From the beginning of the play Edgar is surrounded with how true his words are, starting with the letter in his handwriting talking about overthrowing his father.  After he flees Gloucester’s castle in Act II scene i, he is seen shortly after in scene iii.  This is the last scene before Edgar becomes crazy and speaking like a madman.  In Edgar's soliloquy, however he provides evidence that leads one to question the meaning of his madman ramblings.  He says“ No port is free; no place that guard and most unusual vigilance does not attend my taking.” (II,iii).  This shows Edgar’s feelings of paranoia toward the world around him. He feels unable to trust anyone because he is a wanted man, and he cannot run far away because his father closed the ports.  Therefore when in the presence of Lear he pretends to be mad because he knows he cannot trust anyone.

Edgar’s facade meets it’s ultimate test when Gloucester finds Edgar and Lear’s party in the hovel and he finds himself unable to recognize his own son.  Edgar, however recognizes him and at this point of the scene he restrains his speech to minimal words and random outbursts.  Earlier in the act Edgar spoke lengthy speeches about random madman speech and then when Gloucester appears he finds himself unable to say anything more than a few words.  When Edgar does this he acts as if he is trying to protect his identity from Gloucester.  This difference in his sentences may be him trying to speak as little as possible to hope his father does not recognize his voice.

Even when he is blind Gloucester still remain ignorant to the sound of his son’s voice, however he does realize that the man he perceives as a poor Tom is capable of speaking very rationally for a madman.  Edgar’s rational speech is the result of him letting his guard down to his blind father.  He knows his father will not be able to recognize him because he is blind, and he removes his madman facade.  The removal of this facade also occurs when Edgar is alone on stage, revealing that his internal thoughts are not the ramblings of a madman, but instead his rational mind buried beneath the facade he created to hide his identity.  

Lear Stripped Bare

In Act 3, families are stripped down as disloyalty is revealed.  And Lear is out in the storm, literally stripped down to his bare skin.  With his kingship abolished, the fallibility of his humanity becomes visible.  Does Lear deserve this punishment? Does any father deserve this cruel punishment from his own daughters?  I understand Lear has committed several wrongs.  However, I cannot fathom how Goneril and Regan can leave their elderly father in the storm, at risk for his life. 

I think it can be attributed to the nature in which Goneril and Regan were raised.  We have always questioned the manner in which Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia express their love for Lear and the quantity of love they express for their father.  However, what about Lear’s own love for his daughters?  Has he ever expressed his affection for them?  Has he raised them to know what it means to be in a family?  Besides Cordelia, do they know what love is?  I believe this void contributes to their evil tendencies.

Now Lear’s past actions are wreaking chaos.  He is left helpless in the storm, revealing his vulnerability.  Lear has not lived a whole life.  He has not treated his daughters as he should, and he has exhibited excessive arrogance and selfishness in his actions.  His flaws and wrongs are erupted in the storm scene.  Lacking a firm family foundation, he is thrown into the forces of nature.  He must fend for himself.  The storm reflects Lear’s turbulent mind, and his sanity gradually deteriorates.  As a semblance of humanity is revealed, are we supposed to feel sympathy for Lear?  Or is the disturbance outside and in his mind a direct result of his actions?  Does he deserve his current situation?  Do we blame Lear’s cruel, ungrateful daughters or their selfish, stubborn, and inconsiderate father?  After stripped down to his humanity, will Lear change his nature? 

After the storm and his inner turmoil reach their height, I wonder if Lear's madness will break. Like a fever, I suspect his disturbance to begin its decline, as Lear returns to normalcy.  Perhaps Lear's humbling experience will cause a change in his outlook and resentment.

Is There Something Supernatural?

Shakespeare never shies away from the fantastical in his play. Think Macbeth with the witches and the visit with Hecate or the prophetic signs which speak to Macbeth. Julius Caesar is similar too with the soothsayer, and The Tempest... well, what isn't there to say about The Tempest and its insanity. This got me thinking, especially as we concluded Act Two, is there something fantastical or even - supernatural - about King Lear.

There is seemingly nothing about it that appears fantastical. The story is extremely character driven, and there are no witches or soothsayers to be seen here. Largely, we have seen every character the story has to introduce. So the question becomes, what is fantastical? And I think the answer lies in the storm. Now, we have not approached the storm scene yet, but the storm has begun. With all the talking of nature, notice what Lear says right before the storm begins "The terrors of the earth! You think I'll weep, No I'll not weep" (2.2.470-472).

If the storm is a manifestation of Lear's tears, might the entire storm scene that we are soon to read be entirely constructed by Lear (however involuntarily it might be). It is something to think about. None of this is a coincidence (Shakespeare does not work in coincidence). This made me wonder, people often view the storm scene as Lear being out of control, but what if it is the opposite; what if this is Lear in complete control?

The Power Struggle between King Lear and Goneril

                While reading The Tragedy of King Lear, I cannot help but feel pity for the King. Although he is a vain and arrogant man, he does not deserve the treatment of his two daughters, Goneril and Regan. Especially Goneril. There is an obvious power struggle between Goneril and her father. Using her father’s age as an excuse, Goneril constantly takes away King Lear’s power. She claims “old fools are babies again” (I.III. 20), and she threatens his power and the number of knights he has. Lear is extremely offended by this, because the less knights a king has, the less power he holds. Lear knows this.

Regan, the second eldest, sides with Goneril. We see this when she throws Kent in the stocks for the night, after attacking Goneril’s messenger. Lear’s two daughters, Goneril and Regan lied when they were asked to profess their love for their father. However, Cordelia is the one daughter who truly loves her father. By sending her away in the midst of a temper tantrum, King Lear lost his only loyal daughter. King Lear realizes this fault, but he does not do anything about it. Why won’t the King find and apologize to his daughter?  I hope Cordelia returns to shield her father from his two vile and spoiled daughters. 

Actions vs. Words

     The first act of the play King Lear by Shakespeare poses the questions: Is love showed through actions or words? When King Lear is deciding how he wants to devide his land amongst his three daughters, he asks them to express their love for him in words. After reading this part of the play I asked myself the following questions: If love has to be proved through words, is it really love? Is it even possible to express true love through words? Is love proved through words or actions?

     Goneril and Regan have no problem coming up with elaborate expressions of their love for their father. Goneril states, "Beyond all manner of so much I love you." Regan states, "I am alone felicitate in your dear Highness' love." It is possible that Goneril and Regan are not being honest. They can be saying that they love their father, but they might not truly mean it. Cordelia is asked to express her love for her father following her sisters. She is the daughter that unconditionally loves Lear, yet she is the daughter that finds it to be difficult to express her love in words. In an aside Cordelia states, "I am sure my love is more ponderous than my tongue." Cordelia knows she loves her father more than words can express. Cordelia has always proved her love for her father through her actions; She does not believe she has to prove her love through words. In my opinion, true love can only be showed through actions, not words because words cannot always be trusted. 

The Importance of Nothing and the Expressing of Love

     The theme of nothing is developed in the early scenes of the great play King Lear, when Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia are asked by King Lear to express their love for him. Goneril and Regan express their love for their father by basically saying how they love him more than anything on earth. Goneril even says she loves him more than eyesight, space, and liberty. Regan professes her love greatly for her father as well. Goneril and Regan’s responses did not surprise me, but what really surprised me was Cordelia’s response. Cordelia simply responded by saying “nothing” when it came to expressing her love for her father. When I first read this is I was extremely shocked, I thought how could Cordelia not express her love for her father? But, the more and more I thought about this, I realized love is not only expressed through words but through actions. Someone could simply say “I love you” but the actions that go along with those words are deeper and more sincere.

     The idea of nothing brought about and raised many questions for me. For example, does Cordelia truly love her father? Also, can love only be expressed through actions, or only through words, or through both actions and words? I believe love can be expressed through both actions and words but it all depends on one’s personal opinion. With this being said, does is truly matter how one expresses love and how important is Cordelia’s response of nothing when it came to expressing her love for her father?    

      

What can come from nothing?

Can something come from nothing?  If so, what can come from nothing?  We clearly see in Act One of King Lear, King Lear says, “Nothing will come of nothing: speak again” (Shakespeare 13).  King Lear is angered by Cordelia’s decision to say nothing, but in reality she does not know how to express her love to full extent in words.  This ultimately ends up frustrating King Lear, taking this nothing as an insult.  But can something truly come from nothing?  We see France allude to prosperity from nothing when he says, “Thee and thy virtues here I seize upon, Be it lawful I take up what’s cast away” (Shakespeare 25).  This allusion to the Corinthians saying, “As having nothing yet possessing all things” displays that something ultimately can come from nothing.  When you may have no possessions worth value, you may be full of everything one may want.

When pondering about if something can come out of nothing in modern society, I came upon many sob stories in which people from the ghetto come from “nothing” and eventually end up extremely wealthy.  Whether they be pro-athletes, movie stars, or rappers, this ultimately led me to disagree with King Lear.  Yes something can come from nothing.  When in the correct moment, nothing can truly be the best choice.  In a situation in which yes or no can both be the wrong answer, nothing may be the ONLY answer.

STAC Tuition

Hey everyone
Don't forget that if you're signing up for English 102 - it is $225 for the course. Monday is the last day I can accept it. Stay safe in the weather. Enjoy the day off!
- Mr. V

Who is worth impressing in Pygmalion?

After finishing Pygmalion, I marvel at how much Eliza does to impress Pickering and Higgins, who do not care for Eliza. In six months, Eliza transforms from an uncultured and common girl to a sophisticated and invaluable (to Higgins) lady, in hopes that Higgins or Pickering will find her worthy of an upper class status. Her complete transformation goes un-noticed. Higgins and Pickering obsess over their bet and ignore Mrs. Pearce and Mrs. Higgins’ warning of forethought and neglect Eliza’s emotional needs. This makes me wonder whether Higgins and Pickering are worth impressing.

In Act IV, Higgins and Pickering insult Eliza and Higgins calls her “creature” and “insect”; yet, Act IV is the first notable instance of Eliza reacting to Higgins and Pickering’s rudeness. These gentlemen have insulted her on a daily basis, but Eliza never left until that night. Why? Eliza is determined, intelligent, independent, and willing to change, which are the qualities of an excellent student; Eliza only needs a teacher. According to Higgins, Eliza has a “better ear” than him, which alludes to the belief that any phonetics teacher could have taught Eliza, but she stays with Higgins. Why?

This made me think, why do students work so hard for school.  There are students who take difficult courses and struggle to get a “100”, when they could take the minimal classes and pass with a 65. Both types of students will get a diploma. Who are the students with the difficult courses trying to impress and why?  Is that the same reason Eliza stays with Higgins? I think the illusion of one’s dreams that keeps the students working hard, as it keeps Eliza with Higgins. The possibility of achieving one’s dreams makes a person persistent and willing to struggle with less than accommodating circumstances. Eliza stays with Higgins, despite his behavior, because she believes that he will make Eliza a high-class, well-spoken lady, which is Eliza’s dream.

Raising Questions

Pygmalion raises a lot of questions. One that stands out is the issue of the reader’s fascination of radical change and the ensuing events or consequences of apposing things, people or environment. The play stimulates the reader’s fascination with such phenomenon. Another issue that is raised is whether or not a deep change in identity can genuinely occur and be sustained or if we cannot really change the greater part of who we are. Eliza undergoes a dramatic change but never completely becomes a different person. Is identity something absolute or mutable? Can change be possible to that extent? If your peripheral identity (friends, appearance, environment) changes than eventually your central identity (dreams, desires, beliefs) will change as well. Is changing your central identity worth it? Eliza was willing to change her appearance, style; form of expression and language but deep inside she still remained a flower girl. How far is someone willing to go and what are they willing to give up? She was determined to let go of her old life and take on something new.

This story has gone through several different formats such as books, plays and films, and it makes me wonder, why does this play fascinate us? Why does radical change capture our attention? I believe we have a fascination with these kinds of situations. We as readers know it won’t end well but we can’t help being enticed with what we read. We want to see the complete failure of the enterprise and any disaster that may happen as a result of the absurdity of their effort. We want to know if they can really pull it off. Will they be able to come through? Either way if the character fails or succeeds it is still an interest to us and provides an entertaining plot for the reader.  Ultimately we are encouraged to think of another side to human nature.

The "Great" Play

In class, we have already discussed the comedic versus the horrific in the play. I now think about a more pressing issue; is Pygmalion one of the greatest plays ever written? George Bernard Shaw certainly thought so. He dismissed playwrights such as Oscar Wilde and he named his play Pygmalion in order for it sound like a classic play. But as I read it this time, I cannot help but wonder if this play is amazing in any unique way.

For me, the characters are not  developed. Right now, both Higgins and Pickering are your general stock characters. The rude character versus the polite character. The dialogue between the two, while funny, is not as sharp as Earnest. Mrs. Pearce is generally one dimension, and as we read the scene with Freddy's family, I find they too are one dimension. The only character with any depth is Eliza, and even then I'm not sure if I find her fully realized.

She is interesting, that's for sure. But I'm not sure if a rags to riches story is enough to be consider a classic piece of literature. The situation is not nearly as dramatic as any of Shakespeare's plays (through really, what is), the themes are not revolutionary (when compared to something like The Cherry Orchard) and the characters do not have the depth or complexity as a Williams play. Yet often times, Pygmalion is placed in the same category or a higher category than the aforementioned. Is there something I am missing? Can a well-made play be more than just that? As you read, think about this play - is it doing anything greater than any of the other plays? Is this a greater work of literature?