Get help with any kind of project - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
Nothing is Something in King Lear From The important Experience, David Cowles tries to explain the concept of deconstruction to befuddled literature pupils in a boiled-down version of fundamental tenets that share strikingly cloudy theories like destabilized traces and centers and referents. Though I try to wrap my brain around these thoughts, I inevitably don't get to the center of the things Cowles means. My own interpretive inadequacy feeds on irony, because deconstruction concept itself warns that we can't "get" to the transcendental center of significance. King Lear, at its puzzling glory, is similar to my response to Cowles' attempt to describe deconstructive abstraction. I understand part of this drama as the words rail at me in the webpage as vehemently as Lear rails at the skies. Yet there is an aura of ambiguity that renders the faintest hint of this text's key truth, one that is alternately shrouded and subsequently unveiled in the play's speech. Despite my interpretive performance anxiety, studying the play isn't futile. Meaning could be derived from Shakespeare's text, but it means looking beyond the obvious. If King Lear's characters say "nothing" over and above, neither they nor Shakespeare himself really mean nothing, to get in King Lear, every word drips with importance. Assessing how something comes from nothing lends intention to Lear's action of relinquishing power, and reconstructs, in the process, charitable redemption from bits of despair and loss. A key to understanding King Lear is comprehending the importance of reductivism: Writers need to be reduced to near-nothing in order for the catastrophe to show itself from the text; original, nothing, then something else altogether. Shakespeare creates Lear strip hims...