The Expression of Love

In William Shakespeare's play King Lear, the king asked his daughters to confess their love for him, in order to see who will get the part of the kingdom. The eldest daughter, Goneril, tells her father that she loves him more than she can express. "Beyond all manner of so much I love you," (Shakespeare 11). Pleased to hear this, King Lear gives her and her husband a portion of the land. He then asks his second oldest daughter, Regan, to tell him how much she loves him. Regan tries to out-do her older sister by telling her father that she loves him more than Goneril. King Lear was pleased to hear this a second time, so he gave his daughter and her husband a portion of the land. The king then asked his youngest, and favorite, daughter, Cordelia, to express her love for him. Lear says, "What can you say to draw/A third more opulent than your sisters'? Speak," (Shakespeare 13). Cordelia tells him there is nothing she can say, "I cannot heave/My heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty/According to my bond, no more nor less" (Shakespeare 13). After this response, Cordelia is banished by her father.

I agree with Cordelia's response to the question of love. When it comes to loving another person, whether it be a parent, guardian, aunt, uncle, a child, a boyfriend or girlfriend, and so on, there are different ways to do so. It is expected to love a family member different than you would love a friend. The bond a parent has with their child is unlike any other and should be cherished. The same bond can be had with a group of friends; however, there is not the same connection. Usually, a person knows their parents for their whole life and a relationship with a friend is not usually this long-lasting. Over a period of time, one discovers information about another person that may change their feelings for these people, either bringing them closer together or pushing them away.

When Cordelia told her father that she was not going to tell him how much she loved him, he got upset with her. Cordelia was banished from her father's kingdom and left with no land from her father. I believe that it is hard to express your love for certain people. Cordelia felt as if she did not have to tell her father how much she loved him because he should already know. I agree with Cordelia in the sense that many people are unable to share their love for another person and that it should be known without having to be expressed through the words we use.

King Leer?

By the fact that death constantly occurs, it is quite fair to say that most Shakespearean plays contain tragic themes. For the most cases, the characters within the plays bring up the unfortunate incidents to create tragedy. The most well-known plays such as Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and King Lear have certain characters that make the play to be tragic. I believe that King Lear from the play King Lear could possibly create tragedy due to his obsession of superficial aspects.

The protagonist of the play, King Lear does not reveal his typical image of “the good king” from the beginning. He enjoys his absolute power and expects respect from his people. Since Lear values fawning from his people, it is quite predictable that Lear wants to maintain his image of reputation and respect. His question to his daughters: “which of you shall we say doth love us most?” (Shakespeare 11) evidently informs that King Lear is more of a shallow person. It is important to ask a question whether King Lear would develop as a moral character or not. Would he ever become a more insightful person and change his image? Would he abuse is title and cause any tragic event?

With the glimpse of King Lear from the first act, it became clear that King Lear is seeking for the obedience and respect from his people. His current life style encloses the potential of catastrophe and crisis. I feel that Lear also has a potential to realize his weakness and his shallow characteristics.

Tragedy vs. Reality

What is so intriguing about tragic endings, tragic characters, and plays? Many of Shakespeare's most notable works were tragedies; Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Othello, Anthony and Cleopatra and of course, King Lear. I tend to believe people like seeing chaos and tragedy on stage because it mirrors most people's day to day reality so it is easily relatable. As depressing as this may sound, I truly think tragedy is just another word for reality, especially in Shakespeare. Obviously the writing and plots are more exaggerated, but everyone, the world over, can relate to death, relationships and family problems, and the conflict that each can bring.

During our four years of English studies, we have learned that for one of Shakespeare's plays to be considered "tragic" it must follow this outline. First, the protagonist must be noble with likeable qualities but a tragic flaw. Second, there must be tragic order, some chaotic experience, defying laws of nature and morality. Third, a general conflict, fourth, a character seeking revenge or avenging themselves, family, etc. Fifth, comic relief to keep some scenes light-hearted and secure a pleasant undertone for the play. Sixth, the main character has to experience a period of isolation and finally, the play must end in death, downfall or destruction.

In my mind, every element listed is paralleled in real life. Everyone has good and bad qualities, we are generally likeable but all have flaws and problems we must face. We all seek revenge on occasion and either do things or contemplate doing things that can be considered unethical. As humans we sometimes feel isolated or we distance ourselves voluntarily. We all have moments of happiness where we are uplifted by someone or something. Everyone experiences good times and bad, and eventually our lives all come to an end. So my question to all of you is this, is tragedy merely another word for the reality we all live day to day? Are the lives we are living tragic?

Just Another Play

William Shakespeare has written a number of famous plays. The most performed ones are, Romeo and Juliet, A Mid Summer Nights Dream, and Hamlet. Although all these are the most performed, King Lear has been known as the most famous. But why is it the least performed? From reading all of Shakespeare's plays listed above I have come to the conclusion of two possible answers.

The first is the major language barrier in the beginning of the play. The language can be considered sophisticated in Shakespeare's time; however, in the present, it is the hardest play to follow. Maybe people would understand it more if it was performed on stage and the characters body language would help the audience understand what's going on. I doubt it. In the first scene, King Lear and Kent are discussing an issue. I thought everything was fine until King Lear says, "If on the tenth day following they banished trunk be found in our dominions, the moment is thy death. Away!" (19) All I could think was, what is going on? I feel that it is easy to be lost in the story and not understand what is happening because of the language.

The second, the play seems to overlap many major themes of Shakespeare's other plays. It seems that Shakespeare's plays always have treason, and family are involved.

In Julius Caesar, Macbeth, and Hamlet,all three plays have involved a plot to over throw and kill a king. Brutus planned to kill Caesar, Macbeth planned to kill King Duncan, and Hamlet's uncle planned to kill Hamlet's father. In King Lear, the audience is under the impression that Edgar is planning on killing King Lear. It seems that almost all of Shakespeare's tragedies involve treason. It becomes more predictable and less amusing to watch.

In the first act, there already seems to be tension between King Lear's family. The youngest sister, Cordelia is forced into a marriage she is not ready for, King Lear has stripped her from her dowry, and Regan and Goneril are fighting for the better part of their inheritance. It seems as though King Lear is pinning his children against each other. When Regan and Goneril are "presenting" why one of them should be given the bigger part of the kingdom, they seem fake. Both of them are talking as though they mean nothing. In my opinion they resemble the two evil step sisters in Cinderella. In Romeo and Juliet, family was the biggest issue. In Hamlet, family was looked at as the enemy in young Hamlet's eyes. Shakespeare's plays seem to have an abundance of dis functional family members.

King Lear is the least performed plays because it is a collection of all of Shakespeare's more famous plays. And because it is a collection of those plays, it becomes predictable in what will happen. This combined with the language he uses makes it difficult for the audience to understand and enjoy the play.

Attention seeking characters

It is not only in the play Hamlet that Shakespeare presents us with anguish and troubles of madness, but it seems to be a recurring theme in many of his plays. Well, actually, every play of his that I know of somehow reflects madness. However, I do not believe that the characters in Shakespeare’s plays are going insane because of the problems they are facing. I think that his characters want attention and when they do not receive that attention, they begin to go mad.

There is madness in the air as soon as we begin to read the play. King Lear has staged a ceremony in which each daughter will announce her love for him. In order to divide his kingdom among his daughters, he wants to see which daughter will profess their love the greatest. His first daughter, Goneril, says she loves her father more than she can say. King Lear thanks her and gives her a small portion of the Kingdom. Regan, his other daughter, says that she loves her father so much that she doesn't like anything else. King Lear thanks her and also gives her a small portion of his Kingdom. Lear leaves the biggest piece of the kingdom open for his favorite daughter, Cordelia, assuming that she will profess her love in the most touching way. Cordelia then says that she loves her father exactly as a daughter should. “I cannot heave my heart into my mouth. I love your majesty according to my bond, no more nor less” (Shakespeare 13). King Lear then goes ballistic and disinherits her.

If Lear had been in his right mind, he would have known that his daughters, Goneril and Regan, were far from worthy caretakers of his Kingdom. That is, unless we are to assume that they became corrupt after being granted a share of their Father's estate. I feel that Lear is not going crazy because of Cordelia’s lack of admiration, but rather because she is not giving him the attention that he wants.

The Value in Nothing

King Lear is the play I have the least experience with. The first time I visited King Lear was over this past summer and since then I’ve re-read it twice. With this read through I cannot help but notice the importance of incompetence and the importance of nothingness. Lear’s incompetence is something that we as the audience should always have in the back of our mind. That is not to say he is a bad person; rather he does not heed any warnings and is the type of person to react first and think later.

But what I find most fascinating is not what the characters do, but what they do not do that leads to the more interesting response. After all, if Cordelia responded the way her father wanted to, there probably would not be a story, but it is her reaction to not react that has the most value. In my opinion, Cordelia may be one of the strongest female characters in Shakespeare, simply for saying nothing.

Take notice of the use of nothing throughout the play – it is a word used often, by nearly every character. And when King Lear says, “Nothing will come of nothing” we have to wonder if there is any value in that statement. The play’s frequent reference to nothingness begs the question of whether something can exist if it does not have tangibility. If we cannot see or feel something, does it exist?

Questions about King Lear

If you have any questions about King Lear be sure to post in the comments section.

Parental Control

Throughout reading Shaw's play, Pygmalion, I could not help but acknowledge the different types of affection Eliza receives from the other characters in the story. In the beginning of the play, Eliza's character was introduced as the type of character who was too independent to care about other people besides herself. As the play progresses, I learned that Eliza has a compassionate personality.
The play reveals that through the difficult obstacles Eliza faces, those mishaps lead her to surpass as an independent person. Before Eliza studied under the wings of Professor Higgins, she was alone. Eliza was abandoned by her mother and father causing her to have parental issues. Eliza's parents are not as much involved in her life that she mentions in the beginning of the play that she does not have any parents when begging Higgins to educate her. Eliza does not have any parental influence to care for her well being; therefore, her actions are not entirely her fault.
When Eliza asked Higgins to teach her phonetics, it represented a cry for help. "Eliza may be haunted not by the early trauma of abandonment and rejection by her parents but, rather, by the as-yet-unknown new person she senses that she could be" (Wang 70). This cry for help to explore a new identity and to improve herself for society to accept her. The abandonment and rejection of Eliza's parents can be seen as a determination to prove them wrong. Maybe Eliza wanted to prove that she is better than what they thought of her? Maybe that was the reason why she asked Higgins to educate her and improve herself?

Egoistic Actions

George Shaw's Pygmalion portrays Mr. Higgins as an intelligent man who is capable of transforming others. Mr. Higgins can convert a simple, uneducated girl into an educated and beautiful young woman in a matter of time. "Well, sir, in three months I could pass that girl off as a duchess at an ambassador's garden party" (957 ) However, the action he is about to commit is not for the benefit of Eliza's, but for Mr. Higgins, himself. In other words, Mr. Higgins wants to show off how well he can change this girl in a few months. He does not care about anything else but the completion of this experiment. Eliza notices that he is egocentric and may be using her. "Oh, you've no feeling heart in you: you dont care for nothing but yourself" (966).

According to Chen Lihua, "Higgins is by nature celibate and self-centered"(43). He does not show any sign of respect. He does not treat Eliza for the girl she is and for the woman she became. Because of Eliza's social class, Mr. Higgins does not think it is important to appreciate her dignity. Mr. Higgins is a selfish man who does things for his own good rather than anyone else's. Mr. Higgins has behaved as a strict father to Eliza. Lihua also explains that he is "more like a child than Eliza"(43). Can Mr. Higgins prove himself as a father? Readers may think he is a strong figure, but I disagree. The only moment he changed was during the end of the play. Mr. Higgins became aware of Eliza's purpose in his life. He never had the chance to show her he cares. It might have been too late, but his eyes opened to a lesson learned. One cannot live through life being narcissistic.

Who is Eliza Real Teacher?

A major theme in the play Pygmalion is growing up. Through being taught phonetics and manners from Higgins, Eliza is essentially changing from a little girl that was born in the gutters and growing into a proper young woman that knows how to speak without the dialect of a poor person. It is true that Higgins is very educated in speech and will be able to teach Eliza how to speak properly, but one must ask them-self if Higgins will be able to teach Eliza manners. Throughout the play one trait about Higgins that stood out to me the most was his rudeness. Higgins says whatever is on his mind and does not take into account the feelings of the people around him.

To me, Eliza's real teacher was Pickering. He was the one that really taught her good manner. The fact that Pickering realizes that Eliza is a woman with feelings, and calls her Miss Doolittle instead simply Eliza, shows that he truly was trying to teach her manners, and that ultimately makes her grow up. By the end of the play in many ways Eliza outsmarted Higgins. In the article A Feminist Perspective to Pygmalion Wang states, "Eliza... has some knowledge which Higgins does not possess and will never possess, the knowledge of how to be kind and civil to people" (Wang 43). By being taught phonetics from Higgins and kindness from Pickering Eliza eventually becomes more intelligent than both of her teachers. Eliza truly learns to grow up because was both socially and phonetically educated.

Love Without Lovers

According to Jean Reynolds, the central focus of Pygmalion is not the romance between Eliza and Higgins; rather, the main theme of the play is the power of language. While phonetics and language surround the major events, I disagree with Reynolds. What is unsaid ultimately causes Eliza to leave Higgins, not her speech transformation.
After months of bullying from Higgins, Eliza feels neglected and unwanted. She decides to leave. She proclaims, “I wont care for anyone who doesn't care for me” (1009). However, Higgins does care for her. By searching for Eliza after she runs away, Higgins proves his compassion. Despite these efforts, Eliza does not realize Higgins’s regard towards her because he does not communicate his feelings.
Higgins lack of kind words causes Eliza to confide in Freddy, who openly expresses his romantic feelings. Freddy tells her, “…you are the loveliest, dearest” (998). Instead of choosing Higgins, Eliza runs away with Freddy due to his kindness. In her defense, Eliza states, “maybe he‘d make me happier than my betters that bully me” (1010).
Ultimately, this fate could have been avoided if Higgins did not verbally neglect Eliza. Although Higgins speaks what is on his mind through sarcasm, he lacks the courage to speak what is within his heart through kind words.

Who Needs Who?

After reading Act Five of Pygmalion, I began to ask myself - have the tables turned? - Does Professor Higgins become dependent on Eliza rather than she being dependent on him? Does Professor Higgins portray a fatherly love toward Eliza? At the end of Act Five Higgins says, “I’ll adopt you as my daughter and settle money on you if you like. Or would you rather marry Pickering?” (Shaw 1010). Through Higgins’ statement, I feel that Shaw was trying to show the audience that Higgins had a loving, caring side to him that we have not seen at all throughout the play. In addition, I feel that Higgins wants Eliza apart of his life and wants to be that parental figure that she never had. I also believe that this leads to the question that if Higgins has accomplished his so called “self goal” of transforming Eliza into a duchess, why would he persuade her to stay? Does he really care for her well-being? Or does he want to hold on to his human trophy to remind him of his self accomplishment of turning a lower class beggar into an elegant duchess?

Earlier in the play, in Act Two, we see that Eliza showed up at Higgins’ door, asking him and Pickering to help her become a duchess. Before she showed up at Higgins’ front door, she was an independent woman, making a living on her own as a flower girl. Since she was of lower class, she did not live the best life, but she seemed happy with what she had. By asking Higgins’ for help to become a duchess, her independence became absent.

Her independence was the only thing she had and it was taken away. I question if she gave up her independence willingly or if Higgins took away her independence. One may take the route and mention that Eliza willingly showed up at Higgins house and set herself up or one may take the opposite route and say that she had no where to stay nor any money, causing her to depend on someone rather than herself.

At the end of the play, we see that Eliza leaves Higgins. Eliza tells Higgins that she is going to Freddy because he loves her. Then Higgins begins to insult Freddy and her intelligence. Eliza begins to explain that Higgins is a bully, and that she should not be treated like dirt. Higgins gives his last words to Eliza by saying, “Eliza, order a ham and Stilton cheese, will you?...You can choose the color” (Shaw 1012). After seeing this occur, I ask myself, does Eliza show that she is independent by telling off Higgins and going to Freddy? Or does Eliza show that she is even more dependent on a person by running off with Freddy? And as for Higgins, does he feel dependent on Eliza?

A Victim of Society

In the play Pygmalion, the flower girl, also known as Eliza Doolittle captures my attention as a complex character. When we first meet Eliza in Act One, she is portrayed as a lower class beggar. When she goes to Higgins for help, her constant whaling and cry of “ah-ah-ah-ow-ow-oo” in response to Pickering's and Higgins’ ridicule had me convinced that Eliza was an over dramatic fool. I asked myself, why is Eliza going to Higgins for help? Shaw portrayed Eliza in a negative way, which led me to think that this poor beggar girl was simply playing the victim and using Higgins for a free place to stay.

Later on in Act Two, we are introduced to Eliza’s father, Alfred Doolittle. After learning more about Alfred, I then acknowledged why Eliza acts the way she does. One might say that Alfred is known as a “dead beat dad” and others might argue that Eliza is old enough to care for her own. Eliza’s life at this point is going nowhere. She has no home, no parental figure, and has no money to support her; however, can one really blame Alfred? Was it Alfred that made Eliza the way she is? Or was it society that victimized both Alfred and Eliza? Alfred says, “As a daughter, she’s not worth her keep” (Shaw 974). One might argue that Alfred has no morals for not wanting Eliza back, but who can blame him? Alfred was just looking out for his daughter. He knows he cannot afford to care for Eliza, and leaving her with Higgins would ensure a better life for his daughter. Society is classified as upper class, middle class, and lower class, and when one is stuck in the lower class, it becomes survival of the fittest. Furthermore, before you judge both Eliza and Alfred, one should question whether Eliza and Alfred are just playing the victim, or are they the victim of society?

The Cost of Playing God

Besides education, a major topic within Pygmalion is the idea of creation. Professor Higgins is trying to recreate a flower girl from the gutters into a high class society member. He wants to create Liza into a completely different being than who she was before. The professor, with the help of Colonel Pickering, assumes the position of ultimate creator by undertaking this task. But at what cost is Higgins "playing God"? Higgins is trying to change something, rather someone, from what she naturally is. This action does not come without a price. In order for art to take form and creation to take place, there must be some form of sacrifice. In the "Tales from Ovid", Pygmalion's statue, Galatea, is brought to life by the goddess Venus. In order for Venus to do this, Pygmalion has to present a sacrifice to her. Pygmalion himself gave up a great portion of his time and effort in order to bring the woman of his dreams into reality. When looking at Shaw's "Pygmalion", one should consider what sacrifices are being made in order for Eliza to become a "duchess". Higgins and Pickering are both spending a substantial amount of time and money to change their experimental doll into a lady. But what else, if anything, are they giving up in this game of creation? Also, what is Eliza risking in hopes of recreating herself? Eliza does succeed in becoming a high class woman in the eyes of society, but in order to do so, she has to give up her dignity and independence. In Act V, Eliza questions Higgins "Why did you take my independence from me? Why did I give it up?" (Shaw 1010). Liza gives up the person that she is, but for what? She is treated like a peasant girl by Higgins, and only in the end Higgins acknowledges her as a woman. Pickering does have good intentions and tries to treat Eliza like a lady, but he too disregards her as a human at one point and sees her more as an object that can be tossed away. Considering all of this- Does Eliza risk her value as a human being in order to change?

Tragic, Not Comedic

When viewing Act Two of Pygmalion, I often ask myself – is this really a comedy? Certainly some of the comedy found in Pygmalion is because of the abuse the other characters give Eliza, but if Eliza truly feels terrorized, is the play still funny? If we analyze the terror that Eliza is going through, the play may take on a different meaning. When Higgins says, “If you’re naught and idle you will sleep in the back kitchen among the black beetles, and be walloped by Mrs. Pearce with a broomstick” (967) the audience will laugh. But my question is why? Are we laughing because what he is saying is funny or are we laughing because it makes us uncomfortable? Worse, could we be laughing because Eliza is terrified of this professor, even though he has no intention of harming her?

When one laughs at a particular moment, I question who or what we are laughing at. If Eliza is not in on the joke, does the play continue to be funny? I argue that it is not. The fear Eliza has is a real fear. Some might argue – what does Eliza have to lose? Everything! She only knows one way of life. If Eliza manages to transform; she loses her identity. What is a person without his or her identity? The idea of transforming a person and stripping them of his or her past can have deep psychological facts. One article suggests, “Equally problematic for Eliza is the deepening of the inner split that we all first experience in the mirror stage… the realization that we can never close the gap between essence and expression and, even worse, that we deepen the split as we become more articulate” (Xiaoyan 68). Food for thought - Can Eliza losing herself be viewed as tragic, not comedic and if so - what are the repercussions?

Greetings English 102 students.

To encourage reader response and in-class discussion we are keeping a course blog this semester. The total grade of your blog will worth one full essay grade (100 points).

Over the course of the semester you are expected to make three posts and at least four responses. More responses are encourage and may be worth extra credit per additional responses.

We begin with Shaw's Pygmalion. I will periodically be responding to posts and ideas and be making posts of my own throughout the semester. I'm looking forward to this interesting experience.