Contemplating the implied presence of the absence of women in the play, Glengarry Glen Ross is interesting to say the least. No women are concretely present in the play but have an influential impact on the decisions of the men in the play. Harriet Nyborg was in the wrong, in my opinion, to have agreed to sign a contract to purchase land with no real intentions. However, I feel that Mrs. Lingk was somewhat in the wrong, forcing her husband to change his mind. Perhaps, Mr. Lingk should have stood up to his wife or maybe they could have at lesat negotiated on their decision. She made her decision too late and caused a lot of trouble for her husband, Roma and even Levene.
It's evidently true that a woman does not need to be present to have an influence. Mr. Lingk's manhood was impacted by Mrs. Lingk, probably making him feel that he was lacking manhood, indeed. The direction of the play could have taken a completely different turn if it weren't for Mrs. Lingk. Of all the women mentioned in the play, she had the biggest influence of them all.
The womens' absent presence in the play is dealt with in a way that implies that the women have a higher influence on the men than the influence that the men have on the women.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Expression is Powerful
Kahn's essay for her argument on King Lear is very agreeable. King Lear holds his emotions in and never lets his emotions show, until he is deeply hurt and betrayed by his daughters. He may believe at first, that men showing emotion makes them appear weak and feminine. He is king, making him believe that he has to be strong and not let his emotions get the best of him.
Once he feels hurt, vulnerability and anger, he no longer holds any emotion back and finds that expressing emotion doesn't necessarily strip him of power. I especially agree with Kahn's first point in her argument. She says, "When Lear begins to feel the loss of Cordelia, to be wounded by her sisters, and to recognize his own vulnerability, he calls his state of mind hysteria, 'the mother,' which I interpret as his repressed identification with the mother." I feel that since the mother is absent, King Lear replaces the feminine traits with much masculinity. Kahn also points out that Lear feels that the needs and traits associated with women are supposed to be hidden. It's as if King Lear believes there is no place for feminine traits in his kingdom.
King Lear probably never wanted to give in to his feelings and express them with tears but the anger and hurt he felt toward his daughters overwhelmed him. Instead of being masculine and hiding his emotions, he finally puts that aside unconsciously, as he cries and finds that he can still defend himself by expressing his emotion. King Lear learns that everyone is human and expressing himself gives him more power than he had before.
Once he feels hurt, vulnerability and anger, he no longer holds any emotion back and finds that expressing emotion doesn't necessarily strip him of power. I especially agree with Kahn's first point in her argument. She says, "When Lear begins to feel the loss of Cordelia, to be wounded by her sisters, and to recognize his own vulnerability, he calls his state of mind hysteria, 'the mother,' which I interpret as his repressed identification with the mother." I feel that since the mother is absent, King Lear replaces the feminine traits with much masculinity. Kahn also points out that Lear feels that the needs and traits associated with women are supposed to be hidden. It's as if King Lear believes there is no place for feminine traits in his kingdom.
King Lear probably never wanted to give in to his feelings and express them with tears but the anger and hurt he felt toward his daughters overwhelmed him. Instead of being masculine and hiding his emotions, he finally puts that aside unconsciously, as he cries and finds that he can still defend himself by expressing his emotion. King Lear learns that everyone is human and expressing himself gives him more power than he had before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
