Frederick Karl interprets the role of Michael Henchard as being similar to Oedipus in the Sophocles triliogy, or Shakespeare's King Lear. He is a man beset by pride, desiring influence and control over all aspects of his life, but especially over those close to him, his family.
Search the web for information on Oedipus and Lear. Glean what you can from these page and post support or disagreement to Karl's argument here.
9 comments:
Karl's argument is somewhat true. Henchard and Oedipus both gain leadership of places by weird or ironic ways. They both also find out their fate in life weirdly. What I mean is that Henchard finds out his actual daughter died after Susan died by reading the note she wrote to EJ. Oedipus also finds out his fate of marrying his mother and killing his father in a very messed up way. The only way that Henchard is like King Lear is that they both bend over backwards to help the women in their life that they love. Besides that though, I agree with Frederick Karl.
I agree with what Andrew has said about Henchard. All men share similar leadership roles. Both Henchard and Oedipus solve problems that their cities faced. And both Henchard and King Lear are very controlling over their daughters.
I have to disagree with Karl. Henchard is a man who wants power and control and his fear of losing it is what drives him mad. Oedipus had his power and went mad not over losing it, but by the murder of his father and incest with his mother. Pride certainly has common ground between the two, but their Henchard certainly wants influence and control more so than Oedipus.
I agree with shane in the matter than henchard is power starved and when he doesn't get it he becomes crazed. In the book when people begin to say that farfrae is going to become the mayor hencahrd freaks out because the power is shifting from himself to another. So henchard gets crazy and comes up with crazy ideas to sabtosh farfrae. Like when the royal comes henchard tries to insult the royal in thus doing so embaressing the mayor(farfrae). And when henchard wants to fight farfrae so he can kill him is a crazy act driven by haveing no power. By killing farfrae henchard will thus be the better of the two men and take over everything he used to have. By killing farfrae he will get his power back over the poeple because they will be no one there to compete with him anymore. So in conclusion i don't agree with karl's argument because henchard needs power all the time!
I guess you could say that Karl is right about comparing Henchrad to Oedipus and King Lear because Henchrad has charcteristics of both men. Henchrad is like Oedipus because they both go "crazy" but for different reasons. Oedipus goes crazy because his father was murdered and he is incessed with his mother. Henchrad goes mad beause he is power hungry. King Lear is always trying to control his daughters and make the choices for them that he thinks is best instead of allowing them to do things on there own. That is where Henchrad and King Lear are alike. Henchrad is constantly trying to control Elizabeth Jane's chocies like her being courted by Farfrae. Henchrad tried to stop that from happening. Becuase he feels that if he makes choices for her, then her life will work out better.
So Karl's argument is true in some aspects.
I believe that Karl has a good argument. A lot of Henchard's actions are similar to the ways of King Lear. For example, Henchard lives his life by way of control; he controls his women, he controls his alcohol intake and he controls the city. Henchard's need for power throughout the book shadows how King Lear needs power over the people closest to him. King Lear controls his women by keeping the ones that are noble to him and leaving the ones that are a threat. Henchard shows this trait when he sells Susan. He sells Susan to see how loyal she is. When she agrees to leave, she shows the readers that she is so loyal that she will obey Henchard's wishes but Henchard confuses her loyalty with disobedience and lack of love.
I see where Frederick Karl is coming from by compairing Henchard to Oedipus and King Lear, but i dont necessarily agree with him. Oedipus shows his arrogance as a man, by believeing that he is equal to the gods. "You pray to the gods? Let me grant your prayers." Oedipus has such pride that he trys to change his destiny. This however could relate to Henchard. Henchard trys to change his destiny, because of his pride as well by stopping drinking. Although i believe that Hardy was a believer in a chosen fate, therefore even though Henchard gave the drink up for 21 years, he still relapses to drinking towards the end of the novel. If Karl was just comparing Oedipus and Henchard i would agree with him, however he contines to compare Michael Henchard to Shakespeare's King Lear. King Lear decides to abdicate the throne and divide his kingdom among his three daughters: Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia. It is announced that each daughter shall be accorded lands according to how much she demonstrates her love for him in speech. Long story short, his favorite daughter Cordelia suprizingly refuses to outdo the flattery of her elder sisters, and is refused any land at all, for she is disowned. I would not compare Henchard to Lear because Henchard tried to perfect his flaws. It wasn't until after he found out that Elizabeth wasn't his real daughter that he started to treat anyone baddly. I believe that he knows better and is more responsible than King Lear.
i disagree with Krederick Karl on this matter. i believe that while both henchard, king lear and odedipus had power hungry personalities, it was in different ways. i feel that if henchard had not lost everything at the begining of the novel that he would not have been so controling. after he lost his wife and child he vowed to not drink again for 21 years, i believe for fear of messing up worse next time. he then carried this fear around with him for the rest of the book. he constantly wanted to prove himself to others when really i it was just to satisfy himself. he hired farfrae becuase at first he knew he would help his business tremendously yet as soon as farfrae was becoming the focal point of the people around him he gave him up. King Lear on the other hand seems to be deprived of love and therefore is struggling to hold onto what he feels is real. he is controling with his daughters becuase he doesnt want to lose them and doesnt want them to love anyone like they love him. Henchard is not like this because he sells his wife and child. not so sure he does this out of love but hey feel free to agrue that with me. oedipus and henchard are more similar to each other because like hannah said they both try to change thier FATE. oedipus tries to deny the prophecy about him murdering his father and then marring his mother. Henchard tries to deny the fact that he is a controling alcoholic. although i agree they both try to change somthing they can not, i think they are still very different. oedipus acts the way he does becuase he had a prophecy he knew his future, and henchard didnt have that. it is too different of a situation to compare the two and therefore i disagree with Frederick Karl.
I would agree with Frederick Karl that Michael closely resembles Oedipus and King Lear. All three are tragic heroes, who damn themselves through their own hubris. Their pride is the cause of their misfortune, for they allow it to cloud their common sense. Oedipus believed that he could “outsmart” the prophecy, but because of his arrogant nature he ends up playing right into it (killing his father in a dispute, which leads him to marry his mother). King Lear is blinded by the insincere adoration of his daughters. Even as they turn against him, his pride prevents him from seeing the truth and doing anything to stop it, which leads to his ultimate demise. Similarly, Michael is a man far too concerned with protecting his pride. He alienates his daughter out of spite and turns Farfrae into an enemy out of jealousy. These two actions alone were enough to result in tragedy for Henchard.
Post a Comment