Who Else Loves King Lear?

Just stirrin' the pot, BLatham . . . just stirrin' the pot . . .

cav

One could see Lear, in the play's outset, as beginning a descent into madness, but Shakespeare (or Bacon, or one of Set's stewed Irish ancestors) has created a very particular structure of ideas in the play, so I wouldn't think he was just intending to write about insanity, though that may not be what you meant. I'm not averse to just assuming that the fellow, though a spectacular genius, sometimes used devices that were less than perfect. I have not (blush, bow head, shuffle feet) seen Ran.

Lola the Freudian

You make a good point regarding the play's beginning and ending and it's one I hadn't thought of. But there is a significant difference. At the beginning, he has everything and at the end, he no longer has. Shakespeare wrote this late in life and I think we ought to take that into account. When I'm ninety-five, and all or most of my loved ones are gone, and George Bush's debauched twins run what's left of the world, and my body hurts all the time, and my dick no longer functions...the future will not sparkle and I'll possibly leave a short note giving the finger to my creditors and instructing that my tombstone bear the following inscription, "Well, that was a waste of time".

I see your point, blatham, please zipper your fly . Lola does indeed make a good Freudian, but without the ridiculous decisions, there really wouldn't be much of a play, now, would there? I would hate to see anyone in King Lear 'cured'....blatham, see 'Ran'....even if you were not a Lear fan, the use of colour and framing are amazing.

well, as a devise, cav, I agree, how very unsatisfying it would be without conflict. There is no cure for the human condition, as much as we'd all like to believe there is. So there will always be stories to tell, not all have to be tragedies. There are ways of improving a person's adjustment to conflict such as Lear's so that it's not all just a waste of time.

Lola, if there was a cure to the human condition, we would have no art whatsoever...Shakespeare also wrote many fine comedies which addressed the human condition admirably, so I agree, not all stories need to end in tragedy. Perhaps the lesson of Lear is not so much a conclusion or a waste of time as it is a warning? Lear probably just needed a good psychologist, but I fear they weren't invented yet...

Cav's idea is interesting about the insanity having already started at the beginning. But I agree with Blatham that this would hardly be Shakespeare's plan. We wouldn't have any conflict at all if we had a Lear with Alzheimer's or Schizophrenia. Instead I see Lear as a narcissistically vulnerable person who has enjoyed great power and privilege. Under these circumstances low narcissistic supplies can be ignored by replacing self confidence with power plays and other devises like flattery and illusions of dedication. This works fine until reality sets in and aging and time are notorious for bringing reality into sharp relief eventually, no matter how much power and privilege a person has. No matter how clever a dance a person has been able to do to ignore it. And I think Shakespeare (obviously he didn't sit down and think this out in this way) but he has a character here who is facing this very dilemma. He tries to force his old solutions and they result in a big back fire. One daughter offers genuine love, which threatens the poor man into running (or sending) away. The other two, who are furious with their father, likely for preferring Cordelia, give him what he's asking for, only this time they have the power. If they can't have their father's attention in this perfect, idealized love Lear has for Cordelia, they will have his balls, so to speak (his power and money.) His response is again to run into self imposed destructive actions, this time he loses touch with reality altogether and gets lost on the heath. The symbolism is beautiful in this play, I agree with you Blatham and Deb, it's masterful.

But I don't think Lear has everything at the beginning, Blatham. He has only the trappings of the love he wants and no more. The ending is simply a demonstration of his destitute condition at the beginning.

Let me stir the pot a little more--as i'm sure this might offend:

This is the first cogent remark about the play which i find to be supportable by the text, which i've read in this thread. No offense to BL, it's simply that his references to pagan and christian religiosity are interpretive, but i believe that Lola's statement here is demonstrable without outside reference.

yes, Cav, I agree. I'm not suggesting Shakespeare should have written the story in any different way than he did. It can be seen as a cautionary tale. Great tragedies serve their purpose. They certainly get the emotions going, don't they? It does say something about me and my personal make up that I get really upset with these tales and wish for a better solution. But these are stories of today as much as they are of then. There are plenty of therapists about these days (although many of them are not what we could call "good" ones) and people still are unable to make use of their services. The story would be quite different, I agree if Lear had been simply neurotic rather than a near crazed-never-grown-up man of power. It would be a comedy that would make Woody Allen proud. I think this play is marvelous. I'm just looking at the pieces, that's all. Please, I'm not trying to cure Lear himself. But some among us (me included) could take the tale as the warning that it is. It's solution is a very poor one for real life.

I'd rather not polarize it like that, Setanta. Although, I agree with you that my observation there is supportable by the text. But we're all trying to make sense of the play from our own perspectives.

How do you see it?

My personal perspective is that the ending doesn't present itself as a 'solution' at all, much like Anna Karenina jumping in front of that train...just a warning, a message, for those consumed with the double-edged sword of hubris and despair, like Lear.

I speak of "solutions" as a methods to manage conflict, as you say in this particular instance between hubris and despair. It is a solution, a poor one. But I see it as Lear's attempt to manage the pain he's feeling. I see it, and I think demonstrably so, as a act committed by Lear himself. I don't see it as a punishment alone, I guess is another way of saying it. It's self punishment. So it's a punishment ok, but it's also an attempt to defend against the misery caused by Lear's actions. And it also, is a gratification of Lear's wish to maintain control to the end. And another wish too which I'll have to think about........let me see, something having to do with libido and aggression. What could it be?

Are you suggesting that Lear had a thing for Cordelia beyond the average 'fatherly' love? Hmmm...

Interesting thought, Cav. Actually I was just at lunch with a friend who had a book he wanted to talk to me about. There was an entire chapter dedicated to Lear. This fellow's idea about the play is that Lear does put his daughters on the spot when he makes them compete for his favor. It has incestuous tones, doesn't it? But no, I'm talking only about wishes in this respect. He does not treat his daughters like daughters, however, he treats them like concubines, now that I think about it. And he forces them into a competitive situation which is naturally occurring enough without father making it worse. Girls need fathers to help them leave home and find someone like Daddy. Not have Daddy himself. Actually, this author my friend was telling me about also said that the girls repeat with Edmond the relationship they have with their father. All this fits with a thought I've been having about this play since this thread began. Which is where's Mom? She's not mentioned. Absent entirely. Suggesting a oedipal situation is at play, and oedipal winners have a difficult time being adults because their solution has to be to remain a child with Daddy (or a tyrant). Interesting thought. I hadn't actually put that together myself.

Here's another thought I have that I'll just say. The temptation here, by some, may be to see Lear as a villian. But I don't think Shakespeare saw him in this way. I think Shakespeare has developed a character, caught in the realities of his life, he is indeed a tragic figure from the beginning.

I'm not trying to polarize, Lola, and forgive me if you feel "used" by what i wrote. I simply mean that the other interpretations offered are inferential, but that the line you wrote which i quoted is demonstrable. I'm not trying to deny what the others have written, only to say that your assessment there is evident in the text.

My interpretation could best be expressed by that line of yours--so i'd be gilding the lily to try any more elaborate explanation. I've not given this work the depth of analysis which BL has done, so i'd rather not challenge him nor shout amen.

And yet, Setanta, you made an excellent observation. And I agree that it is demonstratable. And I didn't feel used at all.

I think another strength of Lear is that he is not a villain, (although I can see how one could take him that way), but a true tragic figure, as Lola suggested. Perhaps it would be helpful to look at the opening of the play as Lear really believing he was doing the right thing by his daughters, but not being able to see the forest through the trees....that would support Lola's theory of a man caught in the realities of life. The incest theory would make for interesting theatre, but perhaps it goes deeper than that...

And I guess I should confess right now that I haven't read the play either. Actually, I never even had a course in Shakespeare, which I regret. I signed up for a course once, but the professor was a complete jerk and kept pissing me off, so I fired him and dropped the class. I wish I had time to read the play now, but I don't and I really have to go back to writing my cases for graduation, or I'll be sorry. But I do have a great little Sparknotes book here beside me that I read from cover to cover. The truth is out now.

Oy Vey! Well...you can always rent 'Ran'.

I'll check it out, Cav. Thanks. Now I'm going back to work. If you see me here again before one hour has passed, yell at me please.