Category Archives: Tragic hero

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.

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 Five Reflection: Getting to know the Fool

Character types, King Lear, Rhyme and pattern, The Fool, Tragic hero, Verbal texture

We ended the day of taping with the yearning to have had actual costumes to perform instead of what a student usually undergoes when completing a project: relief. As a group, we had been hooked by the performance that had just occurred at the Baruch Honors lounge. The details became apparent of what it took to stage a scene: the positions of the characters, furniture and even lighting all became factors that resulted in a different performance every time.

Having the lines read out loud showed the possibilities for the portrayal of the Fool, Kent and King Lear. The stage directions that seem meager at first became eye opening. For example, with the beginning of the Fool’s dialogue on stage directed at Kent, the questions of how much does this figure of comedy and honesty know? Getting the physicals of the performance right became as significant as the dialogue.

In each of our respective roles, we as group members got to find a new sense of recognition. Dariya, as the Fool, got particularly hung on the word coxcomb, but also saw how the Fool could be played exceedingly crazy, passionate or simply jovial. Trying to perfect just one is impossible; a range of emotion is necessary. Christopher, the King of all Lears, showed great power and the dedication necessary to fill the shoes of Lear. Chiffon, as Kent, served as a bridge of finesse who physically and spiritually occupied the ground between the two.

Christopher provided the best run-down of all the factors and quirks that came together in the formulation of the group five project:

“As a critique, I believe that with more time and practice we could have increased our level of dialogue and remembering of our lines, which is without a doubt the most challenging task of acting in general. Overall the time spent with the group was a wonderful experience and it would be nice to do another filming project with them in the near future.”

Included below are links to some familiar faces taking on the roles of King Lear and the Fool.

The first has Sam Waterson take on the role of the maddening monarch.

The second video grants the Fool a monologue to the scene performed by this humble group. Joe Powers, alone with Shakespeare’s lines, was able to capture the mastery and emotive powers necessary to do the role justice.

KING LEAR PLAYBILL

THE FOOL MONOLOGE

“One ought to hold on to one’s heart; for if one lets it go, one soon loses control of the head too.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

Character types, King Lear, Psychological states, Tragedy, Tragic hero

imageKing Lear is a tragic hero, doomed by the misfortune of his own error. A reigning example of how a noble man can be defeated by his flaws, he drives himself to the brink of insanity. King Lear’s flaws are that he is arrogant, prideful, and biased. It’s the reason for his insanity that brings out strong emotions in the reader. King Lear’s daughters Goneril and Regan are insincere about their love for him; they give a fantastical view of how daughters should love their father. Cordelia, however, gives her father a realistic view of a daughter’s love, which he isn’t equipped to handle. King Lear appears to be a good man, if not a bit egotistical and foolish.  It is very easy to like him. Yet, consider that Goneril and Reagan may have turned out the way they did because their father has a clear biases, a favorite child in Cordelia. The idea that a parent has a favorite child is conceivable, yet to express that emotion so clearly can be damaging to a child’s psyche.
King Lear has always approached his daughters as the king, with an extreme expression of authority. He never visited his daughters as simply a father. It’s a shock to him when reality hits, and the love he thought he had was simply an illusion, and his only saving grace was Cordelia. At the end of the day, King Lear learns what it’s like to feel other people’s pain, but sadly with no rewards, he must find company in insanity.