Connection: Edgar and Joseph

One discinct connection I see in King Lear is between Edgar and Joseph from the Old Testament (and the musical, which I love). They both have special, enviable qualities, were repressed by their brothers but adored by their fathers, and ultimately came out on top; they also both seems to be the characters the audience roots for, the underdogs of their stories. Edgar, one of Gloucester's sons, is first presented as someone not incredibly bright or special, but the one characteristic he holds over his half-brother, Edmund, is his legitimacy, his ability to inherit his father's title. Edmund craves this title, believes he is more deserving than his brother, and tricks him into hiding. Joseph was born with the power to interpret dreams, causing him to be the favorite of his 12 brothers to his old father, Jacob. He was often complimented, not forced to work and given lavish gifts, such as his legendary multicolored coat. Bitter jealously as a result of this led his brothers to sell him into slavery.

After much difficulty for both of them, they eventually had their somewhat happy endings (since most people would argue that King Lear definitely did not have a happy ending). In the final scene, Edgar emerges from hiding to confront his brother and defeat him in a duel; once Edmund is dead, Edgar is reinstated as the Earl of Gloucester. He also informs us that he revealed himself to his father, and overwrought with joy and grief, he died. At the end of Joseph's tale, his talent is discovered by the pharoah of Egypt and he becomes his chief advisor. He also reveals his new, powerful position to his brothers and reunites with his beloved father. Joseph and Edgar both faced adversity but overcame it. Their relationship, once realized, helped me understand King Lear better, and empathize with the characters much more, specifically Edgar himself. Their misery at their forced containments was very clear, and their similarities are almost uncanny.

Best of Week: Revolutions

One of the best ideas we discussed in class this week was Shakespeare's use of revolutions in King Lear. It's a very prominent theme and adds levels of meaning to the play. One important element of this was the idea of Fortune's wheel. Fortune (or fate) is personified to have a wheel that, when turned, changes the destiny and luck of humans. In Act 2, scene 3, Kent almost prays to it and says, "Fortune, good night. Smile once more; turn thy wheel." He was currently in a pretty rotten positon: locked in the stocks.

Three important revolutions we've noticed are the switch between Lear and his daughters, Edgar and Edmund, and Gloucester and his houseguests. The revolution between Lear and his daughters began with his official bestowment of his lands to them, and it continued as they stripped all of his power, his men, and eventally his sanity. Edmund was the bastard son of Gloucester, and Edgar was his legitamate son, who would eventually inherit his lands. However, Edmund tricked both this father and his brother so his brother was forced to flee and go into hiding as a madman and his father is thought to be guilty of treason. The 180 degree revolution was complete when in Act three, scene 5, the Earl of Cornwall gives Edmund the official title of the Earl of Gloucester.

One more revolution we have noticed so far in the play is between Gloucester and his houseguests. Contrarily to the social norm, his guests Cornwall and Regan, thinking he was helping the king and conspiring against England, tied him up, tortured him and poked out his eyes. This showed a part of the revolutions from respect/order to madness and chaos. Gloucester showed his surprise in Act 3, scene 7, when Regan and Cornwall start yelling at him, "What means your Graces? Good my friends, consider you are my guests; do me no foul play, friends." Revolutions are a key part of King Lear, as many things in the play, including the politics, the relationship and even the sanity of characters switch around drastically.

TED Presentations

The first thing I thought of when you mentioned the TED presentations was, "Thank God that's over." The project caused an extreme amount of unneeded stress, not because of it's content, but because of it's organization and collaboration problems. I thought that the speakers were on the whole, pretty interesting and most of the presentations (at least the ones I saw) went well. Many groups went over the time limit or did not use the 5 minutes allotted for questions. My group's presentation went considerably well, although we did not end up using a PowerPoint, like many other groups did.

During the period before the actual presentations, all of the sophomores seemed extremely frustrated with a lack of progress and input from other Academites. I know personally that in my group, there was a lot of confusion over the guidelines, the tasks and even the members themselves. I think one way to deal with this issues would be to have a few more all-level meetings, but unlike the one we had, make them shorter. To be honest, I don't think we actually got anything done at that meeting except somewhat explain what a task was. If we had a few shorter, more frequent meetings, I think we would eliminate a lot of the confusion, keep everyone on the same page and more efficiently remind people to work on the project continuously, rather than for hours the day before the presentations.

One common theme I noticed (which was also mentioned in the post-discussion) is that many of the speakers focused on helping others help themselves. I honestly don't remember how much this was covered last year, but it seemed extremely prominent this year. For example, in my group, our speaker was helping find more efficient ways for people to make charcoal, which could lead to profit and small-scale enterprises to boost local economies. Another presentation I saw was about a "Hole in the Wall" experiment, where children taught themselves how to use a touchscreen computer, and they could use it to look up new information and things important to their lives, such as weather and temperature.

I'm not sure what the actual outcome of the TED Project is; is it to just educate us about things people are doing to help the world? I assume it doesn't have anything to do with learning to collaborate, since that is something that seems to be needed in order to have the project function at all. Also, we really don't do anything with the results of our findings about each video. There would be no way to discuss each one with all four Academy levels in the time allotted, and I can't see any real way other than donating money to help with any of the issues or projects in the videos. According to the website, "The purpose of this collaborative project is to present to each other the stories of imaginative and intelligent people who are currently making a positive and profound difference all over the globe," but it almost seems as that could be accomplished by just watching the videos.