Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of the tragedy of King Lear
King lear and gloucester comparison
Analysis of the tragedy of King Lear
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analysis of the tragedy of King Lear
King Lear
Every situation in life has an appearance, and a reality. The appearance of a situation is usually what we want to see. The reality, what is really going on, is not always as obvious to the observer. People who cannot penetrate through the superficial appearance of a situation will see only what they want to believe is true; often, the reality of a situation is unappealing to the perceiver. These are the circumstances surrounding the conflict that occurs in William Shakespeare's King Lear. As an audience, you find that there is a major character flaw in the characters King Lear and the Earl of Gloucester. In the story, neither of these two men are able to establish the difference, in their minds, between what people are saying and doing, and what these people's true motives are behind their actions. This enables Lear and Gloucester to be betrayed by their own blood, and become isolated from those who have their interests at heart. It is the inability to differentiate between appearance and reality that causes Lear and Gloucester to fall.
It seems, that in King Lear, appearance, or reputation defines character. Edgar says as much in soliliquy, when he disguises himself as Poor Tom. As soon as he changes out of his expensive clothing, and into his beggar drab he decides "Edgar I nothing
am."(II.iii.21). Although he is still Edgar beneath his disguise, when he is encountered by his own father Gloucester and his godfather Lear, neither of the two recognise him. It becomes apparent that as soon as Edgar's costume changed, all perceptions of his character did as well. This same situation is paralleled when Kent, also banished, returns in disguise as Lear's servant Caius. When Lear first sees his long time co...
... middle of paper ...
...ast these surface concepts and develop some understanding of reality. From what has been said, it can be seen that the fall of King Lear, paired with the subplot of Gloucester's betrayal by Edmund provides many parallels which reinforce one another. We watch, in King Lear, these two aging men fall from positions of respect and power to being the simple and abused nothings of society. Furthermore, we see these same two men believe themselves to be one way, though they are perceived by others quite differently. Lastly, we learn in watching the play that valuing things by how much they appear to be, not how much they truly are worth gives a false representation of the truth. On the whole, Shakespeare's King Lear is making a statement about appearances and realities; specifically, you can't accept things at face value, you must search for deeper truths and avoid deceit.
Lear’s character is constantly and dramatically changing throughout the play both by growing as a character but also through many downfalls. Lear becomes emotionally stronger and gains much more rationale near the end of the play, but only after a great downfall in each of these sectors. This was a result of the self-entitlement that Lear had placed on himself. King Lear’s vanity and excessive sense of entitlement was his tragic flaw throughout the play. He was a King, and needed to be served on time. Furthermore, when he is referred to as “my lady’s father,” this also hurts his ego for he is a King and that is what he wishes to be addressed
The play of "King Lear" is about a search for personal identity. In the historical period in which this play is set, the social structure was set in order of things closest to Heaven. Therefore, on Earth, the king was at the top, followed by his noblemen and going all the way down to the basest of objects such as rocks and dirt. This structure was set up by the people, and by going by the premise that anything that is man made is imperfect, this system cannot exist for long without conflict.
However, as their dreadful actions increased, they failed to realize the struggle to restore honor and certainty did as well. Shakespeare demonstrated how the only situation in which individuals struggle to restore honor is when that honor is gained through dominating and destroying the lives of others; when it is gained through wrongdoing. When the honor is gained through righteous actions, the challenges are easier to handle resulting in internal peace. Both of King Lear’s daughters were trapped in an illusion where they felt they must continue their mischief in order to gain honor. They both drew attention towards their status and power while neglecting their character. They failed to realize this thirst was only destroying the happiness they once owned. Their destruction occurred at the point where they both received what they had given their father: betrayal. Shakespeare presented the idea that restoring honor through harming others results in nothing but one’s self-destruction of their happiness and
To begin, in the tragic play, King Lear, by William Shakespeare, the character of Edmund was used to show how a man is by nature ambitious, jealous, envious, and vengeful. Firstly, Edmund is the most ambitious character, eager to seize any opportunity and willing to do anything to achieve his goal even if it means hurting his own family. This is clear when Edmund plots against his own father; Gloucester and half-brother; Edgar to get hold of his father’s property. All of the efforts he put to destroy the relationship between Gloucester and his legitimate son, Edgar reveals his jealous envious, vengeful, and ambitious character. He could not handle the injustice in the society and he wanted to change his position in...
In Act 3, Scene 4, Edgar takes on the roles of a madman, and a spirit. In counterfeiting madness, he not only hides from an unjust death, but also serves as a character that resembles King Lear: (1) Both are deceived by family; (2) Both are outcasts of Gloucester's castle; (3) Both are threatened with death; and (4) Both enter into a form of madness. But, whereas King Lear actually becomes mad, Edgar only feigns madness. As Edgar takes the role of a "spirit" (3.4.39), he reveals: (1) Edmund's moral condition, by prescribing moral laws that he will break (3.4.80-83); and (2) that Gloucester will be blinded by Edmund (3.4.117). This essay will begin by examining how Edgar's role, as an outcast feigning madness, resembles the life and fate of King Lear, and then will show how his role as a spirit, reveals future events that will come to pass.
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.
In King Lear, Shakespeare portrays a society whose emphasis on social class results in a strict social hierarchy fueled by the unceasing desire to improve one’s social status. It is this desire for improved social status that led to the unintentional deterioration of the social hierarchy in King Lear. This desire becomes so great that Edmund, Goneril, Reagan and Cornwall were willing to act contrary to the authority of the social hierarchy for the betterment of their own position within it. As the plot unfolds, the actions of the aforementioned characters get progressively more desperate and destructive as they realize their lack of success in attaining their personal goals. The goals vary, however the selfish motivation does not. With Edmund, Goneril, Reagan and Cornwall as examples, Shakespeare portrays the social hierarchy as a self-defeating system because it fosters desires in its members that motivate them to act against the authority of the hierarchy to benefit themselves. A consideration of each characters actions in chronological order and the reasons behind such actions reveals a common theme among the goals for which morality is abandoned.
These classic tropes are inverted in King Lear, producing a situation in which those with healthy eyes are ignorant of what is going on around them, and those without vision appear to "see" the clearest. While Lear's "blindness" is one which is metaphorical, the blindness of Gloucester, who carries the parallel plot of the play, is literal. Nevertheless, both characters suffer from an inability to see the true nature of their children, an ability only gained once the two patriarchs have plummeted to the utter depths of depravity. Through a close reading of the text, I will argue that Shakespeare employs the plot of Gloucester to explicate Lear's plot, and, in effect, contextualizes Lear's metaphorical blindness with Gloucester's physical loss of vision.
Communication is the key essential for one to fully understand and personify the thought of another. Without the key essentials themselves, a knowledge for wisdom and understanding would be lost, thus, causing a breakdown towards communication and emotional intelligence. Within the theatrical play, King Lear written by William Shakespeare himself, comes the story of the falling of an old English Elizabethan king, Lear, whose patriarch role was taken away; due to the act of his own pride. Other than the play’s main plot, King Lear too portrays the telling between the lost of communication and the consequences of its breakdown between people, parents and children. The lack of communication and understanding is shown throughout the entire play,
This is a comparison and contrast of two different views of the character, Gloucester in the play King Lear. It will show the different ways that Gloucester has his eyes ripped out. It will also show the different ways the lighting is used and what kind of scenery. It will also show the difference in the ages of the character. Let’s not leave out the wardrobe and the difference between both productions. It will show how Gloucester ages and has similar problems as that of the King.
This new Lear is certainly a far cry from the arrogant king we saw at the beginning of the play. Shakespeare has transformed Lear from an ignorant old king into some sort of god, using a seven stage process: resentment, regret, recognition, acceptance and admittance, guilt, redemption, and optimism. Lear’s transformation can be simply described as a transition from blindness into sight, he did not see the value in listening to others, but in the end he gained a sense of optimism and idealism. There is no doubting that Shakespeare has portrayed Lear as a flawed figure, who, through his misfortune and suffering, goes from a contemptuous human being to one who has been purified into an omniscient, godly type character, proving that ignorant people can truly change to become caring individuals.
Despite its undeniable greatness, throughout the last four centuries King Lear has left audiences, readers and critics alike emotionally exhausted and mentally unsatisfied by its conclusion. Shakespeare seems to have created a world too cruel and unmerciful to be true to life and too filled with horror and unrelieved suffering to be true to the art of tragedy. These divergent impressions arise from the fact that of all Shakespeare's works, King Lear expresses human existence in its most universal aspect and in its profoundest depths. A psychological analysis of the characters such as Bradley undertook cannot by itself resolve or place in proper perspective all the elements which contribute to these impressions because there is much here beyond the normal scope of psychology and the conscious or unconscious motivations in men.
King Lear by Shakespeare portrayed the negative effects of power resulting in destruction caused by the children of a figure with authority. Through lies and continual hatred, characters maintained a greed for power causing destruction within their families. The daughter’s of Lear and the son Gloucester lied to inherit power for themselves. Edmund the son of Gloucester planned to eliminate his brother Edgar from his inheritance.
Throughout most of King Lear, Lear's vision is clouded by his lack of insight. Since he cannot see into other people's characters, he can never identify them for who they truly are. When Cordelia angers Lear, Kent tries to reason with Lear, who is too stubborn to remain open-minded. Lear responds to Kent's opposition with, "Out of my sight," to which Kent responds, "See better, Lear, and let me still remain" (I.i.160). Here, Lear is saying he never wants to see Kent again, but he could never truly see him for who he is. Kent was only trying to do what was best for Lear, but Lear could not see that. Kent's vision is not clouded, as is Lear's, and he knows that he can remain near Lear as long as he is in disguise. Later, Lear's vision is so superficial that the physical garments and simple disguise that Kent wears easily dupe him. Lear cannot see who Kent really is. He only learns of Kent's noble and honest character just prior to his death, when his vision is cleared. By this time, however, it is too late for an honest relationship to be salvaged.
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.