King Lear

I always get excited when I have to read Shakespeare in one of my classes. It is not because I have an insatiable desire to learn about him though. It is because each time I tell myself it is one more chance for me to try to understand him. I have studied several of his tragedies in the past including Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth. Although I was not turned off by either one of these, I was not fully turned on either. The language was always difficult to understand so I usually did not devote much time to studying the works. I found King Lear a bit easier to read though. I also enjoyed it more than any others I read before.

On the first day we discussed King Lear, Dr. Watson asked us to try and view Lear and his daughters not as royalty, but of average, middle class social status. In my attempt, I compared Lear dividing his kingdom to a modern-day father dividing his business. A man who spent his entire career building a business to give to his children, but in doing so neglected them is something I can relate to more easily. Three kids who grew up without a mother and without a compassionate father would understandably be less likely to have a close relationship with their father. After the father gave away his business, he would also understandably go through periods of sanity and search because of the drastic change. How much would the absence of a mother in the family affect everything? It is not something I thought about until presented with Coppelia Kahn’s argument.

To hear that Lear gradually sees the woman in himself as the play progresses was, at first glance, a stretch for me. I always thought that simply giving up his power and kingdom was so hard for him that it drove him into periods of madness. For most of his life, Lear knew only of his importance as king. He embraced the position that he did not earn and he never questioned it. Once he stepped down though, he began to question—with the help of those around him (the fool for instance). In his time of uncertainty, Lear showed different emotions than he ever had before. Therein lies the basis for his “understanding of the woman in himself.” As for Kahn’s premise, I like it. It certainly may or may not be the case, but Kahn’s argument is such that it cannot be dismissed. I happen to think that Lear's loss of power with which he closely identified himself and his conflicting relationships with his daughters that followed had more to do with his changing emotions.

Persepolis

As a child, I spent little time reading comic books. I am not sure why exactly, but regardless I never developed an appreciation for them. I think if someone suggested this book to me, I would open it, glance at a few pictures, and quickly set it down with little intention of returning to it. Obviously circumstances under which I actually read the book were different because of this class. Now that I have read Persepolis (my first experience reading this genre), I can say that I was pleasantly surprised by Satrapi’s work. Not only does she write effectively, but the images add another avenue for the reader to better understand her story. I guess one could say the graphic novel works well.

In a country where revolution and war were seemingly the only occurrence to the outside world, Marjane Satrapi lived to tell her story of how she and her family survived the terrible events that they encountered through no choice or fault of their own. This story was enlightening to me as I have not spent much time reading about or thinking about what life would be like growing up in a country that severely limited my freedom (well, at least not in a country post World War II). In some ways I think Marjane’s life is relatable to those who lived in Nazi Germany. Although there was not a holocaust, families still experienced the horror of war in their own country. Surprise attacks, bombings, and tyranny were all part of the daily lives of the Jews as well as Marji and her family. Satrapi even references Nazism when Eby, her father, says: “That is like the Jews inviting the Gestapo in for a drink.” I think that quote came from the movie, but it does show that similarities can be drawn.

Behind all the violence during the war were Marji and her family—a family loyal to each other simply trying to survive and lead some sort of normal life. By normal I mean a life that does not revolve around war. Marji gives us a great sense of what that was like. I particularly enjoyed all the humor in the book. Two examples of times the book brought a smile to my face: Eby complained that if women showing hair was arousing to men then certain women should shave their mustaches; on page 133 when Marjane says: “Back then, Michael Jackson was still black.” These along with her descriptions of the forbidden parties her and her family hosted and attended gave me a sense of the people that I would not find any many other readings.

As far as her father’s statement that "politics and sentiment don't mix," I think in this situation they do. Although I think the family would be just as loving and caring toward each other if they lived in a country where neither of those occurred, I do think the war brought them together in a way that few other events could. For the family to survive they had to stick together and, in the time they spent together, they bonded. My contention is that a family that lives through tragic events and manages to stay close through all of the misfortune they encounter is more likely to have strong sentiment toward each other than one that does not.