The idea that King Lear is going to give up his throne to his daughters is a giant warning alarm, as, according to the divine right of kings, he was put on the throne by God, meaning that he is supposed to stay there. This "violation" then, seems to be foreshadowing further disruption of the balance of the universe, as this action of Lear's is hardly one of a balanced character. So far, legitimacy seems to be used as a way to measure the character of someone - though a person's legitimacy or lack thereof is not their responsibility. Though we can already see that Edmund will be a villain from his monologue, it could be argued that he was driven to this from people treating him as a stereotype bad-guy, if that makes sense...
One thing that struck me is how his two daughters are kind to him one minute, bu then turn around and tell theirs servants to be unruly to him the next
the other thing that struck me is how candid the fool is allowed to be around the king when he would very quickly lop off the head of anybody else
I response to Tori's point, is Edmund truly a villain because of his illegitimacy, or is he just using it as an excuse for his villainy? Iago simply hated Othello, it could be that Edmund simply hates everyone else. Edgar treats him just fine and Edmund said himself that their father loves them equally, yet they are the ones he punishes. This also leads to my next question. If Edmund truly does hate society because of his illegitimacy, why does he target his father and his brother?
Well, obviously they just completely disregarded the diving rights of kings. If they actually followed it, then it would of just gone to Edgar. Shakespeare probably did this just to cause confusion among the Elizabethan audience, who would expect it to be the next of kin. I also think he might feel sympathetic towards the illegitimate.
Robby, I think you are confused. Edgar is not in line for the throne - rather he is the legitimate son of a lord. So .. everyone look at imagery for the next blog. Pick an image and trace it through the play.
Kent's letter from Cordelia is the first mention of her in a while. Why is she absent for so long? It seemed like her being disowned was the setting up of something...
So far, it looks like a theme of the play is the putting of something that is base above something that is good. This is illustrated twice so far. First, by Lear putting Goneril and Regan above Cordelia, where Cordelia is the only one of the three that truly loves her father. The second time is where Gloucester is manipulated into believing (by Edmund) that Edgar is plotting to murder him, putting all his confidence into Edmund who is the one who is plotting against his father. An interesting foil...
The imagery I noticed the most was the mentioning of wind - especially in reference to storms. It seems to be a metaphor for the the "whirling thoughts" in Lear's brain i.e. his insanity. The storms coming could also have been foreshadowing Gloucester's fate, as it didn't occur until everyone went inside because of the storm... by the way, now I really don't like Goneril and Regan :)
Ok im really forgettful so i am responding to all five acts at once right now and plaese ignore my grammer and puncuation...
Act I - in act one i feel lear is just a tired old man who could care less about the rules and just wants to not have any responsibility thus he has decided to devide his kingdom up umong his succesors his three daughters. But sadly the old fart cant find a reason beyond that his daughters are his daughters to give them anything so he comes up with this "GENIOUS" idea of a good old fashion game of "THE PRICE IS RIGHT THE WHO LOVES DADDY THE MOST EDITION" and sorry you to lamo's that the crtoud all hates win like usual and the good one sorry you lost horribably but you get a Brand new huby and country (cue the announcers voice) :'( mabey next time.
Act II - Gloushter idk how to spell is a meany face and a looser and i have no clue why he is in the play but o well. his son edmond is in the same boat and who cares if daddy had an affaiir and woops theres a baby your still his favorite and you have no controll of your life cause your in a book. why is kent always in disguise.
Act III- Lear is now facing Karma and can see it and thanks to kent lear is now in a barn waiting out a storm unstead of being killed by the said storm.Gloucester now appears to be screwing his head on the right direction and realizes that regan and gonoril are to total loosers and have miss treated their dad. Lear has lost his marbles and kent is trying to keep them safe but i think its too late. but now that lear has lost everything he seems to become less feeling as a god but more a human.
Act IV- THe world has lost all hope and fallin into shambles and now not only do lear and is accomplises wounder but so does Gloucester and his son. and now regan and gonoril have become devide, the "poo has really hit the fan". this play is really long. Now france is coming to engalnd to save Lear. And the question for lear is truly who loves you more now you fool.
Act V- Fianlly the end. This play is like the rule book for Karma. reagan and gonoril loose there rights and are now killing eachother cordilia is now loved by dad and has a paice of england Gloucester bastard son has a chunk also and may become king soon and all the other bad guys loose with harsh punishments, Yesa a tragedy but also a fairytail
I have noticed that through all of these acts one major theme is parents needing their children. King Lear needs Goneril and Regan, and Gloucester needs Edmund. the irony is that the help comes from the children that they have kicked out. Lear is helped by Cordelia, who he has banished, and Gloucester is helped by Edgar, who has a bounty on his head.
I have some questions too:
Do you think that at one point Lear was a powerful king? personally, my thought is yes. The reason that I say this is the loyalty that he commands from Kent, even after Kent is banished.
my second question is why do the banished kids help their parents as opposed to the ones that stay at home?my thoughts are that the kids that stay at home feel entitled to their titles and pull a "prodigal son"-like stunt (taking titles when they aren't mature enough to handle them) and that the kids who were kicked out know what it is like not to have a home and want to spare their parents the agony
on that note, T notice a few similarities between this story and the prodigal son. to pu it in perspective, the end of act four appears to be when the son is partying and not really caring how little money he has
act 1 i pretty much agree with everything tori says. the divine right of kings is for life... i guess you could say. and with king lear giving up his throne, it's kind of bound to be put into the wrong hands.
and however "legitimate" someone is, is not in their power. personally i think of it more as a title and judgement of someone; which isn't right. you shouldn't judge others becuase more often then not, your judgement isn' right
i've come to notice that with those who are power hungry, they seem to push away the people who should be most important to them. (kind of similar to Mason's) with the king, he isn't really seeking power, but rationing; he looses his cherished Cordilia. the two sister also loose Cordilia as well as their father's trust. Gloucester and Edmund loose Edgar because of Edmund's lies. (for some reason i really like Edmund tho. hahah oh well.)
act 3 hahaha tori's blog's are the best. i really like how she connects the whirling wind to Lear's insanity. i don't really understand how a KING ends up with the most lunatic people and let's himself drop down o their insanity and let if fill his mind. they've all gone mad! and poor Gloucester!!! now he's lost his king, his unloyal Edmund, plus his eyes. (ouch)
Mason- i like how you compare it to the prodigal son. very interesting. i would've thought it more as the father accepting the poor son rather than when the son is gambling/partying...
Act V- well this was an interesting end. I found myself somewhat shocked that Edmund actually committed suicide because his wives were dead. It seemed to me that He was using them to further his own name. If he had married both of them then two halves equal a whole and he is king of Albion. Also, how did cordelia die? did she kill herself or was she beaten to harshly by the guards?
Act IV - I thought that it was odd that Edgar didn't immediately reveal himself to his father, especially in his state. That whole first scene though was very touching, with Edgar having such trouble keeping up his disguise.
Act V - First of all, Edmund didn't commit suicide - he died in result of his dual with Edgar, and he wasn't married... Cordelia died by execution ordered by Edmund, which wasn't stopped before it was too late, though before they executed Lear, who ended up dying anyway.
Act I In my opinion, King Lear is going insane because of his choice to disregard the Divine Right of Kings. The Right lasts until death--and yet here he is, parsing out his kingdom before he dies. Because of this he goes insane, as it is the world's way of reclaiming order when he tips the balance.
Legitimacy is unfair but inescapable. Edmund is only trying to secure his own position in the world, albeit in a way that is morally lacking, and so cannot be entirely blamed. It is human nature to crave that security, and even more than that, to know that you are loved.
Eep. Yay for half points. ._. Ah well! At least I get any.
Acts 2-5 King Lear and Gloucester seem to be foils for each other, and Cordelia and Edgar. But what could the point be of comparing disowning to the belief of a murder plot? Goneril and Regan are so utterly despicable! How could they have come from the same place as Cordelia? How could they have been raised the same? But then the question arises--was Cordelia perhaps favored, or was the always the outcast? Why would Regan and Goneril team up against her? Why wouldn't Edgar reveal himself to his father? It would have prevented so much trouble... Oh, the angst Shakespeare causes me! WHYYYYYY! Always, such painful endings! How could Shakespeare allow Cordelia to die? She was perhaps the one decent human being of the entire cast. What a soft spot I have for her. And even so... she is dead. Does Shakespeare intend to lecture us on the consequences of doing what is right?
The idea that King Lear is going to give up his throne to his daughters is a giant warning alarm, as, according to the divine right of kings, he was put on the throne by God, meaning that he is supposed to stay there. This "violation" then, seems to be foreshadowing further disruption of the balance of the universe, as this action of Lear's is hardly one of a balanced character.
ReplyDeleteSo far, legitimacy seems to be used as a way to measure the character of someone - though a person's legitimacy or lack thereof is not their responsibility. Though we can already see that Edmund will be a villain from his monologue, it could be argued that he was driven to this from people treating him as a stereotype bad-guy, if that makes sense...
One thing that struck me is how his two daughters are kind to him one minute, bu then turn around and tell theirs servants to be unruly to him the next
ReplyDeletethe other thing that struck me is how candid the fool is allowed to be around the king when he would very quickly lop off the head of anybody else
I response to Tori's point, is Edmund truly a villain because of his illegitimacy, or is he just using it as an excuse for his villainy? Iago simply hated Othello, it could be that Edmund simply hates everyone else. Edgar treats him just fine and Edmund said himself that their father loves them equally, yet they are the ones he punishes. This also leads to my next question. If Edmund truly does hate society because of his illegitimacy, why does he target his father and his brother?
Well, obviously they just completely disregarded the diving rights of kings. If they actually followed it, then it would of just gone to Edgar. Shakespeare probably did this just to cause confusion among the Elizabethan audience, who would expect it to be the next of kin. I also think he might feel sympathetic towards the illegitimate.
ReplyDeleteRobby, I think you are confused. Edgar is not in line for the throne - rather he is the legitimate son of a lord.
ReplyDeleteSo .. everyone look at imagery for the next blog. Pick an image and trace it through the play.
REMEMBER EVERYONE - AT LEAST ONE BLOG PER ACT:)
ReplyDeleteAct II -
ReplyDeleteKent's letter from Cordelia is the first mention of her in a while. Why is she absent for so long? It seemed like her being disowned was the setting up of something...
So far, it looks like a theme of the play is the putting of something that is base above something that is good. This is illustrated twice so far. First, by Lear putting Goneril and Regan above Cordelia, where Cordelia is the only one of the three that truly loves her father. The second time is where Gloucester is manipulated into believing (by Edmund) that Edgar is plotting to murder him, putting all his confidence into Edmund who is the one who is plotting against his father. An interesting foil...
Act III -
ReplyDeleteThe imagery I noticed the most was the mentioning of wind - especially in reference to storms. It seems to be a metaphor for the the "whirling thoughts" in Lear's brain i.e. his insanity. The storms coming could also have been foreshadowing Gloucester's fate, as it didn't occur until everyone went inside because of the storm... by the way, now I really don't like Goneril and Regan :)
Ok im really forgettful so i am responding to all five acts at once right now and plaese ignore my grammer and puncuation...
ReplyDeleteAct I - in act one i feel lear is just a tired old man who could care less about the rules and just wants to not have any responsibility thus he has decided to devide his kingdom up umong his succesors his three daughters. But sadly the old fart cant find a reason beyond that his daughters are his daughters to give them anything so he comes up with this "GENIOUS" idea of a good old fashion game of "THE PRICE IS RIGHT THE WHO LOVES DADDY THE MOST EDITION" and sorry you to lamo's that the crtoud all hates win like usual and the good one sorry you lost horribably but you get a Brand new huby and country (cue the announcers voice) :'( mabey next time.
Act II - Gloushter idk how to spell is a meany face and a looser and i have no clue why he is in the play but o well. his son edmond is in the same boat and who cares if daddy had an affaiir and woops theres a baby your still his favorite and you have no controll of your life cause your in a book. why is kent always in disguise.
Act III- Lear is now facing Karma and can see it and thanks to kent lear is now in a barn waiting out a storm unstead of being killed by the said storm.Gloucester now appears to be screwing his head on the right direction and realizes that regan and gonoril are to total loosers and have miss treated their dad. Lear has lost his marbles and kent is trying to keep them safe but i think its too late. but now that lear has lost everything he seems to become less feeling as a god but more a human.
Act IV- THe world has lost all hope and fallin into shambles and now not only do lear and is accomplises wounder but so does Gloucester and his son. and now regan and gonoril have become devide, the "poo has really hit the fan". this play is really long. Now france is coming to engalnd to save Lear. And the question for lear is truly who loves you more now you fool.
Act V- Fianlly the end. This play is like the rule book for Karma. reagan and gonoril loose there rights and are now killing eachother cordilia is now loved by dad and has a paice of england Gloucester bastard son has a chunk also and may become king soon and all the other bad guys loose with harsh punishments, Yesa a tragedy but also a fairytail
the end!
Acts II,III, and IV
ReplyDeleteI have noticed that through all of these acts one major theme is parents needing their children. King Lear needs Goneril and Regan, and Gloucester needs Edmund. the irony is that the help comes from the children that they have kicked out. Lear is helped by Cordelia, who he has banished, and Gloucester is helped by Edgar, who has a bounty on his head.
I have some questions too:
Do you think that at one point Lear was a powerful king? personally, my thought is yes. The reason that I say this is the loyalty that he commands from Kent, even after Kent is banished.
my second question is why do the banished kids help their parents as opposed to the ones that stay at home?my thoughts are that the kids that stay at home feel entitled to their titles and pull a "prodigal son"-like stunt (taking titles when they aren't mature enough to handle them) and that the kids who were kicked out know what it is like not to have a home and want to spare their parents the agony
on that note, T notice a few similarities between this story and the prodigal son. to pu it in perspective, the end of act four appears to be when the son is partying and not really caring how little money he has
act 1
ReplyDeletei pretty much agree with everything tori says. the divine right of kings is for life... i guess you could say. and with king lear giving up his throne, it's kind of bound to be put into the wrong hands.
and however "legitimate" someone is, is not in their power. personally i think of it more as a title and judgement of someone; which isn't right. you shouldn't judge others becuase more often then not, your judgement isn' right
act 2
ReplyDeletei've come to notice that with those who are power hungry, they seem to push away the people who should be most important to them. (kind of similar to Mason's) with the king, he isn't really seeking power, but rationing; he looses his cherished Cordilia. the two sister also loose Cordilia as well as their father's trust. Gloucester and Edmund loose Edgar because of Edmund's lies. (for some reason i really like Edmund tho. hahah oh well.)
act 3
ReplyDeletehahaha tori's blog's are the best. i really like how she connects the whirling wind to Lear's insanity. i don't really understand how a KING ends up with the most lunatic people and let's himself drop down o their insanity and let if fill his mind. they've all gone mad! and poor Gloucester!!! now he's lost his king, his unloyal Edmund, plus his eyes. (ouch)
act 4
ReplyDeleteMason- i like how you compare it to the prodigal son. very interesting. i would've thought it more as the father accepting the poor son rather than when the son is gambling/partying...
act 5
ReplyDeleteall is lost. all family is lost. all those who are loved are lost.
My goodness Brandon, a fairytale??
ReplyDeleteAct V- well this was an interesting end. I found myself somewhat shocked that Edmund actually committed suicide because his wives were dead. It seemed to me that He was using them to further his own name. If he had married both of them then two halves equal a whole and he is king of Albion. Also, how did cordelia die? did she kill herself or was she beaten to harshly by the guards?
ReplyDeleteAct IV -
ReplyDeleteI thought that it was odd that Edgar didn't immediately reveal himself to his father, especially in his state. That whole first scene though was very touching, with Edgar having such trouble keeping up his disguise.
Act V -
First of all, Edmund didn't commit suicide - he died in result of his dual with Edgar, and he wasn't married...
Cordelia died by execution ordered by Edmund, which wasn't stopped before it was too late, though before they executed Lear, who ended up dying anyway.
Act I
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, King Lear is going insane because of his choice to disregard the Divine Right of Kings. The Right lasts until death--and yet here he is, parsing out his kingdom before he dies. Because of this he goes insane, as it is the world's way of reclaiming order when he tips the balance.
Legitimacy is unfair but inescapable. Edmund is only trying to secure his own position in the world, albeit in a way that is morally lacking, and so cannot be entirely blamed. It is human nature to crave that security, and even more than that, to know that you are loved.
Ok folks - every blogpost after this is worth half points.
ReplyDeleteEep. Yay for half points. ._. Ah well! At least I get any.
ReplyDeleteActs 2-5
King Lear and Gloucester seem to be foils for each other, and Cordelia and Edgar. But what could the point be of comparing disowning to the belief of a murder plot?
Goneril and Regan are so utterly despicable! How could they have come from the same place as Cordelia? How could they have been raised the same? But then the question arises--was Cordelia perhaps favored, or was the always the outcast? Why would Regan and Goneril team up against her?
Why wouldn't Edgar reveal himself to his father? It would have prevented so much trouble... Oh, the angst Shakespeare causes me!
WHYYYYYY! Always, such painful endings! How could Shakespeare allow Cordelia to die? She was perhaps the one decent human being of the entire cast. What a soft spot I have for her. And even so... she is dead. Does Shakespeare intend to lecture us on the consequences of doing what is right?