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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, yes, yes, I agree. Kahn’s argument felt to me like a pin in my side. Lear is most definitely at his worst - - he has nothing, he can’t keep track of his own wits, and the majority of his children are out to stab him in the back. Plus he’s pushing 80, which makes him older than old from a historical viewpoint, considering average life expectancies of the day. Add all of this together and it makes a feminine persona? No thanks.
ReplyDeleteIf showing emotion is the only criterion for being ‘feminine’ than the male characters of the play are far more feminine than the female characters. We have Kent, the Fool, and Edgar, who show much more emotion than Goneril and Regan, who care only for their own prosperity, willing to kill off their father and husbands at a moment’s notice. Kent is banished and returns disguised so that he may honor and protect his king; the Fool is a loving companion to the king and offers the most caring advice; Edgar loves and defends his father even after his old man defends Edmund and promises to have Edgar killed if he should be caught. Sure, none of these men break out into sudden bursts of tears, but they clearly are capable of showing appropriate amounts of emotion without losing their ‘manliness’. Supplementing emotion – or in Lear’s case frailty brought on from old age – for femininity is just an easy misnomer – easy not because it comes from a simple mix-up but because it is an easy way to avoid a more complex argument.
Like you, I thought this play was very catastrophic. Parts such as Gloucester’s blinding really play into that. I do not think that the play is so grim that the grimness detracts from the insightfulness so much.
ReplyDeleteI had not thought of Kahn’s idea either. I think that the weakness and emotion are commonly used interchangeably, especially when talking about them in regard to women, but I do not necessarily think emotion always means weakness. In this case, I do agree that Kahn is saying Lear’s emotions are weak, but for what? Are they weak for a king? Are they weak for a man? I think Kahn’s answer for both of these is obviously yes. I kind of like to think that Lear finding his ‘inner woman’ is a sign of strength as it is what helps him progress through the rest of the play. By realizing this about himself he is able to see things he would not have seen otherwise.
When you bring up that men show emotions in war, feats of strength, and protective traits I agree that these are all emotions. I guess the difference is that Khan’s argument says Lear begins to exhibit effeminate qualities such as crying, which are considered weak. However unfortunate it may be, many cultures teach us that female emotions are ‘weak’ and male emotions are ‘strong.’ For what it is worth I think there is little difference between strong and weak emotions.
So first I was all really impressed with this Kahn kid's idea of King Lear being all "girly". And then I read your blog and was like "Oh. That's a good idea too. That Kahn kid is a jerk!".
ReplyDeleteWhat you have presented is actually a very good idea. You didn't just accept the idea that he was getting in touch with his feminine side, you took offense to it! Which is actually really great and always produces great, emotional (hoorah emotions!) responses.
King Lear was broken emotionally in this play. Who but a lousy, woman-hating jerk says that constitues as womanly feelings?
Though, Kahn probably anticipated that sort of reply in their essay (further reading would be needed to find that out) or there have been other essays written in response with similar views.
So congrats for being a lady with emotions! :D