zBlogging the Literary Life - Period 6/7 - AP College English - 2005/2006 - Oak Park River Forest High School

A Common Theme in All of Shakespeare's Tragedies

I have noticed that there is a common theme in all of Shakespeare's tragedies.  Cici was the thematizer for our group today and mentioned injustice as a prevalent theme in our scene.  I understood and accepted this view completely, and began searching for other themes myself.  I realized that Shakespeare's tragedies follow the same plot.  First, there's the initial situation that introduces the characters and the setting.  Then, the conflicts between two parties are discussed and tension between them builds up.  Finally, there is an initial fight, war, battle, loss or such and everyone realizes that the conflicts between the two parties has caused only tragedy.  Thus, I concluded that Shakespeare deliberately set up his stories to show that his two themes, trust and friendship, are the ways to live a happy and fulfilling life.  If you look at his tragedies, the two parties I mentioned earlier do not trust each other and are hardly friendly such as in King Lear when two characters (I forget who) disguise themselves.

What do you REALLY think?

Okay, so last night I was sitting there trying to write my discussion questions for the final scene of King Lear, and I became fixated on Edgar's final lines, mainly, "Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say." (p.261). This is a recurring theme in King Lear, but I wanted to try to assess the validity of this line for our modern-day lives. For me, it seems that so many times we are forced to act how society expects us to act, rather than to act how we truly want to. I remember how Mr. Heidkamp introduced this theme of AP College English at the beginning of the year by climbing out the window, and we have seen it come up in many of the books that we have previously read. It is pretty interesting that, although a few centuries separate us, Shakespeare still had many of the ideas that we have today/ Mr. Heidkamp is constantly telling us to think outside of the box, which seems to be what Edgar is telling us to do as well. Edgar tells us to be free to express the emotions we are feeling, rather than respond to everything how we think we should act. Although easily stated, and an excellent ideal to try to live up to, this is not so easy in practice as it is in theory. My question is, how has society limited you? What would you do if no one were watching? Who would you be if no one knew you?

Lost

No it is not just the title to the new ABC hit show, it is what I am with King Lear.  Let me put it this way, if King Lear was a forest, I would have to drink Unicorn blood to survive another day.  I am having a lot of trouble remembering who is on who's side and who is who's friend and enemy.  I though this was supposed to be the most easily read Shakespeare play. What the he(double-hockey sticks) ((little God of Small Things comin at cha)) (((yes I said "cha"))).  Does anyone else feel like the lone fly on the camel's giant hump?  Waiting for the wind to blow his way?  But for real, it is hard to keep track of who is related to who.  I have checked with our friend Sparky McNotes but that does not really help.  If we have to write a paper on this book, it could be disastorous.  By the way, I would like to say I am declaring virtual war on Kitty (if that is your name). "it did not go as smoothly as one would hope for."  :(   

Patrick burton

Holiday Season (non-denominational) + Lear = Goodness

As I sit at my computer listening to *N Sync "Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays" I know what time of year it is-- oh yes, "Christmas time is here..." Although somewhat offended that a couple Christmas's ago my older brother gave me this cd (and the Charlie's Angel's soundtrack), I ponder about my group's King Lear performance. Surprisingly, it did not go as smoothly as one would hope for-- but overall with the discussion combined with the performance, I thought we gave Shakespeare (a degree) of justice. For me, King Lear was not only difficult to read, but also understand. (Now, it's the *N Sync acapella version of "O Holy Night" <-- I know, pretty sweet). Through our performances and post-discussions, however, I have a better understanding of the plot as well as bigger themes. I presume this will strengthen as the week goes on. How have the performances helped other people? Or what's your fav. holiday song? (Although *N Sync sings a mean tune, I am partial to John Lennon's "Happy Chistmas (war is over)"). Well, in the spirit of this time of year-- through the beautifully words of *N Sync "Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays."

Blindness is to Lear as HoD is to...King Kong

We continue to discuss the motif of blindness in the play and the strange irony behind it.  Specifically, only after Gloucester has his eyes removed can he finally "see".  However, blindness makes a less obvious appearance in Lear - who (in this respect) bears striking similarities to Gloucester.

Both characters have loyal and disloyal children, and in failing to see the truth, banish the loyal ones.  This is clear with Lear's Cordelia and Gloucester's Edgar.  And, nearing the end of the play, Lear and Gloucester both return to their loyal daughter/son -- evidence of the fact that they now "see" the truth.

But when does Lear's epiphany take place?  He doesn't loose his eyes, but instead goes mad.  Ironically (again), his madness is his turning point.  As he fights the bitter storm, he seems to realize what it is like not to be king, sensing his true humanity.  This revelation allows him to "see", and eventually return to Cordelia.

This type irony applies in other areas of Lear, as well: the fool is often said to be one of the wisest characters in the play.

As an end note, I'd like to mention a pop culture reference to The Heart of Darkness.  Conrad's novel is used to explore one theme of King Kong.  As they approach SKULL ISLAND,  the crew are likened to Marlow, who, driven by curiosity, continues up the river regardless of the danger ahead.  I totally recommend the movie.

An Ancient Art Form

While reading King Lear in its entirety was a bit daunting, it is definitely paying off now that we are breaking down specific scenes in our groups. Once you uncover the plot, deciphering the language is a lot more enjoyable.  When my group was going through our scene line by line discussing delivery and bodily movements, I was amazed at how deliberate Shakespeare was with his words.  Everything he wrote is absolutely necessary in the story, and oftentimes, it has multiple meanings.

When I realized this, I started wondering about how Shakespeare would view modern literature.  Modern authors have created an entirely new writing style. Their work is still superb, but their specificity differs greatly from Shakespeare’s.  His use of iambic pentameter and unusual vocabulary put his plays in a genre all of their own.  When you examine a single scene, all of his hidden meanings become apparent.  His plays should be read because they are an art form, not because they have an interesting plot. Those who avoid Shakespeare are missing out on a challenge that is worth tackling.

Lear

I must say that I've been pleasently surprised by english class these days. Our papers were actually pushed back until after break! But I suggest that we all get them done by Firday so break can be as care free as possible. Anyways, the whole King Lear unit has turned out to be quite fun in my opinion. I really like taking the time to break down exactly what is being said and it is nice understanding exactly what is happening. Shakespeare has always seemed a bit intimidating to me, but I feel like I have a fairly good handle on King Lear. Performing ACT I was fun today and it was nice to have some time to discuss the central themes afterwards. On a whole I'm just feeling pretty optomisic I guess. How couldn't I- only four days to go!

King Lear's Insanity

I think King Lear was the first Shakespeare play I thoroughly enjoyed. Even though it was pretty long, it was engaging and suspenseful. However, I thought it was interesting to see Lear, the King of Britain, crumble into insanity so suddenly. The effect that his daughters had on his physical condition was extraordinary. One would think that a man with that amount of power would not become insane because his daughters were disrespectful to him. Of course, he would be angry but he would not turn completely crazed. I think this shows something about Lear’s character. He depended on people’s reassurance and advice and without needed encouragement, he dissolved.

What is Love?

Before King Lear divides his kingdom, he asks his three daughters to profess their undying love and affection to him.  In comparison to her sisters, Cordelia is much more sincere in her response.  While Goneril and Regan are clearly exaggerating their feelings for their father in order to gain his favor, Cordelia almost understates her feelings toward him.  Goneril and Regan definitely serve as foils against Cordelia.

By saying that Cordelia loves her father only as much as she's expected to, is Shakespeare saying something about society and love?  That the societal concept of love is insincere?  Both Cordelia and France categorize love with respect, devotion, or admiration rather than defining it as the "soul/spiritual connection" that it is so often referred to as.  Cordelia specifically tells King Lear that when she marries half of her love will remain with him, and the other half will go to her husband.  She loves him because it is her duty, rather than actually "loving" him.  Sorry, I started to rant...

Profound question: What is love?

(Cue techno beat)   

The Truth About Shakespeare

Hey guys. It seems that as the days toward Christmas begin counting down, I feel less and less inclined to do homework. Also, strange as it seems, but in the past fews weeks it seems like there have been numerous days were, though nothing bad has happened, it feels like you're having a bad day. Anyone else having that feeling? Oh well, only a week and a half left till break; I think we all can live. And besides, King Kong comes out tomorrow.

On to the real point of this blog. During sophmore year english class, we obviously spent a good deal of time talking about the great playwright, William Shakespeare. But we also spent time discussing and learning about the numerous consipracy theories surrounding this great individual. First off, its questionable as to how educated the man really was. Few know nothing about his scholarly life, and it is thought that he never amounted to much educationally. But as history shows, that doesn't always mean much. The most interesting theory about Shakespeare we learned was about how he actually did not write his plays at all, for he was merely a man who applied his name to another's work. The story goes that a playwright who went by the name Christopher Marlowe was good friends with Shakespeare. The two were aspiring artists, and Marlowe's style was similar to Shakespeare's. However, over time, Marlowe got into some trouble with the crown and faked his death to avoid capture. It is thought that he moved to Italy, changed his name, and continued his writing. But in order to get his work published, he sent the manuscipts to Shakespeare, who would greedily attach his name and have the works published. So, basically, the moral of the story is that Shakespeare is a fraud, and who we really should be praising is Christopher Marlowe. I mean, apparently there are whole secret societies/cults devoted to the discovery of this theory, one that may or may not prove true. The only reason it's still viable is that when you study the works of the two men, Shakespeare and Marlowe, there are striking similarities that appear in both, causing many to think that works were from only one of these men. Interesting, huh?
Just thought I'd share, even though in the end, its the work, not the man that really matters.