questions for April 24th

Posted on April 20, 2007

First off, a quick clarification on what we'll be covering next week.

Things from that revised syllabus that we WON'T be doing:

1. I had listed a film screening of Peter Brook's King Lear for Monday evening; but, as I said in class, since we've done so many films I thought it would be nice to give you the opportunity to hear Jon Kilik speak at that same time. Mr. Kilik is a well-known Hollywood producer (most recently of Babel, a film nominated for best picture this year), and he's also a UVM graduate. He will be speaking in the CC Theater from 5:30-7 pm on Monday. And there will be a screening of Babel before that: starting at 3 pm I believe (also in CC Theater).

* For an extra-credit assignment you can write a 2 pg. reflection of what Kilik says (see if you can relate what he says to anything we're doing ... so it might be really helpful to go to the screening of Babel if you haven't seen it already).

2. the syllabus says that we're going to read Stanley Cavell's essay on King Lear ("The Avoidance of Love") in two parts, one section for Tuesday and one for Thursday. We will read the first part of that essay (see below), but NOT UNTIL THURSDAY (see below). So you don't have to read anything from Cavell for Tuesday.

So, what are we doing?

for Tuesday, 4/24:

We'll concentrate on Stephen Booth's notion of "indefinition" (from the chapter in his book). Certain points from his discussion of King Lear came up on Thursday, but we didn't actually try to define his specific theory of indefinition as it relates to King Lear; if you remember, we previously considered his theory in relation to Macbeth. I would like you to re-read sections 3-5 of his chapter (pp. 31-65, and think about what "indefinition" means here. The discussion questions for Tuesday are based on this notion.

Wednesday, 4/25: film screening of Peter Brook's King Lear at 6:30 in the Media-Resources Projection Room (this is a very dark and brooding film (it will be on reserve by Sunday), and goes well with the reading for Thursday

for Thursday, 4/26:

Electronic reserve: "Avoidance of Love: a Reading of King Lear" (Stanley Cavell ... one of America's great philosophers); this is a long essay, and the whole thing is on e-reserve, but I only want you to read section I (pp. 44-81) ... so you can skip pages 39-43 and 81-123 (though feel free to read them if so inclined). This is a subtle reading, less concerned with the spectacular violence of the play than with the nuances of familial life and relationships (a nice essay to end the course).

Finally:

Although I know many of you wouldn't be able to attend, I would like to try to schedule a final film screening for Monday April 30th ... and also order pizza for the class. I still have to get a classroom for this; and we would decide together whether we should watch:

a) Ran (Akira Kurosawa's "samurai" version of Lear, nominated for best picture the year it was released ... not just nominated for best foreign film). It's a sweeping epic, though on the long side: 160 minutes

b) A Thousand Acres (film version of Jane Smiley's Pulitzer-prize winning novel: King Lear in Iowa)

c) Jean-Luc Godard's King Lear (surreal film from the French New Wave tradition; hard to describe ... it does "borrow" from King Lear but it's hard to call it an adaptation; Woody Allen is the Fool)

d) something very different:

(i) Woody Allen's Interiors (a tragedy with 3 sisters, but not based on Lear)
(ii) Adrian Lyne's Jacob's Ladder ... a kind of tragedy that inverts the ending of Lear ... in a sense; great film and something less of a downer to end the course

Ok, so questions for Tuesday:

Do ONE:

1. In his discussion of King Lear, Stephen Booth gives many, many examples of what he calls "indefinition" (or how King Lear exemplifies the more general concept). Take ONE of the following and summarize his explication of it as an instance of indefinition:

a) pp. 42-43: his discussion of the phrase, "And my poor fool is hanged"
b) pp. 45-46: his discussion of the passage that begins "Nothing could have subdued nature ..." (you really need to pay attention to his details); why do the lines that follow confuse us?

* note: if you want to be daring try connecting the word "unkind" (p. 45) to another passage Booth looks at on p. 53, which includes both "kindly" and "kind" (the slippage of meaning in these words is fascinating)

c) pp. 50-52: his discussion of the Fool's speech from III.ii (how does "nonsense" work in the play?)

d) pp. 59-60: his discussion of Kent, Oswald, and the retinue

e) pp. 61-[very top of ]64: his discussion of problems involved in assessing our own assessments of the three sisters

2. only for the stout of heart and bold of mind

In "Oedipus and the Surrogate Victim" (pp. 74-76), Rene Girard seems to suggest that violence originates somehow in a "loss of distinctions" (Oedipus, for example, is a "slayer of distinctions," and his interactions with both father and mother--killing the former, sleeping with the latter--are special instances of this as a general problem ... precisely the problem that prompts the reciprocal violence that destroys human communities, and which requires the ritualization of violence as sacred violence). Booth, obviously, isn't following out Girard's theory, but there are hints in his reading that he is intrigued by something of this problem in King Lear. So read from 54-56 in Booth (starting on p. 54 with the paragraph that begins: "A pair of characters") and reflect on how Booth might be pointing to something about the loss of distinctions that Girard is interested in.