Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man

Happiness is a strange concept in Portrait. Stephen's character seems so complex, and to him, happiness means more than marrying the girl of his dreams or having daughters that love him.

Stephen's soul appears to be in turmoil for the first half of the book. I think he has thoughts and emotions that he can't make sense of, and he has no companion that understands his personality. Also, Stephen seems to enjoy solitude. He doesn't relate to his family or his school mates; for this reason, he faces the prospect of becoming an adolescent alone. Throughout the novel, I wanted to dislike Stephen because he seems to brood over his conflicted and unhappy emotions; I wanted him to take responsibility for himself. Yet, I continued to remind myself that as an artist, Stephen thinks differently from most people. I think Stephen does achieve happiness eventually when he stops trying to fit society's norm and allows himself to be himself. My favorite part of the novel was when Stephen is on the beach, and he is elated with life after he refuses the offer to become a clergy member. To me, this signified Stephen's decision to remain true to his artistic soul and allow his artful life to unfold.

The Playboy of the Western World

I think this play is rather strange. It does offer different ideas about happiness that contrast the ones I explored after reading Lear.

I think Christy challenges the idea that only those who "Let be" (and live for others) achieve true happiness, and those who interfere with their "destiny" and live for themselves never taste happiness. At the beginning of the play, Christy is a meek young man who cannot even stand up to his aged father. Christy describes his father as a terrible, dangerous man, and he paints his home life as one worth escaping. It sounds as if Christy only cares for his father, and never for himself. However, instead of facing his father like a man, Christy takes a cowardly escape, killing his father and running from the scene. I believe a real man would not hit his father from behind and run away. Still, if Christy had stayed with his father, he would have lived a very unhappy life. He would have been forced to marry a less-than desirable woman solely because his father wanted her money. Thus, Christy's actions suggest that sometimes we must interfere with the direction our life is taking because we know that the future will not bring happiness. I agree with this idea, but I disagree with the way Christy obtains his freedom from his father.

Ultimately, I think Christy does achieve happiness because he finally takes control of his life. He does not end up with Pegeen, but he feels assured that he, "will go romancing through a romping lifetime" (pg 110) after escaping the hangman's noose. In taking a twisted journey to find happiness, Christy becomes a man and realizes that his happiness can expand beyond marrying Pegeen and living his life out in Mayo.

In the end, we cannot seize control of our lives and live only for ourselves; however, we cannot sit back and watch life wash over us, allowing its tide to carry us where it may. I think happiness is about finding a balance between ensuring our own happiness and the happiness of others. We should not live life only to please ourselves, but we should remember our own desires and dreams because life does not just hand us happiness.

The Very Tragic Tragedy of King Lear

First, I think Cordelia's death is unfair and I personally did not expect it. Even though I knew King Lear was a tragedy, I secretly hoped that Cordelia and Lear would make it out alive in the end. She was so innocent and hardly deserved to die. Also, where was France in all of the madness that took place? He was kind enough to marry her without a dowry; why couldn't he save her life?

Anyways, happiness is an interesting concept when thinking about Lear. Many of the characters (Lear, Goneril, Edmund, Regan, Cornwall) take actions that they believe will make them happier or help contribute to an overall goal. For example, Goneril plans to poison her husband and marry Edmund for (I believe) several reasons, one being her belief that marrying Edmund will make her happy. Similarly, Edmund takes several steps to gain power, using several people as pawns (Cornwall, Goneril, Regan) along the way. Lear divides up his kingdom between his two terrible daughters after exiling Cordelia, the only daughter who truly cares for him. He also expects his Goneril and Regan to care for him, not realizing that their pledge of love is completely false. Still, Lear tries to quantify love, perhaps to flatter himself or reinforce his decision to pass his kingdom to his daughters.

Ironically, each character who acts solely on his own behalf dies at the end of the play. In fact, I would argue that the characters’' steps towards their personal happiness led to their death's. Of course, this argument has holes, because the story would have flat lined if life had remained static and Edmund, for example, had not tried to seize power. Nevertheless, if Edmund had not chased Edgar away and pursued a path of deceit, maybe Edgar would never have killed Edmund (nor had a need to). If both Goneril and Regan decided not to compete for Edmund, perhaps Goneril would not have poisoned Regan and then killed herself. Or if Cornwall had never joined forces with Edmund, naming him Duke of Gloucester, maybe he would not have died while torturing Gloucester. Who is to say?

I also noticed that the two characters (aside from perhaps Gloucester) who serve those who wronged them keep their lives at the end of the play. Kent is exiled by Lear, but due to his love for the kind, he returns in disguise. Kent accompanies Lear when the king is thrown out by his daughters. Maybe helping Lear made Kent happy. Regardless, Kent risks discovery to serve his King, and I believe he has more on his mind than personal gain. Similarly, Edgar is chased out of the kingdom by his father, Gloucester, and condemned to death. Although Gloucester is tricked by Edmund into believing Edgar wishes to kill him, he quickly accepts Edmund's story and proof. Calling for Edgar's death, Gloucester heatedly reacts to Edmund’s accusations, forcing his son to flee. Though Edgar sticks around, disguising himself as Poor Tom, I suppose he plays it safe when interacting with Gloucester because Gloucester has lost his eyes. But, by this time, I believe Gloucester knows the truth about Edmund's lies and Edgar's innocence. The point is, despite his father's cruelty, Edgar cares enough for his father to act as his guide and prevent Gloucester from committing suicide. It appears that self-preservation is far from Edgar's mind, and his only concern becomes his father's safety.

When I think about happiness, I always wonder where it manifests itself. If we live purely for ourselves, do we find happiness? Can we trust ourselves to actually know what makes us happy, or is our perception of happiness misguided? I think Lear communicates many important messages, including the nature of happiness. Maybe death is a harsh consequence for people who live only to please themselves, but perhaps Shakespeare is trying to convey that this path does not truly lead to happiness. It is possible that in living for others we discover happiness because our lives extend beyond ourselves. Could the effort we put forth to make others smile be more valuable than making ourselves happy?

Why does happiness seem to be so elusive for so many people?

I think in Oedipus the truth upsets the King's happiness. He probably could have lived happily in ignorance until his death but truth wouldn't allow it. The truth of his heritage, his marriage, and his throne could not be silenced. Ultimately, reality catches up with him and this brings dispair. Life is tough and complete happiness seems rare and Oedipus couldn't escape this.