Breakfast, John Steinbeck (Notes)

                                                                  Question # 1
                                             Describe the setting of the story?

       John Ernest stein beck is an articulate and socially conscious artist. He perfectly understands human feelings and aestheticises them as a consummate artist. “
                Breakfast” is a short story in which purity of living is described. It has been written in the background of rural ways of life. The venue of the event is a beautiful valley. The time is early in the morning before the sunrise. The wind is very raw and cold. The mountains at the eastern side look black- blue but there is a faint tinge of orange light behind them. The sky is dark but slightly turning in to gray and then white. The earth is gray like lavender. The writer is walking on a country road when he sees a dark gray tent ahead of him… Near the tent a rusty old stove is burning with orange flame flickering out and making a dancing reflection on the tent. Beside the stove a young girl is working with a baby in her lap. This is a beautiful pure and refreshing scene away from the polluted and corrupted environment of the cities. The air and landscape present a sense of unblemished nature with its true structure and worth. The purity of this scene makes an everlasting impression on the writer’s mind and it does not fail to make an impression on the reader either.

                                                                   Question # 2
                                                 What were the ways of the people?
           Once, early in the morning, the writer happened to come across a gypsy family. He was walking on a country road when he saw a tent erected on a distance. A stove was burning beside the tent. The air was too cold and the writer went closer to the stove to warm his hands. It was an old rusty stove with many cracks in it. The young women working on the stove was dressed in a faded cotton skirt and waist. She was carrying a baby who was nursing without interfering with her graceful movements. She had long hair plaited at the back that swung here and there when she moved about.
           A little later two men came out of the tent. They looked much alike except for their age. The older had a gray stubble beard while the younger had a dark one. Their hands and faces were wet and they stood facing the east… looking towards the lightening eastern horizon. They greeted the writer and invited him to have breakfast with them. Meanwhile the girl had set a packing box as a table and had placed tin cups, plates, and spoons on it. She served them with hot coffee, fried bacon, bacon gravy and high big biscuits. The writer said that it was the warmest, pleasantest odor he had ever known.
           Before starting the breakfast, both men thanked Christ and God for the blessing of good food. They ate with delight and were thanking God and Christ again and again. They told the writer that they had been working for twelve days in cotton fields and that’s why they had been eating well. They proudly told him that they had bought new dungarees even. They offered the writer to get him employed at the same fields but the writer politely thanked them. It was unexpected for the writer because in urban life, people are acquainted with a tough, cutthroat competition and they never offer anything to any one. But these were simple people who not only entertained him with a splendid food but also offered him an employment. This was the time of 1930’s trade depression when people had been unemployed, poor and hungry on a massive scale. Many people were reported to be murdered on question of only a little piece of bread. In all these conditions, the attitude of these nomads was shocking to the writer because they had behaved in an unusually simple, straightforward and sincere way. They were aliens to the calculated and cunning attitude of the urban folk. They lived in nature and they shared its purity and sincerity. They did not have any grudge or complaints against anyone. They were contented on what ever they had though they knew that cotton picking was a seasonal work. They were in sheer poverty before. Eating well for twelve days mattered a lot to them. This explicated John Steinbeck’s notion of “self sufficiency of every human being”. He is of the view that man does not need money or material advancement to be happy and contented. It is something that springs out of the soul and urges a man to realize and enjoy even the single grain of comfort in life. The characters of the story were simple God-fearing people who possessed the treasure of contentment and satisfaction in spite of their acute poverty.

                                                          Question # 3
                             Bring out the elements of universality from the story?

                      The experience of the writer with a family of daily labourers was very exhilarating and elevating. He had come face to face with a new dimension of life that is exotic to the urban folk living in dark congested industrial cities.

            The writer happened to come across a gypsy family who lived in tents and moved around in search of work. He did not name the area where they were present neither he mentioned the names of any of the characters. Thus making them universal in implications. The purity of living has been asserted through this short story and the writer narrates this event to appeal the whole world. People living in any area of the world are confronted with the problem of mad rush after the material gains. The urge to get more and more has hardened the hearts of people, making them apathetic and heartless. The human sympathy and compassion are the most alien words today. Every individual has focused on mounting up the ladder of social and economic development as soon as possible. The truth and simplicity have been trampled in this “marathon” of becoming wealthy. But… still there are some quarters of society that are away from these corrupted and sick practices.  Still there are some people who have a cocoon of contentment and satisfaction around them. The poor family of the story was so badly off that they were so proud at having good food and new clothes for just twelve days. This attitude contrasts strikingly with the attitude of the modern societies…. and here lies the thesis of the writer who wants to assert that satisfaction does not lie in material advancement rather it is an attitude that springs out of a contented soul. So he urges the whole world to recognize the truth of living and stop running behind the mere shadows of development and prosperity.

The Killers, Ernest Hemingway (Notes)

                                                                         Question # 1
                                                  What was the attitude of the killers?
                
                         Hemingway is the most popular and widely read of all modern American writers because of his simple literary style with its crisp “masculine” dialogue, and his insistence on the active, sensuous life.
                           “The Killers” is the story that makes a passive flow of frosty horror trickle down the spine. It masterfully presents the heartlessness and indifference of the modern man towards not only his fellow beings but even to his own future. He outlines a society where the killer is unacquainted with “the killed” and “the killed” doesn’t know his killer. Hemingway has presented such an event in this short story. The venue of this event was a small wayside lunchroom where two suspicious looking men came in. They were dressed in black overcoats and derby hats. Both of them were of the same size. Their faces were different but they were dressed like twins. One was called Max and the other one was Al. They came in and ordered some food. The staff of the lunchroom couldn’t comply with their demands as everything they wanted was to be served as dinner and at that time only light sandwiches or snacks could be had. This made the men angry and they behaved in a very rude way but then they agreed to have a light food that was served to them by the waiter, George. They started eating with their gloves on, George looked fixedly at them that irritated them. Max started to bluff and threaten them in a harsh voice.
                         After eating, Al and Max directed them to go back in the kitchen and then they tied Nick and the cook back to back and George was asked to remain on the counter. The staff of the lunchroom was really confused and none of them knew what was happening to them. Both the men were very casual and hasty. In the same careless tone they told George that they were going to kill a Swede called Ole Anderson. Ironically enough they had never seen or heard about Ole Anderson. It was only to oblige a friend that they were going to kill him when he came here to eat. Generally he came to the lunchroom about six o’ clock so they had to wait for an hour. In this one-hour occupancy they created an atmosphere of gloom and dread around them. Their motive, their style and their talk all indicated that they held the human life as something very trivial and worthless. They waited and when Ole Anderson didn’t come they went out and released the captive staff.

                                                                 Question # 2
                                     What was the reaction of George and company?

                                      Max and Al were the two hired assassins who were going to kill a man who used to visit Henry’s lunchroom. They came in the lunchroom at five o’ clock and ordered for dinner that of course wasn’t ready at that time. The lunchroom had only three people as staff; George was the waiter, Sam, the cook and Nick Adams was the counter boy. Nick Adams had been the main character of too many of Hemingway’s stories. All of them were initially very uneasy at the attitude of the killers who were behaving in a rude bossy style. They ordered and commented in very impolite manner. Max was a bit more talkative and he talked on many subjects to George calling him “bright boy” again and again. Then they started to eat with their gloves on, George watched them eat. This infuriated them and Max spoke in a bitterly aggressive way to him. When they started to direct them to come here and go there the staff was really baffled and they tried to question the motive of all this drama. The killers called Sam, the cook, and then Al took Nick and Sam to the kitchen and tied them together back to back. He gagged them with a towel. George was left in the room and was asked to dismiss any customer who came in. All of this was very intimidating and alarming for them and they were frightened at this situation. The killers had guns with them that further heightened the shadow of dread. In doing all that the killers were not at all bothered or confused. That showed it wasn’t their first attempt to kill some one. They were mercenaries who wanted to kill a man for none of their own enmity rather they only planned to do it because they wanted to oblige a friend. Their carefree manner depicted that they didn’t care for the sanctity of human life and they could kill anyone for no reason at all. After a long stay they went away without killing Ole Anderson who didn’t come that day. After their departure, the cook Sam was very nervous and he didn’t want to talk about all this but Nick and George decided to meet Ole Anderson and tell him about all this. Nick went to see Ole Anderson and told him in detail about the killers but Ole Anderson didn’t show any reaction. He lay on his bed unmoved and not caring a bit for this life threat.
                 Nick was very nervous and disappointed. He wanted to run away from such a place where a man could be killed by anyone at any moment. He didn’t want to stay in that town. But George told him to neglect all of it and better not think about it. On the whole they were frightened and nervous after this event.

                                                                          Question # 3
                                                            How did Anderson react?

                   Nick Adams went to meet Ole Anderson so that he could tell him about the people who had come to kill him. Ole Anderson had been a heavyweight prizefighter. He lived at Hirsch’s rooming house, a street away from the Henry’s. Nick walked in the autumn night and knocked at Ole Anderson’s door, a lady came down and took him upstairs to Ole’s room. He lay on his bed with all his clothes on. Nick told him that two people had come to the lunchroom to kill him. But for Nick’s wonder he didn’t show any reaction and remained looking towards the wall as disinterestedly as before. Then Nick asked if he should tell him about their appearance but Ole wasn’t concerned. Nick asked if he should report to the police but he refused. He didn’t show any interest in all that and was very indifferent. He had been involved in some shady affair like cheating some mafia people, and because of it he was running constantly to save himself.  He was tired of all this and wanted to accept his fate.
                           This was quite a shock for Nick who had expected a natural reaction from Ole Anderson but very incredibly he had not given any importance to all that. It really was pitiable to realize that a man was lying in his bed waiting for his assassins to come and kill him anytime. This indicates towards the modern man’s psychological problem related to “ death-wish” where he behaves in a sadistic way and urges badly to die. The problems and demands of the modern uneasy times make a man numb and he doesn’t value even his own life. The hard conditions of life and unexpected social calamities ruin his interest in life and he lets himself flow with the current of events that are beyond his control. So the reaction of Ole Anderson indicated that the quagmire of vicious activities had plunged him to such a depth that he wasn’t able to feel for his own death. The under-world mafias are like a sharp-clawed witch that never lets her victims to run away and this was what Ole Anderson knew and he subjugated before her powers.

                                                                  Question # 4
                      This story is about the modern insecure and lawless times. Give your views.

                           This story is representative of Hemingway’s typical realistic style. He presents the horror and alarm that is always present in the modern societies and especially in American society. Hemingway always remained interested in the bloodshed and violence. He often saw the horribly pitiless face of life and his career as a journalist supplemented his observations and gave him a deeper knowledge of unlawful activities that remain under the cover of civilized societies but generate a harrowing sense of insecurity in the general public.
            The present story too illustrates an event without any floral language or other accessories to embellish the fiction. He straightforwardly narrates an episode in which there is no practical violence or bloodshed but the ghost of an expected murder haunts over the whole story. The killers in the story are unidentified people and we aren’t told anything about their identity. Similarly the town is not identified except for its name, the workers of the lunchroom are also presented without any background. The killers don’t know the man they are going to kill and he as well is unaware of the killers. So the tinge of universality touches the story and it can be taken as the tale of anonymous people who come in an anonymous town with the intention to kill an anonymous man for anonymous reasons.  They go back after the time for Ole Anderson’s arrival is up but they leave an ominous gloom of chaos and horror behind them that automatically transfers to the restless mind of the reader.
          Hemingway masterfully portrays the insecure modern times where law and law-enforcing agencies have become totally ineffective and helpless. This entire situation prevailed in the first half of the twentieth century but today the conditions of law and order have gone from bad to the worse. The criminals are free to carry on any sort of atrocious activities. Today the criminals are coupled by another section of modern criminals called terrorists…and they have scared the people to such an extent that modern world is psychologically and physically very insecure. What so ever is their motive but their acts are always criminal and vicious. Today people don’t enjoy a single second’s peace of mind. The crime or attack from any side can be expected at any moment. Murders and robberies are the order of the day. In the third world countries the conditions are even worse as no law or court is effective there and justice is bought and sold at very cheap rates. The life and property of common public is quite unguarded and insecure.   The states are ruled over by Mafia gangs so they protect their criminal brethrens. The news of bomb blast, violence and bloodshed across the world are heard in every news bulletin.

                  Thus, the story outlines a universal situation in a simple style and the reader can directly relate this event to his own chaotic times. The character of Nick Adams has been used by Hemingway to present a lot of disturbed situations prevailing in the post-world war times. He made Nick travel across America and presented the situation of a “lost generation” that was sans any redeeming value or action. So here too an appalling situation met him and further aggravated his sense of desolation and dismay over the brutal face of the world.

King Arthur

King Arthur is a legendary British leader of the late 5th and early 6th centuries, who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against Saxon invaders in the early 6th century. The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and his historical existence is debated and disputed by modern historians.The sparse historical background of Arthur is gleaned from various sources, including the Annales Cambriae, the Historia Brittonum, and the writings of Gildas. Arthur's name also occurs in early poetic sources such as Y Gododdin.
The legendary Arthur developed as a figure of international interest largely through the popularity of Geoffrey of Monmouth's fanciful and imaginative 12th-century Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain). Some Welsh and Breton tales and poems relating the story of Arthur date from earlier than this work; in these works, Arthur appears either as a great warrior defending Britain from human and supernatural enemies or as a magical figure of folklore, sometimes associated with the Welsh Otherworld, Annwn. How much of Geoffrey's Historia (completed in 1138) was adapted from such earlier sources, rather than invented by Geoffrey himself, is unknown.
Although the themes, events and characters of the Arthurian legend varied widely from text to text, and there is no one canonical version, Geoffrey's version of events often served as the starting point for later stories. Geoffrey depicted Arthur as a king of Britain who defeated the Saxons and established an empire over Britain, Ireland, Iceland, Norway and Gaul. Many elements and incidents that are now an integral part of the Arthurian story appear in Geoffrey's Historia, including Arthur's father Uther Pendragon, the wizard Merlin, Arthur's wife Guinevere, the sword Excalibur, Arthur's conception at Tintagel, his final battle against Mordred at Camlann and final rest in Avalon. The 12th-century French writer Chrétien de Troyes, who added Lancelot and the Holy Grail to the story, began the genre of Arthurian romance that became a significant strand of medieval literature. In these French stories, the narrative focus often shifts from King Arthur himself to other characters, such as various Knights of the Round Table. Arthurian literature thrived during the Middle Ages but waned in the centuries that followed until it experienced a major resurgence in the 19th century. In the 21st century, the legend lives on, not only in literature but also in adaptations for theatre, film, television, comics and other media.

Role of Arthurian Legends in History of English literature

Arthurian Legends
In the 15th century a number of poets were obviously influenced by Chaucer but, in general, medieval literary themes and styles were exhausted during this period. Sir Thomas Malory stands out for his great work, Le morte d'Arthur (The Death of Arthur, 1469-1470), which carried on the tradition of Arthurian romance, from French sources, in English prose of remarkable vividness and vitality. He loosely tied together stories of various knights of the Round Table, but most memorably of Arthur himself, of Galahad, and of the guilty love of Lancelot and Arthur's queen, Guinevere. Despite the great variety of incident and the complications of plot in his work, the dominant theme is the need to sacrifice individual desire for the sake of national unity and religious salvation, the latter of which is envisioned in terms of the dreamlike but intense mystical symbolism of the Holy Grail.

The role of "The Dream of the Rood"

The Old English lyric The Dream of the Rood is the earliest English dream poem to be found in written form. The Dream of the Rood is an explicitly Christian poem that attempts to appeal to Anglo-Saxons from a pagan culture.

Origins and History of The Dream of the Rood:

The poem was first discovered on the Ruthwell Cross, a large stone carving dating to the early eighth century. Eighteen verses of The Dream of the Rood were carved into the cross in runic lettering. This was all that was known of the work to scholars until the complete poem was discovered, in 1822, in the 10th-century Vercelli Book in northern Italy.

Content of the Poem:

In The Dream of the Rood, an unknown poet dreams that he encounters a beautiful tree. It is the "rood," or cross, on which Jesus Christ was crucified. It is gloriously decorated with gold and gems, but the poet can discern ancient wounds. The rood tells the poet how it had been forced to be the instrument of Christ's death, describing how it, too, experienced the nails and spear thrusts along with the savior.

The rood goes on to explain that the cross was once an instrument of torture and death, and is now the dazzling sign of mankind's redemption. It charges the poet to tell of his vision to all men, so that they too might be redeemed of sin.

Historical Significance of the Dream of the Rood:

The poem has been the subject of literary and historical study for generations and has been interpreted in a variety of ways. Profound and moving of itself, The Dream of the Rood also provides a valuable window into early Christian England.

The dream vision uses strong, virile images of Christ in order to reach members of the Anglo-Saxon warrior culture, who valued strength above humility. This may have been a deliberate strategy to convert pagans to Christianity. It also reflects how the image of Jesus was adapted to suit different cultures.

King Lear Summary

How It All Goes Down
A long time ago, in ancient, pre-Christian Britain, King Lear decides it's time to retire – he's getting old and he's just not feeling as spry as he once was. Besides, Lear wants to avoid any family or political conflict that might arise after his death (There's no male heir to inherit the throne by lineal succession when Lear dies and he doesn't want anyone duking it out over who gets to be king after he's gone.) So, Lear decides it would be best to split up his kingdom between his three daughters – Cordelia, Goneril, and Regan. But first, Lear wants to play a little game called "who can say she loves daddy the most?" in order to determine which daughter will get the biggest piece of land.

Goneril and Regan slobber all over themselves professing how much they love Papa Lear (they don't really, by the way), but Cordelia (Lear's favorite and also the nicest of the bunch) refuses to play, insisting that words and language are insufficient to express the love she feels for her father. Lear takes this the wrong way and disowns Cordelia – he also refuses to give Cordelia a dowry for marriage, so she runs off and elopes with the King of France, who realizes that Cordelia's loving and kind. Lear ends up divvying the kingdom in two between the wicked Goneril (who is married to the Duke of Albany) and the mean and nasty Regan (married to the Duke of Cornwall), announcing that he'll be splitting his time between Goneril's house and Regan's pad. When Kent (Lear's main man) warns Lear that he's making a huge mistake, Lear banishes Kent for being sassy.

Meanwhile, Shakespeare develops the play's sub-plot, which involves a guy named Gloucester, who's in the habit of running around town calling his illegitimate son, Edmund, a "bastard" and cracking dirty jokes about Edmund's unmarried mom. (Did we mention that Gloucester says all of this in front of Edmund?) It's no big surprise when Edmund begins to scheme against his dad and his half-brother Edgar, who is Gloucester's "legitimate" son. ("Legitimate" just means Edgar's mom is married to his dad, Gloucester). The scheming Edmund manages to trick everyone into believing that Edgar (who is really a nice guy) is plotting to kill Gloucester. Fearing for his life, Edgar runs away and disguises himself as "Poor Tom," a homeless beggar. (Gee, there seems to be some serious family drama up in this play. Notice any parallels between Lear's dysfunctional family and that of Gloucester?)

Lear, now effectively retired, spends his time with his daughter Goneril and her husband, Albany. Lear also brings along his Fool (Lear's personal, stand-up comedian), a new servant ("Caius," who is actually the loyal Kent in disguise), and 100 rowdy knights. Goneril is soon fed up with entertaining all these people (Lear's a lousy houseguest and Goneril is just plain mean), so she tells Lear to get rid of 50 of his knights or she'll boot her father (and his 100 rowdy knights) to the curb. She points out that her palace is a home, not a tavern or a brothel. (Psst. Goneril's really afraid that Lear will decide he wants all his land – and power – back from her and her sister and that he might use his 100 rowdy knights to take it by force.)

Lear's pretty ticked off, so he says "Hmph" and runs over to Regan's house (with his 100 rowdy knights in tow). Goneril's not at home (she's at Gloucester's palace, trying to avoid her dad), so Lear goes to Gloucester's pad and complains to Regan that Goneril is an ungrateful brat. Regan's not having any of Lear's whining, so she and Goneril gang up on Papa Lear, demanding that Lear should now get rid of 75 of his 100 rowdy knights. (Notice we keep bringing up Lear and his knights? Since Lear's given up all his land, the knights are pretty much his only source of power.)

At this point, a light bulb goes off in Lear's head – he realizes that Goneril and Regan don't love him as much as they said they did back when Lear staged his silly love test. In fact, Goneril and Regan don't love him at all. What does Lear do in response? Why, he runs out into a storm and wanders around on the heath, of course. (Goneril and Regan go "Ha!" and lock the door behind him.)

Out on the heath during a violent thunderstorm, Lear runs into "Poor Tom" (Edgar disguised as a naked and mad beggar) and, after a little chat, Lear realizes that being homeless (and naked) really stinks. He also realizes that 1) he should have done more about Britain's homeless population when he was king and 2) all men (kings and beggars alike) are totally vulnerable in this world – "man is no more / but such a poor, bare, forked animal," he famously muses (3.4.10). Then Lear takes off all his clothes. (Did we mention that, despite Lear's new social insights, the aging king is also going insane out on the heath?)

Gloucester, meanwhile, decides to help Lear (despite Goneril and Regan's orders) and gives Lear and his little retinue some shelter in a little shack just outside Gloucester's palace. Gloucester says they should all run off to Dover, and join Cordelia, who is hanging out with her new husband and her new French army friends. (Turns out, Cordelia and the King of France are preparing for a little war against Goneril and Regan.) When Gloucester goes back to his palace, he is apprehended for being a traitor. Regan and Cornwall pluck out Gloucester's eyeballs as punishment for helping out Lear, and then one of Gloucester's loyal servants kills Cornwall for blinding his master. In response, Regan kills the servant. (Try to keep track of the rising body count – it's an important part of the genre of Shakespearean "Tragedy.")

Meanwhile, Edmund escorts Goneril back to her own palace and the two begin a torrid affair along the way. When Goneril and Edmund find out the Duke of Cornwall (Regan's husband) is dead, Goneril immediately begins to worry…that her newly widowed and now-available sister might hook up with her, Goneril's, secret lover Edmund!

Somehow or another, the blinded Gloucester ends up traveling to Dover in the care of "Poor Tom," who is really his good son, Edgar. (Gloucester is clueless about Poor Tom's true identity. We guess you could say that Gloucester is blind in more ways than one.) Gloucester, despairing over his missing eyes and his rotten, good for nothing son, Edmund, decides to attempt suicide. Poor Tom/Edgar says he'll help but ends up tricking Gloucester into thinking he's jumped off a cliff ledge, when really he's just leapt a very small distance onto flat ground. "It's a miracle!" Poor Tom/Edgar offers, clearly indicating this is a sign Gloucester should stop trying to commit suicide.

Now that everyone is in Dover, some seriously violent action goes down. Oswald (Goneril's manservant) tries to kill Gloucester, but Edgar intervenes and kills Oswald. Before he dies, Oswald gives up the letter he's carrying, which was en route from Goneril to Edmund, asking him to kill her husband (Albany) so they can be together. Edgar realizes his brother, Edmund, is a rat.

Finally, after a lot of fussing, Lear reunites with his loving daughter Cordelia (who says she doesn't hate Lear, even though he totally disowned her). Soon after, Cordelia's French forces lose the battle against Regan and Goneril's British army and Lear and Cordelia are captured. Edmund takes this opportunity to secretly order their executions.

(Remember that rising body count we asked you to keep track of? Well, now would be a good time to put on your rain slicker because things are about to get bloody.)

While Lear and Cordelia sit in prison, Regan and Goneril scuffle with each other over who gets the oh-so dreamy (and oh-so evil) Edmund. In a rage, Albany demands that Edmund and Goneril get arrested for treason – i.e., having an affair and planning to kill him. Before Edmund can be taken to jail, Edgar shows up and stabs his evil brother in the guts. Then Regan dies, having been poisoned by Goneril. Edgar reveals his true identity to his father Gloucester, who is surprised, has a heart attack, and promptly dies. Goneril commits suicide because, well, everyone else is dead. Before Edmund (who has been stabbed) dies, he says he's sorry for being so bad and reveals that he's sent someone to kill Cordelia and Lear – if they want to do something about it, they had better act quickly.

Alas, it's too late for Cordelia, who has already been hanged by Edmund's executioners. Lear enters with his dead daughter in his arms. When Lear realizes what has become of his family, he dies of a broken heart. Albany and Edgar are the only ones left to govern the kingdom, but Shakespeare leaves us with a sense that there's really no hope for the future.

King Lear Themes

King Lear Theme of Family

When it comes down to it, family relationships, especially those between fathers and children, are at the center of the play. (Characters who are mothers, as several critics have pointed out, are noticeably absent in King Lear but there's plenty of talk about moms in this play.) Lear is not only a king, he's also a family patriarch whose plans to divvy up his kingdom among his daughters backfires, causing a civil war that gets played out as a large scale family crisis. Lear's family isn't the only dysfunctional crew in the play – the drama between Gloucester and his sons heightens the sense that King Lear is a decidedly domestic tragedy.


King Lear Theme of Power

Much like Shakespeare's famous history plays, King Lear offers a meditation on kingship and power or, more accurately, the loss of power. After retiring and divvying up his kingdom among his ungrateful daughters, Lear discovers what it's like to lose the power and authority that come with the responsibilities of active rule. In addition to being a monarch, King Lear is also a family patriarch and Shakespeare asks us to consider the similarities between a father's relationship with his children and a king's relationship with his subjects.


King Lear Theme of Justice

The excessive cruelty and portrayal of human suffering in the play make the world seem terribly unjust. Throughout King Lear, characters constantly appeal to the gods for aid but are rarely answered. The play suggests that, either the gods do not exist, or they are unimaginably cruel. King Lear seems to argue that it is up to human beings to administer justice in this world.


King Lear Theme of Language and Communication

In King Lear, honest speech is admirable but language often falls short of being able to accurately express human emotion – a theme Shakespeare also explores in Sonnet 18 and Twelfth Night. King Lear opens with a "love test" staged by the aging monarch to determine which of his three daughters can say she loves him "most." This turns out to be a huge mistake—the daughters who say they love their father more than anything in life end up mistreating him, while the daughter who says her love cannot be expressed with mere words, turns out to be Lear's only loving and loyal daughter. King Lear, who has spent a lifetime being sweet talked by courtiers and subjects can't tell the difference between the truth and empty flattery. At other times, he simply does not want to hear the truth, as when he banishes the loyal Kent for speaking up about Lear's wicked daughters.


King Lear Theme of Gender

In King Lear, women are often seen as emasculating, disloyal, promiscuous, and the root of all the problems in the world. King Lear in particular has serious issues with women – when his daughters, Goneril and Regan, betray him, he begins a diatribe against women, particularly female sexuality, that echoes throughout the play.


King Lear Theme of Society and Class

King Lear offers some pretty insightful social commentary on everything from class and politics, homelessness, mental illness, the system of primogeniture, the tensions between youth and the older generation, and so on. For many, the play seems to challenge and critique some existing (sixteenth and seventeenth century) social and political structures while offering some radical solutions. For others, the play takes a good hard look at England's social ills but eventually winds up supporting the status quo.


King Lear Theme of Loyalty

In the harsh world of King Lear, loyalty is rare. Surviving in an unstable political situation means that many people focus on the bottom line: saving their own skins. But there are some characters in the play who demonstrate extraordinary loyalty, such as Kent and Cordelia. The play celebrates this virtue, but it also shows that it can be dangerous. Loyalty is not appreciated, but rather ignored. In some cases, loyalty means death, and in all cases, it means suffering.


King Lear Theme of Compassion and Forgiveness

King Lear is an incredibly cruel play, and many of the characters are absolutely pitiless. Yet a few characters show extraordinary sympathy towards others' suffering. The human capacity to feel for others survives even the most desperate of moments. Yet what we see in Lear is that compassion is usually based on some sort of obligation – such as loyalty or family ties. Interestingly, these loyalties and these ties are the same causes of the extensive treachery displayed in King Lear.