2. Write about the scene in which Gloucester’s eyes are plucked out. Obviously, it serves the symbolic purpose of allowing Gloucester to “see” [the truth] better after he has been blinded. But the scene is also graphically violent. Even when Oedipus gouges out his eyes at the end of Sophocles’ play, it occurs off-stage. Consider the place of graphic violence in art. What purpose does this particular incident serve? Is it gratuitous, or is it necessary for the meaning of the play? What about slasher films? What about Grand Theft Auto? When is there a place for graphic violence? When is there not?
The purpose of gouging out Gloucester’s eyes serves that symbolic purpose. It’s also a plot device that gives a reason for Gloucester’s exile from his home, his attempted suicide and his reconciliation with Edgar, and also for Cornwall’s death (which leads to yet more other things). This act of violence also portrays Regan and Cornwall’s evil more explicitly than all the emotional agony they’ve inflicted on Lear and Kent. Violence shocks and horrifies the viewer and makes them feel sympathy for the victim and dislike the perpetrator of said violence. Violence also brings a darker tone to everything. Unless it is just blood, gore and guts everywhere all the time (in which case the viewer either gets desensitized and bored or extremely freaked out and disgusted by it.) I’ve never seen slasher films or Grand Theft Auto. But violence for the sake of violence has no place in anything. However, when there is a plot-reason for it or when it gives the proper tone or character description, graphic violence can serve a useful purpose. It’s odd that there is more such graphic violence in movies, videogames, plays, etc., and less in literature. (Lear counts as the former category, since it is a play). Perhaps that is because when it is left to the reader’s imagination, people generally can’t, don’t or won’t want to imagine such horror. Also, for many people written stories are just words on a page and violence has much more impact for them when it is seen acted out or something like that actually realistic and visual. Also, I’m not sure whether or not extremely graphic violence in things like videogames is a good thing. Whether it has a point or not, there isn’t really any serious value in such games besides entertainment, and does that justify causing people to watch people being blown to pieces and stuff? Probably, since a lot of other stuff that is entertainment has violence in it (like even Lear for instance, since Shakespeare wrote it to make money and make people enjoy it, not to be some deep genius) and that’s okay because even if the work itself is stupid, to make the plot or something within work is okay.
Showing posts with label king lear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label king lear. Show all posts
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Act II King Lear Post II
3. If you chose to do question 1 (or even if you didn’t), it is interesting to consider Edgar’s state of mind when he takes on the persona of Tom O’Bedlam. Certainly, he is trying to disguise himself, but this is an extreme disguise indeed. Consider why he chose this particular disguise. What would drive him to this? Again, you can do this as a mini-essay, but it might be more interesting and more informative to write from Edgar’s perspective. Do whatever comes most naturally to you, but don’t write to fill space—be thoughtful.
For one thing, all the people out searching are looking for a fleeing nobleman, not a nutcase beggar. In extremity lies safety- it decreases the chance that anyone will recognize him. Additionally, since Tom O’Bedlam is insane, there is no risk that he will accidentally do something out of character for his chosen disguise. Anything odd about him will simply be attributed to the fact that he’s crazy. Also, ‘Poor Tom’ is a wanderer- Edgar doesn’t have to try to blend into a town or village or anything where he would have to interact with a lot of other people and explain how he got there and what he is doing. In his disguise, he can also figure out what is going on concerning the search for him by wandering around in plain sight.
(note: I have read all the play, so I am going to talk about it because I forget where exactly Act II ends. sorry.) Edgar’s motives probably have nothing more beyond that, but Edgar’s choice of disguise has literary symbolism within the play. (or maybe not symbolism, but interesting whatever). Later in the play, he is with mad King Lear and his pretended madness compares to Lear’s real insanity. This is especially interesting since Edgar survives at the end and reclaims his name and honour, whereas Lear dies crazy. For all that Edgar is tricked by Edmund’s not-so-sneaky manipulation, he takes control of his destiny after he flees- choosing an apt disguise, attempting to save his father and then living (a great feat in Shakespeare’s tragedies). Lear on the other hand, after willingly giving up power, loses control of everything and dies. Miserably. I have no idea if you’re actually supposed to compare Edgar with his fake crazy to Lear with his real crazy, but it just seems interesting.
For one thing, all the people out searching are looking for a fleeing nobleman, not a nutcase beggar. In extremity lies safety- it decreases the chance that anyone will recognize him. Additionally, since Tom O’Bedlam is insane, there is no risk that he will accidentally do something out of character for his chosen disguise. Anything odd about him will simply be attributed to the fact that he’s crazy. Also, ‘Poor Tom’ is a wanderer- Edgar doesn’t have to try to blend into a town or village or anything where he would have to interact with a lot of other people and explain how he got there and what he is doing. In his disguise, he can also figure out what is going on concerning the search for him by wandering around in plain sight.
(note: I have read all the play, so I am going to talk about it because I forget where exactly Act II ends. sorry.) Edgar’s motives probably have nothing more beyond that, but Edgar’s choice of disguise has literary symbolism within the play. (or maybe not symbolism, but interesting whatever). Later in the play, he is with mad King Lear and his pretended madness compares to Lear’s real insanity. This is especially interesting since Edgar survives at the end and reclaims his name and honour, whereas Lear dies crazy. For all that Edgar is tricked by Edmund’s not-so-sneaky manipulation, he takes control of his destiny after he flees- choosing an apt disguise, attempting to save his father and then living (a great feat in Shakespeare’s tragedies). Lear on the other hand, after willingly giving up power, loses control of everything and dies. Miserably. I have no idea if you’re actually supposed to compare Edgar with his fake crazy to Lear with his real crazy, but it just seems interesting.
Act 2 King Lear Post 1
2. What is it—what could it conceivably be—that would make children turn against their parent as completely as Goneril and Regan have turned against Lear? They’ve gone beyond irritation and its consequent neglect to outright cruelty. You may consider this question either specifically in reference to the two women (imagine their backstory the way you did Edgar’s) or consider it in general. Where do the terrible resentments of children for their parents come from? What is so very powerful about that relationship?
I think that in Goneril and Regan’s specific case, Lear’s inability to process love the way he should has a lot to do with how they act towards him. If a parent and a child have a good relationship, they are honest with each other and see each other as more than just a means to an end. Neither of those two elements is present in Lear’s relationship with Goneril and Regan. Lear doesn’t want honesty from his daughters- he wants flattery- and so they probably learned emotional manipulation from him. We never see Lear as being openly power-hungry, apart from his refusal to actually give up his status in more than name, but he strikes me as the sort of person who would be power-hungry, or conscious of retaining his power. Goneril and Regan probably either learned or inherited that trait from him, and combined with his inability to actually have a normal relationship anyway (because he doesn’t understand love), they only see him as a path to power. Lear’s impulsive disowning of Cordelia shows he has the ability to be petty and unkind simply because he feels like it at some small offense. What happened to Cordelia probably wasn’t the first time Lear acted out like that. A lot of little slights like that over a long period of time probably would have contributed to Goneril and Regan’s resentment for Lear. Also, neither of them strikes me as a particularly ‘good’ and moral character on their own, so their own faults definitely contribute to this. This is especially true since Cordelia has a good relationship with Lear (sort of, anyway) and she turns out no to be petty and power-hungry and cruel, so it can’t be all Lear’s fault. So, in Goneril and Regan’s specific case, their lack of a good relationship with Lear is due to bad parenting, a lack of a good role model and Goneril and Regan’s own ambition and innate cruelty. Of course, that is just for Goneril and Regan. Other children have other differences with their parents. Just like in Lear and Goneril and Regan’s case, it is partly the fault of the parent and partly the fault of the child that drives parent and child apart. How much is each depends on the specific situation.
I think that in Goneril and Regan’s specific case, Lear’s inability to process love the way he should has a lot to do with how they act towards him. If a parent and a child have a good relationship, they are honest with each other and see each other as more than just a means to an end. Neither of those two elements is present in Lear’s relationship with Goneril and Regan. Lear doesn’t want honesty from his daughters- he wants flattery- and so they probably learned emotional manipulation from him. We never see Lear as being openly power-hungry, apart from his refusal to actually give up his status in more than name, but he strikes me as the sort of person who would be power-hungry, or conscious of retaining his power. Goneril and Regan probably either learned or inherited that trait from him, and combined with his inability to actually have a normal relationship anyway (because he doesn’t understand love), they only see him as a path to power. Lear’s impulsive disowning of Cordelia shows he has the ability to be petty and unkind simply because he feels like it at some small offense. What happened to Cordelia probably wasn’t the first time Lear acted out like that. A lot of little slights like that over a long period of time probably would have contributed to Goneril and Regan’s resentment for Lear. Also, neither of them strikes me as a particularly ‘good’ and moral character on their own, so their own faults definitely contribute to this. This is especially true since Cordelia has a good relationship with Lear (sort of, anyway) and she turns out no to be petty and power-hungry and cruel, so it can’t be all Lear’s fault. So, in Goneril and Regan’s specific case, their lack of a good relationship with Lear is due to bad parenting, a lack of a good role model and Goneril and Regan’s own ambition and innate cruelty. Of course, that is just for Goneril and Regan. Other children have other differences with their parents. Just like in Lear and Goneril and Regan’s case, it is partly the fault of the parent and partly the fault of the child that drives parent and child apart. How much is each depends on the specific situation.
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
