Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
September: King Lear
Oops, Candy, ha, ha! You suggested me and I said I was happy to do it if it started no earlier mid September, but I consider myself no expert and if anyone else wants to do it instead, that's fine by me...By the way, everyone, Lucinda is the same person as the one who headed the 'All's Well' discussion, also called Jessica, can't remember what name I did that one under...
Mod
I don't think a discussion leader needs to be an expert. Actually it might interesting to see what others expected or don't exect from a discussion leader.
I like it if someone shows up every day or two and posts something...even if it's just a quick thought. Anything to help the discussion keep moving or going.
I like the idea of just seeing where different people either insert some information, links, any ideas or work or thoughts relevant to the play. I don't see a hard line definition. The main thing I hope for is someone showing up. I think it's a learning curve position of participation too.
wise words, Cadny, though as I say, I'll be happy to hand over to anyone who particularly wants to do it.
Looking forward to the discussion in the latter part of September, then?
Away for five days, back on here soon....
Mod
Hi Lucinda, Candy. I probably won't join this one, but look forward to following the discussion.
Looking forward to it. Cordelia is one of my favourite Shakespeare heroines.
Lucinda wrote: "Looking forward to it. Cordelia is one of my favourite Shakespare heroines."
Even though she starts out being a bit of a twerp?
Hello,Eveyman, you're starting early on the discussion!I don't see Cordelia as being 'a twerp'; I've always had a love for people of integrity who don't go in for grovelling in the right quarters, against their own self interest. I see her as being blunt and tactless, and not prepared to demean herself to flatter the foolish old man. I remember a critic saying that Rosalind would have found a way round the problem with wit, but that isn't part of Cordelia's nature.
I think it's worth asking if King Lear would have expected such nonsensical effusions from a son, though I take the point he would have inherited it all without question.
Lucinda wrote: "Hello,Eveyman, you're starting early on the discussion!"Oops! Sorry, I missed seeing the schedule, just saw that the thread header said September. I'll wait to explain my view until the right time.
My daughter goes back to University on Friday and after that, I'll be all set to go. I've read the first two scenes.
Mod
I'm so glad to see Lucinda, Everyman and REDD.
I'm going to do my best to join you all, if that's alright. I've been woefully negligent with my Shakespeare Project for the year and need to try to finish well. This read will hopefully get me started!
Mod
I understand among our group are people who do not like this play. I believe that only adds to the chemistry of our group reading!
Mod
Frye does recommend trying to read the play as if you have no idea what is going to happen...
Got to read this, then, Candy!
Candy wrote: "Yes, Cleo! The more the merrier...diverse opinions and insights add to the discussion in my opinion...."
I've read King Lear once and so far it's my favourite Shakespeare play, so I'll be in the fan section! :-)
I started to read your link, but you're right, there are quite a few spoilers. Frye's essay is interesting but I could tell from the way he was speaking about religion and a few other topics that he seemed to be approaching the play from a modern perspective. I like to try to slip on the shoes of an Elizabethan first to see if I can understand and appreciate the work through their eyes (or as close as I can get) and then put my modern shoes back on so I can compare both.
I have The Life and Works of William Shakespeare (1911) by William Henry Oliphant Smeaton, and if you read some of his commentary on the plays, the perceptions can differ wildly from a modern commentary. The comparisons prove interesting .......
Okay, it's the official start (Sept 18), so I can explain why I think, in the beginning of the play, Cordelia is a twerp.We have to start by understanding what this opening scene is about. It is a highly ceremonial event, the transfer of power, a king at his peak turning over his power to his children, and ready to bask in a final orgy of ceremonial praise before existing the state. Or, in modern terms, the of president of a family held business which he has built up over many decades finally holding his retirement dinner, getting his gold watch, formally turning the management over to his children, and retiring to his condo on the golf course.
The speeches are supposed to be as formalistic as the event. They are intended to send him off in a glow of good feeling, so that he feels good about handing over the reins of power.
Regan and Goneril know this, and they fulfill their roles. Everybody there knows that they are about as sincere as the son whose father has FINALLY decided to turn the company over to him praising his father's leadership, generosity, etc., when he has been just itching for the past ten years to finally put his seat on his father's chair, or in this case throne.
But Cordelia throws a monkey wrench into the whole affair. She is smart enough to know what this is about, but she won't play ball. She's the daughter at her father's funeral who, when put at the podium to say her piece, "I can't say anything good about my dad." huh?? She's the sister of the bride at the wedding who, called on to give a toast, says she doesn't feel like toasting her sister.
King Lear has set up this wonderful retirement dinner, all the board of directors and the senior management are standing around admiringly, coming up to him and singing their praises in his ears when the day before they were ready thwart his plan to do so and such. But this is a formal occasion, he'll be riding off into the sunset, and it's time to act happy and nice however you feel underneath.
So. Bill Gates is bowing out, and he brings his three children around, and says to the first, "here's one third of my stock I offer to you. What do you say?" And the first one praises him and say how much she loves him even when they just had a big argument only last week. But this is bow out, so it's time to make nice and make with the gracious speech. So she walks off with one-third of Bill's stock. So with the second. But the third -- Bill says "here's your block of stock worth 8 billion bucks, what do you have to say?" and she says "nothing, dad."
How to deflate a father. How to make him look stupid in front of the whole family, the whole board of director and management of the company. Way to destroy what was intended to be one of the high points of his life. And she just says "nothing, dad."
That's what I call total twerpdom.
Interesting points, Everyman. Ha, Ha, would you believe I haven't heard the term 'twerp' these twenty years - have even got rusty about what precisely it means enough to look it up, just remembering it vaguely as a term of ridicule. 'A foolish or contemptbile person'. Hmm. I can see that Cordelia is foolish, but in acting against her self interest so blatently, she is hardly contemptible?
I believe the view you take of the scene is more widespread since the era where Cordelia was seen as almost saint like has passed.
Cordelia certainly acts as a courtier - and of course, particularly a female one - isn't expected to do, and she acts against her self interest. Of course, opinions vary on how far her bluntness is admirable. I've always admired it myself, and the outspokeness of Kent and the King of France, other straightforward people.
In an era where the King was absolute and daughters were meant to be dutiful above everything, the shock value of that 'nothing' must have been remarkable. It's tactless, for sure - Cordelia 'cannot heave her heart into her mouth'. As I quoted above, some critic, I think maybe
E M W Tillyard, points out that Rosalind would have found a way round it with wit, but Cordelia is made of different stuff.
But it's interesting that the King of France isn't shocked when he finds out what this offence is, which has caused her fall from favour: -
'Is it no more than this? -a tardiness of nature,
Which often leaves the history unspoke
that it intends to do?'
Because I have a distrust all public displays of 'love' and 'deep emtoion' I'm biased, here. It seems almost a dark age equivalent of crying on television; a performance, false emotion all about.
Often - though not invariably, it's true - bluntness often goes with integrity if a certain amount of social awkwardness.
It does humiliate Lear - but it has always seemed odd to me that he never noticed Cordelia's inability to flatter before. The fact that he expects it now, that he falls out with his old friend Kent, arguably points to some sort of mental deterioration on his part.
In the introduction to the Arden edition I have here, they remark that a King's daughter was expected to write in a highly obsequious style to him , quoting a letter from King James' daughter after her marriage, not worth repeating here but redolent of the hollow richness of the rehearsed speeches of Goneril and Reagan.
I've always been moved by the 'hot blooded' King of France's acceptance of Lear's offer to him of the dowerless Cordelia, who has just been humiliated in turn by the Duke of Burgundy: -
'Fairest Cordelia, that art most rich being poor,
Most choice foresaken and most loved despised,
Thee and thy virtues here I seize upon...'
That may be a public declaration of affection, but he's been goaded to it by the way she is abused, and it comes across as sincere to me and I find that a very nice part of the scene, a lovely contrast to the stark tragedy of the play.
Before we get too far into the play, could we touch on the opening scene where a second plot in the play is introduced.Thank you, Virginia
So true, Virginia. My own take on this is tht Gloucester comes across as really insensitiive, a bit purile, here, with his jokes about Edmund's mother in his hearing (I assume it's meant to be): -
'She grew round wombed, and had, indeed,sir, a son for her cradle ere she had a husband for her bed. Do you smell a fault?' Kent shows some sensitivity in trying to spare Edmund's feelings with his praise of him, and then Gloucester says that he is going to be sent away again, having 'been out nine years'. It is a very clever beginning for the play, providing the motive for Edmund's bitterness against his father and his villainies.
Virginia wrote: "n an era where the King was absolute and daughters were meant to be dutiful above everything, the shock value of that 'nothing' must have been remarkable. It's tactless, for sure - Cordelia 'cannot heave her heart into her mouth'. "Which is a strange thing for her to say, because, and I hope this isn't a spoiler, we'll see further along that she is perfectly able to heave her heart into her mouth when she chooses to.
Lucinda wrote: "It does humiliate Lear - but it has always seemed odd to me that he never noticed Cordelia's inability to flatter before. The fact that he expects it now, that he falls out with his old friend Kent, arguably points to some sort of mental deterioration on his part."That's a nicely debatable question. Is he starting to deteriorate at this stage of the play?
I don't see it, personally. He is in complete control during the opening scenes. If you look at the scenes where he's present, except for the asides of Cordelia, every speech is made either by or to him. There is no chit-chat, no discussion between the people present. Lear is and commands the center of attention. I see him as a king at his height of power saying that he has brought the kingdom to peace and prosperity, has shepherded the ship of state safely through storms and past shoals and brought it into port, and now he can lay down the burden of command, turn it over to the next generation, and enjoy a well earned retirement.
Where he goes wrong, of course, is that he was so busy ruling the kingdom that he didn't learn to understand his own children. Which I think is not unusual for those who take on the responsibilities of commanding large companies or enterprises or countries. He is so accustomed to being obeyed,he sees it as his absolute due and the proof of his authority and power, that when he isn't, he quite understandably flies off the handle, goes off the deep end.
But I don't see this as representing mental deterioration. Quite the contrary.
Well, there's two intriguingly different interpretations, then, Everyman! I'll be interested to see how others see Cordelia and Lear. Virginia, re my post above, what do you make of the opening scene yourself? I think it is one of many examples of how Shakespeare begins a play getting right to the heart of the matter and setting out the sources of conflict at once.
Candy, that Nortrop Frye piece on King Lear - was it in his book on eleven plays interpreted? Or was it an article online?
The conflict is certainly immediate here. Gloucester humiliates Edmund in front of Kent. Lear humiliates Cordelia publicly.
Virginia wrote: "Lear humiliates Cordelia publicly. "Yes. But only after she humiliates him first.
It is interesting that Lear was willing to give a third of his kingdom to an unmarried woman. It's true that he hand is sought by both Burgundy and France, but she is not married to either yet, and can an unmarried woman of her age really hold on to her kingdom? I would think it was a risk.
Mod
You all continue to inspire me.
I feel I understand exactly why Cordelia responds the wY she does....
However....for me it's not YET about Cordelia.
It's about what Lear does...it's about whether or not it's at all appropriate for him to set this up.
I feel there is a deep mystery about what is love. What is family love. What are the rituals and manners we use to conduct communication within family. Contrasted with the social structures and pressures of society.
In most cases...the world of this time for Lear permits him to behave as such. He is a patriarch in a patriarchs world.
Is this the only choice we have....as children...as parents? To expect that because it's a mans world we must accept the structures as is....is love only expressed in one way with a time constraint?
Lear believes it is totally fine for love to be set within the social constrains of economy and power.... I suspect that Cordelia feels love is a power all of it's own with it's own vast diverse patterns.
I have only this to day at this moment....this is a mystery about family love.
Virginia - I so agree about how Edmund's being humiliated in front of Kent by Gloucester's lascivious comments - dismally inappropriate, particularly at his age - sets off the course of events. I mustn't write a spoiler or get too far ahead in the discussion at this point, but one of Edmund's last comments seems to show that he has always felt unloved, and finds it almost astounding when he realizes how much he could be loved.Tragedy indeed.Cordelia is certainly humiliated by Lear as a punishment for what he experiences as humiliation from her.I don't see it as deliberate on her part, but I gather Everyman does or anyway sees it as deliberate awkwardness? Candy: I so agree about those interpretations of love from Lear and Cordelia, and they're bound to clash - it's startling they haven't before. He's one insensitive absolute patriarchal ruler!
Everyman: Interesting; I suppose Lear can only see the public humiliation and sees Cordelia's taciturn response as deliberate awkwardness. Some may agree, though I personally don't see it that way. But on the issue of Lear's being in full control, even the Plantagenets, whose tempers were so bad that they were rumoured to be descended from the devil, only rarely went in for displays of public rage (one such outburst leading to the assassination of Beckett). After all, it detracts from the appearance of power, of being in control. Of course, some overbearing types go in for displays of apparent rage which have nothing to do with really losing their tempers, but Lear in his quarrel with Kent doesn't give that impression here. About Cordelia's vulnerability as an unmarried woman, as both the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy have been fairly persistent in their offers for Cordelia by the sound of things, I suppose Lear doesn't see it as much of a risk to give her an equal share of the inheritance.
Lear is eighty, I believe; I wonder if that was the eqiuvalent of a hundred years old or more at that time?
I have always wondered if we are to take Lear as already mad (or always had been?)It seems like all his relationships are poor--he has two self-absorbed daughters, and one testy relationship with the only decent one. He doesn't seem to respect anyone. A fool?? Recurring idea in the play to watch for.
I wasn't quite finished with The Tempest but here we go with King Lear. I've only read the first part of Act I.The opening scene with the Earl Gloucester and his son Edmund and the Earl of Kent is a little perplexing to me as Gloucester is quite insensitive to the feelings of his illegitimately born son Edmund and yet claims to Kent to love Edmund no less than his elder son born 'by order of law' as he puts it.
Shakespeare is suggesting to me that it is not right to put anyone down just because of the 'accident' of their birth and also that it is wrong that people in power should do this.
The Earl of Kent surprisingly says then to Edmund,
"I must love you, and sue to know you better". We want to know what that is all about.
This all sets up well for the entrance of King Lear and his daughters as the theme of this next scene continues to be apparently (or is it?) about family values.
Lear immediately commences to, as he says, "express our darker purpose". And dark it is to demand that your own children compete for your love, and the reward for best expression of 'love' being a 'more opulent' share of the kingdom. Is this not sick right from the start? Is this not King Lear the not well? I think it is. And so does the Earl of Kent and so I think do most of the audience, Elizabethan or modern.
Cordelia is the most loving of the daughters of her mad father, and the Earl of Kent is most loving of his king, Lear, and for this they are punished.
Lear has also expressed favoritism for Cordelia in front of the other sisters. That is sick too.
James wrote: "I wasn't quite finished with The Tempest but here we go with King Lear. I've only read the first part of Act I.The opening scene with the Earl Gloucester and his son Edmund and the Earl of Kent is..."
Oh--yes--maybe that's why Cordelia does what she does in ACT I: the child is teaching the father that favoritism is wrong and will breed ill.
If that is so then the father is not learning. Why does Lear do what he does in the first act? is more the question to me. Cordelia's response to her father's twisted proposition seems to me to be honest and true.
Tracy wrote: "I have always wondered if we are to take Lear as already mad (or always had been?)It seems like all his relationships are poor--he has two self-absorbed daughters, and one testy relationship with the only decent one. "
I don't see him as mad (in the crazy sense; mad in the angry sense he certainly is) at this point.
He's been busy ruling his kingdom; the implication seems to be that he has brought the kingdom to a status of peace where it is safe to turn it over to inexperienced hands. But that might mean that all his attention over the past years was focused on saving the kingdom, which would explain why he didn't have time or energy to establish a strong bond with his married daughters (who have both married men who want to take over the kingship and so have good reason to have over time weaned their wives away from affection to their father). Though I also agree that by nature they are hostile to him.
One does wonder where his wife, their mother is? (Or mothers are?? Are they all siblings of one mother? We're never told, but one can't assume it of that day and age.)
When I read Goneril and Regan's hyperbolized speeches in Ii, I can't help but think---this is the same writer who skewered writers of hyperbolic "descending catalogue" sonnets in Sonnet 130:My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun.
Coral is far more red than her lips red;
If snow be white, why, then, her breasts are dun,
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask'd, red and white,
But no such roses seeI in her cheeks,
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
Music hath a more pleasing sound ,
I grant I never saw a goddess go,
My mistress, when she walks treads the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare
Plus there's the over the top --yuck factor of saying this all to your FATHER, old widower tho he may be--which Cordelia herself hints.
I haven't time to join the whole Lear read, but I would like quickly to suggest that Lucinda, Virginia and James (like Coleridge, so they are in good company) have misread the opening lines. Edmund stands apart on the other side of the stage, and does not hear Gloucester and Kent talking about him. With "Do you know this noble gentleman, Edmund?" Gloucester draws him forward to be introduced, after which they exchange pleasantries in a conventional way. But Edmund does hear "away he shall again", which is of course important.
Everyman wrote: "Tracy wrote: "I have always wondered if we are to take Lear as already mad (or always had been?)It seems like all his relationships are poor--he has two self-absorbed daughters, and one testy rel..."
About mothers in the last two Shakepseare plays we have discussed. In the Taming of the Shrew Kate and her sister have no mentioned mother and in the Tempest yet again it is a father and daughter scenario. I don't know. Was it the awkward mechanics of older women being portrayed on Elizabethan stage that caused Shakespeare to cut out the mothers wherever possible?
Mod
And a missing mother is an efficient way to highlight patriarchy.
Mod
http://calshakes.org/blog/2012/05/whe...
Martin: That is a fascinating point. Are there any surviving stage directions which might indicate whether or not Edmund does hear Gloucester's purile remarks? In my Heinmann addition, the editor seems to take as a matter of course that Edmund does hear him, and in the Arden edition the editor leaves it open, merely remarking that 'If Edmund hears his father's coarse jesting and boasting it might account for his later behavior' so seemingly, as with so many of Shakespeare's stage directions, it may be open to doubt? Candy: Your point about so many women dying in childbirth and this being reflected in the plays is very apt! Your quote about the lack of guidance from mother type figures for the young woman overall is so true and maybe their independence does stem partly from that. I was just thinking that there is an influential mother figure in the plays whom I think of at once, Bertram's mother the Countess, also Helena's foster mother in 'All's Well That Ends Well' but she is unusual. Who, I wonder, would have played her? A mother figure, playing the traditional female role, would have been a softening influence on them all, perhaps, and made Goneril and Reagan less hard hearted and Cordelia less blunt and possibly,Lear less choleric?
'
Tracy wrote: "I have always wondered if we are to take Lear as already mad (or always had been?)I think it would be a mistake to see Lear as insane in this scene, because it would make him a pathetic rather than a tragic figure. I also agree with Candy that this scene is about Lear, not about Cordelia. She provides the stimulus to his action, but it is his rash decision to disinherit her and to put himself in the power of his other two daughters that sets the tragedy in motion.
He is not mad so much as guilty of a kind of hubris -- he dangles his property before his daughters and expects them to fall on their knees and adore him like angels before God, and when one refuses to show sufficient obeisance he casts her out of heaven like Lucifer.
Cordelia seems to me to be much purer in her intentions. She's clearly worried about the reaction her behavior will get from her father, but says what she does because she feels she must, and because she believes that if she is true to herself and to her morals she will eventually be vindicated because the truth of her cause will be so obvious to everyone.
She is willing to sacrifice her livelihood for the sake of the truth, whereas Lear is willing to sacrifice his family for the satisfaction of his own ego.
Bobby wrote: "Tracy wrote: "I have always wondered if we are to take Lear as already mad (or always had been?)I think it would be a mistake to see Lear as insane in this scene, because it would make him a path..."
Great points,Bobby, that bit about hubris especially and the fact that Lear must be a tragic, rather than a pathetic figure. Of course, as a fully paid up, card holding admirer of Cordelia, I'm bound to agree with you about her good motives...
Everyman wrote: "It is interesting that Lear was willing to give a third of his kingdom to an unmarried woman. It's true that he hand is sought by both Burgundy and France, but she is not married to either yet..."I found it interesting that Cordelia made the statement about dividing her love equally between her father and her husband, when she is the only daughter who is not married.
I also found it curious that Cordelia's references to love all seem to be couched in terms like "bond" and "duty," suggesting that her love is not a spontaneous gift given freely from the heart, but a social obligation imposed upon her, albeit one which she willingly accepts. The statement "I love your majesty / According to my bond; nor more nor less" seems especially cold and calculating.
Martin wrote: "I would like quickly to suggest that Lucinda, Virginia and James (like Coleridge, so they are in good company) have misread the opening lines. Edmund stands apart on the other side of the stage, and does not hear Gloucester and Kent talking about him."I have to admit I had the same impression, that Edmund hears everything his father says from the beginning of the conversation, and that his father is being appallingly insensitive and juvenile.
When Kent says "I cannot wish the fault undone, the issue of it being so proper," he hasn't yet met Edmund, and probably has heard little or nothing of him before now, so he can't have any basis for knowing whether he is "proper" unless he's just referring to Edmund's looks. He seems to me to be making a polite but empty remark to defuse an incredibly awkward moment and to assuage the embarrassment that Edmund must be feeling if he can indeed hear everything that is being said.
Lucinda wrote: "Bobby wrote: "Tracy wrote: "I have always wondered if we are to take Lear as already mad (or always had been?)I think it would be a mistake to see Lear as insane in this scene, because it would m..."
Full blown madness like he shows later--of course not, but definitely one with a little push could go that way. I suppose I am thinking of clinical narcissistic personality disorder, which Lear seems to me to engender.
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/nar...
And--well, kings are allowed....I need to find the parts that show Lear as a good steward of state, as Everyman mentions. Can you find me some good lines for this?
I sometimes =have a tendency to think of Shakespeare characters as so real, they cease to be mere instruments in a plot--but Lear is labeled a tragedy. I suppose he's more of the sort of MacBeth and wife--not entirely likable from the beginning, unlike, say, Hamlet who seems much more sympathetic. Perhaps this is the real reason I don't much feel for this play. My Riverside edition points out this very phenomenon--It is often acclaimed as one of Shakespeare's best made plays, yet is not often liked as a favorite. I think it is Lear himself that is unlikable--due precisely to his narcissism.
Intriguing comments, Tracy! I like the idea of Lear on a psychiatrist's couch...I suppose because in Shakespeare's time a King equaled divine power and the state combined, Lear's treatment is seen by him as truly appalling, whatever his personal shortcomings. One does wonder how with his tendency to lose his temper he ever negotiated with fellow monarchs, etc...
I don't find him very sympathetic somehow, but I have to admit, oh dear, here's that Lucinda disagreeing with you about male characters treatment of women again as she did about Petruchio (I think I've mis-spelt his name) but while this is not the place to discuss it, I didn't find Hamlet any more sympathetic than King Lear, because of his abuse of Ophelia. But another time, another place.
Lucinda, no, there are no stage directions of the "aside" type in S originally. My feeling is that Edmund does not hear the exchange, because (a) he is introduced into the conversation a moment later, (b) Kent has a noble character, and would not engage without protest in such a conversation in the hearing of the bastard child, and (c) Edmund follows his own Nature, and does not require motivation by a sense of injured dignity. In staging the play, I've seen both readings adopted, and both do work.Notice the references to seeing in 1.1
dearer than eyesight ...
the sacred radiance of the sun ...
hence and avoid my sight ...
out of my sight ...
see better Lear ...
the true blank of thine eye ...
a still-soliciting eye ...
nor shall ever see that face of hers again ...
with washed eyes Cordelia leaves you ...
And its opposite is blindness. In his opening words we suspect Gloucester is blind to the truth about those around him as we soon guess that Lear is. Is not this perhaps the way we are meant to take his opening words?
Bobby wrote: "I also found it curious that Cordelia's references to love all seem to be couched in terms like "bond" and "duty," suggesting that her love is not a spontaneous gift given freely from the heart, but a social obligation imposed upon her,... That's a really nice point.
I am just going through a few things and noticed I forgot to add group leader to the King Lear Discussion header here.
For the life f me I can not remember who suggested reading Shakespeare starting in September.
Please let me know if it was you...or if you want to be the group leader for King Lear.
Thanks!
Candy