78 of 1194 pages read.
The past few weeks have been uncommonly busy for me and, unfortunately, I have had very little time to either write blog posts or read Shakespeare. BUT, I did finish King Lear and have dove right into Part Three of King Henry VI.
As nihilistic and depressing as King Lear was, I still greatly prefer it to King Henry VI. Not only is Lear a king that I can respect (despite his flaws), but there are just so many layers to the play. On the other hand, King Henry is basically the biggest loser ever, and the plot of the play seems to be the same thing over and over again. Someone wants to overthrow Henry, there's a lot of conspiring, everyone fights, people die, Henry stays king, the traitor is killed, and then someone else decides they want to be king and the whole cycle repeats itself.
At first, I really didn't like King Lear either. I mean, really, what father banishes his favorite daughter just because she won't shower him in flattery? King Lear, apparently. But as the play progresses, you can't help but to feel bad for the guy. While Cordelia is probably the best daughter a father could ever ask for, Goneril and Regan are definitely the worst daughters any father could be stuck with. Poor King Lear just wants someone to take care of him, but Goneril and Regan ignore him, abuse him, lock him out in a storm, and more or less kill him and just about every other character in the play.
That's the other thing about the play King Lear. Everyone dies at the end. Well, everyone but Edgar and the Duke of Albany.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I read this book for my school's book club. While discussing the play, we spent a lot of time discussing the hopelessly depressing ending. Is Shakespeare giving us an pessimistic or an optimistic outlook on humanity? The easy answer is pessimistic, but we can't forget that there are bright moments in the play as well.
One of these more optimistic moments is in when the random servant comes out of nowhere and defends Gloster when Cornwall, Regan and Goneril are plucking out Gloster's eyes. Known only as "First Servant," this guy has no ties to Gloster whatsoever. We know that he is a loyal servant to Cornwall and he's one of the few people in the play with a properly functioning moral compass as well as some courage to back it up. First Servant won't stand to see his master unjustly torture Gloster.
So obviously this is good, right? Shakespeare is saying that some random, unnamed average Joe can fight for what it good and be courageous and heroic, right? Optimism, right? Right?
It appears that way, until Regan slays our brave First Servant. First Servant does manage to wound Cornwall, but he doesn't save Gloster
But First Servant isn't our only good guy. There's also Kent, Lear's faithful adviser, who follows Lear even after being exiled by the king. Kent doesn't die, but at the end of the play we get the impression that the end is near for him. My personal favorite is the King of France, who marries Cordelia even after her father disowns her and takes away her dowry. That the King of France would marry Cordelia for love and not money shows that not everyone is corrupted by greed and power, unlike the many selfish characters (Goneril, Regan, Edmund, etc.) in the play.
And, of course, there is Cordelia herself, a character who is almost unbelievably good and forgiving. She is kind to her father even after he banished her. She'll do anything to help him out. she forgives him and loves him throughout the entire play.
And she dies too.
WHY? Why did Shakespeare kill everybody? Is Cordelia a Christ figure? A martyr for goodness? Or is her death symbolic of the end of goodness?
I like to think the former is true. That maybe Edgar and the Duke of Albany will rebuild the split kingdom, and maybe unnamed First Servants will come to their aid and everything will be okay. And maybe a king as good and selfless as the King of France will emerge and maintain peace.
But maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist.
I'm going to have to read this play again. My head hurts.
Lear is based on one of my favorite fairy tales, although only the bad guys die in the fairy tale. Maybe Shakespeare killed everybody off to twist the tail of material that was familiar to his audience, or to say that real life is NOT a happy-ending fairy tale. Really bad choices have really bad consequences.
ReplyDeleteWere Optimistic and Pessimistic the only choices you had in your class?
Dang, girl, I would SO LOVE to sit down with you and my husband (who is currently reading through Shakespeare's plays) and just chew this play to pieces!
Have you seen the season of Slings and Arrows where they produce Lear? Have you seen the movie The Dresser?
Oops! Didn't mean to take over the blog with a comment as long as my arm! lol
Marian Allen
Fantasies, mysteries, comedies, recipes
Thanks for the comment, Marian! Don't worry about the length--it's always nice hearing (reading?) what you have to say! :)
DeleteIt's interesting that you mention Shakespeare may have killed everyone off to add a twist. When we were discussing the play at school, my teacher mentioned that other playwrights had their own versions of King Lear, but Shakespeare was the only one to kill off Cordelia. Did Shakespeare make the change for shock value? Or was he trying to make a point? So many questions!
We discussed a lot at the book club meeting (there's so much to talk about with this play!) Optimism v. Pessimism was just kind of a conversation starter.
I haven't heard of Slings and Arrows or The Dresser, but I'll have to look into them!
Thanks for reading! :)
Each of Shakespeare's tragedies is pessimistic in that each takes an in-depth look at the faults that are inherent in humanity. In King Lear's case, that would be pride. I think one overall "weakness" that all Shakespeare's tragic heroes seem to have in common is self-deception: King Lear should KNOW his two evil daughters are lying to get on his good side, but he chooses to believe their flattery over Cordelia's true love for him.
ReplyDeleteVery true, Laura! Thanks for the comment :)
Delete