zaaaAP Lit Blog 4

Power

Bernie raised a question in class a few days ago that I think deserves to be discussed further here; What determines power?

Lear falls from his original role of a powerful king to an insane, homeless, beggar-type.  In the opening scenes, Lear's daughters bow down to their father, and their suitor's are given the privilege of marrying each daughter.  As an acknowledgment of their services, Lear gives his daughters portions of his land, except for Cordelia, who does not submit to what Lear deems a necessary acknowledgment of his power.  I think that it can be understood that Lear obviously does not for see his daughters betrayal and his own fall from power...

Is Lear's fall due to the lack of land under his control?  After dividing his territory, he no longer controls the citizens of his land, nor does he hold any asset which his daughters desire.  Does this mean that he has lost all power?  That respect for a title of "King" does not demand respect?  Or are Regan and Goneril's actions only because they are motivated to further themselves, leaving no room for their father, who has given them the tools to become "powerful"?

How does one Portray the Fool?

I'm a little confused by the representation of the Fool. Is he a separate character? Or is he just an aspect of Lear? The one clip of the movie we saw in class showed him as a completely separate character but how does that really work? Didn't Shakspear intend for the Fool to be a character that showed how truly mad Lear is because he talks to himself about his inner conflicts? Enough questions. So personally I do not believe that the Fool is a separate character because even if he was why would Lear carry him around with him? Opps..another question... Anyway I don't see the purpose of this character, if the Fool was important to the King what a strange name "Fool". You'd think that keeping a person with you that is known throughout the land as a Fool would not be a person that King Lear would want constantly by his side.

Maybe he is supposed to the court jester and "Fool" is just another way to address him. But how does that make sense? The court jester following the King around everywhere as the only loyal companion that Lear allowed with him constantly. It just doesn't make any sense. But then again this is a story about a mad King. maybe I shouldn't look for "sense" or any sort of logic.

Just curious and confused...what do you guys think?

Shakespeare's Mass-Murder

William Shakespeare has a certain obsession with his characters dying at the end of his plays.  If you are looking forward to reading other plays, stop reading this.  But at the ends of Hamlet, Othello, Romeo and Juliet, and King Lear, he kills off almost all of the main characters in the last scene.  Some deaths are explained vaguely while others not at all.  My questions are about such deaths.

In Act 5 scene 3, Edmund, Regan, Goneril, Lear, and Cordelia die, after earlier deaths of Cornwall, Oswald, and Gloucester.  Edmund's death occurs well after the fight between him and his brother, ending in a stab to the side.  Why does he live so long afterwards? Is it only to explain how everything occcured like in the movie Clue? Also, Goneril poisons Regan and then commits suicide.  Why?  Is it only because they were helplessly fighting over the courtship of Edmund?  You'd think they might just argue, but killing is more like Shakespeare's style.  Cordelia's death can be assumed as by the soldiers in the prison who were holding Cordelia and Lear.  They saved her too late, and she died.  Then There is the infamous death of Lear.  After revealing his tragic flaws in being blind to Cordelia's love and his other daughters' plot, he dies randomly.  Is it out of grief or insanity?  Why must all of the characters die? Does this mean that the Fool died along with Lear? It's so pointlessly confusing!!!

Peer Grading

Every time Mr. Heidkamp blurts out that there will be an in class essay, I hear shouts and cries in fear of peer grading. It is a well known fact that our peers do in fact grade harder than most teachers do, but why? Usually when students grade these impromptu essays, I always see grades of 37, 39, or 41 most commonly set at the top of the victim's paper. I bring this up because of the King Lear impromptu that we just had to slave over for an agonizing 50 minutes, because I never feel that students know what they are talking about when they grade these. I usually get around a 43 on these, but if I want to go against that grade, why should there be a separate essay to write in response to that grade?

Any cool opinions on this would be good, this is just what I think. Maybe it is supposed to be student bonding, I don't know, but it just never seems like a good idea to do this...at least for making it the final grade.

Insanity and Betrayal

What seems to be one of the biggest themes or ideas in the play King Lear is insanity. King Lear throughout the progression of the play grows more mad as the days go by because everything and everybody is essentially working against him. Lear not only suffers betrayal from his daughters but humility for losing all of his land and things he rightfully owned. He says, "O I have ta'en too little care of this. Take physic, pomp. Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel, That thou mayst shake the superflux to them. And show the heavens more just. He basically says that he is going to show the true insane individual in him and everyone is feeling the brunt of his true anger.

Another big theme or motif which seems to play out numerous times in the book is  that of betrayal. King Lear is betrayed harshly by his own daughers, stripping him of his power in Britain. Everyone seems to betray one another also when Regan and Goneril both set their sights on Edmund. The play shows the conflict between families and how it can be so immature and unnecessary. Also his drama with Cordelia adds to the conflict and betrayal in families.

Acting Out King Lear

In light of the recent disastrous impromptu essay, I have a new appreciation for the group acting project. While I'm sure my group bored 4th period for a few minutes, I appreciated the experience. It wasn't so much the acting out itself, but the process. I enjoyed sitting with my group, going through the lines and attempting to make sense of them. After trying to know my own character better, as well as trying to contribute to the group's overall understanding, I feel that I have a good understanding of Act II scene iv. I realize that this process could not occur for every scene in the whole book, but I found it really valuable to be given the chance to figure out what words meant, or the character's motivation at the time. I realized my lack of understanding for other parts of the play when I began writing my impromptu essay today. I really think it could have been valuable to go through the play much more methodically to enhance understanding. Reading Shakespeare once is really not enough, not that I really want to read King Lear again...Did anyone else enjoy the project?

Why Kent?

Kent is an enigma to me. I don't fully understand his role in the play. Lear kicks Kent out of his castle because Kent does not think his actions toward Cordelia where acceptable. Somehow Kent just can't get enough of Lear and decides to just disguise himself so that he can go back and serve Lear...what is he thinking? I understand that Kent wants to maintain loyalty to Lear, but seriously is he just turning his other cheek for a slap from Lear.

I would like to think that Shakespeare is conveying the message that those who are truthful and loyal come out ahead in the the end, but what about Cordelia? Cordelia represented honesty and truthfulness since the beginning of the play.

Playing the Fool?

To start this off, for those of you who are murder mystery fans, I highly recommend any book written by Laurie R. King. I actually just finished a novel by her called To Play the Fool, which basically involves the investigation surrounding the cremation of a homeless man in Golden Gate Park. One of the main characters (and suspects, I might add) is a guy named Brother Erasmus, who is a "Fool." Basically, according to the book, a fool can only speak in riddles and quotations. But seeing as I had just finished reading King Lear when I picked this book up, this puzzled me, so I resorted to my trusty friend Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia article I found was actually about jesters (specifically court jesters) but it seemed relevant to court fools as well. If you check out the section about Shakesperian jesters, you will see a list of all the plays in which Shakespeare uses fools or fool-like characters (it's actually 19 of them!). It also has costume suggestions for the fool in shakespearean plays (for those of you looking for ideas for your presentations) and some other juicy facts about fools. Anyways, long story short, the definition of a fool according to Wikipedia is: "very clever peasants or commoners that use their wits to outdo people of higher social standings." But I'm wondering, does this definition really fit the Fool's character in King Lear? Who exactly is he trying to outdo?

Gloucester's Sight

In King Lear, Gloucester never seems to really see the truth. Edmund is able to convince Cloucester that Edgar has betrayed him. Once he lost his eyes it seemed as if Gloucester began to see the truth that he had been betrayed, and that he had believed the wrong son. When Gloucester lost his sight he became ironically able to see the truths whereas King Lear who still had eyes was unable to see the truth about his daughters. What is the meaning of sight in the play King Lear?

Themes...blah

As some others have said, I hope this post I am about to make hasn't already been done. Anyways - the impromptu today was a little difficult for me. I think I spent too much time analyzing the text, and not enough time actually writing the essay. But the main thing that got me was trying to find the theme. I always get worried when I have to find themes in passages because I can't tell if there really is a "right" or "wrong" theme. I think it's all in the way you read and analyze it. I basically said the theme had something to do with human beings' need for care. King Lear needed his daughters, and when Goneril and Regan shunned him, he became destitute. He fell apart the moment they closed the door on him. That was clear in the passage, and it also showed his transformation into realizing that he was in charge of caring for others' too. When he is out in the storm and thinks about how horrible it must be for his homeless subjects, he has a moment where he seems to feel remorseful about not giving those people greater protection and care. That is the theme that I found, and as in other impromptus I have written, I hope that it is not "wrong." I don't think a theme should be considered wrong. I am sure that I could have found other themes if there was more time, but that is what I came up with. What do you guys think - is there a "right" and "wrong" theme? What did you all say was the theme?

The Storm

I know that no one wants to discuss it after writing an essay on it, but I wanted to bring up Lear's storm rant in Act 3 Scene 4. While this is the most famous scene in the play, it is also the climax of the play. In this scene, Lear commands the skies to "pour on" as he curses his daughters. He compares their ingratitude to a mouth biting the hand that feeds it, and says he will go mad if he dwells on their lack of love any longer.

It is the second part of this passage that I found really interesting, however. When Kent asks the king to enter the shelter, Lear seems to show genuine concern for both his fool and Kent. He seems to have undergone a lot of internal growth after losing everything. He goes on to take pity on the poor beggers that he once turned his back on and says,

"Poor naked wretchs, wheresoe'er you are,   

That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm,

How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides,

Your looped and windowed raggedness defend you

From Seasons such as these?"

He then makes what I believe to be one of the most important statements in the book: "O, I have ta'en Too little care of this!". In this shout of remorse, it becomes clear that he now feels he can empathize with the poor, and begins to take another attitude toward his kingship. This becomes more obvious when he looks up to Poor Tom, who Lear believes to be a poor and dirty begger.

       

Watch Your Back

My post branches a bit off of Daivds post, which was that in King Lear, most everybody who had wanted to pursue something had to change themselves in order to succeed. And how this relates alot to the way alot of people live socially today. I felt that this was a good point but there was a bit more I thought I should add.

I feel that another social statement that King Lear is trying to make is that not only to succeed in life you have to sometimes hide your true self. But in fact trust nobody and watch your back. Like how Lear in the beginning of the play had appointed his two daughters and exiled Cordellia. He was being very trusting and shouldn't have left his guard down. Which lead to him being homeless, crazy, and eventually dead. This also relates to the downfall of Regan and Goneril, and many other situations. If they were not so trusting to everybody..... well maybe everybody wouldn't have died in the end of the book.

Power...Fame... Wealth...

    I hope im not repeating anything that was already posted. Lets keep our fingers crossed. In King Lear, we can see that a lot of things are done for power and greed. In act I, Goneril and Regan realizes what they had to do to gain power, fame, and wealth. They told their father how much they loved him to gain the things they wanted. In return, the king's most beloved child who was honest and sincere got nothing and was exiled.
   It is portrayed as that in order to gain what you need, you must put on an image and not show your true colors. Two characters in the play had to disguise themselves in order to gain what they want. This makes me realize that the society we live in today is very similar to King Lear. Sometimes people act the way they do to gain something out of it, and others that dont play along soon will get ruled out.

Oh impromptu's, how I hate you...

Today was quite a feat for me, as would any English and Euro student attest to. My in-class writing skills were challenged in two periods. I had no choice but to battle it out.

That is pretty much how I view an in-class essay, it is a war waiting to be fought, as cheesy as that sounds. What kind of war depends on the person, whether it be against stress, content, distractions, boredom, or the person sitting next to you that you secretly compete with. I know my biggest battle is time. The clock is my bitter enemy. How dare its hands move so fast as if to spite me. I just feel that, if allotted enough time, I would be able to write a quality essay.

But this is never the case. Instead, we are forced to write an essay in 45 minutes. I'm slowly growing used to this part, the part I'm not growing used to is the student grading. I don't think my lack of time, thus lack of major quality, should be judged and graded by my peers. I know that sounds offensive, but I know most of you agree with me on this one. Or, maybe I'm just bitter from my last grading. Anyhow, we are not the ones with the training or experience. Sure, I see the merit in learning what compiles a good essay, but that can be done by other activities.

In the end, I feel like I have to fight two wars- one with time and one with my peer editors. Shouldn't it be just one?

Thoughts About the Impromptu

I have to admit that I have been thinking about the impromptu all day. I know, I'm a loser. I haven't been thinking about the paper that I wrote or anything, but about what Lear was actually saying.

The first section of Lear's rant is what really intrigued me. How he was saying that when you are in extreme emotional disarray or turmoil, you don't notice or aren't effected so much by the things that are going on around you. I think this is a really interesting idea, and I also think it's pretty true. Does anyone else have any experience with this kind of thing?

I know that when I'm really preoccupied with something that is going on in my life, I have sort of a delayed reaction to the things that are going on around me.

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting, and it'd be cool to hear some of your thoughts.

Ran

I'm guilty of many flavours of geekery, I crack jokes about historical figures, watch Citizen Kane on a regular basis, read about consumer electronics, have seen every best picture nominee for this year's oscars, and can tell you whats so special about the Millennium Falcon making the kessel run in under twelve parsecs (I kid you not).  So  every  time two of my various interests collide, I take notice.  Such an event occured when I discovered William Shakespeare had finally become a part of Japanese cinema, in Akira Kurosawa's 1985 epic, Ran.

Unfortunately, the college search and classes such as this have prevented me from actually seeing Ran, which is a loose adaptation of King Lear.  The plot follows an aged and once ruthless feudal lord who attempts to divide his territory between his three sons and expels one of his son's who disagrees with him (ring a bell?).  So basically, this is half me informing people of something cool they might not have known about, and half begging Bernie to let us watch a portion of this film.  After seeing our interpretations and that of James Earl Jones and Sir Lawrence, I think it would be great closure to see Kurosawa's take on the character, who he once described as being somewhat a representation of himself.

So: umm... please?

the wise fool

It is ironic how the fool gives words of wisdom throughout the book.  It is also ironic that the fool, as a commoner, can speak his mind more freely thatn any of the royalty.  Regan and Goneril are always speaking around the problem, or at least trying to make it seem like it's not a problem.  Before Lear resigned his power, although he kept his title, they could not freely speak their minds and pretended to love him to get what they wanted.  The fool criticizes Lear's daughters and Lear's paranoia and harshness toward Kent and Cordelia before Lear himself ever comes to despise Regan and Goneril or regret his undue harshness.  I think that Shakespeare was trying to make the fool comic in to ways, in his non-sensicla statements and rhymes, but also in the situational irony of him being the wise character and having more freedom of expression due to his non-royal/aristocratic status.

Don't Get Hysterical.

While reading King Lear, I came across a reference to the word hysteria. The side note said something to the effect of "wandering of the womb". That took me back to Women in History. I recalled a conversation while covering Victorian women about the word hysterical.
So, I Wikipedia-ed it. It turns out, if we want to believe Wiki, that its the word originates from a Greek myth in which a woman's womb wandered around her body eventually strangling her chest. It Victorian times (a horrible time to be a woman) it became a diagnosis for a woman with a "tendency to cause trouble".
It just got me thinking about how deeply rooted patriarchy and sexism are rooted in our society, even in our language.

That actually had not much to do with King Lear, but I'm upset because I lost my last post to a computer malfunction.

The True Reason Behind Lear's Madness?

As I was reading King Lear, one of the aspects of the novel that most appealed to me was the demise of Lear throughout the book. I thought that it was really interesting to see Lear's disposition at the beginning of the book contrasted with Lear in the middle and end of the book. In the beginning of the book, Lear's actions were haughty and egoistic. I think the scene that is most representative of this is the scene when Lear is dividing his land between his daughters. When Cordelia does not provide a good enough response as to how much she loves him, he asks her to "mend her speech a little". This implies that Lear doesn't care whether or not Cordelia loves him; he just wants to be flattered. Lear readily gives Regan and Cordelia land because they are willing to flatter him although their love for him is not true.

The actions taken by not only Learn, but Regan and Goneril in the beginning of the book got me thinking: why does Lear get so angry and full of "madness" later on in the novel? Is it because he is hurt that Regan and Goneril's love to him is untrue? Or is it because his ego is no longer being satisfied as much as it was when Lear was king? When I originally read the book, I thought that the former was probably more accurate. However, now I believe that Lear is acting out of anger because of his bruised ego more than anything. Many of the actions that he takes are representative of Lear's failure to adjust to being treated differently than a king. When Lear gets mad that his daughters won't keep his knights, it is not just because Lear is upset that his daughters refuse to grant him one small liberty; it is because Lear is not used to every being denied something that he has wanted.

Is Lear's anger is due in part to his failure to readjust to not being a king? Is his ego causing his "madness"? Is it something else??

If You've Been Missing Jane Austen

Masterpiece Theater on PBS is in the middle of a Jane Austen fest.  Each Sunday night is a different Austen-related film -- many of which are new versions.

What I found somewhat lame, though -- at least when compared with the group in period 4 who created an entire Facebook web of the characters in Pride and Prejudice -- is the part of their companion website devoted to "The Men of Austen."  I'll quote from the press release I just received:

Jane Austen knew that a good man is hard to find.

See how the dashing leading men of Austen rate in a modern-day dating profile on MASTERPIECE's new interactive feature, THE MEN OF AUSTEN, which highlights everything you need to know - from their turn-ons to their fortunes - to make the perfect Austen match.

As you'll see on the site, many of your readers have been voting for Pride and Prejudice's Mr. Darcy as the most eligible of Austen's bachelors. Surely they need to know that MASTERPIECE's The Complete Jane Austen will present Andrew Davies' acclaimed 1995 adaptation, starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, starting Sunday, February 10.

May the best man win.

And Away to His Castle We'll Go, to be Happy Forever I Know: Princesses in King Lear

I enjoy babysitting. One of my favorite babysitees is my three-year-old friend Talia.  She, like most young girls, is convinced that she is a princess right now.  She can hardly go a day without making me kiss each and everyone of her mini plastic Disney princesses.  Every book she has me read involves some Disney princess frolicing through fields of daisies with bunnies and dwarves or something like that.  Her obsession with princesses raises a huge question about whether or not princesses are a reasonable role model for young girls. 

By definition, Regan, Goneril, and Cordelia are princesses.  But, when I was first reading the play, images of glass slippers, poison apples, and the color pink did not exactly pop into my head when reading about fratricide, inheritance, and all of the other lovely incidents in the play. 

But, if you really think about it, they represent two different archetypes for a stereotypical princess:  Regan and Goneril represent the greed and lust that royalty have.  They are the sweet-talkers that get everything they want, much like Cinderella's two ugly step-sisters (which is probable the image most people had when reading the play).  But, unlike the ugly step-sisters, they are capable of thinking clearly.

Cordelia represents more of the sweet princess that girls look up to.  On the surface, she seems like this big feminist hero who finds true love, but she is rather shallow.  She loves her father because preincesses are supposed to love their fathers.  I found myself getting anry at her because she is so perfect.  I can see her going to the ball and being the prettiest even though she actually did nothing and rode to the ball in a pumpkin.

I used to think that the princess archetype was developed with the introduction of Walt Disney.  Boy was I wrong.  Even Cordelia can be found sitting near a well, surrounded by animals, singing "Someday my Prince will Come...." 

Pity the Fool

Throughout King Lear, I've been trying to understand a lot of what the Fool is saying.  I'm not sure of his role in the play either.  There is an intriguing passage in act III, scene II, where the Fool says

He that has a house to put 's head in has a good headpiece

The codpiece that will house  before the head has any, the head and he shall louse; so beggars marry many.  The man that makes his toe what he is heart should make, shall of a corn cry woe, and turn his sleep to wake.

For there was never yet fair woman but she made mouths in a glass.

I have no clue what he is talking about! Could someone help me with this?  I have a feeling Shakespeare wanted the reader to be confused. Even Lear seemed puzzled, because immediately after the Fool's statement, he says, "No I will be the pattern of all patience.  I will say nothing."

 

A king or not a king?

As we all know, at the beginning of King Lear, Lear gives away all of his land to his daughters that express their love for him. By giving away his land, does King Lear give away his authority and therefore his power as a king?

In Act 2 Scene 4, Goneril and Regan gang up against King Lear. First Regan and Cornwall refuse to talk to Lear; as a king with power one would not refuse this request. Then, Regan and Goneril take away Lear's right to his 100 knights, the only possession he said he would keep. Are Regan and Goneril taking advantage of King Lear simply because he is old and senile, or because he no longer has authority over them, because he is no longer considered a king?

Albany: What's The Message?

The one character that seemed to catch my eye when i went through the novel was the Duke of Albany and what the heck he is doing for half the novel. It is definitely very clear that he has no large part in the play by simply seeing the way he is trampled on by his wife Goneril. But is the message really that these two sisters are so evil that the only way you can avoid being trampled on is by joining their side like Cornwall?   Even then though it still seems like you get the shaft since Goneril goes Edmund after the oh so tragic death of her husband.
    I'm just very curious what the message of marriage is in the play. It seems like not only marriage is being challenged but the whole male image throughout the entire novel. An entire kingdom is brought to its knees by two evil women, what's the message there?  Also another thing that kind of bothered me was that even though the duke supported the king why didn't he go help the French and instead fought on the British side, i guess a dieing hate for the French is a good explanation but I'm still not pleased.

Chronicles of Narnia to King Lear

First off, Chronicles of Narnia is a great movie.  You may think it is completely unrelated to King Lear, but I beg to differ.  They both have a character named Edmund in them.  In fact, I will go even further to say that Edmund the bastard and Edmund the kid prince share many unrewarding qualities.

In Narnia child Edmund is the rouge brother, he all to willingly sides with the witch.  He was distracted by the luxuries and power she could offer.  He even rats out his own brothers and sisters to save his ungrateful posterior.  Thus Oslan dies and it makes for a pretty cool fight scene, but nevertheless his treachery is shameful attack to be noticed by his siblings.

Edmund (the bastard) is much like his Narnia counterpart.  He betrays his half brother to get to Gloucester -ultimately power.  In one particular scene Edmund says...

Here stood he in the dark, his sharp sword out,

Mumbling of wicked charms, conjuring the moon

To stand auspicious mistress (II.i.43-45).

The diction of this passage is telling of Edmund's conniving bad self.  The words wicked and conjuring make the lie so powerful.  His quest for power is his ultimate demise.  While the Narnia Edmund suffered a far less severe fate...Well I can't give away the ending.

The Storm

In my opinion, one of the most important scenes of King Lear appears in Act III.  It is the storm scene.  I see it as a key part of the novel because it appears to symbolize the chaos in the King's mind.  This is not an original thought I am sure, but see it as such a powerful way to portray a character's inner turmoil.  The storm also represents the unpredictability and sheer violence in nature itself--and that not even a king is safe from it.  I think that Lear recognizes his own insignificance compared to this great storm and it makes him feel even more hopeless.

There is one last possible interpretation of the storm... and it involves divine interference.  I think that it may even be possible that the storm signifies the "god's" anger at King Lear, maybe because of his treatment of Cordelia.  On the other hand, the "gods" may not even be angry at Lear--the storm could in fact be a warning for Regan or Goneril. There are several interpretations available pointing to the significance of the storm, but nevertheless it is a crucial piece of the story and especially in portraying Lear's character and growing despair. 

The Unstable King Lear

I can't imagine what it must take to be a king and have power like King Lear.  It must be quite a job and anxiety and stress are inevitable.  Despite all the crazy things Lear has to deal with on a daily basis, I would imagine him to be a little more composed.  Act 3 has the most evidence of King Lear's freak out.  He runs away in the middle of a storm, he howls uncontrollably, and his "fool" looks to be the mature bringing him advice and trying to settle him down.  King Lear comes across to me as an old man that everyone was waiting to die so that a more sane person could come in as ruler.  In the mean time, there work was making sure he stayed calm and happy so as not to have the castle destroyed by his anger and rage.  Sure he was a great guy but his unstable tendencies made me a little hesitant to believe in his ability to lead his people.

Lear's Lessons on Love

Love is a central theme to the play King Lear. The question of true love appears many times. One could even say all of the conflict in the play is based around love. At the beginning, Goneril and Regan give King Lear the proclamation of love that he expected from all his daughters. When it is Cordelia's turn to praise her father she says she has nothing to say, because her love runs that deep and her character is just that honest and pure. Lear doesn't recognize this act of love and mistakes it for hatred and banishes her because of his folly. This bring up the question of do we really know what true love is and who possesses it for whom? It emphasizes the importance of the recognizing and receiving of love as well as the giving.
And then at the end, Cordelia comes with an army to save her father out of love. Even after he banished her from the kingdom she arrives. This gives the audience a glimpse of the purity of true love which cannot be expressed. Her father then fully recognizes the error of his ways and reconciles his relationship with her at the end of the play. My question is, would he have noticed this true love if is other two daughters hadn't disappointed him like that. What is the final lesson that this play teaches us about love, or does it attempt to teach one at all?

Act V, Scene iii

This scene brings up many issues which are frequently addressed during the course of King Lear. With Shakespeare's portrayal of Goneril and Edmund is used to show the interaction of noblety and lower class. In this way Shakespeare explains how the lower class is frequently mistreated by those with wealth and power. A good example is on p. 155 when Goneril says
"Say, if I do? The laws are mine, not thine. Who can arraign me for 't?" meaning that she is in charge of the laws and has the ability to abuse her power.

Another idea that Shakespeare explores in this scene is that people can sincerely change. This is shown in the character of Edmund. On p. 294 he says "What you have charged me with, that have I done—
And more, much more. The time will bring it out.
'Tis past, and so am I. But what art thou
That hast this fortune on me? If thou'rt noble,
I do forgive thee." He's apologizing to Edgar for all that he has done before he dies.

Does anyone have other thoughts on these ideas?

Parallels Between Lear and Gloucester

While reading King Lear, I felt a very strong theme of fathers mistrusting children and winding up in trouble. This was most evident in King Lear's life and the Earl of Gloucester. Lear banished Cordelia, the one who actually loved her father the most, and trusted Goneril and Regan who turned out to plot evilly against their father shortly after given half of his kingdom each (see Act I, scene 1, 4, 5). Similarly, Gloucester trusted his conniving son Edmund and mistakenly chased after the son who was actually a loyal son, Edgar (Act II, scene 3 and 4).

I found it really difficult to read such a situation because of course, as the reader, I was able to see the entire situation and just wanted to jump out and let Gloucester know the truth! But it doesn't work out that way... ha. How did everyone else react to this situation? How does it reveal a greater theme from the novel... perhaps that evil prevails? I don't really like to think of it that way, but how else can we interpret this evil plot which ends in so many deaths?