Answer the following question as a “Comment” below:
In Act V, we get the
bloody conclusion to one of Shakespeare’s bleakest plays: Regan is poisoned,
Goneril kills herself, Edmund is slain by Edgar, Gloucester’s heart breaks,
Cordelia is hung, and Lear dies at her side.
However, many of these deaths were Shakespeare original invention, as
the sources for King Lear (including a play of the same name) have her
surviving, and subsequent performances of the play restored a happy ending (see
page 258-259 for Tate’s revision of Lear which played for 200 years). Why do you think Shakespeare insisted on
doing away with Cordelia, ending the play in utter defeat and despair? Do we want—or hope for—a happy ending in
this play? Is it another attempt to
frustrate our desires or expectations (giving us a play not as we like
it?). Or does Cordelia have to die to
make sense of the play?
Cordelia could be said to be a symbol of selflessness amongst a society shrouded by self-love and ambition. The revision is rather mind-boggling--Cordelia is rescued where she was once fairly proactive, and Edgar has become her love interest! At the same time as Cordelia is considered selfless, she's the one who represents all the reasons Goneril, Regan, and Edmund are jealous and willing to step on anyone to climb the social ladder: loved by Father, born to power and privilege, loved by most everyone. She is the pride of Lear's offspring until the play's beginning. When he casts her off, he casts off all good in the family, sanity, responsibility, even redemption (despite her antagonism to her sisters, she seems to be the clearest-seeing of the lot). She had to grow in the shadow of a possibly-abusive father and sisters likely to take out their frustrations on her, perpetuating a cycle of abuse. Though her own store of wisdom may be questionable, as she fails to try and negotiate peace between siblings and father and root out all their resentments and assumptions, she's seemingly the most normal of them all. As for Kent, Edgar, and Albany, who knows? They are loyal men, who actually take proactive steps to right the wrongs in their country. They probably had the most "normal" family lives until all the betrayal in the play; whatever they endured, though, had to be nothing compared to the doomed family, who all destroyed each other thanks to how messed up they were (with help from the equally dysfunctional Edmund). Cordelia, for her part, may have been the "oldest" and still the most "innocent" of the family; she died because all the resentment and betrayal built up to such a murderous degree no one bothered to check themselves. The remaining three men have to take moral lessons from all that happened and attempt to make sure it never happens again, if at all possible.
ReplyDeleteJessie Randall
Melissa Williams
ReplyDeleteDr. Grasso
Shakespeare
March 9, 2014
King Lear Act V
I could not see a happy ending for this tale of madness and malice. As we can see, at the very end that Lear has lost all sense of his sanity, and begins to speak in a way that is somewhat hard to understand. Lear: “And my poor fool is hanged. No, no! No life? / Why should a dog, a horse, a rat have life, / And thou no breath at all? Thou’lt come no more, / Never, never, never, never! / Pray you, undo this button. Thank you, sir. / O, O, O, O.” Basically, I see Cordelia as Lear’s fool, and that without her, all of his sanity has been thrown away to be replaced with insanity staved off by Cordelia. As for Edgar’s final line, it sounds as though he said that people will never suffer such long of lives and see so much torment and despair as those who lived through this entire affair did. Living long for him might mean living through torment because it makes life seem longer.
I think for a reader, there is always a hope for a happy ending. However, most of the characters in this play are so warped that I don't think any ending would be satisfying if Lear or any of his daughters had lived. That being said, I don't think that the ending of this play is completely one of despair, at least not for the kingdom and the survivors of this ordeal. Instead, it seems like a new beginning. A beginning that is removed from the madness of this twisted and deranged family. I don't necessarily think that it is what readers were hoping for. However, there is a sense of justice and beauty in the fact that they all died together. They couldn't find peace together in life, so they were united in death. I think that the survivors of the play lived, because they were the few men that had some loyalty and kindness in their hearts throughout the play. As for Edgar's line at the conclusion of the play, I think that it may mean that they are young in terms of the way that they were spared from the insanity that seemed to infect so many people in this play.
ReplyDelete-Cayla O.
I see the ending of King Lear as being the only ending that could have happened. The darkness started when Cornwall and Regan gouged out Gloucester's eyes, and once the end of the play arrived, how could it ever have had a happy ending given what happened to Gloucester? The play was always about Lear; it's not called Regan, or Cordelia, or Edmund. As such, Lear's death had to be the final death, though looking at the other deaths, Lear was perhaps more inane and fragile than the other people (Gloucester, Edmund, Cordelia, etc) had been, and given how often he acted insane or peculiar, it's a wonder that he didn't die sooner. Cordelia's death was the catalyst that led to Lear's own. There really wasn't any other character in the play that could have affected him the most; Cordelia began as his favorite and ended as his favorite. And when Cordelia died, Lear had no reason to continue on living. Edgar's last line reads to me as a statement saying that Lear and the other ones who died were the ones who had suffered the most and been weighted down by sorrow and grief. The King who replaces Lear would have less to bear, but also less chaos and evil to deal with.
ReplyDelete- Casey Fowler
We really don’t know if he does away with Cordelia. Personally I don’t think she was the fool at all, and it hints to the fact that she may have lived, although Shakespeare, of course, never makes it clear to the reader if she survives or not. But whether she dies or not, there is still a bleak ending to the play, because everyone else dies. I think that Shakespeare wanted the play to end like this because ultimately none of the characters would have “won” if they would have stayed alive. So alive or dead the kingdom itself is pretty much destroyed. I think that the play being a tragedy needed a senseless ending, because all the acts done by the characters are senseless. It only makes sense for the consequences to match the actions. I don’t think that Cordelia has to die or live for the play to make sense. The play wouldn’t have made sense anyways. She really isn’t a driving factor in the paly, she is gone the entire time. She is present in the beginning just to be banished and comes back in the end just to “die”. I don’t know if the play would have made any more sense whether she’s alive or dead. And I think that Shakespeare takes pleasure in producing a play in which the characters all meet a natural end, and end that is very true to real life. It doesn’t end happy or in a marriage, it ends the way life does, with death. That is often disappointing to the audience to get a play that does not give a happy unrealistic ending. Edgar’s last lines I don’t think are intended to include Kent and Albany. I feel that Edgar is speaking of himself, saying we that are young, as in himself. That said I do think that he is referring to another type of age, not specifically age in life, but a new age that is about to start with the rightful royals all dead. This new age is young.
ReplyDelete-Jasmine Quiñónez
I think the play ended in a way that had to happen. Like any tragedy, people have to die, get banished to far away lands (or woods), and stab each other in the back. It can be argued that Cordelia was the innocent daughter and I feel like her death was bound to happen to bring the play to a close and to tug at audience's emotions. This ending definitely represents the plays whole theme which screams nothing can come from this because life keeps moving on. Also, like any tragedy in this time, things do end in some order, although maybe not in the order everyone would have liked. The fact that Kent, Edgar, and Albany survive to rule what is possibly left of the kingdom just keeps with the plays undertones of nothing making sense. This is definitely an odd bunch left to rule. I think Edgar's speech is referring to the complete madness and destruction that everyone else was involved in. Lear, his daughters Regan and Goneril, and Edmund were all jacked up and brought so much doom upon each other. I think Edgar is saying that him along with Albany and Kent at least are not as damaged and ruthless.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, for Lear to die of heartbreak, Cordelia had to die. If she had not died, then Lear's death would have made no sense. While it is tragic that Regan and Goneril are dead, they were there own demise. Cordelia is the one who is portrayed as the innocent one, the one who truly loved Lear. The play could not have ended any other way. All the madness and deception was bound to come to an end at some point, and what better way than the deaths of them all? How ironic that Lear put his daughters to a test to see who loved him the most, and in the end, it did not matter. They all still died.
ReplyDeleteJ.Wingard
I think this ending made me respect this play more than most readings. So much literature feels the need to wrap everything up in a nice little bow. Real life is messy and bloody. I like that there seems to be no hope for the kingdom. I love that " the innocent one" dies. It may be morbid, but it is refreshing. Edgar's speaking of how much drama the kingdom was met with under Lear's rule. He hopes they can do a better job. I find it ironic as the stone cold group of weirdos that is left will surely make things only worse. I enjoyed this play the most so far because there is such uncertainty and sadness. If Cordelia had lived I would've been pissed. She would've taken over and all would have been right with the world again. Gross.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that Cordelia could be seen as the symbol of innocence, but I also see her as the symbol of a "hopeful future" for Lear and his kingdom. She seems to be the obvious one in who should get anything from her father, yet when she angers him she gets nothing - not even a dowry. When she supposedly dies and Lear is holding her in his arms, I feel that the audience is suppose to feel the way that there isn't a bright future for the kingdom. Or, a bright future in the immediate future. Perhaps that is the reason for the revision. It gives hope for the future. I also think that Edgar's line is referring to the aging of a mind, not a body. Lear's old and nearly senile and mad all the way through the play, and it progressively seems to get worse. We do not get much of a back story, but what else could Lear had gone through in his lifetime? He was a king, more than likely he has seen death, famine, and suffering in his kingdom. Maybe the weight of the responsibilities as king have finally taken their toll on Lear. Edgar is simply saying that his mind will never be as old as Lear's.
ReplyDelete