The Old Need Love Too

King Lear may appear as a selfish brute for banishing his daughter and one of his servants based off just pure rage, but can you blame him? King Lear is portrayed to be a significantly old man, who does not have a wife, (this is insinuated through the lack of one in act 1) and three daughters that one can argue do not actually love their father as they proclaim. I believe that Lear is justified in his actions.

Lear asks his daughters, the only family he has, to proclaim their love for him. In return, Lear was to give his daughters their own piece of the kingdom. The first two daughters, Goneril and Regan, proclaim their love to him without any hesitation. Of course they would, if any person was to give me a million dollars to only have me say “I love you” I would be a million dollars richer. However, Goneril and Regan by the end of the first scene are already plotting against their father, proving they never truly loved him. The third daughter, Cordelia, was either too noble or too dumb to follow suite. When Cordelia is asked to proclaim her love for her father, she ultimately tells him that she only loves him because it is her duty as his daughter to love him. Lear responded to his daughter’s proclamation like any disappointed and hurt parent would. I believe her banishment is just a less harsh act then what Lear really wanted to do or could have done.

Lear’s servant Kent was banished because he protested the banishment of Cordelia. I believe Lear reacted the way he did because like any old man he does not want to be questioned and ridiculed for his actions. Lear’s reaction toward Cordelia and Kent make me wonder if the theme in this play is that the good and innocent will suffer. Since Kent and Cordelia seem to be portrayed as loyal characters.

However I feel that Kent and The Fool are closer to King Lear than anyone in the play so far, even closer than his own daughters. Kent returns to Lear even after Lear banished him and even proclaims his loyalty to him. The Fool has even a more personal connection with Lear even though he mocks Lear. The Fool calls Lear, Nuncle,  a term that can be taken as one of endearment or mockery. I believe Lear allows The Fool to mock him because The Fool is a close friend and only a close friend could get away with mockery.

Adventure Time with a Horrible Old Man

With Act 1 read, there are many thoughts and much confusion in my head. Shakespeare's usual suspects are doing their tricks: puns and old English. However, there is something else messing with my comprehension of the story. Admittedly, I went into King Lear ready for a Shakespearean tragedy like his others. The problem is that King Lear isn't  a Shakespearean tragedy like the others. At least, to me it isn't.

An elevator pitch is a short summary for something that explains it and makes it sound interesting. For example: "After finding out that his father was killed by his uncle, Hamlet vows to avenge his father's death." "A boy and a girl from rival families fall in love and their romance causes tensions to turn into violence." I think those elevator pitches get the general ideas of their tragedies easily. But then there's King Lear. "An old king gives up his throne, but finds himself clinging to his power hungry ways. His daughters plot to get rid of him totally. There's also a banished guy who sneaks back into the King's entourage. And there's another family where a bastard son is tricking his old father so that the bastard can take the legitimate brother's land."

My point is that King Lear has so many more plot lines than Shakespeare's other tragedies. At face value, I expected to see something like Hamlet's mission against his uncle or Macbeth's fall. I had hoped to explore King Lear as he acts and reacts. Instead, I am distracted by plotting daughters, a seemingly unrelated plotting son, and some guy who is incognito. I have no idea what Kent is doing.

Furthermore, there's another thing messing with my mind, in additional to the technical aspects. King Lear is not a good guy. In other Shakespeare tragedies, the titular characters do what they do for love (Romeo and Juliet for each other, Hamlet for his father). Even Macbeth, who also is not a good guy, is pushed into bad things by outside evil forces. King Lear does bad things (disinherits Cordelia, banishes Kent for standing up for Cordelia, and calls for nature to make Goneril infertile or have a hateful child). However, he does these things seemingly because he is naturally a jerk.

It's hard to follow a main character who's a bad guy. Mr. V said something in class that touched upon this. Apparently, King Lear is the least performed Shakespeare tragedy because it ultimately follows an old man. I agree with that idea, adding that I don't think many people want to see an old man be mean to his daughters. It also goes to say that there can't be many people who see a narcissistic, short tempered elderly father of daughters in a seat of power and say "Wow, I can totally relate to him."

I gauge that Kent's long con is the only good force happening as we go into Act 2.

The Role of the Fool

         The theme of appearance vs. reality is prevalent in many of Shakespeare's works (Hamlet's feigned madness, Juliet appearing dead, etc). Of course, this is also prevalent in King Lear, as exemplified by the deceptive actions of Gloucester and King Lear's children. In King Lear's case, reality is made clear by the Fool.

        The role of the Fool was not really clear to me on my first read-through. He seemed to be sort of a nuisance, as his name would indicate. However, upon further thought, he seems to be more intelligent than his own master. He can clearly see reality as it is, rather than what it appears to be.

         If it were not for the Fool, Lear would not have known that he was being deceived by both of his daughters. It seems as if the Fool is foreshadowing what is to come by constantly and cruelly criticizing the king for taking what appeared to be as reality. If the king does not listen to the Fool and learn to see reality clearly, what will become of his kingdom?

         So in closure, after reading only the first act, the role of the Fool seems to be that of one who sees clearly the happenings around him. He is not deceived like his master or Gloucester, but rather helps them to see reality clearly. 

Nonexistent Unconditional Love

                I have to be honest – even as I read Lear with the No-fear version at hand, I still had a bit of trouble following the story along. Nevertheless, something that struck me was that there seems to be no element of unconditional love. When one thinks of a (good) father, or a parent in general, one thinks of an accepting individual that loves their child no matter what they say or do. Lear however lets go of his love at the moment he hears something he dislikes. Cordelia told the truth, which resulted in her disownment, while her sisters (whom appear to be utterly dreadful) gave their father what he wanted even though it was a lie and received bountiful inheritances. Lear seems to me to have a superiority complex or to at least be a narcissist. I can’t completely tell whether he believes what his two other daughters tell him – although I’m assuming he believes them, considering that he gave them his entire livelihood and disowned the only one who was being honest – or he just favors the ones that feed into his ego. It was probably a combination of both his ego and his naivety.  Later, when he is disrespected by his other daughter, he disowns her as well! Lear, to me, clearly has either a lack of legitimate love for his children, or a misguided understanding of unconditional love.

                The same thing seemed to come up between Edmund, Edgar and their father. Edmund does not seem to be disliked by either of his relatives, and yet he appears to absolutely despise his brother. I understand him being envious toward Edgar for his advantages, but to create his plot to get rid of Edgar the way that he has is absolutely dreadful. Smart, but dreadful.

                This is unrelated, but it just occurred to me that Shakespeare appears to be quite the sadist. His finest of tragedies are absolute bloodbaths. I’ve even been told that some of his comedies such as The Taming of the Shrew have had violent and sadistic undertones to them. Being that I have never read any of his comedies I cannot confirm this myself, but it seems odd to me. Was there any other type of play in the time of Shakespeare? Was there anything comparable of Pygmalion or The Importance of Being Earnest where there is essentially no real plot, no moral to the story and it is essentially a mind-numbingly delightful (or in the case of Pygmalion, dreadful) waste of time? Or were bloodbaths the norm of Shakespeare’s era?

                One more thing, again completely unrelated. Was I the only one who was hoping that Edmund and Edgar would have a third brother named Edward? Because all I could think of was Ed Edd n Eddy. Anyone? …No? Just me? …Alright then…

Nature vs. Fate

The topic of nature comes up a fair amount in Act I of King Lear. It is a different approach to the idea of nature that Shakespeare normally takes. He makes his characters show their reliance on nature as some sort of God-esque being, while also making references to Christianity. It leaves me with a questionable view as to why Shakespeare would do something of this nature. I have a feeling that in reference to Shakespeare’s common theme of appearance vs. reality throughout all of his plays, he is ensuing a new theme; the belief in nature vs. fate. The themes of both appearance vs. reality and nature vs fate would almost tie together in the play King Lear.

In Act I Scene II, Shakespeare shows the heavy reliance on nature through the character of Gloucester. When he finds out that Edgar has allegedly written a horrible letter to Edmund plotting against their father, he states that the reason for this is the eclipses. He states “Though the wisdom of nature can reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself scourged by the sequent effects.” He then goes on to say the terrible events that the eclipses cause, stating that brother is set against brother, son is set against father and that for no rational reason, love dies. Gloucester is blaming the eclipses, an occurrence of nature, for the odd events that are happening. However, his belief is not valid because through situational irony, the reader knows that Edmund created this mess of a situation. It is not nature that possess Edmund, but fate.  Edmund helps me with my belief that it is fate that is leading him through his actions by him stating, “Fut, I should have been that I am, had the maidenliest star in the firmament twinkled on my bastardizing.” He knows that people rely on nature to be the sole reason events take place, but he does not buy into it. He believes that no matter when he was born he would have come out as the same person.

Through this situation, I believe that appearance vs. reality and nature vs. fate tie together. While it appears to Gloucester that Edgar had turned against his father, the reality is that it is all a part of Edmunds plan to be favored by his father. Gloucester’s reliance on the force of nature contrasts with the fate of the relationship between Edmund and Edgar. The fact that Edmund points out that it is not nature’s force that leads this event to take place, leads me to believe that it is not a rash decision that he made, but the effects of built up resentment of his brother. Nature does not affect people’s lives as it appears to Gloucester, it is fate that leads them to the decisions they make.

The True Expression of Love

While reading Act I Scene I of Shakespeare’s King Lear, one is led to ask the question, "How does one truly express love?" The question continues to grow as the text becomes more confusing. Shakespeare shows two different ways of expressing love; through words and through actions. He clearly shows that conveying love through words is questionable simply because people tend to lie or stretch the truth. This form of expressing love is seen through King Lear’s daughters, Gonreil and Regan.

Goneril and Regan are able to form great speeches about how they love their father more than life itself. They state that he takes up one-hundred percent of their love and they would do anything for him. This appears to be a great gesture until reading on throughout the rest of Act I and noticing a flaw in both Goneril and Regan’s actions. In the end of Act I, scene I, the two are seen plotting against their father when he leaves the area. Instead of continuing to praise their father, stating their love for him, they come up with a plan to diminish his power. They do not truly love their father; instead they are merely using him to gain their inheritance. Goneril and Regan both expressed their love of King Lear through words, leading one to believe that this expression of love cannot always be valid.

In contrast to Goneril and Regan, Cordelia expresses her love solely through actions. When asked by Lear to express her love through words, she states that she is unable. She says that she can only love him as a daughter loves a father, no more and no less. She believes that she cannot express it better than her sisters through words because she thinks that what they say are lies. She only expresses her love through her loyalty and compassion for her father. This shows signs of loving her father. She appears to be loyal to him and to cherish him as a father; however, she is unable to convey it through words. It is apparent that Cordelia loves her father the most of all three sisters because, while she cannot express it through words, she is able to redeem herself through her actions. She remains loyal to her father and does not plot against him with her sisters.

Anger and Broken Promises

After reading most of Act I, I have come to the conclusion that every character in King Lear gets extremely angry at the simplest occurrences. First, in Act I Scene I, when King Lear announces his daughters' inheritances, Cordelia is disowned by her father because her sisters have essentially just stolen everything she had wanted to say. I feel like I can relate to Cordelia because she and I both have a difficult time expressing our feelings, and we both have annoying older sisters who have just too much to say. Cordelia says, "I am sure my love’s more ponderous than my tongue," which shows her anxiety of trying to speak to her father, but also Cordelia trying to reassure herself to believing that her father will understand her inability to express herself.


When Cordelia cannot express her thoughts, King Lear gets obnoxiously angry. The degree of his anger is actually unnecessary. I also think that he spends more time being angry and thinking about being angry than actually feeling it, especially because Cordelia was supposedly his favorite daughter before this. 


And also what bothers me is that after Goneril received her land filled with "dense forests, fertile fields, rivers rich with fish, wide meadows," she tells the the steward, Oswald, in Act I Scene III that she doesn't want to talk to him because he offends her, and to be a lazy servant. It's obvious that the promises that Goneril and Regan make to their father will certainly not be kept, when they already received their huge inheritance, and that any promise Cordelia would have made to King Lear would have been kept (in my opinion) yet she received nothing because she was unable to profess her love. 

Shakespeare, Rap Music and Dungeons & Dragons

After reading scene 1 of King Lear, there are a couple of thoughts running through my mind. First and foremost is the story as a whole. Supposedly, the play will explore family dynamics and the like. I think I can definitely see the seeds planted.

Obviously, King Lear and his daughters have a strange relationship. The king is a total narcissist and his daughters (at least Goneril and Regan) are terrible. I am betting on the foreshadowing said by Kent and Cordelia that the two sisters will not live up to their grand professions of love of their father. I also bet that their plans at the end of the scene will get everyone killed in the end.

In addition to the theme of a traditional family not being a real family, I think I saw seeds of an nontraditional family being a real family.

I read this scene looking and thinking about the nontraditional thing. The first thing that came to mind was a song I know. The lyrics say "They say that family is everything. It's more than a house, two dogs and a wedding ring. It's blossoming life and standing up to anything. Trying to take the people you love from what it's meant to be." That last part (Trying to . . . meant to be), speaks to the notion of  loving, and therefore fighting for, the people who aren't blood relatives. Something that ties into that is Dungeons & Dragons, probably the exact opposite of an indie rap song. In Dungeons & Dragons, the whole point of the concept is that people from different (and sometimes rival) species fight and die for each other simply on the value of their experiences rather than the blood relations.

I mention those two things first: to notice the widespread  idea of nontraditional family, and second, to reinforce my thoughts on the nontraditional family idea in the play. Gloucester mentions that his bastard son and his supposed son Edmund are on more or less equal levels for his love. Given my predictions of political strife and kingdom usurpation (Goneril and Regan/husbands vs. King Lear?") I am adding on another prediction: either Edmund of the bastard are going to come to the rescue of their nontraditional. Why mention it, Shakespeare, if it won't come up again?

Epilogue: My thoughts are haphazard because I'm watching Ghost Rider on TV.

The Love of a True Family Member

The subject of family from our King Lear packet really caught my interest. This was partially because I cannot stand to write another word about Pygmalion, and partially because it really made me question the true definition of “family.” I eventually came to the conclusion that no one can assign a definite meaning to the word. It can only be left to one’s interpretation.  That being said, I can only share what I consider to be my definition of family.

                While I agree with the basic idea of family consisting of blood relatives, I do believe that there is a more personal level to it. Many “families” are what one may consider broken. The mother, or father may be unknown to the children, a sibling may be hated. Would the unknown parent still be considered “family” to the child? Would the sibling still consider the other to be their brother or sister?  Some may say “yes.” I personally feel that I would be unable to call anyone that I do not love, “family.” I am not saying that I do not consider my blood relatives as my family, in my case I love them all; however, I also have friends that I consider “family.” These are only the closest of my friends that understand my worst traits, but still choose to continue our friendships. It may sound a bit cliché, but I believe that the true definition of family is those who will continue to love and be there for you unconditionally, regardless of your faults.

Serendipitous Shaw

As I reread Shaw's Pygmalion for the upcoming essay, I came to notice the numerous occasions of pure happenstance that I believe attribute to the play's comedic effect. Instances which normally would not take place, without some form of divine intervention, seem to occur daily in this story. For example Pickering and Higgins just happen to come across each other, while sheltering themselves from the rain on each one's way to meet the other. This chance meeting might drive some readers crazy, but I interpret it as part of Shaw's humor. The second example occurs outside the scope of the story. The readers are told of it through Mr. Doolittle, has he recounts how he came to know Eliza was at Higgins's house. Mr. Doolittle just happens to run into the boy Eliza had sent to retrieve her luggage. When one stops and thinks of how unlikely this is to actually happen, they start to see the genius that is Shaw's humor. Again Shaw dabbles with serendipity when he reunites the main characters from the first scene several months later in Mrs. Higgins' house. All these circumstantial events are meant to enhance the comedic value of the play, and serve to add a little whimsy to an already funny play. Some readers may become frustrated with the all too coincidental way the story pans out, believing (and rightfully so) that this sort of occurrence would never transpire in the real world, and could only happen in a play. The fortuitous way in which the play begins and ends, causes some readers to feel unattached, as the story is too circumstantial to be true. But, I believe Shaw deliberately included the numerous coincidences with the intent to create a scenario that was so far-fetched, that it became funny. When reading Pygmalion, I find myself muttering "of course that happens" countless times and chuckling along at each eccentric twist. At the stories end, Mr. Doolittle was a rich member of the working upper-class. This is a blatant twist in the storyline intended soley to increase the comedic effect of the story. I believe Pygmalion is hysterical, mainly because most of the story is improbable!

Higgins, The Abuser?

In reading, one is permitted to interpret the words as they please, but when one watches something on television or in a play, his or her interpretations have no room to expand for the directors make one see the show or play as they imagined it to be perceived. When reading Pygmalion, one may find Higgins’ wit and sarcasm to be comical. This is because the person may read the lines in a lighthearted way and understand the character’s threats as mere mockery. However, in viewing Pygmalion on screen, Higgins’ once passive comments become intensified causing him to be perceived as mentally abusive.

Eliza, yearning for a better lifestyle, puts all her trust in Higgins, a complete stranger, but all he does is ridicule and manipulate her for his advantage. From the moment Eliza met Higgins, he degraded her as he mocked her speech. While reading the play, one may overlook his bullying; however, the actors’ portrayal of the characters amplifies Higgins’ cruelty. Readers may laugh at Eliza’s screeched “oo”s and “ahh”s, but viewers examine this as fear and cries for help. Eliza does not comprehend Higgins’ possibly sarcastic comments and takes them literally. Higgins is aware of this. As oppose to ceasing his mockery, he continues with his sadistic ways. The only form of affection Eliza receives in Higgins’ household is from Mrs. Pearce and Mr. Pickering, who addresses Eliza in a respectful manner. Aside from Mr. Pickering and Mrs. Pearce’s mild support, Eliza is confined to a household where she is unwanted other than for the purpose of winning a bet. When one views Pygmalion in a play setting, his or her perception of the characters change causing them to no longer see Higgins as a comical protagonist, but a heartless, selfish, batterer. 

To be alone, or lonely in a relationship

      In opposition to what others think, I feel Freddy's obsession with Eliza is charming. The fact that he peers through Eliza's window, stalking her, is somewhat disturbing. But, give the guy a break, he's in love. I believe Freddy's infatuation with Eliza is more of an innocent and childlike crush, as opposed to him being an deranged stalker.
      It is understable why he is infatuated with Eliza. The two women in the opening scene abuse their feminine position, and manipulate Freddy into getting them a cab. One even calls him a "selfish pig." Every woman in Freddy's life is demanding and disrespectful towards him, that is, until Eliza comes into his life. Her kindness and compassion led him to be attracted to her.
     Freddy and Eliza's relationship is sad. The one tragic thing about Freddy's feelings for Eliza is that his love for her is unrequited. In my opinion, Eliza is in love with Higgins, whether she realizes it or not. In the end she settles for Freddy because she states, "maybe he'd make me happier than my betters that bully me and don't want me." Instead of being with someone who she truly desires, Eliza chooses Freddy who cherishes her more than she loves him. Is it better to be alone, wanting the person you desire, or to settle for being with the person who desires you?

No History, No Future

When the reader looks at Eliza, one is able to dig deep into her character, inquiring how she became who she was and who she is. Shaw mentions her mother, introduces her father as a character and gives details into her past. In addition, one sees her develop from a incapable pauper to an intelligent woman. The play contains her history and creates a future for her, enabling the reader to truly delve into her character.

But what about Higgins? It is almost as if Shaw left out Higgins's past and future. When we first meet Higgins, he is the same man that he will remain when the play ends. The only person we know of in his family is his mother. We meet a pupil of his, but any solid information regarding his past and up bringing is left out. This causes Higgins to be stagnant in his life. He can not develop his character because there is past life experiences to base them on.

Though one may argue that Higgins's has grow to care about Eliza, this small feat is nothing compared to Eliza's grand transformation and struggle to overcome societal views. Higgins did not reach any catharsis or change dramatically. He remained the same, antisocial professor that Shaw introduce in Act I, and his final words give nothing into what he will do next, only what Eliza will do. This causes a challenge within the reader to decide why they believe Higgins is the man he is.

Higgin's Softer Side

Whether or not you enjoy the character of Higgins, there is something about him that draws me to him. From his demeaning insults towards Eliza, to his rude remarks about certain individuals, Higgins is very consistent with his negative attitude about life. Though he does make an attempts in Act III to be kind, his statements about his mother come off as harsh and forced. As a result, it could be implied that the professor projects his compassion through pessimistic mannerisms.

However, in Act IV, Shaw begins to portray Higgins differently. At the end of the act, when Eliza comes into confrontation with him, Higgins is offended by the argument. A person with no emotions towards Eliza would not engage in the argument, let alone feel hurt when they realizes that Eliza is truly angered. Higgins does not react the way I expected. He even admits to Eliza that he never gets upset over people.

This scenes shows a softer side to Higgins. Yes, he does insult Eliza but the way he displays his anger is a new emotion not seen in his character. Higgins shows true human emotions, becoming sulky and distraught over Eliza's feelings about him. In addition, after she ran away, Higgins calls the police and runs to his mother's house, worried for her. Though many may argue that Higgins is a heartless man, I believe there is compassion within his heart. Though he never admits it, I believe Higgins truly loves Eliza, whether it is in a father/daughter relationship, or a man/woman relationship.

Suicide and Humor

While reading Act IV of Pygmalion again, I remember why this story makes me feel so uncomfortable. The original acts of violence are humerous and light-hearted. Nothing seems particularly malicious about anyone's actions; yet, here I am again in Act IV and feeling completly different. Why the sudden change?

I think I have it figured out. It's all this talk of suicide. Because Eliza is truly frightened, she threatens suicide, and at first - this is all this is - a threat; however, the second time she threatens suicide is with Freddy. Someone who she has (supposedly) confidence with. Since Eliza threatens suicide and actually means it, can I truly find this play still funny?

Bunny Suicides and Happy Tree Friends are cartoonish figures who commit suicide, and often times we laugh. South Park has often poked fun at suicide, and murdering Kenny is still hysterical after 10+ years. I am all for hysterical acts of violence. But Eliza is different, her suicide threatening is far more real. She's a three dimensional character who I can relate to. She's neither cartoonish nor unrealistic. Because she feels displaced in society, she truly thinks about suicide. As a result, I think the story has crossed the humerous line and entered into some tragic and sadistic.