Brokeback Mount Doom and Edward II

I've had apprehensions in class in regards to accepting homosexuality as a big issue for a few reasons. First, the cultural relevancy is not there. In the past, homosexuality was not a problem. It is only with modern scrutiny do we look upon such relations as being sensitive and important issues. Edward's problem was not that he was homosexual or bi curious, rather that he let such things hinder his decision-making powers as a sovereign. Another problem we have is seeing homosexuality and its full history which did not exist to be taken into consideration when Edward II was penned. To look at the history back then we can refer to the Greeks, particularly Athenians. Such acts were not considered lewd rather a way of showing platonic affection. While Edward's on or off relationships with other men prove to be a disturbance, the fact that these acts are homosexual is of no consequence. Brokeback Mount Doom seems to follow this same path. Even if there was something between Sam and Frodo, is it of any importance? The sub-plot would seem irrelevant to the storyline. Overall, I think the homosexual emphasis has been blown a bit out of proportion.

What happened to Objectivity?

Libby poses an interesting and true insight into modern perceptions of homosexuality in the context of masculine friendships. Skepticism and an innate desire to read between the lines, searching for deeper meaning, form the basis of so much media interpretation--be it sexual or not. As an objective reader of a play or viewer of a movie, is it our responsibility to form our own conclusions based on anything less than explicit evidence? After all, an effective playwright or director is completely in control of informing his audience of his message without having to work under the surface. Moreover, do we as readers or editors even have the authority to modify an original work based on our interpretation? As we discussed in class, Bevington added many stage directions and character references to Edward II. Is he discrediting Marlowe by including information where he thinks the great playwright fell short? These questions relate interestingly to the YouTube clip displayed above, one which illustrates a plausible homosexual relationship in The Lord of the Rings. How are we, the viewers expected to believe this video was indeed made from "pure Hobbit fan love"? First, the mere existence of the clip indicates contention with (not "love" of) Tolkein's work, or the maker would not have felt compelled to spread this message. More importantly, the lewd and base manner is which this video was constructed hardly suggests love of this original work at all. The final screen shot, played after the line "It's sticky, what is it?" depicts Frodo with a white substance on his mouth. (I promise I don't have a dirty mind!) To what extent can a reader or viewer go to pick up connotations and hidden meanings? As responsible literary students, this reading of homosexuality should remind us that imaginative interpretations cannot take the place of objective and thorough analysis based on evidence. 

I love you...romantically.

People see what they want to see. Perhaps people who find gay aspects of platonic friendships are projecting? Why do people insist on interpreting straight relationships as gay? One idea is that people are uncomfortable with intimacy without the presence of physical intimacy. Skepticism leads us to believe that nothing can be as simple and innocent as it appears, when we apply this view to friendship we develop twisted theories about people's true intentions. This same process guided the actions of Mortimer in Edward II and convinced the editor of "Brokeback Mount Doom" to manipulate video footage to project eroticism where there initially was not overt sexuality.
People also label men as gay when they do not abide by the social expectations. When men are forthcoming with their feelings, or flagrant as was the case with Edward II, people want to associate them with effeminacy and portray them as gay. This kind of categorizing is really a way for people to find structure when they are uncomfortable with someone else's behavior.
On a slightly different note, the Tropic Thunder fake promotion "Satan's Alley" follows a similar, though slightly more direct, theme.

I thought that Marlowe would have gone into a little more detail about the way Edward was killed. He kind of leaves it up to the imagination. One assumes, though, that he has been poked with the "red-hot pit". It is also interesting to me that it is written like a stage direction like [exeunt omnes] or [enter the Queen]. It seems that Edward was not even honored in death.

Murder Without Bruises

I must agree with Anna in that I did not read anywhere in the text that the King was stabbed in the heart with the spit although it is safe to assume that such an act occurred. I was intrigued by Lightborn's desire to kill Edward II, but not leave bruises on his body.  This was surprising to me because there really hasn't been much action until this final act of the play. I expected that with all the built-up hatred, the members of the royal court would have planned some extravagant and vengeful murder of the King to prove to his weakness and utter defeat. I was hoping for a sword fight or something (maybe the King would finally have the guts to fight back), rather than a bracketed statement that mentions his inevitable death. This thought brings me back to my question about why Lightborn did not want to leave bruises on the body of the King. Everyone knew he was no longer King and probably guessed that he would be killed, so why did his murder have to be a quiet, secretive act? It's not like Lightborn and Matrevis would be blamed because everyone wanted him off the throne. Stabbing Edward II with a burning spit seems quite violent indeed, but there were other ways to kill him off that probably would have made a stronger statement for those who wished to take over the throne. 

"The King"

I have to admit that I was taken aback by John's comment about how exactly Edward II was killed. I suppose I am reading a different version of the play as I saw no such footnote and had envisioned Edward II being stabbed through the heart by the poker. I must say though, that the explanation John had of the murder gives the entire situation an entirely new feeling. The thing that I found most interesting about the stage direction, however, is Marlowe's use of the word "King" to describe Edward II. At this point in the play, Edward II has abdicated his throne by surrendering his crown, and his son has already been coronated as the new King of England. At the time of his death Edward II is the only one still referring to himself as the "King". I find it interesting, therefore, that the last time Edward II does anything in the play, he is referred to as the King. Although naturally this is not a word choice that would have influenced the audience in any way, I think that it is an interesting thing to look at when one is examining the ideas that Marlowe, and presumably his contemporaries, harbored in regards to the monarchy. To me the wording in this footnote suggests that Marlowe saw Edward II as the rightful King, no matter how ineffectual he may have been. I think that it speaks to the idea that Marlowe believed in a set of rules that governed the monarchy and the government, rules that he believed were broken through the actions of Mortimer and the Queen.

Violated Bodies is right...

The murder of the king fits perfectly with the title of this course, "Violated Bodies..." The reader receives an end note that a hot spit was thrust into Edward's anus, leaving him unbruised and making signs of the murder difficult to detect. I am interested whether Edward's perceived homosexuality had any effect on the way he was murdered. If indeed the murderers sodomized
Edward with a hot spit, were they signaling his relationship with Gaveston as the cause of his downfall? Surely they could have murdered him in another way which leaves little outward sign of the crime (poison, anyone?). Yet they chose this violent end. It leaves me to think the murderers picked the hot spit for more than merely practical reasons.

Reiteration

I agree with everything that's been said. However, I don’t think the looseness in reference to his rule or the looseness in reference to his morality should be separated. Instead, I think his inability to rule a country is a reflection of his inability to govern himself. Kent goes on to call the king unnatural- whether he’s referring to the unnatural excess of his lusts or his unnatural ability to suck so bad as a king we don’t know- and goes on to tie his cherishing of flatterers to his mismanagement of affairs and subsequent killing of those who started a civil war to try to dethrone him because of his ill behavior as a king. As was mentioned in class, it was interesting to actually put this on a stage. It may have garnered arrest and trial for treason but now it’s the norm. We now believe we have a right to know every detail about the lives of those who make decisions for our country. Big deals are made out of personal situations because we feel that if our leaders mismanage their lives then they are certainly in no shape to manage the fate of our country. It’s interesting to see now how hard it was to question the king’s motives (barons were killed for it so you know common folk didn’t say nothing) and compare that to today.

Get a grip, Edward.

Marlowe’s use of “looseness” to describe King Edward can be seen as a metaphor for his grip on the country. As Edward neglects his royal duties, his grasp as a sovereign ruler slips. “Looseness” can be characterized as Edward’s total apathy towards the state of his nation. Typically, a good ruler or king is one who controls his nation with an “iron fist.” Edward’s lack of conviction in executive decisions is evident by his allowance of disrespectful tongues in his court. This reading of “looseness” is most paralleled with the second usage by the Queen in 4.4. When Kent first mentions looseness in 4.1, he not only means the aforementioned definition but also Edward’s general care for the Queen’s well-being. With some finality, it seems apparent that Edward’s “looseness” will continue to be his downfall.

Will he ever be thought of as a good ruler?

I agree with what Jocelyn said about the term lewdness, but on OED it also defined looseness as lewdness in conduct. I think this definition can be used to help define what Edmund, Earl of Kent was saying in Act 4, Scene 1. "But I'll to France, and cheer the wronged queen, And certify what Edward's looseness is" (4.1.6-7) Here I think the Kent is talking more about the King's actions than anything else. Kent goes on to talk about some of the bad actions the King has made. Lewdness can be defined as bad or poor, so I think this definition can be used to sum up what they barons thought of the King's ability to rule. No one understood why he seemed to favor the poor, un-noble men, and reprimand the nobles in the court.

King with the emotional valence of a particularly moody 14 year-old girl

I agree with Kanya. The usage of the word “looseness” is meant to indicate a laxness in the king's attempts to keep a hold of his own kingdom. According to the OED the word seems to also have connotations of moral lewdness around the time this play was written and performed. Outside of possible references to the king's sexuality, the term could refer to his eagerness to punish anyone who disappoints him and, conversely, reward anyone who pleases him. I think the term “looseness” refers not only to the hold he has on the kingdom, but the hold has on himself. Edward has little self-control and allows his emotions to rule him rather than letting thinking things through rationally. It is because of the loose reign he has on his emotions that he finds his position in jeopardy.

A loose grip on his country

When the queen mentions King Edward's "looseness" (4.4.11), she is refering to the loose grip he has on his country, because of the loose and flippant way he approaches his courtly duties.
King Edward obviously has a loose grip on his country, because in the storyline of the play, France seizes Normandy. The King doesn't seem much bothered by this; he is instead concerned with his personal favorites. He does not maintain a tight enough grip on the relationships he has with the members of his court, evidenced by the shockingly disrespectful way they speak to, and rebel against, him. It is also possible that King Edward also doesn't want to have a particularly firm grasp on his country, because of the way he offers parts of his realm to his opposition, in order to keep Gaveston with him:

"And thou of Wales. If this content you not,
Make several kingdoms of this monarchy
And share it equally amongst you all,
So I may have some nook or corner left
To frolic with my dearest Gaveston" (1.4.69-73).

Oops!

Okay, so I totally got my references crossed and seriously said that "A house divided against itself cannot stand" was in the Bible and it is not. That was Abraham Lincoln, not Jesus. Excuse me. (and laugh, because I know you think it's funny).

Too Little, Too Late

I agree with the previous posts. Edward has finally started acting like a king, Mortimer has a genuine concern for his country, and he also wants more power. England is maimed. The king's peers, the people who are supposed to be helping and supporting him, have turned against him. Does the term 'civil war' mean anything? A house divided against itself cannot stand. That's what it says in the Bible. The OED says maimed means mutilated, crippled or injured. At the point that any of these things happens, whatever anyone does is too little, too late. Sure, an injured person can heal, but they were still hurt. A crippled person, while not incapacitated, no longer operates at full capacity. And, seriously, mutilated? You can just give up at that point. England is maimed. The question is, has it been mutilated, crippled, or injured? Mortimer sees this and has tried to stop the destruction at injured. Injured can be fixed. Wanting to help his country and wanting to advance himself don't have to be either or options. He can do both. It's when the dust has settled and they finally get Edward out (which he fully deserves for all of his incompetency) that it matters whether Mortimer is being helpful or selfish.

Lost Hope

I agree that because Edward was weak and ill equipped for the position of King, that he will have to look to a new group of supporters for advice, etc. However, because of his history with that, there will be noone who will want to be involved with the King. His behaviors are foreshadowing a nasty end to him and his reign as King. As for Mortimer, I viewed his statement as mocking Edward's attempt to do away with anyone who disobeys him. Edward waited to long to establish fear and respect in those he ruled.

"Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood"

Lauren makes a very good point of how Edward "maimed" England and is still carrying out personal vendettas. Edward does, however, start to actually act like a king. He no longer is persuaded by the barons, and he makes his own decisions. After revenging Gaveston, Edward will have to turn to something or someone else. Hopefully, after the deaths of his killers, the King will turn and start playing an active role in the progression of his kingdom (although I seriously doubt this).
Back to Lauren's comment, I do wonder if Mortimer is lusting for power or if he just cares for his country. He speaks directly to the country and how Edward is killing it. I personally think that Mortimer maybe expressing his opinion about the actions taken by the King, and not trying to undermine the king and move up in power/ranking (given he is now a captive of Edward).

Mortimer's lust for power and Edward's lust...

Edward begins by neglecting his power as King of England. Instead he's determined to satisfy his personal desires and abandons his responsibilities to England. At first, Edward tries to bribe the nobles with titles and lands (due to his dependency on the noble's support) to keep his minion, instead of strategically advancing the state. Now Edward believes that he's finally taking a stand against the rebels in a courageous manner by a speedy execution. However, Edward is not a King anew (as he claims) because he continues to take personal actions. His emotions are the power force behind all of his actions. He looks out for himself first before he takes care of his kingdom. Mortimer speaks out against Edward; Edward's behaviors have maimed (mutilated, crippled, injured) England and will continue to do so. Mortimer's original anger towards Gaveston is now directed towards the King. Even in Mortimer's moments of weakness Mortimer's ambitions for power cause him to weaken and undermine Edward's authority.

Hmm... signs of the decaying Elizabethan World View, perhaps?

I don't know if I particularly agree with the others before me who argue that Baldock was merely "name-dropping." I do agree that he was trying to impress the King, but the more important thing to this passage is that it demonstrates the fragmentation of the Elizabethan World View. By stating that he is not a nobleman, but is injecting himself into the court, Baldock functions as a metaphorical "break" in the Chain of Being. In this instance, the Chain of Being is not the order of forms in the universe and their proper place, but rather that of your class, your rank, and your breeding. As Ranulf Hidgen states in Polychronicon:

In the universal order of things the top of an inferior class touches the bottom of a superior: as for instance oysters, which, occupying as it were the lowest position in the class of animals, scarcely rise above tile life of plants, because they cling to the earth without motion and possess the sense of touch alone. (qtd. in Berdine)

Baldock is artifically raising his status by stating that his "gentry" he "fetched from Oxford, not heraldry" (Edward II II.ii.242-43). The OED also states that "to fetch" also denotes "to steal," which carries a negative implication. Likewise, the word alludes to something that is commodified--an object that can be taken, sold, and otherwise easy to obtain, rather than something that is given from on High by some otherworldly power.
The fragmentation of the Elizabethan World View furthers the corrupted state of the kingdom under King Edward II's reign.

(sorry this is late, I totally forgot I was supposed to post on the group today)

Work Cited
Berdine, Maggie. "The Elizabethan World View." The Elizabethan World View. West Virginia University at Parkersburg. .

"Excuse me, I am not simply a servant!"

I agree with what Graham said about Baldock attempting to impress the King in this particular quote. When the King's niece first introduced Baldock and Spencer Jr, she did not specify a particular status for them; rather, she introduced them as "Two of [her] father's servants whilst he lived" (II.iii.239). Although the King asks Baldock what "his arms" were, the King's niece's use of the word servants immediately implies a lower class status. Why she would not bother to distinguish is something I am not sure about -- perhaps it made no difference to her? Regardless, Baldock was sure to not allow the King to ignore the fact that he was not a mere servant. As a result, the King was, in fact, impressed by Baldock's declaration and said that he (Baldock) would serve his purposes (be useful to him), suggested to be on a level beyond mere household service.

The Emasculated King

"My name is Baldock, and my gentry
I fetched from Oxford, not from heraldry."
(Edward II II.ii.242-43)

This is an obvious statement with no hidden meanings. Baldock has earned his title as a "gentleman" by attending University of Oxford and becoming both a tutor and cleric. Like Gaveston, he was not born into a privileged life, so it is no wonder why the King instantly approves of Baldock. Anything resembling Gaveston in the slightest would probably be enough to make the King delirious with pleasure; it's sickening, really, how he easily dismisses the quandaries of his country (calls it a "trifle" in 2.2.10) because he is so frenzied with happiness about seeing Gaveston again. It seriously would not vex me to see the emasculated King assassinated in the future, which I definitely foresee happening.