2. What is it—what could it conceivably be—that would make children turn against their parent as completely as Goneril and Regan have turned against Lear? They’ve gone beyond irritation and its consequent neglect to outright cruelty. You may consider this question either specifically in reference to the two women (imagine their backstory the way you did Edgar’s) or consider it in general. Where do the terrible resentments of children for their parents come from? What is so very powerful about that relationship?
There are several factors that are involved in Goneril and Regan’s blatant disrespect and subversion of the king (their father)’s power. Primarily, the girls are just inherently greedy and evil. They had been brought up as princesses their entire lives and thus knew nothing other than getting whatever they wanted. However, this cannot be the entire problem, because Cordelia did not follow in the footsteps of the other two, although she grew up in the same household. Somehow the dichotomy exists in which Regan and Goneril view their father as the King, and when he loses his Kingly power, they lose all respect and trust for him. On the flip side, Cordelia still loves and respects him as her father. Thus somehow in their childhood something switched on for Cordelia and not for Goneril and Regan. However another level to it is the fact that Cordelia had always been the favored child, and Goneril and Regan knew this. Their utter cruelty to their father could be their way of trying to get back at him for treating them like second-class daughers (though it is difficult to know in the book how much differently he really treated them). However, sometimes to a child, even the knowledge that one is viewed as inferior can be damaging. Thus although Goneril and Regan are mostly at fault for this, Lear could also be to a degree. To add on to this, Lear simply gave his kingdom away to his daughters, and to whichever daughter could sweet talk him into thinking she loved him more than the others. He obviously has a very skewed idea of what love is, as he simply cannot understand his own love for his daughters. He gives away his entire kingdom to them, rightfully expecting them to treat and love him like their father still, and yet they don't, but it could have something to do with that the doesn't really treat and love them like his daughters. I already mentioned that he picks favorites; he is quick to be offended and quick to claim hatred of and renounce one of his daughters. (This happens with not only Cordelia but later Goneril).
Monday, April 6, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
EDMUND IDENTIFICATION
. Identify with Edmund. What do you know about family dynamics and parents’ treatment of children that might make him act the way he does? What is there to respect about him? Why do you think Gloucester treats him the way he does? Is there any modern day equivalent to this?
Though Edmund is raised equally as his brother, it is known that Gloucester is ashamed of him as he is a bastard son. Edgar, however, may be treated a bit better because he is the legal son- he is the one that will inherit- etc. Edmund is scheming, but there is also a lot to respect about him. He is very intelligent and cunning. His drive for power is a drive to be seen equally as his brother, as his society forces him to be viewed as something lesser, even though he is clearly more intelligent than Edgar. Gloucester may treat him the way he does to try to suppress his ego, to try to keep him humble and thus keep him from striving for power, but this is obviously not effective. I can’t really think of a modern day equivalent to this, except people finding legal loopholes to cheat each other out of money. The idea of bastard sons having less power than legitimate sons has kind of dissipated.
One family dynamic that is interesting is that Edgar seems to be very innocent and not treat Edmund badly. Edmunds schemes would seem to make sense if the entire family treated him as if he were something lower, but in fact it seems as though only Gloucester does- and in fact, Gloucester may not treat him all that badly. This is what forms the realization that Edmund truly is a villain in the story- in the beginning, the reader wants to feel sorry for him, and though out the first few scenes it is easy to sympathize with Edmund, but when Edgar is brought into the story, oblivious and obviously loving of his brother Edmund, it is easy to begin to see the switch into Edmund’s true intentions.
Though Edmund is raised equally as his brother, it is known that Gloucester is ashamed of him as he is a bastard son. Edgar, however, may be treated a bit better because he is the legal son- he is the one that will inherit- etc. Edmund is scheming, but there is also a lot to respect about him. He is very intelligent and cunning. His drive for power is a drive to be seen equally as his brother, as his society forces him to be viewed as something lesser, even though he is clearly more intelligent than Edgar. Gloucester may treat him the way he does to try to suppress his ego, to try to keep him humble and thus keep him from striving for power, but this is obviously not effective. I can’t really think of a modern day equivalent to this, except people finding legal loopholes to cheat each other out of money. The idea of bastard sons having less power than legitimate sons has kind of dissipated.
One family dynamic that is interesting is that Edgar seems to be very innocent and not treat Edmund badly. Edmunds schemes would seem to make sense if the entire family treated him as if he were something lower, but in fact it seems as though only Gloucester does- and in fact, Gloucester may not treat him all that badly. This is what forms the realization that Edmund truly is a villain in the story- in the beginning, the reader wants to feel sorry for him, and though out the first few scenes it is easy to sympathize with Edmund, but when Edgar is brought into the story, oblivious and obviously loving of his brother Edmund, it is easy to begin to see the switch into Edmund’s true intentions.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Those Conniving Sisters...
How do you understand the relationship between Cordelia and Lear? He seems to love her, and she him, but how? Why is she unable to speak when her very survival depends on her speaking? Why is he unable to hear her truth?
To take the same concept from another angle…. While her sisters’ speeches are excellent examples of verbal manipulation, the one person (Cordelia) who goes in honestly with Lear’s best interests at heart is punished because she doesn’t want (or know how to) “play the game.” Have you seen situations like this? Have you used your powers of manipulation to get what you want? Have you been the loser in a game like this?
Cordelia does indeed love her father, and Lear does indeed love her, but unfortunately Lear has a very skewed idea about love. He believes love is materialistic, that love is about who gets the biggest piece of the pie- in the sense that he gives his most loving daughter the biggest piece of his kingdom, but also that the daughters are in competition for who loves him the most. What Cordelia has realized is that this is not so. Because Cordelia loves him, she cannot lie to him and try to scheme him into giving her part of his kingdom. In fact, she loves him to the extent that she would rather him realize that her sisters are simply power hungry and lying to him to get to he kingdom than for herself to get a part of the kingdom as well. He, once again, is unable to hear her truth because he, like the sisters, is somewhat power-hungry. He does not like the idea of this form of honesty because in his eyes one should be able to state how much they love him and be done with it. I don’t believe I have ever personally experienced something like this, other than simply noticing people that will appear to care about an issue in order to appear a “better person” or maybe even just to put it on a college resume and end up pushing aside people that really do care about the issue because they are so concerned with their self image (think back that poem we read about the man who appeared on the surface to be this wonderfully wholesome man but in fact had done something very bad in the past, and maybe he treated people badly personally, but he was convinced everyone seemed to like him because he did good things). I believe this happens frequently, and it comes out of a similar desire for power and selfishness that the sisters are consumed with.
To take the same concept from another angle…. While her sisters’ speeches are excellent examples of verbal manipulation, the one person (Cordelia) who goes in honestly with Lear’s best interests at heart is punished because she doesn’t want (or know how to) “play the game.” Have you seen situations like this? Have you used your powers of manipulation to get what you want? Have you been the loser in a game like this?
Cordelia does indeed love her father, and Lear does indeed love her, but unfortunately Lear has a very skewed idea about love. He believes love is materialistic, that love is about who gets the biggest piece of the pie- in the sense that he gives his most loving daughter the biggest piece of his kingdom, but also that the daughters are in competition for who loves him the most. What Cordelia has realized is that this is not so. Because Cordelia loves him, she cannot lie to him and try to scheme him into giving her part of his kingdom. In fact, she loves him to the extent that she would rather him realize that her sisters are simply power hungry and lying to him to get to he kingdom than for herself to get a part of the kingdom as well. He, once again, is unable to hear her truth because he, like the sisters, is somewhat power-hungry. He does not like the idea of this form of honesty because in his eyes one should be able to state how much they love him and be done with it. I don’t believe I have ever personally experienced something like this, other than simply noticing people that will appear to care about an issue in order to appear a “better person” or maybe even just to put it on a college resume and end up pushing aside people that really do care about the issue because they are so concerned with their self image (think back that poem we read about the man who appeared on the surface to be this wonderfully wholesome man but in fact had done something very bad in the past, and maybe he treated people badly personally, but he was convinced everyone seemed to like him because he did good things). I believe this happens frequently, and it comes out of a similar desire for power and selfishness that the sisters are consumed with.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Blog #4
Huxley's view of the future is indeed horrifying, and it is indeed difficult to put a finger on exactly why, seeing as everyone is perpetually content and happy. However, it is a false happiness. People are homogenous, they seem to lack a real understanding at what is going on. They spit back information without fully grasping it. Even the most intelligent ones- the Alphas- are very brainwashed. People have no ability to have a personality. Though they are constantly under an illusion of happiness, they in fact are not truly happy because they have no appreciation of happiness. One must experience suffering and pain in order to know that happiness is something to treasure. Therefore they are in a constant state of dumb bliss that is unfounded and illogical. They are like robots, too brainwashed to break out of the mold. To people in our society now, a society that encourages individuality, this loss of individuality is horrifying. True, for one inside the society it may not seem too bad, but once one has had a real taste of what it is like to truly experience life, I'd imagine that people that are not too terribly brainwashed would never turn back.
Blog #3
The argument essentially is arguing for freedom. Yes, the society has comfort and "happiness", or at least, lack of sadness, anger, shock- "negative emotions"... but for this, the humans are like children. They have known no suffering. Mustapha Mond's argument is that this is better, to know no suffering, and have no freedom to know suffering. The savage, John, however, believes that the world is better with suffering... because when one has the freedom to suffer, one knows what happiness truly is, and one appreciates it. The people in the society do not appreciate anything because everything is handed to them. The savage is making the argument that he would much rather feel the pain and appreciate the happiness, because he has the experience of feeling the pain, and the freedom to experience it. His argument is that the freedom to be happy and sad and to live one's life the desired way is many times better than a controlled state of constant contentment.
Brave New World blog 2
The idea of constantly giving pleasure is a major theme in the book. The society uses things like sex, games, soma, and their "catch phrases" to illustrate this. When people constantly receive pleasure, sexual or otherwise, they will not complain. Because sex is such a staple in the society, people do not fall in love, as they can "have" whoever they want and are expected to keep doing so. This eliminates attachments of humans to other humans, which in turn builds the attachment to the central society. This extends to the games as well... it is the idea of everyone constantly being in the company of everyone else, because therefore people will be conditioned to fear solitude and not want to be alone- hence adhering even more to the society. Soma is obvious- it keeps people on a surface level of happiness.. under an illusion that they are happy. Finally, phrases like "ending is better than mending" is once again to prevent people from forming attachments... the phrase, referring to clothing, keeps an infusion of "newness" in their life- the excitement and pleasure of forming something new, and discouragement of forming any sort of attachment with an article of clothing that will keep them from throwing it away. This phrase, however, coupled with the availability of sex, once again keeps an infusion of newness- this time in the form of people- in their lives, once again so that they will never form attachments and turn away from the society.
Brave New World post 1
Though on the surface, Huxley's "Brave New World" seems to be a very far-fetched interpretation of the "future", there are certainly aspects of it that are reflected in todays society. For example, the use of helicopters to travel is very much mirrored by our modern use of cars. Children, also, are in a way "conditioned".... something that has been going on in religious education for centuries, but modern children must learn a certain amount in a certain amount of years, using standardized testing to regulate the levels. Things are thought of as "first grade" level, "second grade" level.... very much regimented, such as the conditioning that the kids in 'Brave New World" go through. Also, the idea of pampering is an overtone in our society, just as it is essential to their society. With our celebrity role models that live very pampered lives, the advertisement of a need for material items, etc., our society very much revolves around materialism and need for a constant state of "happiness", just like in Brace New World.
There are some things that are different though. For example, people have their various "places" in the book, and stay in their places. They are happy in their places. This is seemingly the opposite of the foundation of the United States, whose ideology states that people should and do have the ability to raise and lower their social status with education and type of profession. America is founded on the idea of being a "free country"--- how free it actually is is debatable, but in Brave New World, the society is very much NOT free.
There are some things that are different though. For example, people have their various "places" in the book, and stay in their places. They are happy in their places. This is seemingly the opposite of the foundation of the United States, whose ideology states that people should and do have the ability to raise and lower their social status with education and type of profession. America is founded on the idea of being a "free country"--- how free it actually is is debatable, but in Brave New World, the society is very much NOT free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)