Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Cordelia
I really liked how Rachel brought up the fact that we hadn't really focused on Cordelia's character and her significance. Laz also gave us a totally different point of view on her character to balance out her 'Christ-like' image. At first, because of the lack of speech and activity on the part of Cordelia's character, I thought her to be a really static and boring character. However, after Laz gave us that varying view to keep in mind, I changed my mind. I'm really attracted to Cordelia's character now- in a new way. Was Shakespeare trying to make a statement by keeping Cordelia's character seemingly subtle? Personally, she now attracts me more than the other characters. Maybe because we've talked about the others already. I'm really interested in seeing what kind of other things we can come up with as a group. Any ideas?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
yet again... I forgot to write my name...that was me...Fatima
To me, Cordelia didn't seem to play any major part in the story other than being the catalyst for the whole thing. If she had flattered Lear instead of.... shunning? him, then everything would be pippy and merry.
But, I've got another theory.
There could be an underlying plot of a contest between Cordelia and Edgar, both of whom are viewed as favorites by their respective fathers. The goal of the contest would be to rise up to the throne.
I'm going to view this through the feminist/gender traits lens.
Cordelia has the advantage at the outset. She is after all a direct descendant of the king. Cordelia however, detaches herself from Lear. In doing so, she takes on more masculine qualities of emotional detachment.
Edgar, on the other hand, is apparently at a disadvantage. He is Gloucestor's son and has not real big shot at the throne. What makes him the eventual king was his show of compassion (femininity in combination with his cunning (masculinity).
And there's obviously a moral to all this. Following that line of thinking, Shakespeare is showing that maybe, by Elizabeth basically relinquishing her femininity as Cordelia did, wasn't such a good idea. He goes on to show that Edgar, having the best of both worlds, is more fit for ruling.
please don't yell at me o_o
that's actually very interesting Albert...I'm going to give that some thought later on...a bit tired right now.
Fatima
Finally a post before I am fast asleep in bed!
Like we discussed today, she is the "root" of conflict in Lear, in the sense that she started Lear in his downward spiral. If she was meant to be a symbol of strength, she might realized she could avoid wounding an old king's heart and self-image by just appeasing him, even if it were lying a little. In the long run, the kingdom (and nature also) would have kept its order.
This wasn't the case. Cordelia stirs up conflict, vanishes the whole play, and returns at the end, compassionate but helpless. Doesn't this sound like a "typical woman."
1. causes trouble 2. can't take charge 3.will always be forgiving and loving.
Cordelia and Edgar are alike in that they have relentless power hungry siblings, but Edgar is clearly the smarter character. He knows when to lie (keeping his disguise even from his father because giving up his identity might cause other problems.) He also knew when to challenge authority ( Edmund), and has enough skill to triumph over his opponent.
Shakespeare obviously wrote this to display men as the dominant sex. BUT, I also think that he wanted to enforce the value of having a mother AND a father. All the characters who don't have a mother-father team to raise them are the ones who cause conflict.
Any thoughts on the parents issue?
-RACHEL
Post a Comment