Tag Archives: schyler kucera

Designer Babies

Leave a reply

Schyler Kucera

Have you ever thought about choosing your child’s physical features and abilities? What would you think if you could walk into the doctor’s office and design your perfect baby? What if you had the option to make sure your baby would have blond hair, blue eyes, were tall or thin, maybe strong? What if you could make sure your child inherited the smart chromosome or the athletic chromosome? Would you take it? It seems like you could create the perfect baby, but there are consequences and issues with this procedure, consequences and issues parents are not aware of.  The debate on whether parents should be allowed to genetically modify their babies to determine physical features and abilities is of immediate concern.

Genetic modification of human fetuses to alter physical traits and abilities is known as a designer baby. Oxford English Dictionary defines a designer baby as “a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilization to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics.”

In the mid-1990s, embryologist Jacques Cohen came upon a new way for helping infertile women have children. His method of doing so is known as cytoplasmic transfer. Cytoplasmic was intended to save the eggs of infertile women who had undergone repeated attempts at in-vitro fertilization. “In-vitro fertilization (IVF) is a complex series of procedures used to treat fertility or genetic problems and assist with the conception of a child. During IVF, mature eggs are collected (retrieved) from your ovaries and fertilized by sperm in a lab. Then the fertilized egg (embryo) or eggs are implanted in your uterus (Mayo).”  Cytoplasmic involved injecting the cytoplasm found inside the eggs of a fertile donor, into the patient’s eggs. The first baby conceived through the cytoplasmic transfer was born in 1997 (Brownlee).

Since the 1990s, because of these new techniques and scientific ideas for the future such as selecting traits for a superhuman have stoked public fears about babies. Back then, most of these ideas were purely theory, but now several methods for genetic selection are either already possible or will become a reality soon.

For instance, parents can choose to screen embryos created through in-vitro fertilization (IVF) for sex or diseases. Scientists have also recently released a method of extracting defective mitochondria from a woman’s egg and replacing them with healthy mitochondria from a donor egg. New tests are now available to detect fetal DNA in a woman’s blood stream.

Parents may not be able to screen their future babies for genes that display intelligence, hair color or athletic ability yet, however the company 23andme recently applied for a patent on such tests. Soon it will be possible to screen the entire genome of a fetus (Ghose).

The thought process of designing the “perfect” baby has a few additions during the in-vitro finalization process. When the egg is taken out and in the lab, the egg is altered to be what the parents want. The doctors can alter the DNA and change traits such as hair color, eye color, sports ability, strength, the immune system, IQ levels, and skin color. Fetuses altered in this way are designer babies. The rest of the embryos that aren’t perfect or don’t resemble what the parents are looking for are just discarded into the trash (Naik).

One should care about this issue because the research on this process and the debate on whether parents should be allowed to choose their child’s characteristics are happening right now. The debate on if doctors and scientists should be allowed to continue scientific research on this topic is also happening right now. If enough people fight against designing babies then we can prevent designer babies as the future for our children or grandchildren.

In order to prove parents shouldn’t be allowed to genetically modify their unborn babies, I will confirm three arguments: it takes away individuality, creates bigger social gaps, and has undiscovered consequences.  I will then refute three counterarguments; it can help the child be more successful, it will create an all powerful super race, and people already modify their children outside of the womb, so what’s the difference, its my child and I can do what I want.

My first argument is parents shouldn’t be allowed to modify a fetus because it takes away individuality. Not everyone would look the same: some parents may prefer blue eyes and some may prefer green eyes. Some may want a darker skinned baby and some a fair skinned baby. However, this does change the human race as a whole. Many more people will be pretty, healthy, and intelligent because those are desired traits. If parents could pick every characteristic and feature for their child then they would think that they created the generally accepted perfect individual. Once you create that “perfect” individual then everyone wants to have that “perfect” baby. Even though parents have different ideas about what the perfect baby is, all those ideas will be used and everyone will be alike. There would be no individuality. It would be like everyone was a clone. When a parent picks everything about their baby the child isn’t able to be himself or herself. The child is no longer able to become who they were supposed to be.

The parents are trying to choose and control their child’s life. Allowing the parents to choose the traits and abilities of their unborn child takes away from the child’s right to find out his or hers own talents and abilities and decided what they want to do. With the modifications the child will be expected to do what the parents what him to do in order to use his modifications for money well spent. The child will feel the pressure from his parent to pursue the abilities that are enhanced, such as athletic ability. The outcome of the child’s life will already be determined. For example, parents decide that they want a baby that will grow up and be very athletic, then they will modify that gene so that he can be a sports legend. They are trying to control what that child will do in life, the child’s outcome.

This can create bad relationships between children and parents. Thomas H. Murray, a bioethicist at the Hastings Center, a nonprofit research center in Garrison, N.Y. says, “One of my concerns is if we let parents think they are actually choosing and controlling, then we set up all that dynamic of potentially tyrannical expectations over what the child will do or be.” If parents believe they got the baby they wanted/created and the baby doesn’t match that expectation, problems will rise between the child and parent. Murray then gives this example: “You could clone Michael Jordan, but Michael Two might want to be an accountant” (Agar). However what’s done is done. The parent of that Michael Two has already pre-ordained what the child is going to be good at. They have altered his abilities to make him better at athletics, but what happens when he doesn’t want to be an athlete? The parents then didn’t get what they wanted and may be disappointed or upset with the whole process. They paid for an athlete but didn’t get one (Ghose). This will cause family strife.

My second argument against designer babies is if we allow doctors to produce children who are considered to be superior because of their particular modified genes then we risk introducing new sources of physical discrimination creating larger social gaps. For example, babies modified to have blue eyes could lead to biases against brown-eyed people, leading to the belief blue-eyed people are the richer people and brown-eyed people and the poor people, because the blue-eyed people could afford to genetically alter their eye color (Ghose). Physical traits wouldn’t be the only things affected with this, though. Attributes such as athletic ability and intelligence would all come down to how much money your parents have and whether they were able to afford the genetic modifications causing a social discrimination.

Designer babies also cause an increased social gap among the social classes. People today are still fighting everyday for the equality of races. The modification will only add to the fight for equality. The modifications are so expensive only rich people will be able to afford this modification, creating a huge separation and having one class practically run the world while the middle and lower class eventually just die out (Rende). The world doesn’t grow or prosper with “sameness.” Society needs diversity, different views and ideas to grow. Creating a clone world is not progress. It stops progress.

Discrimination between the sexes will get worse as well. Men are considered higher than woman in most cultures in the world today. For example a society like the Chinese who favor the male child over the female child. The male child is believed to be more skilled and have more opportunities than the female. The male child also carries on the family name. If parents had the right to choose whether they were going to have a boy or a girl, then the logical choice for parents would be to have a boy. This is because the boy has the most potential to succeed in that society. If parents choose to have boys, then the population of girls would decrease. To take it to the extreme, the world could go so far into a deficit of females that there would not be enough females to keep up the population. Like the Chinese, the world would go into a reproduction problem, not having enough girls. Parents should not be allowed to choose to have a genetically modified baby because it will lead to discrimination and increased social gap (Rende).

My third argument against designer babies is there are several unknown scientific consequences, and it can be considered human testing. Richard Rende, an Associate Professor in the department of Psychiatry and human Behavior at Brown University says, “If we start altering a gene here or there, even with the best of intentions, we could majorly mess up a lot of other important things in a baby’s DNA—giving babies unpredictable, potentially deadly, and possibly never-seen-before disadvantages.” If something goes wrong and heath conditions worsen then that perfect baby isn’t so perfect. Scientists would be dealing with real human lives, lives that didn’t even give consent. Fifty percent of the embryos created through in-vitro fertilization die and several of the embryos developed mutations. The mutated embryos are then discarded as well.  One cannot know for certain whether the procedure is going to be successful at all and changing the physical appearance and abilities of your child is not worth the consequences. No one knows what will really happen if a child is genetically modified. The baby has the possibility of dying. Not one child’s life is worth giving up to find out these consequences and mutations.

The long-term effects of the procedure on the baby are also unknown. There are concerns about whether the modified baby will grow up and have reproduction problems, or later develop a mutation. The concern is that a big problem will later appear in the modified babies lifetime.

Since not all the consequences are unknown then isn’t it considered human testing without human consent? Even though some may disagree a fetus is a human, no one can disagree a baby born who grows up is a human being. In that case, the babies did not have to chance to say no to these procedures now affecting his/her life. The child now has to live with the consequences of the modifications all because his/her parents decision they wanted a certain trait or characteristic. There are a bunch of unknowns consequences during and after the modification that are putting human lives at risk and the modifications are not worth pursuing.

An example of a modification that had an unpredictable consequence was scientists genetically modified a mouse to be more intelligent. This allowed the mouse to remember things and do things a regular mouse wasn’t be able to do. Such as remember not to take the cheese from something that will hurt him or not to get close a cat. However, under observation, the mouse had become uncontrollably angry and mean, trying to kill the mice around it. Because of the alteration of the gene of intelligence, the consequence was anger. How can we be sure enhancing the genes of our unborn child would not do the same? We wouldn’t know until the procedure was performed and the baby was under observation. Again it’s wrong to perform this testing with all the uncertainties on a baby, a human who will grow up living with these unknown consequences (Barnard).

Even with all these problems some people believe having their unborn baby altered for the desired physical traits and abilities should be allowed. The first counterargument is parents believe they should be allowed to alter their unborn babies’ traits and abilities because the child has a better chance at being successful. They believe with the ability to make their child smarter, the child will get better grades and get into a great college that will lead to a job, which pays a lot more, or in another situation creating the ultimate athlete, one who will dominate and bring in a lot of money. If they have the option to make their child’s life successful then those parents believe they have to right to choose it (Ghose).

The problem with this argument is these parents are stating the only way their child can be successful is through money. Success isn’t only just about money. Success has different definitions for different people. One could define success as money, one as having a big family, and one might say success is just being happy. With those different definitions, are they really making their child successful by giving them the abilities to make money?

There is also the point many very smart people today are just lazy: they aren’t using the gifts they have been given to get a good job and “ be successful” in the eyes of those parents above; a lot of those students are playing video games and letting their lives play out. Just by giving someone the ability to do or be something doesn’t mean the individual will take it. Parents shouldn’t be able to alter their babies just because they believe it opens up an easier path to success for their child because that’s not true. Success has many definitions, and this procedure will not make your child automatically successful.

The second counterargument raised is parents believe they have the right to modify their unborn child because it allows for the human race to create a higher level of society. Some people believe if they had the ability to choose, more parents would have more intelligent, logical children. They believe this would help stop conflict caused by people with inferior genes (Ghose). People believe with this new superior race, society will reach unimaginable limits.

The problem with this argument is allowing parents to choose the traits of their unborn baby would create that social gap between the classes. There would just be one mega race. There would be the people who could afford the treatment and the people who couldn’t. The ones that could afford the treatment would be treated differently from those who couldn’t afford the treatment. This would create a huge separation between upper and lower class. Those who could afford the modifications would look down on those who couldn’t afford the modifications.  If we create a society that is perfect then those who aren’t perfect will be separated. In the long run the weaker society would die out and we would have sameness running the world. Cultures would be left in the dark because they would eventually die out. Creating a superior race is bad because ideas, ways of doing things, diversity, and humanity would die out. 

The last counterargument why parents believe they have the right to alter their babies is because people already modify their child outside the womb, so what’s the difference and it their child they can do what they want. Parents design their babies through the education, religion, and morals they press upon their children while they live under their authority. Since parents are allowed to influence them in their life outside of them womb, there is no difference when doing it inside the womb (Waldman).

This argument is flawed because there is a difference between children outside the womb being influenced by their parents and an unborn baby being altered in some fashion without any ability to understand what is being done to them by the parents. Children grow up and move away from their parents and have a choice about religion, where to go to college, where to get a job, and how they are going to live. When parents modify their babies in the womb there is no going back. What’s done is done. That child is genetically altered to be athletic, be really tall, or with blond hair.

Secondly the alterations don’t give people morals or beliefs. Morals and beliefs come from outside the womb. Once born the child hears different beliefs and different ways to live and decides to follow what he or she believes. Physical alterations inside the womb through procedures to change physical traits are not the same as having a child growing up under a particular influence. An influence doesn’t make a child tall, athletic, smart, etc. Influences change how one thinks or acts. The responsibilities of a parent are instruction, moral instruction, taking care of the child, loving the child, and keeping that child safe. Parents need to let God be God and allow Him to put the children together, fashioning what they are going to look like and what their strengths and gifts will be. Parents shouldn’t try to mastermind their child’s genetic make up.

People believe they should be allowed to alter their child because it’s their child and they can do what they want. They believe they shouldn’t be told what they can and can’t do with their baby. If they wanted their daughter to have blue eyes and blond hair then no one has the right to stop them. If a couple wants to have a son they could alter to be stronger and more likely to have an athletic superstar, then they should have the right to choose that gene to modify. They are the parents and they want the right to choose what they believe is best for their child (Waldman).

The problem with this is they shouldn’t have the right to choose to modify their baby just because they want them to have different colored hair or eyes or be athletic. They shouldn’t have the option to select genes to preordain what their child will be good at. The child should have the same ability as their parents did in discovering their talents and weaknesses. Being able to decide what they want to pursue.

The debate is happening right now on whether parents should be allowed to modify the physical characteristics of their unborn baby. If we don’t take a stand on stopping the research and allowing parents to choose having this modification done, then our voice will be lost and the modifications will be legal. If we don’t take a stand against it then we will have designer babies walking around in a few years. The middle and lower classes won’t be able to afford the modifications and life will drastically change for the worst for our kids and grandkids. Being able to choose the physical characteristics of your baby is not worth the known and unknown consequences. Genetically modifying your baby is wrong. Now you know why parents must not be allowed to genetically modify their unborn babies for physical features and abilities. Hopefully you will take what you have learned and talk with others. By doing this we can win the debate on this topic and be a designer baby free country and world.

Works Cited

Agar, Nicholas. “Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations.” Actionbioscience. 1 Jan. 2006. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.

Barnard, Emily. “The Ethics of ‘Designer Babies.’” The Ethics of Designer Babies. 29 Apr. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.

Brownlee, Shannon. “Designer Babies.” Washington Monthly. 8 Mar. 2002. Web. 25 Mar. 2015.

Ghose, Tia. “Children to Order: The Ethics of ‘Designer Babies.’” LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 13 Mar. 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.

Murray, Thomas. “Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations.” The Hasting Center. Web. 25 Mar. 2015.

Naik, Gautam. “A Baby, Please. Blond, Freckles — Hold the Colic.” The Wall Street Journal. 12 Feb. 2009. Web. 14 Dec. 2014.

Rende, Richard. “Genetically Engineered Babies: Good Or Bad Idea?” Parents. 20 Feb. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.

Waldman, Paul. “In Praise of Designer Babies.” The American Prospect. 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 3 Feb. 2015.

Shakespeare Suite: Romeo, Juliet, and Lear

Leave a reply

Amber Richardson, Grace Livingstone Tyler, Schyler Kucera, and Elise Lang Mahan

Movement One: “Risks for Love in Romeo and Juliet,” Amber Richardson

Romeo and Juliet is the story of the forbidden love of Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet.  Their love is forbidden because of the hatred between the Montagues and Capulets.  One major theme of this play is risk.  Risk is seen throughout the entire play and builds up most of the storyline to a story of unconditional love.

The first instance where risk is seen in Romeo and Juliet is when Romeo attends the Capulet masquerade in order to see Rosaline.  This is a risk because Romeo is a Montague and the Capulets hate the Montagues.  He is risking his well-being and his emotional state, since Rosaline did not return the feelings Romeo had for her.  The most obvious risk in this play is Romeo’s and Juliet’s love for each other.  Their love is practically forbidden because their families hate each other and would not approve of their actions.  In this they risk their families finding out and harming one another.

An earlier risk Romeo takes comes before he goes to the masquerade.  Romeo has a feeling the following fateful events will lead him to his undeniable death.  He ignores this feeling, though, and continues with plans.  This shows a risk because he has a feeling he will lose his life but continues anyway.

Romeo seems to be the person taking the most risks in this play, especially with his relationship with Juliet.  When Romeo tells the friar he wants to marry Juliet, the friar warns him of the fickleness of young love.  He worries about the fact one day he loves Rosaline and the next Juliet and marriage is a big step for someone who met their lover the night before.  Romeo, though, ignores this and insists he marries Juliet anyway.  Trying to marry Juliet is probably the biggest risk he takes for their relationship.  He has his life and the peace between their families at risk.  Disturbing the peace between their families could end in death for members of their families, since the Prince has already warned against their quarrels.  Disturbing the peace is something Romeo was successful at.  Romeo kills Tybalt, a Capulet, and he is banished from Verona by the Prince. This is a considerably graceful punishment because the Prince’s original punishment for disturbing the peace is death.

Juliet also takes risks as well.  A risk she takes is professing her love about Romeo to her nurse and using her a messenger for them.  The nurse could choose to tell her parents about their love, and Romeo and Juliet would get into trouble for this.  The Nurse is also risking her job by hiding this love.  She could lose her job if the Capulet parents find out she didn’t tell them and be accused of helping a Montague.  The friar could also lose his position as a friar if the Montagues find out he married Romeo and Juliet without the permission of their parents.  The biggest risk Juliet takes is when she hides in the coffin and is surrounded by other dead people.

The play gave a great example of unconditional love.  No matter what obstacles were thrown in their way, Romeo and Juliet found a way around them (until the tragic climax, of course).  Their love for each other was shown through the risks they took to be with each other.  From meeting each other in the middle of the night to risking their own lives, risk can be seen as the major theme of this play.

Movement Two: “Romeo, Juliet, and the Effects of Immaturity,” Grace Livingstone Tyler

In William Shakespeare’s most famous play, Romeo and Juliet, are two families feuding, the Capulets, to whom Juliet belongs, and the Montagues, to whom Romeo belongs.  Romeo is madly in love, or so he thinks, with a young lady named Rosaline, who does not reciprocate his feelings.  Benvolio, Romeo’s cousin, encourages Romeo to find another woman to love.  Romeo and Benvolio attend a ball at the Capulets’, because Benvolio wants Romeo to find someone else.  Romeo only agrees to attend because he knows Rosaline will be there.  Romeo is immediately captivated by a young woman who is not Rosaline: Juliet.  It is what we would call “love at first sight.”  They share a kiss, and later that night, Romeo sneaks into the Capulets’ orchard, and the two profess their love for each other, not caring their families are enemies or feuding.

Juliet’s family want her to marry a man named Paris, but Juliet does not love him.  Romeo and Juliet go behind their families’ backs and get married, only for Juliet to find out the next day she is to marry Paris in three days.  Romeo gets banished from the land for killing Tybalt, Juliet’s cousin, in a fight.  A plan is constructed to reunite the lovers.  Romeo is to return, and Juliet is to drink a potion that makes her appear dead.  Juliet will then be delivered to her family’s crypt, where the friar will reunite Romeo and Juliet.  However, the plan never gets to Romeo, and he only hears Juliet is dead.  Distraught and depressed, he kills himself over her “corpse.”  When Juliet awakes and sees her lover dead, she, too, kills herself.

The first glimpse of immaturity and its effects on the characters in the play is at the ball.  Romeo is so madly in love with this Rosaline he will do anything just to see her.  He agrees to go the ball to get his mind off her, knowing she will be there.  However, when he lays eyes on Juliet, he falls in love with her.  It takes him about two seconds to fall out of love with one girl and in love with another.  This shows a lack of emotional maturity.  Romeo is around sixteen, and he doesn’t even know Juliet.  He doesn’t even know her name, yet he is madly in love with her.  Really, all he knows about her is her beauty, and that is what he is in love with, at least for the time.  However, beauty is not something that can sustain a relationship or a marriage.  It takes so much more than that, and that is all Romeo knows.

The next time we see the issue of immaturity return is when Romeo and Juliet decide to get married.  Romeo is around sixteen and Juliet is not yet fourteen.  A thirteen-year-old girl and a sixteen-year-old boy running off behind their parents’ backs to get married because they’re “in love,” when they’ve known each other less than 24  hours, oozes immaturity.  You cannot be in love with someone you do not completely know.  You can be in love with the idea of them, but not them themselves.  There is no possible way Romeo or Juliet truly knew the other when they had only met less than 24 hours before the marriage.

The third and final time we see Romeo and Juliet act immaturely is when they both commit suicide over the idea of being alone.  When Romeo thinks Juliet is dead, he is so saddened by the idea of a life without her he thinks he cannot bear it, and he commits suicide.  When Juliet wakes up and sees Romeo has killed himself, she, like him, does not think life is worth living because she cannot bear the world without him, and she, too, kills herself.  The two “lovers” kill themselves over “love” when they have known each other maybe a week.  If Romeo can fall out of love with Rosaline and in love with Juliet in less than a minute, what’s to say he couldn’t fall out of love with Juliet and in love with another girl after Juliet was supposedly “off the table” because he thought she was dead?  Romeo makes an immature snap judgment to kill himself because his immaturity fails to let him see all the other things life has to offer.  He doesn’t think life will have anything to offer except Juliet.  Juliet is also extremely immature because she reacts the exact same way Romeo does.  Juliet is only thirteen, and she kills herself over “love.”   Most thirteen-year-olds honestly don’t fully understand love and all its implications, as evidenced by Juliet.

These two teens essentially lose their lives due to their closed mindset and immaturity.  They have absolutely no control over their emotions, they do not obey their parents, and they commit suicide at the thought of living without one another.  Had Romeo not been so immature he could’ve lived the rest of his life with Juliet, although it is highly unlikely their marriage would’ve even lasted because the two hardly knew each other.  The effects of their own lack of maturity are seen in their deaths.

Movement Three: “Marriage in the 16th Century Compared to the 21st Century,” Schyler Kucera

Marriage has greatly changed between the 16th century and the 21st century.  New Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines marriage in the 16th century as “Legally recognized personal union entered into by a man and a woman usu., with the intention of living together and having sexual relations, and entailing property and inheritance rights.”  Merriam-Webster defines marriage in the 21st century as “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law; the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.”

Couples in the 16th century did not marry each other out of love, and they were married young.  It was believed to be foolish to marry for love.  In the 16th century, one you would not choose whom you would marry.  Your friends and family sought out a good spouse for you.  It was done this way because they believed your friends and family were better set to look for whom you would be a good fit.  Because of this, they believed one would have a happier marriage.

People got married because they were ready to have children and run their own home.  Wives were property of their husbands and obeyed them because they were the head of the house.  In some cases, a husband would abuse their wives. Even if they had an unhappy marriage, the two would stay together. Divorce was not an option.

Same-sex marriage was banned.  Guys did not have intimate relations with other men, and women did not have intimate relations with other women (legally).  It was not accepted; those who did were cast out and shunned by the society.

Today, in the 21st century, couples are not getting married as young.  People want to get their lives together before they start a family.  Women are now allowed to do more in society, and their roles are not limited to just being a wife.  Because of that, women want to be successful and prove they can succeed without a man.

There are no more arranged marriages in the West; people marry whom they want.  Couples also marry for love instead of family or economic reasons.  Another big difference between the 21st century and the 16th century is interracial marriages.  People can marry between races and not be looked down upon by the entire community.

People marry whom they want.  However, divorce is also very common.  When a couple isn’t happy together anymore, they just get a divorce.  The biggest difference between then and now is same-sex marriage.  Today, same-sex marriage is accepted and several states have passed bills allowing same-sex marriages.

In Romeo and Juliet, Romeo is a Montague and Juliet is a Capulet.  Their families do not get along and Montagues and Capulets are not allowed to associate with each other.  Since both families are high in society, marriage for their children are arranged by their parents.  Wealthy children often would be married into other rich families.  One night however, Romeo and Juliet meet and fall in love.  Going against their families, society, and the rules, the two marry for love.

This play displays a mix between both past marriage customs and today’s marriage customs.  Examples of past marriage customs are the expectation of an arranged marriage, being married young, and the expectation for children to obey their parents.  The similarity to today’s customs include marrying for love, marrying whom one wants, and doing everything possible to be with that person.  The penalty for not following the customs, keeping secrets, and disobeying is their deaths.

Marriage has changed drastically over the years.  People have become more involved in doing what they want, marrying whom they want, and if things work out they work out, but if things don’t work out then divorce is an easy opt out.  Women also have more rights and opportunities today, which really affects the marriage structure.  Marriage customs between the two centuries are significantly different but are both seen in Romeo and Juliet.

Bibliography

Coontz, Stephanie. “Past, Present, Future of Marriage.” The Examiner. 25 Nov. 2005. Web. 9 Dec. 2014.

Ros, Maggi. “More Wedding Customs.” Life in Elizabethan England 62. 22 Mar. 2008. Web. 9 Dec. 2014.

Stritof, Sheri. “The Future of Marriage and Its Past.” About. 18 Nov. 2010. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.

Movement Four: “A Tragic Example in Shakespeare,” Elise Lang Mahan

Containing Kings and noblemen, deceit and rage, and war and love, King Lear is noted for tragic suffering and deception.  Regarded by many as “the best written tragedy,” King Lear is considered one of Shakespeare’s “supreme achievements.”  Shakespeare drafted King Lear between 1603 with the play’s first performance in 1607.  After the Restoration of the English monarchy, beginning in 1660, Shakespeare’s tragedy of the nominal King of Britain was revised.  This happened in such a way the play ended with a more appealing, happy event other than the one of suffering and death provided by Shakespeare himself.

The horrid ending portrayed in King Lear is not the only reason as to why the play was placed in the same category as other Tragedies.  For four specific elements explored in English class, this widely known play is considered a tragedy.

The first characteristic states there is primarily one hero; it is seen in King Lear Lear himself is this hero.  Tragedies typically have the kind of “tragically-flawed hero.”  For Lear, there are three noticeable observations allowing him to be considered one of these tragic heroes.  The Hero must have flaws, be a victim of others’ greed, and be the cause of the audience’s sympathy.  Lear, although a royal protagonist, is prideful, blind, and has the inability to cope.  These flaws are noticed in three separate examples in the play.

After deciding to generously divide his kingdom evenly between his three daughters, King Lear demands to be shown, by his daughters, how much, if at all, they love him.  This pride of seeking affection and love from others eventually leads to his downfall after the youngest daughter is unable to express, in words, her love and appreciation for her father.  It is because of his blindness the King disowns his youngest daughter and forces her to leave.  He is unable to see the false affection and praise the eldest daughters shower him with.

Along with pride and blindness, King Lear is unable to cope with his royalty.  He wants to possess the title of King but does not wish to have the responsibilities that come with it.  Because of this inability to use his authority wisely, the eldest daughters usurp that authority.

King Lear is a victim of the greed of his own daughters through their manipulative effect on him.  They manipulate Lear and, as a result, he goes insane and wanders in the heath during a terrible storm.  Despite these flaws and manipulations, the audience has slight sympathy for him knowing he was initially a generous and fair ruler by dividing his land into three sections for his daughters.  Because King Lear is a victim of others’ greed, he is still considered a hero and from his dramatic downfall, a tragic one.

A second element of a tragedy is the depiction of a troubled part in the hero’s life.  King Lear, being the established tragic hero, has noticeably troubling areas of his life.  For starters, Lear has “lost” all three of his daughters.  He disowns the youngest out of rage and then flees from the two elder daughters, knowing they are betraying him.  Lear is eventually captured and brought to Dover, where two armies, the French army fighting to save Lear and the English army trying to prevent that rescue, battle each other.  The French army, led by the youngest daughter, is defeated by the English, resulting in the recapturing of King Lear and his daughter.  With all this suffering, it is no surprise when Lear, the hero of the play, dies from grief at the passing of his faithful youngest daughter.

Relating to the suffering experienced by King Lear, the third element of the tragedy is the exceptional suffering.  Not only does the troubled King experience this pain, but so does the despairing nobleman Gloucester.  The quarrel between his two children, illegitimate son Edmund and legitimate son Edgar, is unbearable for the elder as Edmund tricks his father to think Edgar is trying to kill him.  After Edgar flees, Gloucester finds King Lear, who is in distress from his daughters.  Gloucester offers him help and assistance, but it isn’t to last as the two eldest daughters find this as treason.  The unlucky suffering comes to Gloucester when he is blinded and turned out to the countryside to wander alone.  All this pain is put to rest when Gloucester dies toward the end of the play.  With all this suffering, the tragedy is exceptional as there seems no end to it , and it even is included in the major scenes of the play.

As a final element of Shakespearean tragedy, chance or accidents are able to influence actions of the characters.  This is noticed after Edgar flees from his father and disguises himself to avoid the search party trying to locate and kill him.  It isn’t until after Gloucester is blinded and thrown to wander by himself that Edgar finds him alone.  Being the faithful son he is to his father, Edgar serves as the caretaker of Gloucester, leading him to the city, Dover.  Edgar allows this chance, reuniting with his blind father while disguised, to help Gloucester from committing suicide and by taking him to Dover where Lear is also.

There is far too much anguish and deceit among the characters for the play to be considered as anything but a tragedy.  Although the other eleven elements we learned of tragedy were not mentioned, enough examples from the play are given to persuade the reader King Lear belongs in the category of Shakespeare Tragedy.