Shakespeare uses subplots to dramatize the action of the play and give spark on the contrast for the themes in King Lear. Sub plots usually improve the effect of dramatic irony and suspense. The latter, which is used in King Lear, gives us the understanding of the emotions of the characters in the play. This follows the parallelism between Gloucester and King Lear.
In King Lear, the subplot of Gloucester corresponds to the major plot of King Lear. Both fathers have their own loyal legitimate child and their evil and disloyal child. They are both honourable men, who have children that return to them in their time of need. Gloucester and Lear are both tormented, and their favoured child recovers their life. In the early beginning of the play, Cordelia says that her love for her father is the love between father and daughter, no more, no less. Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave My heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty According to my bond, no more nor less. (Act 1 Scene 1 Pg. 13 lines 93-95) In response, King Lear goes into rage, and divides Cordelia’s share of the kingdom between her two unworthy sisters. Such injustice is encountered by Gloucester in the subplot. O villain, villain! His very opinion in the letter! Abhorred villain! Unnatural, detested, brutish villain! Worse than brutish! Go, sirrah, seek him. I’ll apprehend him. Abominable villain! Where is he? (Act 1 Scene 2 Pg. 37 lines 75-78) Gloucester fool...
With Cordelia declared as banished, Lear states, “With my two daughters’ dowers digest the third...Only we shall retain The name and all th’ addition to a king. The sway, revenue, execution of the rest, Beloved sons, be yours” (Shakespeare 17). Lear’s fault here is that he believes that he can divide up his kingdom to his daughters and still retain the title as king; he wants to retire his position and responsibilities as a king but still remain respected and treated as one. His flaw in wanting to be superior leads to his downfall, as he is so blinded by his greed that he decides to divide up his kingdom to his two daughters who are as hungry for power as he is. They only want to strip him of his position and respect to gain more influence. Lear, not realizing the impact of such an impulsive decision, descends into madness when his daughters force him out of his home. After being locked out of his only shelter by his daughters, he states, “Filial ingratitude!...In such a night To shut me out?...O Regan, Goneril, Your old kind father whose frank heart gave all! O that way madness lies. Let me shun that; No more of that” (Shakespeare 137). Lear becomes fully aware of the consequences of his actions. He realizes how ungrateful his daughters are and how they have treated him unfairly even though he has given them everything; much to his dismay, he is left with
Timothy Findley and Shakespeare use the theme of appearance versus reality in their texts: The Wars and King Lear. Characters in the novel and the play: Robert, Goneril, and Regan, intentionally appear to be something they are not in order to achieve a goal. However, they differ in where it leads them by the end, as in King Lear the characters die, unlike in The Wars where Robert cannot escape his true self and goes back to follow his personal morality.
The ability of an author to capture the interest of the audience has and will always be an important factor in the art of storytelling and even the expression of research or related material. When an author is able to seize the attention of any partaking of their work, curiosity will develop which will lead to the wonder of what the conclusion my bring about. Not only is it important to snatch the audience’s attention in the beginning, it is necessary to hold it prisoner throughout the tale. Authors do this by having an interesting plot development in which many unexpected details come into play and the course of the story is thrown from the norm and into the conflict. Shakespeare was a master of this art in the work he produced throughout his life and was able to create stories of humor and those of tragedy. For example, his play King Lear is a terrible tragedy in which many awful things take place and the story ends by disastrous means. While in the play Much Ado About Nothing, very little conflict is present and if it is, it is resolved quickly and the play concludes with the joyfulness of marriage nuptials. His ability to develop plot and story in a way in which the audience who love to devour, Shakespeare will in a way immortalize himself, “Shakespeare proved himself to be both the "soul of the age" his works reflected and adorned and the consummate symbol of the artist whose poetic visions transcend their local habitation and become, in some mysterious way, contemporaneous with ‘all time.’” (Andrews) As stated, Shakespeare went beyond his time and created traditions, symbols, sayings, and even stories that people today will remember forever. King Lear and Much Ado About Nothing are each examples of Shakespeare's detailed ...
Two powerful characters in the play, aging King Lear and the gullible Earl of Gloucester, both betrayed their children unintentionally. Firstly, characters are betrayed due to family assumption. Lear banished his youngest daughter Cordelia because he over estimated how much she loved him. When questioned by her father, she responds with, "I love your Majesty / According to my bond, no more nor less." (I,i, 94-95) Lear assumed that since Cordelia was his daughter, she had to love him in a certain way, but he took this new knowledge and banished her without further thought. Secondly, characters were betrayed because of class. Edmund, the first-born son in the Gloucester family, should have been his father's next of kin. He would have been able to take over the position of Earl upon his father's death if he did not hold the title of a legitimate bastard. In his first soliloquy he says, "Why Bastard? Wherefore base? / When my dimensions are as well compact/ my mind as generous, and my shape as true " (I,ii, 6-8) Edmund believes he is at least equal, if not more, to his father in body and in mind, but the title that his father regrettably gave to him still lingers. Lastly, characters were betrayed because of family trust. Gloucester trusted his son Edmund when he was told that his other son was trying to kill him. Upon reading the forged letter written by Edmund, he responded with, "O villain, villain! His very opinion in the letter! Go, sirrah, seek him." (I,ii,75-77) Gloucester inadvertently betrayed Edgar because he held so much trust in his one son that he was easily persuaded to lose all trust in his other one. These blind characters were unfortunately betrayed there children, but they did it unintentionally and will eventually see there wrong doings.
Shakespeare’s treatment of illegitimacy in the play King Lear can be interpreted in many ways depending on the audience. The situation of illegitimacy is portrayed through the relationships of the characters the Earl Of Gloucester and his two sons Edgar and Edmund. Edmund is the illegitimate son while Edgar was born within the law. We learn of Edmund’s illegitimacy in the opening scene in the first act where The Earl of Gloucester is holding a conversation with Kent while Edmund is nearby. Gloucester speaks flippantly and lightly of the way his illegitimate son came into the world while introducing him to Kent saying, “ Though this knave came something saucily into the world before he was sent for, yet his mother was fair, there was good sport at his making, and the whoreson must be acknowledged” (Act I, Scene I, Lines 19-24). There are several peculiar things about this dialogue. One of the interesting aspects of Gloucester and Kent’s discussion is the readiness of Gloucester to admit he has fathered a child out of wedlock. This may be influenced by the fact that Edmund had obviously grown into a son that a father would be proud to have. At first meeting he seems polite, courteous, and loyal. Perhaps these admirable character traits are cause for Gloucester’s willingness to publicly claim Edmund as his own. Another unusual occurrence in the opening dialogue is that Gloucester calls Edmund a whoreson and a knave while he is close by and probably in hearing distance. This seems odd because Gloucester professes to feel only love for his son and no shame but he seems to almost mock him in this situation. One explanation for this behavior may be that deep down Gloucester still harbors some discomfort about the relationship between himself and his son despite his verbal proclamations of shamelessness. This could be inferred from Gloucester’s statement, “ His breeding, sir, hath been at my charge. I have so often blushed to acknowledge him that now I am brazed to ‘t.” (Act I, Scene I, Line 9). Again, depending on the audience the attitudes displayed in the play by the characters and Shakespeare himself by his writing can be interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the observer.
Relation between Nature and Man in A Midsummer's Night's Dream, King Richard II, and King Lear
Human nature is a concept that has interested scholars throughout history. Many have debated over what human nature is – that is, the distinguishing characteristics that are unique to humans by nature – while others have mulled over the fact that the answer to the question “what is human nature?” may be unattainable or simply not worth pursuing. Shakespeare explores the issue of human nature in his tragedy King Lear. In his play, he attempts to portray that human nature is either entirely good or entirely evil. He seems to suggest, however, that it is not impossible for one to move from one end of the spectrum of human nature to the other, as multiple characters go through somewhat of a metamorphosis where their nature is changed. In this paper I analyze and present Shakespeare’s account of human nature in King Lear in comparison with other authors that we have read throughout our year in the Aquinas program.
There are billions of people in the entire world, however, chances such as certain individual shares the same personality, height, or hobbies of other people who live in the opposite extreme of the globe is ultimately bizarre. In a similar idea, a William Shakespeare’s play, entitled King Lear demonstrates the similarities of people, particularly through the work of relativeness that runs in blood. The play revolves around King Lear and his three daughters, along with a parallel sub-plot of Gloucester and his two sons. Mainly, Lear banishes and disowns Cordelia, one of his daughters, and grants the other two, Goneril and Regan with his inheritance and power. But unfortunately, Goneril and Regan eventually betrays Lear, whereas Cordelia comes back to save him. Also, the play corresponds to a well-known phrase, “like father, like daughter”, which genuinely refers to Lear and his daughters. Altogether, King Lear’s existence as a father projects distinguishable affinities between his and the lives of his daughters. The father and daughters’ similarities vary solely depending on how the characters exhibit their actions through their own will.
Throughout the play, the good-hearted Earl of Gloucester suffers at the hands of his illegitimate child Edmund and the king’s evil daughters Goneril and Regan. Gloucester loves his son Edgar and has given him land as a result. Edmund wishes to take these lands from his brother but in order to do so he must make Edgar fall from his father’s good graces. Edmund hatches a plan and says, “A credulous father and a brother noble/ Whose nature is so far from doing harms/That he suspects none” (1.2.187-189). Edmund quickly and cleverly begins to place doubt in his father’s mind about Edgar and soon manages to falsely convince his trusting father that Edgar wants to kill him. By falsely believing his son Edmund, Gloucester believes his actions to bring Edgar to “justice” are appropriate and sends (search patrols to find his son in) order to do so. Gloucester also defends and helps King Lear although his two evil daughters told him not too. Gloucester cannot bear to see King Lear in such a miserable state and goes against his daughters’ wishes when he says, “I would not see thy cruel nails/ Pluck out his ...
Shakespeare's King Lear is a play which shows the consequences of one man's decisions. The audience follows the main character, Lear, as he makes decisions that disrupt order in his Kingdom. When Lear surrenders all his power and land to his daughters as a reward for their demonstration of love towards him, the breakdown on order in evident. Lear's first mistake is to divide his Kingdom into three parts. A Kingdom is run best under one ruler as only one decision is made without contradiction. Another indication that order is disrupted is the separation of Lear's family. Lear's inability to control his anger causes him to banish his youngest daughter, Cordelia, and loyal servant, Kent. This foolish act causes Lear to become vulnerable to his other two daughters as they conspire against him. Lastly, the transfer of power from Lear to his eldest and middle daughter, Goneril and Regan, reveals disorder as a result of the division of the Kingdom. A Kingdom without order is a Kingdom in chaos. When order is disrupted in King Lear, the audience witnesses chaotic events that Lear endures, eventually learning who truly loves him.
Shakespeare’s character Gloucester has two sons, Edmund and Edgar. Edmund is the illegitimate son, the result of Gloucester’s affair with his mother. Gloucester doesn’t let this idea rest, as even when he introduces his bastard son to Kent at the beginning of the play it’s mentioned. “Though this knave came something saucily to the world before he was sent for, yet was his mother fair, there was good sport at his making, and the whoreson must be acknowledged” (I.I.21-24). Gloucester openly denotes Edmund and puts him in his place as illegitimate and unfitting to take his crown. Edgar, however, is the more beloved son, and is the next in line to receive the father’s land and power. This battle between legitimacy and illegitimacy is difficult, because other than the fact that Gloucester is married to Edgar’s mother, the two boys are considered moderately equal. Edmund argue...
Throughout Shakespeare's story of King Lear, readers might see a similarity between King Lear and Gloucester. Initially, you feel as if King Lear and Gloucester are, in a sense, bad people for abandoning the individuals that care about them the most. King Lear banishes his daughter Cordelia because she doesn’t express her love for Lear the way he wants her to and he also banishes Kent for standing up for Cordelia in saying that she truly loves Lear the most. Gloucester banishes his son Edgar because he is manipulated by his illegitimate son Edmund into thinking that Edgar is trying to murder him so that he can take his throne. In the beginning, I feel as if King Lear is insecure and has poor judgment while Gloucester is easily influenced and very naive. Towards the end of the play, my opinions on both Lear and Gloucester changed. I began to feel sympathy towards them once they started going through traumatic events. Towards the end of the play, King Lear becomes a humble and caring individual while Gloucester later proves how he is capable of great bravery. In the end, it seems as though both Lear and Gloucester die from the guilt and sorrow that comes from the traumatic events that they experience. One might suggest that they both die from a broken heart.
In Shakespeare's classic tragedy, King Lear, there are several characters who do not see the reality of their situation. Two such characters are Lear and Gloucester. Both characters exhibit a blindness to the world around them. Lear does not see clearly the truth of his daughters mentions, while Gloucester is also blinded by Edmond's treachery. This failure to see reality leads to Lear's intellectual blindness, which is his insanity, and Gloucester's physical blindness that leads to his trusting tendencies. Each character achieves inner awareness at the end as their surreal blindness is lifted and they realize the truth. Both Lear and Gloucester are characters used by Shakespeare to show the relevance of having a clear vision in life.
Shakespeare’s dramatic theatre performances have long endured the test of time. His tales of love and loss, and even some history, make a reader think about events in their own life and what they wish to accomplish in life. Though written for the stage, Shakespeare’s plays have life lessons that readers of the great works can take put into effect in their own lives. Some may say that his plays are out dated, and are something of the past; though they were written in the 1600’s, they have morals and themes that can apply to life. “You've got to contend with versification, poetic license, archaisms, words that we don't even use any more, and grammar and spelling that were in a state of flux when the works were written,” says Pressley in an attempt to explain how to read Shakespeare. Once read and understood, however, one can start to compare and contrast different plays. The ways in which Shakespeare’s two plays King Lear and Much Ado About Nothing are similar out numbers the instances they are different, even though one is a Shakespearian tragedy while the other is a comedy.
In King Lear, Gloucester internally struggles between his legitimate son, Edgar, and his illegitimate son, Edmund. He is unable to appropriately place trust in his sons and this leads to Gloucester’s punishments. Gloucester banishes Edgar despite that Edgar remained loyal to his father. Shortly after Edgar’s banishment, Cornwall blinds Gloucester while revealing to him that Edmund