Act I King Lear

2. Consider the character of Goneril or Regan in this first act. Yes, they are monstrous, but what does that monstrosity look like from the inside? What drives them? What does the world inside their heads look like?
To put it in another way…. Jealousy and power-grabbing seem to be as much a part of families as they are of politics and business. Can you relate to either of these two sisters? Have you ever seen a situation similar to the one in the first act of this play? In your opinion, what drives this kind of behavior?


Goneril and Regan both want the same thing- power. They see other people only as a means to an end and use them to get what they want. This is what they do to Lear in the first act- first flattering him in order to get their share of the kingdom, then discarding him when he is no longer useful without any regard whatsoever for his feelings. I can’t relate personally to them- I don’t think I’m that kind of manipulative. However, I know that that kind of thing exists between people as much in real life as it does in the play, even when it is not between families. There are people who think only they matter and that others are only a way to get what they want by being manipulated. I think both an extreme form of ambition and some kind of skewed worldview drives this. There really isn’t any easy way to explain why some people want power so much other than the fact that they just do. (Like in 1984). Regan and Goneril also are extremely self-centered. They don’t care that their sister has been banished, or that they are causing their father misery, or (in Goneril’s case) that her husband does not approve. What matters to them is that they get what they want- and that is ruling their share of the kingdom without interference from Lear (so far in the play, anyway). In their specific case, they also probably did not have a very good role model in their father, either, since he seems to be a shallow, self-centered type as well. I suspect that he probably played other such games as the ‘whoever-loves-me-most-gets-everything’ one he does in the first scene when his children were younger and they got used to using flattery to get what they wanted. It always worked, so it just became their mode of getting what they wanted.

4. Leo Tolstoy tells us in the first line of his great novel Anna Karenina, “All happy families resemble one another, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Lear’s is obviously an unhappy family, as is Gloucester’s. Explore the source of the unhappiness in both of the families. What is it that has torn each one apart? Some sin of the fathers? Or of the children? Human nature? What is wrong here? Are there any similarities between the two, or are they indeed “both unhappy in their own way?”

In the royal family, the source of the unhappiness is equally Lear and his daughters. Lear’s inability to understand love and to know insincere flattery from honesty causes a rift between him and Cordelia. It also probably had something to do with Regan and Goneril’s skewed view of the world and their contempt for their father. Their inability to be kind to him in return causes the rest of the misery.
It is much the same way in Gloucester’s family. Though he claims to love both his sons equally, it is Edgar who has all the advantages, and Gloucester’s early remarks to Kent about Edmund are not anything that would cause Edmund to love him in return. (Especially if Edmund hears them). This lack of a truly good relationship between them is much the same as Lear’s issues with Regan and Goneril: both fathers don’t express their love for their children as much as they could (less so in Gloucester’s case); and the children see their respective fathers only as a means to an end: their expanded power. In Edmund’s case, it is more than Gloucester’s shortcomings as a parent that contribute to his character- it is society’s restrictions that an illegitimate younger son is to get nothing, however.
Therefore, both families are unhappy for basically the same reasons. It is neither solely the father nor solely the children’s fault. It Gloucester and Edmund’s case, society is at fault as well. ‘Human nature’ cannot explain it either, because there isn’t one single character type that defines human nature. However, having the same self-centered type of personality in both father and child(ren) causes issues, since the children never learn to be good and caring. It is not entirely the father’s fault, either, for in both cases he has ‘good’ children (Cordelia and Edgar), proving that it is not entirely his fault that his other children turned out so badly.

Brave New World Blog IV

4) One of the most difficult questions to answer about this book is why all of this is so very bad. Many people have described Huxley’s vision of the future as “horrifying.” However, the fact remains that everyone in the society is really happy, really content, really without war, or pain, or suffering. So what’s so bad about it, “really”? It’s often an easy answer to feel but a difficult one to verbalize. Respond to this issue. If you want to say it’s not so bad, and you really mean it, that is all right, too. Just be specific and thoughtful.

I think it comes down to two things: how shallow you are and the Savage's argument that I explained from the last blog. Really shallow people, who only care about material and physical pleasure wouldn't find this society bad at all. The society offers everything except intellectual freedom, and people who like to think would find it restrictive because of the lack of mental opportunity. Physical pleasure overload is not the same thing as mental happiness. A botanist may feel happier sitting in poison ivy in the middle of some forsaken wilderness without any comforts of civilization than in a luxury hotel with five-course meals and free massages. Sure, the poor dude will get rashes and frostbite and maybe depression from being alone and a sprained ankle or two, but hey, he discovered an all-new species of mushroom, which is worth the world to him much more than any luxury hotel could be. That kind of happiness is what the society of Brave New World lacks, and it is why it is only restrictive to those who are deeper mentally and want something more than just physical/material pleasures. They don't get to think or explore new things or experience intellectual satisfaction, and that is what is restrictive and 'bad' about the society. It's like being shown the cover of a book you think could be really interesting, or a song you think you might like, or a movie you think you want to see, but being denied the chance to ever read it, or listen to it, or see it. Or sometimes you just want to watch any movie, or read any book, or listen to anything, but you can't and you don't know why, and they serve you pie and an aphrodisiac instead. A shallower person might be like, cool, pie and sex! or whatever, but you're not. You're different and want more than physical freedom. (Which they have. Nobody directly tried to stop the Savage from doing whatever he wanted, or tried to make that one girl who was forced to live on the Reservation to come back).

Brave New World Post III

3) In chapter 17, Mustapha Mond and John Savage discuss civilization. John says two startling things: “What you need is something with tears for a change. Nothing costs enough here” and “But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.” Read this interchange carefully and then put Mond and Savage’s arguments into your own words.

Mond's argument: There is no need for anything besides the overindulged safety and happiness that people now enjoy. Nobility, heroism, God, stuff like that, has no place because there is no bad thing to be heroic against, no honour to uphold for nobility, no need for a God who punishes and rewards because everyone is rewarded, everyone is the same, everyone knows what to do and how to do it and there is no conflict. Since there is no conflict, everyone is happy. And how can something that makes everyone happy be wrong? Therefore, it must be right and everything else formerly considered to be right is just old-fashioned and obsolete and no longer applies to 'today's' reality.

The Savage's argument: There is a world of quotes, arguments, books and people out there who can support the Savage's argument, but I think that the Savage's argument can be basically summed up in the words of the saying: 'you cannot know happiness until you have known sadness' (or something like that, anyway). Basically, the Savage is saying that nobody is truly happy because they don't appreciate their happiness, they don't have to earn it, they don't understand it and they are missing out on the whole human experience by never being anything but happy. Everything bad has a purpose, even if its only purpose is to make the good seem that much better. How much more would these people enjoy their soma than if they lived today, in an anti-drug culture? How much more would they enjoy their promiscuity than if they lived in a Puritan society? They would love their technology more if they were forced to live in the Middle Ages. They would appreciate much more if they understood and stuff, but they don't. The Savage is saying, sure they're happy, but their happiness is pointless and not as good as it might be.

Brave New World Blog II

2) Comment on the purpose of sex, games, and sayings like “ending is better than mending” in the book. How are all of these things used as a method of control?

The first two are used to keep people happy. If people are happy, then there is no need to think or desire to rebel/attempt reform. Happy people do not want change because there is no need, and change might make things worse. As long as the majority is willing to peacefully abide by the status quo, the people in control can stay in control and the controlled people do their happy things and everyone has a great life. According to their definition of a great life, anyway.

Also, all three are meant to enrich the economy. As long as people want sex, they will also want stuff to go with it, and will go to their version of the movies ('feelies') and stuff to impress possible mates, and so forth. Games involve spectators, transportation, equipment, uniforms, snacks...etc., and that stimulates the economy and keeps the money going in the right direction. Sayings like 'ending is better than mending' help serve the same purpose- they instill in a person the desire (indirectly) to stimulate the economy; by buying new instead of reusing/fixing/mending, etc. A good economy keeps the people happy and the people on top rich...and everyone's still overjoyed and desiring the status quo!

Also, the sayings (obviously) tell people what to do/believe/say so that the society automatically conforms to the Controller's intentions. This is a not-so-subtle and extremely-effective direct form of control- over minds.

Brave New World Blog I

1) Obviously, none of Huxley’s predictions have come true exactly. For that matter, none of The Jetson’s or Back to the Future’s predictions have come true exactly. Predicting the future is a tricky business, whether done seriously or in jest. However, there are elements of truth in Huxley’s vision of the world. Discuss some of these. Which aspects of Brave New World’s society seemed most relevant in 2009? Which most far-fetched? Why?

My version of Brave New World actually has a second book, BNW Revisited, attached to it, by the same author. It's basically a comparison of 1965 and the society of Brave New World. It's dense but kind of interesting.

Anyway. Some of the most far-fetched and unrealistic aspects of the Brave New World society are the free-for-all sexual attitude, the mass 'Bokanovskifying', the hypnopaedia and the World State. The first is unrealistic in today's world because there are a lot of 'conservative' (not in the sense of Republican vs Democrat political kind, more like the people who are more for family values and that sort of thing, even not fanatically or anything. Basically anyone who disapproves strongly of the promiscuous morality of Brave New World.) people who wouldn't stand for that kind of loosening of society's 'morality'. That kind of general, public promsicuouity (sp?) isn't likely to happen because even more 'liberal' people would think of it as a bit odd or wrong somehow.

I think we mentioned in class why the World State would be unrealistic in today's world. Basically, the world is too full of diverse cultures, people, governments and opinions to make such a World State be able to function. Imagine the Civil War (diversity between South and North) on a global scale. What a nightmare. Though I doubt any of the current governments would want to give up their nationality and independence (word from Dean's class: sovereignty!) to be ruled by some dude from somewhere else.

The mass-production of people won't happen because again there will be more 'conservative' (less progressive people, NOT in a bad way, most of us could be included here) people who will not want to sully the value of an individual or something by mass-producing them like cars. Also, nobody in their right mind would even dare suggest lowering the mental and physical standards of individuals in order to cram them into a caste system. At least in this country, anyway.

The hypnopaedia 'sleepteaching' is the same. Our society freaks out at the least accusation of corrupting people with subliminal advertising and whatnot. Brainwashing on any scale is probably actually a crime somewhere and I doubt (in this country) such a thing could happen on that large a scale. (Some mad scientist or dude somewhere could maybe secretly brainwash a few people or something, but certainly not the whole country).

Something that seems similar/relevant to today is the general cultural prejudice against thinking. Everybody nowadays gets jumped on for saying what they think because it 'offends someone' or is 'politically incorrect' or is too 'liberal' or 'conservative' or 'unpatriotic' or 'unsupportive' or whatever. If you're not generally considered to be right, then everybody hates your opinion. And nobody wants to actually hear what's going on. So nobody says what they think and nobody cares.

Also, the condescending attitude towards the Savages in BNW is similar to our society. Unfortunately, anytime we perceive someone/thing/place to be worse or more primitive or inferior or whatever in any way to ours, we demean it, consider it less worthy of respect and admiration and understanding.

Yet Another Poetry Response

A Work of Artifice
Marge Piercy
(b. 1936)

The bonsai tree
in the attractive pot
could have grown eighty feet tall
on the side of a mountain
till split by lightning.
But a gardener
carefully pruned it.
It is nine inches high.
Every day as he
whittles back the branches
the gardener croons,
It is your nature
to be small and cozy,
domestic and weak;
how lucky, little tree,
to have a pot to grow in.
With living creatures
one must begin very early
to dwarf their growth:
the bound feet,
the crippled brain,
the hair in curlers
the hands you
love to touch.

This poem reminds me (after reading the Awakening) of a criticism of a restrictive society. Just as the gardener doesn't let the tree grow as strong as it normally would and tells it it is better off this way, a lot of societies who oppress (not the right word, but close enough. restrict maybe?) some of their members do the same thing. When people had slaves, they told them that they were supposed to be unintelligent and weak and dependent on whites and that the slavemasters would care for them and life was bettter that way. This, of course, was entirely untrue. Women in many socities are also like this, as I think the poet intended to say. The reference to 'the bound feet, the crippled brain, the hair in curlers' is a reference to women. Women in old China were forced to bind their feet to make them mroe attractive. This was very painful and made it difficult to walk. Also, women in many societies were (and in some cases still are) assumed to be not as intelligent as men and so were not given the chance to express their intelligence. The hair in curlers, as women curled their hair, also references women. I think it is interesting to compare these injustices to a bonsai tree.

Poetry Response:

A Study of Reading Habits

Philip Larkin
(1919-1985)

When getting my nose in a book
Cured most things short of school,
It was worth ruining my eyes
To know I could still keep cool,
And deal out the old right hook
To dirty dogs twice my size.

Later, with inch-thick specs,
Evil was just my lark:
Me and my cloak and fangs
Had ripping times in the dark
The women I clubbed with sex!
I broke them up like meringues.

Don’t read much now: the dude
Who lets the girl down before
The hero arrives, the chap
Who’s yellow and keeps the store,
Seem far too familiar. Get stewed:
Books are a load of crap.


I think that this poem is about somebody who reads a lot and then is disappointed when his life is nothing like what he reads in books. Though I can certainly understand the meaning of 'losing yourself in a good book', ie feeling like you are part of the story when you are reading something really interesting, I think that if you can't distinguish reality from fiction- ie expect your life to be like that in books (you really feel like you are (Dracula or Superman or Jack the ripper or whatever) then you have a problem. If you read books and expect yourself to become like the characters in them, that's not good, because obviously you won't be. Books are not 'a load of crap' just because the reader doesn't grow a pair of fangs and bite people. (This is also you won't turn into the personality as well).

AWAKENING 35-39 FIN

35-39
Edna dies. Basically, that's what happens. She can't handle Robert leaving her. She realizes their relationship is just like the failed loves of her youth. The psychological stress of having Robert again and then losing him sends her over the edge. Additionally, she realizes that love and others' opinions are not enough to live for, but since she can't conceive of any other way to define herself, she can't handle the realization that she could be forever alone. She does not want to live on the opnions of her husband and children, but neither does she want to be alone so she swims out in an attempt to feel exultant like she did that one time and in control, but she goes too far and gives up and drowns very symbolically.

AWAKENING 30-34

30-34
Edna has a dinner party. Robert comes back. Awkwardness ensues. Robert meets Arobin. Robert leaves. Arobin leaves when Edna doesn't want his presence at that moment. Many things are important about all of this. We really see clearly now how Robert feels about Edna. He loves her but he doesn't want to show it and doesn't like it when Edna tries to make him seem like he does love her. The contrast with Arobin is clear; unlike Robert, he activelys seeks Edna out even when she doesn't want him. The dinner party is awkward because of who is at it. (Creoles, the doctor, Arobin, Mrs. Highcamp, etc.) It gets weird at the end because Edna is upset when Victor sings a song that Robert used to like to sing. She doesn't want to be reminded of Robert at this party. She also doesn't want to have anything to do with Arobin immediately after the party, though he convinces her otherwise.

25-29 AWAKENING

25-29
Edna goes to the races, meets Arobin and co. She starts an affair with Arobin and decides to move out of her house and plans to have a dinner party with her husband's money. Her affair with Arobin is sort of surprising because one would think that she would remain loyal to Robert, whom she loves. She does think of him, and recognizes that she does not love Arobin, but she likes the sensations of being with him too much to follow her better judgment. She is not ashamed of what she is doing. (she doesn't broadcast it of course, we see this later when she is talking to Madame Ratignolle, because she does not want to be looked down upon by society). she did resist Arobin at first. Her desire to be 'self-sufficient' is another part of her awakening. She wants physical independence now, to an extent, not just the freedom that comes from doing what she wants, but from being on her own. She is not actually that self-sufficient however, because she has servants and she throws that dinner party with her husband's money.