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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you have established a very important point with saying that Lear's madness could have been caused by the loss of his crown. I have always found it strange that Lear just gathered all his daughters together one day and told them he was giving up the kingdom. So much of his identity seems to be defined by the fact that he is king that I find it weird that one day he was just done with the crown. Perhaps Lear knew that he needed to become a man instead of a boy hiding behind a throne but whom in the world would want to give that up. Maybe Lear had a stroke of inspiration on that day. Perhaps his breakfast of Mini Wheats allowed him to think clearly that day. I'm more interested to know your thoughts on his new found emotions. Does this make him now have a feminine side to him? Lear's journey is not devoid of emotion in the beginning so has he always had access to these emotions and just chose to overlook them? I think that you have identified a large part of Lear's personality by describing and identifying his ego and self through his crown. I would be interested to know your thoughts on his journey and end result. Does Lear ever become a functioning person? I would also like to know your ideas on the missing aspect of the wife and mother role for Lear. How does this affect him as a person and how does it affect his daughters?
ReplyDelete