The Purpose of Literature

After reading literature from a variety of different cultures and time periods over the course of this semester, I believe I have gained a better understanding of the purpose of literature. At the beginning of the course, my answer to the question would be very different. But now I believe the purpose of Literature is to explain the purpose of man and understand what happens to man after death. In almost every story there is a higher being or beings, a higher authority that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. The characters in the stories often have to make a decision as to whether they will comply with what the gods say to do and be content with their state. Or they can try to resist the higher authority. There will always be new literature because people will never find a concrete answer to these types of questions. There will never be a textbook that can say for a matter of fact, this is why you are here and this is where you go after you die and this is what you should do with your life. Many different religions try to answer these questions but of course nobody can come to agree upon one answer to these questions. Literature doesn't always come out and say that it is addressing man's dilemma but it a re-occuring underlying theme in almost every piece of literature. If we, as the reader, pay close attention to these underlying themes, we can gain a better of understanding of the works themselves as well as gaining insight to our lives. By piecing together different works from different cultures, all seeking to explain mans existence, I believe we can gain a better understanding of our humanity.

The relationships in King Lear

I found myself very interested in this week's reading. I was extremely interested in the punishing of Gloucester. Cornwall and Regan mercilessly gouged out Gloucester's eyes somewhat ironically for treason;  both Cornwall and Regan are both treasonous on the grounds that they have abandoned King Lear. The servants in the household start to finally realize how terrible the sisters and their husbands are when Cornwall is torturing Gloucester. One servant tells Cornwall to stop and that he will fight to the death before he sees Cornwall gouge out another one of Gloucester's eyes. Then at the end of the scene, two more servants also state their dislike for both of their masters. It seems as if this is a foreshadowing of the ruin of the sisters and their husbands. I certainly do hope there is a blood bath at the end of King Lear, like the end of Shakespeare's Hamlet, to avenge all the wrongs done. I also feel a great amount of sympathy for Gloucester and Edgar. They are both in very tough situations in this part of the story. Edgar has agreed to lead his father to the cliffs of Dover, where he will apparently jump off killing himself. The pain felt by Edgar in leading his blind father to his death is I'm sure almost unbearable.  Gloucester is also suffering greatly physically from his injuries but also mentally because he knows he has wrongfully outcast his faithful son Edgar. The bonds between parents and children have become even  more important at this point in the story. Shakespeare is definitely trying to make people think about those people that are closest to us in our life and highlight the fact that some people are only there for us when they can get something in return, while some people will be there for us no matter what (like Kent). I believe from reading King Lear we all get a little helpful hint to re-evaluate our friendships and bonds and prioritize those relationships based on how truthful and honest those people involved are to us.

King Lear

Communication...! So far King Lear has been full of characters who are very poor communicators and which has led to the very tangled and intriguing plot line in King Lear. First, to start the whole story off, Cordelia fails to communicate her love to her father effectively when the King is giving out the shares of his kingdom. She seems to be in some ways like Antigone, to proud to concede to others in order to work toward a compromise. Yes King Lear was just playing a sort of game to see how his daughters would react, but Cordelia doesn't play along, she comes back with a witty way of saying the truth and creating discord. If she had but communicated her love in different words, then she could be happily married enjoying a third of her fathers kingdom. Another instance of poor miscommunication can be seen in Edgar. Edgar learns from Edmund that his father is upset with him but he never communicates with his father to try to clarify his innocence. He simply takes Edmunds word for it and goes into hiding. It seems that Edgar could have avoided the whole problem if he had sent a letter or talked to Gloucester. Gloucester also conveys poor communication skills. He says whatever he wants whenever he feels like it, as apparent through his conversation with Kent at the beginning of the play concerning Edmund. The only one who seemingly has any sense and communicate efficiently is ironically the Fool. The Fool is the only one who seems to see the big picture and is able to talk some sense into Lear. He is not afraid to speak his mind and he says what he means, and based on the parts of the book I have read, it has kept him out of trouble as well. I definitely think that some of the other characters in King Lear would be alot better off if they followed the example of effective communication set by the Fool.