Lear: Is 'thank you' redemption enough?
Please watch Youtube video of Belle's Chinese "King Lear" a graphic novel in the making
I need help with a question.
Author and playwright James Whyle wrote ringingly clear about King Lear:
Belle, we can't deny that terrible things happen in the story. But what is the journey of the protagonist? He starts off monstrously stupid and arrogant, he becomes mad. In that madness, he starts to realize that all humans are equal, that his previous authority was no more than a farmer's dog barking at a beggar, that he has "taken to little care of this".
By the end, this mad, arrogant man has gained the simple, sane humanity which causes his to say, "thank you, sir," to the man that udoes his button in the very moments of his death.
Lear starts his journey deep in the darkness. And ends it in the light.
I wrote:
You are right. I am so glad you are right. I'd like to say, Please tell me more, James, but I think you said everything and I missed everything. Now I have to rethink and reread Lear and my "Forget Sorrow" with that in mind.
Okay, it is enough for the audience, the reader of Lear, but would the humbling and enlightenment of Lear be enough for Lear the man, the flesh and blood human being like you and me?
My question: enlightenment is redemption enough in a story. But is it enough in life?
Am I asking the right question?
I want to know if a human being suffers every loss imagineable and attains enlightenment in every sense of the word, is that enlightenment redemption enough? If you were to lose your family, your home, is made to wander, made to beg, spurned by society, spurned by your children. If you began poor, attain wealth through labor and was a good to those around you--especially the poor--then lose everything and die wretchedly . . . is enlightenment redemption enough?
I know enlightenment equals redemption but indulge me here. This is a question from an unenlightened being.
Terrible injustices happen in this world to good people. Things we can barely imagine in America. James, you've no doubt seen much more than I have. And these things didn't happen to a unreasonable old man but to the humane.
Now, I am wondering if the redemption of Lear enough for the audience. And what about Gloucester?! He was a good enough fellow. What redemption was there for him? To have his eyes gouged out and finally be able to differentiate between good of Edgar and the evil of Edmund?
James, I've talked myself out of agreeing with you as I type this post. What light at the end?
- Login Or register To Post Comments
- Send To A Friend
RSS- Bookmark With:
Greg Roensch says:
It's all Boethius to Me
I can't really hope to answer such a question in a quick blog entry, but to me this takes me back to something I read a long time ago in a school-daze far, far away.
It's an ancient book called the Consolation of Philosophy. While I know there are plenty of great works that delve into this vast territory, this book has always resonated with me when contemplating the nature of evil in this world -- and how one can even hope to cope with it.
Here's the wikipedia link to the Consolation for anyone unfamiliar with it who'd like to check it out.
Dale Estey says:
I don't believe that an act
I don't believe that an act of enlightenment equates to redemption. One needs to know of the evil they commit to be redeemed from that evil, and perhaps know the consequences of their actions.
However, there are many evil people performing evil deeds who are fully aware of what they do and could not care less.
Belle Yang says:
Thanks Dale and Greg
I'll answer and think on my way to the airport and reply from another country. I don't drink coffee or much alcohol but I am addicted to RR.
Judith Tannenbaum says:
thanks for the thanks, and...
You asked (on your comment to my post) for my response to the thoughts you've written here. It's a challenge to know where to write what in these conversations, so I link you to the response you requested (and have a great time in Vancouver)
http://www.redroom.com/blog/judith-tannenbaum/saying-thank-you
James Whyle says:
Belle, Lear isn’t a man.
Belle, Lear isn’t a man. He’s a character in a story. Theatre is ritual. It’s purpose is to remind us of your question. Would sanity be enough for me? We all face death. In Lear, Will Shakspere holds up the best his got, the best of himself, and puts it in the face of Death. “This is my best shot, Death,” he says. He acknowledges that the world can be unremittingly terrible. I suspect it is, for most people. But he gives it his best shot, and the wonder is, it’s still got us going.
Are you confusing your grandfather's story with Lear's story? I'd say take what helps, then close the door on the original inspiration. Let your story free.
Gloucester was a good enough fellow. But he gets the point. Eyeless, he says: "I stumbled when I saw." I think the sanity is enough in Lear, becasue, by the end, we've fallen in love with the old fool. And we weep for him.
And us.
And we weep even harder because he has learnt to say thank you.
It's a tragedy.