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…
I definitely agree with you because it is clear that some characters in King Lear do not show unconditional love toward his daughter. However, I believe that Lear does still love Cordelia; he is just upset with her. I feel like characters are easily irrational about their feelings in this play. Lear is upset with Cordelia and acts in this manner because she was his favorite daughter. As the favorite daughter, I think Cordelia was held on a pedestal in Lear's mind. He simply expected more for her.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time though, you bring up Edmund and Edgar. This seems to be more of a non-existent unconditional love situation because of the extreme Edmund has gone to. I understand being resentful of siblings, it happens with me all the time, but this is different. Edmund blatantly sold out his brother for something he did not even do. Normally after going to an extreme to sell out a sibling, the person shows remorse. But this is not the case with Edmund. I cannot tell if it is the irrational actions due to anger or if it is actually nonexistent unconditional love, but you definitely make a great point.
I've thought about Lear and Cordelia. And while I think he still loves her, I think that he can't make himself overcome his anger to show his love. This I think is Lear's downfall. While I think his love might still be there, it is not truly "unconditional" because he refuses to show his daughter his love.
ReplyDeleteWell said Delia.
ReplyDeleteA couple things because they are good questions - Shakespeare was in a league of his own in terms of writing (and he is often considered the most brilliant of all). There are a handful of writers who wrote on such a level that they will be studied for the rest of our days, and Shakespeare is one. Milton is the other. More recently James Joyce and Virginia Woolf. These are four authors who have to be taught to learn about them. What you guys feel with Shakespeare; I feel with Milton. I could take thirty minutes reading one of his passages and I still don't understand almost any of it.
It's why I always liked Shakespeare. I just got it. Anyway, digressing too much. Shakespeare probably came out of medieval church drama, which was very bloody and borderline sacrilegious and blasphemous. But the structure of these plays are very simple, while Shakespeare is not. Shakespeare quite literally birthed the genre of complex blood baths.
He had a couple contemporaries, but they are mostly forgotten because whatever they did, Shakespeare did better. As for his comedies (and it's a shame we don't read them, you could probably read Twelfth Night to get a good feel of them). They're very gender bending, but there is always a couple characters who cross the lines of good taste, and others who seem masochistic.
I'll talk more about The Bard and how he came to do what he did in comparison to other writers in class on Monday, because I'll just sit here and droll on for hours without making much sense.
Good questions.
Delia, I completely agree that Lear’s understanding, or even lack of unconditional love is misguided. One would probably even consider it shallow. This man expects to measure the worth of his daughters’ love by their public professions of affection. This idea could be considered effective if he did not offer a reward in exchange, but by using his land as a prize to be won by the most loving daughter, Lear clearly eliminates the likelihood of sincerity behind their words. I feel that this can also be considered an example of Lear’s naivety. He assumes that his daughters will profess the truth regardless of the high rewards at stake.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I disagree with your opinions of Edmund and his family. I feel that Edmund’s father definitely shows some resentment towards his son. He does not address Edmund in public and Edmund reveals built up feelings of jealousy and anger because of the treatment he receives. Although I do not in any way agree with Edmund’s actions, I can somehow see where he is coming from. I would hate to be ignored, or called a “bastard” or “illegitimate” my entire life. Regardless, I agree that there is no unconditional love coming from any member of this family (except possibly Edgar, but I haven’t read far enough into the play to know).