I Was Blind, But Now I See

King Lear.  Yeah.  I think that I found Shakespeare's most depressing and most profound play.  King Lear is about what happens when innocent people have to deal with tragedy inflicted on them by circumstances beyond their control. 

The particular tragedy that drew my attention was Gloucester's loss of his eyes, which we discussed in class.  Firstly, kicking someone's eyes out is a ridiculously brutal thing to do, and would inflict a large amount of physical pain.  Secondly, Gloucester has realized that he believed the wrong son and that Edmund has betrayed him, which would cause mental and emotional agony.  All in all, this guy's life is terrible. 

Gloucester then utters the famous lines we discussed in class: "I have no way, and therefore want no eyes;
I stumbled when I saw." (4.1.68-69)  When I read this, I thought of Christ's words to the Pharisees who asked him if they were blind after he healed the man blind from birth in the Gospel of John: "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."  Christ said that he came to give sight to the blind, and that those who claimed they saw were those who were truly blind. 

Gloucester didn't see until he was made blind.  Until he was forcibly humbled, he was unable to percieve the reality of the situation around him.  We're so often the same way...we don't realize what is happening until it is too late.  At least Gloucester gets a happier ending than Lear does...

King Lear

You try and stay awake through
a 3-hour Japanese movie.

"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is/To have a thankless child!"

-King Lear (1.4.815-16)

I've never read King Lear before.  Here are the ways I've interacted with it before:

1. I've had the above line quoted to me by my parents when they don't feel like I'm grateful enough.

2. I saw most of Ran, Akiro Kurosawa's famous Japanese adaptation about a Sengoku-era warlord.  I fell asleep 2/3 of the way through. 

It seems like an interesting play so far, with Lear's renunciation of the only daughter who really loves him and his fights and quarrels with the other two, who tell him they love him so they can get his land.  The fault isn't only theirs though...Lear doesn't seem to realize who really does care about him, and he doesn't value true virtue, unlike the king of France, who agrees to marry Cordelia without a dowry because he's so impressed by her character. 

Here's what I've noticed about tragedies and comedies in Shakespeare-the only way they seem to differ is the ending.  The Tempest and The Winter's Tale both had some potential issues-thinking a family member is dead is not fun, but everything was okay in the end.  It's almost as though a tragedy is a comedy that doesn't quite make it. 

Along with that, I noticed that most of Shakespeare's plays tend to deal with family relationships and their difficulties.  That made me think about the line I quoted at the beginning of this post.  A serpent's tooth.  Out of all the animals that attack people, Shakespeare used the metaphor of a serpent to describe the pain of betrayal.  Snakes that are known for biting people are usually venemous, and in many cases snakebite will cause agonizing death if untreated. 

Poisonous relationships cause emotional, spiritual, and mental agony to those who are trapped in them, especially those who are blameless in them (Lear isn't really without blame, but that doesn't mean his pain isn't real).  This metaphor drives home the point that family can bring us our greatest pain as well as joy.