Much Ado About Comedy

Much Ado About Nothing, one of William Shakespeare's famous comedies, is a prime example representing themes and motifs required of Aristotle for a comedy: sexual jokes (yes, actually, the great Shakespeare rarely gets through a play without sex jokes), romance, the rise in fortune of the fools, Dogberry and his crew, Benedick and Beatrice, and Hero and Claudio, and a happy ending.
Sex and romance are clear leading themes in the play, with the immediate attraction between Hero and Claudio upon first sight, as well as the evident dramatic history between Benedick and Beatrice, with an not-so-subtle underlying sexual tension. Shakespeare explores the folly of human nature in romance through the antithesized relationship between Ben and Bea, as their actions clearly counteract their deepest feelings and what they truly want. Additionally, through Claudio's misinterpretation of Hero's loyalty and chastity- one can argue Shakespeare even subtly criticizes the then present social taboo of women's sexual freedom by weighing it against Claudio's loyalty to Hero, and even the importance of true love itself.
And, as with any Shakespeare play, there are the bumbling fools, Dogberry and his watch, the equivalent of Dwight Shrute's volunteer sheriff's deputy position- basically fake police. This group slapsticks their way through trying to acquire occupational respect, and consequently accidentally succeeding and catching the "bad guys" and saving the day, without ever really realizing the gravity of their actions.
This double edged romantic comedy is brilliant because with it's two simultaneous love stories, Shakespeare presents opposing relationships, flips them, and then brings them to the same happy ending. The play is just a long taunting of the audience. Most importantly, it deals with real, sincere situations that many can relate to, and simply emphasizes and colors it in. That's why Shakespeare is so timeless, because despite era, the human condition and the inherently genuine dilemma's humans face stay constant.

A Midsummer Night's Dream

A Midsummer Night's Dream is one of William Shakespeare's most famous plays. Dictating the stories of multiple different groups of people of very different classes, Shakespeare's play focuses on groups whose lives collide in every which way. A Midsummer Night's Dream is a great example of a comedy that enhances the audience's view of the world because it can appeal to so many different audiences. In the play, there is everything from magic and spells to royalty and manipulation, all that moves the characters forwards. The play is a bit different from a typical comedy, however, because the "main" character is not so simple to be determined. in King Lear, Lear himself was the hero, but in this play, it can be argued that many characters would appear to be the sympathetic central character. Although all of these interpretations are merited and credible, I personally believe that Puck is the most like the sympathetic central character that a comedy requires. Puck brings characters together and ultimately, is one of the most powerful characters in the entire play. A Midsummer Night's Dream also has the happy ending that is necessary to be a comedy. The four main lovers end up in two happy pairs and the magical and mischievous couple also end up together. Everyone ends the play in happy moods and little of their imminent fates is left to be desired. 

A Midsummer Night's Dream enhances our view of the world through its depiction of connections, conflict, and eventual resolution. Puck, as I stated before, has much of the power in the play, and while he makes a few mistakes, he is eventually able to correct them and give everyone the happy ending that they deserve. At first, it seems like there may not be much of a message to be gained from this play besides "don't use magic to manipulate people," but it actually represents manipulation and trickery as a whole. Even in its most simple and seemingly harmless form, any kind of trickery can be detrimental, and A Midsummer Night's Dream warns of these dangers. Another more obvious message has to do with love and affection. Sometimes, the person that has the best first impression and that someone thinks may be the one for them is not actually a good fit at all. Finally, touching on the magic aspect and referring back to other books that we have read so far in the year, appearance and reality and how seeing is not truly believing. The appearance of something good may turn out to be the complete opposite and vise versa. I believe that A Midsummer Night's Dream is an amazing example of a comedy that is a meaningful work of art, not only because of the language that Shakespeare used, but the meaning that he put into that language as well.

Wholesome Humor

While a work of tragedy leaves the audience with a feeling of catharsis, I think the wholesomeness comedy brings with its finale is enough to also categorize it as a great art form. I think one of the main reasons people don’t think comedy can be as meaningful is because it can be ruined by trashy, cliche moments so quickly. But when done right, the either dreaded or beloved “rom com” can bring a feeling of wholesomeness that matches the catharsis that comes from a tragedy.

For example, She’s the Man, which is a modern take on Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, takes the audience through mischief, humor, despair, and love, and ultimately has a happy ending. I admit that the “in the end, the athletic fun girl gets the mysterious but caring jock” chord is struck a little hard by this movie, I still think it qualifies as a comedy because of the investment the audience gets in the character’s lives. By the end of the movie, however corny it may be, you are happy to see Amanda Bynes and Channing Tatum get together.

She’s The Man, and of course by extension Twelfth Night, is also a qualified comedy because it enhances our understanding of the world through the construction of gender roles in modern times. Amanda Bynes’ character, Viola, goes undercover as her brother to train with the men’s soccer team at her brother’s school, after the girl’s program was cut at her school, in hopes of beating her own school’s men’s team. Viola is not the typical “jock,” but ends up falling for him, and her experience in this role as a man shows the audience in a comedic but earnest way that there is not right or wrong way to be a gender, and that being your authentic self is the best thing you can be, no matter what it feels like other people or society are telling you.

A Midsummer Night's Dream

Here's a Sparknotes summary of A Midsummer Night's Dream

By now we all have read work from William Shakespeare, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. One work of his that has stuck out is A Midsummer Night's Dream. This play is a perfect example of a romantic comedy, introducing young lovers who fall in and out of love for a fleeting moment. Their real world problems are solved magically, enemies reconcile, and true lovers reunite in the end. The function of comedy is to entertain the audience, while also portraying social institutions and persons as corrupt, and mock them through satirizing, parodying, and poking fun at their debauchery. Plays are primarily concerned with idealized love affairs, it is a fact that love never goes smoothly; however true love can overcome difficulties and end with a happy union.

While the Shakespearean comedy is romantic, it mixes the light and the serious. Follies are exposed and ridiculed, but the laughter is gentile and sympathetic. We laugh with the people and not at them. Romantic love is the theme of this play, naturally this comedy was a story of love ending in marriage. The whole atmosphere of this comedy is filled with love. One line that really sticks out across the whole play and that embodies the overall message is "the course of true love never did run smooth" spoken by Lysander from the opening scene in act 1.

Comedy, specifically this kind of romantic comedy, is very meaningful. Nowadays most of us view comedy as a vehicle to only entertain, not teach. But Shakespeare's comedy introduces a universal truth that surpasses time. The truth that "the course of true love never did run smooth" is a part of every intimate relationship we will experience in our life. The play teaches us that though true love may not go the way we intended, it will (hopefully!) end with a happy ending. It also teaches us that you cannot take love too seriously, it requires the balance between comedy and honesty. Although this may seem cheesy, this is something that is relevant to all our lives, present and future.

Shakespeare Slam! Poetry in Action

Congratulations to our class and blog mate, Julia Cozette, who rocked it along with the rest of the crew -- even though they inexplicably just missed the finals.

Here they are performing a scene straight from Twelfth Night:

Here is their original mash-up using language from Midsummer Night's Dream:

Beloved and The Tempest

I'm in a version of Shakespeare's The Tempest right now, and I came upon a passage in Beloved that reminded me of it. Near the end of Beloved; "There is a loneliness that can be rocked. Arms crossed, knees drawn up; holding, holding on, this motion, unlike a ship's... There is a loneliness that roams... It is alive, on its own" (323).
In The Tempest, Ariel recounts the events of the tempest to Prospero. "And, as thou badest me,/ In troops I have dispersed them 'bout the isle./ The king’s son have I landed by himself,/ Whom I left cooling of the air with sighs/ In an odd angle of the isle, and sitting,/ His arms in this sad knot" (I,ii).

The parallels of water, isolation, ships, rocking, arms crossed, all of it is similar between these two texts. 

Near the end of Beloved when the first passage listed occurs, there is a definite sense of isolation because of the distance that has grown between Sethe and everyone around her: Paul D, Beloved, Denver, and her community. In isolation, self comfort, such as crossing your arms around your legs and rocking yourself is a common human reaction. Toni Morrison writes "...on its own" as a clear piece of evidence to how Sethe feels after her family has left her. 

In The Tempest, Ferdinand has also been separated from his family after the shipwreck, and is alone in a foreign place with no one to comfort him but himself. 

In both these stories, the characters in question have been on long, treacherous journeys and end up isolated, not knowing what to do. Yet, the island and Sethe's newfound perspective of freedom manifest themselves magically in both ominously and wondrously mysterious ways. And, as Ferdinand eventually finds Miranda after wandering about the island, Paul D eventually finds Sethe after looking all throughout the house. This parallels in that Ferdinand follows Ariel's song in order to get to the place Miranda is waiting, while Paul D only finds Sethe when he hears her singing the lullaby she would sing to Beloved and Denver. 

It is interesting that so many of the same symbols and plot devices are used in two classic pieces of literature even though they were written centuries apart and of completely different stories. I appreciate the sense of hope both these passages bring, however, to the perspective of being found after being isolated, that while freedom is often associated with independence, both Ferdinand and Sethe find a happier sense of freedom when they are united with other people.

It's Difficult to Admit the Truth

In times that seem so progressive, such as 2014, admitting that horrible distinctions existed (and continue to exist) in the world is a brave feat. We all know that women couldn’t own property for many years; we all know they did not attain the right to vote until the 1920s. We think our society is near perfect and that everything is okay because we’re equal in the political sense. But it’s still hard to admit the truth about the long-prevailing societal labels placed upon our ancestors and even, to some extent, ourselves.

In the passage “Shakespeare’s Sister,” Virginia Woolf describes what a female literary genius in the Elizabethan era would look like. One key thing that Woolf mentions keeps her from becoming a renowned author is that she is “the property of her husband.” Also, she mentions that her family places great pressure upon her to conform to the societal roles as a mother and caretaker for her husband, thus giving her no freedom to write without being ridiculed or punished.

This hypothetical situation may seem extreme to us now (Women as property? Excuse me?), but when we look deeper into the phenomenon, we must hold our noses and admit that this situation was a true one. In Kate Chopin’s The Awakening, written in 1899, a husband, Leonce, is mentioned as looking at his wife Edna in the same way that one looks at “a valuable piece of property which has suffered some damage.” Although the author’s reference is metaphorical, it reveals an ugly truth about society’s progression.

Women achieved the right to own property, they attained suffrage rights, they advocated for the passage of Title IX, we’ve gone through multiple waves of feminism, but the view of women as property, although diminishing in obviousness, continues to remain, woven deeply into the constructs of society. We won’t admit it, though. We won’t admit that women were viewed as property back then, and we won’t admit that the view continues to exist in a less-obvious manner in the world today. Why do we still use the term “trophy wife?” If we seek to find an answer to the question, we may be forced to admit the truth. This awful view of women has not gone away, and without tremendous effort, it never will. :(

Shakespeare's sister shall live

In the excerpt from A Room of One's Own, by Virginia Woolf explains that, yes Shakespeare had a sister, but there is no way that she could have came up with any pieces of literature that her brother could have came up with. Woolf makes it very clear that it is not her lack of ability to write because she is a girl, but rather she was born into a time period that oppressed women and wouldn't let them do activities such as write.

Throughout the entire passage, the one line that popped out at me and got my mental juices flowing was in the final paragraph where Woolf writes, "Now my belief is that this poet [Shakespeare's sister] who never wrote a word and was buried at the crossroads still lives. She lives in you and in me, and in many other women who are not here tonight, for they are washing up the dishes and putting the children to bed" (Woolf 39). Usually people are remembered because of what they said, not what they didn't say. His sister is remembered because she wasn't able to write, she wasn't able to express herself. She serves as a reminder of what happens when you oppress women. If Shakespeare and his sister lived in a different time period, we would be studying two Shakespeare's instead of one.

Cats Do Not Go To Heaven

I'm not a cat person. I struggle to be, but I still view them as docile vessels of Satan much of the time.

But they do have souls. And regardless of afterlife beliefs, or whether or not cats have a heaven of their own to even go to, the assumption that they are undeserving of, or are not beings enough to have, what many view as a God-given privilege, is unfair and ludicrous. Given opportunity, why would they not?

Virginia Woolf, in her feminist critique "Shakespeare's Sister," mentions an old, now dead, bishop who openly declared that women could not write works like Shakespeare; he also declared that cats cannot go to heaven. At the time of Shakespeare, Woolf argues, it was true that a woman could not have written the works of Shakespeare, but not because they were unable in talent or lacking in ideas; it was because society did not allow it.

Through the fictitious example of Shakespeare's sister, Woolf demonstrates how society prevented women from gaining the equal opportunities as men to educate themselves or realize their dreams. She explains that "[Shakespeare's sister] picked up a book now and then, one of her brother's perhaps, and read a few pages. But then her parents came in and told her to mend the stockings or mind the stew and not moon about with books and papers." Women may have had the identical baseline as men, but due to the role they were supposed to play in society, they were kept from realizing any potential. Shakespeare's sister, an idea that seems like it could have so much promise if implemented, would in reality have ended in no different result than the usual Hamlet and King Lear we have now due to the destructive nature of society to women at the time.

It's as if the cats, with the same soulful capabilities as anyone who would be let into whatever pearly gates awaited, would be rejected at the door, or distracted endlessly from the path merely because they are cats and they are not viewed as worthy of being let in. They're arbitrarily serving a different role: random animal companion (or furry antagonist) until they die and disappear from existence and importance.

The women of Shakespeare's time suffered the same fate. It seems ridiculous to equate women to cats, and I certainly believe women deserve more equality than cats by a long-shot, but it was and to some extent still is the reality. I can't speak for the cats, but I can say that Woolf's relation of cats to women really does reveal the ignorance involved with gender roles. Why is saying cats can't go to heaven even necessary? Why is saying women would have been unable to write the works of Shakespeare, if society had let them, any less delusional?

Much of the time assumptions are made incorrectly, and from those assumptions stem societal behaviors that, much like a self-fulfilling prophecy, force the assumption into accuracy. Woolf presents the ignorance of assumptions, and their dangerous effects on society as well as the consequent effects of society on the people living in it. In contemporary life, things have changed to an extent, but there are still far too many assumptions and  societal behaviors that inhibit the truth and eliminate the beneficial talent that should blossom every second.

I'm sure there are many cat people out there who would like to have them in heaven to pet and love, so why prevent them from getting there by asserting that they can't? Shakespeare's sister could have had many wonderful works to offer, so in the future we should stop preventing the realization of feminine talent merely because we choose to say it isn't possible. Say, "they can, why not?" instead of "they can't, because they can't." And say it to everyone. Maybe even the cats.

Although I'm still not a cat person.

Food, water, shelter, and...?

Frankl's recollection of his time spent in concentration camps is one of the more disturbing things we've read for class. It's not even in the graphic imagery of illness or frost bitten toes that gets to the reader, but his description of what the camps did to the soul. He goes through the stages of what it was like to be in such an environment. What got to me was when he illustrated a train ride from one camp to another. He writes that he felt like a dead man returning to where he grew up only to find a ghost town. It's nightmarish to imagine what they looked like physically, being starved and overworked, but mentally, he writes that it was as if he was already dead.

It's very difficult to write an analysis of such a story. Frankl makes the Reader feel his words and be able to see what he saw. Maybe it's not the best thing to compare his very real nightmare to a work of fiction, but there are quite a few comparisons and contractions to be made from Frankl's writing to that of Shakespeare and Camus.

In all three works, the one thing that kept the main characters going was the thought or presence of something they loved. Although Meursault does't profess his love for much, the memory of his apartment and just thinking about physical items burned through his plentiful time in prison. For Lear, who doesn't end up spending much time imprisoned at all, having Cordelia with him changed everything. He explains to her how he believes they'll be very happy, only having each other. Lastly, for Frankl, it's a slightly different story. He, like Lear, has someone who he holds very dear. He does not have the luxury that Meursault has of not having much of a connection to the outside world besides physical pleasures like swimming, smoking or sex. Unlike Lear, he does not have his beloved near him. He doesn't even know where his wife is or if she's alive. However, it is still the thought of her that keeps Frankl going. Throughout being slowly starved to death and tortured daily, Frankl keeps his wife in his thoughts and has conversations with her while working. Love may not be the only thing that keeps people semi-sane in restricting and unlivable environments, as Meursault supposedly only needed a days worth of memories, but it sure doesn't hurt. I'd imagine there were quite a few men there who didn't have wives to think of, but they probably thought of parents, siblings, somebody they saw on the street once whose face they remember, a pet, etc. The thought of something you care about if even just a tiny amount keeps people feeling human.

Is Love all we Really Need?

Frankl’s piece was, undoubtedly, powerful, moving, and profound. His intense descriptions of his experiences in the concentration camp coupled with his revolutionary insights in his search for meaning make for a captivating experience for the reader. However, when he ties together all of his discoveries from his search for meaning, he concludes that it was the thought of his wife that allowed him to accept his suffering as it is and thus keep working as he was supposed to. Now, there is a question to be asked: Does love, or even just the thought of love, help us escape our suffering? The answer might not be as simple as it was for Frankl.

So, while Frankl was working himself beyond his physical limit in the labor camp, he could see and feel the presence of his wife with him. He even uses the phrase “she was there” to describe how he felt in that moment. The thought and sensed presence of his wife brings meaning to his horrible situation. Not to sound blunt, but it’s basically trying to tell us that “all you need is love.”

*Cue John, Paul, George, and Ringo*

I can’t think of a story I’ve come across that doesn’t involve some sort of tacit reference to the concept of love. Moreover, most stories, old and new, incorporate love as the driving force of the meaning of the story; the notion of love is an underlying answer to all problems that must be solved.

In Shakespeare’s King Lear, written several hundred years ago, Lear has a strong emotional attachment to his favorite daughter, Cordelia. Toward the end of the play, Cordelia is the only person Lear loves and truly cares about, and when she dies, he shows immense grief and dies himself shortly afterward. Here, the message is clear: we can’t live without love, we can’t go on. Love works in the same way here as it did for Frankl.

But let us not just focus on fictional stories. Frankl’s situation was real, and thus only real situations can be wholesomely compared to his. Love cannot solve all our problems, nor can it physically take us out of suffering. In our comfortable lives, we require more substance to our day-to-day living in order to truly find meaning. We need success, satisfaction, entertainment, and stimulation in order to discover this meaning. But take away all of our comfort, and what do we get? Well, Frankl already told us what we get. And what’s the only thing left in our lives after all of these constructs have vanished and are completely out of reach? Love, love is all that’s left.

So, realistically, love is (sometimes) all we need. We don’t have to change the lyrics to The Beatles’ song, though.

Loss of Humanity

Viktor Frankl's "Experiences in a Concentration Camp" is a moving, disturbing description of a prisoner's suffering during the Holocaust. Frankl seems to conclude that fundamentally, life in a concentration camp robbed him of his humanity. The author describes his experiences as a degeneration into a more primitive existence as instinctual desires supersede feelings of empathy for other prisoners and in a more physical sense, his body becomes more like a skeleton than a living being.

It's hard to compare Frankl and Lear due to the disparity of their situations, but Lear, like Frankl, feels that he loses his humanity. Stripped of his men, power, and respect, he empathizes with the poor and unprotected people during the storm. He even attempts to remove his own clothing in order to physically experience how primitive and animal-like he feels mentally and emotionally. Like Frankl, he finds that he has regressed into a more natural, inhuman state.

In a realization quite like Meursault's in The Stranger, Frankl finds that, although his physical, external state deteriorates in the concentration camp, his inner life and imagination intensifies. Lear is less successful in giving meaning to a simpler existence, perhaps because his suffering is primarily mental. However, when he considers the idea of being imprisoned with Cordelia, he too sees the potential to be happy even when living a primitive life in prison. Although Lear and Frankl's experiences are quite different, as they consider what emotionally and physically defines human existence, both discover that mental/internal and physical/external states do not necessarily parallel each other.

Common Themes

The passage “Experiences in a Concentration Camp” from Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl shares many of the same topics and motifs as King Lear. The theme of power is the first to come to mind, most likely because it seems to be very prominent between the two. The topics of weak men and suffering, however, are also present.

On page 32 in the passage, Frankl describes how a colleague of his sneaks into his “block” and gives advice on how to survive: “If you want to stay alive, there is only one way: look fit for work. If you even limp, because, let us say, you have a small blister on your heel, and an SS man spots this, he will wave you aside and the next day you are sure to be gassed.” This not only relates to the motif of weak men, it also falls under the category of appearance vs. reality. The prisoners are disguising their suffering and pain in order to stay alive.

This leads me to the next theme: suffering. As mentioned in previous posts, Frankl describes how mental pain can be more scarring than physical pain: “At such a moment it is not the physical pain which hurts the most…it is the mental agony caused by the injustice, the unreasonableness of it all” (36). Lear is also forced to endure a form of mental suffering after his daughters’ betrayal and loss of power.

There are obviously many more thematic links between these two stories, but I thought that these were some of the most dominant.

Animalism and Agony

So as we've been reading King Lear, we've grown accustomed to the many references to the animalistic lifestyle of the impoverished characters, whether they be disguised or legitimately stripped of any dignity or possessions. We've also watched as Lear himself descends, particularly during the storm of Act III, into an agonized mental tempest, supporting the theme from throughout the play that mental anguish is worse than its physical counterpart.

And then we read about the Holocaust.

Um.

As captivating and disturbing as Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning is, at first I had no idea how it was going to "expand the conversation" for our understanding of Shakespeare's tragedy. I'm sure in both instances people lost eyes, but that isn't particularly profound or fun to think about; it's just gross.

However, then I arrived at this line: "At such a moment it is not physical pain which hurts the most...it is the mental agony caused by the injustice, the unreasonableness of it all" (Frankl 36).

Although not in Shakespearean English, it's as if the words could have come from Lear's mouth. He felt betrayed by his daughters and, stripped of any sort of power, it is the injustice he feels that gives him such mental despair, overshadowing his homelessness in the midst of a horrendous storm. Frankl, having been beaten for no reason by a guard, feels the mental destruction of a complete loss of agency and humanity more pronouncedly than he feels the physical pain of the beating.

Frankl continues to describe working conditions, and how the workers resembled "only vaguely...a human form," and how they were instructed as one might "call a domestic animal back to its job" (36). In his experience, he had been stripped down to an animal-like form and was being treated as such, and from this experience he drew the realization that "[t]he most painful part of the beatings is the insult which they imply" (36). It is the mental agony of having been stripped of all humanity and agency that is the most painful. Lear, in the storm, reaches a similar conclusion, as does Edgar, who, disguised as Poor Tom, discovers that if his mind is free of trouble, then being stripped of everything and treated as an animal is less painful than being a supposed king and having no power or respect.

All in all, Frankl's realizations about humanity, dignity, and mental struggle reflect many of the character struggles in King Lear. Now if only there was a way to tell Lear to emotionally disconnect, because that seemed to work for the members of the concentration camp. But that's someone else's discussion.

I Cannot Heave My Heart Into My Mouth

After analyzing the first act of King Lear in class, one section really stood out to me:

Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
My heart into my mouth. I love your majesty
According to my bond; no more nor less.

Cordelia said this when her father, King Lear, demanded that all of his daughters tell him how much they love him while he was deciding how he wanted to divide up his inheritance. While Goneril and Regan showered their father with meaningless compliments, Cordelia actually spoke her mind. Cordelia said that she loves her father "according to my bond".

I admire Cordelia's ability to speak her mind even when it is best for her to just lie to get what she wants. Her honesty shows that she respects herself and her father. She refuses to "heave her heart into her mouth" because that is simply dishonest. Her integrity prevents her from making false statements. Cordelia is incredibly empowering through how she handles this situation, but Lear's response shows the downsides that can come from speaking your mind.

Lear takes Cordelia's unwillingness to explicitly proclaim her love as an insult even though it is exactly the opposite. This error of judgement appears to be detrimental for Cordelia even though her actions had the best intentions.

I think this interaction outlines the struggle that many people face when they decide what to say in difficult situations. Saying something with the sole purpose of pleasing a person is a short term solution for what can be a long term problem.

To Fool or Not To Fool...

In the traditional sense, a fool is someone who acts slow-witted to entertain others.  When you read about the Fool in King Lear, however, the term 'fool' actually becomes a double entendre.  The so-called fool is incredibly witty - sometimes so much that he's hard to understand.  Through it all, he manages to turn around his title from a noun to a verb that he carries out on other people; King Lear, in particular, he continually fools and makes the butt of his jokes when no other character could in even a nice way (take Kent as the prime example). 

In fact, the Fool outright calls Lear a fool numerous times.  "All thy other titles thou hast given away.  That thou wast born with." (I.iv.153)  "That such a king should play bo-peep and go the fools among." (I.iv.181)  "Thou wouldst make a good Fool." (I.v.38)  At first his jabs are met with shallow warnings.  Disguised Kent protests that the Fool's comments are more than just jokes, and Lear warns the Fool that he will be whipped. None of these threats follow through, and by the third quote Lear responds by proclaiming his fear of becoming mad.  The Fool, though he expresses a desire to be anything other than a fool, actually has power in that position: he not only is able to make fun of the king but is able to quite poignantly critique the king with a clear impact.  As one of the king's closest companions after dividing his land, the Fool also has a tough responsibility.  He is the only one with the power to reach the king's senses and reveal to the king his deteriorating condition.  While the Fool manages the task quite deftly, that sounds a little difficult to me.  You can almost imagine a little Hamlet creeping in.  To Fool or not to Fool... Whether 'tis nobler for the King to suffer the slings and arrows of ignorance mighty, or to take arms against his naivete, and by opposing, hurt him?

The Value of Truth

In both The Stranger and King Lear, honesty condemns the main characters. In the Stranger, when Mersault is truthful about his apparent indifference to the traditional societal values, the public views him as a monster. He is accused of being a sociopath, and condemned to death. In King Lear, when Cordelia honestly tells her father that she cannot profess her love with theatrics equal to those of her sisters, he banishes her. Instead of lying and and "heaving" her heart into her mouth, she tells him simply that she loves him as a daughter should love a father, no more and no less. Lear is shocked by this honesty, because he was expecting all of his daughters to play into the game and flatter his ego.

Both characters refuse to conform to pressures from both society and family. Instead they are honest and vocal about their feelings, and for this they are condemned. While this courage and honesty condemns the characters, it can serve to help establish respect for the characters, if they are understood. For example, Kent and the King of France respect Cordelia once they hear her stand up to her father and tell him the truth. My question is, would I have the courage to tell the truth in that instant? Sure, we all like to think that we are brave enough to be honest about our feelings. But in keeping with the theme of being honest, I would probably lie to gain a third of the kingdom. I'm not proud of this, but in reality, I would not be as courageous as Cordelia or Mersault. That being said, I think that being honest and true to ourselves like these characters is something that everyone can strive for.

An Appreciation of (Good) Acting

Today in class we were each challenged to read a line of "King Lear" and convey the feeling of the character who speaks. I found myself rather stumped by my line, which was a part of Goneril's speech to flatter her father, because I don't think Goneril's emotions as she delivers this speech can be easily identified or reduced into one explicable feeling. Although her words are loving and full of compliments, her speech is forced and exaggerated because, as she articulates in later scenes, she does not truly hold her father in such high regard. Clearly, her emotions in this scene are complex and conflicting.

It is difficult to properly convey Goneril's exaggeration of her love for Lear while also accounting for the fallacy of her words and her discomfort in the situation. Identifying Goneril's predominant emotion and "giving 500%" sounds simple in theory, but it's challenging to deliver the lines of a character with such complex feelings. This might upset our friend Nabokov, but I think an actor needs to really understand and empathize with the character they are playing in order to accurately convey their emotions.

As someone whose theatrical experience is limited to a couple of middle school plays I'd rather forget, I know I feel challenged by our reading of "King Lear." However, I've realized that reading a play out loud allows our class to understand characters in a different way from reading novels. Acting challenges us not just to analyze characters, but also to bring them to life.

"No Fear Shakespeare"

With the start of King Lear, I'll admit that I was quite nervous and intimidated by the very hyped up difficulty that is associated with works of Shakespeare. Although I had read Shakespeare previous years in high school, I was preparing myself for nightly "No Fear Shakespeare" summaries that would follow every night's reading and trying to gather enough endurance to muster through the first act without any help. I realized today in class that I, as well as many others I'm sure, tend to view reading Shakespeare with this hyped up expectation and are forgetting to see the value in working with his literature. Sure we might appreciate the writing and understand why it is significant, but I think that when it is viewed with this assumption that you will not understand it, we are actually just making it harder for ourselves.

While it does take a great deal of effort as well as time to understand it fully, I think it can actually open our eyes to a whole new take on a language that we have come to be so comfortable with, which is really interesting. By attaching this "fear" element to Shakespeare, it is scaring many students, including myself, from even wanting to try and understand the original text, which ultimately is defeating the purpose of reading his work in the first place. I have not studied Shakespeare in depth enough to know the specific intentions of his writing, but I don't think that Shakespeare intended people to "fear" his work. As Mr. Heidkamp was saying in class today, his work was not written to be published in a book, but rather to be read aloud in a poetic performance setting. While it's a bit of a stretch to say that his work isn't any more difficult than the average english reading, I think that reading it with this play/performance aspect in mind can make for a more open-minded, not-intimidated attitude and hopefully help us to dispose of this predetermined failure attitude that I think is holding us back from the potential of working with Shakespeare.

What is "Five-Hundred Percent," Actually?

Today in class, we were asked to read our assigned lines from King Lear at “five-hundred percent.” Let us all take a moment to consider what these exaggerations of numerical values really mean.

So, there are twenty-five or thirty seventeen and eighteen-year-old standing in a circle in the middle of a classroom at ten-thirty in the morning. They’re told to read a bunch of words in Old English at “five-hundred percent.” The circle is soon thereafter filled with raised eyebrows, side-eyes, and nervous giggles.

To this group of exhausted, socially conscious teenagers, this so-called “five-hundred percent” just sounds ridiculous. They’re all probably thinking: what are we supposed to do, roll on the ground and do jumping jacks while screaming our lines at the top of our lungs? Most of the baggy-eyed students subsequently read their lines just as they would read the directions from their Calculus textbooks. Being told to perform the lines at “one-hundred percent” or to their “greatest acting potentials,” I believe, would be much more effective.

“But saying ‘five-hundred percent’ is just emphasizing ‘one-hundred percent’ more by attaching a larger number!” Okay, sure. But no one will take the phrase seriously because they know that it is not possibly achievable, as it is such an absurd number. This “five-hundred percent” does not exist and thus cannot be taken as a motivational tool. The activity, then, becomes more of a joke than a time for the students to work on their delivery in preparation for the upcoming scenes they must act out in front of the class.

Now, I’m not criticizing Mr. Heidkamp’s methods of motivating students to be successful performers (nor his teaching methods whatsoever); I am simply proposing an alternative way to tell a person (a student, a family member, a friend, a coworker, anyone) to give it his or her all. In school, we often hear teachers asking for our *insert number above one hundred here* -percent effort on studying for a test or doing a project. Okay, so they want us to try really hard. But if we can just throw around non-existent percent values over one hundred, then what does one-hundred percent mean anymore? It means nothing. Herein lies the problem with our methods of motivation.