Lear and Structuralist Criticism
First, my congratulations on excellent work during our discussions of New Criticism; I realize how challenging a theory it is because of its limitations, yet you have proved yourselves quite adept at narrowing your focus. Additionally, thanks to those of you who posted your paragraphs from today's exercise--that demonstrates some serious scholarship at work. I encourage you all to read them over and make comments.
Tomorrow we'll be dealing with Structuralism, the critical perspective that seeks to understand the overall construction of a literary work, then uses it to explain the author's central idea.
In this case, Ryan suggests that the play is constructed using a parallelling double-plot: the stories of Lear and Edgar. According to Ryan, comparison/contrast analysis of their separate story structures leads us to the conclusion that is not just about restoring order out of chaos (as we have previously discussed) but more specifically about SUCCESSION, the orderly continuation of a reign of kings.
He bases this argument on incidences of INDIFFERENCE and DIFFERENTIATION--that is, the ability (or inability) to discern "quality," in the form of true nobility. His main argument points are as follows:
1. A primary attribute of royal power is the ability to control succession, done by differentiating between the deserving and the undeserving.
2. Kent and Gloucester discuss how they don't know how Lear will be able to differentiate between Cornwall and Albany as his successor.
3. Lear exerts his power by differentiating between his children in dividing the kingdom, but in doing so fails to perform his primary duty correctly.
4. While the law clearly differentiates between the legal status of Edmund in relation to Edgar, Gloucester cannot do so--he is indifferent in his opinion of the two.
5. Lear also subverts lawful precedent by refusing to dower Cordelia.
Thus Gloucester and Lear contrast--one's indifferent affection opposes the other's unnatural disregard--and Edgar and Cordelia become parallels--both rightful heirs, banished unjustly.
LAZ
Tomorrow we'll be dealing with Structuralism, the critical perspective that seeks to understand the overall construction of a literary work, then uses it to explain the author's central idea.
In this case, Ryan suggests that the play is constructed using a parallelling double-plot: the stories of Lear and Edgar. According to Ryan, comparison/contrast analysis of their separate story structures leads us to the conclusion that is not just about restoring order out of chaos (as we have previously discussed) but more specifically about SUCCESSION, the orderly continuation of a reign of kings.
He bases this argument on incidences of INDIFFERENCE and DIFFERENTIATION--that is, the ability (or inability) to discern "quality," in the form of true nobility. His main argument points are as follows:
1. A primary attribute of royal power is the ability to control succession, done by differentiating between the deserving and the undeserving.
2. Kent and Gloucester discuss how they don't know how Lear will be able to differentiate between Cornwall and Albany as his successor.
3. Lear exerts his power by differentiating between his children in dividing the kingdom, but in doing so fails to perform his primary duty correctly.
4. While the law clearly differentiates between the legal status of Edmund in relation to Edgar, Gloucester cannot do so--he is indifferent in his opinion of the two.
5. Lear also subverts lawful precedent by refusing to dower Cordelia.
Thus Gloucester and Lear contrast--one's indifferent affection opposes the other's unnatural disregard--and Edgar and Cordelia become parallels--both rightful heirs, banished unjustly.
LAZ
posted by L Lazarow | 7:05 PM
5 Comments:
I don't have the book, so I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but I think the best example of the indifference/differentiation argument is with respect to Lear and his daughters. By nature, Lear's three daughters were each born with an equal amount of Lear's affection. If the situation were to remain this way, power over the country would be split three ways, and thus greatly diminished. Therefore Lear felt he needed to differentiate Cordelia, Regan, and Goneril so that his successor could retain all of his power. Thus Lear's inherent indifference toward each of his daughters led to his desire to differentiate.
(Ryan's statement that failure to differentiate leads to loss of power is also seen in this scenario by Regan and Goneril's failure to maintain order after coming to power.)
I hope that helps.
I don't have the book, but I was thinking about Ryan's concept of nature being both indifferent and the means of differentiation. Perhaps what Ryan means is that nature brings people into the world with a clean slate, an open playing field to be whatever they wish. In this sense, nature is indifferent. When humans take nature to apply to who gets an inheritance, it is almost made into something other than intended. Here is where differentiation comes in. I might be completely off base but that was my interpretation.
Although this steps away from the structuralist perspective, has anyone considered the inherant animosity one must feel toward's their father's "favorite"? Have you ever felt as if one of your siblings was incapable of doing wrong? And what must be the ramifications of such perception? Is there any sympathy at all for Goneril and Regan--the elder daughters, yet the lesser ones in their father's eyes! with the elimination of Cordelia, wouldn't this be the ultimate opportunity to take revenge for their twisted treatment?
Of course, we should also recognize that we have no evidence of their true mistreatment--obviously, Lear followed his fatherly responsibility by dowering his eldest daughters appropriately, and matching them well with powerful men, assets to the kingdom...
With respect to Shakespeare's religious persuasion, may I recommend the four part DVD "In Search of Shakespeare" by Michael Woods, which suggests there is manifold evidence to support the idea that WS's family were in fact "closet" Catholics in an age of Anglican-sponsored persecution. If you are interested in understanding the pre-fame years--what might have happened before he became one of the greatest Western writers of all time--this is indeed a worthy expenditure of 4 hours. I have a copy for the borrowing.
I don't know where I read this, but it was triggered from my memory by steve's comment. (perhaps it is from Ryan?) Anyway, someone stated that throughout the play there is a wheel on which the characters are "spinning" so to speak. And as wheels go, the people who are on the bottom will eventually rise to the top and then fall again in sync with those who are the top and then fall to the bottom. This is definitly shown by Lear's, Kent's, Gloucester's, Cordelia's, and Edmund's falls from grace and power while Goneril & Regan (who are the lesser of the two daughters), and Edmund (the lesser son) rise to the top with their deceptions. Just an analogy that helped me put everything in place. This ties in with steve's idea that "Lear's suffering as well as that of Kent, Cordelia, and Gloucester eventually does lead to redemption."
Kate, I agree with you're idea that Shakespeare perhaps attempted to show the "potential of both genders" while staying withhin the limits set for him.
A side question, which may be obvious in answer, but was the monarchy really against women, considering Elizabeth had been such a strong leader and this play follows after her time?
Post a Comment
<< Home