|
Post by shaxper on May 10, 2002 13:40:12 GMT -5
Doesn't anyone else find his character a bit strange? He puts on a disguise, seems to have some brilliant plan to set things right, and yet when he finally returns and reveals himself to Lear, the action is pointless and goes unnoticed. Perhaps there's a bit of tragedy in this, but it's difficult to notice in contrast to Cordelia's death. Maybe it has to do with a shortage of actors in the company. I know that a major theory for the Fool's abrupt disappearance half-way through the play is that the actor who played him was also Cordelia. Could that be Kent's explanation as well? But what other character is absent from the begining and ending of the play, and emerges only when Kent does not inbetween? Oswald?
Maybe this somehow fits into Shakespeare's pattern of overly loving servants. Antonio from Twelfth Night similarly cares far too much for Sebastian, is punished severely for it, and is discarded by the end. I suppose you could chalk it up to an autobiographical association, Lear and Sebastian playing the parts of the adored patron who commissions a rival poet and discards the author (presumably Shakespeare), but then again, I don't know all that much about the sonnets.
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on May 15, 2002 17:16:35 GMT -5
Just a follow up thought on this subject (I still hope someone will join in ): I know that Nayhem Tate wrote a revised version of King Lear in response to Victorian(?) objections that the play ended too horrifically. His version, which replaced Shakespeare's on the stage and in print for a very long while during the Nineteenth Century, attempted to tie up many loose ends happily by having Edgar marry Cordelia and everyone live at the end. I haven't actually read this version though. I'd be curious to know how Kent's character resolves itself at the end of this version. Anyone know?
|
|
Xi
Money Lender
Beautiful and fragile like dancing autumn leaves
Posts: 4
|
Post by Xi on Feb 11, 2003 11:36:46 GMT -5
Kent.....I'm trying to remember all the note I took on him when we studied the play. It was for English but our teacher was kind enough to have us all take a part and read out the play in class rather than just read it. This had alot to do with the fact that he was head of the drama department as well as head of the english department. And I should know a bit about Kent, cos he was the role I got landed with, but it was a while ago now, so I'm a bit rusty.
*has a ponder for a moment*
Kent and Oswald can't have been the same character because it was Kent decking Oswald at both Goneril's and Regan's castles that puts him in the stocks. He moves the plot along and his actions cause some rather dramatic reactions from the other characters. It was Kent insulting Oswald at Goneril's castle that was the final straw for her which caused Lear to be kicked out of there. Then Kent threatening to make "...a sop o' the moonshine..." out of Oswald when he discovered he was delivering letter's against the king that got him in the stocks. Seeing his messenger in the stocks was what made Lear go off his rocker at both his daughters and that got him kicked out and disowned altogether. It was really only someone with true loyalty to Lear that would go to all that trouble, so because of that he's kind of essential to the plot.
And like you said, it's also the whole overly loyal servants thing. Like at the end when Lear is dead, instead of staying with the new king, he follows Lear into death, or at least says that's what he plans to do.
And at the begining, the way that Lear banished Kent in the first place was kind of showing just how ridiculous the silly old fool could be when his authority was questioned which was one of his major downfalls. It was bad enough that he banished the only daughter that was being truthful to him, but he banished his loyal servant as well which I think started to hint at his brewing insanity.
I'll have to dig up all my notes on this one. Give me some time cos I have an awful lot of notes to dig through.
|
|
|
Post by billdraper on Feb 25, 2003 1:52:29 GMT -5
Hi Shaxpar,
I've been reading Shakespeare's plays for the past couple of years and the commentary of Harold Bloom and also enjoy seeing the plays on video as I study them. I really enjoyed King Lear. It seems Shakespeare was an expert on the subject of love,not only romantic,but also familial. King Lear(the Play) is chock a block full of love. King Lear was very much loved. Kent loved him.The fool loved him. Both tried deperately to save him from himself. I very much enjoyed Kent's loyality and vision in the first parts of the play.But his part in the end analysis I think is less important...just another character that tried real hard but eventally falls to the wayside in the wake of the tradegy of events...but his purpose in the play was served...just more love that the King failed to see or understand because of his own lack of self knowledge...thats not all he didn't see...his two daughters loathing of him...how could this be?...and of course Cordelia...but what a contrast when they are reunited...and he seems no longer mad...beautiful!
You know I believe the fool disappeared because he feared his own sanity. He tried real hard to get the King to see himself...and save himself...but the scene in the old barn after the great storm was too much for the fool...he knew the King was gone...he could hardly stand the pain...he had to split and fast or loose his own sanity...he's maybe the only one who survived!
Anyway...what a play...woohoo!
Bill
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 25, 2003 14:04:25 GMT -5
Wow. Awesome read on The Fool, Bill!
As for Kent, it seems that The Fool expresses all the same sentiments of love and concern that Kent gets out. I read an article once on Antony and Cleopatra, and how the might of each army was represented by the single soldier they had on stage. The fact that the old and tired king does not have a soldier symbolized that he had no power.
With that kind of symbolism placed on a single character, I can't imagine Shakespeare thought "well let's have another character who loves Lear and fears what he's doing to himself to really drive the point home".
Kent seems so fascinating in motivation and action. He really seems to have something planned out when he disguises himself, and it goes nowhere. There must be more to him. Maybe it was lost in the translation from stage to page, or maybe the Folio borrows from an earlier, incomplete draft. Who knows.
Welcome, by the way! I'm not around here much these days, but I'm sure you'll have the pleasure of meeting our three wonderful moderators, as well as the other cool cats that frequent The Tavern ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ellinore on Feb 27, 2003 14:40:12 GMT -5
Ditto Mr. Draper's remark that Lear is full of love... Isn't it peculiar, how meta-true that is? Within the play, so many people love each other but in such different ways that they feel each other's love as hatred, ambition, envy, greed, or lies. And yet the play is about the many faces of love. And outside the play, most people think that Lear is about greed and familial discord, and only a few see that it is about love and human error in understanding or dealing with love. And outside we the audience, the world is about love, but people keep misunderstanding the expressions of affection, loyalty, connection, intimacy, joy that other people are trying to share....
We are all fools, and we are all Lear. And ultimately, we are all alone.
|
|
|
Post by billdraper on Mar 6, 2003 16:09:14 GMT -5
Thanks shaxper!
Yes,I was looking for Kent to do more and he seems a disappointment. I read Harold Blum on WS,otherwise I'd be totally lost. He says very little about Kent in his book"Invention...", I guess he feels the same way. One idea that he repeats in his analysis of the plays,is that some characters seem to get `away' from WS,that is they take on much greater significance than WS may have intended at the outset....and I suppose the opposite could be true in Kent's case. But isn't that the way life is...we all must reinvent ourselves in the face of change. Interesting!
Hi Ellinore,
Well said! Love and connection. Can't ever take anything for granted! One of the shades of love in this play is Edmund...born of lust right?...and so emotionally detached...as a symbol of the difference between lust(shallow) and love(complete). And the two witch daughters who both lust for Edmund....because of the Kings detachment from himself and failure to love them?...the play swirls inward in implications....wow!!!
Bill
|
|