Breaking of the Heart+"King Lear"= Dead People

"Led him, begged for him, saved him from despair.
Never—O fault!—revealed myself unto him
Until some half-hour past, when I was armed.
Not sure, though hoping of this good success,
I asked his blessing, and from first to last
Told him my pilgrimage. But his flawed heart—
Alack, too weak the conflict to support—
'Twixt two extremes of passion, joy and grief,
Burst smilingly." (Act V, scene iii, lines 203-211)

In Shakespeare's "King Lear" the breaking of a heart is a common motif that is seen throughout the play in both a literal and figurative sense. This quote was said by Edgar to Albany after he defeats his half-brother Edmund in a duel (duel is such a fun word). Edgar it telling of how, when he told his blinded father, Gloucester, that he was his son Edgar, Gloucester's heart "burst smilingly". This shows the breaking of the heart motif in a VERY literal way. Gloucester's heart actually did break when he heard that the person leading him through the English countryside was his banished son. I feel like his heart burst out of a combination of joy, sadness, guilt, stress, and old age. It is easy to see just how overwhelmed the poor, old man had felt and what that had done to his physical being.
Another place at the end of the play where the breaking of a heart is seen is when Lear carries in the body of a dead Cordelia.

"Howl, howl, howl, howl! Oh, you are men of stones.
Had I your tongues and eyes, I'd use them so
That heaven's vault should crack. She's gone forever.
I know when one is dead and when one lives.
She's dead as earth." (Act V, scene iii, lines 270-274)

Lear is beside himself about the loss of his last daughter that was alive and was the only who truly loved him. The part of the quote that I feel is the most powerful and effective in showing his grief is the first line where Lear "howl"s multiple times. Howl is such a powerful and unusual word to use which makes the whole quote even more moving and upsetting. This quote is the reaction of a parent who has lost their child, and since that is such a distressing situation I don't feel like there is really any way that the feelings professed by the parent could be explained or understood. Because this feeling is really unexplainable I think that the quote does a good enough job at trying to get the reader to understand the feelings that Lear has. After this quote Lear's mental state deteriorates quickly with him starting to think that Cordelia really is alive and that she is talking to him. A few lines later Lear collapses and dies.
In both of these quotations a heart breaks which, in the end, results in the character's death. For Gloucester it was a literal breaking of his heart that leads to his demise, while it was a culmination of mental illness, old age, and grief that, in the end, did in King Lear.

Kick it old school!

I don't understand why so many people hate the language of Shakespeare. In discussions of the book the "language issue" always finds its way out of the mouths of the readers, but my question is: Why is that such a huge deal?
If i could have it my way, i would love to be able to throw out an eloquent Shakespearean sentence when ever i wanted just to see the pondering look on the faces around me.

So Sad...

"Go to, go to. Better thou
Hadst not been born than not t' have pleased me better"
This was said to Cordelia by King Lear after her proclamation of love was said to be inadequate by the old King. One aspect of Shakespeare that is not very much focused in the writing is the real emotional effects that some events or actions, that take place in the play, have, or would have had, on people. I find it easier to think about literature (especially older pieces... like Shakespeare) in a more modern sense. This is done by taking the events that take place and placing them into one's own life. This helps to bring the events of the novel or play to life, and it helps the reader to understand what it is that the characters are truly experiencing.
For me there were many saddening moments that took place in the play. One of them was during Act I, scene i when King Lear decides that his daughter Cordelia does not love him enough (even though she really is the one who loves him the most). But wealth, power, and the ego got in the way of his love for his daughter and he ended up disowning her "medieval style" by giving her away to the first man that would take her as a wife. It is so upsetting to me that all that it takes to come between a parent-child bond is power and ego. I put myself in her position of having my father, who I have loved my whole life, decide one day that I am not fluffing his ego enough and kick me out. This would be not only be confusing, but very, very upsetting.
I'm sure that parent child relationships in the medieval times, especially those in royal families, were a little different than those today, but because I am living in modern times, and I have no other way to connect myself to the characters in older literature, I use this method to help me understand exactly what the people in the novels are feeling about certain decisions.

For real...stuck in an elevator...

Hey check this out everyone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_bMhNI_TY8

I feel frustrated watching this.

"Rumble thy bellyful..."

"Rumble thy bellyful. Spit, fire. Spout, rain! Nor rain, wind, thunder, fire are my daughters. I tax not you, you elements, with unkindness. I never gave you a kingdom, called you children, you owe me no subscription. Then let fall your horrible pleasure. Here I stand your slave, a poor, infirm, weak, and despised old man..." (Shakespeare III: ii)
Today in class we talked about why Lear would wait out the storm. The class had an array of brainy answers, but this is what I think: Lear is frustrated with himself, saddened by his daughters and needs to just let it all out in the midst of a thrashing storm. I brought up that it is easier to cry in the shower, freely emitting emotions that will just blend in with the surroundings. Lear feels at home with the angry storm, so he stays in the comfort of it. it is the idea of pathetic fallacy that struck me the most, The idea that nature is mourning with Lear as the skies crack and the ground rumbles, the turmoil that Lear expresses is congruent to the atmosphere. So, right on King Lear!
By the way, I like Shakespeare's way of speaking. His words are elegant. Even though the concepts are hard to comprehend, the text really makes me "turn my brain on." It causes me to enjoy the plot thoroughly, rather than just coasting through.

Okay (deep breath) let me try again?

Okay, so maybe I was a little fired up when I was writing, but that doesn't mean I don't dislike the dude any more. I still hate him just as much as ever, but I am trying to understand where you are coming from. I am going to agree with you Rosie, that Shakespeare's stuff is easier to understand when in is actually performed on stage (by actual actors, NOT fifth grade students in from of their class fighting with wooden swords). And, the plot of Lear is not bad, it is the language that ruins it for me. His ideas were good (which has to count for something, I guess) it was just the way that he got them across to the readers that stinks. I don't want you to think I am some psycho "Negative Nancy" (sadly that is me the majority of the time) with my angry rants, but at the same time I don't feel the need to hold my anger inside (it's not healthy, ask Dr. Phil) and let it build up until I explode (the last post was not an explosion... not even close). Shakespeare might not have had it out for fifth graders around the world when he wrote his plays, but he did have a flaw in the way that he delivered his plots to his readers and performers (wow I sound so controlled... go me).

wow that's harsh

Em (or whatever your blog name is)-- obviously you have some pent up anger issues regarding Shakespeare. and i don't blame you...but i don't think it's fair to lay it all on the little dead guy. He didn't know kids would be forced to memorize his lines, and back in the day that's how they talked. Which you know of course and I get your point. (Maybe there's a fifth grade english rehab or something that you can go to).

Regarding Lear specifically, I think it's alright. It's easier to understand his plays when they're acted out. That's what they were made for. Maybe we could try watching a movie version--the newest one was made for TV in '83 starring Laurence Olivier (who did a buttload of Shakespeare's stuff so he seemed to like it) . But I don't think we should immediately jump to the film without trying to get the gist of the play first.
There's so much going on in Lear I don't know what to think. Sometimes Lear seems like just an old guy lost in a new era. I pity him. But other times he's an absolute loon who does nothing but bring calamity on himself. And that's just aggravating. Even though a lot has already happened in the first two acts--just you wait there's more action to come...I hope it's violent.

What is his problem?

Okay, so here it is. We just started reading Shakespeare's King Lear and I have to say that I am not loving it too much (that's me being polite about it). I do feel bad, though, because I feel as if I came into reading the book already hating it. See I have a little...resentment built up towards our old friend Will that goes back all the way to fifth grade.
My teacher, Mr. Englund, had us read Romeo and Juliet and perform it for the class. That play was burned into my brain (I can still recite my long lines) but I had no idea what the words I was saying meant. That is what bothers me about Shakespeare. Why write plays in a form of English that no real, normal person understands? If the only person that can read your work is you, why publish it and force people (like innocent fifth graders) to have to plod through it like trying to run through a chin-high mud pit with rocks in your shoes. There is no sense in it at all! That is why I have a hard time being excited about reading any works with Shakespear's name attached to them.
Whew! Glad I got all that out. Anyway, so I think that my already tainted views of Willy-boy had already ruined the chances of me liking King Lear. And now that I am a few acts into the play, my fears have been realized. Every two words you have to look at a footnote at the bottom of the page, which is nice because they help me to understand words, (that I will never ever know or want to know for that matter), but they force you to break up the sentences so much that it is hard to string all of the words together into an intelligible ( or maybe not intelligible) sentence. There is one thing that I have to say in favor of the play (as of right now at least). That is that the plot line of King Lear it seems to be okay. That meaning, if it was written in normal American English it might not be half bad. But, as of right now, I see Shakespeare, not as one of the most famous writers in the English language, but as a terrible man who wanted to make the lives of children miserable.

i can't reach the top buttons if it makes you feel any better

haha, sorry if my brilliance spoils your day. I have no clue what I'm doing...welcome to the elevator.

No thank you

I don't really feel like being friendly at this moment, actually...I don't really WANT to be friendly. I have had an extremely frustrating day. After spilling O.J. on my perfectly planned outfit I realized that today was just no good. So I sulk out of the house with a pessimist's outlook on life. First and third period go by and then comes fifth period: AP Lit. with geezer Rosinski. We all presented our thematic statements on Percy Shelly's "Ozymandias." After slaving many, many hours (well, maybe not hours, but I'm trying to be dramatic) of my precious free time, struggling to think of something both clever, intelligent and accurate about the poem, I came up with a nice response. I presented it with pride and confidence, but was quickly shut down when geezer man claimed, "Well, Kyla just does it better than all of you. Kyla wins. Yea..." He pretty much made her the goddess of thematic statements. UGH. I was owned and I knew it. Anyways, after I left that class, I get stuck in an elevator with some weirdos trying to be "friendly." Oh! By the way, guess who I'm stuck in the elevator with? Yep, you guessed it! The Goddess herself, Kyla Rose. I hate my life.

How Did THIS Happen?

I was just going up to the fourth floor and now I am stuck inside this dark cramped box with three other people! How awkward! I frankly don't even know what to do. We have been ringing that silly little red alarm button for like 20 minutes, and has anyone come to get us? NO! Not a single person has even tried to get to us. The worst part of all of this is the fact that I don't know any of the other people in here. I guess that I should try to be friendly and at least try to talk to them. Who knows maybe they will be cool people with interesting stuff to say. . . . . .