The clip above is from the original Alice and Wonderland and exemplifies the behavior that is accepted as "mad" from the Mad Hatter and his tea party guests. Their "mad" behavior includes making up holidays such as "unbirthdays"and creating non-sensical rules for Alice to obey. Because of his name, the "Mad" Hatter, it is known that these movie characters are mad. Comparing King Lear's behavior to the behavior of the Mad Hatter shows us that Lear is truly not mad as others accuse him of being. In comparison, Lear's actions of wanting to keep his knights while staying at his daughters' homes (the land in which he gave them) seems fairly reasonable and not at all non-sensical. Therefore, in connecting King Lear's actions to the Mad Hatter and other Alice in Wonderland characters, Lear is seen as reasonable in his demands rather than senile.
What would you say about this: The Mad Hatter is totally immersed in his "unreality", if you will. His name, the "Mad Hatter", is symbolic of how his madness is a part of him and of his existence.Now, is Lear also immersed in his own reality? And would Lear be considered as mad, senile, or reasonable for this possible immersion? -Jessica K.
Jessica, I this "immersion" is most likely in himself and with the concept of himself being King. The reason I think it could be with himself is that in the second article we read, the author describes Lear as being "attention starved" and having a "late-life crisis". That is probably because as King, his kingdom revolves around him, and so he has becomes so used to this attention that he begs outright for attention, in the form of what he calls "love". He is immersed in this kingly reality. If I understand your question, Jessica, I think what you're really asking is is a person mad for immersing in certain reality? To me it seems that the ones who are considered mad are the ones who are "immersed" in realities that are radically different from the realities general population. -Brianna Ma.
That is a very interesting point! And I have another question (for anyone): Are people who are mad (in this sense of immersion) actually just socially unacceptable, or is there possibly something more that makes them fit this category? -Jessica K.
To answer your question, Jessica, I would like to agree with Brianna in saying that those who immerse themselves in their own realities and isolate themselves from those around them can be considered mad. However, I think that the degree of an individual’s madness depends on the society that they are living in. For example, in both "King Lear" and in "Alice in Wonderland" Lear and the Mad Hatter are both living in their own realities and acting in ways most in our society would consider "mad". The difference between these two is that Lear is considered mad by everyone around him because he is acting out of place and differently than the social norms of his society. The Mad Hatter, on the other hand, is acting the same as Lear is, but these actions are not considered weird in Wonderland, because in Wonderland everyone acts differently and against what most would consider normal. The Mad Hatter's actions only seem mad to Alice, a girl who is an outsider from Wonderland and doesn't know the ways of those in Wonderland. In conclusion, madness is defined based on the society, and comparing Lear and the Mad Hatter, whose societal expectations vary dramatically, would be inapplicable.
I agree with both Ally and Brianna in that a person is considered "mad" when their behavior doesn't fit in with the rest of society and its norms. I think that it is hard to compare the characters of Alice in Wonderland, who aren't supposed to be real, with the characters in Lear who, although they are fictional, participate in every day human circumstances. The whole idea of Wonderland is a world of wonder and fantastical creatures. The fact that Alice walks in on the Mad Hatter singing with a talking rabbit celebrating an "Unbirthday" suggests the bizarre and unreal world that Alice has found herself in. Although some may argue King Lear to be mad, I think to compare Lear to the Mad Hatter is a bit of a stretch considering how weird or mad the rest of Wonderland is. -Ginny F.
I agree with all that has been said. In Lear's case he has immersed himself in protecting his pride and trying to keep his reign on being king even though he has divided up his kingdom, leading to him becoming mad. This is most prominent when Lear gets into a fight with his daughters about having knights at their houses. When questioned why he needs the knights, Lear responds "O reason not the need" (2.4 305). By Lear explaining that he really does not need knights the question then becomes why he needs them? Lear needs his knights not only because of the service they provide but because of what their presence represents; mostly his identity as a king and as a distinguished member of society. He will not give up his knights because he wants to keep his pride, resulting in conflict which results into his descent into madness. -SCOTT
There is plenty of evidence going both ways I believe to argue if King Lear is truly mad or if it is just because of the "reality" he is in. I would however like to examine what Brianna said about madness coming from people who immerse themselves in realities other than the norm. Based on this statement (although I fully agree with it in real life), consider the number of characters that the reader could perceive as mad by the end of this play. Would that leave the minority ("good" characters like Cordelia or Kent)to be the "mad" ones in the eyes of the other characters such as Goneral or Reagan?
I agree with Ally and Ginny in that compairing Lear and the Mad Hatter is a very big stretch. However, I believe that in Lear's reality, he was completely sane, and the Mad Hatter was completely sane in his reality. Alice saw everyone in Wonderland as mad, when to them she was the one that was mad. Maddness depends on our own realities, and what we preceive as mad. Any outsider will see the reality of Wonderland as complete maddness, but to the people that belong in that society everything is, in a sense, normal. The same goes for Lear. For us readers, as 'outsiders' we see everything that Lear does as maddness, but to him, he is sane, and everything makes sense. I believe that maddness cannot be judged by outsiders, it only depends on the realities of the people accused to be mad.
What would you say about this:
ReplyDeleteThe Mad Hatter is totally immersed in his "unreality", if you will. His name, the "Mad Hatter", is symbolic of how his madness is a part of him and of his existence.Now, is Lear also immersed in his own reality? And would Lear be considered as mad, senile, or reasonable for this possible immersion?
-Jessica K.
Jessica, I this "immersion" is most likely in himself and with the concept of himself being King. The reason I think it could be with himself is that in the second article we read, the author describes Lear as being "attention starved" and having a "late-life crisis". That is probably because as King, his kingdom revolves around him, and so he has becomes so used to this attention that he begs outright for attention, in the form of what he calls "love". He is immersed in this kingly reality. If I understand your question, Jessica, I think what you're really asking is is a person mad for immersing in certain reality? To me it seems that the ones who are considered mad are the ones who are "immersed" in realities that are radically different from the realities general population.
ReplyDelete-Brianna Ma.
That is a very interesting point!
ReplyDeleteAnd I have another question (for anyone): Are people who are mad (in this sense of immersion) actually just socially unacceptable, or is there possibly something more that makes them fit this category?
-Jessica K.
To answer your question, Jessica, I would like to agree with Brianna in saying that those who immerse themselves in their own realities and isolate themselves from those around them can be considered mad. However, I think that the degree of an individual’s madness depends on the society that they are living in. For example, in both "King Lear" and in "Alice in Wonderland" Lear and the Mad Hatter are both living in their own realities and acting in ways most in our society would consider "mad". The difference between these two is that Lear is considered mad by everyone around him because he is acting out of place and differently than the social norms of his society. The Mad Hatter, on the other hand, is acting the same as Lear is, but these actions are not considered weird in Wonderland, because in Wonderland everyone acts differently and against what most would consider normal. The Mad Hatter's actions only seem mad to Alice, a girl who is an outsider from Wonderland and doesn't know the ways of those in Wonderland. In conclusion, madness is defined based on the society, and comparing Lear and the Mad Hatter, whose societal expectations vary dramatically, would be inapplicable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Ally and Brianna in that a person is considered "mad" when their behavior doesn't fit in with the rest of society and its norms. I think that it is hard to compare the characters of Alice in Wonderland, who aren't supposed to be real, with the characters in Lear who, although they are fictional, participate in every day human circumstances. The whole idea of Wonderland is a world of wonder and fantastical creatures. The fact that Alice walks in on the Mad Hatter singing with a talking rabbit celebrating an "Unbirthday" suggests the bizarre and unreal world that Alice has found herself in. Although some may argue King Lear to be mad, I think to compare Lear to the Mad Hatter is a bit of a stretch considering how weird or mad the rest of Wonderland is.
ReplyDelete-Ginny F.
I agree with all that has been said. In Lear's case he has immersed himself in protecting his pride and trying to keep his reign on being king even though he has divided up his kingdom, leading to him becoming mad. This is most prominent when Lear gets into a fight with his daughters about having knights at their houses. When questioned why he needs the knights, Lear responds "O reason not the need" (2.4 305). By Lear explaining that he really does not need knights the question then becomes why he needs them? Lear needs his knights not only because of the service they provide but because of what their presence represents; mostly his identity as a king and as a distinguished member of society. He will not give up his knights because he wants to keep his pride, resulting in conflict which results into his descent into madness.
ReplyDelete-SCOTT
There is plenty of evidence going both ways I believe to argue if King Lear is truly mad or if it is just because of the "reality" he is in. I would however like to examine what Brianna said about madness coming from people who immerse themselves in realities other than the norm. Based on this statement (although I fully agree with it in real life), consider the number of characters that the reader could perceive as mad by the end of this play. Would that leave the minority ("good" characters like Cordelia or Kent)to be the "mad" ones in the eyes of the other characters such as Goneral or Reagan?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ally and Ginny in that compairing Lear and the Mad Hatter is a very big stretch. However, I believe that in Lear's reality, he was completely sane, and the Mad Hatter was completely sane in his reality. Alice saw everyone in Wonderland as mad, when to them she was the one that was mad. Maddness depends on our own realities, and what we preceive as mad. Any outsider will see the reality of Wonderland as complete maddness, but to the people that belong in that society everything is, in a sense, normal. The same goes for Lear. For us readers, as 'outsiders' we see everything that Lear does as maddness, but to him, he is sane, and everything makes sense. I believe that maddness cannot be judged by outsiders, it only depends on the realities of the people accused to be mad.
ReplyDelete