Hey 3U7--Here's your second blog topic. This time you have a choice between three options. Don't forget to comment on a classmate's post as well!
1. What textual evidence is there to support or, conversely, take issue with critic Frank Kermode's assertion that King Lear is Shakespeare's "cruellest" play?
2. Ponder Goneril's murder of Regan and her subsequent suicide. What are Goneril's motivations? Are her actions logically consistent? Please ensure you support your argument with textual evidence.
3. Ponder Edmund's desire to do good before he dies. Is this a final attempt to "scam" his way out of damnation, or is his conversion sincere? Please ensure you support your argument with textual evidence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, I’d like to side with the critic Frank Kermode with the notion that this play is Shakespeare’s cruellest. King Lear gives the sense that the universe is uncaring and unemotional for humanity and its actions. It just does not care for it at all, even though we try to associate ideals like compassion with it. This is notably seen with Cordelia’s death- the play could end suitably without it, but no, she dies, apparently for no real reason. Albany, at the end, says lines to the effect of “everyone gets their just deserts” (lines 301-303 of Act 5 scene 3), however this is not the case as most of the virtuous characters (ie. Cordelia, Lear) die with the villains as well, with Lear’s death coming right after he believes he sees Cordelia breathing (giving him little hope only for it to be whisked away from him). It is a bleak interpretation that there is no justice in the world, almost implicitly stating there is nothing to look forward to after death – just despair. Perhaps this may be a pessimistic view, but that’s the feeling that I get from the end. Any other comments, perhaps contrary to this?
ReplyDeleteKing Lear is indeed one of the cruellest plays that Shakespeare has written.
ReplyDelete1) everyone dies in the end. The whole royal family gets wiped out and only Cornwall and Edgar are left. The stage is left empty with dead bodies scattered everywhere. This sets a very gloomy and cruel mood.
2) Shakespeare teases the audience with momentary hapiness but snatches it away right afterwards. This is even crueller than no hapiness at all. Also, Gloucester meets Edgar again but we never get the reuniting scene.
3) many innocents are killed, and they are all likeable characters. For example, the fool and Cordellia. This is a very harsh thing to do because in a way, they are sort of like the heroes in the play.
4) The characters get killed on their path to recovery instead of at their weakest times. This creates hope that gets crushed. For example, Cordellia and Lear finally reuintes and Lear is finally able to see, but Shakespeare snatches away this hope by killing them.
Lastly, the play ended with a gloomy mood. Not many characters were left standing and one has to wonder, what will happen to the country?
Edmund sunconsciously realizes that he himself is evil; but is aware of the cosmic order nonetheless. Thus, he tries to repend to a higher authority; his plans have come to naught and there is no point in pursuing evil further. The Christian tradition enables last rites (though it is unlikely he will receive them), and repenting before death; perhaps Edmund belives he has a chance of going to heaven or in the least purgatory. His conversion is partially sincere since he finds it necesarry, after all hope for him is gone (together with kingly pretense). "We have seen the best of our time: machinations, hollowness, treachery, and all ruinous disorders, follow us disquietly to our graves", he says in Act 1, Scene 2. It is therefore seen that he recongizes what will follow him to the grave and is truly frightened by it. Much like the ghosts who converge upon Richard the Third bring about reckoning, the evil spirits of Edmund's past, though not shown, instill mortal fear in him. It is his cowardly nature coming through in not being able to face death knowing what he has done that really shines through however. His outlook is best summed up by the line "I pant for life: some good I mean to do,Despite of mine own nature. "; showing him cognizant of his own character, yet desperate for even a hint of salvation.
ReplyDeleteI think that Frank Kermode is correct in saying that King Lear is Shakespeare's cruellest play because of the fact that the characters that the audience has grown to love such as the fool, Lear and Cordelia are all mercilessly killed just as a glimmer of hope can be seen. The audience follows the journey of Lear from his collapse and madness to a reunion with Cordelia and his rise to partial power. The entire play had been bleak and desolate until the reunion which can be seen as a high point in the play and for once, things seem to be getting better. Then abruptly, we are shown Cordelia and Lear arrested and being sent to their deaths and any hope of a better future is promptly cut short. Scene after scene, the righteous characters are thwarted and pitted against each other by cunning, unscrupulous villains and the audience is helpless to intervene. All the good-willed characters are isolated and alone (Lear (mad), Cordelia (in France), Edgar (disguised as a madman), Gloucester (blinded in reality and blind metaphorically), Kent (unrecognized), Albany (disagrees with the other nobles)) while the scheming villains seem to have the upper hand against all of the righteous (Goneril and Reagan controlling Lear, Edmund tricking Gloucester). It seems that the evil has risen and all is lost. When the Wheel of Fortune begins to turn again, the audience is given hope that things will turn out for the better but King Lear and Cordelia (the most important characters) are cut from the Wheel just as it approaches a full turn. This is having happiness snatched away from the audience just before they can reach it. King Lear is a very unrelenting tragedy and one of Shakespeare's cruelest plays.
ReplyDeleteKevin Jeong
I will comment on question 2.
ReplyDeleteThe play begins with King Lead DIVIDING his kingdom to his daughters Goneril and Regan, and this only led to more DIVISIONS between the two siblings as the play went on.
Though it looks like at most times that the sisters are allied against their father, it is on the issue of Edmund where the two developed fatal quarrels which really start at the end of Act III. First, Goneril and Edmund exit together. Then, after plucking out Gloucestor's eyes, Regan expresses his contempt for Cornwall by leaving him injured.
At the beginning of Act IV, Goneril says to Edmind: "I marvel our mild husband/Not met us on the way." (4.2.1-2) This shows she wants Edmund. Especially with her sister being widowed, Goneril feels insecure about her lust for Edmund. She fears competition from her sister Regan who at one point says to Oswald: "Edmund and I have talked/And more convenient is he for my hand/Than for your lady's" (4.5.34-36) Regan, being the more aggressive and assertive one throughout the play even warns Edmund: "I never shall endure her[Goneril]. Dear my lord/Be not familiar with her." (5.1.18-19) This could have all stirred the jealousy of Goneril as she chose a non-verbal method to defeat her sister.
I think her suicide was a rash action after losing her "crush" Edmund to Regan, after seeing him die at the hands of Edgar, and after being so completely ditched by her husband, that she just, as we say in modern times "have nothing to live for anymore". The Gentleman bringing the news of her death interestingly says that Goneril confessed to poisoning her sister before her death. This is sort of like Edmund's end when he also makes confessions, perhaps to avoid damnation.
I believe that it is very peculiar that such a villainous character like Edmund would truly want to do some good for the sake of other people before dying. I think that since Edmund knows he’s going to die, he wants to make a final impression by doing something good, saying “I pant for life. Some good I mean to do Despite of mine own nature.” He has nothing to loose so he wants to leave a positive impression, hoping that he won’t be condemned to eternal punishment in hell. I don’t think his conversion is sincere because an evil person is not likely to turn good all of a sudden before dying if he’s been evil all his life. During the course of the play, Edmund lied and betrayed his father and brother, had affairs with Goneril and Regan, sent Cordelia and King Lear to prison and then secretly commanded their deaths. This shows that his wicked nature is unchangeable and will eventually lead to his inevitable death.
ReplyDeleteI would like to ponder Edmund's miraculous transformation at the end of the play for this particular blog post. I believe that this simple process is integral to the play because it toys with religion and life after death. It's obvious, at least in my perspective, that Edmund was not at all sincere and was basically struggling for a last-minute ticket into heaven.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what is so interesting is that Edmund's life seems to be a complete circle, as he himself states "And now the circle is made complete." Basically, he was born unexpectedly in a fit of passion as a result of fornication; he was born a bastard. One could describe it as an unruly, unexpected, unplanned birth. So be it that he died in a very similar way; unexpected, in a fit of rage, and unplanned. This is related to Shakespeare's literary obsession to observing life as a circular flow, and one ends where one begins in a metaphorical sense.
I think I would have to side with Mr. Kermode’s claim that King Lear is Shakespeare’s most tragic play. Not only do we have the obvious tragedy of Lear’s fallout from the throne, but there are also many gloomy, secondary character stories woven into the main plot. Gloucester is an obvious, but effective example. His punishment is what I believe to be the most devastating and undeserved. In act 3 scene 7 of the play, he gets revealed wrongly as a traitor, and exposed by the villains. Led by Cornwall, they proceed to mock and strip him of his dignity. Cornwall suggests that “our power / shall do a court’sy to our wrath, which men / may blame, but not control”, essentially saying they can do whatever they want to him and get away with it. Goneril and Regan are insufferable as usual, pulling at his beard and referencing him as an “ingrateful fox”. Gloucester is an honest nobleman who was always loyal to his king. Not only does his son betray him for his position of power, but he gets beaten, blinded, and must “smell his way to Dover”. That line made me twitch. Shakespeare gives this innocent man a wretched punishment, one that implies good will never emerge from evil, cementing the claim that King Lear is Shakespeare’s most tragic.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this is not the only tragic character story, there’s Edgar, Cordelia, Kent, the fool, etc. These stories are expertly intertwined throughout the play, which gives the audience continuous grief, as we see one tragic story after another.
My last point deals with the similarity of King Lear and Shakespeare himself at the time of its debut. Shakespeare had a lot of fame and fortune that he had to past to his own two daughters after his death, similar to that of Lear. Perhaps this is how he envisioned his post-playwright days, how he would be mistreated and profited from. In any case, it shows his state of mind and uncertainty at the time of the play. This would add even more grief to an already sombre play.
I agree with Frank Kermode's morose view of King Lear, because the punishment for Lear's momentary narcissism and banishment of Cordelia is of cosmic proportions. At the very end, with Edward miraculously confessing to his plans against Cordelia, and a gentleman sent off in haste to save the prisoners, it is Lear who must carry the dead Cordelia in shame as the symbol of his selfish error. Furthermore, he loses all rationality and claims: "This feather stirs. She lives. If it be so / It is a chance which does redeem all sorrows / That ever I have felt." Finally, this king dies begging from others: "Pray you undo this button. Thank you, sir", and as a shadow of his former splendour.
ReplyDeleteGoneril's murder/suicide provides a cleansing of England as all the "evil-doers" eventually cause their own downfall.
ReplyDeleteIt seems unlikely that both Regan and Goneril, who are supposed to be villains, would fall so madly in love with Edmund, since love has always been portrayed as beautiful and good. However, both sisters are also women; and both choose love over power, according to the traditional view of women always craving love. In fact, Goneril whispers to herself that she'd rather give up her power than lose Edmund: "I had rather lose the battle than that sister/Should loosen him and me." (act 5, scene 1).
It still seems illogical that the sisters who had been so cunning throughout the play would become so helpless in the face of love, but Edmund attempts to provide an explanation when he says; "Each jealous of the other as the stung/Are of the adder." (act 5, scene 1). The reader is supposed to believe that Goneril murdered her sister out of jealously, and then killed herself when she believed Edmund had died. Although it may seem odd to readers in our time, Shakespeare meant this irony to reflect weakness in women and in villains, which eventually cause their ruin.
Frank Kermode’s assertion that King Lear is Shakespeare’s “cruellest” play does hold valid insight to the reader. Cruelty is presented at various levels in the play, as both intrapersonal and interpersonal. The characters struggle with their thoughts, relationships experience horrible consequences, nature reflects these consequences, and the audience is left without power to change it.
ReplyDeleteLear’s state of mind is questionable throughout the play. His uncontrollable anger and need for control lead him to go mad. The fact that his two daughters lose respect for him and demand that he visits without his knights let Lear believe that no one knows his true value. For example, Lear says, “Are they “informed” of this? My breath and blood!” (2.4.116-117). Thus, he struggles to maintain power after his initial mistake of dividing the kingdom. His sanity becomes his main struggle because he does not know how to handle the fact that he is losing his power. Thus, Lear is cruel to himself.
The assumed close relationships between the characters of the play experience cruelty through their actions toward one another. Family bonds and friendships become lost when strong emotions overpower their decisions. The two brothers, Edmund and Edgar, experience deceit, as Edmund makes Edgar believe that he is in danger and thus should leave the kingdom. Edmund’s strong emotions for the disadvantages of being a bastard have led him to become insensitive. He does anything in his power to gain his father’s title. He says, “Let me, if not my birth, have lands by wit. All with me’s meet that I can fashion fit” (1.2.191-192).
The relationship between Regan and Goneril also experience cruelty, as both sisters become rivals for Edmund’s affection. This rivalry creates strong emotions of jealousy. Jealousy becomes so strong that Goneril poisons Regan. The cruelty among these familial relationships is that the characters do not recognize Edmund’s true intentions. By believing that the other is naïve, they are being naïve themselves.
Everyone has a hidden agenda, which ruin all of the relationships. Their common indifference toward King Lear causes them to commit horrible acts, such as blinding Gloucester. The innocent become guilty, and the guilty gain power. Furthermore, in the relationships between Lear and Cordelia as well as Lear and Kent, Lear is so ignorant towards them that he does not realize that they are the characters he should stay close with. However, all the prominent characters in the play who prosper with their hidden agendas die at the end of the play, such as Edmund. One begins to question whether they serve a purpose. The assumed weak characters prevail, such as Edgar. However, their future actions are unknown.
Nature reflects the series of events, specifically with the major storm in act 3 when King Lear storms outside into the rain. A dark, gloomy atmosphere is always present, which places emphasis on the darkness of the play. Even the fool states, “Here’s a night pities neither wise men nor fools” (3.2.14-15), when he is outside with Lear and Kent. The fact that this pathetic fallacy exists in the play shows that even nature does not sympathize or provide hope for the characters.
The audience experiences cruelty through their knowledge of the truth throughout the whole play. Shakespeare keeps the audience in the know through the various asides of the characters, namely Edmund. The most obvious elements in the play are the most hidden to the characters. Shakespeare only gives the audience the power of knowledge; however the audience cannot change the course of events or help the characters. Thus, this knowledge becomes useless. The audience is left to watch the obvious mistakes of the characters and wait for their knowledge of the truth.
Daniel’s last point is interesting, as Shakespeare’s life after his son died was filled with grief. His later plays do emphasize familial relationships. Perhaps, the fear of the unknown is what Shakespeare wanted to explore through Lear’s character. The suggestion that Shakespeare is similar to Lear adds personal qualities to the play. If the suggestion were proven true, the cruelty emphasized in the play would have more value, as they would be based on real experiences. Thus, I agree that more grief would be added to the play because the imagination needed to comprehend the events would be diminished.
ReplyDeleteSuseelan summed up the cruelty of the play beautifully. I never thought much about the symbolism of Lear carrying Cordelia-but it does seem only fitting at the end of this tragedy that Lear would "carry the burden" (literally) of his own error in judgment.
ReplyDeleteThe sisters' evils, as Shelly commented, does seem to cause their own downfall. This again, reminds me of the idea of Nemesis, the wheel of fortune in life that never ceases spinning 'round and 'round without mercy for the people riding it.
I think Suseelan brings up a good point about how Shakespeare dangles the possibility of a happy conclusion, but immediately takes it away. We see how much the characters have changed throughout the play, physically and mentally. Lear, Gloucester, Edgar, and Edmund are some examples of those who underwent major character development, putting on masks and taking on new roles. But we get glimpses of the past too. King Lear's elaborate lament for Cordelia in the final scene is a testament to that. It's interesting to note that while these characters have undergone life-altering development, their core qualities do shine through because that is who they are.
ReplyDeleteShaké’s comment about Lear being cruel to himself in his struggle for sanity was particularly intriguing. Although his anger and steady weakening at the hands of his opportunistic daughters was an important factor in his descent into madness, the deciding factor would be the unbearable stripping away of his illusory life, with 3 loving daughters and guaranteed respect until death. It is this self-betrayal which, in my opinion, reduced him to his near-animalistic, yet contemplative state in the storm. Lear demonstrates his newfound wisdom through the questioning of the true nature of man, when he asks: “Is man no more than this? … unaccommodated man is no more but such a poor bare, forked animal as thou art. Off, off you lendings!”(III.iv.109-110,113-115). Indeed, the sadness of his madness lies in the audience’s helpless knowledge that Lear is unaware of the changes he is undergoing.
ReplyDeleteIn this situational irony, Lear, through the hand of his invisible creator Shakespeare, is punished by his own soul by obtaining wisdom when it is too late to change the course of his actions and love when there is no longer anyone left to love. Although ignorance may have been a blessing to Lear in his prime, my belief is that Lear cruelly brought about the demise of his self through the forced aging of his mind and maturity, having created the devastating circumstances which he would later be embroiled in.
From an analysis outside of the literary context, although Shakespeare’s own experiences may have become enmeshed into the woes experienced by the characters (as suggested by Daniel), Lear’s loss of stability may have been the product of an opinionated view of the unstable nature of the medieval period, with its rigid views about expression and its focus on divinity. It might have held symbolic meaning to portray a man forsaken and bereaved of divine right at the mercy of a nature now unrestrained in the Renaissance period within which Shakespeare lived.
I agree with Darek's post about Edmund's willingness to do good before he dies.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem likely that Edmund tries, in his last moments, to repent for his sins in order to get into heaven or purgatory. Shakespeare would want to show good's triumph over evil in order to strengthen his audience's belief in the power of God. Edmund, being the male villain, would also be the strongest villain (as seen by the two sisters' deaths), so having him repent for his sins would be the ultimate testament to the powers of good and of God.
- Shelly (aka. shell_6 ... I figured out how to change the display name)
I would like to answer the questions of topic number two.
ReplyDeleteIn the text, there is no actual explanation of why Goneril poisoned Regan, but I believe that it is out of jealousy. The two sisters had been competing for Edmund’s love right up until the moment that Regan died. Due to Cornwell’s death, Regan was a widow, which meant that she could get married to Edmund more easily than Goneril could because she had a husband. When Goneril received the news of Cornwell’s death in Act 4, Scene 2, she said, “One way I like this well; / But being widow, and my Gloucester with her…” This quote shows that Goneril was clearly worried about how Regan was now able to marry Edmund herself, which could very well be the cause of Goneril killing Regan.
The motive of Goneril’s suicide is ambiguous. On one hand, one may say that Goneril decided to end her life due to the guilt that she felt for poisoning her own sister. On the other hand, she might have killed herself because she knew that the man that she loved, Edmund, has died and she wanted to join him in another life. There is also the possibility that Goneril committed suicide because she felt like there was nothing left to live for, seeing that both Regan and Edmund were dead (or soon to be dead), and Albany would likely refuse to take her back, because he knows of her love for Edmund and her plots to kill him.
Shelly’s interpretation of Goneril’s death as a cleansing of England is very interesting. It got be thinking about how maybe Shakespeare delibrately killed off Goneril because he was trying to tell the readers that by the end of the play, England has reached a new era. The death of the villains – Goneril being one of them – just meant that the new era will be a better one.
ReplyDeleteI find that by evaluating the consequences of Goneril's death from a playwrite's point of view, it is much easier to justify why she committed suicide.
(Question 2)
ReplyDeleteReferring to Danny's and Shake's post on Goneril's motivations to kill her sister, they both stated that Goneril killed her sister from feeling of jealousy. However, I personally think that "Greed" would be a more suitable word, as the word befits a villan, and it is also the root of jealousy.
As such, viewing Goneril as a villan, I can only imagine Goneril being selfish to accomplish her own desires, just as Edmund has by being the oppourtunist and capturing the heart of both sisters.
A milestone of Goneril's desire for Edmund was probably when Goneril kissed Edmund: "O, the difference of man and man!" (4.2.33). It seems after this moment that Goneril became very wrapped up in her desire for Edmund, and due to the intensity of her greed, it wouldn't be surprisng that she would poison her own sister for her own selfish gain. Also, it seems that within the tragedy of the villans there is also a sense of a cosmic slapdown, as Goneril, after killing her barrier towards Edmund (Reagan), might have realized that Edmund was dead, and thus kill herself as she cannot obtain what she is so desperate to get, and thus can perhaps only meet Edmund in the afterlife.
rOnI.Luo:
ReplyDeleteI concur with Frank Kermode's assertion that King Lear is Shakespeare's "cruellest" play in the sense that this play mocks not only the characters of its plot but also its reader and audience.
Much of my claim is substantiated by the Fool's seemingly confusing riddles to Lear in Act II, in which he says, "The hedge-sparrow fed the cuckoo so long / That it had it head bit off by it young.”(I.iv.190–191). The Fool is clearly warning the king that his daughters, each like a traitorous “cuckoo,” plan to turn against the father who raised them.
By comparing Lear's situation to a natural phenomenon, however, the Fool suggests that Lear is not the only victim of thankless offspring. In fact, by bringing the order of nature into the picture, the Fool seems to implant the idea into the reader's mind that he or she may also find themself in the same position.
Kevin Dashti raised a very interesting point about the concept of circular flow in Shakespeare's plays and its representation by Edmund.
ReplyDeleteApart from the unexpectedness of his birth and death, however, the reader's perception of Edmund also runs a full cycle. Unlike in Shakespeare's King Richard III, in which Richard reveals himself as the villain of the play from the first lines, the reader perceives Edmund as being nice and clever in the first scene of King Lear. It is not until the second scene that Edmund begins to worsen his image in the reader's mind by revealing his dissatisfaction and future plans.
At the end of the play, however, Edmund, whether out of desperation or goodwill, somewhat redeems himself in the reader's mind by attempting to intervene with the hanging of Cordelia.
I wanted to comment on question 1. I believe that King Lear is Shakespeare’s cruellest play. Firstly, it starts with a separation of a father from his daughter, Lear who set a task which he knew Cordelia would most benefit from, disappointed him by saying nothing. We, as the audience know her intentions were true, because in her aside, she said, “I am sure my love’s more ponderous than my tongue” (I,I, 86-87). Secondly, a similar misunderstanding occurs with Edgar and his father, Glouster, due to Edmund, the villain. In both cases, a father is being deceived by his own children, which he raised and loved; for these children to be acting so foully with their own father, displays that they are ungrateful for their father, and to the audience it is the most horrifying form of cruelty, because these children are bringing misery upon an old man who has neither the power nor strength to defend himself. Lastly, everyone dies, except for Edgar and Albany, yet, the ending feels unjust and the audience is still left with questions in their mind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Frank Kermode's assertion that King Lear is Shakespeare's "cruellest" play. Normally, Shakespeare’s tragedies, though heartbreaking, follow some order of nature. Most of the times, the protagonist dies tragically because of the sin he has committed during his lifetime, namely betrayal of kingdom or friends, or adultery with a mistress. Although there are good characteristics in a tragic hero, most of their deaths can be morally justified. However, King Lear is considered one of the “cruelest” because the most innocent characters are misunderstood and punished severely which ultimately led to their death. A compelling example is the story of Cordelia. Through out the whole text, Cordelia was the only character that truly cared about the well-being of Lear, one may say she was the “purest” of all with no bad intentions whatsoever. Logically, the story should end with her having a harmonious family and rich in property. However, she ends up dying for no particularly true reason. In addition, Gloucester too was mistaken for being a traitor and robbed of his sight. In both cases, Cordelia and Gloucester were the few that remained loyal to Lear’s kingship yet they were punished. Both of their deaths are not morally justified as they were the “good” characters in the text yet they both died a tragic death.
ReplyDeleteYet, the most tragic character in the book is undoubtedly King Lear. It is difficult to think that any character deserves the fate of trusting one’s enemies and alienate one’s true supporters. Although he misuses his power and trusts the wrong individuals with his land; his daughters treatment of him, his suffering during the storm, and then, finally, holding his dead daughter in his arms at the end – none of this should be his “destiny” if fortune is at all fair. Thus, King Lear is considered as one of the cruelest simply because it portrays human events very closely that it seemed to be hinting that the universe is unjust.
Many of the characters suffered much more than their deeds and I got a feeling while reading the book as if nature was “playing” the characters as pawns. “These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend no good to us. Though the wisdom of nature can reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself scourg'd by the sequent effects: love cools, friendship falls off, brothers divide; in cities, mutinies; in countries, discord; in palaces, treason; and the bond crack'd, twixt son and father.” (1, 2, 100). This quotation shows how all tragic events happened in the text were some sort of “entertainment” hosted by nature to fool the characters. Somehow their fates were sealed ever since the beginning of the play and even though the characters tried so hard to fight their ways around it they still fall under the nature’s plan for them and all die tragically. The deaths of Cordelia and King Lear are not morally justified and they suffered more than their deeds, which makes King Lear one of the cruelest plays by Shakespeare.
To some extent I do agree with both Shelly and Darek's comment that Shakespeare might be trying to portray that evil will never prevail. However, I do feel that the ending in both the movie and text was quite abrupt. The transition from Edmund being evil to him suddenly saying that he wanted to do good and that he has realized his mistakes. The way that it all happens seems quite awkward and very unexpected. The tone that the actor uses while playing Edmund and his acting does not really convince us into believing what he is saying. I thought the lines could have been changed a bit to make it look more real. Also the big jump that the character makes is quite unrealistic. Taking into account all these things, I believe that Edmund's change of heart is entirely based on his attempt to scam his way out of damnation.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Edmund's last attempts to become "good" are very unsincere. I sincerely understands that he will die within the next few minutes, and knowing that he will not be able to regain the kingdom and to continue his plots, he is trying to repent in order to gain a better after life. In the book, he clearly says that our actions come with certain consequences even when we die, we carry them onward. Because of this, it is quite clear that Edmund is trying to spare himself from a tragic after life, and hopefully be sent to a "heaven" rather than "hell." I believe this also because even if he has sincerely become "good," no one can really save him from his death, and therefore there is no use trying to regain what he has already lost; power and the kingdom
ReplyDeleteReferring to Shelly's comment, I agree that Shakespeare decided to have Goneril choose love for Edmund over power and as well her bond with her sister to show a weakness in women. It allows the reader to understand the extent Goneril is willing to do as a villain for love even if it means poisoning her own sister out of jealousy. This portrays women to be uncontrollable, impulsive, and naive and allows more male dominance.
ReplyDeleteEdmund's sudden conversion from villain to do-gooder in his penultimate moments appears (like most of his actions throughout the play) feigned. Throughout the play, Edmund had been portrayed as a ruthless opportunist who never concerns himself with the negative consequences that his actions have on other characters as he claws his way upwards from his place at the bottom the social hierarchy. It seems highly improbable that he would metamorphose so abruptly from indignantly defending his innocence ["What in the world he is/That names me traitor, villainlike he lies./...I will maintain/My truth and honor firmly."(V.iii.104-108) to admitting his wrongs with docility if he were not simply trying to save himself from eternal damnation.
ReplyDeleteIt is perhaps also possible to say that Edmund may also have recognized his defeat as a sign that the Wheel of Fortune has completed its rotation and that he must accept his fixed fate as a low-born; Edmund acknowledges that "The wheel is come full circle. I am here" (V.iii.185) and while doing so, finally understands that his place in the Chain of Being is determinate, and not subject to change regardless of what he does. Knowing this, Edmund resignedly gives up on his social-climbing mission to die at the same place he started on the Wheel: at the bottom.
Based on the Shakespearean plays that I read, I support Kermode's assertion that King Lear is Shakespeare's "cruellest" play because of the dramatic descriptions of torture and the death of the innocent.
ReplyDeleteI felt that the blinding of Gloucester was very disturbing, as I never expected that sort of torture in Shakespearean plays. Maybe that is just a characteristic of Shakespearean tragedies that I haven't looked into.
Also, many innocent people died in the play without much explanation of why they should have died. For example, the play could have ended smoothly without the death of Cordelia. However, Shakespeare still chose to kill her without any reason expect bring sorrow to others. Maybe it wasn't as cruel to the audience at that time, but it is to me, since we lived through significant events (9/11, holocaust) where many innocent died without any reason.
I like Wei's idea of how Goneril's suicide was ambiguous. In my opinion, i think the first possibility where Goneril felt remorseful after poisoning her sister was what Shakespeare had intended. Shakespeare portrayed Goneril as not a really loving person, as she was ruthless and aggressive. Therefore I don't think she will commit suicide just due to her broken heart.
ReplyDeleteIn response to question 1, I agree with Frank Kermode's assertion that King Lear is the cruellest Shakespearian play I’d ever read. This is meanly due to the fact that King Lear depicts unreasonable judgements of the characters. In most of King Lear’s other play, the characters’ all had a reason to face death, whether it be them getting their just desert or their fate. For example, King Richard III died because of his greedy and sins while Romeo and Juliet died because their love was fated to never be realized
ReplyDeleteIn King Lear, however, the character, Cordelia, died for unjustified reasons. She was depicted as a innocent, loving daughter, who’s death wouldn’t have a gigantic impact on the story and/or message. This story could have ended just as pleasingly without Cordelia’s death, but she dies anyways. Shakespeare seems to be killing off , depicting that nature is killing off characters just for the sake of creating a more tragic story---a holocaust without s reason. For this reason, King Lear is indeed Shakespeare’s cruellest play.
Many of the comment before mentain that King Lear is the cruellest because lots of tragic events took place and many of the characters died in the end. However, this has been a common theme in all of Shakespeare's plays, the turning of the wheel of fortune and nemesis. Characters, like King Lear, Edmund, and the 2 older daughters died because their mistakes and sins. So could this really be considered an event of the almost cruelty as Frank depicted??
ReplyDeleteGoneril and Regan were in competition against each other for Edmund. The jealousy between the two sisters increasingly rose to a situation of very high tension. Therefore, it does seem logical that Goneril would poison her own sister to acquire, fully, her position as Edmund's partner. However, her subsequent suicide is not explained or implied with detail. The fact that Goneril had committed suicide AFTER the loss of Edmund can imply that Goneril did not have hope left and decided to end her misery sooner.
ReplyDeleteGoneril's actions may also represent the concept of the wheel of fortune. When Edmund had declared that their fortunes had come full circle, the status of the characters were changing. As for Goneril, she was seen as an inferior character in the face of Regan in the beginning of the play. However, the rise of Edmund brought about the rise of Goneril's position in the family as well. Therefore, when Edmund, the pillar of evil, fell, so did Goneril. This eventually lead to her suicide.
Edmund’s desire to do good before he dies seems unbelievable as he was one of the villains of the play. I do not think that this was an effort to please the gods at the last minute to avoid his punishment in hell. In his aside (1.2 1-10, 18-19), Edmund reflects on the views of society towards bastards and legitimate children. He feels that it is unfair that his brother, Edgar, is being given more importance than him as they are loved by their father equally. As a result, he decides to change society’s ideas and forcefully take from Edgar what he feels rightfully belongs to him (1.2 20-23). This causes him to take villainous actions. However, as he was dying he realized that being a villain did not help him reach his goal. It further degraded him in society. It is possible that this caused Edmund to convert at the last minute. He had seen that the role of a villain was a bad one, as displayed by the characters of Goneril and Reagan, and loyalty and sincerity was applauded, which was demonstrated by Edgar. Therefore, he chose to save Lear and Cordelia.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kevin Dashti's conclusion that Edmund's attempt at avoiding damnation near the end of his life was not all that sincere. Being the opportunist that he is, it's only fitting that he leaves this world by taking advantage of the opportunities he has left to "save" himself.
ReplyDeleteSuseelan's point about the play dangling happy conclusions is, I think, the reason why this play is so cruel. Not only does it dangle one happy conclusion, the play severs several potential happy endings, including the failed recognition of Edgar by his father Gloucestor, the reunion between the two that never came, Edmund's much too late reversal of his murderous orders, and more.
Daniel commented about how the characters innately evolved throughout the play. I would argue that some characters DIDN'T change as the play went on, for example, Goneril, Regan, Cornwall, and to a certain extent Edmund. I believe their intentions were consistent all along, it's just how audacious they were in carrying out their ambitions that increased as the play went on.
Justin cited a very interesting quote from the text: "O the difference of man and man". I believe Susanna Hamnet also used that line in her play, quite dramatically. I think that line accentuates Goneril's true and selfish intentions, and though she tries to be diplomatic sometimes, she seems to be a selfish person in nature and can be quite blunt at times. It's almost like there's a public side of her and a private side or her, which is not really the case for Regan, who is more diabolical.
I agree with Shelly's point of view, Shakespeare has a tendency to create the women in his play to be very stereotypical, and often unreasonable. In his case, Regan and Goneril gave up so much just for Edmund, thus displaying themselves as emotionally driven, as apposed to acting reasonably and strategically to gain wealth and power. Edmund uses Regan and Goneril's volnerablility to his advantage to achieve high status.
ReplyDeleteI would like to comment on one of the last scenes of the play where Edmund decides to do good before he dies. In this scene, Edmund quickly changes his personality and decides to do good. I believe that this act of good deed is done as a final attempt to "scam" his way out of damnation. It is not something done of sincerity and good will. The change of personality from an evil monster to a kind and forgiving person is too quick for the audience to believe any of his words. The audience kind of knows that he is faking this act of kindness. When he takes on this role of becoming a good character as he is about to die, the audience can't help but to feel sorry for him and also hate him at the same time.
ReplyDeleteSo as Edmund is dying, he says, "I pant for life. Some good I mean to do despite of mine own nature." (5.3.291-292) Despite his evil nature, he says he wants to do a little good before he dies. We wonder why he suddenly decides to do good just as he is about to die. Why didn't he decide to do good before he got killed. The only answer is that he wanted to escape from being damned. Because at the end of the play, it is quite hard to believe that this conversion is out of sincerity and that he is actually "wanting" to do good for the goodwill of a human being.
Personally, I did not perceive Edmund’s desire to do good a sincere conversion. Edmund is an opportunist, someone who manipulates others to do his bidding while lurking within the shadows for the right moment to act. Edmund’s actions throughout the play were carefully planned for him to attain power. However, when he lost the sword fight against his brother he says, “Wheel has come full circle” This implies to the viewer, that Edmund has realized that he had lost this game, and so being the opportunist he was, he prepares for his next game against God. As, he was nearing his death, the only one he should now fear would be the Almighty God (they were a religious bunch back then eh?), especially because of the many ill deeds he committed against his father, Cordelia, etc. While watching the film portrayal of King Lear, I noticed that Edmund was smirking throughout this whole scene. Immediately that gave the impression that the director of the film also felt that Edmund’s good deed was not committed with sincerity but because Edmund believed that this deed could be a way to dupe the Almighty God himself.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jacky’s comment that Goneril’s actions represent the concept of the wheel of fortune. The growth of her relationship with Edmund allowed her to attain more power and subsequently lose it when Edmund died. In the beginning of the play, Goneril was inferior to Reagan, it was evident from the way King Lear treated her. Lear insulted her to be barren (without child), which is something no father should wish upon their own daughter but nevertheless he did it. However he was never that harsh when it came to a confrontation between himself and Reagan. Once, Edmund come into picture, Reagan’s jealousy gave Goneril an opportunity for once to be better than Reagan. She reached her highest height on the wheel when Edmund chose her instead of Goneril (as she was dying), but when Edmund died she no longer had her partner, her husband left her, her father hated her, so logically she could do nothing else but commit suicide.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ronnie's interpretation of Frank Kermode's claim. I found that her point about the murder of the innocents contributing to the sense of injustice and harshness of the play to be particularly insightful. I would like to comment on her suggestion that the future of the country country is uncertain by adding that while the throne will be succeeded by Edgar, there is a sense of a diminished present that taints even that hope of restored happiness.
ReplyDelete(sorry that last comment was mine!)
ReplyDelete