Alrighty then
Feminism
Wanna hear a joke?
Women's rights
hahahaha......
Anyway
The term "Feminism" is way too broad. There are many schools of thought within Feminist literary theory that have evolved throughout the years.
The first one, which I find most interesting is androgyny. This theory statest that creative minds are sexless and to consider it otherwise is sexist. http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/femtheory.html
Applying this to King Lear, that means that the qualities found usually associated with the males of the play (the manipulation of Edmund, the goody goodiness of Edgar, the eccentricities of Lear) can actually be found in the women of the play. This explains why Goneril and Regan break the norms of the social order in Elizabethan times by using deception and "ends justify the means" tactics to gain power. Normally, one would consider these traits as masculine.
Androgyny also explains the femininity of the males. Lear's show of emotion in Act I is a prime example of this. Men were expected to hide their emotions and act objectively to situations. Lear does the opposite in Act I.
Question: Does feminist literary theory rely a lot on the social norms etc during the time each piece is written? That seems to be the case because views of women change a lot during each time period in history.
http://www.kristisiegel.com/theory.htm
good site that provides a brief summary and additional scholarly sites for each school of literary criticism.
13 comments:
Not your best joke, Albert... but moving on...
To answer your question Albert, feminists do see the value of history in their criticism, but it is not the most important factor. In one article I found, the author talks about an essay that feminist critic, Ann Thompson wrote about Lear. Thompson said, "while feminist critics acknowledge the value of history in regards to criticism, historicist critics are accused of ignoring gender in their studies." http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/88548
I hope that helps...
One interesting feminist theory that I came across was that "part of the reason for Lear's failure is that he fights against his own repressed need for a mother figure." WE talked in class about how the lack of a mother figure affected Goneril, Regan, Edmund, Cordelia, etc. but somehow we never got around to how it affected Lear. The article goes on to suggest that Lear depeneded so greatly on his daughters because they were the closest thing he had to a matriarchal figure. Once Lear loses his daughters, he tries to form bonds with other males. However these bonds cannot counter the breaking of the father-daughter bond and Lear slips into insanity. I thought this was an intriguing theory and it explains why Lear suffered insanity, though I don't really think Lear suffered from a lack of a mother figure. Anyone else care to comment on this theory?
http://www.enotes.com/shakespearean-criticism/lear-king
Another good overview of feminism:
http://www.neiu.edu/~edeptartm/dep/profs/scherm/html/feminism.htm
*crickets chirping*
Yeah. Considering our class is pretty much dominated by females...
Anyway, I agree with Albert's idea to an extent, but I somewhat disagree with Liz's comment on why Lear when crazy. Lear did not go crazy when he cut ties with Cordelia. And when Goneril and Regan rejected him, I think that he was just shocked that they wouldn't take him in. I don't think the play gives us the idea that they had such strong bonds anyway.
I think it was interesting that Shakespeare gave the female characters in the play such strong personalities. We have to keep in mind that at the time the play was written, women were regarded inferior to men and told to be righteous, chaste, and obedient wives, daughters, sisters, etc. People might argue that that is not the case since the monarch was a female. However, I agree with Mr. Laz when he said that people didn't actually view Elizabeth as the typical female. She had in a way given up her feminity and the public had accepted that. Anyways, I think that it was interesting how Shakespeare gave the female characters almost the same power and characteristics as he did with the male characters. We can also see that in his other plays (i.e. Lady Macbeth's influence on Macbeth). At the same time, it's interesting how almost all of those female characters ended up with the same fates-death. Maybe Shakespeare was trying to send out a message about what he truly believed about women and their potential but at the same time trying to please his audience.
By the way that last comment was mine...Fatima
I agree with Dan that Lear's problems with his daughters weren't the reason he went into insanity. Their relationships may play a role, but the chief reasons I saw was a reaction to both the division of his kingdom (and thus loss of power) and an "allergic reaction" almost to the moral problems within his corrupt kingdom (deceit, etc.)
An interesting theory I came up with.
An interesting thing to consider is that all the women die. In other words, there is no more fertility because there is nobody left to bear the children. Edgar, however, being the perfect/too perfect character, rises up to the throne without a queen at his side. Coincidence? I think not.
Since Edgar is the perfect character, it'd be logical to assume that he has the characterstics found in both males and females. The main one from women being the ability to "bear children." Edgar has been charged with the responsibility of creating (giving birth to) a new kingdom.
Another way Edgar can be viewed as a woman is in his compassion towards Gloucestor after his eyes were gouged out. Granted, Gloucestor was his father so it is expected for a son to look out for his parents. But, Edgar focused on the preservation of life, up to and past the moment Gloucestor thought he committed suicide. I think a masculine view of life, especially in military terms, is to cut your losses and move on. Gloucestor, being old, weak, and blind was, after being blinded, a liability and had no will to live. Edgar disregards that mindset and moves toward the more feminine mindset of preserving life.
This, I think, incorporates some androgyny because according to the second site I posted, androgyny "'...suggests a world in which sex-roles are not rigidly defined, a state in which ‘the man in every woman' and the ‘woman in every man' could be integrated and freely expressed' (Tuttle 19). So basically, the traits of one sex can be seen in the opposite sex, and vice versa.
Albert, I must really, really disagree with your theory, at least in this post. The theory you thought up is extremely anti-feminist criticism. There is no need for Edgar to rise up with a queen to rule his kingdom, because at this time, it was expected and encouraged that a man ruled the country, with or without a wife. And for that matter, Edgar is not the perfect character... you will never, ever, ever, ever find a "perfect" character in any of Shakespeare's tragedies. In Shakespeare's tragedeis, it is the characters' inherent flaws that cause them to suffer. Edgar suffered, thus he is imperfect. Had Edgar been perfect, he would not have been tricked by Edmund and therefore had to go into hiding. While being trustful is often perceived as a virtue, in this play, Edgar trusts too much which results in his being deceived.
You later go on to say, "I think a masculine view of life, especially in military terms, is to cut your losses and move on. Gloucestor, being old, weak, and blind was, after being blinded, a liability and had no will to live. Edgar disregards that mindset and moves toward the more feminine mindset of preserving life." But I question your reasoning here... Edgar was not old, weak, or blind, rather he was strong, young, and moral; he had every reason to live. So why is his deciding to live a more feminine mindset?
Maybe this whole post is because I really hate the theory of androgeny. For me, feminist literary criticism is more about finding the hidden female point of view in a literary canon that is predominantly male-oriented. Or as one website I found put it, "In all cases, feminist criticism makes space for and listens to women's voices previously muted or drowned out by dominant patriarchal literary-critical practices.
www.neiu.edu/~edeptartm/dep/profs/scherm/html/feminism.htm
*comes out from bomb shelter after Liz is done yelling at him o_o*
First off, I got the idea that Edgar was the perfect character from Laz. I don't really remember why he was named thus but that point stuck with me. I'll clear this up tomorrow with him and see (again) how he's the perfect character.
Second, I said Gloucestor had no will to live, not Edgar.
Now, with the technicalities out of the way...
You have a point when you say that you don't necessarily need a queen to rule. This, I agree with. It isn't necessary to have a queen to be a ruler of a country. The point I was trying to make was that there was a conspicuous absence of a wife when he ascended to power. This absence emphasizes (maybe to a lesser degree) that Edgar has both the qualities of both male and female.
Here's a point that Laz told me after class. We can assume that a king = land. He, after all, owns all of the land in the physical sense, but it also becomes a part of him. In a story (I forget the name), a king was ill and could not bear a child to become his heir. His land, as a reflection of him, became infertile and bore no harvest. But, a queen came along (women = fertility) and the king had an heir and they lived happily ever after (maybe)(sorry Laz if I screwed up the story).
So, king = land, which is supposed to be fertile and fertility = women. Therefore, can't we conclude that a king and therefore Edgar has some feminist qualities?
To clear up the point about Edgar saving Gloucestor's life...
In nature, how does a mother act towards her offspring whenever they are threatened? She protects them, sometimes unleashing the full fury of sharp claws, gnashing teeth, and plain brute force. Males in nature very rarely stick around to take care of the kids, the exception being birds.
This is where the whole preservation of life mindset comes in. Edgar takes on a motherly role by taking care of Gloucestor.
I hope that clears things up.
I agree with Liz in that I hate the whole androgeny theory. Accroding to the research I did on Feminist criticism, the general/overall point of the feminist theory is that the feminists try to answer the big question: why have women played such inferior roles to men in various human societies? From there, they look at different cultures and time periods and try to find out the reasoning and logic behind the subordinate conditions of women in real life and their connections with/effects on literature.
Fatima
First, let me just say that I'm not the biggest fan of feminist literary criticism. To me, it seems as though every other "lense" through which we've examined "King Lear" has led to the discussion of gender roles, so a lot of this seems rather redundant. But on to the points Elizabeth and Albert have been debating...
Albert- you made the connection, "king = land, which is supposed to be fertile and fertility = women." If we inverse this equation, however, and apply it to King Lear, can't we say: women in the play = barren = infertile land = unhealthy king. Could the infertility of the women in the play then be a reflection of (or symbolic of) King Lear's unhealthy state of mind?
My understanding of the feminist literary critical theory is more similar to Elizabeth's. Going along the lines of trying to 'make space for and listen to women's voices previously muted or drowned out by dominant patriarchal literary-critical practices,' I thought the reinvention of King Lear discussed here http://www.rsc.org.uk/lear/teachers/reinventing.html was quite interesting. Apparently the book was also made into a movie. It might be interesting to read/see it just to see one author's reinvention of "King Lear," especially when that reinvention has been referred to as the "feminist version" of "King Lear." Just putting the idea out there...
Albert, your theory about Edgar is interesting, though I, along with Elizabeth, think your idea of him as a character is misguided. There are no perfect characters. Edgar seems to have the halo around his head because he does not have the same corrupt and deceitful personalities that many of the other characters hold, as well as being victimized by Edmund.
Edgar, however, is not without reproach. Look at when he is Poor Tom, leading Gloucester along. Yes he saves his father, but when he chooses to remain hidden, despite Gloucester telling him that he wished he could see his son Edgar once more is morally questionable to say the least. This act is morally questionable (why wouldn't he give into the request of his tortured father when he was in no imminent danger by revealing himself?). This is a major character flaw as I see it, and I have yet to find a compelling argument for why exactly he does so.
The theory for Edgar exhibiting "female and male" qualities makes an interesting point about gender neutrality, one that i would like to examine more before commenting on, but I feel your idea of Edgar being perfect (whatever Laz said or suggested) is a bit off.
Going back to Cordelia...
I think it is interesting that we want to see Cordelia as a martyr even though her actions kicked off the tragedy.
Both Lear and Cordelia gave up their right to rule. Lear divided his kingdom, and Cordelia refused to flatter him for her portion. It was suggested that Goneril and Regan were power hungry because of their father's example. Did Cordelia too follow her father's example?
Another intriguing question- why did Cordelia have the female quality of compassion when Goneril and Regan did not? Like her sisters, Cordelia grew up without a mother. Why was she different from her sisters?
Just pondering...
Back to Theresa's point...
I read something interesting about Cordelia and her sisters. An article said that Cordelia and her sisters inherit the qualities of King Lear, which makes them the way they are. They have inherited different qualities, and had different interactions with their father, and thereby are different kinds of people. I'm not sure if I beleive it, but it would be an explanation for Cordelia being different from her sisters.
Cordelia took certain strong qualities of Lear. She is compassionate (as he was to her, until he disowned her), and she apparently knows how to help run an army (as we see from her attack on England later on). Regan and Goneriel inherit their father's nastier side. The side that plays his daughters in a competition against each other for their love. The side that has been mean to the poor in the past.
Regan and Goneril seem to have inhereted these qualities because of the lack of love from their father. They see more of the bad side of him. Since Cordelia seemed to have been shown the most affection, she grows in a similar way. Thus, seperate qualities are born.
Post a Comment