King Lear- Feminine Rant

First and foremost, I should really state that this play wasn't one of my favorites. Although Shakespeare is somewhat widely known for his tragedies, this one was a little too catastrophic for my liking. The entire play seemed to be headed in a downward spiral from the beginning, and even with the presence of the insightful Fool, it just all was way too grim.

That stated, I was rather surprised by Coppelia Kahn's argument. I hadn't thought about the story from that angle. Saying that King Lear was simply coming in to his 'feminine side', which he had long so denied, makes a bit of sense. I'd thought it was just a revelation, or maybe a bit of clarity in his madness, but I suppose the femininity is somewhat likely.

Still, I'm not certain I agree with this statement. These times in Lear's life were his most weak and his most fragile. It was a man broken that was speaking this way, a man who had lost everything that held him in power. To compare this stage in his life as to coming to grips with his 'inner woman' to me seems a little offensive. I'm not saying coming to grips with the inner woman is a bad thing, oh no, it can be healthy, but what I am saying is that to state this time in Lear's life, a time that displayed him as frail, to me was like just another way to say woman are weak.

I think in part that Kahn is right, Lear does come to terms with a more gentle side of himself. He does accept tears and vulnerability, but the feminist in me isn't sure why this has to mean he's feeling his 'female side'. The man has fallen to his lowest low and now he can feel girly? What does that mean exactly? That because women feel we are low? We are weak and frail because we aren't afraid of tears? Or feelings? Or a little humility? To me, that's what it seems she is saying. Now that Lear has been broken he can grasp the most basic forms of humanity, emotion.

Emotion is also not strictly sex based. Yes, through history woman have been considered the more emotional. But can't what men display be considered emotion? War, strength, the need to protect. Men are known for these actions, but how can they not be emotional? Men go to war because they feel strongly about a cause; men admire strength because it is power; they protect what they love. Cause, power, love, these are all emotions and they aren't strictly feminine based. Emotion is not solely female. So the fact that Kahn seems to state that Lear can only succumb to emotions when he accepts the feminine nature is to me saying “Lear can only feel when he's weak like a woman”.

Emotions aren't weak, but the way the story is it seems to make them out as either weakness or madness, and the fact that Kahn says these fragile times are because he's becoming feminine is a little annoying to me. Having emotions doesn't make one weak, and it doesn't make females any less.

An Emotional Cocktail

I'm partial to comic books. I'll admit that up front before I start into any long winded thinking. I'm a comic book fan, one of those nerds who'd hang out in the comic shops with her nose jammed in the paper folds. That stated, I'd have to say I was pleasantly surprised by this story. When I first opened this book I wasn't certain I'd enjoy it. I looked at the art work and the skeptic in me thought, "Ummm... did a ten year old draw this?". Come to find out it was actually a good move on the authors part. The artwork didn't distract from the message the book was stating and the stories point of view was accented by the almost child like drawings. Still, its the overall message of the story thats the kicker. The story of a world not many of us would know much about.

Now on to the point. Politics and sentiment, do they mix? First let me say, they always end up that way. People create the politics, they uphold them, and humans as a whole are emotional beings. Keeping our emotions out of our political pool doesn't come naturally to us. Separating logic from emotion is something only the Vulcans can do (yes, I am aware of how much a nerd I am for just making a Star Trek reference). Anyways, what I'm trying to say is as long as people have individual minds, feelings, and opinions, we can never keep politics and sentiment from mixing together. 

So since politics and sentiment are naturally destined to blend together, do they work? My opinion is no, they do not. Especially in the case of this story, where the political power was predominantly controlled by one man. A whole country under one man's rule, its bound to fail. In this case, you are asking an entire society to follow one man's ideals, which is certain to create animosity. As I stated, people are emotional beings and often single minded. They don't like to be forced. But in the story, the political powers did try to suppress the community into their way of thinking. This created sentiment, which created anger, which fueled a rebellion, which left the country vulnerable to more extremist views, which then lead to a sort unbalanced way of life, which lead to chaos. In all, this high level of sentiment destroyed a political system and a society. 

Politics are not meant to be an emotional thing. It is supposed to be clear, logical, and unbiased, but because it is run by people who will never be entirely those things, politics will always be swayed by sentiment. In the end, too much emotion in politics can destroy a world. Emotion is best left on the human level, from person to person, between families and friends.