2025-02-25 2:14:56 ¶ ●

please please send me edmund related asks

I really wanna talk about edmund

2025-02-25 4:35:41 ¶ ●

##

What do you think Edmund was doing pre-play? It isn't really specified.

other than the 9 years abroad?

jk I have so many thoughts. SO many.

so the only canonical thing we know about his life pre-play is that “he hath been out nine years (and away he shall again).” Of course we gotta keep in mind that this is said by gloucester, and he’s not exactly the most reliable narrator when it comes to his sons.

so we’ve got some options

1- it’s exactly gloucester says– Edmund moved out and was abroad, and returned for whatever Lear’s got going on here. (the most boring option)

2- depending on Edmund’s age, it could just be. school. like you could totally dorm for nine years. you go dorm at the start of high school, take a gap year, and then continue with four years of college.

(I’m sure none of this is historically accurate to how education worked back then we can overlook that :))

3- gloucester could just. straight up not know what he’s talking about. I picture Edmund mainly keeping to himself in the gloucester household, and it would be hilarious if gloucester was just like “hmmm I haven’t seen him around in a while… I guess he’s been abroad or something 🤷‍♂️” (funniest option but unlikely)

4- a combination of the previous ones– Edmund was away, but not for nine years straight. I have so many headcanons. that he does assorted work for the gloucester household. so at some point he was like “I’m moving out, surely you’ll all be fine without the work I do here?”

and gloucester was like “of course.” but quickly realizes how much edmund does to hold his household together. so he calls him back every six months like “hey edmund just one little favor. just come back for two weeks. then you could go back to whatever you do.”

5- edmund was never gone, gloucester just doesn’t want to have to account for an illegitimate child on a constant basis, so when he actually does introduce edmund to someone, he tells them that edmund isn’t usually around– as a sort of precaution against them asking where he is in front of people who don’t know he exists.

basically. choose how sad and/or funny you want those mysterious 9 years to be

2025-02-25 15:16:35 ¶ ● ⬀ ⬈

totallyboatless:

> Puck’s closing monologue in A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a baller move, honestly. Shakespeare wrote a raunchy fantasy and ended it with a character going “if you’re offended by this horny-ass story, good news: IT IS FAKE. THIS IS A FAKE THING I WROTE FOR HORNY PURPOSES. THE HORNY FAERIES ARE NOT REAL AND THEY CANNOT HURT YOU”

WAIT WE LEARNED ABOUT THIS IN SHAKESPEARE CLASS

basically. the church super hated theater. they kept trying to close down theaters because they considered all of it ‘immoral’

both puck’s monologue at the end, and the bit where the guy’s like “I may look like a lion, but I’m just a guy dressed as a lion. I’m not a real lion. please don’t be scared. I’m actually just a human guy” are digs at the church, and shakespeare’s way of saying “y'all really can’t differentiate fiction from reality. If you don’t like what’s going on in a play, that’s a you problem.”

and the audience of the time 100% understood shakespeare’s intended message. and they found it hilarious

2025-02-25 18:32:17 ¶ ● ⬀ ⬈

totallyboatless:

> edettethegreat:

> > totallyboatless:

> > > Puck’s closing monologue in A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a baller move, honestly. Shakespeare wrote a raunchy fantasy and ended it with a character going “if you’re offended by this horny-ass story, good news: IT IS FAKE. THIS IS A FAKE THING I WROTE FOR HORNY PURPOSES. THE HORNY FAERIES ARE NOT REAL AND THEY CANNOT HURT YOU”

> > WAIT WE LEARNED ABOUT THIS IN SHAKESPEARE CLASS

> > basically. the church super hated theater. they kept trying to close down theaters because they considered all of it ‘immoral’

> > both puck’s monologue at the end, and the bit where the guy’s like “I may look like a lion, but I’m just a guy dressed as a lion. I’m not a real lion. please don’t be scared. I’m actually just a human guy” are digs at the church, and shakespeare’s way of saying “y'all really can’t differentiate fiction from reality. If you don’t like what’s going on in a play, that’s a you problem.”

> > and the audience of the time 100% understood shakespeare’s intended message. and they found it hilarious

> Yep, exactly! Also why so many plays are set abroad, particularly the ones that discuss suicide and more direct criticisms of power. It’s plausible deniability so he could be like “I’m not writing about England when I’m talking about tyrannical power, I’m writing about *Rome* and there definitely isn’t any commentary going on here”

OH

I never noticed that but yeah

shakespeare’s beef with the church and government will always be admirable <3

2025-02-25 22:47:02 ¶ ● ⬀ ⬈

totallyboatless:

> edettethegreat:

> > totallyboatless:

> > > edettethegreat:

> > > > totallyboatless:

> > > > > Puck’s closing monologue in A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a baller move, honestly. Shakespeare wrote a raunchy fantasy and ended it with a character going “if you’re offended by this horny-ass story, good news: IT IS FAKE. THIS IS A FAKE THING I WROTE FOR HORNY PURPOSES. THE HORNY FAERIES ARE NOT REAL AND THEY CANNOT HURT YOU”

> > > > WAIT WE LEARNED ABOUT THIS IN SHAKESPEARE CLASS

> > > > basically. the church super hated theater. they kept trying to close down theaters because they considered all of it ‘immoral’

> > > > both puck’s monologue at the end, and the bit where the guy’s like “I may look like a lion, but I’m just a guy dressed as a lion. I’m not a real lion. please don’t be scared. I’m actually just a human guy” are digs at the church, and shakespeare’s way of saying “y'all really can’t differentiate fiction from reality. If you don’t like what’s going on in a play, that’s a you problem.”

> > > > and the audience of the time 100% understood shakespeare’s intended message. and they found it hilarious

> > > Yep, exactly! Also why so many plays are set abroad, particularly the ones that discuss suicide and more direct criticisms of power. It’s plausible deniability so he could be like “I’m not writing about England when I’m talking about tyrannical power, I’m writing about *Rome* and there definitely isn’t any commentary going on here”

> > OH

> > I never noticed that but yeah

> > shakespeare’s beef with the church and government will always be admirable <3

> I saw your tags for the first reblog, and I totally get your class feeling unproductive, but I hope Shakespeare connects with you down the line the same way it did with me! It wasn’t until college that it fully took hold, and that was largely because I saw every play live that I read for that class. It’s said so often but not reflected enough in most schools that Shakespeare is meant to be seen/heard and not read. It really is like learning a new language and it’s hard as hell when it’s all theoretical on the page.

> I also highly recommend the TV show Slings and Arrows. It’s wildly good, very funny, and also unlocked a lot of understanding for me.

> Not to pressure you too much into liking Shakespeare, I’m just passionate about him 😂

my guy I’m a shakespeare blog

this is a shakespeare blog

I’m not mad this is so funny

my bio is something like “I read shakespeare and make memes”

dw my guy I feel no pressure at all to like shakespeare,, I’m out here liking him for fun :) on purpose :D

2025-02-26 3:29:14 ¶ ●

## “I’m no less in blood than thou art, Edmund”

YES!! good job edgar,, I’m so proud of you for supporting equality :)

## “…if more, the more thou hast wronged me”

NO!! cmon edgar I believed in you. for a second I thought you viewed edmund as an equal. >:(

2025-02-26 23:32:59 ¶ ●

##

Do you reckon edmund feels any affection for either of the sisters?

I think this depends on two factors– 1) how does Edmund view himself, and 2) how fast was everything going down in King Lear

Edmund likes to talk very pridefully, but we’ve also got “yet Edmund was beloved” – something that comes off as almost surprised that he was loved. It seems to only occurs to him as he’s dying just how real the Lear sisters’ affection for him was.

for the majority of the play he’s stuck in tunnel vision, solely focused on destroying the Gloucester household and getting the Earldom. Given the timeline, if it all happened as quickly as it feels like– then he goes from being at the very outskirts of what could be considered nobility and someone who’s constantly degraded by those around him, straight to being the Earl.

Psychologically, I don’t think it even caught up with him that the king’s daughters could be potential dating options for him. As much as they blatantly flirt with him, it’s standard enough for nobility to have affairs (and Edmund would know that better than anyone–). So being considered an equal worthy of a real relationship with them is a fact that would take more time to sink in.

in short– I don’t think he considered either of them as potential dating partners until either when he was dying or sometime earlier in that scene.

and either way, the change in his own social status would have been a massive paradigm shift for him.

I do believe that he could have developed feelings for either of them, but I don’t think enough time passed over the course of the play for that to happen yet.

2025-02-27 0:01:54 ¶ ●

also re: last ask– that’s the most british thing I’ve ever read

2025-02-27 0:15:35 ¶ ● ⬀ ⬈

currentlycryingaboutlancelot:

> shakespeare villains are funny because there’s a sliding scale from them being understandable characters like claudius or macbeth who are very well-developed and it’s very clear what they’ve done and why and what the stakes are and there’s also kind of this internal moral struggle going on that makes them very believable. and then you have like. don john and richard iii cartoonishly rubbing their hands together and cackling like a looney tunes character as they decide to mess things up for no other reason than that they just announced they are the villain in their first speech, so what else are they going to do for the next 2.5 hours

then you have characters like Shylock, Edmund/Goneril/Regan, and Tamora who are entirely correct in their grievances and you really wanna root for them, but then shakespeare throws in something horrendous for them to do to prove they’re evil. and it’s usually mutilation.

2025-02-27 14:59:11 ¶ ●

##

Aha well I am British so there we are! Currently playing Regan so was curious to know your thoughts

OH?? 👀 👀 👀

that’s so cool! I’m sure you’ll do great!

Regan is my favorite Lear sister and I’m glad someone who loves and appreciates her is playing her :)

2025-02-27 15:50:27 ¶ ●

##

You asked for Edmund asks and I'm here to deliver. Sorry if this really surface level or straight up wrong, I am but a normie when it comes to enjoying Shakespeare. So there's before the scene where Gloucester gets blinded, Edmund is sent away by Cornwall and it felt like a missed opportunity to make him prove his loyalty. Eventually, I assumed Cornwall didn't want him backpedaling and that got me wondering, would he? I mean, would it have changed anything if Edmund was in the room or tasked with blinding Gloucester? On one hand, Gloucester's situation is of Edmund's own design, it's not like he doesn't know how serious treason is. On the other hand, he may not like or respect him much but he still craves his approval and it makes me wonder what would change if he was holding the blade.

oh this is interesting

in short, I think bringing Edmund along for Gloucester’s interrogation would be counterproductive on many levels.

For the most surface level explanation, at this point Gloucester didn’t know that Edmund betrayed him. He still believes Edmund is a good and loyal son. If there’s any chance of him surviving the interrogation and getting away (as he does), you would want to have someone who he trusts to keep him under control.

standard ‘playing politics’ move.

During the interrogation – Regan, after Cornwall is stabbed and Gloucester’s eyes are out, reveals that Edmund has betrayed him. It doesn’t seem like this was part of the original plan, and this ultimately ends up costing Edmund his life.

On the topic of Cornwall potentially needing Edmund to prove his loyalty– the only thing being involved in Gloucester’s torture would prove is that Edmund hates Gloucester. Which he already knows, as he heavily implies he’s aware that Edmund’s intentionally destroying the Gloucester noble lineage to become earl. And he thinks that that’s very cool of him :)

On top of all that, dragging Edmund into the interrogation is not the role he want to play here. Whatever he’s got going on here– “thou shalt find a dearer father in my love” – again, this is another political move. He recognizes what Edmund is capable of, and most likely wants to use this new connection he has to him. Edmund turned to him to denounce Gloucester as a traitor, and Cornwall wants to play the role of Edmund’s 'savior’ who removes this 'awful evil traitor’ Edmund was 'brave enough’ to denounce.

Him sending Edmund away before the torture could be a way of saying 'don’t worry, I’ve got this covered from here.’ He’s choosing to actively take a part in Edmund’s ascent to the Earldom, proving allegiance to the brand new earl of gloucester.

in short. the torture functions more as Cornwall proving his loyalty to Edmund’s cause than any potential loyalty test for Edmund.

and of course imma shout out @suits-of-woe’s Cornwall analysis posts– he understands Cornwall on a level deeper than I could ever hope to, and I feel like reading his Cornwall Analysis Saga should be required text for anyone playing Cornwall

2025-02-27 16:33:04 ¶ ●

I need to get out of the habit of putting the important content in the tags and the sparknotes version in the post

2025-02-27 19:23:44 ¶ ● ⬀ ⬈

malenjoyer:

> people: do you like (character)?

> me, a little unhinged about said character: He’s fine. He’s alright.

2025-02-27 20:17:07 ¶ ● ⬀ ⬈

##

You asked for Edmund asks and I'm here to deliver. Sorry if this really surface level or straight up wrong, I am but a normie when it comes to enjoying Shakespeare. So there's before the scene where Gloucester gets blinded, Edmund is sent away by Cornwall and it felt like a missed opportunity to make him prove his loyalty. Eventually, I assumed Cornwall didn't want him backpedaling and that got me wondering, would he? I mean, would it have changed anything if Edmund was in the room or tasked with blinding Gloucester? On one hand, Gloucester's situation is of Edmund's own design, it's not like he doesn't know how serious treason is. On the other hand, he may not like or respect him much but he still craves his approval and it makes me wonder what would change if he was holding the blade.

lizardrosen:

> edettethegreat:

> > oh this is interesting

> > in short, I think bringing Edmund along for Gloucester’s interrogation would be counterproductive on many levels.

> > For the most surface level explanation, at this point Gloucester didn’t know that Edmund betrayed him. He still believes Edmund is a good and loyal son. If there’s any chance of him surviving the interrogation and getting away (as he does), you would want to have someone who he trusts to keep him under control.

> > standard ‘playing politics’ move.

> > During the interrogation – Regan, after Cornwall is stabbed and Gloucester’s eyes are out, reveals that Edmund has betrayed him. It doesn’t seem like this was part of the original plan, and this ultimately ends up costing Edmund his life.

> > On the topic of Cornwall potentially needing Edmund to prove his loyalty– the only thing being involved in Gloucester’s torture would prove is that Edmund hates Gloucester. Which he already knows, as he heavily implies he’s aware that Edmund’s intentionally destroying the Gloucester noble lineage to become earl. And he thinks that that’s very cool of him :)

> > On top of all that, dragging Edmund into the interrogation is not the role he want to play here. Whatever he’s got going on here– “thou shalt find a dearer father in my love” – again, this is another political move. He recognizes what Edmund is capable of, and most likely wants to use this new connection he has to him. Edmund turned to him to denounce Gloucester as a traitor, and Cornwall wants to play the role of Edmund’s 'savior’ who removes this 'awful evil traitor’ Edmund was 'brave enough’ to denounce.

> > Him sending Edmund away before the torture could be a way of saying 'don’t worry, I’ve got this covered from here.’ He’s choosing to actively take a part in Edmund’s ascent to the Earldom, proving allegiance to the brand new earl of gloucester.

> > in short. the torture functions more as Cornwall proving his loyalty to Edmund’s cause than any potential loyalty test for Edmund.

> > and of course imma shout out @suits-of-woe’s Cornwall analysis posts– he understands Cornwall on a level deeper than I could ever hope to, and I feel like reading his Cornwall Analysis Saga should be required text for anyone playing Cornwall

> op your tags are so good!!
> #anyway yeah edmund really doesn’t have to prove his loyalty#it’s cornwall that’s gotta prove his loyalty. to keep edmund loyal to him#I really love how cornwall just. knows.#he knows what edmund’s up to. he finds the crimes endearing :)#he’s like ‘yessss boy. succumb to the darkness! be your worst self!’#edmund’s like 'ouhhh nouuuu I totally don’t want to betray my father.. but it must be done :(’#cornwall’s like 'boy. I think it would be real cool of you were behind all this in an attempt to get the earldom.’#'I would respect you so much for that. of course of course that’s not what’s happening’#'but either way. forget about that other guy.. I’m your dad now.’

> i really like this analysis of edmund and his relationship with cornwall

> can you talk about how regan revealing edmund’s involvement leads to edmund’s death, though? i definitely agree that this wasn’t part of the plan, but didn’t edgar find the letter from goneril to edmund and act on that information, and not anything gloucester said?

oh you’re right, I don’t think Gloucester ever canonically told Edgar what happened– iirc Edgar does seem to be aware of everything by the time it’s up to his duel, but then again he was suspicious from the start that he was framed.

I do think that Regan telling Gloucester about Edmund lead to Edmund’s death in a roundabout way– in the sense that 3.7 ends with Cornwall’s servants saying they’ll lead Gloucester wherever he wants to go. Right before Regan revealed Edmund’s betrayal, Gloucester was calling out to Edmund for help– so it’s likely he would have asked to be lead to Edmund, so Edmund could avenge him.

naturally no avenging would take place, and he would either kill off Gloucester himself, or arrange for his death in a more indirect way.

Had Gloucester never ended up back with Lear & Co., he would have never ended up with Edgar again, which means the two of them would never have ended up by the cliffs of Dover and never ran in Oswald. and so on and so fourth.

so in short,, yeah Regan my beloved you messed up but it’s ok I still love you <3

2025-02-27 21:06:45 ¶ ● ⬀ ⬈

##

You asked for Edmund asks and I'm here to deliver. Sorry if this really surface level or straight up wrong, I am but a normie when it comes to enjoying Shakespeare. So there's before the scene where Gloucester gets blinded, Edmund is sent away by Cornwall and it felt like a missed opportunity to make him prove his loyalty. Eventually, I assumed Cornwall didn't want him backpedaling and that got me wondering, would he? I mean, would it have changed anything if Edmund was in the room or tasked with blinding Gloucester? On one hand, Gloucester's situation is of Edmund's own design, it's not like he doesn't know how serious treason is. On the other hand, he may not like or respect him much but he still craves his approval and it makes me wonder what would change if he was holding the blade.

lizardrosen:

> edettethegreat:

> > lizardrosen:

> > > edettethegreat:

> > > > oh this is interesting

> > > > in short, I think bringing Edmund along for Gloucester’s interrogation would be counterproductive on many levels.

> > > > For the most surface level explanation, at this point Gloucester didn’t know that Edmund betrayed him. He still believes Edmund is a good and loyal son. If there’s any chance of him surviving the interrogation and getting away (as he does), you would want to have someone who he trusts to keep him under control.

> > > > standard ‘playing politics’ move.

> > > > During the interrogation – Regan, after Cornwall is stabbed and Gloucester’s eyes are out, reveals that Edmund has betrayed him. It doesn’t seem like this was part of the original plan, and this ultimately ends up costing Edmund his life.

> > > > On the topic of Cornwall potentially needing Edmund to prove his loyalty– the only thing being involved in Gloucester’s torture would prove is that Edmund hates Gloucester. Which he already knows, as he heavily implies he’s aware that Edmund’s intentionally destroying the Gloucester noble lineage to become earl. And he thinks that that’s very cool of him :)

> > > > On top of all that, dragging Edmund into the interrogation is not the role he want to play here. Whatever he’s got going on here– “thou shalt find a dearer father in my love” – again, this is another political move. He recognizes what Edmund is capable of, and most likely wants to use this new connection he has to him. Edmund turned to him to denounce Gloucester as a traitor, and Cornwall wants to play the role of Edmund’s 'savior’ who removes this 'awful evil traitor’ Edmund was 'brave enough’ to denounce.

> > > > Him sending Edmund away before the torture could be a way of saying 'don’t worry, I’ve got this covered from here.’ He’s choosing to actively take a part in Edmund’s ascent to the Earldom, proving allegiance to the brand new earl of gloucester.

> > > > in short. the torture functions more as Cornwall proving his loyalty to Edmund’s cause than any potential loyalty test for Edmund.

> > > > and of course imma shout out @suits-of-woe’s Cornwall analysis posts– he understands Cornwall on a level deeper than I could ever hope to, and I feel like reading his Cornwall Analysis Saga should be required text for anyone playing Cornwall

> > > op your tags are so good!!
> > > #anyway yeah edmund really doesn’t have to prove his loyalty#it’s cornwall that’s gotta prove his loyalty. to keep edmund loyal to him#I really love how cornwall just. knows.#he knows what edmund’s up to. he finds the crimes endearing :)#he’s like ‘yessss boy. succumb to the darkness! be your worst self!’#edmund’s like 'ouhhh nouuuu I totally don’t want to betray my father.. but it must be done :(’#cornwall’s like 'boy. I think it would be real cool of you were behind all this in an attempt to get the earldom.’#'I would respect you so much for that. of course of course that’s not what’s happening’#'but either way. forget about that other guy.. I’m your dad now.’

> > > i really like this analysis of edmund and his relationship with cornwall

> > > can you talk about how regan revealing edmund’s involvement leads to edmund’s death, though? i definitely agree that this wasn’t part of the plan, but didn’t edgar find the letter from goneril to edmund and act on that information, and not anything gloucester said?

> > oh you’re right, I don’t think Gloucester ever canonically told Edgar what happened– iirc Edgar does seem to be aware of everything by the time it’s up to his duel, but then again he was suspicious from the start that he was framed.

> > I do think that Regan telling Gloucester about Edmund lead to Edmund’s death in a roundabout way– in the sense that 3.7 ends with Cornwall’s servants saying they’ll lead Gloucester wherever he wants to go. Right before Regan revealed Edmund’s betrayal, Gloucester was calling out to Edmund for help– so it’s likely he would have been asked to be lead to Edmund, so Edmund could avenge him.

> > naturally no avenging would take place, and he would either kill off Gloucester himself, or arrange for his death in a more indirect way.

> > Had Gloucester never ended up back with Lear & Co., he would have never ended up with Edgar again, which means the two of them would never have ended up by the cliffs of Dover and never ran in Oswald. and so on and so fourth.

> > so in short,, yeah Regan my beloved you messed up but it’s ok I still love you <3

> okay yeah, i see that roundabout connection, thank you for explaining! it’s actually wild to imagine gloucester going to edmund instead, what a different story it would become!

Gloucester: Edmund help they took my eyes!!

Edmund, loading a gun: oh did they.

2025-02-28 16:39:50 ¶ ● ⬀ ⬈

lesbiangloucester:

> king lear productions that portray edgar as a bumbling shy alcoholic: 🥰🥺❤️✨💕💖🥰💕❤️✨✨🥰🥺
> king lear productions that portray edgar as a social bubbly jock: 🤩🥳🥰✨❤️🙈✨❤️🥴🤩✨❤️💕🙈✨
> king lear productions that portray edgar as straight and a flirt: 🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮❌🚫❌

honestly the most correct Edgar Post ever