While online help-for-students websites have become increasingly popular with the explosion of the internet, nothing guarantees that the people writing the analyses are qualified for the job, or right about what they say. Sites like Bookrags.com can be great in a pinch, and help remembering details, but mostly shouldn’t be depended on for high level English courses. The Bookrags plot summary of King Lear touched on most of the important points, but misinterpreted and forgot a few key things. Similar to the summary, the character analyses on Bookrags was useful for a beginner, but much too superficial and incorrect for use by an AP or college student. Bookrags seems useful for brief refreshing of the memory or a quick fix for being behind on reading, but is no substitute for the real King Lear.
Bookrag’s has both a free version of information, and an expensive “platinum” edition. Though the platinum edition may be better, that’s not really the website that’s a company product, so here today we’ll talk about the free online text. Bookrags claims that Gloucester heads the main subplot, while it’s really Edmund controlling that situation with Gloucester unhappily brought along for the ride. They also noted that Burgundy was rejected by Cordelia and France “woos her well enough to earn her hand,” while I remember that Burgundy only wanted her for her money/position and she was lucky to get France after her disinheritance. I understand that it’s a brief synopsis, but they begin talking about Kent after Lear is kicked out, acting like the reader knows who he is, without any background. Luckily I’ve read the book so I know his story, but to someone using this resource as their first touch upon the subject they would be lost. Though the plot summary gave some general ideas of what occurs in the play, it also misses some details and comes to some incorrect conclusions about what really happens.
Character lists on online help-for-students sites can be hugely helpful, especially for analysis of a specific character and when trying to remember book details for assignments such as AP test book review prep sheets. Bookrags, however, gives some false ideas about several of the characters; mostly from the reviewer delving too deep into Shakespeare’s meaning. The King Lear description begins by describing him as an “All-powerful King of Britain who simultaneously tries to manage being the leader of a major country and the head of a major family.” He’s not all-powerful for 99% of the story, actually he’s the opposite, and being the head of a major family has very little connection with either the truth or the meaning of the story. They also claim that Cordelia is the “smartest, bravest, and most honest of the three daughters,” which, while being predominantly true, isn’t backed up by facts. How does she demonstrate her great smarts? By untactfully refusing to pledge her love for her father, by getting disowned, by losing in battle, by getting outsmarted by Edmund and executed? Most of the conclusions they make about Cordelia are true, but the smart comment simply wasn’t thought through enough to be credible. Bookrags throws great weight to the parallel between Gloucester’s and Lear’s situations, but despite having a few similarities, are nowhere near the foils that the character list makes them out to be. Also Oswald’s and Cornwall’s characters are delved into deeply, and unnecessarily considering they’re pretty minor and static characters, whereas the analysis of the Fool is blaringly inadequate. The concept of the character list has great potential, but Bookrag’s execution of the idea was misguided and underdeveloped.
Help-for-student websites like Bookrags are become more and more popular because of their brief, superficial quality. That same quality, however, makes their value as a literary resource pretty low, especially because the reviews are written anonymously by the Bookrags staff, not by any renowned professor or expert on Shakespeare. The way to use resources like this one is to skeptically read the reviews, knowing that what conclusions they make are not necessarily true, and only use it for general information and superficial plot summaries.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Critique of Sparknotes' Information of King Lear
Sparknotes has a fairly organized an incredibly detailed description and analysis on various elements of the play King Lear. The key facts alone state motifs, themes, genre, publication date, and tone amongst several other important facts and observations. It is very factual, informative, and made up of a series of need-to-know pieces of information about the book’s contents as well as how it came about. However, it is noticeable that, besides the depth of character analysis, as well as plot analysis, the website does very little to connect King Lear to underlying messages and statements.
An article, written by Ronald Cooley on King Lear, focused mainly on the matter of primogeniture. I found this interesting because Cooley dug deep and made a series of valid statements and identified several moments in the play that, when tied together, suggested that Shakespeare was hinting to several flaws in the idea of primogeniture, a tradition that was highly regarded and practiced at the time in which King Lear was written. Sparknotes tends to focus on more superficial purposes of the placement of motifs or the significance of symbols; and therefore gives off the impression that everything that needs to be knows can be explained in a few paragraphs. However, articles such as the one written by Ronald Cooley suggest otherwise: that if one reads King Lear and focuses on elements that relate to primogeniture (negligence of it, acceptance of it, obsession with it), they will understand both it and King Lear to a much higher degree. This knowledge assists readers in understanding the way certain characters are written, such as Cordelia and Kent in this case. If one were to simply read Sparknotes analysis, they would never know what they were missing.
Another aspect of King Lear that was noticeably neglected was the mention of nothingness. Nothing was everything in King Lear; it pertained to nearly every character and situation. However, Sparknotes does not mention it as a motif, a theme, or a symbol of the play. There was the stripping of power, leaving King Lear with nothing. There was the lack of eyesight and subsequent inability to see. Cordelia was exiled from the family and left with nothing of her father’s fortune or love. Nothingness is associated mainly with the root of the issue in King Lear, and it is nothingness that leads to betrayal and reunion. Nothingness has more depth than the more obvious issues. Yet again, Sparknotes ignored something of significance and stated several surface clarities in its place.
Sparknotes, although a phenomenal resource for shallow but accurate and informative facts, does not dig deep into the purpose or meaning of King Lear. It bases all of its assumptions on surface ideas, and obvious statements made by Shakespeare through the play itself. It lacks the ability to explore elements of the play based on things that are not stated in the book, and its ability to understand King Lear’s purpose is therefore at a disadvantage.
An article, written by Ronald Cooley on King Lear, focused mainly on the matter of primogeniture. I found this interesting because Cooley dug deep and made a series of valid statements and identified several moments in the play that, when tied together, suggested that Shakespeare was hinting to several flaws in the idea of primogeniture, a tradition that was highly regarded and practiced at the time in which King Lear was written. Sparknotes tends to focus on more superficial purposes of the placement of motifs or the significance of symbols; and therefore gives off the impression that everything that needs to be knows can be explained in a few paragraphs. However, articles such as the one written by Ronald Cooley suggest otherwise: that if one reads King Lear and focuses on elements that relate to primogeniture (negligence of it, acceptance of it, obsession with it), they will understand both it and King Lear to a much higher degree. This knowledge assists readers in understanding the way certain characters are written, such as Cordelia and Kent in this case. If one were to simply read Sparknotes analysis, they would never know what they were missing.
Another aspect of King Lear that was noticeably neglected was the mention of nothingness. Nothing was everything in King Lear; it pertained to nearly every character and situation. However, Sparknotes does not mention it as a motif, a theme, or a symbol of the play. There was the stripping of power, leaving King Lear with nothing. There was the lack of eyesight and subsequent inability to see. Cordelia was exiled from the family and left with nothing of her father’s fortune or love. Nothingness is associated mainly with the root of the issue in King Lear, and it is nothingness that leads to betrayal and reunion. Nothingness has more depth than the more obvious issues. Yet again, Sparknotes ignored something of significance and stated several surface clarities in its place.
Sparknotes, although a phenomenal resource for shallow but accurate and informative facts, does not dig deep into the purpose or meaning of King Lear. It bases all of its assumptions on surface ideas, and obvious statements made by Shakespeare through the play itself. It lacks the ability to explore elements of the play based on things that are not stated in the book, and its ability to understand King Lear’s purpose is therefore at a disadvantage.
Fool Quote: Explained
“I marvel what kin though and thy daughters are. They’ll have me whipped for speaking true, thou’lt have me whipped for lying, and sometimes I am whipped for holding my peace. I had rather be any kind o’ thing than a Fool. And yet I would not be thee, nuncle. Though hast pared thy wit o’ both sides and left nothing i’ th’ middle. Here comes one o’ the parings. Enter Goneril”
(The Fool, 1.4.186-193)
In this passage the Fool presents the conundrum that he faces: absolutely no matter what he does, or fails to do, he will get whipped for it. He seems to blame this on the fact that he is a Fool, for he wishes afterward that he weren’t a Fool, but it seems ludicrous that an unavoidable situation is the victim’s fault. This backs up his comment marveling on what kin Lear and his daughters are, and says that they’re so different that together they create an impossible situation, and impasse, like what happens after Lear gives them his kingdom.
The Fool finds even more fault with Lear and his situation when he says, despite his impossible conundrum, that he would rather that than be Lear. With the knowledge of how insightful the Fool’s character really is in this play, this comparison and decision foreshadows how truly undesirable Lear’s life will be now that he has divided his kingdom between his two deceptive daughters. The Fool also says Lear has “pared thy wit o’ both sides,” and specifies that the parings are the daughters. This is really likening Lear’s wit to his power, saying that without his power and money he has no wit. This quote is a perfect example of the Fool’s hidden meanings and true insight into the deeper levels of the play, and levels of the play that haven’t even been revealed yet.
(The Fool, 1.4.186-193)
In this passage the Fool presents the conundrum that he faces: absolutely no matter what he does, or fails to do, he will get whipped for it. He seems to blame this on the fact that he is a Fool, for he wishes afterward that he weren’t a Fool, but it seems ludicrous that an unavoidable situation is the victim’s fault. This backs up his comment marveling on what kin Lear and his daughters are, and says that they’re so different that together they create an impossible situation, and impasse, like what happens after Lear gives them his kingdom.
The Fool finds even more fault with Lear and his situation when he says, despite his impossible conundrum, that he would rather that than be Lear. With the knowledge of how insightful the Fool’s character really is in this play, this comparison and decision foreshadows how truly undesirable Lear’s life will be now that he has divided his kingdom between his two deceptive daughters. The Fool also says Lear has “pared thy wit o’ both sides,” and specifies that the parings are the daughters. This is really likening Lear’s wit to his power, saying that without his power and money he has no wit. This quote is a perfect example of the Fool’s hidden meanings and true insight into the deeper levels of the play, and levels of the play that haven’t even been revealed yet.
Lear and Cordelia Quote: Explained
Lear: To thee and thine hereditary ever Remain this ample third of our fair kingdom, No less in space, validity, and pleasure Than that conferred on Goneril.-- Now, our joy, Although our last and least, to whose young love [The vines of France and milk of Burgundy Strive to be interessed,] what can you say to draw A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.
Cordelia: Nothing, my lord.
[Lear: Nothing?
Cordelia: Nothing.]
Lear: Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again.
Cordelia: Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave My heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty According to my bond, no more nor less.
(Lear and Cordelia 1.1.88)
This quote, while establishing the significance of one of King Lear’s most essential motifs (nothingness), also illustrates Cordelia’s rebellion against lying and exaggerating the truth, as well as her resistance against the primogeniture going on in her family. However, it is also at this point where the central conflict begins. It is because Cordelia will not “heave her heart into her mouth” that she is exiled and abandoned, while her two evil sisters split the power and fortune equally. She later goes on to express the absurdity she feels Goneril and Regan are displaying as they swear their love for their father in taking the hand of another man in marriage. The irony in the matter is that, later in the play, the thing Cordelia is most criticized and hated for at the beginning of the novel, is what later exemplified her genuine personality. While the emotion that wins Goneril and Regan praise, is later unmasked as pure evil insincerity.
Cordelia: Nothing, my lord.
[Lear: Nothing?
Cordelia: Nothing.]
Lear: Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again.
Cordelia: Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave My heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty According to my bond, no more nor less.
(Lear and Cordelia 1.1.88)
This quote, while establishing the significance of one of King Lear’s most essential motifs (nothingness), also illustrates Cordelia’s rebellion against lying and exaggerating the truth, as well as her resistance against the primogeniture going on in her family. However, it is also at this point where the central conflict begins. It is because Cordelia will not “heave her heart into her mouth” that she is exiled and abandoned, while her two evil sisters split the power and fortune equally. She later goes on to express the absurdity she feels Goneril and Regan are displaying as they swear their love for their father in taking the hand of another man in marriage. The irony in the matter is that, later in the play, the thing Cordelia is most criticized and hated for at the beginning of the novel, is what later exemplified her genuine personality. While the emotion that wins Goneril and Regan praise, is later unmasked as pure evil insincerity.
Lear Quote: Explained
“No, no, no, no. Come, let’s away to prison.
We two alone will sing like birds I’ th’ cage.
When though dost ask me blessing, I’ll kneel down
And ask of thee forgiveness. So we’ll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news, and we’ll talk with them too-
Who loses and who wins; who’s in, who’s out-
And take upon ‘s the mystery of things,
As if we were God’s spies. And we’ll wear out,
In a walled prison, packs and sects of great ones
That ebb and flow by th’ moon.”
(Lear, 5.2.9-20)
This quote embodies both Lear’s return to sanity and the falling action of the play as a whole. After enduring his trials and hardships, and coming dangerously close to irreversible insanity in the process, Lear is now stable and coherent enough to see his life clearly, perhaps for the first time in his life. He realizes that he doesn’t need all the glamour and the glitz, he just wants to spend his days with Cordelia, watching people make life go on, sometimes speculating, sometimes not. It’s a dreamy, somewhat enviable existence, but one which he never would have wished for earlier in the play. This supports the idea that King Lear is a bildungsroman play, because Lear experiences a total change of heart. His meek acceptance of being outside the course of history makes his impending death somehow okay, like it’s now time. This quote represents Lear’s moral reformation, a lesson to value the things that really matter, and the truly mild culmination of the play, despite the superficially gruesome mayhem that ensues.
We two alone will sing like birds I’ th’ cage.
When though dost ask me blessing, I’ll kneel down
And ask of thee forgiveness. So we’ll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news, and we’ll talk with them too-
Who loses and who wins; who’s in, who’s out-
And take upon ‘s the mystery of things,
As if we were God’s spies. And we’ll wear out,
In a walled prison, packs and sects of great ones
That ebb and flow by th’ moon.”
(Lear, 5.2.9-20)
This quote embodies both Lear’s return to sanity and the falling action of the play as a whole. After enduring his trials and hardships, and coming dangerously close to irreversible insanity in the process, Lear is now stable and coherent enough to see his life clearly, perhaps for the first time in his life. He realizes that he doesn’t need all the glamour and the glitz, he just wants to spend his days with Cordelia, watching people make life go on, sometimes speculating, sometimes not. It’s a dreamy, somewhat enviable existence, but one which he never would have wished for earlier in the play. This supports the idea that King Lear is a bildungsroman play, because Lear experiences a total change of heart. His meek acceptance of being outside the course of history makes his impending death somehow okay, like it’s now time. This quote represents Lear’s moral reformation, a lesson to value the things that really matter, and the truly mild culmination of the play, despite the superficially gruesome mayhem that ensues.
WORKS CITED
BOOKRAGS STAFF. "King Lear: Major Characters". 2000. May 9 2010.
BOOKRAGS STAFF. "King Lear: Plot Summary". 2000. May 9 2010.
"Kent and Primogeniture." Access My Library. Gale, n.d. Web. 9 May 2010.
"King Lear: Key Facts." Sparknotes. Sparknotes, n.d. Web. 9 May 2010.
BOOKRAGS STAFF. "King Lear: Plot Summary". 2000. May 9 2010.
"Kent and Primogeniture." Access My Library. Gale, n.d. Web. 9 May 2010.
"King Lear: Key Facts." Sparknotes. Sparknotes, n.d. Web. 9 May 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)