EA 190 Discussion Week 6

1. Messageboard Forum discussion: Compare the hag in Throne of Blood to the Weird Sisters in Macbeth. Is the Hag/Forest Crone in Throne of Blood unambiguosly evil in the same way as the Weird Sisters? Why or why not? Do you think she has more responsibility or less responsiblity for Washizu's actions compared to the Weird Sisters and Macbeth? Cite scenes and pg. #s to support your points.

Note that this week I would like you to post a message answering this question AND reply to at least one other post. This will count both for your discussion question and for participation this week.

2. WIKIPEDIA ON TRAGEDY:
“As the Greeks developed it, the tragic form, more than any other, raised questions about human existence. Why must humans suffer? Why must humans be forever torn between the seeming irreconcilable forces of good and evil, freedom and necessity, truth and deceit? Are the causes of suffering outside of oneself, in blind chance, in the evil designs of others, in the malice of the gods? Are its causes internal, and does one bring suffering upon oneself through arrogance, infatuation, or the tendency to overreach? [i.e. tragic flaws cause the hero to fail.] Why is justice so elusive?”

In King Lear two basic world views are represented:

a) The "faith" position: those who believe that the gods /fortune's wheel/ astrology determine our fate -- and that the gods will punish those who are bad, and reward those who are good.

b) The skeptic's position: that human suffering is caused by humans, and that fortune or the gods or astrology have nothing to do with it.

NOTE: A belief in "Nature" (with a capital "N") is more ambiugous -- the word itself is generally used to mean " the natural world" or "one's natural disposition." If the character believes that Nature and Society are distinct, then they tend toward the skeptical position. If they believe that events in Nature reflect events in Society (eg. eclipses = bad omens about social relations), then they tend toward the first position (faith in gods/fortune/astrology).

QUESTION: As you read keep a list of characters and lines where they express their world view: which characters take the first position (belief in gods or fate that rewards good)? Which characters take the second position (skepticism)? Does what happens to each character support their beliefs about the way the world is or challenge those beliefs? For example, are their prayers answered? At the end of the play do any of the characters still believe in the existence of benign deities who care about what happens to human beings?

3. Another common idea about tragedy is that the experience of suffering is a "journey of self-discovery"; that the main character learns something about themselves (and the world) in the course of the play. For example, a very simplistic reading of Macbeth would be that at the end of the play he has learned a lesson about the futility of ambition pursued at the cost of human relationships.

QUESTION: How do Lear and Gloucester understand themselves at the beginning of the play? That is, how do they view themselves, positively or negatively and why? How do the characters around them view them? For example, how do Goneril and Reagan view their father? How does Cordelia view him? How do Edmund and Edgar view their father? Do you think Lear and Gloucester have learned anything at the end of the play? Can we "moralize" Lear's experience --that is, is there any lesson to be learned from Lear's experience? Why or why not? Cite scenes/lines to support your position.

It will be helpful to also think about how some of the minor characters, particularly Kent, Albany, and the Fool, understand Lear and Gloucester, but you don't have to consider them in writing.

READING QUESTIONS (you do not have to answer these but you should think about them as you read the play):

1. A dramatic convention that was common in Shakespeare's time was the convention of exposition: that as quickly and smoothly as possible in the first act the playwright is supposed to give us our bearings, to let us know who's who and what's what, who we're supposed to root for, and who we're supposed to be booing. Does Shakespeare follow this convention, particularly in the first two scenes? If you had only read these two scenes, what would you think of the various characters? Why might Shakespeare have done this?

2. What motivates Lear to divide his kingdom? What does he want to accomplish by dividing it and marrying off Cordelia at the same time? Why is this likely to fail? [Note that Shakespeare is making an indirect (negative) comment on marriage politics of this time.]

3. The motivation for the Edgar/Edmund/Gloucester subplot is the issue of primogeniture. Look this word up! Why is Edmond so embittered at the beginning of the play? Does he have a reason to be? Does this motivation fully explain and/or justify Edmond's actions? At what point do we lose our empathy for Edmond?

4. As in Macbeth, at key moments in the play minor characters comment on what is happening. What do these comments add to our understanding of the action of the play?

5. There are a series of "judgement scenes" in the play, including the opening scene in which Lear "judges" Cordelia and Kent (for defending Cordelia), the "mad scene" in the hovel, and when Gloucester is judged by Cornwall. Is there any justice in the world of King Lear?

6. In act 3 scene 2 Lear claims to be "a man more sinned against than sinning." (lines 63-63, p. 131) Is this true? That is, if you were writing a judgement scene of Lear, would you hold Lear completely innocent, or say that to a certain extent some of the unfortunate events the occur are his fault? Why?

7. What role does the fool play in the first half of the play? What function do his satirical comments and songs have in commenting on events, both for the audience and for Lear? Why do you supposed he disappears half way through the play?

8. Were you expecting Cordelia to die? (Most people do not!) What hints are there in the play that make it seem like King Lear might have a happy ending? Why do you think Shakespeare chose to give us those false signals? How does the gratuitousness (accidental nature) of Cordelia's death affect the overall meaning of the play? Is there any sense of redemption?