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.
I agree with you. I find no true reason behind the different plots. Even as we enter into Act III, I still question Shakespeare’s purpose behind this play. The possibility of King Lear as the tragic hero goes against many of Shakespeare’s past heroes (Hamlet, Macbeth, Romeo, Juliet, Brutus, etc.). As you mentioned, the reason for Shakespeare’s heroes’ actions were out of love for someone else. In addition, they upheld good character, with a tragic flaw.
ReplyDeleteKing Lear does not follow the basic Shakespearean play. So I believe the best way to look at this tragedy in its own category, because it is too difficult to compare it to other plays we’ve read.
As the reader, if one focuses on the idea of family, it helps to draw a connection between Lear and Gloucester. One displays a father/daughter and sisters/sisters relationship. The other: a father/son relationship and a brother/brother relationship. The play breaks down the idealistic family structure as seen in society, and introduces the corruptive strength of desire, jealously, love and competition.
Then we’re left with Kent and the fool- two characters that have just been placed into these corrupt families. I have not decided what their purpose is to the family bond, but Shakespeare includes every piece of his play for a reason. I’m hoping that as we read into the next acts, we can true delve into the purpose of these outside characters.
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse (which is a horrible thought because I hate to be redundant and I actually like horses), but this play is really unpredictable and every time I read it I feel like this is so beyond anything else in Shakespeare, which I think Alex points out nicely.
ReplyDeleteNow is this a good thing? That I'm not so sure. I think so, but it's just my opinion. I think this play is sophisticated and when the audience things the plot will go in one direction, it unexpectedly goes in another.
I hope class discussion has been helpful in this regards. I think there is a certain predictability in Shakespearean works. I'm reading Julius Caesar with my sophomores and it's all so obvious. You know who is going to die and why.
Lear - he's old and currently locked outside the castle in a tempest. What does this mean? Where is this going? I mean, we'll find out tomorrow, but really our story feels like it's meandering around ideas rather than actually stating anything obvious.
I think this is why it is my personal favorite. But this might be just me. I'd be curious what others think so far.
Excellent post Alex, I really feel like you're making some great points.
My point is that the confusion isn't bad, it's unsettling. And that's a good thing in terms of entertainment.
ReplyDeleteIn that sense, King Lear reminds me of many great fictional works that I can't think of right now. Like a weird, art house film (that phrase is a rhetorical tautology.) Sort of like Fight Club. The movie has light homosexual themes that are somewhat shoehorned into the plot. The director confirms that they are there to make the film's twist feel even sharper.
Anyway, the multiple plot lines intertwining in Act 2 are definitely unsettling me. I feel almost scared as the pieces are prepared for both the literal and literary oncoming storm. I know everyone's going to die, but both conflicts seem to be won by landslides. I like King Lear so far because it's weird and ambitious in building up tension that hopefully pays off.