“What happens to the classics of hero if the hero becomes a romp for buffoons, if hubris is just another word for macho?”1 is probably an unusual concern to be raised in a classroom where students learn about one of Shakespeare’s masterpieces, King Lear. In a typical English class, students seem to absorb the ‘classical’ interpretations of King Lear while instructors elaborate on the idea of Lear as an admirable tragic hero. However, Martha Fiske, in her article “What Happened to Mrs. Lear – Or. Students Force a Fresh View of King Lear” published in English Journal in March 1987, explains her personal struggles to firmly establish the purpose of studying the play: Lear is a tragic hero. Students question and comment on the play from a perspective that Fiske have not taught or thought of before in her five year teaching experience. She, at first, is unconvinced of her students’ method of interpretation, but as her class continues to view Lear from an untraditional point-of-view, Fiske is distracted from her original classical theatre lesson plan. This article is full of interest, for it led me to think about King Lear from a different perspective, yet gave me an opportunity to compare my thoughts with Ms. Fiske’s students’ by locating agreements and disagreements.
The article begins with a student’s question from day one: “We’re supposed to admire that guy?”2. The class struggles to find out who to admire in the play because Lear, in their opinion, is an un-fatherly character who wants to be taken care of like a baby and trashes his only truthful daughter, Cordelia. The students’ criticisms of the play continue as they are into the subplot on the second day. Fiske builds sympathy for Gloucester and Lear as she finds the rashness, use of imagery, and reference to animals as both characters’ similarities while her students name Gloucester “another Lear look-alike”3 who does not deserve their sympathy. Fiske and her students’ different perspective can also be noticed in what they consider important in Edmund’s soliloquy: the students enjoy sexual jokes which distracts them from focusing on property of rights and his dark ambition that Fiske had on her lesson plan. However, from the third day, she begins to be shaken by the comment on Lear who is an old brat and a bad parent, for he attacks his own daughter’s sexuality. The students further question on the issue of women’s role in play and why Lear always blames women as the cause of all evil. Fiske, too, is “repelled”4 by Lear’s insult towards women; she is convinced to think about the play like her class did. She is persuaded to think that Lear is now not a tragic hero, but an old selfish brat who is irresponsible of his children and his own unwise decisions. She is willing to thank her students for teacher her ‘untraditional’ interpretations of King Lear.
Although Ms. Fiske’s students learned King Lear from a different perspective, I discovered some common opinions we have on the play. The class mentions that in the beginning of the story, Lear shows un-fatherly behaviour to trash Cordelia only for the reason that she did not give him a satisfying answer he expected. Blinded by Goneril and Regan’s so-called “love”, Lear does not see Cordelia’s truth and disunite their family relationship to compensate for his feelings: “Here I disclaim all my paternal care…and property of blood”5. Lear’s behaviour is very awkward because I have never witnessed parents who abandon their children. Not only does Lear demonstrate childish behaviour, but he also shows the qualities of being a bad parent. This is evident in his attacks of Goneril’s sexuality to “dry up her organs of increase / And from her derogate body never spring a babe to honor her”6. Parents should care and love children instead of cursing them. In addition, this is probably the reason why Ms. Fiske’s students and I think that Gloucester feels more guilt than Lear. Lear curses his daughters but not rethink of his own guilt until later on; on the other hand, Gloucester realizes his mistakes quickly as he pray to god to “forgive [him] that, and to prosper [Edgar]”7. Another fact that I agree with Ms. Fiske’s class is that illegitimacy has nothing to do with eroticism. In fact, I think that it determines the status of a person and may influence the inheritance of family title. For example, Edmund’s speech about politics of illegitimacy stresses the point that bastard sons have disadvantage of inheriting family wealth while the legitimate son Edgar has the right to the heir according to the rules; however he doesn’t blame it on Gloucester’s sexual desires with his mom.
Undoubtedly, the method of their interpretation and my approach in understanding King Lear collides in some arguments about the characters. The students’ conversation about Cordelia not having enough lines to say in Act I is controversial in terms of their supporting reasons. They say the reason is that she is upset for being “auctioned off to the lowest bidder”8 when in fact quite the opposite is the case: she is sad for her father who is deceived by her insincere sisters. She grieves, for her father is blinded by the confusion of love and power who tells Cordelia that “better [her] / Hadst not been born than not t’have pleased [him] better”9. If I were Cordelia, tears would fall down my cheeks for being rejected by my own father, but not for my “fallen price”10. Further disagreement was on the statement that bad guys are from bad mothers and fathers are just “genetic bystanders”11. Whore mother, in the case of Edmund’s mom, does not mean she is necessarily bad. It was a term used in the past for women who had children before marriage; therefore, this ‘evilness’ and ‘bad’ are not suitable description for Edmund’s mother. The audience does not have much knowledge about his mom, so there is lack of evidence to prove that Edmund is evil due to his ‘bad mom’. Ms. Fiske’s students also comment on lack of Cordelia’s impact on the story line to compensate for the ruthless comments on females. This is incorrect because throughout the play, Cordelia “return[s] [filial] duties back as are right fit” (I.i.99) and doesn’t use Lear’s confusion of love and power for her own benefit unlike her greedy sisters. Her “so young and true”12 warm personality rather helps the readers to soften their views of females even though she has limited lines. Although Goneril and Regan’s behaviours angered me, I was able to balance my impression on females in the play through Cordelia’s innocence. Above all, the most contrary idea mentioned in the article is that “he (Lear) never regrets!”13. Through the course of the play, he realizes his weaknesses and false decision and at the same time, his values change. For instance, in Act V, his care for Cordelia is illustrated through an excerpt from his speech: “He that parts us shall bring a brand from heaven and fire us hence like foxes”14. By this, he means that no human should part him and his only loyal daughter. This is an indication of his regretful moment as he weeps with Cordelia’s body in his arms.
People’s opinions vary as they read books or plays from distinct perspectives; however, I was able to determine some strong agreements as well as disagreements with Martha Fiske’s class on a Shakespeare’s tragic play King Lear. I was at first perplexed by her students’ comments like Ms. Fiske, but as I read the article a few times, my thoughts on the play began to sway. I do not completely concur to the ideas; nevertheless, I strongly agree with the students’ explanation of Lear and Gloucester’s foolish behaviours. The students view Lear as a sexist, selfish brat, and an old foolish man who does not regret the wrongs he did. This perspective is the opposite of how I think: Lear is a tragic hero because his greatness is damaged through downfall caused by the hubris, but his later epiphany makes him suitable to be an admirable character. Or, maybe, Lear really is an “egomaniac”15.
1) M. Fiske, What Happened to Mrs. Lear? – or, Students Force a Fresh View of King Lear (English Journal, 1987) 85
2) Ibid. 82
3) Ibid. 82
4) Ibid. 85
5) W. Shakespeare, King Lear (New York: Signet Classic, 1998) 7
6) Ibid. 34
7) Ibid. 88
8) M. Fiske, What Happened to Mrs. Lear? – or, Students Force a Fresh View of King Lear (English Journal, 1987) 82
9) W. Shakespeare, King Lear (New York: Signet Classic, 1998) 12
10) Ibid. 11
11) M. Fiske, What Happened to Mrs. Lear? – or, Students Force a Fresh View of King Lear (English Journal, 1987) 84
12) W. Shakespeare, King Lear (New York: Signet Classic, 1998) 7
13) M. Fiske, What Happened to Mrs. Lear? – or, Students Force a Fresh View of King Lear (English Journal, 1987) 84
14) W. Shakespeare, King Lear (New York: Signet Classic, 1998) 132
15) M. Fiske, What Happened to Mrs. Lear? – or, Students Force a Fresh View of King Lear (English Journal, 1987) 82
No comments:
Post a Comment