really the corruption of love that shows the lack of truth through out the play.
The concept of Love in most Shakespearean plays that we read is a central theme. Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, a Midsummer Nights Dream, even MacBeth- to vaguely quote Paula. King Leer follows a different pattern by not focusing the triumphs and trials around love, but instead focuses on family. This is yes true but love is not nonexistent within the play and its entirety. For instance Goneril and Reagan are both married to husbands, and both fall in love with Edmund. France loves Cordelia, and King Leer wants to be loved by all of his daughters. This is a different more fleshed out versions of love. There is the lack of (between the sisters and their husbands) and the jealous rage lust (between the sisters and Edmund). There is family love, the greed for love, and the bonding of love between a loyal servant and his master that is most likely one sided (this is Kent). It isn't just boy meets girl and everyone dies. This is a whole cluster of emotions with a bunch of static characters displaying them. What makes King Leer so special is not the easily recognizable characters or the outstanding plot, but it instead lies within the emotions focused by the characters. Love, Honesty, Trust, and so on all rotate about the many implications and hardships of the play. It is hard to say a central theme revolves around a central emotion, as it is all of the emotions (all of them) that make the play the whole. Without the complexity of the sister's quarrels and relationships or the mystery that was Kent, or even the jesting of the fool, the insanity of Gloucester and Leer- all of this driven by the complex storm of emotions surrounding them... King Leer would suck. As that is all that the play is. A bunch of static nameless characters in a poorly paced plot that you don't really get until it's over. All you know is that a lot of relationships and emotions happened.
I would like to expand on what Ms. Jaclyn Withers had to say about the thematic development of trust. Characters in the play such as Goneril, Regan, and Edmund are not trustworthy, and manipulate those around them to further their own greedy cause. This connects trust and vulnerability in the play. If you trust others, you are likely to be taken advantage of. The characters in the play also assume a some state of vulnerability when the power structure is flipped because of Lear, Kent, Edgar, and Gloucester being sent out into the storm. These characters are desperate in their own ways. Gloucester is blinded and needs to be led to Dover, Lear has lost his land and influence, Edgar lost his inheritance, and Kent lost his position of power. Characters like Goneril, Regan, and Edmund are also desperate, but in a separate way. They face desperation of greed, and a continued appetite to get more than what they already have. The sisters are not satisfied with the land they have just inherited, but they continue to lust for Edmund, and eventually die because of their desire for him. Shakespeare having Edgar kill Edmund is a sort of restoration of justice, since Edmund was the cause of Edgar losing his inheritance and having to take on a disguise. Edmund’s greed got him into a position unjustly, and is killed as a result. This greed and appetite is a driving force of the lies and deceit in the play.
Someone else had mentioned that the play was confusing at points because of the flat characters blending together and not being distinct from each other. This was an interesting point because the characters do seem to be static and boring. Shakespeare knocking down those with power contributes to this. He strips Lear, Kent, Edgar, and Gloucester of their power and sends them into the storm. This leaves the characters powerless or in a struggle for power throughout the majority of the play, effectively blurring social classes and distinctions in power. The characters are seen as a whole as greedy and in need of something they cannot achieve.
What Winslow said about Goneril and Regan’s deception coming out of nowhere was an interesting one, and indeed it is strange how Goneril and Regan’s behavior in the beginning is reasonable. Sure, they lie to their father for the sake of power, but honestly who wouldn’t? There’s money at stake! They don’t plan to kill the guy or anything. However, The most interesting part of their character (because let’s face it, the two are pretty much just one character between them.) is their willingness to take any opportunity they have and roll with it. It isn’t enough to have half the kingdom, they also need to have Edmund and his land as well. And indeed looking at the sisters individually, they constantly backstab each other as well, fighting greedily for a larger share of power or control, even to the point of killing each other and making all of their efforts worthless. It says a lot about the power-hungry character archetype to have these two characters kill each other, as it shows directly the effect of wanting more and more power as time goes on.
It was mentioned during our discussion of King Lear that we were unable to identify with the characters of the play as much because this play is meant for an ‘older crowd.’ While I agreed with this statement I also thought the characters seemed flat and unappealing. As I stated in the discussion there was no one in the play that I wanted to root for. Most of the characters are very one dimensional and something I wish had been different was Cordelia’s role throughout the play. In the beginning Cordelia’s role is vital to the storyline and then she simply disappears for half of the play and is only brought back for a final scene and her untimely death. I think it would have been easier to connect with the play if we could have seen how Cordelia had been dealing with the situation her father put her in. Also it was mentioned in class the the characters are very black and white, that Shakespeare wants us to know who is obviously good and bad. I disagree. I think this is one of the plays where it is very hard to tell who is good and who is bad because of all the deception and betrayal. Edmund is seen as the main villain but there is reason behind the chaos he causes and in the end he even tries to redeem himself making his character even more complex. Lear’s cruelty is based on the madness that is eating away at his mind, making you want to hate him but also pity him. All of the characters in the play are very complex and I think its just because they are written so flatly that we have a hard time connecting with them and being able to see that. If there was more background and detail put into every character then we would be able to see all the different reasons behind the actions done. I think there is a reason Shakespeare chose not to do this. Adding so much dimension to each character would have taken away the realness of it all. In life we are not able to understand everybody’s reasons for doing what we do; we have a far off perspective just like we do in this play.
I would like to expand on the idea that the characters and plot were very flat. The characters seemed to have no motivation for their actions, and all the changes within the characters happened off stage. We never witnessed Goneril and Regan going mad enough to want to kill their father, their schemes went on behind the scenes. With the characters being very flat, it was also very difficult to feel an emotional connection to any of them. I couldn’t sympathize for the characters or support any decisions they made because they had no depth, no way to connect to the audience on a personal level. The entire plot of the play seemed to be simply a telling of actions, just watching from a far distance and observing what each character does without understanding their motives. It was brought up that this distant feeling from the characters and the lack of emotional connection to them is due to the age of the audience. We are very young and therefore we do not understand the connection between parents and children, thus leaving us unable to emotionally connect to the characters.
To build off of Kate’s line of thought, I agree that the extent to which we can become emotionally invested in Shakespeare’s work is dependent upon the audience of interest. Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet were both plays with a youthful dynamic, scenarios where we could insert ourselves into the characters’ perspectives, and thus empathize. During Mr. Cook’s class last year we began Hamlet by discussing the plot without character labels, adapted to our own lives: my father just died and already my mother is sleeping with my uncle. The thought was outraging and repulsive, and thus I carried a bit of Hamlet’s sentiment throughout the reading of the play. Romeo and Juliet’s “star-crossed lovers” also appealed to pathos, for the forbidden love was relatively to imagine in one’s own position: yearning to be with the one you love yet being restricted by other influences is not highly improbable in today’s day and age. However, the thought of my children trying to subvert my authority after my own act of generosity is not one that can truly work itself into my emotions. The parent-child relationship is extremely complex, and as of the present we only grip one of those perspectives. We can imagine what it might be like, but we cannot adapt it to our own personal experiences. We will never feel King Lear’s anguish and heartbreak; the closest we get to identifying with a character is through Cordelia, but her absence for the majority of the play restricts that link. Thus, it is safe to say that this play will be most appreciated by those that have experienced the same elder relationship as Lear, for only they can understand both the antagonists and the protagonists.
I agreed when someone said that maybe if we were older, more around the age of the people in the story, we would understand more and connect better. Being in a different state of mind, not being developed all the way, we can’t understand everything. It’s just not possible for us to mentally connect. I agree with Josie’s statement that they characters were complex but written flatley. They were flat so we didn’t find them interesting and didn’t really want to connect with them. Romeo and Juliet we could understand more on a mental level because they were closer to our age. They were stupid like us. They reminded us of people we knew. A few people in class talked about not reading the beginning of the story. We didn’t get any background information. King Lear was clearly a well respected king, the people loved him but how did he earn that respect? All we got to see what his crazy side. We saw him dividing up the land but we don’t really know why. People instantly betrayed him when he did that, almost everyone, everyone except the fool. Not only story background, there was no character background. Also, the story was very basic. As Kate said in class, “they go here, go there, they die.” There just didn’t seem to be much. They didn’t even die on stage, they weren’t in the story when they died but we know that they did die. It wasn’t a big deal like it is in other Shakespeare works.
Emma said something earlier about the character's being flat, and that we don't really connect with any of the characters because we rarely see into any of their emotional states. There also seems to be an insane lack of empathy and humanity shown from the majority of the characters. I get that this is a tragedy so I shouldn't expect to see many displays of affection, but there are so few that it's pretty alarming. There is no romantic love of any sort shown and even the parental love shown is limited to only a few characters. It’s also only at the end, and there is no preceding showing of love from both Edmund and Gloucester and Lear and Cordelia. It was also mentioned that we might not be able to emotionally attached to the play because we don’t have children and most of the play deals with parental issues. While I do agree with this partially, I’d argue that even the parent to child relationships aren’t very developed, and that even if we did have children we’d struggle to connect to the characters.
To build off of what Emily had said earlier that the main theme is about power struggle, I will say that I can agree with that. The power struggle between King Lear and his daughters is mostly the whole plot and what caused most of the events that unfolded and unfortunately led to their deaths. Even the subplot which was the Gloucester dilemma with Edgar and Edmund had to do with power and inheritance. The whole play the characters demonstrate greed towards what others have, Goneril and Regan wanting the same man; Edmund is an example of that. I feel that the theme has a lesson which is that the greed they had eventually led to their own destruction. Shakespeare does play a lot with parental issues in this play which adds to the power struggle since it usually is handed down within the family. I would like to add that during class I said that love is not the main theme of this play like in some of his other plays which makes this play particularly unique, and not that love is nonexistent. Love is present in the play but in different ways like Cordelia's true love for her father, and the "love" (more like lust) shown by both Goneril and Regan for Edmund.
Many people in class said that they couldn't relate to the characters in "King Lear," that it was a play written for older people, and that there was no one to root for. I wholeheartedly disagree with these people, as even if the play was written for an older audience, one can still understand how tragic Lear's life really is. Although many people laughed at the absurdity of all the tragedy in Lear's life, as it was hyperbolic, when simply thinking of the events of the play, this absurdity truly evokes how truly awful Lear must have felt when he had his heart attack. Thinking of how he was abandoned by two of his daughters, after banishing the other, then regretting that he banished the one that may have loved him the most, then how he wandered around alone, slowly falling into insanity. While we as a society often laugh at insanity, we watched a perfectly stable man fall into an uncontrollable spiral of depression and insanity and watched him die of heartbreak over the only daughter he had willingly to help him out of that whirlpool. One is supposed to root for Lear in the play, to root for things to get better. Yet, as it is a tragedy, things get worse. Shakespeare intends for us to first sympathize with Edmund and Cordelia, but then, Edmund shows himself to truly be a bastard. while Lear and Gloucester become those that we empathize with, as the small tragedies that befall children may seem the world to them, yet the children are not always aware of those greater tragedies that parents must face. That is the message Shakespeare tries to convey through those subplots. Moreover, characters may not seem relatable, but they become more relatable as they go through tragedy. In response to the person that said they didn't understand why they have to be kings and dukes, royalty is the same as peasantry, we are all people. You are supposed to watch the play and question why it mattered that it was the family of the king, because it doesn't matter. That is the subtle point offered by the play. I also read above and disagree with Jaclyn Withers. The characters in King Lear are not static and nameless. Although many characters remain the same throughout the play, some go through huge emotional development. Edgar seems a much more confident man after he is betrayed by his brother. In the beginning he seemed docile, then as Poor Tom, he became a completely different person. Guiding his father to his own suicide reveals a great amount about what Edgar has truly become. King Lear is also dynamic, as his mental state and opinions are drastically changed from the beginning to the end. The plot is also not poorly paced, as it cycles between the two plot stories alternately, and allows for character development that opportunes the reader to become attached to the characters before they die. The characters that one would want to die are flat so that one does not see any justice in the ending. Everyone dies. A tragic tale of love and betrayal ending in murder, heart break and suicide. This is a very interesting plot and I cannot see why no one truly feels the pathos in this play.
In class it was pointed out that Shakespeare does not give you anyone to root for in King Lear. In both Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet, you become attached to the characters and their causes. It was also pointed out in class that in King Lear, the characters do not have any clear motives and seem flat, so you do not become attached to them. If you are not attached to anyone, you don’t want any one character to succeed. Relating to and wanting a character to succeed is often what makes reading a story fun. And yet, I enjoyed reading King Lear. Form afar you can see the characters in black and white, the villains versus the good guys. In Romeo and Juliet you are closer to all the characters so you can see what motivates both the parents and Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare made it very easy to hate Edmund because he is the instigator of much of the turmoil and because all you can see to motivate him is his thirst for power that he feels he has been denied.Though King Lear makes a mess of things by splitting his land, he has more depth as the main character and Shakespeare wants you to understand that his bad actions are motivated by his madness. While, there are more villains than protagonists, you can tell them apart clearly. You cannot see the inner workings of those doing good like Cordelia and Edgar, but, you know they are against those who are tearing lives apart. One finds themselves relating to them despite the distance at which you see them because you want the happy ending for Lear that they are working towards. Another thing mentioned in class was the fact that Kent was more honest through his deceit or his disguise. I found this very interesting because it pertains clearly to the rest of the story. When Edmund is lying about his father it shows his true feelings and when Edgar is disguised he can take care of his father as he wishes. Their “lies” show their truth. Only Cordelia shows her true opinions and actions on the surface and for that she is admirable, but not necessarily a better person than those who show themselves in disguise like Kent and Edgar.
“King Lear” lacks the presence of a matriarchal figure. Stereotypically women act as the voice of reason or clarity not only during Shakespeare’s works but throughout history. Generally women are softer and represent a calmness that is foreign to men. During the Elizabethan era especially, women were meant to be submissive to their male counterparts so while I don’t agree that a mother figure would keep the characters in “King Lear” completely grounded I do feel that a mother would be able to act as a mediator. Men are usually symbolic of power and aggression and this is reflected through the actions of Goneril and Reagan. They unite against their father and lust after Edmund. They are power-hungry and deceitful, loud and decisive, all qualities that are usually characteristic of men. They lack the softness that usually comes from a mothering instinct and they instead carry themselves with a hardness that can be traced back to Lear himself. Another interesting point brought up was the commoner’s commitment to an authority figure. Kent continues to look out for Lear’s best interests despite his being exiled by Lear personally. Similarly Edgar maintains his loyalty to Gloucester even after Gloucester wants him killed. Both Kent and Edgar disguise themselves in order to continue to serve their masters. Contrastly Lear has never felt more bare and exposed despite his continued loyalty from Kent and Gloucester. He is literally stripped of power by Goneril and Reagan but he is figuratively stripped of security and comfort. He is physically stripped of security when he is wandering into the storm. He is exposed in nature and is subject to nature’s wrath as every other mortal man. He is no longer a great and powerful king, merely a man ill with madness. His daughters’ betrayal is mirrored in nature in the storm. It represents the end of his sanity and the end of his power.
While reading through the blog posts, I discovered that the majority of my classmates thought that the play was designed with flat characters who were not very appealing. I would agree in most aspects, even going as far as to say the characters of Goneril and Regan could have been interchanged throughout the play, meaning they lacked specific character qualities that I feel most characters should possess in any type of creative fiction. However, even though Cordelia wasn’t given much depth, I believe that she was the obvious underdog since the beginning of the book when she was banished for doing what she believed was right. Shakespeare, as he is known for doing, decided to kill her off at the end, which was slightly surprising and extremely tragic. It takes King Lear the majority of the play to figure out who stood by him truly, and by the time he finds out, Cordelia is dying in his arms. The entire play is truly tragic, without the depth perception characters normally have. Even though this is a play, and not much background can be given to each character, the characters in King Lear are ultimately boring at times. This brings me to wonder what the play would have been like if we had been given some background to them at all. Would the play have been more tragic, or would it have come off at over-the-top and trying to hard to appeal to the reader (or watcher’s) pathos? There is obviously a purpose Shakespeare created the characters in the play to be as flat and boring as they are, and perhaps this is why.
Cody mentioned in class that King Lear could be viewed as a social commentary piece because to the relative audience of Shakespeare's time, the plot of King Lear was satirical. I have to agree with this because, as I’ve noticed throughout the book, the hierarchical image of royalty is constantly being challenged by the plot of the book. As Lear becomes more and more senile, his power as the figurehead of England is reduced to almost nothing. King Lear will only listen to the fools advice, which is ironic because he is the lowest social class in the book. Just like Kent and Edgar who dress up as beggars and poor people, they have the most useful knowledge. The people at the top of the social systems (Lear, Gloucester, Regan, Goneril, etc) are the ones who are the most incapable.The amount of deceit in the highest platform of the hierarchy can be interpreted as social commentary towards the royal family. The only characters in the book who have worthwhile advice and ideas are the people who would be considered ¨lower¨ than the people in the top of the class system. King Lear’s journey into madness and nothingness acts as a satirical perspective of the disorder of the class system. As he deteriorates, it is symbolic of the whole royal family deteriorating in power.
Something we talked about in class on Friday was the lack of any major event or plot climax in the King Lear. The entirety of the story felt as though I was waiting for the central event or conflict, however once the play ended I realized that the conflicts were all small and for the most part separate and resolved within themselves. The letters going back in forth added to the confusion, and with each letter the stakes grew higher and the tension grew, yet there was no point where I felt the plot had past the threshold as far as action goes. The deaths at the end was the only point where I felt even mildly emotionally distraught-- a quality that I feel a stories climax should have. It should make you angry or happy or upset, whichever it is, it should make you feel something more intensely than you had the rest of the play. I think this was because the deaths were disconjointed in a way that they all happened separately to one another-- off screen, different settings, etc.-- and then continuously happened to a point where it got almost unbelievable. For this reason, I enjoyed Shakespeare’s other works more thoroughly, as their plots made me much more emotionally invested with the rise and fall of action.
I would like to expand to something that many people said in class about relating to the play. I agree with the fact that this play may be more relatable to an older demographic, and that we may be too young to understand what it is like to be a parent. However, I believe that their are some aspects in this play that all people can relate to, that makes this play still relevant even over a hundred years later. This play brings up the idea of trust and deceit, which is something that everyone has had to deal with. In the play, the characters make choices on who they can trust. These characters also learn that sometimes, the people that we trust the most are the same people who will use deceit to manipulate them. At the beginning of the play, King Lear trusts that after he divides up his kingdom that his daughters will still have respect for him as a father and a ruler. After Goneril and Regan use deceit to gain as much land and power as they can, they begin to treat King Lear very poorly. Also, Gloucester decides to confide in his son, Edmund, with the secret information that France is planning on invading. Edmund immediately turns on his father. In both of these instances, the characters make the wrong decisions on who they should and should not trust. Trust is an important part of all relationships, and building trust takes time, no matter who you are.
The idea that love does not have anything to do with King Lear is not true. The love between family and the love between lovers is used and corrupted to help play into the idea of the lack of trust. King Lear is about trust and the lack of trust. The love between family and the love between lovers is corrupted to show that lack of trust. The daughters fake love at first to get land but Cordelia, the daughter that doesn't confess her love is the only one who truly loves Lear. The love between Edmund, Goneril and Regan is also corrupted because Edmund is just trying to use Goneril and Regan for money and power. Also Goneril is married. So it is really the corruption of love that shows the lack of truth through out the play.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of Love in most Shakespearean plays that we read is a central theme. Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, a Midsummer Nights Dream, even MacBeth- to vaguely quote Paula.
ReplyDeleteKing Leer follows a different pattern by not focusing the triumphs and trials around love, but instead focuses on family. This is yes true but love is not nonexistent within the play and its entirety. For instance Goneril and Reagan are both married to husbands, and both fall in love with Edmund. France loves Cordelia, and King Leer wants to be loved by all of his daughters. This is a different more fleshed out versions of love. There is the lack of (between the sisters and their husbands) and the jealous rage lust (between the sisters and Edmund). There is family love, the greed for love, and the bonding of love between a loyal servant and his master that is most likely one sided (this is Kent). It isn't just boy meets girl and everyone dies. This is a whole cluster of emotions with a bunch of static characters displaying them. What makes King Leer so special is not the easily recognizable characters or the outstanding plot, but it instead lies within the emotions focused by the characters. Love, Honesty, Trust, and so on all rotate about the many implications and hardships of the play. It is hard to say a central theme revolves around a central emotion, as it is all of the emotions (all of them) that make the play the whole. Without the complexity of the sister's quarrels and relationships or the mystery that was Kent, or even the jesting of the fool, the insanity of Gloucester and Leer- all of this driven by the complex storm of emotions surrounding them... King Leer would suck. As that is all that the play is. A bunch of static nameless characters in a poorly paced plot that you don't really get until it's over. All you know is that a lot of relationships and emotions happened.
I would like to expand on what Ms. Jaclyn Withers had to say about the thematic development of trust. Characters in the play such as Goneril, Regan, and Edmund are not trustworthy, and manipulate those around them to further their own greedy cause. This connects trust and vulnerability in the play. If you trust others, you are likely to be taken advantage of. The characters in the play also assume a some state of vulnerability when the power structure is flipped because of Lear, Kent, Edgar, and Gloucester being sent out into the storm. These characters are desperate in their own ways. Gloucester is blinded and needs to be led to Dover, Lear has lost his land and influence, Edgar lost his inheritance, and Kent lost his position of power. Characters like Goneril, Regan, and Edmund are also desperate, but in a separate way. They face desperation of greed, and a continued appetite to get more than what they already have. The sisters are not satisfied with the land they have just inherited, but they continue to lust for Edmund, and eventually die because of their desire for him. Shakespeare having Edgar kill Edmund is a sort of restoration of justice, since Edmund was the cause of Edgar losing his inheritance and having to take on a disguise. Edmund’s greed got him into a position unjustly, and is killed as a result. This greed and appetite is a driving force of the lies and deceit in the play.
ReplyDeleteSomeone else had mentioned that the play was confusing at points because of the flat characters blending together and not being distinct from each other. This was an interesting point because the characters do seem to be static and boring. Shakespeare knocking down those with power contributes to this. He strips Lear, Kent, Edgar, and Gloucester of their power and sends them into the storm. This leaves the characters powerless or in a struggle for power throughout the majority of the play, effectively blurring social classes and distinctions in power. The characters are seen as a whole as greedy and in need of something they cannot achieve.
What Winslow said about Goneril and Regan’s deception coming out of nowhere was an interesting one, and indeed it is strange how Goneril and Regan’s behavior in the beginning is reasonable. Sure, they lie to their father for the sake of power, but honestly who wouldn’t? There’s money at stake! They don’t plan to kill the guy or anything. However, The most interesting part of their character (because let’s face it, the two are pretty much just one character between them.) is their willingness to take any opportunity they have and roll with it. It isn’t enough to have half the kingdom, they also need to have Edmund and his land as well. And indeed looking at the sisters individually, they constantly backstab each other as well, fighting greedily for a larger share of power or control, even to the point of killing each other and making all of their efforts worthless. It says a lot about the power-hungry character archetype to have these two characters kill each other, as it shows directly the effect of wanting more and more power as time goes on.
ReplyDeleteIt was mentioned during our discussion of King Lear that we were unable to identify with the characters of the play as much because this play is meant for an ‘older crowd.’ While I agreed with this statement I also thought the characters seemed flat and unappealing. As I stated in the discussion there was no one in the play that I wanted to root for. Most of the characters are very one dimensional and something I wish had been different was Cordelia’s role throughout the play. In the beginning Cordelia’s role is vital to the storyline and then she simply disappears for half of the play and is only brought back for a final scene and her untimely death. I think it would have been easier to connect with the play if we could have seen how Cordelia had been dealing with the situation her father put her in. Also it was mentioned in class the the characters are very black and white, that Shakespeare wants us to know who is obviously good and bad. I disagree. I think this is one of the plays where it is very hard to tell who is good and who is bad because of all the deception and betrayal. Edmund is seen as the main villain but there is reason behind the chaos he causes and in the end he even tries to redeem himself making his character even more complex. Lear’s cruelty is based on the madness that is eating away at his mind, making you want to hate him but also pity him. All of the characters in the play are very complex and I think its just because they are written so flatly that we have a hard time connecting with them and being able to see that. If there was more background and detail put into every character then we would be able to see all the different reasons behind the actions done. I think there is a reason Shakespeare chose not to do this. Adding so much dimension to each character would have taken away the realness of it all. In life we are not able to understand everybody’s reasons for doing what we do; we have a far off perspective just like we do in this play.
ReplyDeleteI would like to expand on the idea that the characters and plot were very flat. The characters seemed to have no motivation for their actions, and all the changes within the characters happened off stage. We never witnessed Goneril and Regan going mad enough to want to kill their father, their schemes went on behind the scenes. With the characters being very flat, it was also very difficult to feel an emotional connection to any of them. I couldn’t sympathize for the characters or support any decisions they made because they had no depth, no way to connect to the audience on a personal level. The entire plot of the play seemed to be simply a telling of actions, just watching from a far distance and observing what each character does without understanding their motives. It was brought up that this distant feeling from the characters and the lack of emotional connection to them is due to the age of the audience. We are very young and therefore we do not understand the connection between parents and children, thus leaving us unable to emotionally connect to the characters.
ReplyDeleteTo build off of Kate’s line of thought, I agree that the extent to which we can become emotionally invested in Shakespeare’s work is dependent upon the audience of interest. Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet were both plays with a youthful dynamic, scenarios where we could insert ourselves into the characters’ perspectives, and thus empathize. During Mr. Cook’s class last year we began Hamlet by discussing the plot without character labels, adapted to our own lives: my father just died and already my mother is sleeping with my uncle. The thought was outraging and repulsive, and thus I carried a bit of Hamlet’s sentiment throughout the reading of the play. Romeo and Juliet’s “star-crossed lovers” also appealed to pathos, for the forbidden love was relatively to imagine in one’s own position: yearning to be with the one you love yet being restricted by other influences is not highly improbable in today’s day and age. However, the thought of my children trying to subvert my authority after my own act of generosity is not one that can truly work itself into my emotions. The parent-child relationship is extremely complex, and as of the present we only grip one of those perspectives. We can imagine what it might be like, but we cannot adapt it to our own personal experiences. We will never feel King Lear’s anguish and heartbreak; the closest we get to identifying with a character is through Cordelia, but her absence for the majority of the play restricts that link. Thus, it is safe to say that this play will be most appreciated by those that have experienced the same elder relationship as Lear, for only they can understand both the antagonists and the protagonists.
ReplyDeleteI agreed when someone said that maybe if we were older, more around the age of the people in the story, we would understand more and connect better. Being in a different state of mind, not being developed all the way, we can’t understand everything. It’s just not possible for us to mentally connect. I agree with Josie’s statement that they characters were complex but written flatley. They were flat so we didn’t find them interesting and didn’t really want to connect with them. Romeo and Juliet we could understand more on a mental level because they were closer to our age. They were stupid like us. They reminded us of people we knew.
ReplyDeleteA few people in class talked about not reading the beginning of the story. We didn’t get any background information. King Lear was clearly a well respected king, the people loved him but how did he earn that respect? All we got to see what his crazy side. We saw him dividing up the land but we don’t really know why. People instantly betrayed him when he did that, almost everyone, everyone except the fool. Not only story background, there was no character background.
Also, the story was very basic. As Kate said in class, “they go here, go there, they die.” There just didn’t seem to be much. They didn’t even die on stage, they weren’t in the story when they died but we know that they did die. It wasn’t a big deal like it is in other Shakespeare works.
Emma said something earlier about the character's being flat, and that we don't really connect with any of the characters because we rarely see into any of their emotional states. There also seems to be an insane lack of empathy and humanity shown from the majority of the characters. I get that this is a tragedy so I shouldn't expect to see many displays of affection, but there are so few that it's pretty alarming. There is no romantic love of any sort shown and even the parental love shown is limited to only a few characters. It’s also only at the end, and there is no preceding showing of love from both Edmund and Gloucester and Lear and Cordelia. It was also mentioned that we might not be able to emotionally attached to the play because we don’t have children and most of the play deals with parental issues. While I do agree with this partially, I’d argue that even the parent to child relationships aren’t very developed, and that even if we did have children we’d struggle to connect to the characters.
ReplyDeleteTo build off of what Emily had said earlier that the main theme is about power struggle, I will say that I can agree with that. The power struggle between King Lear and his daughters is mostly the whole plot and what caused most of the events that unfolded and unfortunately led to their deaths. Even the subplot which was the Gloucester dilemma with Edgar and Edmund had to do with power and inheritance. The whole play the characters demonstrate greed towards what others have, Goneril and Regan wanting the same man; Edmund is an example of that. I feel that the theme has a lesson which is that the greed they had eventually led to their own destruction. Shakespeare does play a lot with parental issues in this play which adds to the power struggle since it usually is handed down within the family. I would like to add that during class I said that love is not the main theme of this play like in some of his other plays which makes this play particularly unique, and not that love is nonexistent. Love is present in the play but in different ways like Cordelia's true love for her father, and the "love" (more like lust) shown by both Goneril and Regan for Edmund.
ReplyDeleteMany people in class said that they couldn't relate to the characters in "King Lear," that it was a play written for older people, and that there was no one to root for. I wholeheartedly disagree with these people, as even if the play was written for an older audience, one can still understand how tragic Lear's life really is. Although many people laughed at the absurdity of all the tragedy in Lear's life, as it was hyperbolic, when simply thinking of the events of the play, this absurdity truly evokes how truly awful Lear must have felt when he had his heart attack. Thinking of how he was abandoned by two of his daughters, after banishing the other, then regretting that he banished the one that may have loved him the most, then how he wandered around alone, slowly falling into insanity. While we as a society often laugh at insanity, we watched a perfectly stable man fall into an uncontrollable spiral of depression and insanity and watched him die of heartbreak over the only daughter he had willingly to help him out of that whirlpool. One is supposed to root for Lear in the play, to root for things to get better. Yet, as it is a tragedy, things get worse. Shakespeare intends for us to first sympathize with Edmund and Cordelia, but then, Edmund shows himself to truly be a bastard. while Lear and Gloucester become those that we empathize with, as the small tragedies that befall children may seem the world to them, yet the children are not always aware of those greater tragedies that parents must face. That is the message Shakespeare tries to convey through those subplots. Moreover, characters may not seem relatable, but they become more relatable as they go through tragedy. In response to the person that said they didn't understand why they have to be kings and dukes, royalty is the same as peasantry, we are all people. You are supposed to watch the play and question why it mattered that it was the family of the king, because it doesn't matter. That is the subtle point offered by the play. I also read above and disagree with Jaclyn Withers. The characters in King Lear are not static and nameless. Although many characters remain the same throughout the play, some go through huge emotional development. Edgar seems a much more confident man after he is betrayed by his brother. In the beginning he seemed docile, then as Poor Tom, he became a completely different person. Guiding his father to his own suicide reveals a great amount about what Edgar has truly become. King Lear is also dynamic, as his mental state and opinions are drastically changed from the beginning to the end. The plot is also not poorly paced, as it cycles between the two plot stories alternately, and allows for character development that opportunes the reader to become attached to the characters before they die. The characters that one would want to die are flat so that one does not see any justice in the ending. Everyone dies. A tragic tale of love and betrayal ending in murder, heart break and suicide. This is a very interesting plot and I cannot see why no one truly feels the pathos in this play.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn class it was pointed out that Shakespeare does not give you anyone to root for in King Lear. In both Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet, you become attached to the characters and their causes. It was also pointed out in class that in King Lear, the characters do not have any clear motives and seem flat, so you do not become attached to them. If you are not attached to anyone, you don’t want any one character to succeed. Relating to and wanting a character to succeed is often what makes reading a story fun. And yet, I enjoyed reading King Lear. Form afar you can see the characters in black and white, the villains versus the good guys. In Romeo and Juliet you are closer to all the characters so you can see what motivates both the parents and Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare made it very easy to hate Edmund because he is the instigator of much of the turmoil and because all you can see to motivate him is his thirst for power that he feels he has been denied.Though King Lear makes a mess of things by splitting his land, he has more depth as the main character and Shakespeare wants you to understand that his bad actions are motivated by his madness. While, there are more villains than protagonists, you can tell them apart clearly. You cannot see the inner workings of those doing good like Cordelia and Edgar, but, you know they are against those who are tearing lives apart. One finds themselves relating to them despite the distance at which you see them because you want the happy ending for Lear that they are working towards.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing mentioned in class was the fact that Kent was more honest through his deceit or his disguise. I found this very interesting because it pertains clearly to the rest of the story. When Edmund is lying about his father it shows his true feelings and when Edgar is disguised he can take care of his father as he wishes. Their “lies” show their truth. Only Cordelia shows her true opinions and actions on the surface and for that she is admirable, but not necessarily a better person than those who show themselves in disguise like Kent and Edgar.
“King Lear” lacks the presence of a matriarchal figure. Stereotypically women act as the voice of reason or clarity not only during Shakespeare’s works but throughout history. Generally women are softer and represent a calmness that is foreign to men. During the Elizabethan era especially, women were meant to be submissive to their male counterparts so while I don’t agree that a mother figure would keep the characters in “King Lear” completely grounded I do feel that a mother would be able to act as a mediator. Men are usually symbolic of power and aggression and this is reflected through the actions of Goneril and Reagan. They unite against their father and lust after Edmund. They are power-hungry and deceitful, loud and decisive, all qualities that are usually characteristic of men. They lack the softness that usually comes from a mothering instinct and they instead carry themselves with a hardness that can be traced back to Lear himself.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting point brought up was the commoner’s commitment to an authority figure. Kent continues to look out for Lear’s best interests despite his being exiled by Lear personally. Similarly Edgar maintains his loyalty to Gloucester even after Gloucester wants him killed. Both Kent and Edgar disguise themselves in order to continue to serve their masters. Contrastly Lear has never felt more bare and exposed despite his continued loyalty from Kent and Gloucester. He is literally stripped of power by Goneril and Reagan but he is figuratively stripped of security and comfort. He is physically stripped of security when he is wandering into the storm. He is exposed in nature and is subject to nature’s wrath as every other mortal man. He is no longer a great and powerful king, merely a man ill with madness. His daughters’ betrayal is mirrored in nature in the storm. It represents the end of his sanity and the end of his power.
While reading through the blog posts, I discovered that the majority of my classmates thought that the play was designed with flat characters who were not very appealing. I would agree in most aspects, even going as far as to say the characters of Goneril and Regan could have been interchanged throughout the play, meaning they lacked specific character qualities that I feel most characters should possess in any type of creative fiction. However, even though Cordelia wasn’t given much depth, I believe that she was the obvious underdog since the beginning of the book when she was banished for doing what she believed was right. Shakespeare, as he is known for doing, decided to kill her off at the end, which was slightly surprising and extremely tragic. It takes King Lear the majority of the play to figure out who stood by him truly, and by the time he finds out, Cordelia is dying in his arms. The entire play is truly tragic, without the depth perception characters normally have. Even though this is a play, and not much background can be given to each character, the characters in King Lear are ultimately boring at times. This brings me to wonder what the play would have been like if we had been given some background to them at all. Would the play have been more tragic, or would it have come off at over-the-top and trying to hard to appeal to the reader (or watcher’s) pathos? There is obviously a purpose Shakespeare created the characters in the play to be as flat and boring as they are, and perhaps this is why.
ReplyDeleteCody mentioned in class that King Lear could be viewed as a social commentary piece because to the relative audience of Shakespeare's time, the plot of King Lear was satirical. I have to agree with this because, as I’ve noticed throughout the book, the hierarchical image of royalty is constantly being challenged by the plot of the book. As Lear becomes more and more senile, his power as the figurehead of England is reduced to almost nothing. King Lear will only listen to the fools advice, which is ironic because he is the lowest social class in the book. Just like Kent and Edgar who dress up as beggars and poor people, they have the most useful knowledge. The people at the top of the social systems (Lear, Gloucester, Regan, Goneril, etc) are the ones who are the most incapable.The amount of deceit in the highest platform of the hierarchy can be interpreted as social commentary towards the royal family. The only characters in the book who have worthwhile advice and ideas are the people who would be considered ¨lower¨ than the people in the top of the class system. King Lear’s journey into madness and nothingness acts as a satirical perspective of the disorder of the class system. As he deteriorates, it is symbolic of the whole royal family deteriorating in power.
ReplyDeleteSomething we talked about in class on Friday was the lack of any major event or plot climax in the King Lear. The entirety of the story felt as though I was waiting for the central event or conflict, however once the play ended I realized that the conflicts were all small and for the most part separate and resolved within themselves. The letters going back in forth added to the confusion, and with each letter the stakes grew higher and the tension grew, yet there was no point where I felt the plot had past the threshold as far as action goes. The deaths at the end was the only point where I felt even mildly emotionally distraught-- a quality that I feel a stories climax should have. It should make you angry or happy or upset, whichever it is, it should make you feel something more intensely than you had the rest of the play. I think this was because the deaths were disconjointed in a way that they all happened separately to one another-- off screen, different settings, etc.-- and then continuously happened to a point where it got almost unbelievable. For this reason, I enjoyed Shakespeare’s other works more thoroughly, as their plots made me much more emotionally invested with the rise and fall of action.
ReplyDeleteI would like to expand to something that many people said in class about relating to the play. I agree with the fact that this play may be more relatable to an older demographic, and that we may be too young to understand what it is like to be a parent. However, I believe that their are some aspects in this play that all people can relate to, that makes this play still relevant even over a hundred years later. This play brings up the idea of trust and deceit, which is something that everyone has had to deal with. In the play, the characters make choices on who they can trust. These characters also learn that sometimes, the people that we trust the most are the same people who will use deceit to manipulate them. At the beginning of the play, King Lear trusts that after he divides up his kingdom that his daughters will still have respect for him as a father and a ruler. After Goneril and Regan use deceit to gain as much land and power as they can, they begin to treat King Lear very poorly. Also, Gloucester decides to confide in his son, Edmund, with the secret information that France is planning on invading. Edmund immediately turns on his father. In both of these instances, the characters make the wrong decisions on who they should and should not trust. Trust is an important part of all relationships, and building trust takes time, no matter who you are.
ReplyDelete