Tangents.

Cannibalism. Genitalia. Sadomasochism. As we delve deeper into the masterpiece of Lear, I cannot help but notice a smorgasbord of tangents and brilliant sub genres. I appreciate the main story arcs in King Lear, however certain dramatic and hilarious points of the play generate from secondary characters and unappreciated puns. These segments are both sporadic and epic. Perhaps these tangents tie into the theme of the “unimportant being important”, but I digress. Let us take a step back and appreciate the “little things” in King Lear.

            In one instance, there is the character Kent in his entirety. From his initial banishment to his return as Servant Kent, Kent remains a single useless filler character. In correlation with Oswald(whose true purpose is arguably a punching bag), useless man slave Kent sets into action a chain of events leading to Lear’s own banishment. That’s pretty important. Apart from his plot progression, Kent exhibits a need to inflict pain and feel pain(Kent’s assault on Oswald and his subsequent torture in shackles). Kent’s sadomasochism complements the tone of the play, but Kent’s fetish is too funny. This humor stems from the fact that Kent imposes his fetish upon other men for no significant reason. This leads me to believe that Kent may possibly be a violent homosexual. I say this because Kent’s first line of the play shows his intrigue about which male duke more “affected” Lear. Also, Kent’s return from banishment shows his aspiration to be among his beloved Lear and over one hundred other male servants. For a 48 year old, that’s interesting. Kent also says he won’t eat fish. When fish is translated into smelly vagina, this one is self explanatory. More genitalia references are plenty with the fool. The fool never lets up the chance to tell a good(usually filthy) pun. The fool’s repertoire of genital jokes range from calling Lear a penis, making fun of Kent’s penis, telling Lear to not go around sticking his penis places lest he get crabs, or my personal favorite, when he calls Goneril a stupid “Jug”. The fool is either publicly admiring Gonreil’s tits, or calling her a buffoon. Or delightfully both.

            The tangents in King Lear are plentiful and even touch on Cannibalism and Demonic Possession. I understand that none of these tangents are the “point” of play, but then again what is the point of the play? Is there a point? The set up for Lear’s story arc warrants his retribution and catharsis by the lone means of delightful bloodbath. Lear’s resolution, accompanied by a multitude of sadomasochism and genitals, leads me to conclude that while there are profound themes of the play, some overanalyze and forget that King Lear is simply a bloody good time.

PS: I don’t know how the play will pan out, but if Cordelia returns on a demonic horse as a dominatrix with cannibalistic tendencies on the hunt for genitals, then this post wraps us nicely.