NUMBER 40! Someone pop a balloon!

Returning to the original purpose of this blog: counting books. Though the AP use was very useful in the very short time I actually used it. It kind of makes me sad that I didn't get to use One Hundred Years of Solitude, though. It's funny. I printed off my posts about only 3 books and still the went to about 4 pages in size 9 font. That's a lot of writing. Huh.

Anyhow! I finished my 40th book on the list after about 3 months due to school distractions: A Tale of Two Cities! I wish I could have devoted more attention to this book. Obligations left me reading this book at 11 for 15 minutes wishing I could justify staying up till 1 to read. I just couldn't. But today I pushed through and presently need a new book to start summer with (but don't worry, I'm working on that).

I LOVE Charles Dickens. He has gorgeous, thick, rich language which he uses to express subtle, or not so subtle, ideas and create odd yet very credible characters that you can easily envision with your mind's eye. My favorite in Great Expectations was Miss Havisham, of course, but I had several favorites in TOTC. First, there was Cruncher. He is such a minor character and it amazes me Dickens spent so much time developing someone who would be of fairly important, yet minimal use in the novel. Things I know that I didn't need to really know about him. He has a wife who is a good, yet persecuted, Christian. He has a son who for some reason really looks up to his father. He is a grave robber. He is an odd-job guy. Actually the last two have quite some importance in the plot. I also enjoyed Miss Pross. She is genuinely English through and through. These ladies are a marvel in British literature. It is the British recognizing the stereotype of strong spinsters, being proud of it, then making fun of it. Amazing. Miss Pross is amazing and useful in several different ways. Her brother is important, as well as herself and her devotion to "ladybird." I'm not even sure what she looks like, but Dickens describes her so well, I instantly connect her to a character from one of the Britcoms I like. The third is Madame, sorry, Citizeness Defarge, of course. She is one of the prime characters of the novel and appears again and again, accompanied by her knitting. She even elevates to an angel of death in her last scene. Dickens and characters go together.

Dickens also knows how to make an entrance and an exit. The first line is still slightly hokey to me because of its overuse (juxtaposition? Nah.) but the last line which is also frequently quoted has garnered so much more respect because of the ending scene. But I'll let you decide for yourself:

- It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it ws the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way.

-It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

Ah. The last quote just hits me. It means more than one thing and is sentimental and heroic and touching as all get out. Please. Read the book. But DON'T be an idiot and read the last few pages. Grr.

Though there is so much more to the novel, I will limit myself to the views it takes on female strength. But you cannot have female strength without mentioning the strength of the common people in this book. They go together. I will examine the dynamics of two relationships. First, the relationship between Citizeness Defarge and Citizen Defarge. There is a reason that everyone remembers Madame Defarge over her husband. To put it in perspective, they are the common man in France and the movers of that bloody revolution. They own a wine shop. She is always the stronger one over her husband. He is impatient and seemingly weak of character. He sympathizes with the plight of the Manette's. He is weak next to her. She is the true mover of the Revolution and at first mainly works through her husband, though she reveals herself more and more as time goes on. Second, lets move to Miss Pross and Cruncher, of all people. Pross is strong. In fact, in a show of love vs. hate, she triumphs over Madame Defarge. When push comes to shove, Cruncher starts blithering about his wife and child in England and Pross is the one evaluating the situation and figuring out a logical solution. In this book, it is always the female that has the clear head, logical mind, resourcefulness, and generally strength of character. Correction - it is the lower class women who have these virtues. For example, "Ladybird" does not have any of this strength of character. Now she is a lovely, patient, virtuous lady, but lacks the nitty gritty that the other two have. In fact, the Darnays are so nice, that you just know something is going to happen to them. Now, it seems that Dickens celebrates woman's strength of character. He also values the value of the "common man," but with the latter comes a warning encapsulated in the character of "Vengance." Revenge became a huge part of the novel, and Dickens has a great quote concerning it. For now, I will end with some quotes.

-Sadly, sadly, the sun rose; it rose upon no sadder sight than the man of good abilities and good emotions, incapable of their directed exercise, incapable of his own help and his own happiness, sensible of the blight on him, and resigning himself to let it eat him away.

-I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss, and, in their struggles to be truly free, in their triumphs and defeats, through long years to come, I see the evil of this time and of the previous time of which this is the natural birth, gradually making expiation for itself and wearing out.

-Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind.

-Waste forces within him, and a desert all around, this man stood still on his way across a silent terrace, and saw for a moment, lying in the wilderness before him, a mirage of honorable ambition, self-denial, and perseverance. In the fair city of this vision, there were airy galleries from which the loves and graces looked upon him, gardens in which the fruits of life hung ripening, waters of Hope that sparkled in his sight. A moment, and it was gone. Climbing to a high chamber in a well of houses, he threw himself down in his clothes on a neglected bed, and its pillow was wet with wasted tears.

-I have sometimes sat alone here of an evening, listening, until I have made the echoes out to be the echoes of all the footsteps that are coming by and by into our lives.

-I have sometimes sat alone here of an evening, listening, until I have made the echoes out to be the echoes of all the footsteps that are coming by and by into our lives.

I know they are a bit out of order, but something has come to my attention: I have failed to expound the wonderful character of Mr. Sydney Carton. Sigh. He is a tragic hero. I love him very much. That's not so much expounding as rambling, but there it is.

My next books:

Nonficiton: How to Become a Writer. It looks very...interesting. Almost like the Strunk and White of writing.

Fiction: Hopefully, The Plauge, by Albert Camus. Technically, it is not on my list, the Stranger is. But I find myself craving his writing. I got sucked into some post-war essays at the book store the other day and realized it was my signal that I needed to read Camus, who has beautiful writing. I have opportunity once more to stay up till 3 in the morning just to read and I feel it is high time already. Welcome, summer. I may read now.

DYSTOPIAS!

Alright, so, since this nice little "100 book list" blog has morphed into an AP English study tool for now and the AP test is, oh yeah, THIS THURSDAY, I need to rush things a bit. So here goes a crash course and Fahrenheit 451 and 1984. Their main similarity (besides numbers in the title)? They are both dystopian novels. Meaning that it's like a perfect world. Except not.

Now, George Orwell is a whole lot darker than Ray Bradbury in these novels. It is like comparing Mary Wollenstone Craft's works to Pride and Prejudice, or juvenalian to saturnalian (???) satire. One is a whole lot more harder than the other, though they both do the same thing. 451 introduces a world where everyone is glued to the television screen and is not allowed to expand their minds by means of books. Cause they're all banned. In 1984, everyone is watched all the time by telescreens and their freedom to EVERYTHING is restricted. Orwell's world is darker and harsher.

Each book has a male protagonist that, despite their soul-quenching environments, start learning the truth via some inner conscience and some outer source (Julia, Faber). They both have someone who betrays them (The Antique Shop Man, Montag) who they previously trusted. They both have some sort of woman issue: they have their estranged wives and their side interests that help them rebel and is all about freedom (Julia, Clarisse). Of course, they girls themselves are entirely innocent.

Hey! I'm going to elaborate now. Also, the societies are very much the same. First, they center around the city. The wild outdoors, the variable of nature, scares these overwhelming systems because they cannot control it. It is where our rebellious protagonists go to ... rebel. Or escape. It was while taking in the night through an unprecedented walk that Montag meets that girl and starts (*gasp*) thinking. He also finds his way in the wilderness again at the end in the book circle. Winston finds his way in the wilderness at the very beginning of his rebellion when he and Julia commit their "political act." From then on, they find places of seclusion "outside" or in other various symbols of uncontrollable strength. For example, they often find themselves in churches. Religion is like the wilderness, in that it is powerful and difficult to control, even though Insoc destroyed them. They still manage to live on in some ways.

Each book also holds the presence of a "protecting" force that also serves as destroyer. In 451, that is served by the firemen, but more specifically, the fantastic dog robot. Since it is a robot, it is also devoid of all human feeling and becomes a tool in the hands of a society that has similarly lost its humanity. In 1984, Ingsoc is the society that has lost its humanity, but the telescreens serve a parallel to the robot dog. It serves a protective feature in society and yet also betrays Winston and Julia in the upper room.

Technology is also a big part in each book. In 451, the televisions that take up a wall spur the wife (and the whole society) into a want for more and more and more mindless diversion. Since there is something to replace books, it is easier for the government to control. The telescreens in 1984 serve a similar purpose.

The complete opposite to this mindless diversion is books and writing. Both rebellions in 451 and 1984 have to do with reading and writing and books. Montag kept a book. Winston wrote something in a diary. Montag started reading. Winston obtained THE BOOK. Clearly, education is the key to mind-numbing activities.

Now, before I start in on differences, think of something. Is this just a bit scary? And which is scarier?

The destructive nature of the societies differ greatly. Though, in a way they can just be taken as different parts of the same cycle. 451's society wishes to usher their citizens into a mindless state induced by technology and lack of books. Force is used. But such things as thinking and taking long walks is seen as odd and is discouraged but not forbidden. In 1984, there are strict rules and the citizens live in constant fear. Even the patriotic Mrs. Whats-her-name with dust on her face lives in constant fear. Extermination is wholly possible. They government controls every aspect of people's lives and does not relent or give grace. At all.

The class models also differ. 1984 has two classes: the regular people and the proles. 451 seems to live in a constant state of suburbia. I'm going to stop talking now because honestly, I need to study up more on both books before I state a definite list of differnces. But you get the point.

In characters, there are also several differnces. For example, Montag is a guy you might possibly want to take home to your parents - he is a true hero. His only flaw is really one introduced by his society. Winston is yucky. His only redeeming quality is the fact that he is the last man in Britain who has a stinking conscience. Perhaps the amount of flaw in the man is influenced by the degree of flaw in the society. But I still like Montag better. And also, Montag pulls through in the end. Winston falls in Room 101. Clarisse and Julia differ the most though. Julia is hard headed and uncaring and rebels simply to rebel. She is a teenager of Ingsoc. So pretty much just a nonserious side effect of Ingsoc. She has been to the extremes of dirtiness but finds a bit of redemption finally in her relationship with Winston. Clarisse is...Stargirl. Which is how I'm going to name these types of characters from now on. They are wholly likeable and INNOCENT. They are curious and delight in the oddities of life. They thrive on social attention but also are content with solitude. But in the whole, they are innocent. Julia and Clarisse's roles in the novels are the same but their characters are completely different.

The last difference here, the endings are different. 1984 ends with "two gin-scented tears" and a totally broken down The Last Man on Earth. The Dystopia has won. 451 ends with Montag finding other crazy kids just like him out in the wilderness. There is Hope. There is a counter society that could one day rise up and school that dystopia.

The question is....which one is scarier?

Despite the hope at the end, I think 451 is scarier. It resembles our own society the most.

In the movie Stranger than Fiction, the main character wanders around for a couple days and keeps 2 tallies in a little notebook: signs that he is in a comedy and signs that he is in a tragedy. Every once in a while, as you are watching the news or thinking about the omnipresence of technology in our society, make a little mark in your mental book...

are we living in a utopia, or a dystopia?

C&R. II

Alright. Dreams first. Dreams are very important in this novel. They reveal true guilt, true emotion and seem to have a deep conscience to boot. There are three that stand out to me.

First: The horse scene. No, a head did not show up in his bed. Synopsis: Mean man beats old nag. Child (Raskol) gets angry. Mean man kills nag. Child very sad. Actually, our AP class had a grand time discussing this scene. It is obviously symbolic, showing the oppressor and the oppressed. The question is, who is the man and who is the nag? I am of the opinion that at some point most everyone is in both positions. People like Sonia, though are always going to be the oppressed, though, and people like Luhzin the Loser are always going to be the oppressor. But most of us switch roles. Now, this scene comes early in the novel so you don't really get to know these characters early on. Just remember, if an author makes a point of introducing a character *coughsoniacough* they'll probably be important later.

Second: The scream. Now, this isn't quite a dream. Kind of. Not really. But it counts. And once again, Raskolnikov's subconsciousness is really moral. It's right after Raskolnikov commits his deed and he is consumed by a fever. Symbolic? Nah. Anyhow, he lies in this state of half asleep and he hears screaming and violence below and when he wakes up...he finds it's all a dream. That's what a guilty conscience will do to you.

Third: Svidrigailov's dream. That creep. It's a very weird dream about his obsession with little girls (purity, innocence) and how she turns into a prostitute (loss of innocence at his hands). It's very creepy. There's more to read into it if anyone would like to take up that cross (ba dum ching), but for now I'm going leave it.

Alright, I'll get to stuff like symbols later (I'm gonna spend some time on crosses be warned!) but for now I have to wash my hair and get to sleep cause it's gonna be a long and very good and very stressful day tomorrow. Goodnight!

Crime and Punishment.

I love this book. I mean, let's be honest. Its a dismal Russian novel with a very angsty and morally ambiguous protagonist with shining angels who are really prostitutes or beleaguered by a sadist. Oh and it centers around a murder. This is an exciting book. Very exciting! The happy ending is a bit of a bummer though.

Alright. Themes. Well, we got a few basic ones of redemption and consumption and fear and destiny and human nature. Some rough draft of them theses:

-In C&R, each of the characters question the source of redemption and who will save them from the sin and guilt that consumes their lives.

-Sins consume men's souls.

-Man cannot control his destiny without some sort of punishment or retribution.

-No one is alone (sorry. I just had to.)

-Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov prove that though men's nature can be both good and evil, salvation, as well as damnation are possible endings to a base crime.

As I said, rough drafts.

Alright, characters. There are many characters and they all have roughly 5 names each. Well, that's only a little bit of hyperbole. Hmmm. Let's see....

Rodion Romanovitch "Rodya" Raskolnikov - protagonist

Sonia (last name here) - Rodya's match/redeemer/local prostitute

Pyotor Luhzin Petrovitch - loser, government official, Dounia's fiance

Avdotya Romanova "Dounia" Raskolnikov - Rodya's sister, Svid's object, and a fiery lady

Pulcheria Alexandrovna Raskolnikov - dreamy mother of Rodya

Marmeledov - Father of Sonia and a drunk to boot

Dmitri Prokofitch Razumihin - Rodya's bestie and in luuuuv with Dounia

Katerina Ivanova - crazy, consumed mother of Sonia who married beneath herself

Alyona Ivanova - pawnbrowker, deceased

Arkady Ivanovitch Svidrigailov - resident sadist

Lizaveta - sister of Alyona, owned a cross

There are others. But I am weary of using the v key.

I have to go, but I intend on talking about quotes, dreams and symbols later. Especially blood. And then I might talk about how it relates to Frankenstein! And Macbeth!

Hamlet, Prince of Denmark

Well, this is a bit of a flashback, isn't it. Now, if you are familiar with my studies this year, they include Macbeth and King Lear. Hamlet was decidedly last year. So last year. But I found some quotes and notes the other day so here it is. (fq = famous quote)

-"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." -Marcellus (fq)

-"All is not well. I doubt some foul play." - Hamlet (THIS IS FORESHADOWING)

-"The serpent that did sting thy father's life now wears his crown." (The ghost reveals that the king/uncle guy killed him to take the crown. And Shakespeare really didn't like snakes.)

-"Brevity is the soul of wit." - Polonius (fq)

-"Words, words, words." -Hamlet (fq)

-"For there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so." -Hamlet (fq and theme. There's a lot of mixed morals in this play. I'm guessing that this is at a part where Hamlet's convincing himself that killing his uncle would be just okey-dokey.)

-"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't." -Polonius (fq! I quote this all the time)

-"A dream itself is but a shadow." (Shakespeare really liked dreams. A lot. And there are several 'dreams' within Hamlet, more in Macbeth but even so. This might refer to Hamlet's father scaring the mess outa Hamlet. He doubts he even saw the ghost and might refer to it as a shadow.)

-"My words fly up, my thoughts remain below

Words without thoughts never to heaven go." - Hamlet. (I surely love Shakespeare's couplets. This is where Hamlet is surely going to kill his step-father and surely going to hell for it.)

-"Madness in great ones must not unwatch'd go." -Claudius, (now. Who goes crazy in this again? Let's see...Hamlet. OPHELIA.)

-"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - about Queen Gertrude (fq + kudos for using methinks.)

-"Sweets to the sweet, Farewell!" - Gertrude, upon Ophelia's burial (fq)

-"The rest is silence." - Hamlet. (Gosh. Gotta love Shakespeare.)

-"Now cracks the noble heart." -Horatio.

So I'm listening to amazing, powerful cello music which would make for amazingness at the last scene of Hamlet I'm just now realizing. It makes lines like the last three there all the more powerful.

1984 symbols

Well, this is a bit of a flashback, isn't it? But it's necessary. And once again, I'm being a bit lazy and rushed here and posting something which I've already written. In one sense, it's probably really good cause I knew more back then and can refresh my memory with my former self. So here are some of the symbols and their explanations.

1. The Journal Quote: “To mark the paper was the decisive act. In small clumsy letters he wrote: April 4, 1984. He sat back. A sense of complete helplessness had descended upon him.” Part I, Page 7

This is the first decisive political act against Ingsoc that Winston does. Before, he just thought (which in itself is a punishment), but if the buying of the journal in a world where knickknacks are obsolete and pen which is also mostly obsolete are incriminating acts, the entries which Winston writes that question truth and rebel against authority (DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER) is a death sentence. The helplessness that the quote above speaks of could stem from the knowledge that Ingsoc will bring him down sooner or later now that he’s commited this act in a sense of physical helplessness, or from the sense that the relief to get these words on paper leaves him emotionally helpless. Either way, it’s a sense of what’s done is done, the point of no return. There is no going back from the path of rebellion.

2. The Two-Minute Hate

This section is very important because it really brings to light two of the most important characters in the book and because it captures a picture of the Ingsoc society and its reformation of sane people to raging sheep. First, Julia is introduced (the dark-haired girl behind Winston). Her placement could point to her budding or blossoming interest in him or to focus on his unease around her (which, of course, will lead to some sort of romantic relationship). Either way, this passage describes her as violently passionate for Ingsoc society. O’ Brien, the second soon-to-be major character is described as similarly patriotic. His signifigance to the scene does not end in this excerpt, however. After the Hate, he exchanges glances with Winston in a way that might have been the first betrayal of Winston to the thought police and instantly wins Winston’s trust.

This scene also points to the degrading effects of Ingsoc upon society. The instatement of Two Minute Hates just personifies the object of The Party: to degrade and debase all sense and reason and turn it into meaningless passion and hate. Julia later points out that it is possibly part of an effort to erase all sexual desires. But it is more than erasing sexual desires. It is an effort to erase all desires and turn the people into a willing, impassioned, malleable mob that will use crowd mentality to sweep all doubters and questionable, along with sense and reason, into the fold of imposed senselessness. (“The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in.”) As the quote phrases it: a frenzy. Of course, this has its small downfalls as Winston says within this same moment that for a moment he hated upon Julia and even upon the Party and then back to Emmanuel Goldstein and Eur/Eastasians. But these downfalls are erased when a finish of Big Brother as savior kicks in. The really sad thing is that The Hate is not an original thought of Orwell, but a dramatization and probably hyperbole of an actual a daily hate in Nazi Germany amongst families.

5. The Upper Room

Quote: “The fragment of rhyme that Mr. Charrington had taught him came back into his head, and he added half-nostalgically: ‘Oranges and lemons, say the bells of St. Clement’s!’ To his astonishment she capped the line: ‘You owe me three farthings, say the bells of St. Martin’s, When will you pay me? Say the bells of Old Bailey- I can’t remember how it goes on after that. But anyway I remember it ends up Here comes a candle to light you to bed, here comes a chopper to chop off your head!’” Part II, Page 147

This passage takes place in the upper room of Mr. Charrington’s antique shop. Now, if we’re going with the Bible’s antithesis of symbolism, this room has a whole lot of meaning because the upper room is where Jesus had his Last Supper and the first sign of imminent betrayal. Winston and Julia, while in the upper room, have the antithesis of the Last Supper because theirs is an unholy communion. But also, this is where Winston shares a sort of bond, or communion, with The Book. This sort of religious symbolism is compounded by the rhyme that Julia and Winston share which is in the passage above. This child’s rhyme has been haunting Winston for weeks and speaks of churches and the past, which is forbidden by The Party. Some foreshadowing also lurks in the rhyme, “Here comes a chopper to chop off your head,” because it is in this upper room where Julia and Winston are betrayed by one of the people they trusted: Mr. Charrington. In the same way Jesus picked out the person who was going to betray him in the upper room and was later betrayed by him. As far as the plot is concerned, the upper room is vital because it is where Julia and Winston exist as a semi-married couple. They hide away little stashes of real food and coffee and tea. It is where they bond the most. They exist as the bit of coral in the glass paperweight that is smashed the day of the arrest.

7. The Prole Woman

Quote: “Together they gazed down with a sort of fascination at the sturdy figure below. As he looked at the woman in her characteristic attitude, her thick arms reaching up for the line, her powerful marelike buttocks protruded, it struck him for the first time that she was beautiful.” Part II, Page 219

: Over and over, the phrase “The hope lies with the proles” is iterated. In this woman, who is always putting out laundry, basic humanity, simplicity, fecundity, and everything that is given to them but denied to members of the Outer Part especially is symbolized. This simplicity, though, is a mighty beast. The woman outside, with her strange beauty, could almost pass for a Mother Nature type figure as the mother of all. She gives birth to all and survives all storms. Winston is struck by her beauty, because if he is the last man in Oceania, she might be the last woman. She retained what the Party member women did not, freedom of open sexuality, and also what the prole women lost, dignity. And yet, she is ignorant. This scene is less significant to the actual plot and more significant to idea of the proles revolting and a symbol of the loss of the Ingsoc society. The hope lies with the proles.

8. 2+2=5

Quote: “‘How many fingers, Winston?’

‘Four.’

The needle went up to sixty.

‘How many fingers, Winston?’

‘Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!’

… ‘How many fingers, Winston?’

‘Four. I suppose there are four. I would see five if I could. I am trying to see five.’” Part III, Page 250-251

This is the sad point where Winston breaks down. O’Brien, of course, represents Ingsoc and Winston represents a last shred of humanity. O’Brien is trying to convince Winston that 2+2=5, not 4, merely because The Party says it is so. Encased in the elliptical clause is a great deal of pain and suffering and the changing of Winston’s mind. After the torture he admits he is trying to see 5 fingers. This scene is not only crucial to the plot because it is the first stage of Winston’s defeat, but also crucial to the Party’s Politics as well. The Party aims to get inside people’s heads, not just inside their lives and their bodies. The Party aims to be God, and this is just an extension of that belief.

Alright, now, that's not exactly all of them, but it's enough to refresh your memory I'm sure!

King Lear, Part I

Alright, since I am short on time (of course) and I don't really want to think about it right now but I need to, I'm just going to post some stuff that my - ahem - colleagues and I wrote on our online discussion spot. Thing. Ok. Questions? Comments? You know where to put em!

Prompt: the use of "gods" in King Lear (this is mine. And yes. I'm pretty proud myself.)

Though at first you may not notice their ominous omnipresence, the
recurrent reference of certain "gods" in King Lear is present from the
first scene to the last. Usually it is King Lear who makes these
generally heathen references, though Edmund calls out to them in an
unseemly manner a few times. Not only are these references, especially
those made by King Lear, generally heathen, they are meant to be
unholy, evil, and perhaps barbarous. For example, when King Lear is
condemning and banishing his daughter, he says "For, by the sacred
radiance of the sun, the mysteries of Hecate and the night; by all the
operation of the orbs from whom we do exist and cease to be..." King
Lear 1.1.116-119. Whatever the religious atmosphere of almost any
Shakespearean audience, if references to sun worship, a Greek goddess
of Witchcraft and other shady practices, and worship of other heavenly
beings, it is generally considered to be a negative thing. King Lear
does not call on God, which is bad enough, but he calls on evil,
heathen gods. Edmund also has very negative connotations when he calls
on gods. He cries out "Now, gods, stand up for bastards!" King Lear
1.2.22. Since Lear and Edmund both have a very negative influence on
the play, we can assume that the gods are surely on the destructive
side of fate. France himself says, "Gods, gods! 'tis strange that from
their coldest neglect / My love should kindle to inflamed respect."
King Lear 1.1.282. The gods are surely on Lear's side.

The references or pleas to gods only happen in Lear's lines change
with Lear's character or state of mind. While he is questionably sane
and Cordelia is still in good graces with him, he makes no
exclamations to the gods. While he is disowning Cordelia and almost
through the duration of the play he makes many heathen references.
Whenever he finds Cordelia and a better state of mind, he stops all
unholy mentions and even uses God in the proper context: "As if we
were God's spies" King Lear 5.3.18. Edmund's problems with the gods
are quite different. Though he had called on the gods earlier and was
quite self assured in their graces, if his belief in the gods is
contrary to that of his belief in the heavens, that is, Edmund
betrayed the gods in his evil and was apparently in turn betrayed by
them, for Edgar says " thou art a traitor, False to thy gods, thy
brother, and thy father" King Lear 5.3.161. Soon after, "Edmund
falls."

So, are the gods simply playing the fickle gods of fate or are they
something to be called upon and even directed, as King Lear attempts
to in Scene II of Act III. When he addresses the storm he is obviously
calling on something which is akin to a god in the fact that it is a
heavenly, all-powerful, conscious being. He sends the vengeful spirit
of the storm against his daughters, for he is "a man more sinned
against than sinning." King Lear 3.2.59-60. He calls on the gods for
justice, though he did not originally give it.

So, in conclusion, the gods in King Lear are more of a symbol of evil
or a state of mind in a character than conscious gods. To quote Kent,
"Now, by Apollo, King, Thou swear'st thy gods in vain" 1.1.160-161.

The theme/motif of blindness.

King Lear himself displays the most obvious trait of blindness. In
the first act of the play, Lear misreads his daughters' intentions and
falls prey to false praises, leaving the truthful Cordelia an
outcast. The high-ranking King ought to have a decent grasp on
behavioral claims, as he is the ruler over his land and people, but he
fails to see through his daughters' words. Due to his inability to
see the truth, he s easily deceived by his two rotten daughters. He
blindly distributes his land to Goneril and Regan, neglecting
Cordelia's honest claim, and banishes Cordelia from his sanctified
presence. If Lear had seen the ulterior motives of the two evil
daughters, then maybe he would have commended Cordelia and avoided
such a great string of tragedies that take place throughout the
story. He only realizes for good what his three daughters really wish
to fulfill at the end of the story, when it is all too late. Lear's
blindness ultimately costs him his life.

Albany also shows signs of blindness. His love for Goneril also
breeds trouble. In his deep love for Goneril, Albany fails to see
that her "love" for him is but a guise for her secret desire for
Edmund. Albany has a hard time accepting Goneril's harsh treatment of
her father Lear, but through a largely one-sided bond of love, he
stays by her side through it all. It isn't until Edgar reveals the
note that contains Goneril's devious plot that Albany realizes his
devotion is meaningless, and that he had better straighten up if he is
to live and thwart Goneril and Edmund's evil schemes.

The most literal example of blindness is Gloucester. As mentioned
above, Gloucester's eyes are plucked out in Act three by Cornwall and
Regan. Gloucester was "blind" much before this tragic incident,
though. Like Lear, Gloucester failed to recognize his offspring's
evil intentions. He mixed up Edgar's innate goodness, and Edmund's
natural evil. This is due in large part to Edmund's crafty letter
framing Edgar. Convinced that Edgar, the legitimate and closest son
to the title of Earl, wants to kill him, Gloucester pits his men
against an innocent Edgar, causing him panic and torment. The painful
irony of Gloucester's blindness is that he only begins to "see" after
his physical, "working" eyes are stripped from his face. While
intact, Gloucester is blind to Edmund's horrid plans of overthrowing
him. After he is truly blinded, however, he sees that he has
misconstrued the situation and that Edgar is indeed the legitimate son
who loved him and continued to care for him through the thick and
thin.

"Filial Ingratitude!"(which always sounded like a brand name or line or something like that to me)

While the actions of Cordelia are justifiable, the actions of Goneril
and Regan arenot up to par with what a decent daughter should do.
Cordelia is forced to make a difficult decision at the beginning of
the play when her father asks her to express her love for him, she can
lie and exagerate her love as her sisters have done or she can be
honest and give her father the hard to hear truth. Cordelia may have
made a better choice in her choice of words to her father, but the
fact of the matter is that she gave him the truth and was able to
attempt to help him in the end because of her choice. Had Cordelia
chosen to lie to her father she would have most likely married
Burgundy because his desire for her dowry would have kept his intrest
in her alive and, when Lear speaks to Burgundy and France, Burgundy
appears to be the front runner in the race for Cordelia because Lear
addresses him first and gives him the first right of refusal. If
Cordelia had married Burgundy he would have had no need to help the
father of the woman he did not love because he would have already
recieved all of the blessing available from Lear. Because Cordelia
chose to be, "So young, my Lord, and true," the entire play is set in
motion; had Cordelia been a lesser person, there would be no reason
for the play.

Goneril and Reagan are guilty of most of the horrible offences in the
play. The only excuse that an be made for these two daughters is when
they are frustrated with the number of soldiers their father keeps
but, when they originally took over the kingdom they agreed to take on
the burden of the soldiers so, their argument is lost here. Goneril
and Regan are the chief evildoers of the play, they commit and attemp
murder, they blind a man, they take advantage of the figurative
blindness of their father, they attempt adultery, they lie, steal, and
many more things. The behavior of Regan and Goneril is horrid beyond
belief. The only action Goneril makes that is decent is when she
marries Albany and the only reason this is excusable is because he
challenges her and her evil sister at the end of the play. The lies
of these two daughters establish the conflict of the play and the lies
seem to have been planned for a while so that the daughters will
profit from the condition of their father. When the daughters talk
after the divison of the kingdom they seem to posses a sense of
superiority over their father which they carry into the rest of the
play, their beliefs in Lear's senility channel their drive to
overthrow his control over the kingdom and they show their true colors
from this point on.

Parallel stories - Lear and....?

Noble friend and in a tussle with his offspring himself, the life of
Gloucester most certainly parallels that of King Lear's. Shakespeare
doubly places misjudgment into both of these characters. Each of them
fails to recognize the senile charms of their respective children who
enrapture their fathers in falsity. Evidently, this misjudgment is
the sole ruin of each of the characters. Needless to say, they go
down together.
Illegitimacy is a key word which should not go unnoticed. Let us not
be blind like Lear. Although Goneril and Regan were assumed to be the
rightful beneficiaries of Lear's land, lowly Cordelia was the actual
legitimate daughter, truthful to the welfare of her father. On the
other hand and most accurately seen, Edgar is duped by the
illegitimate Edmund:

"Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land.
Our father’s love is to the bastard Edmund
As to the legitimate. Fine word—“legitimate”!
Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,
And my invention thrive, Edmund the base
Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper.
Now, gods, stand up for bastards!"

Edmund delivers this soliloquy (1.2.1–22) just before he reveals to
Gloucester that Edgar the legitimate is plotting against his life. In
both cases truth is outlasted by a harbored falsehood.
Interestingly, when Lear flees out into the storm, Gloucester
follows. This can symbolically represent the fact that these two both
have run into the same situation. Both characters reduce themselves
in despairing, and humorous, fashion. They fall to a state teetering
on the edge of insanity. But, noticeably, they are both aided by men
in disguise who forfeit any chances of the two from falling completely
psychopathic. Lear is aided by Kent and Gloucester is led by Edgar.
Gloucester parallels Lear the most in this way because they have both
become incapable to live without a constant hand to gild them in the
right direction. It is not until the end until they realize that
their mistakes have proven to costly and therefore they both must
suffer consequences.

The Motif of Nothing

“Nothing” being the empty word that it is can be filled with meaning
depending on how or in what context it is used. The characters in
“King Lear” make use of this vacant word infusing it with their own
purposes. This makes the bread-crumb trail of “nothing” throughout
“King Lear” rather exciting.

To Cordelia “nothing” meant love. It was not that she did not love her
father; she simply could not describe her love. Her love was more than
words. It had been translated into action, and Cordelia thought Lear
knew this. So when asked to describe her love in words, “nothing” was
all that came out of Cordelia’s mouth. Cordelia’s speechless love is
made evident in Act V when she asks France to intercede for her insane
father. Cordelia’s love is nothing by way of words, but everything in
action.

Edmund’s “nothing” is a stark contrast to Cordelia’s. Edmund’s first
mention of nothing is about the letter he has “received” from “Edgar”
as he quickly dismisses to Gloucester as “nothing.” Gloucester at
first sees that this letter is truly something saying, “The quality of
nothing hath not such need to hide itself;” however, Gloucester fails
to realizes that this “nothing” is a conspiracy—an act of unlove
against him and his family. “Nothing” to Edmund is conspiracy and
betrayal. Later Edmund asks Edgar, “Have you nothing said upon his
party ‘gainst the Duke of Albany?” making sure that his evil
intentions stay hidden. Gloucester up in arms about the whole debacle
confides his relations with Lear to Edmund and pleads with him to say
nothing of it. Of course, Edmund’s lust for power spurs him on to turn
in his own father to Cornwall establishing himself as Earl of
Gloucester.

Poor Edgar, because of Edmund’s evil schemes, views himself as
“nothing.” While Edmund makes a scene about his bastardizing,
illegitimacy and his low name, Edgar is more accepting of his new
identity as a beggar, as nothing. As he makes his plan to become this
new identity as ole Tom he proclaims, “Edgar I nothing am” meaning
that his life as Edgar is worth less than his life as Poor Tom. Later
when Edgar reveals himself to his father, he says, “in nothing am I
changed/But in my garments.” In this use of “nothing” Edgar is still
referencing himself; however, he is now the true “nothing” (not the
scheming illegitimate “nothing”) that Gloucester really loves.

Lear’s Fool has several views on nothing as well he should. Making fun
of the Fool, Kent remarks that the Fool’s interjections are “nothing.”
However, the Fool replies saying that his “nothing” is just a bit of
wisdom that came for free so “can you make no use of nothing?” The
Fool’s next reference to “nothing” is quite contrasting to the first.
Referring to Lear the Fool says that the king has foolishly split up
his kingdom leaving himself no brains or nothing in the middle.
“Nothing” is foolishness. Finally, talking to Lear again the Fool
blatantly says, “I am a fool, thou art nothing.” This reference to
nothing again emphasizes Lear’s stupidity, but it also insults his
resulting loss of power. The Fool says he’d rather be the fool than be
in Lear’s lowly position.

Throughout the play Lear continues to see “nothing” as nothing. First
talking to Cordelia Lear says, “Nothing can come of nothing.” Later in
response to his Fool’s wisdom and Kent’s skepticism Lear replies,
“Nothing can be made of nothing.” Lear’s blindness, however, prevents
him from seeing past the surface of the empty vessel that is
“nothing.” He can’t see Cordelia’s “nothing” filled with love or the
Fool’s “nothing” filled with wisdom and honesty. Lear at one point
amidst the storm says, “I will say nothing” and later asks himself
“couldst thou save nothing?” At this point Lear is realizing his true
identity as that of “nothing.” He is blind and mad, yet he is able to
realize that he is empty. Soon there will be nothing left.

The Storm - Symbol, Climax, Perfect.

Lear realizes that he is no control over anything anymore. His life
is in the hands of the gods, his daughters, or any man. The storm
symbolizes the loss of control and power, but it also says that
nothing is as it seems. There is always two sides to everything.
Most of the time there is a good and a bad side.

Lear first realizes that he is losing control of his court when
Cordelia does not put her pride aside and proclaim undying love to
Lear like her sisters. Cordelia is his favorite daughter. He expects
her to please him now as she has always done, but she does not.
Instead of being his sweet little Cordelia she is almost hard in her
response to proclaim her love for Lear. Cordelia says, "Nothing".
Lear later replies, "So young and so untender?" Cordelia ends that
part of the conversation with, "So young, my lord, and true" (1.1
98,118-119) Lear is so taken aback that he disowns Cordelia. He
transforms from a sweet father to one that will "spit, fire! and
Sprout, rain!"

The next loss of control is between a father and his child again.
This time it is between Gloucester and Edmund. Edmund easily
convinces Gloucester that Edgar was plotting his death because he
wanted his inheritance now. Edmund was then seen as the best son.
His illegitamicy was forgotten because of the unselfish way that he
was helping his father. Gloucester proclaims, "I will proclaim it
That he which finds him shall deserve our thanks, Bringing the
murderous coward to the stake; He that conceals him, death" and "And
of my land, Loyal and natural boy, I'll work the means To make thee
capable" (2.1 70-74,97-99) Gloucester did not know that when he gave
Edmund this land and respect that he was really signing over his life
along with all his possessions

The ultimate way the storm was illustrated was when Goneril and Regan
turned their backs on Lear. They refused to house him and his men,
and then they just kicked him out into the storm. Lear had no control
or power over them anymore. The sisters did not love let alone
respect Lear anymore. This upset Lear so much that he called on the
gods to curse his daughters. Lear cries out, "You heavens, give me
that patience, patience I need! You see me here, you gods, a poor old
man As full of grief as age, wretched in both. if it be you thats
stirs these daughters' hearts Against their father, fool me not so
much To bear it tamely." (2.4 313-318) Lear was completely baffled
because these were not the women just a few days earlier that
proclaimed their unwavering full love for him. Lear is at a loss.

Another person that is at a loss is Albany. He knows that Goneril is
not the best kind of person, but does not argue with her when she
harshly tells Lear he can not house his company of men at their
house. Albany probably had grown to expect and accept these strong
words and actions from Goneril, but he never expected her to plot his
death. He definitely was not going to accept it either. He had
completely lost control of his wife. First of all she was sending
secret letter plotting his death in Act IV, but her plan gets foiled
when Edgar kills Oswald and delivers the letter meant for Edmund to
Albany. He then decided to confront her and Edmund about their plot
to end his life. Albany says, "Edmund, I arrest thee On capital
treason; and, in {thine attraint,} This gilded serpent.--For your
claim, fair {sister,} I bar it in the interest of my wife. 'Tis she
is subcontracted to this lord, And I, her husband, contradict your
banns. If you will marry, make your loves to me. My lady is
bespoke" (5.3 98-106)

Albany is the only person that regains his control after losing it.
He was not being defeated with a fight which he won. The storms that
were in all the characters lives really affected them for the worst.
None of them were the same. Lear and Gloucester died while Albany
lost a wife. The storm brought not a "sweet sway", but it did "spit,
fire! and Sprout rain!" in every life it touched

Besides mine, I have left the authors anonymous. If you would like to know an author or you think no one will care, I'll post a list in order of appearance. Can I just say, I love my AP English class? I think we're pretty awesome.