Who Else Loves King Lear?

If you were to take the time when available to you, Miss Lola, to read his plays, my experience, and i had a double major in history and English literature at university, is that you can do quite as well on your own reading ol' Snakeshit, as you ever would in a survey course. It takes a very thorough knowledge of history and culture to textually analyze his work, and even in the days of my callow youth, i could spot that the profs often, i might even say usually, had it wrong.

A glaring example, and one usually missed by those who haven't done their history homework: Ol' Will makes a thorough-going villian of Richard III. He makes him out to have been ugly and hunch-backed. However, contemporary portraits show a man who, if not an Adonis, was certainly not ugly; and a man with ordinary posture. When Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, defeated Richard III and make himself King Henry VII, he married Elizabeth of York, to obviate and end the struggle between the Lancastrians and Yorkists. However, he was descended from a bastard daughter of John of Gaunt, so his claim to the throne was somewhat more tenuous than the others who had made claim during the wars of the roses. Proto-propagandists throughout the Tudor era, but especially during the sycophancy of the reign of Henry VIII, did their very best to smear the Yorkists, and especially Richard III. Ol' Will wrote in the reign of Elizabeth I, and of James I, who was descended from Margaret Tudor, the daughter of Henry VII. He followed the by-then well honored tradition of praising the "usurpers" (i.e., Henry Bolingbroke--King Henry IV, and Henry Tudor--King Henry VII), and excoriating the evil Richard. Yet i never once heard of "professional" in any course which touched upon the "historical plays" take note of this propaganda job. Richard was likely responsible for the murder of his two nephews, Edward V and the Duke of York, then respectively 12 and 10 years of age. This makes him a bad man no doubt, but no worse than other monarchs and aristocrats of the era, and little different than his brother, Edward IV, who had murdered Henry VI to secure his own position on the throne.

The story of Lear comes from the History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth, who in turn took his material from a monk named Nennius. What makes the plays such as King Lear, MacBeth and Hamlet interesting is that, unlike the historical plays--in which the author indulges in propagandizing, and panders to the public's love of "buckets of blood" plays--the author examines human psychology in an age when the term was unknown. The power of the language makes these works worth the reading, even if one delves no further--the reward is richer when one considers the accuity with which the author sees human nature, and the conflicts which arise within. Combine the two, and you achieve what he describes himself in A Midsummer Night's Dream:

The poet's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;
And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen
Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.

Will gave us "all that glisters is not gold," "the quality of mercy is not strained," "to die, to sleep, to sleep, perchance to dream"--he gave us so much which has endured in our language and imaginations, even when we know it not, that his eternal fame is virtually assured. Although looked down upon in the generations immediately after his death, he was "rehabilitated" after about 1700, and his stature has grown ever since, and with very good reason, he was truly "worth his salt." Once again, the greatest fascination his work holds is in its analysis of the human character, his glorification of man, as well as his investigation of the depths of the "soul."

"What a piece of work is man!
How noble in reason!
How infinite in faculties!
In form and moving, how express and admirable!
In action how like an angel!
In apprehension, how like a god!
The beauty of the world!
The paragon of animals!
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?
Man delights not me; no, nor woman neither,
Though by your smiling you seem to say so."

In this passage from Hamlet, he both expresses his glorious view of human nature, and that despair of human nature which denies its own potential.

Read it, Boss, you're too smart to need anyone to elucidate for you the value of what was written.

Game, set and match, methinks...

I'll read it, Set, as a matter of fact, I have plans to read it soon with a dear friend. But first I have to finish my case writing in order to graduate. Thanks for the compliment and the advice. I don't suggest, by confessing my literary deficit regarding Shakespeare, that a reading of a Sparknotes will substitute for the real thing. Not at all. But I had to have some idea of the plot and characters, or I'd have to just sit by the sidelines and watch. I just hate doing that. We'll each discuss this play from the perspective of our own area of expertise. Your knowledge of history is enriching. And I always look forward to it. I'm enjoying this thread so far. And I appreciate the opportunity to add my two cents. Many of us have a lot of expertise to share. As well as the wisdom gained from living. Hey, it's an information exchange, isn't it, Craven?

Lit crit as competition? What's up with you set? You got a bigger weewee too? Take a look at the play again. Take the first act alone and count up the pagan allusions and compare that count to any other play. Or, go through and note the references to sexuality associated with Goneril, Regan and Edmund, then compare with Cordelia and Edgar. Or, note the dialogue written for Glouchester and compare to the stoic texts floating around at the time. No interpretation of a Shakespeare play is 'right' but you'd be simply demonstrating your own paucity of study of this play and the crit on it to suggest the notions I forwarded have no textual basis.

Yep - I have to agree with Blatham - the play is bursting with religious references - "christian" and "t'other".

Lola - I so do not agree that we can interpret Lear as in your first post about the matter - and take away the sins and make it all an internal psychodrama - (I know your interpretation gets richer as you go along - I wonder how much it will change as you read the play?) - but I am still perking on the post I read just before I went to sleep.

Gloucester has REALLY sinned! You must consider the times. He has created a son with no proper place in the world, who must, despite his brightness, be hidden away - "Away he shall again - the king is coming". He has ruined a woman - with no virginity, her chances are slim of making a good marriage - the only way to live for women, who had no property rights. He treats all of this very lightly - laughs at it and at his conception in front of Edmund himself- is there much wonder Edmund hates his legitimate brother, who shall have everything, and the father who speaks thus in front of his son?:

Kent: I cannot conceive you.

Gloucester: Sir, this young fellow's mother could; whereupon she grew round-wombed, and had, sir, a son for her cradle ere she had a husband for her bed. Do you smell a fault?

Kent: I cannot wish the fault undone, the issue of it being so proper.

Gloucester: But I have a son, sir, by order of law, some year elder than this, who is yet no dearer in my account: though this knave came something saucily to the world before he was sent for, yet was his mother fair, there was good sport at his making, and the whoreson must be acknowledged.

We have a mirrot of Lear - not a bad man - but an insensitive and foolish one - with little understanding of his impact on others - "blind" in such matters. We have, also, the "sin" of seeing human relationships in money terms - (again a mirror of Lear, who seeks flattery and rewards it with land) - "dearer in my account" -echoed by Regan in her "I am made of that self-same metal as my sister, and prize me at her worth".

Lear really sins by casting his daughter out - in a petulant fury - to an unknown fate - it is only France's honour and love - in the face of a lost dowry and alliance with power (very important at a time of dynastic marriages) - which saves her from a similar blasted heath.

He banishes Kent - again a terrible betrayal of the relationship between lord and retainer - which was a little like parent and child in its duties and emotional content (as king and country).

I think analytic criticism has a place - and an interesting one - in literary analysis - but to think it can encompass a writer like Shakespeare is like thinking we can contain a lake in a teacup.

Deb,

I'm not quite sure how you got the idea that I think psychoanalytic criticism can "encompass a writer like Shakespeare" what ever that means. And it's interesting that you believe it has an interesting place. That's really big of you. But I'm not criticizing anything. I'm simply making my own observations which as far as I'm concerned are not it opposition to anything. So I don't know what you've got your back up about.

I agree with Blatham as well that the play is full of religious references, Christian and otherwise and I haven't suggested we take away sins and make it into anything. It's a play about people. You'll see certain aspects about it and others will see others. There is a flavor of competition on this thread that I find unpleasant and I think unnecessary. But I suppose it's inevitable such things develop in a community of people.

It happens that I don't think in terms of "sins" and punishment. These are ideas, in my opinion that have led mankind into many wars and it's still going on today. But I don't mind if you prefer to think of the play in this way. Please feel free to elaborate.

The play or any other story, dream or whatever is a vehicle, that's what makes it so compelling and useful. But there's no right or wrong way to read it. Whatever Shakespeare meant, I have no idea, and I don't think you have any inside information that gives you an answer to that question either. Perhaps we are speaking about a philosophy of living, one Blatham introduced in his early comments and to which I was addressing my comments.

The characters are all human beings who have made certain decisions in their lives and these actions and ways of functioning have set certain events into motion. I don't see them as sins, but rather as methods the characters are using to get what they want. Through the ages there has been the tendency to see "fate" as something imposed from the outside. From God or whatever.

What this play means is an entirely personal matter to each of us and I thought we were sharing our points of view. If I spoke in any way that made you think otherwise, I apologize and perhaps we could all go out and come back in again and begin a discussion about perspective rather than right and wrong.

Lola, I am NOT arguing for my, or any other interpretation of the play - I am arguing for multiplicity.

This is what you said:

The tragedy in the play is the result of the character's inability to accept themselves in their ambivalence toward each other. It's a frustrating and unsatisfying conclusion for me.

This DID sound as though you were making a declaration about the meaning of the thing. My back isn't up - I am simply saying what I think - and what I think is that is a part of the meaning, as so many other things are. Shakespeare DID at least partly, think in terms of sin.

I didn't say you were wrong - I said I do not THINK we can interpret the play solely in that way.

I was sharing what I think.

It seems that you do not think we can, either. Fine.

I am used to fairly vigorous debate about such things - it has been one of the most pleasant pursuits of my life. I am sorry you found my post offensive. It was not meant to be - nor was I offended by your post. I just disagreed. I agree this is not a competition - I do not see it as such - but I do find it fun to disagree vigorously.

What I mean, by the way, by "encompass a writer like Shakespeare" is the long attempt by psychoanalytic criticism to do just that with literature. As a school, its proponents DID try to see everything through this lens - it was very fashionable at one point.- as were the the likes of Marxist Lit Crit etc. Literary criticism is littered with such attempts - all with valid points, I believe - yet none sufficient. My view, for what it is worth, is that there is not a sngle lens that encompasses anything.

Your point about the meaning of the play being entirely personal is an interesting one - and the subject of many learned tomes.

I do not agree with it fully, as it happens. We DO have a play before us - it contains certain words - it is embedded within a certain culture and time - a culture of which we are the great great grandchildren - I think there can be entirely off the wall interpretations, and more likely ones.

We have a history and community of readers and interpretations - we do not really come to the play as new astronauts to a foreign planet - this is NOT a go at you - I think it is a very interesting point to raise - and one about which, hopefully, there will be little agreement.

My statement about the play having personal meaning may be the subject of many learned tombs, of which I have not had the privilege to read. But be that as it may, for the record, I'm not talking about what the play really means in it's historical context. I'll leave that up to you and the others who know about such things. I'm not even going to get into a debate about what the play means to anyone but me. This is not a class room or a formal debate. It's a community of people who, I thought were sharing expertise. If you mean by your comments above that I am not qualified to comment or that my comments lack validity because I'm not knowledgeable enough about all these community of readers and interpretations, that I'm like an astronaut on a foreign planet, then I disagree with you.

I also enjoy vigorous debate as well and I hope we will find it here. But what I will be debating will be the philosophical questions Blatham raised and others that come up. I agree that American psychoanalysis has been very arrogant in it's heyday and this was a part of the development of the movement which has hurt psychoanalysis. Things are much different now. And maybe we can clear the air by saying that I'm not suggesting any claim to truth. I'm not an English major and don't perhaps know as much as you do about literary criticism and it's history. But I do know psychoanalysis, and I'm going to be seeing the play from that perspective.

Sigh - it seems we will not be able to communicate about this, Lola, if you are actually at the point of thinking I was saying you were not qualified to comment or was wanking about my knowledge. I ask you why YOUR back is so up - if one is up.

Yes, I know something of this stuff, because I studied it for years, because I loved it so much - I will show this knowledge, for what it is worth, when I talk, as I do any knowledge I have about other things.

I also know psychoanalytic thought - though I have not specialised as you do. I do not get defensive when you show your knowledge about it - I appreciate it. Look at the play through any lens you wish - I will disagree if I do not agree - just as I hope you and anyone else will with me, if this poor thread survives.

Not a formal debate or classroom? Does this mean we just agree with each other? Is that discussion?

Personally, I like it when people disagree with me with knowledge.

I like that too, dlowan. so let's get on with it.

Actually, speaking of literary criticism and its ists and isms (about which I know shamefully little, as it happens, having almost totally refused to read any when I was studying, which I now see as a really dumb move, by the way, but that is a whole other story) - has anyone else read the delightful "The Pooh Perplex"?

It is a satire on the then major schools of literary criticism - posing as a collection of essays on "Winnie the Pooh" from the point of view of each of the dominant theories - Marxist, analytic etc...it is absolutely hilarious!

It is time for a new one- deconstructionism is longing, I am sure, for a gadfly!

Bah on literary criticism as a concept....huge waste of time mulling through those dry texts...all the points made about Lear here are valid, that's the strength of it. Now Lola has promised to read the actual text....a wise decision. Better even, read it out loud, get absorbed in the beauty of the language itself. Look at how the language changes when characters talk in a state of madness. The iambic pentameter disintegrates into simple prose (a Shakespeare convention). Enjoy! :cool:

I'm looking forward to it Cav. That'll be my reward for completing my work. It's hard to postpone sometime so enticing. But I do have a pretty enticing bit of work here as well. I'm enjoying that too. And these discussions are a very nice break in between. If only I had more hours in the day and a life that would go on forever.........................

A given with Shakespeare is that the works are somehow so broadly reflective of the human condition that any number of interpretations can be argued compellingly. And it is also the case that lit crit is strewn with one-size-fits-all dogmas. I haven't read Pooh Perplex, deb, but there's definitely a target for satire there. There was a version of feminist decontructivism happening in a corner of our English department which I thought a proper target for cream pie terrorism.

Freudian theory likely can give us valuable insights into choices an author makes, as I think we are all agreed. And it won't encompass all tools and means of understanding, as deb points out and as I think we are also agreed. (Editor's note: the preceding does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of this site, and is rather better understood as the author waving hello at two of his favorite ladies on the site).

I always find Shakespeare easier to understand when I read it aloud.

[size=7]Freudian theory providing insight? <<sacrifice lambs - make sign of cross - spit - do anything>>[/size]

Like I've said before anyone who has taken high school English knows that as long as you show you have read the book and use proper English to support your opinion you get an A.

Everything else is usually just projecting.

The wisdom of what craven just said was what made me drop a couple of semesters of English. I'd read so far ahead of most of my instructors ... they kept giving me A's - I suspect they didn't understand the words I was using (telling them they were idiots, but they kept missing the point)... blechhhhh.

Crap. Well, mainly crap.

Well, might be true in high school, though I never gave A's (in my brief teaching career) for such work, but, as I have said, I do not believe 'tis purely subjective, any more than many other things are - there is a text, and you would want to put up a good argument for a particular interpretation in MY class - LOL! I do not, of course, deny subjectivity - but i do deny that subjectivity is all.