King Lear could be thought of as Shakespeare’s greatest tragedy. The characters become your own as you read, and you begin to think as they do and to want the things they want. One of the first things I picked up on as I read King Lear was the fact that the mother, King Lear’s wife, was absent in the family. Readers are never told specifically what happens to the mother, but her absence screams loud enough to give her a character of her own. At the premise of Shakespeare’s play, readers are introduced to a self-indulged man who finds meaning in life from manipulating his daughters into professing their love for him. Whether or not these professions of love are true or not (which I suspect they are not from the actions we see them take later on), the way in which they are shared defeats any validity they may have held.
Coppelia Kahn states in her argument about Lear’s inner woman, “But what the play depicts, of course, is the failure of that presence: the failure of a father’s power to command love in a patriarchal world and the emotional penalty he pays for wielding power.” Kahn brings out a strong point about the character of King Lear in the depiction of the play in this statement. She sees past the loving façade that Lear portrays at the beginning of the novel, and views it as a defense mechanism that Lear is putting up as a means to shy away from his “inner woman.” Kahn goes as far as to call Lear’s power a failure. She also depicts in her argument, the “emotional penalty” he pays for exercising said power. Readers see the price Lear pays in his ultimate death due to the grieving of his daughter, Cordelia, whom he childishly shuns early on in the play. Had Lear confronted his emotions concerning Cordelia from the beginning, perhaps the tragedies of the play would not have unfolded the way they did.
Kahn writes on the reunion between Lear and Cordelia, and concludes that this reunion is the first time in which Lear accepts his need for human dependence. Due to the patriarchal society of the seventeenth century, Lear perhaps steered clear of any emotional feelings at all for fear of judgment and rejection from his people. Yet, at this meeting, we see Lear let down his defense walls and finally accept the fact that emotions and weakness are not synonyms. Readers see him cry and grieve for his daughter, Cordelia, and for the loss of his life because of his own defense mechanisms he spent his life putting up. Perhaps for the first time, Lear is mourning the loss of his wife, and all of the other repressed tragedies of his life. While the grief of Cordelia’s death kicked off this emotional downpour, maybe his death is the repercussion of the release of the dam of emotions in himself.
Kahn presents a fascinating psychological approach to studying King Lear, and I believe she has discovered exactly what the character of King Lear was struggling with in the play. Her insight offered me another way to study and respond to the material, and gave me an edge to the reading that made Lear come alive in an exciting way.
aubrimiddleton 
I definitely agree that the reunion with Cordelia opened up Lear’s emotional side. It was like a Segway to him seeing the light so to speak and realizing what was really going on with his daughters. I also like how you mentioned that Lear was able to grieve for his wife after grieving over his daughter. I kind of felt sorry for him because he realized what was going on but it was too late to fix.
I think that you’re right about Lear struggling with his “inner woman”, and I too believe that Kahn opened my eyes to this concept. Lear is obviously stuck at the beginning of the play. He’s very stubborn and less open. He fights back his feelings and he replaces many of them with anger. For instance, when he sends Cordelia away, he is not upset in the least. He is angry with her for not showering him with untrue words, and his anger continues until he is forced to break down.
As he finally realizes his errors, he opens up and deals with the emotions he’s been suppressing. He’s showing that need for human dependence because he is finally able to understand that without it he cannot possibly be happy.
I commented in my blog post that I think Lear maturing and becoming more feminine are one in the same thing. I think that Lear, through growth, has discovered a new side to himself. I don’t think Lear would ever attest to becoming more woman-like, but I do think somehow he has ended up there.
I really like the detail in your blog post. The fact that you said “her absence screams loud enough to give her a character of her own” is such a great statement. I completely agree with that. I enjoyed reading Kahn’s essay as she talked about the woman in Lear. I feel like there are so many that can relate to Lear in different parts of this play; especially those who have grown up with an absent parent or lost a spouse. He is very childish about they way he handles the majority of his situations. The mere fact that he shunned Cordelia after she refused to confess her love for him like her other sisters is immature and he pays for that at the end of the play. I really enjoyed how Khan noted that King Lear’s power is otherwise known to be a failure. It really puts things into perspective. All Lear cared about was being powerful but he just did not want to have the responsibilities that a normal king would have to deal with. As I noted in my own blog, he wants to have his cake and eat it too. You made a very good argument on Khan’s essay, and about King Lear. I enjoyed reading your blog and I look forward to reading the rest of them!