Fortune, Fate, and Fools

There is much discussion in King Lear over the wheel of capricious Fortune, whom brings the high low and the low high on a whim. This certainly happens in the context in the play. Edmund rises from the fall of Edgar and Gloucester (3.3 22), Regan and Goneril benefit from the loss of their father’s authority, Oswald usurps Kent whom beat him mercilessly in the first act, and perhaps most fittingly the Fool becomes the wise man and the King becomes the fool. According to Kent (2.2 149) and Lear (3.2 58) their changes in fortune are the result of outside circumstances such as fate conspiring against them, as though Fortune is just spinning a wheel to victimize them. The fool knows better: “Fortune, that arrant whore/ Ne’er turns the key to the poor” (2.4 50-51) The rises and falls depicted in the play are the results of conscious efforts by actors such as Edmund and the mistakes of fools such as Lear (as the fool repeatedly points out). It seems that the play suggests that fortune and fate are but excuses for those “down on their luck” to absolve themselves of responsibility for being at the bottom of the wheel. Edmund, born a bastard, can be said to have a ‘legitimate’ excuse for his misfortune yet he seizes the day and usurps both his brother and father through his cunning alone. He is unwilling to just accept the cards that fate has dealt him and turns his draw into a winning hand. Regan and Goneril seize the “wheel” from Lear and orchestrate the falls of their father and his followers Kent and Gloucester. Even with Regan, Goneril, and Edmund firmly in control of fate, Edgar is able to rise up and seize it from them as well. Lear and Kent, complaining about Fortune’s fickle hand, sit on their asses pretending to put the “pelican daughters” (3.4 72) on trial. What the wisdom of the play (and of the fool) seems to suggest is that it is action (or the lack thereof) that makes real changes in fortune rather than passive obedience to fate. Edmund knows this; the fool knows this; Edgar comes to realize this later. Lear thinks himself “The natural fool of Fortune” (4.6 185) while raving mad. The question is whether Fortune is a supernatural force or the representation of the ‘players’ on the political stage who shape the lives of their subjects. Indeed one could say that every character in Shakespeare is subject to fate simply because they are scripted and must follow the lines they are given. Gloucester’s eyes will be clawed out because he is Gloucester, Lear will surrender his throne to his treacherous daughters because it sets the author’s plot in motion. The fortunes of these characters change only when the play is edited or adapted differently, so in a sense the whims of fortune are equivalent to the whims of the adaptor for a play. Are we merely players on a stage acting out the roles that fate has given us, or are we actors writing our own scripts?

A Veil of Victimization to Cover the Tyrant Beneath

As Act III progresses and Richard II begins to don a veil of supposed victimhood, it is difficult to see him as anything other than the Machiavellian villian that we remember from the earlier Acts. While, at the end of Act 3: Scene 4 Richard promises to give up his crown to Bolingbroke, this act is not one of kindness or penance, but one made out of desperation after having exhausted all other available avenues of escape from what seems to have presented itself as his unavoidable fate. It seems thus, that in realizing that he must inevitably give up the crown, Richard II attempts to characterize himself as the innocent victim who has been forced to give up his God-given power by the "discomfortable"(3.2. 32) Bolingbroke who he claims will inevitably be punished for his treason by God who "...darts his light through every guilty hole/then murders, treasons, and detested sins/the cloak of night being plucked off their backs/stand bare and naked trembling at themselves?" (3.2. 39-42). However, when read in reference to the fact implied by several of the characters in the earlier scenes, that Richard II is responsible for the Duke of Gloucester's death, it seems that during this moment of despondency, Richard II is entering a semi-disturbed state of dilusion and denial spawning from his fear of being tried as a common citizen once he loses his crown. Thus, his attempt to don the persona of one who has been persecuted begins in this speech and continues into Act 4 where his affected state of victimization becomes one of Christlike comparison, where he eventually likens Bolingbroke and Northumberland to that of Pilate who "have here delivered me to my sour cross/and water cannot wash away your sin" (4.1. 31-32). It is in this scene that Richard II's realization of the actuality of his fate both in this world and the next becomes most clear, at least subconsciously, to him who has realized that "...within the hollow crown/that round the temple of a king/keeps Death his court; and there the jester sits" (3.2, 156-158). Disillusioned, he realizes that he was never immune to God's judgment, that all of his sins, those of gluttony and of greed, will not be forgotten by a God who judges mortals all the same. In this same vein, the Queen reaches a similar frightening realization when she overhears the gardener recounting what he has heard, that Richard II will give up the crown much to the liking of all of the citizens. Her reaction to this news seems similar to the beginning of Richard II's speech in Act 3: Scene 2 where he attempts to portray Bolingbroke as the treasonous villian. Similarly, upon hearing this news, the Queen curses the gardener, who only an innocent citizen recounting what he has heard, she portrays as one resembling "...old Adam's likeness..." (3.4, 74). By characterizing the gardener as the fallen man, she attempts to avoid accepting her own mortality and sin. Thus, Act III seems overpowered by an air of avoidance that casts a spell over Richard II and the Queen, who realizing their impending fall from power, refuse to accept the implications of their fate.

Final III: MACBETH

VIDEO CLIP

Sorry I'm not technologically advanced and have been waiting for my video to process for the last half and hour. So there is a link above that you can click to watch the video.

This video is a director's commentary about the play Macbeth. The director really raises some key points that I wanted to elaborate and question. There is mention of the witches and the role that they play. In his production, the director decided to make the witches mortal women that just happen be into witch craft. When I initially read the play I had it in my mind that the witches were associates of the devil and immortal beings. By the director purposely making these human women I began to wonder how much a person's thoughts and positive/negative energy can affect someone else. Society talks about karma and not wishing bad upon someone. But can negative energies, like these witches, really affect people? Or are people their own driver of their destiny? That also made me question how exactly did Shakespeare intend for the witches to be portrayed (mortal/immortal). If these women weren't witches would audiences still think they had some contribution in Macbeth's actions/fate?

But is Macbeth's fate really fate? It is the witches who first hint to Macbeth about the title of Cawdor and king. We as an audience already know at this point in the reading that King Duncan has chosen Macbeth for the thane title, nonetheless the status of king is not announced. Can knowing or the belief that you know your fate cause you to ultimately destroy it? For all we know maybe Macbeth would've ended up becoming King due to whatever circumstances, yet after hearing this fate he is so eager to obtain the title that Macbeth cannot let life run it's course.

Another thing that is touched upon is Macbeth's conscious. The director discusses how Macbeth tortures himself mentally over the murder of Duncan. It is not the first time he has killed someone but the previous ones can be justified. This idea of murdering with a conscious is very intriguing. I wonder how a character and even people today can be so selfish yet so aware of what they are doing. It also brings me back to The Merchant of Venice and Shylock. I wonder if Shylock was able to retrieve his debt from Antonio if he too would have a conscious afterwards. Feelings are different when the act is being construed and when it is all over and done with.