OPEN ASSEMBLY

Experiments in Aesthetics and Politics

“Ok !! RANT !” King Lear and the Hermeneutics of Ranting

Published on: February 24, 2020
By: Cory Warren

On February 22, 2020, Professor Nan Z. Da presented a talk at the West Hollywood Library called “On King Lear and Contemporary China.” Her fascination with Shakespeare’s tragedy of familial betrayal stems from Stanley Cavell’s essay about Lear’s daughter, Cordelia. Cavell argues that Cordelia’s death functions as a “tracking device,” writing, “In Cordelia’s death there is hope, because it shows the Gods more just-more than we had hoped or wished. . .  Cordelia’s death means that every falsehood, every refusal of acknowledgment, will be tracked down” (Cavell 309). Da asks what literary texts are capable of tracking and adjudicating, and to what end. In this post, I will explore a tangential implication of Cavell and Da’s inquiries: how closely should analytical models emulate, mimic, or align with their chosen object’s mode of address? 

My question owes much to a puzzling tweet by Cher that begins, “Ok !! RANT !” What follows her exclamation can hardly be described as a rant. But Cher’s tweet clarifies some of my thoughts about King Lear and the titular character’s mode of address. The words “Ok !! RANT !” mark Cher’s attempt to acknowledge her own mode of address, even as she elides rant with enthusiastic praise for a friend. Lear seems to face the opposite problem, as he is totally unaware of his own mode of address and how it limits his audience. The rant—an often infuriating, chaotic, and tragically solipsistic mode of communicating to the world—certainly plagues the King as he descends into madness. But the rant also seems to limit the critic in their attempts to study Shakespeare’s play. Does it not madden the critic to methodically analyze an inherently undisciplined and unmethodical form of speech? In short, can the critic ever live up to the madness of the rant?

Cher’s “Rant.”

Stanley Cavell’s well-known essay on Lear takes issue with interpretations that betray the objects they study—in this case, dramatic characters. Cavell argues that “interpretation of the symbolic sort . . . exactly depends upon a neglect, even a denial, of the humanness of the play’s characters” (Cavell 272). Cavell finds that the symbol-as-metonym is predicated on a violent dehumanization that only sees metaphor and not characters or the actions of human beings. Dehumanization here implies both an ethical and a formal practice—devitalizing the human subject of the play, as well as decontextualizing the script’s primary function as the record of a character’s speech. The symbolic approach, Cavell argues, does not fit the form of the play, which in the first place consists of words spoken by characters. What then does the critic find more dignifying than the symbolic metonym?

Cavell steers his argument toward an answer: in his reading of the play, it is the formal technique of characters’ speech that guides a humane interpretation. He writes, “One reason a critic is drawn to words is, immediately, that attention to characters has often in fact been given apart from attention to the specific words granted them, so it looks as if attention to character is a distraction from the only, or the final, evidence there is for a reading of a literary work, namely the words themselves” (268). Cavell directs his New Critical approach toward diction and interaction, treating characters as people rather than convenient personifications of symbols or allegories. Character and words are inextricably linked in the script and performance alike. “Lear’s dominating motivation,” Cavell argues, “is to avoid being recognized,” hence the rant, a form that insists on non-recognizability (274). The speech-mode and character align, leading to an interpretation of the character that is rooted in that character’s mode of expression rather than what virtues the character stands in for.

The Rant: Professional or Passionate Thought?

So, what of the King’s rants as a mode of address? What form of analysis can take on the full force of its wrath and chaos? As the rant intentionally draws connections outside the text, I will look at two analytical modes that run contrary to the New Critics’ strict adherence to only text: lateral reading and literary mapping. The former considers the intertextual connections texts make, while the latter quantifies the patterns and occurrences of words in texts. 

To begin, both methods study the breadth of connections in a text, though one requires total immersion into the speculative connections between a character’s thoughts and speech—lateral reading, which traces the non-linear nexuses between a text’s ideas—while the other is founded on a sterile distance from the speaker—literary mapping, which deracinates speech from the speaker to place it in broader web of etymological and usage-based data. The gap between these two methods can be paraphrased by a distinction Hannah Arendt poses: professional thought and passionate thought. Svetlana Boym paraphrases the distinction:

In her last book, The Life of the Mind, Hannah Arendt proposed a distinction between ‘professional thinking,’ which focuses on disciplinarity and logical coherence, and ‘passionate thinking,’ which explores the limits of knowledge and is guided by wonder, not by the need for systematicity and consistency. (Boym 2008: 36-37)

Arendt’s distinction is analogous, as I see it, to a chasm between, on one hand, reading models based on exacting, methodical data collection, and on the other, reading inquiries that formalize the freeplay of literary engagement.

Mapping and mining as method imply textual devotion to order, coherence, and systematic consistency. A lateral swerve, alternatively, implies the text is a chaotic assemblage of heterodox associations and practices. It would seem the rant is more invested in expressing passion, wonder, and inconsistency, than disciplinarity, logical coherence, and systematicity. However, should that likeness preclude the critic from reading the rant through an analytical method defined by the conflicting values?

Text as Swerve: Lateral Reading

As a formal structure, the rant is composed of lateral swerves from one topic to another, without transition. The rant is destabilized, incoherent, directionless, constantly reorganizing itself. This recalls Derrida’s architectural metaphor: “One first locates. . . in the art of the system, the ‘neglected corners’ and the ‘defective cornerstone,’ that which, from the outset, threatens the coherence and the internal order of the construction” (Derrida 1986: 72). The rant is similarly composed of disparate elements which ultimately form a textual structure, but as soon as the reader focuses on one part of the rant, it is always already prepared to defer to another. So it would seem the rant is overtly compatible with a lateral analysis.

Consider one of Lear’s rants, which he launches into after surviving the play’s well-known storm, now encountering blinded Gloucester and his disguised son, Edmund:

KING LEAR

Ay, every inch a king:

When I do stare, see how the subject quakes.

I pardon that man’s life. What was thy cause? Adultery?

Thou shalt not die: die for adultery! No:

The wren goes to ‘t, and the small gilded fly

Does lecher in my sight.

Let copulation thrive; for Gloucester’s bastard son

Was kinder to his father than my daughters

Got ‘tween the lawful sheets.

To ‘t, luxury, pell-mell! for I lack soldiers.

Behold yond simpering dame,

Whose face between her forks presages snow;

That minces virtue, and does shake the head

To hear of pleasure’s name;

The fitchew, nor the soiled horse, goes to ‘t

With a more riotous appetite.

Down from the waist they are Centaurs,

Though women all above:

But to the girdle do the gods inherit,

Beneath is all the fiends’;

There’s hell, there’s darkness, there’s the

sulphurous pit,

Burning, scalding, stench, consumption; fie,

fie, fie! pah, pah! Give me an ounce of civet,

good apothecary, to sweeten my imagination:

there’s money for thee.

(Shakespeare Act IV, Scene vi, 92-116)

His speech veers from proclaiming his sovereignty to acknowledging Gloucester’s adultery, briefly expressing sex-positive sentiment, then berating his daughters, which leads him to make sexist remarks, and ultimately declaring he wants some drugs to give him pleasant thoughts. From, then, which, and – one defective cornerstone of thought defers to the next. Lear synthesizes several of the play’s plotlines and fragments through his own belligerent thoughts, amounting to an unruly speech that expresses a general sense of ruin: ruined sovereignty, ruined bonds, a ruined family, and a ruined mind. 

Glenda Jackson as King Lear, 2019

Laterally, the King’s sense of ruin evokes the image of an architectural ruin, a comparison that likens the desperate rant to the process of decay materialized in ruins. Elaborating on its architecture, Boym writes, “The meaning of the ruin is unstable; its duration is longer than most historical debates and its material presence so intense that it embarrasses many ideological or critical assessments that try to pin down its meaning” (Boym 2017: 46). The same might be said of the rant: it insistently undermines the effort to consolidate its meaning in any authoritative way.

But if a method is supposed to provide guidance, does laterality accomplish this? The rant is already unruly, guided by wonder and non-linearity. An attention to its lateral structure shares this inclination. Does the combination of an unruly text and an unruly method get the reader anywhere? Does a similarly lateral method merely lead deeper down the rabbit hole dug by the rant, endlessly deferring to possible referents? 

Rant as Code: Text Mining

Quantitative methods are an orderly alternative. Literary mapping in particular can build order out of a disordered textual object. It does so by situating the text within a broader pattern of usage, namely, “In text mining, we frequently wish to group documents together according to their similarity. Similarity is often based on, or measured by, some finite set of textual features, such as the relative frequency of the most frequently occurring words” (Lockers and Underwood 352). The external structure text mining constructs begins by historicizing the text within a matrix of other texts that use the same words with similar frequency. In the case of King Lear’s rants, this method would seek to comprehend Lear’s speech by examining texts that are stylistically and verbally similar, deemphasizing tone and the speech’s context within the play.

Similar to lateral reading, text mining makes sense of literature by interpreting it in relation to objects external to the text. However, text mining utilizes rigid metrics and data collection techniques, which are apparatuses that lateral reading would consider counter-intuitive to the act of textual freeplay. Franco Moretti acknowledges the shortcomings of his own Shakespearean text mining project, which studies the networks of interactions between characters in Hamlet:

…once you make a network of a play, you stop working on the play proper, and work on a model instead: you reduce the text to characters and interactions, abstract them from everything else, and this process of reduction and abstraction makes the model obviously much less than the original object – just think of this: I am discussing Hamlet, and saying nothing about Shakespeare’s words – but also, in another sense, much more than it, because a model allows you to see the underlying structures of a complex object. (Moretti 2011: 4)

In order to grasp the dizzying totality of nexuses between characters in Hamlet, the clarifying model loses its tether to the content of the play: the contextualized words themselves. All we are left with is an understanding of who interacts with whom, but not what those interactions consist of.

Ultimately, text mining’s managerial method seems futile in the face of the rant. Taken further, such instrumentalist logic constitutes an act of violence against the text in that it forces it to conform to the arbitrary measurements of digital information processing. Just as the New Critical symbolic interpretation had dehumanized the characters in treating them as devitalized objects, text mining treats plays as computational code. 

Recall Arendt’s definition of “professional thought,” whose linear logic subsumes all things it encounters. Text mining imposes its methods of mapping and coding onto all textual objects, as if the knowledge a text produces could be formulaically consolidated and strategically commodified, with the ultimate aim of optimizing interpretation itself. This illustrates exactly what the rant seeks to escape: confinement in a prescriptively coherent communicational system.

King Lear and Contemporary Reading: A Brief Allegory

An allegory for the play itself might arise from these contrasting methods: lateral gestures that destabilize the assumed order of human thought are akin to Lear’s rants, while the methods of mining and mapping, utilizing professional thought to disentangle the frenzy of Lear’s speech, corresponds to the systematized strategies of his daughters Regan and Goneril. In short, one technique disturbs order and the other attempts to manage that disorder. 

Consider how the ranting king’s daughters try to manage him, at times attempting to decipher his pontifications and discerning a significant detail buried in the speech, and at other times dismissing his words as nonsense. The project of literary mapping is far more generous to the chaotic text than the conniving daughters are to their father, but the overarching ethic is quite similar: extracting only the data that seems significant to support an inquiry.

Then look to the rant itself. It mystifies the addressee. Just when its intended message seems clear, it diverts to another subject entirely. The moment Regan and Goneril interpret their father’s position, he throws them off. Lateral reading recognizes this quality not only in the rant but in all cultural objects: the web of referents is endless. The wondrous gaze of lateral reading sees everything imaginable in the smallest perceptible detail. Like the ranting King, it embraces chaos toward a practice of play.

Had Lear begun his address by exclaiming “Ok !! RANT !,” would critics adapt their method to accommodate the acknowledged form of speech? Would an overt declaration of the form as such dictate how the critic would then approach the text? The rant would certainly disapprove of any arbitrary rule being made in its name. So if we’re reading on the rant’s terms, the rule might be something like this: textual forms do not necessitate prescriptive interpretative methods because they do not strive to be understood on unitary terms—a rant especially, which cavorts across rhetorical boundaries so freely. In spite of all this, I do not doubt, however ruined he may be, that the King and his rants can withstand the blistering storms of critical debate and scrutiny.

Works Cited

Boym, Svetlana. Architecture of the Off-Modern. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008.

Boym, Svetlana. The Off-Modern. London: Bloomsbury, 2017.

Cavell, Stanley. “The Avoidance of Love: A Reading of King Lear,” in Must We Mean What We Say? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Cher (cher). “Ok !! RANT !” 8 June 2013, 6:16 PM. Tweet.

Derrida, Jacques. Memoires for Paul de Man. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.

Lockers, Matthew and Ted Underwood. “Text-Mining the Humanities” in A New Companion to Digital Humanities, edited by Susan Schreibman, et al., Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2016.

Moretti, Franco. “Literary Lab Pamphlet 2: Network Theory, Plot Analysis.” https://litlab.stanford.edu/LiteraryLabPamphlet2.pdf

Shakespeare, William. King Lear. New Folger’s ed. New York: Washington Square Press, 2004.

Cory Warren writes fiction and studies comparative film & literature. He is pursuing a Master’s degree in Aesthetics & Politics at the California Institute of the Arts.

...Show All Tags
... And Couting 2018 Guangzhou Triennial 2020 abolition activism advertising aesthetics Aesthetics & Politics Aesthetics and politics affect Afro-Futurism afropessimism agonism ai AI art Aidrley Queiros Aimee Bahng algorithmic bias alt-right alum alumni American history American Mythologies anarcha-feminism Anarchafeminism Anarchism andrea fontenot Andy Warhol animal studies anime Anthropocene anti-abortion anti-blackness Antiaesthetics aporetic argentina aria dean Armor art Art Critic Art History Art prompt artificial intelligence Asia asian american art Asian Art Asian Futurity assembly associations aural auto-fiction automation Beijing Being Human beluga Biswas Mellamphy Black lives matter black out black studies black study Blm blockchain Blondie body Boots Riley borderlands Branco Sai Preto Fica Brasil bratich Bridget Crone Bring springer CalArts California Institute of the Arts calvin l. warren calvin warren Capital capital is dead capitalism carceral tech carceral technologies carceral technology care Carlos Villa cars CBGB CCM Censorship Charity Chiara Bottici china Chinese Art chinese philosophy Christian Dior Christopher Kulendran Thomas chronology cinema citizneship class Claude Monet collective Colombia Coloniality comics Community computer science Contemporary Art Contemporary Chinese Art content moderation control coronavirus Cosmetics covid Covid-19 creaturely criminal justice Crisis Criticism Critique crypto Cuba Cuba Revolution Cuban Art culture curation Dance Daniela Lieja Quintanar data data collection data sourcing Debbie Harry decoloniality Dennis Cooper desire Deway-Hagbord Diaspora dictee digital digital art digital culture Digital Media digital tools diversity Documentation Donna Haraway Doris Salcedo DOXA drag Drag King drag name drifting drones ecological ecology Ed Fornieles Édouard Glissant Eminem emory Empathy exhibition experimental experimental film experimentalpublication exploitation extinction facial hair Fascism fash-wave fashion feminism fiction film flicker fluxus foreign labor foucault franco barchiesi Frank O'Hara FREEPLAY Futura 2000 gabriel rockhill gas Gean Moreno gender geography Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari Gloria Anzaldua Grebowicz Halston Hannah Arendt Hauntology Havana Hermeneutics hip hop hipsters Hiroshi Fujiwara historicism HIV/AIDS horror human Human rights hypebeasts hyper-masculinity identity im here to learn so :)))))) image theory impressionism individuation industrial revolution industrialization infrapolitics Infrastructure Instagram Installation Intelligence Gathering Intelligence Led Policing Intergalactix internet internet of things INTERPRETATION intersectionality intimacy Invisible Hand irony j kameron carter Jaar jack bratich Jack Burnham Jazz Jean-François Lyotard Jemima Wyman Jennifer Ponce de Leon John-Michael Rivera Judith Butler Julian Stallabrass Kara Keeling Karina Alma kathy acker Kettling Khademi kinging koreanamericanliterature Kubra Khademi LA LA RIver lapd LARPing larval warfare Larvas Warfare LATERAL Latin America Latin-America Latino American Latinx Studies Latipa Laurie Anderson Les Immatériaux exhibition libidinal Line Dance linette park Lisa Nakamura Los Angeles Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions loss Louis Vuitton Luciana Parisi Mahakali Manuel Shartzberg Marc Jacobs Marianne Hirsh marketing Marvel marxism masculinity matias viegener Maurice Merleau-Ponty mckenzie wark Medea media theory Mellamphy memory metaphysics METHOD metic Mètis MGMT Misael Oquendo montage mourning Mudd Club museum Music Nan Z. Da Nandita Biswas Mellamphy Necro-Politics Necropolitics net art NFT nicholas mirzeoff Nike niunamenos noc non-fungible tokens nonhuman nylan October ontological terror ontology packers paint tube painting panopticism Parametricism Patrik Schumacher Paul Preciado Performance persuasion Peru Pettman phantasmagoria photography pleasure plurality Poetics poetry poiesis police police state police training politics pop music popular culture Pose post-human post-millennial Postmemory Predictive Policing PrEP prison abolition psychology punk QUANTITATIVE quarantine queer queer calculus queer media Queer Theory ra judy Race race and racialization Rachel Garfield Racial Empathy rationality READING Real Abstraction reality reductionism resistance Revolution rhizome Rihanna Robot Skin Ronak Kapadia Rosalind Krauss RuPaul Ryan Murphy Sarah T. Roberts sci-fi Science Fiction screenshot Sculpture sentient flesh SHAKESPEARE ShanaL Redmond skin Skoghall Konsthall smart cities smart city sneakers social media Socialism sociology Soft Science Fiction Software exhibition solitude sonic sonic voice sound space spatial justice spectacle and counter spectacle Speculative Fiction speed Spin Sri Lankan civil war Stephen Sprouse Stop LAPD Spying Coalition structural film structuralism STRUCTURE student repression subcultures suggestion superheroes Surveillance Susan Buck-Morss Swarm Intelligence syllabus systems analysis systems art Systems Esthetics T5311 Taylor Swift techno-orientalism temporality Teresa Margolles terror TEXT The Aesthetics of Net Art the archive The Body the disappointment the imaginal The Modular Body The Postmodern Condition the refrain the sky opened up with answers the tiller girls The Zapatistas Theorist in Residence theory theresahakkyungcha Thierry de Duve Thor thought experiments TikTok time Tomás Esson trans fem aesthetics trans literature Transindividual transindividuality trauma Undocumented UNDOCUMENTS Urban Space Victoria Ivanova Video Art video essay vignette virality Virtual Reality visibility visual activism visual categories visual culture Visual Studies Visuality voice VR wafaa bilal war on terror War on Youth whale WHAP Womanhood Yiyun Li Zac's Haunted House Zach Blas

Other posts by this author