Themes in King Lear
Just a quick note to say that I'm pleased with the commentary thus far--there's real potential here, I'm glad to see it, and I hope it continues.
Today in class you'll recall we began identifying the major themes of King Lear--blindness vs. sight, the progression from order to chaos to order, trust and betrayal, the value of loyalty, image vs. reality. When you consider loyalty, remember to consider the familial connections (father to daughter[s]) as well as the courtly ones (monarch to nobility). And certainly don't forget about the Fool's role. . .
Tomorrow we'll begin considering the various literary critical interpretations of the text--so if you've got the Ryan text, brush up!
LAZ
Today in class you'll recall we began identifying the major themes of King Lear--blindness vs. sight, the progression from order to chaos to order, trust and betrayal, the value of loyalty, image vs. reality. When you consider loyalty, remember to consider the familial connections (father to daughter[s]) as well as the courtly ones (monarch to nobility). And certainly don't forget about the Fool's role. . .
Tomorrow we'll begin considering the various literary critical interpretations of the text--so if you've got the Ryan text, brush up!
LAZ
posted by L Lazarow | 7:32 PM
6 Comments:
"...the progression from order to chaos to order..."
I'm not sure if I'm alone on this one, but I don't really see order in the end. Yes, there is some kind of a small resolution. But nothing prevents the conflict from happening again, just with different characters in different roles. Let's say that Lear had lived... well, the same problem arises. He still has to hand over the kingdom to put someone else in power. Or, even if we do have Edgar assuming the position of authority, what has so drastically changed that would prevent him from making the same kind of mistake Lear (or any of the other characters) has made? Furthermore, nothing has changed in human behavior to elimated all of the jealousy, betrayal, and insanity represented through the characters. I wrote my paper on a topic very similar to this and i always saw this being the bigger tragedy: nothing really changes so drastically throughout the play to ensure some kind of a better outcome, not the deaths of cordelia, lear, etc.
opinions?
Hey Christine... In responce to your comment, I feel that order is restored when Edgar is appointed head of the monarchy by Albany. Also, you are right in saying that we dont know if Edgar (or any other character in charge) will make the same mistakes as Lear did, but at least for a certain amount of time, the order is restored. And with regards to your statement about there not being any changes in human behavior, that may be so, but those with malicious intents all died. That left only the good, loyal characters, implying that the evil in their land has left (if only for a short time).
I have a question of my own. What is the Fool's main purpose in King Lear? I feel like he is only there to foreshadow the madness to come, and to explain some of what's going on to King Lear when he is having trouble accepting and understanding what has happened to him. I have a feeling that I am missing something important about him. Thoughts on the Fool would be greatly appreciated. Thanks...
christine, I think there is order in the fact that most of the main characters died. As a result of their deaths, the "jealousy, betrayal, and insanity" that they contributed to the story would cease. So, I guess in my sense, "order" is not organization under a figure of authority so much as it is the absense of corruption or chaos. When these characters are gone, so is the chaos.
To Ryan...The purpose of the Fool is mainly to serve as Lear's conscience when he doesn't have one. The first time we see the Fool, he's telling Lear that Lear's going crazy. The Fool advises Lear (even though Lear doesn't always heed this advice), telling him that he has wronged Cordelia and that Regan and Goneril are evil. It takes Lear a little while to actually come to terms with this, but eventually he makes the mistake of trusting Regan and Goneril and realizes the truth in what the Fool says.
You can also tell that the Fool is Lear's conscience because of their uniquely close relationship. None of the other characters in the play have the ability to say the things to Lear that the Fool says (i.e. telling Lear that he has lost authority, that he's going mad). Lear again realizes that the Fool was right about him when he acknowledges his own mental deterioration during the storm.
Moreover, Lear refers to the Fool as "boy" and asks if he's cold, which is the first time in the play that Lear shows compassion for another character. Also, when Lear meets Edgar in disguise, he realizes and makes another speech about the fact that man is nothing but a product of nature. He sees himself as an equal to "Poor Tom." By this time, it's evident that Lear has fully developed his own conscience (having learned the wisdom of the Fool), and the character of the Fool becomes an unnecessary one.
Aviva,
I agree with you about Lear's death not seeming as tragic as other deaths have been. By the end of the play I don't feel much connection to him and I don't think that by him staying around anything would have gotten done. But contrary to that, I do think that this was a tragedy, just as much as in any other play by Shakespeare. Like I said in the first post, I think it is a deeper tragedy, that nothing has really changed. As for Cordelia, I think she really gets screwed over in the end. She has an entire country turned against her, two sisters who hate her, and a father who temporarily hates her as well. She isn't able to escape the evilness of her family; her good nature makes her return to try to create some kind of resolution. She cannot escape the fact that despite whatever her father does, she will come to rescue him. And there is no ignoring the fact that she dies by no fault of her own...
Even if all of the aforementioned did not happen, she died. I thought she was one of the more dimensional characters, unlike Edgar who was completely willing to do anything to help his father. Cordelia was more sensible and rational, like we discussed in class. I don't think anything really worked out for her so well.
Evan, the reason I think the Fool was Lear's conscience is precisely because he tells Lear what he doesn't want to hear. We agree Lear doesn't know the truth. The Fool is there to advise Lear, to tell him right from wrong, and to show him how he's misperceived the world within and around himself.
To Ruby,
I think the Fool was not as much a comic role as it was a realistic one. When Lear thought things were one way (i.e. he still held sway over England, he could make rational decisions), the Fool was there to let him know--and let the audience know--the actual situation (i.e. that Lear no longer had power, that he was going insane).
Comedy is not the Fool's primary role in the story. The only kind of character that Shakespeare would have been able to create that could say such things to a king would be a royal jester. If any other character had said or implied what the Fool did (as stated above in response to Evan), Lear obviously would have thrown him out without a second thought.
Also, to your second remark . . . there are basically two reasons Shakespeare eliminated the Fool's character when he did. 1) Lear finally completely understood what the Fool had been trying to get through to him all along: that he's going crazy and has lost all his authority. Once Lear accepts this, the Fool's job is done. 2) Also, Edgar replaces the Fool when the latter leaves the story because Edgar (a.k.a. Tom) is in a similar nonsensical state of mind as Lear is.
Jacob, I'm not so sure Shakespeare was attempting to prove a point. Maybe Shakespeare was agreeing with the rest of the society about bastard children not being able to rule land. In the end, Edmund does indeed have to "suck it up" because he doesn't achieve his goal. Edmund is back where he started with the addition of more people being skeptical of him than before. Now they have a legitiamte reason to be skeptical rather than basing it on his status of a bastard son. Maybe Shakespeare was trying to prove a point that illigetimate children should not hold responsiblity as major as ruling a kingdom. The audience may sympathize or even pity Edmund because he chooses deception and treachery as a way to deal with his problems rather than "sucking is up" because that's what the majority of the society thought bastard children should do. Any other thoughts on this?
Post a Comment
<< Home