If you have any questions in the meantime, please email me. Thanks so much.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Blogging This Week...
I am going to give you a week off from blogging (and myself a week off from reading blogs). As you know, my daughter has been sick (she has RSV), and this coincides with a few days when I am painting and re-carpeting my house. With all of this going on, it will be difficult for me to keep up on the blog posts. I ask that you please stay up on the reading and come to class prepared to discuss the poems. Bring any questions that you have as well. Donne and Herbert are two of my favorite poets, and I want to do them justice.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
I have also been sick all this week, which has been a real bummer because my head hasn't really been in the game for one of my favorite subjects: Shakespeare. So try to get what you can out of my cough syrup induced blather, as I try to share some of what I think King Lear is about...
Reading through the posts, a lot of people have continued to try to frame the subject of love. As an added tool in this process I would like to share with you an insight I came upon in one of my Shakespeare groups back home. We were reading Hamlet and discussing the love Hamlet and Ofelia shared. In attempting to define love we also ran into many definitions and so decided to first define what the opposite of love is. The problem was we came up with two very different ones, hate and apathy. As I have continued to to study Shakespeare I have continued to see how characters are influenced by both oppositions to love. Although hate and it's benefactors seem to influence the antagonists of most of the plays often apathy is what ultimately ends up destroying the protagonists, as it arguably does with King Lear.
Because I'm sick I also went on a Disney Princess Movie binge. For better or worse, I've learned a lot about literary theory since I last watched a lot of these movies and I couldn't stop applying the theory to the movies. Is it just me or does King Lear have a lot of similarities to the Cinderella story?
Reading through the posts, a lot of people have continued to try to frame the subject of love. As an added tool in this process I would like to share with you an insight I came upon in one of my Shakespeare groups back home. We were reading Hamlet and discussing the love Hamlet and Ofelia shared. In attempting to define love we also ran into many definitions and so decided to first define what the opposite of love is. The problem was we came up with two very different ones, hate and apathy. As I have continued to to study Shakespeare I have continued to see how characters are influenced by both oppositions to love. Although hate and it's benefactors seem to influence the antagonists of most of the plays often apathy is what ultimately ends up destroying the protagonists, as it arguably does with King Lear.
Because I'm sick I also went on a Disney Princess Movie binge. For better or worse, I've learned a lot about literary theory since I last watched a lot of these movies and I couldn't stop applying the theory to the movies. Is it just me or does King Lear have a lot of similarities to the Cinderella story?
Nihilism and tragedy in the face of dramatic death
The play is really fatalistic, sure, and everyone that does anything dies. But I think it might be a little reductive to assume that Shakespeare was being nihilistic by having all (or the majority of, anyway) his characters die. To be fair, everyone does die in real life, regardless of the decency of their lives; Mother Theresa and Gandhi eventually died, and Hitler died and Stephanie Meyer (presumably) will die.
WHenever I watch a movie or read a book/play/whatever about death, the whole generally accepted notion is that death is tragic, but birth is beautiful. I certainly think that breath is beautiful, but I tend to think of it like a good book: as much as I love beginnings and middle parts (for the most part, second acts are usually my favorite), I'm always really happy to have a good ending (not to be confused with a "happy" ending).
In Lear, Regan's poisoned, Edmund's stabbed, Gloucester collapses, Goneril stabs herself, Edmund dies, Cordelia dies, Lear dies, etc. But even if everything had gone really well for everyone, if the world in which they lived was filled with decency and kindness, they'd all have died anyway.
I guess I don't really know what it is I'm really saying besides taking issue with the idea that the portrayal of tragedy is necessarily tragic, or even that a work focused almost entirely on the deaths of its many characters is necessarily tragic.
And I tried to work a snipe at 500 Days of Summer in this, but those jokes are getting old enough to vote.
reconciled
There is forgiveness, at least on Cordelia’s part, when she reunites with her father at the end of Act IV. Shakespeare writes his villains as inherently evil and likewise portrays his hero’s or heroine’s as inherently good. They usually possess patience, forbearance, honesty, and goodness, but most of all, they possess forgiveness. Furthermore, they seem willing to bestow their forgiveness on those who have wronged them most. It’s a trait that I don’t think a many people actually have but one that is very much desired. Therefore it is satisfying to see it in Shakespeare’s characters.
Manifestations of Cordelia’s forgiveness to her father can be seen even before their meeting at the end of Act IV. Right after King Lear requests verbal validation of love from his three daughters, Cordelia is unable to “pet” his ego because it goes against what love represents to her. However, she seems less bitter towards her father after he banishes her than she does at herself for her own lack of “glib and oily art”. (act. 1: scene 1, line 213) It endears as well as frustrates the reader that she is too honest to save herself and then reproaches herself for her lack of skill in flattering speech.
As to their actual reuniting, Cordelia is the one that comes to King Lear, not the other way around which again proves that she holds no grudge against her father. She kisses his face before he is even awake and attempts to “Repair those violent harms that my two sisters have in thy reverence made!” (act 4: scene 7, line 30) And after she is able to convince him that she is indeed real, she assists him as they walk away together. I think that is evidence enough that Cordelia forgave her father and died with some measure of peace in the knowledge that they had reconciled.
I do not believe, on the other hand, that King Lear had it so easy. While he may have understood the forgiveness of his daughter, the guilt and remorse he felt as a result of his hasty, selfish actions at the beginning of the play, probably haunted him until his death. It almost seems merciful that Shakespeare lets him die at the end as it was only then that he was free of the burden of guilt. Even as they walked away arm in arm he seemed unsure of her forgiveness. He begs her to “forget and forgive. I am old and foolish.” (act 4: scene 7, line 91) As he brings Cordelia’s body he still hasn’t come to terms with her death. He requests a piece of glass so that he may test if she still breathes. The ironic part is that he killed their relationship through his own actions long before Cordelia’s physical death. I believe he died unable to forgive himself, it was unnecessary to forgive Cordelia, and therefore there was not a reconciliation on his part.
Manifestations of Cordelia’s forgiveness to her father can be seen even before their meeting at the end of Act IV. Right after King Lear requests verbal validation of love from his three daughters, Cordelia is unable to “pet” his ego because it goes against what love represents to her. However, she seems less bitter towards her father after he banishes her than she does at herself for her own lack of “glib and oily art”. (act. 1: scene 1, line 213) It endears as well as frustrates the reader that she is too honest to save herself and then reproaches herself for her lack of skill in flattering speech.
As to their actual reuniting, Cordelia is the one that comes to King Lear, not the other way around which again proves that she holds no grudge against her father. She kisses his face before he is even awake and attempts to “Repair those violent harms that my two sisters have in thy reverence made!” (act 4: scene 7, line 30) And after she is able to convince him that she is indeed real, she assists him as they walk away together. I think that is evidence enough that Cordelia forgave her father and died with some measure of peace in the knowledge that they had reconciled.
I do not believe, on the other hand, that King Lear had it so easy. While he may have understood the forgiveness of his daughter, the guilt and remorse he felt as a result of his hasty, selfish actions at the beginning of the play, probably haunted him until his death. It almost seems merciful that Shakespeare lets him die at the end as it was only then that he was free of the burden of guilt. Even as they walked away arm in arm he seemed unsure of her forgiveness. He begs her to “forget and forgive. I am old and foolish.” (act 4: scene 7, line 91) As he brings Cordelia’s body he still hasn’t come to terms with her death. He requests a piece of glass so that he may test if she still breathes. The ironic part is that he killed their relationship through his own actions long before Cordelia’s physical death. I believe he died unable to forgive himself, it was unnecessary to forgive Cordelia, and therefore there was not a reconciliation on his part.
CLASS CANCELLATION 2/18
Hi everyone. I am really sorry, but my daughter Eden is really sick, and I don't have anyone to watch her today. I hate cancelling class, but I'm afraid I don't have another option today. I would still like you to post your responses before the normal deadline, and we can talk about the last two acts of Lear online. I will also talk about the play in class on Tuesday before preceding on to our discussion of John Donne. We have two poets (Donne and Herbert) to discuss before the midterm, so I will be gearing you up for that as well. If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me via email. My sincere apologies, and I will see you on Tuesday.
If there were ever a story you could tell that would embody the popular phrase, "life sucks, and then you die," this would be it. King Lear makes his mistakes, suffers madness and dies. Cordelia chooses to be faithful, suffers and dies. Edmund? Dies. Gloucester? Dies. Kent? Says he's going to die soon after. Even the King of France, who made the most romantic gesture in the whole play, loses his wife and his kingdom... and probably dies (even though, to my great disappointment, his character remains undeveloped and barely mentioned after the first scene).
Now one would think, by that introduction, that this play gave me a very bleak outlook on life. But, in fact, such is not the case. I think that the life lessons and views into human nature that this story gives can be used to create a very hopeful and better self.
"Actions speak louder than words." Is a lesson that I think is pretty obvious in this play. While big words and flattery work for some people, showing you truly love someone is better when it's done through your actions. What do you do for the ones you love on an everyday basis. What do you do to prove your loyalty, your devotion to them? Do you stick by them though their meltdowns, like Kent did for Lear? Do you see through their insults and forgive them without hesitation like Cordelia does?
I think a nice lesson you can take away from this play, is that just because you end up with the short stick, doesn't mean you are the one who made the wrong decision. We suffer everyday from decisions other people make. So many people suffered from King Lear's mistake, as well with Edmund's deception. The trick is deciding what kind of person you want to be when those things are forced upon you.
During the storm, when Lear was going mad, my mind went back to The Tragical History of Dr. Faustus, and the idea that hell (and heaven for that matter) is a state of mind. Mephostophilis described his hell to be one that played out in his mind. Knowing that he had joy in his grasp and choosing to turn his back on it. I think it was the same for Lear. His descent into madness or his hell, was brought on by his sin (his turning his back on joy, or Cordelia). I just thought that was a really interesting connection, you may take it any way you like. :)
Now one would think, by that introduction, that this play gave me a very bleak outlook on life. But, in fact, such is not the case. I think that the life lessons and views into human nature that this story gives can be used to create a very hopeful and better self.
"Actions speak louder than words." Is a lesson that I think is pretty obvious in this play. While big words and flattery work for some people, showing you truly love someone is better when it's done through your actions. What do you do for the ones you love on an everyday basis. What do you do to prove your loyalty, your devotion to them? Do you stick by them though their meltdowns, like Kent did for Lear? Do you see through their insults and forgive them without hesitation like Cordelia does?
I think a nice lesson you can take away from this play, is that just because you end up with the short stick, doesn't mean you are the one who made the wrong decision. We suffer everyday from decisions other people make. So many people suffered from King Lear's mistake, as well with Edmund's deception. The trick is deciding what kind of person you want to be when those things are forced upon you.
During the storm, when Lear was going mad, my mind went back to The Tragical History of Dr. Faustus, and the idea that hell (and heaven for that matter) is a state of mind. Mephostophilis described his hell to be one that played out in his mind. Knowing that he had joy in his grasp and choosing to turn his back on it. I think it was the same for Lear. His descent into madness or his hell, was brought on by his sin (his turning his back on joy, or Cordelia). I just thought that was a really interesting connection, you may take it any way you like. :)
Overall...
Overall, when I think of the play King Lear, I think of the phrase "actions speak louder than words." King Lear was angered with Cordelia's lack of verbal response when he asked her how much she loved him, however he seemed to overlook all of the ways in which she demonstrated her love for him over the years. When he says that "nothing comes from nothing," he is really saying that if she doesn't say that she loves him, then that must mean that she has no real love for him. Not only does he feel like Cordelia has no love for him, but he later on realizes with a sickening blow that Gonaril and Reagan don't really love him as they professed to either. I think this is when he starts realizing that "actions speak louder than words." Just as Gonaril and Reagan's actions demonstrate their true feelings of annoyance and greed, Lear slowly starts to realize that Cordelia's actions of love over the years demonstrate her true feelings of loyalty and devotion.
Fundamentally, when I think of King Lear I reflect on the fact that love doesn't always use words to communicate. It can, but it's an emotion more than a verbal definition. I think love is demonstrated far more powerfully with actions, and not only big grandiose displays or gifts, but rather the consistence of the "little things" that add up and truly demonstrate the level, dedication, and consistency of a person's love. Sometimes you have to look more carefully to see all of these little things and how they're significant, but I think the only reason they're deemed "little things" is that it takes a lot longer for little things to add up, so it can be hard to see their significance all at once. I think that's why King Lear thought that Cordelia didn't love him at first, because he wasn't looking for the little things. He wanted one big grand show demonstrating her love, but he didn't get it because Cordelia knew that real love doesn't need "one big grand show" to be conveyed, and she wasn't willing to blaspheme the name of love in doing that.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Lear and Cordelia
I definitely think that there was reconciliation between Cordelia and Lear. The way I interpreted it was that Cordelia forgave him even as he was banishing her. She is painted as a such a selfless, honest and loving person. She, out of duty, truly does love her father. Although she is in France, Cordelia has never left her father in her heart; she still loves him and feels it is her duty to correct the wrong being done to him. She prepares her armies in France to invade her sisters’ land and avenge her father.
After Cordelia is banished, she says to her sisters “I know you what you are/And like a sister am most loath to call/Your faults as they are named. Love well our father./To your professed bosoms I commit him.” To me this is saying, I know you guys and I know you are up to something, but take care of our father because I’m leaving him in your hands. This almost seems like a warning. She then goes on to say “Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides;/Who covers faults, at last shame them derides./Well may you prosper.” I took this to mean only time will tell if you are being genuine, if not it will be your downfall, but I really hope this doesn’t happen.
Lear, on the other hand, is so blinded by power and pride that he can’t see Cordelia’s love for him as what it is: pure and true. It takes him being betrayed by his so-called loving daughters and losing everything for him to see how he has wronged Cordelia. Throughout the scenes involving the storm, Lear seems to feel remorse about this among other things. In scene 2 lines 47-49, he is feeling sorry for himself: “Tremble, thou wretch,/That hast within thee undivulged crimes/unwhipped of justice.” Although this could be about any number of things, I like to think that he is chastising himself for his actions against Cordelia. In the fourth act, Kent tells Cordelia’s gentleman that Lear is so ashamed that he cannot face his daughter. “A sovereign shame so elbows him—his own unkindness/That stripped her from his benediction, turned her/To foreign casualties, gave her dear rights/To his dog-hearted daughters—these things sting/His mind so venomously that burning shame/Detains him from Cordelia.”
In the end, the only thing that could keep Lear from reconciling with his daughter is his pride. He is so ashamed that he cannot face her, but once brought together as prisoners he says “We two alone will sing like birds i’th’ cage./When thou dost ask blessing, I’ll kneel down/And ask of thee forgiveness. So we’ll live,/To pray, and sing, and tell old tales and laugh”. Although he does not come out and ask for forgiveness, he still talks of kneeling down and asking her for it. This, to me, is definitely a step in the right direction. He also says, “He that parts us shall bring a brand from heaven”, which turns out to happen almost immediately. However, all the people directly responsible for this parting die themselves (Goneril, Regan, Edmund, the Captain) and I like to think that Lear and Cordelia are once again reunited in death.
After Cordelia is banished, she says to her sisters “I know you what you are/And like a sister am most loath to call/Your faults as they are named. Love well our father./To your professed bosoms I commit him.” To me this is saying, I know you guys and I know you are up to something, but take care of our father because I’m leaving him in your hands. This almost seems like a warning. She then goes on to say “Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides;/Who covers faults, at last shame them derides./Well may you prosper.” I took this to mean only time will tell if you are being genuine, if not it will be your downfall, but I really hope this doesn’t happen.
Lear, on the other hand, is so blinded by power and pride that he can’t see Cordelia’s love for him as what it is: pure and true. It takes him being betrayed by his so-called loving daughters and losing everything for him to see how he has wronged Cordelia. Throughout the scenes involving the storm, Lear seems to feel remorse about this among other things. In scene 2 lines 47-49, he is feeling sorry for himself: “Tremble, thou wretch,/That hast within thee undivulged crimes/unwhipped of justice.” Although this could be about any number of things, I like to think that he is chastising himself for his actions against Cordelia. In the fourth act, Kent tells Cordelia’s gentleman that Lear is so ashamed that he cannot face his daughter. “A sovereign shame so elbows him—his own unkindness/That stripped her from his benediction, turned her/To foreign casualties, gave her dear rights/To his dog-hearted daughters—these things sting/His mind so venomously that burning shame/Detains him from Cordelia.”
In the end, the only thing that could keep Lear from reconciling with his daughter is his pride. He is so ashamed that he cannot face her, but once brought together as prisoners he says “We two alone will sing like birds i’th’ cage./When thou dost ask blessing, I’ll kneel down/And ask of thee forgiveness. So we’ll live,/To pray, and sing, and tell old tales and laugh”. Although he does not come out and ask for forgiveness, he still talks of kneeling down and asking her for it. This, to me, is definitely a step in the right direction. He also says, “He that parts us shall bring a brand from heaven”, which turns out to happen almost immediately. However, all the people directly responsible for this parting die themselves (Goneril, Regan, Edmund, the Captain) and I like to think that Lear and Cordelia are once again reunited in death.
Things don't always end so great
In the summary of the play where it lists all the things that Shakespeare changed I was amazed at how smart and developed he really was in this play. I have always believed in happily ever afters because I have seen a few but to be honest those are the things we read in fantasy everyday such as the Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc stories we've heard (not counting the Grim brothers alternate stories which were written first). I think the stories that stick it out through time are those Journeys were things don't end the exact happiest, the way that heals all the big wounds, such as: Frodo doesn't toss the ring into Mount Doom and then later he goes on to leave Sam for another adventure :(, Wendy leaves Peter and Never Never Land so she can grow up instead of being youthful forever (kinda like Eve/Adam), Arthur and his downfall of his kingdom, etc. All's well in justice and hope and in the play I saw justice in the fact that Goneril/Edmund/Cornwall/Regan/Oswald die because they got the karma that caught up to them. And I believe hope was there because Edgar remained alive along with Kent/Albany, the good people that stuck it out. I strongly see the justice and I was satisfied at the end of the play that things had gone the way they were suppose and I had hope too not a feeling of dread. The only downer was that poor Cordy did die but she was invading the kingdom and even though she was in the right I could only see the karma coming out again. Now if Lear and Cordy had lived and been restored to power I believe nothing would have changed, Lear never would have seen the folly in mistreating the poor, the non-humanists thoughts of his, and in believing vanity and appearing to have wealth in family/riches etc was most important when it wasn't. For this sure I could see a happy ending, that didn't have a very important lesson through out the story, but keeping the frankness, truthfulness of the story as a there's not always happy endings works better as one of the greatest plays I've ever read. :D I really liked this play Daniel! Glad you didn't pick one I had read!
Suffering, the Mask of King Lear?
In King Lear, suffering was painful for two people, and the giver necessarily wasn’t an enemy, pain can be from the ones you love. A storm isn't something you would think of when pain comes to mind, but it’s an element and part of your environment. People also play a role in the element of your environment as well, even possibly shaping the circumstances. In our lives people balance the goodness we feel, and provide us with different experiences and emotions. The pain that surrounds us comes in many forms, specifically, mentally and physically. In Gloucester’s case, the physical form is key. After all, getting your eyes gouged out must be an excruciating way to experience
pain. The blinding of a person is not only painful, but demeaning and
tormenting too. Imagine being blinded and having to experience the world
all over again. The frustration of depending on other people and learning how
to navigate your surroundings, with all the grace of a child. This kind of
suffering could lead to suicide, and it would have, except Gloucester was blind
and couldn’t see that there was no cliff to throw himself off of. His enemies
didn’t want to kill him, but they already did, internally (emotionally). The internal (emotional) death is the final stage of mental suffering. Many stages are shown in King Lear, as he breaks down from a powerful man to a
crazy derelict, all because of someone close to him, that he trusted, stabbed
him in the back. The family is part of your environment and so is the weather. A storm can be a gusting hurricane or a conflict with your sister. Both
conflicts cause damage, and the damage may or may not be repairable. In the case of King Lear, his mental state diminished rather badly. Lear saw
small rodents on his arm and even an elaborate courtroom scene, all in his head. The pain of falling down from grace and having your own children disown you and
refuse you love you was too much for old King Lear. The king was not in good
health, and not the young man that he used to be. The
general poor health and stress from the family were physical things Lear dealt with. A weather-beaten, hallucinating king isn’t a very good king. The stress and anguish of both enemies and elements on a person are enough to break them in every way possible. The process of taking away, or
stripping the needs of a person is clearly shown in Shakespeare’s King Lear. As jumbled as this entry is, reflects just as much confusion I have about the true theme, or “element” behind the play of King Lear. The discussion in our last class helped, but there are so many different things we can take away from the play. If there was anything I would remember about King Lear would be the moment of The Storm, and the battle of his true self. I am writing an essay in another class that correlates with King Lear beautifully. Even though, they are separate time periods and worlds away from the same situation. The similarities remain there because it is an act of struggle that I think we all face at one time or another.
The overall meaning of King Lear is a bit hard for me to articulate. So, I'll talk about the Shakespeare ending vs. a "happier" ending. Maybe that will shed some light on what I think the overall meaning of King Lear is for me. If Cordelia and King Lear had both lived at the end of the play, for example, the message of loyalty and pure love would be obvious. The hero and the heroin would ride off into the sunset and everybody's actions in the play would have an obvious good or bad consequence. It appears to me, however, that Shakespeare doesn't want to let the audience off the hook so easy. Shakespeare is a master at spinning a tale in ambiguity so as to confuse the natural reactions of the audience. This way, the audience has to think twice about how they really feel about the out come of the play. For example, when Lear and Cordelia die it is not overtly clear if their actions throughout the play have been rewarded. If Cordelia had lied to Lear at the beginning wouldn't she still be alive? If Lear hadn't "weathered the storm", so to speak, and had a change of heart would he still be alive? I don't know the answers to all these questions, but I do think that Shakespeare was making a bigger point by killing off Lear and Cordelia. I think Shakespeare wanted us to realize that death is not the ultimate punishment and that some things are worth sacrificing your life for. In the case of King Lear, I think that loyalty and love ultimately prevailed, even though all the sisters and Lear end up dead. There are many themes in King Lear and I think that's the beauty of Shakespeare's writing. One can see the ending of King Lear as proof that you must do whatever you have to do to get ahead in life because we will all end up dead some day. On the other hand, one can see the ending of King Lear as a triumph of the heart, a mighty change, a joyous reunion between Father and child.
The wonderful thing about Shakespeare is how he was able to write in such complex ways that people coming from all walks of life would be able to appreciate it and interpret it in a unique way. As I'm sure all of you in class, and the many other people who have read King Lear, have each taken individual meaning from this play, I have also finished with having learned and embraced my own thoughts on the many themes portrayed. Although some of my ideas are not original interpretations and feelings about the play, they are just as important and meaningful to me in ways that I would argue Shakespeare intended for his readers and audience.
In order to explore the overall impression or theme I was able to obtain from the play, it was useful to consider what I might remember most about it years from now when each detail is not so fresh in my mind. After considering that for a while, I came to the conclusion that I would probably most remember the theme of loyalty and sincere love for another whether it be family or otherwise. There is an undying love presented in more than one relationship that seems to hold true regardless of the dramatic events of the story that progressively take place. Cordelia proves to be one of Lear's most loyal followers and certainly his most loyal daughter. Her willingness to be subjected to exile by her own father in being honest and not praising him the way he wants her to, shows a heart of sincerity; it thus carries through in her love for her father. It holds even stronger when she hears of his mistreatment and is truly moved to tears in knowing of his suffering, all after having caused her heartache in the beginning.
Another relationship that is seemingly significant in the play is the one between Lear and Kent; Kent of course pretending to be a peasant named Caius, in service of the King. Not only does it mark another example of extreme loyalty in an unlikely situation, but it holds great importance for another highlighted idea of the play. In order to realize the value of his daughter and his previous life, Lear had to lose it all. Lear loses Kent by banishing him, but only starts then to realize how incredibly loyal a companion he is, even if he wasn't aware it was Kent with him until the end. Gloucester, though a bit of a side story, is still an important character who also proves to have a great loyalty to the King. He recieves a significant injury in the name of defending the King until the end.
Although Shakespeare reveals many of the shortcomings of humanity in King Lear and his other works, he also portrays a quality in the characters in this particular play that is admirable. He shows that they love him unconditionally whether the reason is family, social ties, or just because he is their king, even when he makes mistakes and can seem a bit out of his mind at times. I find this message completely refreshing and relatable, relationships are valuable among family and friends and sometimes we need to look past the faults of those we love and stand by their side no matter what. With any luck, they might just come around and realize how immensly valuable your companionship is to them as Lear sadly realized too late.
In order to explore the overall impression or theme I was able to obtain from the play, it was useful to consider what I might remember most about it years from now when each detail is not so fresh in my mind. After considering that for a while, I came to the conclusion that I would probably most remember the theme of loyalty and sincere love for another whether it be family or otherwise. There is an undying love presented in more than one relationship that seems to hold true regardless of the dramatic events of the story that progressively take place. Cordelia proves to be one of Lear's most loyal followers and certainly his most loyal daughter. Her willingness to be subjected to exile by her own father in being honest and not praising him the way he wants her to, shows a heart of sincerity; it thus carries through in her love for her father. It holds even stronger when she hears of his mistreatment and is truly moved to tears in knowing of his suffering, all after having caused her heartache in the beginning.
Another relationship that is seemingly significant in the play is the one between Lear and Kent; Kent of course pretending to be a peasant named Caius, in service of the King. Not only does it mark another example of extreme loyalty in an unlikely situation, but it holds great importance for another highlighted idea of the play. In order to realize the value of his daughter and his previous life, Lear had to lose it all. Lear loses Kent by banishing him, but only starts then to realize how incredibly loyal a companion he is, even if he wasn't aware it was Kent with him until the end. Gloucester, though a bit of a side story, is still an important character who also proves to have a great loyalty to the King. He recieves a significant injury in the name of defending the King until the end.
Although Shakespeare reveals many of the shortcomings of humanity in King Lear and his other works, he also portrays a quality in the characters in this particular play that is admirable. He shows that they love him unconditionally whether the reason is family, social ties, or just because he is their king, even when he makes mistakes and can seem a bit out of his mind at times. I find this message completely refreshing and relatable, relationships are valuable among family and friends and sometimes we need to look past the faults of those we love and stand by their side no matter what. With any luck, they might just come around and realize how immensly valuable your companionship is to them as Lear sadly realized too late.
A Hard Reign's Gonna Fall.
The play King Lear is a storm. Not only does a literal storm come about, marking the key moments, but the entire play is a tempest of love and hate, betrayal and loyalty, cruelty and tenderness. I play can be seen as the cataclysmic fall of three different reigns of power-Lear's, Gloucester's, and Edmund's. The play is set on a backbone of honesty and trust and people, trusting those have no honesty about them and banishing those who would have been your truest friends. I think much of the play's tragedy comes from those who desperately want to be loved and try to achieve this by false and sometimes cruel ways.
Edmund's reign of power is brief yet so explosive it falls as hard as any of the others. Edmund is a bastard son so already born into a world that sees him as unlovable and despicable. So why should he not be that way? I think Shakespeare makes Edmund an evil enough character that you despise him as you want to, but he instills in his existence a tragic note that one cannot help but see so by the end of the play you both hate him and pity him. Edmund wants to be loved. But he is not and he never will be. So he seeks to destroy his legitamately born and better loved brothed Edgar and his father. And he succeeds. He then sits as Earl of Gloucester for a brief shining moment, loved by Lear's two daughters, and called a hero by those around him. Even this time though he is not truly loved but a treacherous wretch who had to lie and decieve to be loved. So things begin to unravel, the women who professed to love him fade out violently, and Edmund is killed by his brother Edgar. What is interesting is that Edgar appears to Edmund, dirty and ragged while Edmund is in finest clothes with an army behind him. But even then Edgar is the better and Edmund knows it truly it his heart which prompts his line "The wheel has come full circle. I am here". Edmund's reign ends with him exactly where he always was.
Gloucester's reign ends because he would not extend his love to Edmund as well as Edgar. I don't think by any means that Gloucester deserved his trials but I wonder if Shakespeare is commenting who we cut off from our care or affection and what results from it. However, once he does begin to trust in Edmund he is immediatley betrayed and called a traitor to his own country. He believed Edmund over Edgar, and could not see Edmund's deceit so then literally lost his own eyes never to "see" again. But we talked about in class how he sees most clearly once blinded. Banished from his kingdom and blinded he says "I have no path and therefore want no eyes...Edgar might I live to see in my touch I'id say I had eyes again." Gloucester is lost until Edgar finds him and prevents him from suicide. He then can see again. He can see the son who truly loves him. So in a moment he may have peace in the tempest of play. And it is later revealed he dies out of shock and joy and Edgar revealing himself. But he dies blind no more.
King Lear's reign falls because he wants to be loved but does not see that he is and who he is loved by until the end. Lear is very old and with age I believe comes a deep insecurity. I believe elderly often feel useless and worthless in the world around them which has begun to lose need for them. Lear wants to know he is loved and needed. However he is decieved in what he thinks is love and systematically attempts to banish all those who truly did love him (Cordelia, Kent, etc). After being betrayed by those who professed to love him, he wanders through the tempests and storms outside and within himself until he drives himself mad. In the end though Cordelia comes back to him, she who truly loved him, and he is loved as he always was. The peaceful moment in the tempest comes from that brief reunion when reconciliation is found. However is it not to last. The world has gone too dark and Cordelia is killed. In losing Cordelia, Lear is then lost entirely. For as he goes to die Kent says "O let him pass! he hates him that would upon the rack of this tough world stretch him out longer!". Amidst the raging storm of the play, amidst the fall of his reign, Lear can only find peace in death. And that is why the play is called a tragedy.
Edmund's reign of power is brief yet so explosive it falls as hard as any of the others. Edmund is a bastard son so already born into a world that sees him as unlovable and despicable. So why should he not be that way? I think Shakespeare makes Edmund an evil enough character that you despise him as you want to, but he instills in his existence a tragic note that one cannot help but see so by the end of the play you both hate him and pity him. Edmund wants to be loved. But he is not and he never will be. So he seeks to destroy his legitamately born and better loved brothed Edgar and his father. And he succeeds. He then sits as Earl of Gloucester for a brief shining moment, loved by Lear's two daughters, and called a hero by those around him. Even this time though he is not truly loved but a treacherous wretch who had to lie and decieve to be loved. So things begin to unravel, the women who professed to love him fade out violently, and Edmund is killed by his brother Edgar. What is interesting is that Edgar appears to Edmund, dirty and ragged while Edmund is in finest clothes with an army behind him. But even then Edgar is the better and Edmund knows it truly it his heart which prompts his line "The wheel has come full circle. I am here". Edmund's reign ends with him exactly where he always was.
Gloucester's reign ends because he would not extend his love to Edmund as well as Edgar. I don't think by any means that Gloucester deserved his trials but I wonder if Shakespeare is commenting who we cut off from our care or affection and what results from it. However, once he does begin to trust in Edmund he is immediatley betrayed and called a traitor to his own country. He believed Edmund over Edgar, and could not see Edmund's deceit so then literally lost his own eyes never to "see" again. But we talked about in class how he sees most clearly once blinded. Banished from his kingdom and blinded he says "I have no path and therefore want no eyes...Edgar might I live to see in my touch I'id say I had eyes again." Gloucester is lost until Edgar finds him and prevents him from suicide. He then can see again. He can see the son who truly loves him. So in a moment he may have peace in the tempest of play. And it is later revealed he dies out of shock and joy and Edgar revealing himself. But he dies blind no more.
King Lear's reign falls because he wants to be loved but does not see that he is and who he is loved by until the end. Lear is very old and with age I believe comes a deep insecurity. I believe elderly often feel useless and worthless in the world around them which has begun to lose need for them. Lear wants to know he is loved and needed. However he is decieved in what he thinks is love and systematically attempts to banish all those who truly did love him (Cordelia, Kent, etc). After being betrayed by those who professed to love him, he wanders through the tempests and storms outside and within himself until he drives himself mad. In the end though Cordelia comes back to him, she who truly loved him, and he is loved as he always was. The peaceful moment in the tempest comes from that brief reunion when reconciliation is found. However is it not to last. The world has gone too dark and Cordelia is killed. In losing Cordelia, Lear is then lost entirely. For as he goes to die Kent says "O let him pass! he hates him that would upon the rack of this tough world stretch him out longer!". Amidst the raging storm of the play, amidst the fall of his reign, Lear can only find peace in death. And that is why the play is called a tragedy.
Blind to Love, and Crazy for it.
Initially the story frames the theme of equal love, love that is felt and given in the same way, but by different people. On the other hand the story alludes to the impossibility of such a thing. Cordelia's love for her father is different than that of her sisters, and moreover Gloucester's love for Edmund and Edgar were not equal either. It's almost like Shakespeare wants to show the power of love, of commitment, and how the emotion cannot be containerized into one box or category. True love, is not equal love, and the lack of true love is the realm in which evil and deception exist.
Goneril and Regan love power more than they love their father. They love his position, his authority over others, and not the man. Cordelia, in her honesty, truly loves her father. Lear only wants to hear of the same type of love from all his daughters, and cannot comprehend the different love that Cordelia gives.
Similarly, Gloucester loves his sons, but this love is different. One is legitimate, the other not, and even though he tries to use lip service to describe his equal love for each, it is evident that this is not the case. It’s almost like he says, “I love you, BUT you’re illegitimate.” The but cancels the genuine proclamation of his love.
Lear willingly leaves his daughters, betrayed and bewildered. He realizes that it is not love that his daughters have proven with their words, but the lack thereof. And it is not until after he goes mad, that Lear understands the significance of Cordelia’s daughterly love.
Edmund betrays his father, because he has a realization of the difference of love his father has for him. He has his brother banished, and then his father blinded and humiliated and sent out as well. He has the same love for power as do Goneril and Regan. Again it is not until Gloucester is blind, homeless, and without his position, that he recognizes the meaning of his fatherly love for Edgar.
Edgar and Cordelia are the odd ones out, because of their honesty and commitment to genuine love for their fathers. Love is the binding factor in the story. All the wealth and power are frivolous in comparison to the honest love that exists between the remaining couples, Edgar and Gloucester, and Cordelia and Lear.
Goneril and Regan love power more than they love their father. They love his position, his authority over others, and not the man. Cordelia, in her honesty, truly loves her father. Lear only wants to hear of the same type of love from all his daughters, and cannot comprehend the different love that Cordelia gives.
Similarly, Gloucester loves his sons, but this love is different. One is legitimate, the other not, and even though he tries to use lip service to describe his equal love for each, it is evident that this is not the case. It’s almost like he says, “I love you, BUT you’re illegitimate.” The but cancels the genuine proclamation of his love.
Lear willingly leaves his daughters, betrayed and bewildered. He realizes that it is not love that his daughters have proven with their words, but the lack thereof. And it is not until after he goes mad, that Lear understands the significance of Cordelia’s daughterly love.
Edmund betrays his father, because he has a realization of the difference of love his father has for him. He has his brother banished, and then his father blinded and humiliated and sent out as well. He has the same love for power as do Goneril and Regan. Again it is not until Gloucester is blind, homeless, and without his position, that he recognizes the meaning of his fatherly love for Edgar.
Edgar and Cordelia are the odd ones out, because of their honesty and commitment to genuine love for their fathers. Love is the binding factor in the story. All the wealth and power are frivolous in comparison to the honest love that exists between the remaining couples, Edgar and Gloucester, and Cordelia and Lear.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Lear IV and V
Here is a link to the PBS "Great Performances" page, where you can watch the play, watch an interview with Ian McKellen (recommended), and explore other Lear-related material.
2. In every other version of the King Lear story, Lear and Cordelia are restored to power and happiness. These stories all fulfill what Samuel Johnson called "the natural ideas of justice and the hope of the readers." Shakespeare is alone in not fulfilling this desire in us. I should also point out that in these other versions, Lear does not go mad, there is no Fool, and the parallel Gloucester plot does not exist. In other words, Shakespeare's play is much more complex and, ultimately, quite a different story altogether. How would the play be different if it had a happy ending? Could it have a happy ending and still be great?
3. Do you think there is any forgiveness and reconciliation between Cordelia and Lear? Or is (part of) the tragedy of the play the fact that no reconciliation is made? Their reunion is brief, and the next time Lear sees her, she is dead. Examine their reunion at the end of Act IV and decide whether this scene is at all hopeful, or if it reinforces the tragedy.
4. This question is a bit open, but what, ultimately, is King Lear about for you? Or rather, when you think of the play in the future, what will you think of? What will stay with you as the "meaning" of the play?
Lear and Gloucester
I think that there are a lot of similarities between the stories of King Lear and the Earl of Gloucester. However, I think that the most interesting similarity lies in their respective falls from grace; each of their downfalls is the result of placing their trust in the wrong children. That being said, I think that King Lear comes off as the bigger fool of the two. Essentially, Lear chooses to place his trust in his two eldest daughters simply because they are the most willing to feed his desperate need to hear their words of love and devotion. He is so blinded by this incredibly needy and ill conceived idea that he cannot sense the hollowness behind their word. In the end, he banishes Cordelia, the one daughter who seems to truly love him and yet can only say “nothing”. The use of the word “nothing” is repeatedly used throughout the play, usually to mistakenly describe non worth to real worth (Cordelia’s love, Cordelia’s value after being banished, to describe the fool; it is even how Edmund describes his sinister plan). It appears as though King Lear, in his insular world, has no concept of the real value of things. It comes as no surprise to anyone but King Lear when in Act III. iv, he mutters his famous words “Is man no more than this?”. King Lear brings all his personal tragedy upon himself with his rash and misguided plan to essentially base the division of his kingdom upon speeches of love without any test or consideration for their validity. It is especially interesting to note that at the end of that first scene Goneril and Regan use the outlandishness of Lear’s plan as proof that he has “poor judgment” and to justify their intended takeover.
The Earl of Gloucester’s downfall is a bit more complicated. He is blinded, literally and figuratively, by his mistrust in his bastard son Edmund. It has always seemed to me that much of the Earl’s trust in Edmund comes from an unspoken guilt about the role Edmund (as illegitimate) has been forced to play and the benefits he has been unable to attain. Perhaps this underlying guilt helps in the deception that Edmund has invented. You can almost sense the relief of conscious it is for him to turn against his son who has been given everything and embrace the seemingly meek Edmund. However, Edmund, like most great Shakespearean villains, is very convincing all on his own. I love a good Shakespearean villain and Edmund certainly does not disappoint. Much like Othello’s Iago, Edmund is a master of deception and his machinations are always thrilling to watch. It is fascinating the way that Shakespeare villains rarely tell their victims what they want them to believe. Instead, through a series of expert maneuvers, the victims are lead to reach the desired conclusion all on their own. Edmund is no exception in his use of this ploy. I always like the way Edmund (just like Iago) falsely appears to defend Edgar to his father all the while planting the seeds of doubt and destruction. I always find the fall of Gloucester the most tragic albeit less grandiose as Gloucester has simply been blinded by the evil maneuvers of a brilliantly evil son. For me, Gloucester’s self deception comes from a good, albeit misguided, place. King Lear on the other hand, has been destroyed by his own vanity, self imposed insulation, and a complicated political situation that he helped create.
The Earl of Gloucester’s downfall is a bit more complicated. He is blinded, literally and figuratively, by his mistrust in his bastard son Edmund. It has always seemed to me that much of the Earl’s trust in Edmund comes from an unspoken guilt about the role Edmund (as illegitimate) has been forced to play and the benefits he has been unable to attain. Perhaps this underlying guilt helps in the deception that Edmund has invented. You can almost sense the relief of conscious it is for him to turn against his son who has been given everything and embrace the seemingly meek Edmund. However, Edmund, like most great Shakespearean villains, is very convincing all on his own. I love a good Shakespearean villain and Edmund certainly does not disappoint. Much like Othello’s Iago, Edmund is a master of deception and his machinations are always thrilling to watch. It is fascinating the way that Shakespeare villains rarely tell their victims what they want them to believe. Instead, through a series of expert maneuvers, the victims are lead to reach the desired conclusion all on their own. Edmund is no exception in his use of this ploy. I always like the way Edmund (just like Iago) falsely appears to defend Edgar to his father all the while planting the seeds of doubt and destruction. I always find the fall of Gloucester the most tragic albeit less grandiose as Gloucester has simply been blinded by the evil maneuvers of a brilliantly evil son. For me, Gloucester’s self deception comes from a good, albeit misguided, place. King Lear on the other hand, has been destroyed by his own vanity, self imposed insulation, and a complicated political situation that he helped create.
Love in Truth
The three daughters of Lear reminded a lot of the sonnets of Shakespeare. When I first read what Goneril and Regan said to their father about how they loved him I was like... oh that's sweet! Then when Cordelia tells her father she loves him out of duty, I thought... ouch! To tell the truth I probably wouldn't have handled that answer very well either. Then I couldn't help remembering our last class discussion. Cordelia tells it like it is, she doesn't have flattering words, because to her that's not what love is about, there is a truth when she says,"You have begot me, bred me, loved me. I return those duties back as are fit"( p. 1364). This reminds of sonnet 130, which also tells it like it is "And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare As any she belied with false compare." I don't think Cordelia can give beautiful comparisons, because to her that would be false. Her love comes from a deeper source. When Goneril talks about her love she talks of beauty and eyesight,"Dearer than eyesight, space and liberty, beyond what can be valued, rich or rare"(1363). This passage reminded me of sonnet 18 when it says " So long as men can breath or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee." Everything is beautifully said but I can't help and feel that both writings are working on someones vanity, something someone wants to hear. Sonnet 116 reminds me of King Lear when he talks about how much he loved Cordelia how she was his favorite, but when she tells him a truth suddenly his love alters. I think this was the guidance that Shakespeare was giving us when he wrote sonnet 116 " Love is not love Which alters when alteration finds," I think we could take this into our lives today and ask how many of us stop loving someone just because we feel that they don't love us the way we need to be loved?
Monday, February 15, 2010
Lear's Madness
The storm symbolizes the madness that is going on in the play as a whole but more specifically King Lear. My favorite part is were he is so completely out of his skull but at the same time gaining a perspective he didn’t know existed. “Thou owest the worm no silk, the beast no hide, the sheep no wool, the cat no perfume. Ha! here's three on's are sophisticated! Thou art the thing itself: unaccommodated man is no more but such a poor bare, forked animal as thou art. Off, off, you lendings! come unbutton here.” King Lear’s reply to Edgar’s (poor Tom) answer to whom he used to be. Lear seeing that Edgar is naked and sympathetic to his recent decent to poverty tries to sympathize with him by tearing his own clothes off; he also has realized that the only difference between royalty and poverty is the clothes that are worn. Early quotes lead me to think that he was also trying to gain an identity. “Doth any here know me?...Who is it that can tell me who I am?” In his frenzied state he is searching for any identity he can. This happens in a less severe way on occasion to me. It’s a pride cycle, things go really well, you build yourself up and then reality hits. I don’t go insane when it happens because I have a base that I fall on. King Lear has no base and has rid himself of the only stable person in his life, Cordelia. The stripping of his clothes and also the chaos of the storm could be paralleled with chaos in the kingdom and his personal life. Lear leaves one daughter to seek refuge with another, only to find they are both plotting against him. He has been stripped of his power and influence, and his daughters plot to rid him of any control he has left. “Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!” to me Lear is saying bring it, to the elements and also to his daughters. He eventually realizes that the storm will destroy him unless he seeks cover, likewise, his daughters will destroy him and the kingdom if he doesn’t seek cover. The awesome power of the storm brings Lear to his knees for the first time.
Friday, February 12, 2010
King Lear, Acts I-III
1. On Thursday we discussed the topic of love at some length. More specifically, we discussed the way Shakespeare uses/describes/portrays love in his sonnets. The theme of love also takes center stage, so to speak, in these first acts of King Lear. Which of the characters do you feel exemplify "Shakespearean" love, and which are furthest from exemplifying it: Lear, Cordelia, Goneril, Regan, Kent, France, Edmund, Edgar, and/or Lear's Fool? Here's the trick: In your character analysis, and in defining "Shakespearean" love, you should use one or more examples/lines from the play and one or more examples/lines from the sonnets.2. One of Shakespeare's favorite narrative techniques is to the tell the same story on multiple levels. For example, what similarities do you see between the parallel stories of Lear and Gloucester? Think specifically (but not necessarily exclusively) about what happens to Gloucester at the end of Act III and how that might relate to Lear's own story/situation.
3. It was quite common for monarchs during the Renaissance to have court jesters, or "fools" around for both entertainment and a kind of advisement. A fool could get away with saying things to the king or queen that other nobles might get banished or killed for saying, and this allowed a kind of bluntness that many monarchs valued. This advice would often be disguised in clever riddles, puns, and songs, but it would be discernible by a king or queen who was used to that manner of delivery. The relationship between Lear and his Fool is perhaps a bit atypical in that the two seem quite close, not just employer/employee or master/servant. Lear calls the fool "boy," and the fool calls him "Nuncle," or "mine uncle." So the advice the fool gives to Lear is not advice for advice's sake but also comes from a genuine concern. What advice does the fool give to Lear that is not foolish at all? Where does the fool seem wiser than the king?
A related question is this: We never see Lear's fool again after Act III. Why might this be?
4. At the end of Act III, we are in the midst of a terrible storm. What might that storm symbolize? Use specific examples from Shakespeare's description of the storm and tie them into whatever/whomever you feel they might represent.
See you on Tuesday.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
READ ME!
Hello, all. I thought our discussion in class today about love was really interesting. There was one point in which people were debating the existence of "Mr. Right" or "Mrs. Right" ; some believed in the existence of one "right" person, others did not. I'm not 100% sure what I think about it yet, but I came across this quote and thought it offered an interesting insight on the matter:
"I have no way of knowing whether or not you married the wrong person, but I do know that many people have a lot of wrong ideas about marriage and what it takes to make a marriage happy and successful. I'll be the first to admit that it's possible that you did marry the wrong person. However, if you treat the wrong person like the right person, you could well end up having married the right person after all. On the other hand, if you marry the right person, and treat that person wrong, you certainly will have ended up marrying the wrong person. I also know that it is far more important to be the right kind of person than it is to marry the right person. In short, whether you married the right or wrong person is primarily up to you."
-Zig Zigler
I just thought it was interesting because it ties back to what we talked about concerning adaptation/alteration in love, love changing, people changing, etc etc...Anyways if anyone has any responses I'd love to hear. If not that's fine too, I just thought it made an interesting "companion quote" with what we talked about.
Love-the ever fixed mark
My dad gave me a book of Shakespearian sonnets when I was I was 11 years-old. Call me a romantic, but I thought they were beautiful. If for nothing else, they were beautiful for the language. Sonnet 116 happens to be one of the poems that I am most familiar with. I have always thought it was a nice sentiment... perhaps if only in theory. Sense and Sensibility anyone?
I prefer sonnet 130 which seems far more realistic.
"I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I htink my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare."
He's not fooling himself about her lack of traditional beauty and therefore loves her in a "rare" way. I like the thought of someone knowing all my faults but loving me still. However, I don't know that I would want anyone to write about me that way in black and white. Not the most flattering thing and definitely not romantic in the conventional sense.
So back to sonnet 116 which is how most people would idealize love.
"Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Withing his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom."
That time or distance does not alter one's affection is not a new idea. But I think it is more of a "should not" than a "does not". And I like that Shakespeare is writing in terms of absolutes. Love cannot be broken. Nothing can shake love. Love can outweather any storm. And wouldn't that be nice?
I prefer sonnet 130 which seems far more realistic.
"I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I htink my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare."
He's not fooling himself about her lack of traditional beauty and therefore loves her in a "rare" way. I like the thought of someone knowing all my faults but loving me still. However, I don't know that I would want anyone to write about me that way in black and white. Not the most flattering thing and definitely not romantic in the conventional sense.
So back to sonnet 116 which is how most people would idealize love.
"Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Withing his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom."
That time or distance does not alter one's affection is not a new idea. But I think it is more of a "should not" than a "does not". And I like that Shakespeare is writing in terms of absolutes. Love cannot be broken. Nothing can shake love. Love can outweather any storm. And wouldn't that be nice?
Life and Love
Sonnets 15 and 73 both portray the emotion of love. But each sonnet has a different interpretation of what love is and how it relates to time.
Sonnet 15 used a few words that I liked to relate to the idea of time. When Shakespeare uses the word, grows in the first line of his sonnet I linked that word to the concept that time does grow, second upon second, we are aging and aging is relevant to time. In the fifth line of his sonnet, Shakespeare used the word, increase - this can be seen as another word to describe time. Shakespeare then compiles this idea of time by stating, Where wasteful Time debateth with Decay. Meaning that over time, we will die, but more specifically Shakespeare gives insight reminding us that wasteful Time could ultimately lead to decay, that leaves the reader with a grim feeling on death, but gives insight to help us understand that we can't waste time and shouldn't save our love -- it could lead to decay.
Sonnet 73 was created using great imagery words that too reminded me of the reoccurring theme of time. In the first two lines he says, That time of year thou mayst in me behold . . . When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang. Fall is happening in the beginning of this sonnet. Fall is a specific time that leads to change, removing things of old, preparing to hibernate for winter (or death). The epiphany for me during this Sonnet was revealed when Shakespeare wrote, Consumed with that which it was nourished by. Love is nourished by time, it takes time for love to develop and grow - and too, Life is nourished by time. We are continually learning things as we age and in the end, we realize that life and time nourished each of us as individuals.
Sonnet 15 used a few words that I liked to relate to the idea of time. When Shakespeare uses the word, grows in the first line of his sonnet I linked that word to the concept that time does grow, second upon second, we are aging and aging is relevant to time. In the fifth line of his sonnet, Shakespeare used the word, increase - this can be seen as another word to describe time. Shakespeare then compiles this idea of time by stating, Where wasteful Time debateth with Decay. Meaning that over time, we will die, but more specifically Shakespeare gives insight reminding us that wasteful Time could ultimately lead to decay, that leaves the reader with a grim feeling on death, but gives insight to help us understand that we can't waste time and shouldn't save our love -- it could lead to decay.
Sonnet 73 was created using great imagery words that too reminded me of the reoccurring theme of time. In the first two lines he says, That time of year thou mayst in me behold . . . When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang. Fall is happening in the beginning of this sonnet. Fall is a specific time that leads to change, removing things of old, preparing to hibernate for winter (or death). The epiphany for me during this Sonnet was revealed when Shakespeare wrote, Consumed with that which it was nourished by. Love is nourished by time, it takes time for love to develop and grow - and too, Life is nourished by time. We are continually learning things as we age and in the end, we realize that life and time nourished each of us as individuals.
Time Doeth No Evil Here
It seems to me that Shakespeare glories in the beauties of love in all its stages. There is love that is young and innocent and takes glory in itself. There is also love that ages well and shows it's buds of May even in its December. That having been said, I feel that Shakespeare is showing how the truest love must be a combination of both May and December.
I could reference a number of sonnets, but I'll use 116 since it's my favorite. Here Shakespeare refers to the love of "true minds." His focus is the importance of love being more than the physical, more than the sexual, more than the material. True minds that meet in love can overcome all tempests and defeat all foes.
To me, this isn't a love that started out great but ended in disaster. This isn't a husband that eventually commits adultery or a wife that decides to walk out on her family for some life she was never able to live. I feel that he is ultimately saying that this sort of love would never end in disaster because it is basically against its very nature. This seems a very hard concept to understand given the current divorce rate and the overall decent of human relations into a state of deceit and betrayal. You can hardly turn on the TV or go to the theatre or read a novel without learning about the fickleness of man (and woman). Shakespeare is referring to an uncorrupted sort of love that survives the storms of life.
I think that when he refers to "alterations" he is taking into considerations the alterations of life that come rather than the alterations of the individual. I don't think that he is saying you love someone your entire life even if they stop loving you. That would completely go against the idea that it was a "marriage of true minds" to begin with. I assume he is referring to the alterations of circumstance or health or appearance rather than the natural evolution of a person's intellect or character. Hopefully, if it began as a "marriage of true minds," two people's characters would evolve together rather than apart.
Basically it comes down to Time not being the enemy or the controlling force of love. Rather it is just part of life and though its "sickle" might have advantage over the physical attributes of love it in no way signals the 'judgement day' when love will somehow be ruled ineffectual simply because the bloom of youth has passed.
I could reference a number of sonnets, but I'll use 116 since it's my favorite. Here Shakespeare refers to the love of "true minds." His focus is the importance of love being more than the physical, more than the sexual, more than the material. True minds that meet in love can overcome all tempests and defeat all foes.
To me, this isn't a love that started out great but ended in disaster. This isn't a husband that eventually commits adultery or a wife that decides to walk out on her family for some life she was never able to live. I feel that he is ultimately saying that this sort of love would never end in disaster because it is basically against its very nature. This seems a very hard concept to understand given the current divorce rate and the overall decent of human relations into a state of deceit and betrayal. You can hardly turn on the TV or go to the theatre or read a novel without learning about the fickleness of man (and woman). Shakespeare is referring to an uncorrupted sort of love that survives the storms of life.
I think that when he refers to "alterations" he is taking into considerations the alterations of life that come rather than the alterations of the individual. I don't think that he is saying you love someone your entire life even if they stop loving you. That would completely go against the idea that it was a "marriage of true minds" to begin with. I assume he is referring to the alterations of circumstance or health or appearance rather than the natural evolution of a person's intellect or character. Hopefully, if it began as a "marriage of true minds," two people's characters would evolve together rather than apart.
Basically it comes down to Time not being the enemy or the controlling force of love. Rather it is just part of life and though its "sickle" might have advantage over the physical attributes of love it in no way signals the 'judgement day' when love will somehow be ruled ineffectual simply because the bloom of youth has passed.
Sonnet 138 could've been written by Cameron Crowe
Every single one of Cameron Crowe's movies--Say Anything, Singles, Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous, etc.--are somehow painted as completely romantic and full of idealistic treatment of relationships, but how anyone can find them particularly "romantic" in the traditional Hollywood sense is delusional.
This is not criticism, but observation; in Say Anything, Diane likes Lloyd because she knows that he'll stick around. She doesn't feel much besides respect for him and she doesn't want to go to England alone. In Jerry Maguire, Dorothy acknowledges that Jerry really loves her kid and sure does like her a lot. These are people that settle for very specific needs to be met at the complete neglect of others. This is not "romance," but a sadly common reality. I know a handful of people who are able to find someone who meets their every need, who gives them everything they need and nothing they don't, but these are few and far between (or the people themselves are delusional--having watched Say Anything at least, no exaggeration, 50+ times, it's hard for me to accurately judge).
So what of sonnet 138? "On both sides thus is simple truth suppress'd" is Shakespeare just admitting that the relationship in question isn't really helping either partner out. Between the lies, the deceptions, and the denials, there's a horribly sad undercurrent of resignation. Sure, the narrator is able to regularly get some degree of emotional validation and sexual fulfillment--although it could be argued that sexual fulfillment is simply the abating of a terminal desire rather than a complete satisfaction, much like any other form of hunger--but it's just self-deception.
The relationship described in the sonnet has a really discomforting subtext of prostitution to it. Even if it's not a direct one-to-one exchange of sex/a relationship for monetary compensation, there's still something really off about the narrator acknowledging his own capacity for denial with regard to his lover's additional dalliances.
Maybe I'm an idealist, but I can't stand the cynicism that pervades our society about relationships. There's this theory (most recently espoused on How I Met Your Mother, the only TV show worth watching) that one person in a relationship is the settler, while the other is the reacher. By the end of the episode detailing this condition, it is dismantled as arbitrary negativity and the cultural misprioritization of physical appearance over all other forms of attractiveness, including unquantifiable things like chemistry, emotional connection, etc.
In the political sphere, we're currently hearing all sorts of business about "pragmatism" and the importance of being realistic. But we create our own realities, and the more we choose to settle for less than what we want, the more we'll get just that. I'd rather be disappointed and suffer wave after wave of authentic heartbreak than reliably wake up every morning next to someone whose absence wouldn't make me feel lost at sea.
So, in summary, this sonnet is really well-written and perhaps realistic for some people, but it's bullshit to assume that "realistic" and "good" are mutually inclusive. Saving Private Ryan is realistic. That doesn't mean that we should try to emulate it or accept that as a decent reality.
Wow, that struck a nerve. Sorry 'bout that. As my 500 Days of Summer tirade(s) indicated, I've kinda sorta got strong feelings about this sort of stuff.
Ahem. As you were.
Love and Time
In both sonnets 15 and 73, there is a similar progression through time. Time makes things take their course and die. In both sonnets I recognized a couple similarities: 1-The sadness of death and leaving prime, 2- The beauty and gift that time gives us along with death.
1- Sonnet 15 talks about how boastful we are in our prime. But this is before we realize that our youth isn't eternal. When we realize this, we are in our greatest state. Sonnet 73 goes right into the dying stages of life and describes what dying causes us to think about. Both sonnets make death sound like one more experience that is greater than the rest.
2- The last two lines of both sonnet 15 and 73 are my favorites. They represent the very last gift of time, which is death. But along with death, the real gift is love. Shakespeare explains that dying helps us remember our life, and because we will have no more life, we grow a new and strong love for the things we've experienced, only because we cannot experience them anymore. I like the way Shakespeare portrays life: When we are young and boastful, life loves us, and when we are dying, we love life.
1- Sonnet 15 talks about how boastful we are in our prime. But this is before we realize that our youth isn't eternal. When we realize this, we are in our greatest state. Sonnet 73 goes right into the dying stages of life and describes what dying causes us to think about. Both sonnets make death sound like one more experience that is greater than the rest.
2- The last two lines of both sonnet 15 and 73 are my favorites. They represent the very last gift of time, which is death. But along with death, the real gift is love. Shakespeare explains that dying helps us remember our life, and because we will have no more life, we grow a new and strong love for the things we've experienced, only because we cannot experience them anymore. I like the way Shakespeare portrays life: When we are young and boastful, life loves us, and when we are dying, we love life.
Time makes Love Pure
Time is something that most individuals fight against. The rape of time against our mortal bodies, creating decay and ending beauty in its most sought after form. The fear that consumes us as we find our looks, our beauty, our physical attraction, fading. Age creeps up on all of us, many see it as a disease that has a hundred percent mortality rate. When youth blooms its a lovely thing, and its often in these moments of purity that we find love. The sexual attraction coupled with our fresh innocence about the real world leads us spell bound into love. Its in these moments of youth that one often finds that special someone, before we know what the world, and what time, truly holds for us.
The slow marching on of time often mutates the young love we found once upon a time. Many see the change and decay that long periods of time do on a relationship. The fires that once burned so brightly seem to dim in accordance with our fading youth and beauty. Here is when relationships begin to crack and break apart. Whats interesting about Shakespeare is his desire and power in which to defy time and love deeper, longer. He doesnt believe in an afterlife and so sees this time on earth as the end all, in which you must love to your fullest. Time as he describes it is the same. It moves on in a steady stream with no thought to love or youth. However, love does not have to be affected by its steady pull. "And all in war with Time for love of you, As he takes from you, I ingraft you new" (15). Though time continues its deadly battle, his love remains true, giving back what time steals.
What do we miss in our relationships today? There are many who believe that time wont end after this life is darkened. Could it be that with this thought in mind we think too little of the importance of time and its affect on our relationships with those we love. If we can just fix things after this life ends, why would we need to work on perfecting our love now? Shakespeare didnt believe in life after death, this was the only time we had to live and love to the fullest. With this perception of time he made love immortal and more powerful. The need to make love beautiful now, was and is more important than later. Live life to the fullest and battle against the rage of time, swim in it and use it to really see and enjoy. " To love that well which thou must leave ere long" (73).
Unlike Faustus
Both Faustus and the speaker in 29, are depressed by their financial situation. Faustus had "bills hung as monuments" in his study. This is seen by the speaker in lines 1 and 2, "When, in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes, I all alone beweep my outcast state." This man feels disgraced at his financial failure and now looks like a loser in other "men's eyes." The difference, between the two, begins in line 3. "And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless (unavailing) cries" Faustus never wanted to cry to the heavens. He solved his problems with the antithesis of God, Lucifer.
From the beginning, Faustus saw worldly possession and knowledge as being wealthy but the speaker found new wealth. If he wasn't rich or wealthy with gold or money, he was with his love. In line 13 it reads, "For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings." In line 1 his misery can only be noticed by men. In this time,men meant everyone except the upper class or royalty because they would not know what it felt like to be poor. I like the last line of this sonnet because it makes his lack of money sound unimportant by comparison with "men." In line 14 it reads, "That then I scorn to change (exchange) my state with kings." Because of his wealth in love, he feels more wealthy than a king. He would "scorn" to exchange, meaning (at least I thought meant) he was more wealthy than a king and wouldn't even bother comparing with one. I think this is beautiful writing. Faustus could never have seen past wealth that would make him powerful, a selfish wealth. The speaker could experience something more and that is how the two are unalike.
From the beginning, Faustus saw worldly possession and knowledge as being wealthy but the speaker found new wealth. If he wasn't rich or wealthy with gold or money, he was with his love. In line 13 it reads, "For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings." In line 1 his misery can only be noticed by men. In this time,men meant everyone except the upper class or royalty because they would not know what it felt like to be poor. I like the last line of this sonnet because it makes his lack of money sound unimportant by comparison with "men." In line 14 it reads, "That then I scorn to change (exchange) my state with kings." Because of his wealth in love, he feels more wealthy than a king. He would "scorn" to exchange, meaning (at least I thought meant) he was more wealthy than a king and wouldn't even bother comparing with one. I think this is beautiful writing. Faustus could never have seen past wealth that would make him powerful, a selfish wealth. The speaker could experience something more and that is how the two are unalike.
L is for lies...
So, before I answer your question I want you to answer one of mine. What is the history of the English word "love?" Is there a reason why we have only one word that applies to so many types of love when other languages have many different words for different types of love? At first it may seem like having just one word really limits our expression of love. On the other hand, it also allows us to connect different kinds of love into a kind of universal emotion. Because we have love for one thing, it is easier to find love in another. Love without distinction. The word can stay the same although throughout the course of a relationship the emotion or concepts may differ.
In response to prompt 4, I think sonnet 148 is a type of love. Like the tone of the poem, it is a love that is subtle and clever. I really like how it uses double meaning to draw the reader in. Like after all the talk people hear about love and sex, not talking about it but implying it is hotter. It is a kind of game, one that the couple is very used to playing and the only rule is to never talk about the game. It sounds complicated, but isn't that an even deeper kind of understanding each other?
In response to prompt 4, I think sonnet 148 is a type of love. Like the tone of the poem, it is a love that is subtle and clever. I really like how it uses double meaning to draw the reader in. Like after all the talk people hear about love and sex, not talking about it but implying it is hotter. It is a kind of game, one that the couple is very used to playing and the only rule is to never talk about the game. It sounds complicated, but isn't that an even deeper kind of understanding each other?
All you need is love?
Ok, I really want to agree with Shakespeare here. Maybe I just don't completely understand Sonnet 116, but I can't completely buy into Shakespeare's idea of love."Love is not love/Which alters when alteration finds,/Or with the remover to remove." The idea of a pure and true love is great. I will even go as far as to say that I believe in this kind of love; a love so pure that nobody can impede or destroy it. What I don't understand, or possibly even agree with, is that if a love is breakable, it is not true love. In my personal experiences I have seen people that truly love each other and then eventually cheat, lie, and destroy their love. I do not think this means that the love they once shared was impure. Just to clarify, this is where I am a bit uncertain as to how Shakespeare defines love. Is Shakespeare Suggesting that a love that has been broken was never love, or is Shakespeare suggesting that a love that has been broken was once true love, but now cannot be considered true love because of its imperfection? The line, "O, no, it is an ever fixed mark...never to be shaken...", leads me to think that Shakespeare believes that love was never true love if at any time it was in doubt or shaken. For this reason I don't see eye-to-eye with Shakespeare's definition of love. I think that, just like the seasons Shakespeare is so fond of, love has many phases. Sometimes love withers and dies and sometimes it lasts forever. If a love you once had withers and dies, I truly believe that it could have once been true love. Love is tricky and Tennyson said it best, "I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all."
Sonnet 116
So first of all, despite the prompt that I am responding to (the first one), I am not trying to disprove Shakespeare and “take away the power of everything he wrote”! I don’t think quite that highly of myself. However, In Sonnet 116 Shakespeare appears to say that love is not love unless it is unchanging and constant. I don’t know how literal Shakespeare is necessarily being here as I think you can give license for different degrees of how love could change or alter itself. I do agree with Shakespeare in the sense that real love doesn’t just end because bad things happen or because you learn different things about each other. But I would disagree with anyone who reads this sonnet to imply that real love is a love that never alters in any form.
I don’t think that love can survive if it stays as a literal “ever-fixed mark”. I think that love is fairly multi-faceted as are the people in any type of a relationship. You can’t expect a person to always stay the same and therefore you can’t expect your love for them to always be the same. But I don’t think that that takes away from the love you had/still have. For example, I can think of people that I was once really good friends with and because of changes in circumstances/locales we are not as close as we once were. But that doesn’t mean that our friendship then was not real nor does it mean that I do not still love them, albeit in a slightly different way.
Likewise in a relationship, things change and I think that that is something that you have to be prepared for. Furthermore, I don’t think that the alterations that can result in your relationship or love over time is a bad thing; I think it’s vital. In any relationship at some point in time someone is going to do something that will hurt the other person. A very literal reading of “alteration” in Sonnet 116 implies that if someone cheats on you that it’s not true love unless there is no alteration in your love for them. I think that is an extreme example but I think that there is no way that someone could move past that or other difficulties unless they worked through those issues and feelings which would require some alteration of their feelings. However, I think that if a couple could manage to get through something like unfaithfulness then they would find they had a better, albeit altered, relationship and a stronger love and appreciation for each other.
I just think that relationships are complicated and that the only way love can survive through the years is through working on them and altering (which isn’t necessarily lessening) the love and the relationship that you share together. If anything, I think that the reason we see so much divorce is this unrealistic expectation that if we have to reexamine our love or work on it then it means that there is something wrong when in reality I think that is the only way you can achieve a healthy relationship that will last a long time…. and I am done sounding like Dr. Phil.
I agree that real love doesn’t just end because of time, changes, or actions. But in reading Shakespeare’s sonnets it becomes clear the he also recognizes the complicated nature of love and the need for relationships and love to change over time and as people change. This is why I do not think that Shakespeare is advocating that a love that undergoes change is somehow false or a lesser type of love. In my opinion, it’s the only type of love that can survive.
I don’t think that love can survive if it stays as a literal “ever-fixed mark”. I think that love is fairly multi-faceted as are the people in any type of a relationship. You can’t expect a person to always stay the same and therefore you can’t expect your love for them to always be the same. But I don’t think that that takes away from the love you had/still have. For example, I can think of people that I was once really good friends with and because of changes in circumstances/locales we are not as close as we once were. But that doesn’t mean that our friendship then was not real nor does it mean that I do not still love them, albeit in a slightly different way.
Likewise in a relationship, things change and I think that that is something that you have to be prepared for. Furthermore, I don’t think that the alterations that can result in your relationship or love over time is a bad thing; I think it’s vital. In any relationship at some point in time someone is going to do something that will hurt the other person. A very literal reading of “alteration” in Sonnet 116 implies that if someone cheats on you that it’s not true love unless there is no alteration in your love for them. I think that is an extreme example but I think that there is no way that someone could move past that or other difficulties unless they worked through those issues and feelings which would require some alteration of their feelings. However, I think that if a couple could manage to get through something like unfaithfulness then they would find they had a better, albeit altered, relationship and a stronger love and appreciation for each other.
I just think that relationships are complicated and that the only way love can survive through the years is through working on them and altering (which isn’t necessarily lessening) the love and the relationship that you share together. If anything, I think that the reason we see so much divorce is this unrealistic expectation that if we have to reexamine our love or work on it then it means that there is something wrong when in reality I think that is the only way you can achieve a healthy relationship that will last a long time…. and I am done sounding like Dr. Phil.
I agree that real love doesn’t just end because of time, changes, or actions. But in reading Shakespeare’s sonnets it becomes clear the he also recognizes the complicated nature of love and the need for relationships and love to change over time and as people change. This is why I do not think that Shakespeare is advocating that a love that undergoes change is somehow false or a lesser type of love. In my opinion, it’s the only type of love that can survive.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Yes, Shakespeare was right.
I think love is confusing. I guess it’s not confusing when I think of loving my family members or friends because that, to me, is such a simple and automatic thing. It takes a greater deal of effort, however, to love someone when you don’t understand them or don’t agree with them on some level. Shakespeare explains this principle so well, particularly in sonnets 116 and 130. All too often, the media casts a light on love that makes it seem perfect and always “dreamy” and surreal. The “chick flicks” always end happily and somehow everything falls into place as the upbeat music starts playing and the credits roll. But I don’t think love is always like that in real life. I'm sure that sometimes it is, but I also believe that the truest test of love is if it survives through disappointments, misunderstandings, failed expectations, and time. To me, there’s a difference between a “crush” and really, truly loving someone. Shakespeare explores this difference in sonnets 116 and 130, and he does an incredible job of it, too. This comparison was especially evident in sonnet 130. This sonnet makes me think of what a husband might feel towards his wife after they’ve been married for a long, long time. Initially, he probably saw her as “a summer’s day” and a “goddess” and all that, but as time went on and the “crush”-like stage wore off, he grew to love her in much deeper ways then physical attraction. Eventually, he didn’t care whether or not her cheeks were like roses or her breath like perfume, because, as stated in sonnet 116, love is an “ever-fixed mark/ That looks on tempests and is never shaken” (line 5-6). He closes sonnet 130 with two lines that exemplify the entire theme of the poem: “And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare/ As any she belied with false compare” (13-14). In other words, it’s as if he’s saying that despite the fact that his wife may no longer look like a “goddess” (or maybe never did in the first place), his love is rare because that doesn’t matter to him...He still loves her. “[M]y mistress is exceptional in that she has set new standards for TRUE beauty by a comparison that defies its standards” (footnote 4 on pg. 1214; I think that about sums it up.).
Love that Shakespeare
For me reading Shakespeare is like having a warm blanket wrapped around me, going home, or being in a class with a professor who I've been taught by for three semesters. There is something comforting in the words of Shakespeare because every time I read his work, even if I've read it ten times before I learn something or see something different. This again reminds me of our professor, and how I've been taught something new and intriguing every class I take. The crime is that now he is abandoning us for some place with fresher air and richer soil! I'm sorry Daniel, I'm just having a delayed reaction on hearing that you have a better job offer. I don't blame you, I would go too... Congratulations! I know they will love you there. Be assured though I am truly distraught. I guess I'm being selfish... which brings me back to another reason why I love Shakespeare. You can personalize his creations, as if he gives you your own "Self-substantial fuel". Yes, I know there is a certain meaning he is trying to convey, and a particular muse he writes about, but really you can pick lines out of any sonnet and incorporate it into your own world. I have heard lines used from the same sonnet at extremely different events if it be from a wedding to a funeral. You can say lines from one of his sonnets to your spouse, friend, employer, rival, even your cat and it has a different meaning for each. I don't know if Shakespeare meant for this to happen. He would probably love for people to read his sonnets as a whole and not pick and choose what to see and hear. In fact he would probably role over in his grave if he knew all the things his words have been used for. But he certainly did make his work available for the partaking, every class, hero, villain, romantic and skeptic. He knows how to interact with people and their emotions. Like with me when I was ticked off after hearing about Daniel, I read every single sonnet and then ran into the first few lines of Sonnet 87 which stood out to me Shakespeare writes, " Farewell!! Thou art too dear for my possessing, And like enough thou know'st thy estimate. The charter of thy worth gives thee releasing". Just those few lines help me see the opportunity Daniel has. I know I'm off on a tangent and not sticking to the Prompts, but I had to express how Shakespeare has helped me along with my new found hostility towards a place called Tennessee.
The Villains Called Time & Death
. One of the recurring themes in Shakespeare's sonnets is time and its relationship to love, to age, to beauty, and to art. Read Sonnets 15 and 73, and then discuss how time is used similarly, or differently, in the two poems.
In sonnet 15 Time is the villain that is at war for the youthfulness of the young-man and who takes from the young man: beauty, memories of the young-man, and let's the young man decay. So the relationship there of time is the fact that when young a person has a lot which can be given to love, his age, beauty of himself and those things are lost to time over the course of life, they are taken, stolen that's why I use the word villain. But also to the art that Shakespeare can give the young man is to immortalize him forever beautiful by his words and to be forever perfect. Then in sonnet 73 the debt that all men must pay comes about at the end of life: the villain is now Death, but the relationship it seems to have with love is stated very well at the end "which makes thy love more strong, to love that well which thou must leave ere long." because if there is forever love may not be as strong as it could be for a short time and maybe that is why humans love so passionately because they are all victims of time and death. Time leads up to death and love, age, and beauty don't get to last forever because they all end at deaths of the people. I thought that those relationships were used in a very similar way in both sonnets because I could see that time consumes what people have, the way fire consumes and the way nights after nights take away from our ages, our loves passion, and our beauty.
Shakespeare's Sonnets - Prompts
1. Respond to one or more of Shakespeare's statements about love in Sonnet 116. Is it true that "Love is not love that alters when it alteration finds"? When the object of our love, or the circumstance in which we love, changes, is it true that love itself does not? Is it true that love doesn't "bend with the remover to remove"? In other words, when the one we love is not with us, is it true that our love for him/her is (or should be) unaffected? Is it true that time does not alter love even when it alters us? If you could prove Shakespeare wrong, you would take away the power of everything he wrote: "If this be error and upon me proved, ' I never writ, nor no man ever loved." So...is he right?2. One of the most often-used tropes of love poetry in the western tradition is to compare the beloved to the poet's surroundings, to beautiful things in the world. (Think of Astrophil and Stella, which is full of such comparisons.) Sonnet 18 is very much in this tradition (though it does go beyond that tradition by asserting that nothing in nature can rival the beauty of the speaker's love), and it is probably Shakespeare's most famous sonnet. Read it, and then immediately read Sonnet 130. How does Shakespeare play on the same tradition in his Sonnet 130? And, could you argue that despite the atypical use of metaphor and simile, Sonnet 130 is ultimately a more realistic and more tender love poem than Sonnet 18? And just for fun, please watch this reading by our former Poet Laureate, Billy Collins. He plays on this same tradition in his poem "Litany," which I find utterly hilarious.
3. One of the recurring themes in Shakespeare's sonnets is time and its relationship to love, to age, to beauty, and to art. Read Sonnets 15 and 73, and then discuss how time is used similarly, or differently, in the two poems.
4. What do you make of Sonnet 138? Could it be argued that this is the most practical and realistic portrayal of a relationship in all of Shakespeare's sonnets? Unlike the intense affair with the speaker's other lover (of the first 126 sonnets), this love has gotten to a point where it is uncomplicated. The two lovers fulfill each other's emotional and physical needs. She lies to him and tells him he is not old and is still worthy of love. He believes her lies and ignores her unfaithfulness. They fulfill each others' needs sexually. No strings attached. What do you think? Can a relationship like this work?
5. What themes in Sonnets 29 and 144 resonate with Marlowe's Dr. Faustus. How is the speaker like Faustus? How is he unlike him?
Thanks. See you on Thursday.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
I think Marlowe is saying many things about knowledge, each point being layered deeper within the text. First, in response to the last prompt, I think that Marlowe is saying that knowledge is power. As many others have said, this seems to be the case in the text. However, in the last sentence of the text,
"Whose deepness doth entice such forward wits,
To practice more than heavenly power permits."
I think it is saying, just because we might gain this powerful knowledge, does not mean we can play god with it. My example would be that Faustus uses his knowledge to do 'unnatural' things, like giving people horns, or turning them into apes. An example of modern times, of course, would be genetic research, cloning, stem cell harvesting, etc.
Another thing that I noticed as I was reading the text, was that Faustus doesn't DO anything amazing with this power that he receives. Sure, he does some cool tricks here and there, but nothing world-changing. He himself thought at the beginning that gaining this knowledge and power would give him the potential to do just about anything, but to me, it seems like he wastes this power. (Not that I think selling his soul to the devil is a good way to gain knowledge to begin with) I think that this points, along with many other instances in the text, to the weakness of Faustus's character. He doubts God, sells his soul to the devil. He doubts Satan; many times he is about to turn his back on Satan and repent. He doubts himself; believes himself to be damned even though he is consistently being told that he still has hope. And he also wastes the knowledge he's been given. (Although, can you really TRUST the knowledge and power that he's been given? How do we know it all isn't false. Can we really believe that Satan gave him anything valid?)
I really did, though it was difficult to understand it all, enjoy this play. As someone else said, I'd really like to see a stage production of this. Though I would appreciate the text being dumbed down for me a little. :)
"Whose deepness doth entice such forward wits,
To practice more than heavenly power permits."
I think it is saying, just because we might gain this powerful knowledge, does not mean we can play god with it. My example would be that Faustus uses his knowledge to do 'unnatural' things, like giving people horns, or turning them into apes. An example of modern times, of course, would be genetic research, cloning, stem cell harvesting, etc.
Another thing that I noticed as I was reading the text, was that Faustus doesn't DO anything amazing with this power that he receives. Sure, he does some cool tricks here and there, but nothing world-changing. He himself thought at the beginning that gaining this knowledge and power would give him the potential to do just about anything, but to me, it seems like he wastes this power. (Not that I think selling his soul to the devil is a good way to gain knowledge to begin with) I think that this points, along with many other instances in the text, to the weakness of Faustus's character. He doubts God, sells his soul to the devil. He doubts Satan; many times he is about to turn his back on Satan and repent. He doubts himself; believes himself to be damned even though he is consistently being told that he still has hope. And he also wastes the knowledge he's been given. (Although, can you really TRUST the knowledge and power that he's been given? How do we know it all isn't false. Can we really believe that Satan gave him anything valid?)
I really did, though it was difficult to understand it all, enjoy this play. As someone else said, I'd really like to see a stage production of this. Though I would appreciate the text being dumbed down for me a little. :)
In this dark tale of a man who trades his soul to the devil, there is quite a bit more depth to the story than one might think upon first reading. With the consideration of the previous medieval time period and now the emerging renaissance, it starts to become clear that Christopher Marlowe is trying to tell us more than a tragic story of a man who is condemned to hell for eternity. Yes, there were parts that were light hearted and even parts I found myself chuckling, but the ending leaves no room for a happy ending and delivers a powerful message with probably multiple meanings.
It seems to me that the character of Faustus represents an up and coming group of people who are hungry for something more than the strictly spiritual and religious ideals of the medieval period they find themselves surrounded by. Faustus is tired of the traditional studies of philosophy, law, the bible, medicine, and other areas which were ruled solely on authority and not on an individuals ability to think and create. He is instead intrigued by risky, new practices as he clearly states, "'Tis magic, magic that hath ravished me" (line 109, page 1115). Of course the many other characters associating with Faustus represent the opposite; the restrictions of the lingering medieval thinking. They try throughout the story to bring him back to what they consider the right way path, such as the First Scholar who upon hearing of Faustus' crazy notions believes he has "fallen into that damned art", referring to his newly discovered magic (line 24, page 1117). Even the devil Mephostophilis hints to Faustus in the beginning that he should stay away from what he is about to venture upon when stating, "Oh, Faustus, leave these frivolous demands" (line 80, page 1119). With conviction toward a better life, even if it only lasts for twenty four years longer, Faustus does not take heed to any of the advice and carries out his plan. In the end he is totally condemned and beyond repairing his salvation, not to mention in an incredibly profound state of misery because of it. Had Faustus remained dominant and glorious, Marlowe's agenda might have been clearly in favor of the Renaissance; however, this is not the case and it leaves an interpretation that he was trying to tell us although "new" England might seem exciting, new ideas are the destroyer of us all in the end.
It seems to me that the character of Faustus represents an up and coming group of people who are hungry for something more than the strictly spiritual and religious ideals of the medieval period they find themselves surrounded by. Faustus is tired of the traditional studies of philosophy, law, the bible, medicine, and other areas which were ruled solely on authority and not on an individuals ability to think and create. He is instead intrigued by risky, new practices as he clearly states, "'Tis magic, magic that hath ravished me" (line 109, page 1115). Of course the many other characters associating with Faustus represent the opposite; the restrictions of the lingering medieval thinking. They try throughout the story to bring him back to what they consider the right way path, such as the First Scholar who upon hearing of Faustus' crazy notions believes he has "fallen into that damned art", referring to his newly discovered magic (line 24, page 1117). Even the devil Mephostophilis hints to Faustus in the beginning that he should stay away from what he is about to venture upon when stating, "Oh, Faustus, leave these frivolous demands" (line 80, page 1119). With conviction toward a better life, even if it only lasts for twenty four years longer, Faustus does not take heed to any of the advice and carries out his plan. In the end he is totally condemned and beyond repairing his salvation, not to mention in an incredibly profound state of misery because of it. Had Faustus remained dominant and glorious, Marlowe's agenda might have been clearly in favor of the Renaissance; however, this is not the case and it leaves an interpretation that he was trying to tell us although "new" England might seem exciting, new ideas are the destroyer of us all in the end.
Knowledge
Eve partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and thus followed a consequence. The consequence was knowledge, or being able to experience the evil of the earth, but ultimately being able to experience the good as well. When Faustus is first deciding whether or not to take the plunge, he is presented with knowledge that he never before knew. Mephostophilis tells him of the bliss of heaven and, he tells him of the endless torment that awaits him in hell. He commits and is told the location of heaven and hell, along with much more of the cosmos and so on. He gains all this knowledge but yet his desire to be regarded drives him further. The means by which we acquire knowledge and then what we do with it determines how knowledgeable we really are. Faustus took the short cuts he wanted it all at once and did not want to wait. Once he had control of this knowledge he sought after personal gain and recognition. This happens all the time, exploitation of individuals, genetically mutating animals and even issues on the political level such as Guantanamo bay. This all required knowledge, for example someone figured out that if they exploiting children in small factories across the world they could turn a larger profit. Chickens are being mutated so they have four breasts and barely develop heads and feathers, so meat is up and clean cost are down. Guantanamo Bay, Obama was going to shut it down as soon as he became President and said that it was one of Bush’s mistakes. It’s still in operation so when Obama became President he learned what was going on there and realized he couldn’t close it. From Spiderman, “with great power comes great responsibility”. Faustus did not exude responsibility and I think there are many who are foolish with the knowledge they have.
Marlow the Spy
I found the writings of Marlow in the " The Tragical history of Dr. Faustus" to be quite bewitching. He certainly has a way of enchanting his readers into the world he has so cleverly created for them. Usually when I'm reading I try to stick to the meaning of a certain text , to just let a story be a story, but I have found that lately I have not been able to draw away from the authors. I keep asking myself questions about who they were and why they wrote what they did. In my view I found that Marlow and his life were constantly banging on the door of my brain interrupting me as I read about Dr.Faustus .
I think lessons about pride, lust, knowledge, and the trouble that comes when you sell your soul were very clear and spelled out. But knowing Marlow was a spy sharpens the darkness that is in this story. The characters that are supporters of Dr. Faustus to me suddenly became suspects in an ongoing psychological thriller. I thought it was great when Marlow made a comparison to Dr. Faustus and those bumbling fumbling idiots Dick, Robin and Clown who were fooling around with the dark elements of calling on the devil too; but were so naive about things I don't think the devil could have any real interest in them. Besides being some kind of comic relief for a serious subject, I can't help and wonder if they were people who Marlow knew as other spies. Spies who might not have taken things as seriously as Marlow. The Pope and the things that Dr. Faustus "Snatches" from him gives me the idea of secrets Marlow might have been able to gather from the Catholic realm. The characters that Dr. Faustus leaves lessons for are "Scholars" these are the people that "pray" for him. He talks to them of the torture he himself inflicted upon himself and warns them of such a fate. I can't help and think that Marlow's real adventures took their toll on him, and that he imagined what joys and freedoms he might have enjoyed had he not sold his soul for queen and country.
Monday, February 8, 2010
The Inescapable Hell
Dr. Faustus was not how I expected it to be. I found in beautifully written and full of brilliant intuitions. It took me in quickly. Faustus is an interesting and complex character fed by ambition and a thirst for power that clouds his judgment until it is too late. What is interesting about this play is that Faustus is warned several times about what will befall him should he sell his soul to the devil but he doesn't listen. He has his two shoulder spirits, people around him, and even his demon servant Mephostophilis (my favorite character) that warn him of eternal damnation but he fails to realize until it is too late. It is this theme that I think is so applicable to present day. Mephostophilis talks of hell not as a physical place but as mind-set, a way of being, cut off from light, and immersed in guilt and shame. It is this that makes the eternal torment. Mephostophilis sees it fit to remind Faustus throughout the play that he is damned. He is the cautionary tale that Faustus refuses to see. I find this to be very accurate. When we make decisions that are destructive for ourself and others we get trapped in this dark place and feeling when the reprecussions come up. Faustus is given much opportunity to turn his life around and to seek light instead of dark but he refuses it. Despite the dark things he does he is always given the opportunity to return to God-the good spirit says 'repent' the bad spirit says 'it is too late'. Whether or not you believe in a Diety or organized religion the idea can be applied. Our inner selves pull us into turmoil half of us saying we are still worth something the other halfe saying it doesn't matter what we do we will never be worth anything. Faustus is guilty of utter selfishness, no decision he makes benefits anyone but himself but it hurts many people besides himself. At the end of the play Faustus is left literally ripped apart by the empty bitterness his life has become. Can we not all fall into that trap? That feeling of self-loathing and loneliness is the inescapable hell.
Marlowe Swims with the Devil
Christopher Marlowe, an aspiring minister, yet devilish playwriter. His history at Cambridge does nothing more than add validity to his personification of Dr. Faustus. Marlowe had extensive knowledge of the spiritual, the scriptures, of curses, of evil possession of the body, and the tactics of the Devil. This knowledge of religion and of temptation was what deepened the story of Dr. Faustus and his fall. Like Dr. Faustus, Marlowe may have lived a double life as well; minister-in-training and spy-in-training. The fact that Marlowe was killed while amongst a drunken bar fight, means only that the scholar knew both aspects of the coin: the chaotic underbelly of crime-ridden society, and the spiritual security of Christ.
When Dr. Faustus reaches the end, and tries to find relief for his soon-to-be torment, the extreme pain of Hell becomes quite evident; no longer is Hell a distant 24-years in the future. What better way to show the fluffy cloud-like bliss of Heaven than by showing the acrid dark smoke of Hell. The two examples of God's and the Devil's realm help the reader decide--although the decision is an easy one.
If I were to write a biography of this Dr. Faustus, I would begin with his youth, a time before corruption. I would focus on the steps that led Faustus to Wittenburg, and then the book. Why did he cross over into the world of darkness? Was it truly knowledge he sought? Or was it the power, control, and invincibility of being above a King and a Pope?
Marlowe definitely wanted to show the highest point of what the Devil could give a man, and then what would occur after such a gift. Perhaps Faustus was the externalization of Marlowe's inner turmoil; perhaps the thought of dabbling in satanic rituals had crossed his mind, and he wanted to see how far that path would take him.
When Dr. Faustus reaches the end, and tries to find relief for his soon-to-be torment, the extreme pain of Hell becomes quite evident; no longer is Hell a distant 24-years in the future. What better way to show the fluffy cloud-like bliss of Heaven than by showing the acrid dark smoke of Hell. The two examples of God's and the Devil's realm help the reader decide--although the decision is an easy one.
If I were to write a biography of this Dr. Faustus, I would begin with his youth, a time before corruption. I would focus on the steps that led Faustus to Wittenburg, and then the book. Why did he cross over into the world of darkness? Was it truly knowledge he sought? Or was it the power, control, and invincibility of being above a King and a Pope?
Marlowe definitely wanted to show the highest point of what the Devil could give a man, and then what would occur after such a gift. Perhaps Faustus was the externalization of Marlowe's inner turmoil; perhaps the thought of dabbling in satanic rituals had crossed his mind, and he wanted to see how far that path would take him.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Dr. Faustus
As I was reading The Tragical History of Dr. Faustus, I couldn't help, but notice the connection between the knowledge he was gaining and his involvement with devils. I am sure this is not an original idea. It is one, perhaps, that could even be traced back to the Garden of Eden where Eve partook of the tree of knowledge after fraternizing with the serpent.
I have heard of the persecutions of scientists in the middle ages and thereafter, such as Galileo, who were thought of as nothing more than heretics. It is possible that Marlowe is commenting on this through his play, hinting that those who are learned must be surrounded by evil and devils.
It is not uncommon even in this day and age to see atheism as a preferred choice among intellectuals. To many of those who are uber-religious this could be construed as someone who has evil beliefs. Although I don’t think that this story was promoting atheist beliefs.
It was interesting to me to see the good angel and the evil angel throughout the play. I don’t know if this was something that was original to this play, but it is something that we see to this day even in cartoon movies with the angel and the devil on alternating shoulders whispering advice to the protagonist. We can also view the good angel and evil angel as the conscience fighting against primal instincts. Faustus shows theses internal struggles in his speech. Just as he vocalizes one point of view, he speaks another as cued by one of his dutiful angels.
I really enjoyed this story. It’s very human, something I think we can all relate to: temptation, struggles, etc. I would actually love to see this on stage sometime.
I have heard of the persecutions of scientists in the middle ages and thereafter, such as Galileo, who were thought of as nothing more than heretics. It is possible that Marlowe is commenting on this through his play, hinting that those who are learned must be surrounded by evil and devils.
It is not uncommon even in this day and age to see atheism as a preferred choice among intellectuals. To many of those who are uber-religious this could be construed as someone who has evil beliefs. Although I don’t think that this story was promoting atheist beliefs.
It was interesting to me to see the good angel and the evil angel throughout the play. I don’t know if this was something that was original to this play, but it is something that we see to this day even in cartoon movies with the angel and the devil on alternating shoulders whispering advice to the protagonist. We can also view the good angel and evil angel as the conscience fighting against primal instincts. Faustus shows theses internal struggles in his speech. Just as he vocalizes one point of view, he speaks another as cued by one of his dutiful angels.
I really enjoyed this story. It’s very human, something I think we can all relate to: temptation, struggles, etc. I would actually love to see this on stage sometime.
Friday, February 5, 2010
The Big Questions: Where are we going, Why are we here...etc
What does Dr. Faustus suggest about knowledge? Is knowledge something that exists for us to find, or do we create it through our own actions? Is it dangerous? What are the potential ethical questions surrounding knowledge? Do you think, for example, there is a relationship between the questions raised by the play and contemporary issues like cloning, embryonic stem cell research, genetically-modified foods, etc.?
I really liked the play because it was a good example of the line between having Faith and Knowing. Very soon after Faustus sells his soul to the devil he asks for 3 books and one of those are about heaven and the planets. Then once he knows what eternal bliss he is missing out he blames the trickster Mephostophilis because he now Knows what he is missing so instead of having faith in heaven and God he asked to Know and by the way he went about Knowing gave up his own way of getting to heaven. Knowledge for some are the ultimate questions that have been searched for, for a long time like Who are we? Where are we going? Why are here? and so on and people try to answer these questions by "magic," lying, searching and they mostly never find the answers yet, so as cool as it is that what Faustus learned from his books and asking his demon friend, are things we all know now very easily like planets going around the sun, the time it takes, the plants and trees on the earth, etc we are still searching for the ultimate questions even tho we have those answers. And yes there is a question raised by the play to today's issues, especially I would think is the God Particle and proving the creation of the world, or the recent proving of the Big Bang Theory and so on Everyone still tries to find the answers to Disease, the soul, immortality :) ha-ha. That's what as a human race people seem to do. But it's not that bad, except sometimes when the ethical boundaries are crossed like in Faustus case when he sells his soul to the Lucifer :/ that's not something people look well upon.
-Vanessa
Marlowe - Dr. Faustus Prompts for 2/9
1. As we discussed in class on Thursday, the Renaissance differed greatly from the medieval period. In the middle ages, knowledge was controlled. For most people, access to learning was denied, even forbidden. For those who had access to education, spiritual knowledge was at the center of learning. In the Renaissance, however, this began to change. Humanism embraced the secular as well as the spiritual, and both classical learning and scientific inquiry were valued. Marlowe wrote Dr. Faustus (or at least he probably wrote most of it; the play's authorship is not entirely clear) during this period of transition, so it is useful to think of Dr. Faustus as a transitional figure. If we read the play in this way, what might its "message" or "moral" be? Is Dr. Faustus an example of the new, modern England, a man unjustly condemned by the medieval world in which he lives? Or is he a warning against godlessness, pride, and over-reaching ambition? How do you think Marlowe feels about this "new" England? Please refer to specific examples from the play in your answer.
2. Some readers feel that the real tragedy of Dr. Faustus is not that he embraces dark arts, or that he makes a pact with the devil, but that he allows his ideals to become corrupted. In this sense, we might say that someone is Faustian when he/she embraces or commits terrible acts in the name of something noble and good. Point to examples of this from the play and then point to other examples, ancient or modern, of similar "Faustian" figures.
3. What we know of Marlowe is fascinating. He went to school to become a minister, but he never became one. Cambridge refused to give him his M.A., suspecting that he had converted to Catholicism, but the Queen intervened on his behalf because it seems that at several points during his time there, he left Cambridge on espionage missions for the Queen. Marlowe died in a drunken brawl, though some scholars believe he was assassinated. Does knowing any of this change the way you feel about the play? If you were to write a piece of biographical criticism about Marlowe's Dr. Faustus, what part(s) of the play would you focus on?
4. What does Dr. Faustus suggest about knowledge? Is knowledge something that exists for us to find, or do we create it through our own actions? Is it dangerous? What are the potential ethical questions surrounding knowledge? Do you think, for example, there is a relationship between the questions raised by the play and contemporary issues like cloning, embryonic stem cell research, genetically-modified foods, etc.?
See you on Tuesday.
2. Some readers feel that the real tragedy of Dr. Faustus is not that he embraces dark arts, or that he makes a pact with the devil, but that he allows his ideals to become corrupted. In this sense, we might say that someone is Faustian when he/she embraces or commits terrible acts in the name of something noble and good. Point to examples of this from the play and then point to other examples, ancient or modern, of similar "Faustian" figures.
3. What we know of Marlowe is fascinating. He went to school to become a minister, but he never became one. Cambridge refused to give him his M.A., suspecting that he had converted to Catholicism, but the Queen intervened on his behalf because it seems that at several points during his time there, he left Cambridge on espionage missions for the Queen. Marlowe died in a drunken brawl, though some scholars believe he was assassinated. Does knowing any of this change the way you feel about the play? If you were to write a piece of biographical criticism about Marlowe's Dr. Faustus, what part(s) of the play would you focus on?
4. What does Dr. Faustus suggest about knowledge? Is knowledge something that exists for us to find, or do we create it through our own actions? Is it dangerous? What are the potential ethical questions surrounding knowledge? Do you think, for example, there is a relationship between the questions raised by the play and contemporary issues like cloning, embryonic stem cell research, genetically-modified foods, etc.?
See you on Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)