King Lear help please

It has been brought to my attention that my posts seem like I am wanting my homework done for me. I just want to let other users know that I am not wanting my homework done for me! I am a home schooled student and I am just trying to get a discussion going on some of the questions I am given to think about and analyzie after each play. I have my own opinion and would just like to hear someone elses opinion and hopefully be able to have a meaningful discussion that allows us all to think about what Shakespeare wanted his audience to learn. I am also looking to enrich my learning experience while studing Shakespeare. So if anyone would like to reply I will post again so we can start a discussion, as you will bounce ideas off eachother.

Here is what i have been able to come up with:
Significant issues blindness and materialism (caring more about outward appearance than real meaning or true character)

He shows us the parrell between the two men. Their seeming blindness, their foolish decisions, the way their children betray them, as well as the way the rejected children come to their fathers' rescue when they are needed most.


I think Gloucester lost his eyes because it is very sybolic of his "blindness" when it came to his children and it also symbolizes lear's "blindness" in the same aspect, which I think is a part of the juxtaposing. I also think Gloucester lost his eyes because it helps to show the cruelty of Lear's daughter, who has betrayed not only her father but now Gloucester for helping her father. I think the lose of his eyes is also a symbol of the fact that even when he had his vision he wasn't seeing clearly. Gloucester saw more clearly as a blind man. He realized his foolishness and finally saw what he should have seen all along. Any other ideas about why Shakespeare has Gloucester's eyes gouged out?

I think Lear going mad is symbolic for he and Gloucester in a similar way to Gloucester loosing his eyes being symbolic for he and Lear. Lear's madness comes about because of his "blindness" about his daughters, especially Cordelia. Lear goes mad because he finally "sees" how foolish he was in turning Cordelia away. He comes to realize that his care about outward appearence of his daughters' love for him was foolish. He realizes how evil Goneril and Regan are and begins to go crazy because of the way they are treating him. He really looses it when he see clearly how much Cordelia loved him and how much better she would have treated him. I think it really hit him when he sees that Cordelia is more kind to him even after he disowned her and divided her dowary between Goneril and Regan.

I think Cordelia dying is Shakespeare showing his cynicism of justice in society. I think he's almost saying there is no justice in this world for people who try to do good. If he believed there was justice in this world I don't believe that he would have killed off Cordelia. Goneril and regan deserved to die or be punished for the treatment of their father. I think that is another thing Shakespeare wanted the audience to think about, why bad things always seem to happen to good people I also feel that Cordelia's death was another way for Lear to be punished for the way he treated her. any other ideas or suggestions?

I've lost the use of one hand temporarily so this is going to be quick:

Try stepping back a bit - Germaine Greer comes up with something so obvious everyone ignores both it and its significance: Lear is going senile. It is the cost of a long life.

She references Sonnet LX.

She also claims there are two strands to the play - one optimistic for the future and one 'raging against the dying of the light'.

Another thing she points out is that, as the evidence for 'God in man' in the play recedes, the need for hope and belief increases - this puts some of your questions into an interesting context.

Who is this Germaine Greer? That does give an interesting context to some of my questions

To some nothing more than a femanist; to others one of the best and most original Shakespeare scholars around today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germaine_Greer

The book I am quoting from, referencing is 'Shakespeare: A Very Short Introduction' which I rate as the best serious introduction to the plays around even though it is a little old now.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shakespeare-Int ... 10&sr=1-18

She has also just published stunning 'Shakespeare's Wife ' "biography"of the woman which gives tremendous background to Shakespeare and some of the dafter male presumptions. :twisted:

Ok what is your opinion on the relevence of Cordelia's death? On one hand I see that it doesn't have signifigance and is kind of just saying well everyone will die someday but on the other hand it is almost showing that Shakespeare had a cynical view of justice. Yet again you could also say that Cordelia was killed as a result of trying to restore the natural order and to restore order evil must be purged and (truth) Cordelia is a victim of this.

Do you have any thoughts on Cordelia being truth? She and the fool are the only ones willing to tell it like they see it. Which also brings into question the relationship between her and the fool. Are they meant to be one in the same or are they constantly being juxtaposed like the Lear and Gloucester Families?

Do you have a view on justice in the play. It almost seems that Shakespeare is showing cynism toward justice by Cordelia being killed off, especialy considering she is one of the characters who is good and true throughout the whole paly. I only see cynism because I understand the reason for every other characters death. Regan and Goneril die because of the treatment of their father, their decietful and hateful nature, lust, ect..
Other characters all have reasons to die whether it be lying, stealing, cheating
Lear even has reason to be killed off : his treatment of Cordelia because of her unflattering remarks when she is the only daughter who tryuly loved him in the first place.

Cordelia's death I don't believe is just another death to make sure that all the major characters at the end of a Tragedy are dead. She was Lear's favorite child, "our joy". In Lear's poor judgement of her simple, yet loving , reply to his request to hear of her love he cast her out of his love and life. It is common for a Tragic lead character to lose everything because of some misjudgement.
What makes this story a Tradgedy in my opinion, is Cordelia's death. Cordelia is reunited with Lear, he begs forgiveness. Things are looking up. But it is of course too late. Edmund has taken full advantage of the situation caused by Lear's first misjudgement, and she is killed under orders before she can be saved. Thus, Lear loses his last hope, his only remaining joy, everything.
I don't think it's shakespeare showing cynicism toward justice by Cordelia being killed off, but rather a Tragic character who pays the ultimate price for his mistakes: losing all that he loves, followed by his own life.

Cordelia's death may be perceived as the worst possible thing that could have happened to Lear while he was still alive and therefore the "straw that broke the camel's back" in his own death.

There are several schools of thought on the Fool. One says that he was Lear's son from a previous extra-marital encounter. This would make Cordelia and the Fool half-siblings and only Lear would know that. Some say that the Fool only existed in Lear's imagination and was never real — just part of his madness. Partially supporting this is the Fool's mysterious disappearance after his prophecy in III, 2.

The final lines of the play sum it up one way or another...depending on who ends up speaking them.

...Some say that the Fool only existed in Lear's imagination and was never real — just part of his madness. Partially supporting this is the Fool's mysterious disappearance after his prophecy in III, 2...

I don't even want to comment on the Fool as Lear's illegitimate son, but as for only existing in Lear's imagination, I have to wonder how we would account for the interaction the Fool has with other characters such as Goneril who specifically recognizes his existence:

Not only, sir, this your all-licens'd fool,
But other of your insolent retinue
Do hourly carp and quarrel, breaking forth
In rank and not-to-be-endured riots.

One theory I have heard concerning Cordelia's death is that since she represents France, Shakespeare has her die rather than have her take Britain's throne.

Regards, Charles

...Some say that the Fool only existed in Lear's imagination and was never real — just part of his madness. Partially supporting this is the Fool's mysterious disappearance after his prophecy in III, 2...

I don't even want to comment on the Fool as Lear's illegitimate son, but as for only existing in Lear's imagination, I have to wonder how we would account for the interaction the Fool has with other characters such as Goneril who specifically recognizes his existence:

Not only, sir, this your all-licens'd fool,
But other of your insolent retinue
Do hourly carp and quarrel, breaking forth
In rank and not-to-be-endured riots.

I'm not going to make a case for either of those points, just suggesting that there possibly could be. Goneril isn't the only one who addresses the Fool and it could conceivably be understood to be another part of Lear's psyche. It's not far-fetched to have people address these other "personalities" as if they really existed. Like I said, I have no stake to claim, just throwing it out as food for thought.

I don't even want to comment on the Fool as Lear's illegitimate son,

There's actually probably more substance behind this one than the previous point. But same case here...I don't have a dog in that fight.

...it could conceivably be understood to be another part of Lear's psyche. It's not far-fetched to have people address these other "personalities" as if they really existed.

I don't even want to comment on the Fool as Lear's illegitimate son,

There's actually probably more substance behind this one than the previous point. But same case here...I don't have a dog in that fight.

I understand this is not your argument but I certainly would appreciate further clarification on both points. Particularly, how does one within the context of the play indicate to the audience that the Fool is a "part of Lear's psyche", and more incredibly, convince the viewers that other characters in the play understand and willingly interact with aspects of "Lear's psyche".

On the other point, while bastardy is an important element in the play - again, how would it be possible to convey to the audience that the Fool is Lear's illegitimate son, and if you could - why would you - in your opinion (as devil's advocate) what would it add to the play?

Regards, Charles

A Fool Explained?

Isn't the moniker "fool" itself, the only way of ultimately explaining unexplainable, 'irrational', behavior observed in another? Yet we must attempt to 'name'--categorize, list, 'explain' what we know will, despite our best attempts, continue to go Un-explained. Extrapolation is a good thing, however, even though it might lead to our own unexplainable pronouncements in our sometimes 'foolish' attempts to bring to an end, the maddening ellipsis, of seeking that which we, in truth, already know we will not find. So we bring it to a 'conclusive' end, this 'thinking', and attempt to move on, having
'proved' how logical our conjecture is (in essence, accepting the great relief we offer to ourselves in our own 'sensible' conclusion). The trouble is, like Aquinas' proving the existence of God, we operate, from the beginning, from our own set of premises. Freud did it, Skinner did it, Aristotle, Plato, Nietzsche, Sartre (although the latter two less so)...the list goes on.

Explaining the Fool's existence--the mysteriousness of his character, and--the topper: his own self-association with the likes of Merlin and subsequent disappearance at the end of an Incantatory List of a Soliloquy, which Harold Bloom describes as "...a fine chant of nonsense...", understandably, might lead where it has; one might even argue that it must. Bloom is content to leave it as a question, agreeing, I believe, with Shakespeare's intent to once again leave the Question for us to ponder "Why?". This time, however, Shakespeare does it in a very big way, asking us to confront, along with him, the all too discomfiting realm of Existentialism as never before. In terms of philosophical practicality, the Fool serves as a buffer; an explanation in Himself for monumental foolishness, unexplainable in Lear's character.

And although I agree with his analysis of the Foole as a practical "tool" for our edification and comfort, as a foil to our lack of an ability (or sometimes desire) to get close to Lear, I disagree with Bloom's assessment of the Foole's 'Merlin' speech. Read closely, it becomes an existentialist manifesto. In the nature of its futility, the examples given, and even in the structure itself, lies a more far-reaching dichotomy--Both an a posteriori AND an a priori realization: The knowledge that looking, however desperately, for answers & solutions to the impossible opposites that face us, is hardly worth the energy lost in the seeking, or in breath used to utter the 'answers' once 'found'--yet we must; either railing in madness like Lear, or speaking in brilliant riddles like the Foole; until we 'disappear'.

...but I certainly would appreciate further clarification on both points. Particularly, how does one within the context of the play indicate to the audience that the Fool is a "part of Lear's psyche", and more incredibly, convince the viewers that other characters in the play understand and willingly interact with aspects of "Lear's psyche".
_________________________
Isn't that the Jack Nicholson version?

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.

Once we accept our limits, we go beyond them.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.

In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.

The only source of knowledge is experience.

There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

The attempt to combine wisdom and power has only rarely been successful and then only for a short while.

Let every man be respected as an individual and no man idolized.
Albert Einstein

And one for the ‘the Fool is Lear’s son/fantasy brigade’:

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.
:idea:

What does Shakespeare mean by ....?

Is this the right question?

:twisted:

Shakespeare thinks ....

Does he? Or does he ask questions so that we think?

:roll:

It was the common method of teaching in both school and church to take a quote (sometimes biblical, sometimes classical, sometimes 'commonsensical' ) and break it down, illustrate and elaborate - and counter with a paradoxical equal!

All Shakespeare's plays were originally seen with the eyes and minds of people who knew a lot of quotes and applied them - and knew the quotes Shakespeare was playing with.

Shakespeare doesn't mean anything - he doesn't think anything - he asks what does this mean and what do you think?

:shock:

...but I certainly would appreciate further clarification on both points. Particularly, how does one within the context of the play indicate to the audience that the Fool is a "part of Lear's psyche", and more incredibly, convince the viewers that other characters in the play understand and willingly interact with aspects of "Lear's psyche".
_________________________
Isn't that the Jack Nicholson version?

Ermmm - I think an earlier post of mine tackles a fundimntal here:

https://www.playshakespeare.com/forum/king-lear

But both treatments of the fool fit quite comfortably into the written script - especially if Greer is right in her statement about Lear himself declining mentally through senility.

A Lear 'in Lear's mind' would be easy to stage - and easier to film.

Don't forget, All the World's a Stage - all is illusion anyway so there is no reality visible anyway.

A Lear 'in Lear's mind' would be easy to stage - and easier to film.

I guess what I really mean is: if this was Shakespeare's intention, then how do you believe he would have staged it so that the audience would see the Fool as only a figment of Lear's psyche? Particularly when he addresses and is addressed by other characters in the play.

I understand that in today's theater/film productions there are means to attempt this, but how and more importantly why, in Shakespeare's time?

Regard, Charles

Speak of the Divell...
Read your post at the link...
Although I agree with you in essence, ak, there is much to
consider. A few choice excerpts from an MIT discussion on “Remixing Shakespeare”: (all ital./bold mine—unabated asides as well)


Diana Henderson is professor of Literature and author of Collaborations with the Past: Reshaping Shakespeare Across Time and Media; A Concise Companion to Shakespeare on Screen and Passion Made Public: Elizabethan Lyric, Gender and Performance. She is an active participant in MIT's partnership with the Royal Shakespeare Company.

Peter Donaldson is professor of Literature, a fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and director of the Shakespeare Electronic Archive. Since 1992, the Archive has used computers to develop new ways of studying the text, image and film records of Shakespearean publication and production.
[edit]
Henderson: Beyond the mixing and merging that was going on, the nature of many of the arts – in particular the visual arts – was undergoing change during Shakespeare's day. Theater, from its beginning, was a collaborative art form. Shakespeare was working at a point in time when people would rewrite one's work. This was the case with Littleton's addition of the Hecate speech to Macbeth after Shakespeare retired to Stratford.

During The Restoration, when Shakespeare had been dead for about 50 years and had been monumentalized to some extent, people felt they needed to keep him in the repertory, but only with extensive rewriting. A famous example of this is the rewriting by Tate of a happy ending to King Lear, in which the king gets the throne and Edwin and Cordelia have a romantic relationship.

In this case, the rewritten text speaks to a generation that has just lived through a usurpation of the throne or the killing of the king, but how can we explain the fact that for the next 150 years people continued to perform Tate's Lear instead of Shakespeare's? It wasn't as though they weren't aware of the original version since it continued to be available in print, or that they continued to worry about the fate of the King. Yet it wasn't until 1837 that Charles Macready put the original ending back on stage.

The Restoration also saw the addition of song and dance to Shakespeare's work. Macbeth as a musical seems strange to us today, but it really isn't that different from Othello as an opera. [A clip is shown] Throughout the filmed version of the opera people can be seen looking in, looking through, consciously observing and spying – which ties to those themes in the text of the play.

But is this still Shakespeare? If it isn't the actual language can it still be Shakespeare? Is it still Shakespeare if you modify so many dimensions of the story? Most of us would say yes, even though we aren't likely to be as charitable with some of the earlier remixes. Can it still be Shakespeare if you don't have sound or words – just title cards? The ability to remix Shakespeare across time, medium, andculture is one of the reasons he has remained so relevant and important.

[edit]
Donaldson: We live within these professional shifting sands. Fifteen years ago people would have assumed that it couldn't be Shakespeare if the language wasn't there; and now we take almost the opposite view._
______________________________________________________________________
HOW SAD IS THIS?
_______________________________________________________________________
Henderson: Today the most successful and popular remixes shift so much: time, culture, language – everything. This may also say something about language-centric analysis.

___________________________________________________________________________
--Well yes, indeed, that might be something to consider; given the fact that the Plays employ the written/spoken word. Why glance in askance, however studiously, in the direction of those that might think striking Shakespeare's vehicle of genius from his hands is no small matter?—Particularly if the offender, (standing very proudly abreast, one might assume) claims it to be Shakespeare's “work” as well as his own?
_____________________________________ ________________________________

Henderson: One thing that we haven't touched on today is the role of liveness and the part that plays in the dimension of theatricality that works so well in Shakespeare.
While Shakespeare works well on the screen we have certainly lost at least one of the key dimensions of his work.
-----------------------------------------


They wax and wane, bestow legitimacy, and just as quickly contradict it. Why the mincing? Yes, Shakespeare is HIGHLY 'adaptable'-but there is no doubt in my mind as to when it becomes Shakespeare----NOT. Don't mess wit da Wordsmith of All Time.

Read the entire discussion here:
http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/re ... peare.html

The Peter Sellers as Olivier link is priceless; although I doubt that either Sellers or the Beatles were contemplating as easily as are our above two professors on whether it was something 'Shakespeare-like', or was not 'indeed' Shakespeare. Cheers.

In my final copy I was planning on writing something about the signifigance of nature. I also have an understanding that in the Elizabethian period they believed that the natural world reflected a heirarchy that mirrored good gov't and a stable monarch. His era also reflected "natural" and "unnatural" behaviors: unnatural behaviors included mistreating family members, which could upset the natural order. The major message i get from the play is that people in Shakespeares time and maybe even himself believed there was NO GOD and that the comforts of religion are make- believe. I also think Shakespeare saw peopleas not being good by nature or by customs or laws. I get a very skeptical view of human nature from Lear, that the only hope we as human beings have is that we can try to be decent and generous to one another. I had to come up with the two most signifigant themes besides the themes represented in questions two through 5. I am thinking nature and misjudgement or nature and cruelty or even deception or greed. Any thoughts?

kelcb22 wrote

I also have an understanding that in the Elizabethian period they believed that the natural world reflected a heirarchy that mirrored good gov't and a stable monarch.

--and Who was said to have been at the pinnacle of that hierarchy?

The major message i get from the play is that people in Shakespeares time and maybe even himself believed there was NO GOD and that the comforts of religion are make- believe.

Therefore...
To make such a sweeping statement might not be advisable?
Although the characters speak of 'the gods', is there a possibility that Shakespeare had a particular reason for setting the play in a '"God"-less' era?
Is it possible that this disordered world was the very place Shakespeare needed to go in order to be able to safely explore the ideas about which you made what I called your "sweeping statement"?
Remember that these (Elizabethans) were a very literal-thinking/speaking people--hence the idea of the mirrored hierarchy. When Hamlet says, "But breake my heart, for I must hold my tongue." , the sense was of something Literally, Physically happening to him.
Lear screams at the elements; less blasphemous for him to rant at NATURE (he truly expects to be literally heard and quite possibly struck down in the next instant) when those observing him "hear" the word with a lower case 'n', but still are moved to 'blasphemous' thought nonetheless. IE., It's o-k to explore the IDEA of a world with utterly no meaning--as long as the context in which it's done is 'make believe'.
Think back to the beginning of our exchange on Henry V-- --what are the questions?--what are the answers?

The discussion Shakespeare finds a way to broker in Lear (and with his audience--ultimately with us) is so ahead of his time. How many, many things had to have occurred to him. Of course, we can only conjecture as to exactly what they all were, but to be sure, he asked quite a few of the questions with his pen.
I believe you've hit on something hugely important--now open it up and really take a look--from both Inside AND Outside the box.