Category Archives: Character types

The Unnatural Destruction of Man

Character types, King Lear, Tragic hero, ,

Throughout King Lear, we see a King undergo a deconstruction and degradation of himself. Initially owning a title, palace, family, and overall status, the man is stripped of all his possessions down to the very clothes on his back. This return back to his natural form is seen as a downfall, yet Shakespeare emphasizes the power of such a reducec state when Lear speaks to Gloucester : “No eyes in your head, nor no money in your purse? Your eyes are in a heavy case, your purse in a light; yet you see how this world goes” (4.6.148-50). Lear is commenting on Gloucester’s unforeseen (no pun intended) disfiguration but he’s also self-reflecting.

No physical harm has come to Lear as of yet, only the self-inflicted madness he experiences. However, he does go through a reverse evolution of sorts and becomes one with the natural world. Fighting off tempests and harsh forces of nature, the man survives and comes out psychologically more intact than when he came in. Some would disagree with me on that part but what I mean by more intact is that he experiences clarity of mind, even if for an instance.  Only after he had reduced himself to a piece of nature did his vision improve.

It says a lot on the destructive power of man– or woman in this case– that the dangerous natural world couldn’t succeed in destroying Lear – but they could. Cordelia compares Lear to the sea:  “As mad as the vex’d sea; singing aloud; / Crown’d with rank femiter and furrow-weeds” (4.4.2-3). The sea is one of the most destructive forces in the world, with its vast depths and murderous temper tantrums. This synonymous reference could just be Cordelia’s way of explaining Lear’s fluctuating madness, with waves of tyrant tides. However, I do believe that this is also a physical comparison to a natural element that Lear has embodied and survived. He has outlived the tempestuous currents that could drag a man to the depths, and come to the surface where he could see the outline of his way home to shore. But that land is never reached and it is not because of natural occurrences but rather man-made destruction.

This death by man notion is seen as stronger than nature. That nature, despite its unstable dangerous surroundings, is safer and contains clarity of mind more than any man-made “harbor.”

Good King? Mad Daughters

Character types, King Lear, Tragedy, Tragic hero

I put the question mark in the title because it’s very questionable that King Lear was a good king. I certainly would not brand him a wicked character, though he did make a major miscalculation in punishing Cordelia. This is especially true considering that she was the only one of his daughters who did not want him completely out of the way. This calls into judgment if King Lear was a good king meaning a king who is good at his job, opposed to a king who is morally good or not. If we’re discussing wickedness in this play, Goneril, Regan, and Edmund would definitely take precedence over Lear.

And there is no doubt that King Lear’s starting to lose it a bit in his old age. His already volatile sanity is further provoked by the wickedness of two of his daughters. But it might help to question the sanity of both Goneril and Regan. One would have to at least be a little bit mad to treat your aging father who has already given his land to you as terribly as both of them do. Their borderline and sociopathic behavior in plotting, planning, lying to others, lying to each other, and murderous actions do not seem sane in a play that is very vocal about questioning insanity. Cordelia, however, contrasts from her two sisters by being the most honest and self-aware character. She instead suffers from the mistake of not knowing when it is a good time to speak against her father, even if it is mistaken to mean something else by him. That mistake, as noble and honest as it is, proves to be the first instance known to the reader where Lear‘s sanity is called into question. It ends up being a slippery slope of madness that cannot be stopped before major tragic repercussions.

More Learning, More Problems

Death and dying, Hamlet, Psychological states, Tragedy, Tragic hero

As a very educated man, Hamlet serves to be a good example for some of the virtues of intelligence. Unfortunately for him, these virtues also end up playing a role in his downfall. His passive and pensive attentions to detail are as much parts of his character as his reluctance to act on his true will are. I have no doubts it is particularly easy for us to empathize with Hamlet for having suffered from his scholarly pursuits, especially during the end of the semester. I would imagine this also calls into question whether or not it is these traits that made Hamlet a scholar or his being a scholar that brought these traits in him, but that is an argument for another piece of writing.

What makes Hamlet such a memorable character are the endless facets of him we can find ourselves empathizing with. Everyone at one time or another has probably caught himself or herself pondering a decision that needs to be made, and finding every distraction and diversion to keep away from making that decision. And that is perfectly understandable considering that some actions are more final than others. In Hamlet’s case, not many more decisions are more final than to murder someone. What lies in Hamlet is a truly frightening existential question. This question gives light to his famous “To be, or not to be…” line that feels applicable to so many of Hamlet’s questions: to act, or not to act, and to kill, or not to kill seem to be high on that list. I believe the interpretation of that line that is most accepted is probably the very morbid one of being or not being alive. Perhaps a contemplation of suicide might be one of the harder reasons to empathize with Hamlet, but it does represent the fatalistic attitude Hamlet has for much of his play.

The Winter Angel

Character types, Imagery, The role of the imagination, The Winter's Tale

A Shakespearean story in which jealously and insecurity combines to create a unfortunate tragedy, there is no doubt that there is a light that shines within this piece that can go unnoticed if one does not pay close attention to detail. After King Leontes punishes his wife Hermione, eventually leading to her death, and sends his new-born infant out into the woods, one can only imagine the dread he must have felt after coming to his senses years later. The  2nd part of the play, which takes place nearly 16 years after Act 1, showcases a mischievous character named Autolycus who is viewed as a pickpocket con-man attempting to manipulate the characters within the play for his own benefit. Though unknown to himself he helps lead Perdita back to her biological father Leontes, which unravels numerous amount of heartfelt events towards the end of the play. The average audience member would view Autolycus as a comic relief based character that Shakespeare would utilize in order to lighten the mood of the story. Personally I see the character as a metaphoric angel type of being who slowly bring the conflict and tragedy of the story to a more dramatic, yet joyful conclusion. Shakespeare has a knack for puttting mischievous characters within his plays that eventually help in leading to a revelation or explaining the outcomes that are to follow (i.e. Puck in A Midsummer Night’s Dream). Though with Autolycus I sense an angelic presence in him as he leads to the revelation of Hermione (whether it be real or not) descending from her statue like state towards her husband and daughter. During this time of the holidays I would like to think of Autolycus as a fallen angel who has earned his way back into the heavenly gates, but my opinion is a little far fetched and is only going to be seen as a simple Winter’s Tale.

No more Half Measures

Character types, Class and status, Measure for Measure

In a play where lies, deceit, and disguises are at the core of the  plot, there remains only one man who continues to carry on his personal values regardless of the pressure to conform to the higher ups that lay down the law of the land; his name is Lucio, the true hero (maybe anti-hero) of the story. A man who decides to play by his own rules, regardless of the inevitable consequences that’ll be handed down to him continues to express his charismatic and witty personality towards every other character throughout the play; therefore forcing them to come to terms with their own personal demons and desires. The way he subliminally “pimps” out Isabella to Angelo so that she can free her brother Claudio from prison, or how he casually talks to the disguised friar(the Duke in disguise)  about how the Duke was a great leader not just because of his leniency but because how he also indulged in the pleasure of other women just like his fellow citizen. The term “sin” is blind to the of Lucio as he believes that it is not a sin to please ones desires, and that those who believe it to be so are clearly in denial of their own human wants and needs. Is Lucio a saint? Nope, but that is the reason he is the best and most relatable character within the play; he embraces his human instincts and does not sugar coat his opinion. The title of the play is  Measure for Measure but a lot of the characters within this story take half measures, as they decide to not fully embrace there own beliefs and desires. Angelo wants to enforce the law against premarital sex, but can’t resist Isabella. Isabella wants to save her dear brother Claudio, but refuses to commit a single sin to save his life, but will deceive Angelo in the end. The Duke wants to infiltrate the community as a common man, but still has issues letting go of his ego. It is only Lucio who goes all in from the beginning until the end, and even though he is disciplined by the king his character never wavers. Is he immature and volatile? Indeed, but within the character of Lucio there are no half measures, only full and that makes him the ultimate hero of the story.

Forgiveness is a long time coming

Character types, Death and dying, The role of the imagination, The Winter's Tale, Tragic hero, Tragicomedy

I want subscribe to the idea that Hermione’s return is somewhat supernatural. I really do like the concept of awakening from stone and returning to the world as if exiting a state of limbo. However, it seems to me that Hermione is no wife of Pygmalion, and where his statue comes into breath at his unfettered desire we are supposed to believe her breath comes at Leontes’ true remorse. I simply cannot buy it.

To quickly reiterate the evidence of Hermione’s cloistered existence, she is found to be dead by Paulina, potentially cared for by Paulina (see her daily entrances and exits from Hermione’s possible residence), Leontes is forbidden to wed again, despite being a very eligible widower, solely at the discretion of Paulina, and Hermione is ultimately “awoken” by the ministrations of Paulina and otherworldly music. The entire event screams of a long con. But to whose benefit really? The boy remains lost, Hermione has lost 16 years with her daughter, and for what? To satisfy the whims sexually frustrated, jealous, and suddenly maniacal king? I think I would require much longer than the given 16 years to recover from that slight, if I ever did. So then, is it simply a question of “enough is enough?” As a man who condemned two children to death, one of which is intentional and thwarted, the other, pure negligence and successful, Leontes is a most deplorable figure.

Are we moved by his tears of remorse? Certainly, are they enough to warrant the seclusion of 16 years and the company of all but a single woman? No, probably not. What becomes of The Winter’s Tale if it is stripped of its restorative ending? Perhaps without such a moving, emotional scene the importance of the cyclical seasons is undermined, or we as an audience simply could not tolerate it. Or perhaps it expresses the existence of the redeemed penitent, and Leontes, having borne the weight of his unfortunate actions all these years can be granted the return of joy. But if one considers the lonely 16 years, the loss of Autolycus to a passing bear, Mamillius, and even the loss of a beneficial political alliance, it would seem that 16 years may not even begin to compare to the crimes committed.

A Letter to Leontes

Character types, Psychological states, The Winter's Tale, Tragic hero, Tragicomedy

Dear Leontes,

You may think you are not one of the beloved characters to the audience of The Winter’s Tale. You may think every one in the audience of The Winter’s Tale has a negative attitude towards your character. You treat Hermione out of jealousy; you treat Polixenes unfriendly; you are to blame for the death of Mamillius, your young son whom you love as much as every father on this earth loves his child; you are also to blame for the death of dearest Hermione; and finally, under your command newborn Perdita is left on the seacoast of  Bohemia.

All these events take a toll in your life. You have suffered for 16 years. These 16 years, you have mourned over your virtuous queen’s death. Yes, you are wrong to think of her having a romantic relation with Polixenes. Georges Duby would support your suspicions, though. In his A Courtly Model, Duby explains that courtly love is secret and not seen in marriage life since medieval marriages were not based on love. Nonetheless, you have proved that maybe you didn’t wed Hermione out of love, but you have showed the audience that the magical thing that has kept you in mourning all those years is nothing but love, your passionate love.

You are very cruel to newborn Perdita, who you think isn’t your legitimate daughter. So, you order her to be abandoned, because you don’t want to be called Father by a bastard. Your decision to abandon Perdita is very common for a royal family in the medieval age where bloodline determines the heirs to thrones.

Human beings are not angels. Like angels, we don’t live in a divine realm where mistakes presumably don’t exist. We live in a human world where making mistakes is obvious. We make mistakes because our knowledge is limited. Therefore, making mistakes from not knowing should be justified.

In the beginning of the play, you are the King Leontes, Father Leontes, Friend Leontes and Husband  Leontes. But only one mistake, one unknowing mistake destroys the whole chain of relationship. You suspect Hermione and Polixenes, which makes you angry, which leads to a break in life-long friendships, which causes a motion to throw Hermione into the prison, which leads to the separation of Mamillius from his mother and to his death, which forces you to abandon Perdita. You cause the disruption 16 years ago in Sicilia with a mistake.

Now, after 16 years here you are again, King Leontes, facilitating the reunification of all broken relationships. In Sicilia, Perdita finds her father, Polixenes meets his old true friend, and fair Hermione is restored to life with a magic touch.

It all starts from Sicilia, at the court of Leontes, it all ends now in Siciclia, at the court of Leontes. This 16-years-later Leontes has learned from the time, from his mistakes.

 

The Embodiment of honor

1 Henry IV, Death and dying, Tragic hero, Uncategorized

The embodiment of honor, the hero Hotspur is celebrated by the King in the first scene, who wishes that he was his son, instead of the cowardly son he has. Hotspur is a character who shoots and asks questions later. He is brilliant for his sense of honor and backbone, not one to run away from a fight. It is almost unfortunate to see him die at the hands of Prince Harry. Hotspur becomes a one-dimensional character who is a great warrior, but falls to the more all-around character, Prince Harry. This scene is not the only scene where Shakespeare kills off a similar character  in this way.

Laertes, a master fencer, is killed by Hamlet in a fencing duel. I thought that was ironic and showed that even though Hamlet isn’t the fencing expert because he was more well-rounded he was able to win the fight. Hamlet doesn’t win the fight to the death but does make it hard for Laertes and does show that he has some skill in fencing. Hamlet kills Laertes finally by scratching him with the poison sword Laertes sets up for him. Hamlet only kills Laertes by mistake.

Hamlet doesn’t need to kill Laertes, though. Laertes was merely a bystander, an obstacle in order to get to the King, who was Hamlet’s real target all along. I think Prince Harry really needed to kill Hotspur and it was especially important that he did. Once Hotspur was defeated by Prince Harry, Harry is able to live up to his promise early on that he would become a better character one fit to be the King. With this military defeat he take a step closer to becoming King and increases his military experience.

My only concern was that both characters– Hamlet and Prince Harry– got really lucky considering that Laertes and Hotspur were really good at what they do while the heroes, Prince Harry and Hamlet weren’t specifically strong at fighting as their counterparts are supposed to be. I think it’s the heroes’ ability to do more that sets them apart and shows that they can survive. These heroes can do everything possible to survive. I did find it appalling that Hotspur died the way he died. Hotspur is the definition of an honorable man. In the face of defeat, he proudly rode off and fought. He showed true valiance. I admired Hotspur for this; a smarter general would have conceded defeat and try to retreat. He didn’t, he took his family’s problems upon himself and the fact that his father wasn’t able to support him was upsetting. I did feel sorry and upset that Hotspur died. I saw it as a necessary death for Prince Harry to develop as a character but Hotspur was the hero at the beginning of the play only to become the villain at the end.

Group 6 Reflection

Death and dying, King Lear, Stage techniques, The Fool, The role of the imagination, Tragedy

Some of the most important events to happen in Shakespeare’s play King Lear happen off-stage. This is especially important since most of what our group talked about was what happened off-stage. The scene is set with Edgar confronting his bastard brother Edmund. All of the family conflicts within the Gloucester family are pumping and ready to explode as the two meet. Edmund doesn’t really know that it is Edgar whom he is fighting but soon Edgar explains who he is and the way in which his father Earl of Gloucester died.  At this point the audience knows the major event to happen off-stage and that’s the Earl of Gloucester’s dying after meeting Edgar. Goneril and Reagan die off-stage during the confrontation between the two brothers. Edmund reveals that he has set in motion a series of events to kill Cordelia.

The off-stage significance is important because so many things are happening off-stage and never before in any of the Shakespeare plays that we have read as a class has this happened. The only equivalent in terms of death is probably Hamlet, but in Hamlet  multiple characters die on-stage. The amount of characters that died are similar, but Hamlet had the chaos of everyone dying right there  for the audience to make sense of. I think his reasoning for taking the deaths of the characters of King Lear off-stage was to highlight the moment at which Lear holds Cordelia in his arms and is powerless because he couldn’t reach her in time to save her life. Maybe Shakespeare wanted to highlight how vulnerable his characters were, that they had no control over what was going on. In that sense I think Lear is even more tragic than Hamlet.

While discussing the part, our group missed some of the significance that the scene set up. Only with close reading and re-examination did we discover that there was so much going on in this scene off-stage and on-stage. During our presentation, I think our highlight of the things that happened off-stage was so important to the mood of the play. Coming into the group, I didn’t realize how much of an impact this scene had on the play. The Gloucester family is so important to the play as the other story to follow beside Lear’s story.

After working with the group our favorite part, was the acting scene. Even though we didn’t rehearse it much, the acting came alive, and everyone was just having fun with it. It became more than a group project, and that was meaningful. We all made fun of Albany’s whining and how he was an honorable man but never acted upon it. I played Albany so it was especially fun to overact the scene and portray Albany as this wimpy guy. I think it was especially fun for us to just be able to act out our parts without any pressure and let our natural ability take over. The fight between Edgar and Edmund played by Douglas and Elina respectively was funny even though that wasn’t the direction the play took it. I think our performance was a lot lighter and comical compared to the actual portrayal. Overall I think each of our group members enjoyed it and we would be happy to do something similar as a group.

 

Autolycus: The Wolf [Him]self

Character types, Class and status, Costumes and props, The Winter's Tale, Tragicomedy,

There is a great deal of talk talk about bears, lions, and other beasts such as wolves in The Winter’s Tale, but by the second half of the play, we realize that the only wolf we are going to meet is Autolycus. This is not to say that this rogue is simply an antagonist, though. He is a highly complex character who falls somewhere in between the realms of good and bad: the realm of mankind.

To start, it is important to mention that the name Autolycus means “The Wolf itself” and has an extensive background in Greek mythology. In short, the mythological Autolycus was the son of Hermes and the grandfather of Odysseus.  He is said to have been a great thief who had the gift of never being caught.  It is interesting that this is the meaning behind his name, especially after we see him stealing fleece at sheep-shearing festival.  In addition to this, he calls people “the herd” (4.4) after he completes this task.  As we all know, wolves typically prey on sheep, and therefore, the sheep tend to fear them. This fact of nature would normally lead us to believe that Autolycus is evil and wishes to cause the people harm. Yet this is not the case. The people (or the “herd”) don’t fear Autolycus because he’s not really hurting anyone with what he’s doing. It is more likely that he deems these people “the herd” not because he wishes them harm, but because he is extremely clever and cunning and can constantly outwit and win these mindless sheep-like individuals over with his charming personality.  It should also be noted that prior to this festival, Autolycus has been stealing sheets. There is an apparent sexual connotation here that brings to mind it the issue of Leontes, who thought Hermione was sleeping with King Polixenes. This links the latter half of the play back with the first and gives us reason to believe that Autolycus is a foil of Leontes. Autolycus uses his “profession” to his advantage and sparks a comedic element in the play, while Leontes is suffering the consequences of his false accusations and represents the tragic aspect of the play.

Autolycus appears in disguise several times (as peddler at the sheep shearing festival and later as a nobleman), tricks nearly everyone he comes in contact with by picking their pockets, and also captivates them through bawdy songs which are often about marriage, love, and sex. Shakespeare has presented us with a highly seductive character, which is likely one of the reasons why audiences and the people around him in the play seem to take a liking to him so much. His behavior is anything but honorable and he often speaks and sings crudely, but his songs are still expressed in a way that is artful and appeals to the senses and interests of his audience, and his deeds are almost overshadowed by his skillful wit and honesty with the audience.  Autolycus might bring to mind Milton’s interpretation of the devil in Paradise Lost; though he is acting immorally and takes on different forms, we cannot help but also feel some sort of sympathy for and attraction toward him as a character. It helps that he really conveys the plight of the working class and shifting times on a larger level.  We can see through his description of himself (4.4, 95-102) and also his actions that sometimes he works, sometimes he steals, and sometimes he begs.  It is clear through many of the plays we have read (especially through Measure for Measure and King Lear, in my opinion) that Shakespeare was aware that life was not easy for most people living in 17th century England. It was a struggle to put food on the table each day, but Autolycus makes light of the situation through his humor, and would therefore be appealing to and appreciated by this large portion of the population.

In addition to this, when we learn that he used to work in the court, it becomes evident that he also serves as a link between the royal world and the pastoral world.  He isn’t your typical member of the bourgeoisie. Autolycus always masters every situation he’s in and he is a jack-of-all-trades.  He is not unlike Falstaff in terms of his wit and general competence; there is no doubt that he is in control and very aware of what is going on around him. I might go so far as to argue that Autolycus is what the every day workingman might dream to be.  He is admirable in that he makes the best of his situation and doesn’t seem to be suffering, though he goes about it in a less than admirable manner. Even so, his character gives a sense of hope to the working class poor in the audience in Shakespeare’s time, and even today.

Through all of this, it becomes quite difficult to characterize Autolycus as a predatory wolf. He is always honest about his intentions from the start. He never presents them as honorable, and although his intentions aren’t pure in any sense of the word, they are not really “evil” either. His crimes are what we would consider relatively petty, especially when juxtaposed with the crimes of King Leontes.  And we cannot forget that Autolycus’ actions eventually lead to reconciliation and harmony at the play’s end. It is undeniable that he is a complex character who is difficult to define explicitly, but we might all be unified in the notion that in all of its mystery and chaos, Act 3 scene 3 was setting us up for the entrance of a character of this nature. Through Autolycus, laughter and joy are brought into a play filled with tragic undertones, and beyond all of the fantastical elements we are presented with on stage, we finally meet a character that is truly human.