Uncategorized – Addendum

King Lear Brings the Tears

Shakespeare’s version of King Lear is a tragedy but why? Shakespeare’s King Lear was based on Leire King of England, but the main difference in the drastically different ways the two stories end. During the Shakespearean time-frame, people wanted to see a happy ending, so for William Shakespeare to create such a devastating play was very abnormal. The unique ending of King Lear was very purposeful, the question is why did Shakespeare feel driven to kill off all of the characters? The sad contrast in stories springs from Shakespeare’s ideal ending of Leire King of England.

Shakespeare presents King Lear as a selfish, self-centered, and oblivious king. He puts his own daughters against each other and looks down on the poor, so why should this man deserve a happy ending? In the very first act, King Lear disowns the one child that loves him truly, and it appears that Shakespeare utilizes karma to put the Great King Lear in his place by the end of the play.

King Lear continues to deteriorate mentally and physically until he dies along with all the characters in the end, and Shakespeare uses King Lear’s demise as a teaching moment. The two daughters King Lear allow to receive both land and power are the same daughters that remove the last of the King’s power, and they also mistreat him. King Lear was unloving to Cordella and in return the two daughters allowed to remain in the kingdom were unloving to Lear.

King Lear begins the play very entitled, and he refuses to understand the struggles of those outside of his castle walls, but as his two eldest daughters abuse him and make him feel like an outsider in his own Kingdom, he gains an understanding for the poor and struggling that he would not have gained had this play had a happier ending.

Gloucester also had an intellectual change that resulted from the negativities within the plot. Like King Lear, Gloucester lacked an understanding for those socially ranked below him. He looked at the needy people with a cold heart, and in return his evil eyes were removed from his head. His physical sight was removed, but this violent action allowed for his mental sight to be restores, and Gloucester could finally understand the needs of the poor and alone.

Without the harsh and depressing plot many points Shakespeare would have wanted to make would have been left out, or hard to elaborate upon, but due to the sad nature of the play we as observers can see how the characters begin the play believing they are strong and unstoppable, but the play ends with all the characters dead and consumed by their own evils. This play, though it may be laced with self-destruction and sorrow, can teach the average reader many things about how the evils of man lead to man’s own downfall.

Edmund and Kent

In the first act, we got to witness how bad Goneril and Regan are as not only daughters, but as humans. Pushed by greed and envy, they swindled their father’s trust and dowries through flattery. Seeming to be the antagonists of the story, a third and even worse character is revealed in the second and third acts. The worst of them all, Edmund, proves to be their fearless and completely evil leader in the second part of Shakespeare’s play.
Having read Othello in the past, Iago is the only Shakespearian villain that is eviler than Edmund. Deceptive, cunning, and appearing to have no purpose, Iago causes death by lying to each character in Othello’s story. Like Iago, Edmund is pushed by weak jealousy and desire for purpose. A bastard child, Edmund thinks he is less loved than his brother Edgar, but there is no evidence for this, besides his father calling him certain slang terms for an illegitimate child.
Edmund’s tactics, which include fake letters, feigned swordfights with his good brother, and other lies, eventually lead to the bloodiest scene read so far in the play. Gloucester, a good man, who looks out for the good of his country and family, has his eyes cast out for “treason.” Even after Gloucester makes Edmund “capable” (2.1.86) early in act 2, meaning he will inherit all his property, he still craves more power. This drive for more power pushed by apparently nothing really shows the evil side of Edmund.
One of Edmund’s counterparts, Kent, also reveals himself to be one of the play’s best and most good willed characters in the play. In act 1, he snuffed out Goneril and Regan’s intentions with ease and was not afraid to speak out about it. Now, disguised as a fool, his “anger hath a privilege” (2.2.65). Angered by the evils of other characters, he lashes out at Oswald with insults that would put Nick Cannon’s Wild N’ Out to shame.
Kent’s passionate dialogue, beginning at line 2.2.13 and ending at line 22, sets the tone that this will be a angry, confrontational conversation. As a fan of rap music, I have not seen insults so clever and hilarious as a “one-trunk-inheriting slave” and a “son and heir of a mongrel bitch,” (2.2.17, 2.2.20). The threat “I will beat into a clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition” (2.2.21-2) is both hilarious and intimidating because of its menacing and witty language. It is why Shakespeare is one of my favorite authors of all time.

Paradise Lost, Book 1

Paradise Lost surprised me. Before I read it, I knew that it was an epic poem to do with the fall of humanity into sin. However, I was surprised to find that it focused so much on Satan. In a classic epic, there is always a hero, a protagonist who is usually outlined very early on in the story. This hero is often a proud warrior or leader. In this case, Satan seems to be painted as the hero. His second-in-command Beelzebub calls him as “leader of those armies bright” (line 272), referring to how he led the army of opposition in the war of heaven. Later, Satan calls out “warriors . . . repose your wearied virtue” (lines 316-20) in the way that a valiant, brave general would call out to his troops. This is interesting because Satan is unanimously considered the antagonist in Christian belief. I believe he will turn out to be the antagonist in Paradise Lost, but it is definitely odd that Milton seemed to place Satan in the position of protagonist to begin with.

This is a drawing of Satan in Paradise Lost, depicted as a warrior.

Milton also surprised me by the styling of his epic. He clearly wanted to keep with tradition since he wrote a classic introduction calling to the muse, started the story “in the midst”, and included a catalogue element. However, he peppered some rhyme into it, which is unheard of in epics. Several lines in Satan’s speech rhyme: “tend . . . there . . . offend . . . repair . . . despair” (lines 183-191). This makes me think that Milton didn’t just want to write an epic, he wanted to write the best epic. He wanted his work to stand out and be remembered by adding unique qualities like rhyme and taking on such a daunting, important topic.

Nature of Humanity vs. How Humanity is Nurtured

This past week, I went and saw a unique movie, mother! and read From Death’s Duel by John Donne. Both the movie and the literary piece left me questioning life, death, and the evil nature of humanity. In mother!, the director gives the audience a grotesque plot that describes humankind’s relationship with Mother-Earth. The main characters represent God and Earth. The God character is a creator and a poet, and Mother-Earth is his wife. The couple opens their home to strangers in need, but the strangers turn out to be dear fans of the poet. By the end of the movie, strangers flood the home and ruin everything pure about the perfect paradise the couple live in in hopes of pleasing the poet. The crazed mob even murders the wife’s new-born baby. The strangers had no intention of hurting the baby but show no remorse when the hellish mentality that results from the instinctive nature of humans allows the baby’s neck to be snapped. In mother!, the infant was born into the chaos and brutality of the strangers, and he was immediately murdered by actions that the mob believed were justified, for they believed it followed the teachings of the poet. The crowd then feasts on the baby which the strangers hoped would be seen as a respectful gesture due to their selfish flaw in thinking, but the mother is mortified at the sight of her baby being eaten. The plot of mother! alludes to people being born on this Earth and then ruining everything pure about this world in order to please a greater creator. John Donne also sees the horrible nature of humans and uses it as fuel for his works. Donne allows people to see that damnation is a part of life that starts even in the womb ,and he makes the claim that, “in the womb we are taught cruelty, by being fed with blood, and may be damned, though we were never born” (1423). Donne implements the idea that simply being in the womb allows a human to be evil. We start our lives with the potential to kill our mothers, and if the mother and child make it through labor, both the mother and the child are still doomed to die. After the child is in the womb (which Donne considers a tomb) he will be birthed into a world of evil and hate where the only way out is death, and if you live a life aimed to pleasing God your death can lead to an ultimate life in heaven. From Death’s Duel and mother! both discuss humanity and it’s drive to please a greater being in order to reap a reward. Though these works have many similarities, the main difference is the debate between nature verses nurture. As you read From Death’s Duel there is no question that the nature of a human is evil. From the moment of conception, humanity feasts on the blood of another and lives solely to die, but in mother!, the evil ways of humanity is a result of nurture and group mentality. The wife’s baby was born into the world as a pure child, but when introduced to the crowd of strangers, the baby’s innocence was ruined and the destruction of innocence led to the baby’s premature death. My question to the reader: do you believe we as humans were born evil and can do nothing to combat our instincts, or do you believe the choices we make and the lifestyles we are taught after birth determine whether we are evil and corrupt or pure and innocent.