Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
King lear critical review of kent
King Lear and King Gloucester comparison
King Lear and King Gloucester comparison
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: King lear critical review of kent
In King Lear, two characters choose to place disguises on themselves in order to play a role in reinforcing the main theme of justice in the play. The disguises play focus on the specific goals of Edgar and Kent to be fulfilled; Edgar wants to prove himself, and Kent wants to restore King Lear’s faith in him. Edgar becomes Poor Tom, and uses that persona to “take the basest and more poorest shape/That ever penury in contempt of man/ Brought near to beast” (2.3.7-9) simply to protect himself and build sympathy from others who will see him as a poor beggar boy. The primary reason Kent has for disguising himself as Caius is explained by his devotion to Lear. As Lear’s advisor, Kent has proven himself to be faithful and show that he has genuine concern for his King, even after Lear has banished him. Instead of plotting revenge on Lear, Kent uses his exile to better serve Lear because of his skill at “other accents borrow,/That can [his] speech diffuse, [his] good intent/May carry through itself to that full issue/For which [he] razed [his] likeness” (1.4.1-4). This continuous loyalty Kent has for Lear is not only painstakingly obvious to the audience, but is an example of pathos as Kent only demonstrates over again that he is devoted to Lear, and yet Lear refuses to acknowledge this. Kent uses his disguise not for personal gain as Edgar does, but to show the audience (and Lear) that he is a genuinely good human being, and he will do what he must for his King.
Edgar feels persecuted by his bastard brother Edmund, and is exiled into the status of a lower class man, when Edmund reveals Edgar’s true nature to their father Gloucester. In Act Two, the audience feels sympathetic towards Edgar’s treatment by Edmund who wounds himself with h...
... middle of paper ...
... reflect his change, which is notable as he says: “Every man look o’er/ his part. For the short and the long is, our play is preferred” (4.2.18-19). Here, Bottom shows that he is finally taking the play as seriously as he should have when the Mechanicals had first sat down to rehearse. By accepting the play the way it is written, without any modifications made by himself, he is allowing the audience and his fellow actors that he has become serious about his role, and about being a better person. In William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, love is something that blossomed from the theme of disguise and deception. Even though the disguises were placed upon the characters by magic, they were still able to take those experiences and learn how to develop and grow from them, which allowed them to learn how to love properly –without sight, but rather, with the mind
Even after his clouded judgement, Gloucester admitted that “the grief hath crazed [his] wits” (III.iv.180). Due to Gloucester being a “credulous father / Whose nature is so far from doing harms / That he suspects none” (I.ii.187-189), he was deceived by the craftiness of his illegitimate son and believed that his good son Edgar was evil, thus proving that retributive justice did not win in this case. Gloucester was loyal to King Lear and wanted to help him despite Regan advising him not to do so. Gloucester, unfortunately was concluded to be a spy for France by Edmund to Cornwall. Instead of being sceptical and making a correct judgement, Cornwall immediately believed him and decided to arrest him. Edmund handed him a letter for further proof, but even without reading it, Cornwall proclaimed, “True or false, it hath made [Edmund] Earl of / Gloucester” (III.vi.18-19), and right after decided to arrest the true Earl. Even without his knowledge, his status was handed over to one who did not deserve it, a situation that Nemesis would never have allowed. Finally, after all of this chaos ensues, Gloucester comes to his own home where he is tied to a chair and was cruelly
A Midsummer Night’s Dream, by William Shakespeare, is a classic play that has been retold in many ways. The most recent version of this romantic comedy was done by Michael Hoffman in 1999. This portrayal follows very closely to the original play. Very few lines are taken out, and the characters stay very true to the assumed original idea. The one main difference in the original play and this movie is the depiction of the character Nick Bottom the weaver. The original play shows Bottom as the “…overconfident weaver…hilariously overt…has extraordinary belief in his own ability…totally unaware of his ridiculousness…” (Sparknotes.com). These types of characteristics would normally make readers see Bottom as a cocky, egotistical, center of attention, “ass”. In the play, this is the case. However, in the 1999 movie version, with Kevin Kline as Bottom, the audience gets a different idea of Bottom without changing his basic character traits. Hoffman achieved changing the overall perception of the character of Bottom from to a “…warm fuzzy man, a dreamer for whom we can root”, and pathetic lover, while still keeping the “ass” quality, by only changing a few small, very subtle things (Jones, 127).
A Midsummer Night's Dream is one of Shakespeare's most widely read comedies about love. This seems somewhat strange, however, in light of the fact that so few of its characters seem to display any kind of full or true love. A close examination of the actions and words of each of the players will reveal that only one of them, by the end of Act V, should be considered a "lover".
In Chapter 4 of a book titled Escape from Freedom, the famous American psychologist Erich Fromm wrote that "Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction" (Fromm 98). Fromm realized that avarice is one of the most powerful emotions that a person can feel, but, by its very nature, is an emotion or driving force that can never be satisfied. For, once someone obtains a certain goal, that person is not satisfied and continues to strive for more and more until that quest leads to their ultimate destruction. For this reason, authors have embraced the idea of greed in the creation of hundreds of characters in thousands of novels. Almost every author has written a work centered around a character full of avarice. Ian Fleming's Mr. Goldfinger, Charles Dickens' Scrooge, and Thomas Hardy's John D'Urberville are only a few examples of this attraction. But, perhaps one of the best examples of this is found in William Shakespeare's King Lear. Edmund, through his speech, actions, and relationships with other characters, becomes a character consumed with greed to the point that nothing else matters except for the never-ending quest for status and material possessions.
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. Edgar's role, as an outcast and madman, corresponds to King Lear in four ways: (1) they both are deceived by family. Edgar is deceived by his half brother, and King Lear is deceived by two of his daughters. Edgar babbles about how Edmund deceived him: "Who gives anything to Poor Tom?"
In The Tragedy of King Lear, particularly in the first half of the play, Lear continually swears to the gods. He invokes them for mercies and begs them for destruction; he binds both his oaths and his curses with their names. The older characters—Lear and Gloucester—tend view their world as strictly within the moral framework of the pagan religion. As Lear expresses it, the central core of his religion lies in the idea of earthly justice. In II.4.14-15, Lear expresses his disbelief that Regan and Albany would have put the disguised Kent, his messenger, in stocks. He at first attempts to deny the rather obvious fact in front of him, objecting “No” twice before swearing it. By the time Lear invokes the king of the pagan gods, his refusal to believe has become willful and almost absurd. Kent replies, not without sarcasm, by affixing the name of the queen of the gods to a contradictory statement. The formula is turned into nonsense by its repetition. In contradicting Lear’s oath as well as the assertion with which it is coupled, Kent is subtly challenging Lear’s conception of the universe as controlled by just gods. He is also and perhaps more importantly, challenging Lear’s relationship with the gods. It is Kent who most lucidly and repeatedly opposes the ideas put forth by Lear; his actions as well as his statements undermine Lear’s hypotheses about divine order. Lear does not find his foil in youth but in middle age; not in the opposite excess of his own—Edmund’s calculation, say—but in Kent’s comparative moderation. Likewise the viable alternative to his relationship to divine justice is not shown by Edmund with his ...
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.
Edmund, the bastard son of Gloucester is not pleased with his status as a bastard. Edgar the legitimate son of Gloucester stands to obtain the lands, wealth and power of his father. Edmund thinks this is unfair and begins a plot to banish his brother and obtain the lands of his father. He begins by writing a fake letter from Edgar saying that he wants to murder his father and wishes to take power by force. Edmund uses his deceiving abilities to make the letter seem genuine. He lies to his father about how he came into possession of the letter: “It was not brought me, my Lord; t...
Throughout the events which unfold in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare delivers several messages on love. Through this play, one of the significant ideas he suggests is that love is blind, often defying logic and overriding other emotions and priorities. Helena loves Demetrius unconditionally and pursues him despite knowing that he loathes her; conflict arises between Helena and Hermia, childhood best friends, over Demetrius and Lysander; and because she is in love, Queen Titania is able to see beauty and virtue in the ass-headed Nick Bottom.
has no love for him and it does not exist. The same goes for her sister, Regan,
The Great Chain of Being is defined as the order within a country which implies that every person and object is designed to play a role in the chain. Challenging this established order is the ultimate act of betrayal. In Shakespeare's tragedy King Lear, betraying the order within the kingdom is mandatory for a character who is not possessed with power to obtain leverage. As a result, the cause of betrayal leads to a disruption within various relationships such as with an individual, as well as with society and with oneself. In King Lear, Goneril and Regan betray the natural order in response to their upbringing which in result affects the relationship between each other. King Lear’s descent from the chain, due to the acts of betrayal committed
All these sacrifices made by Edgar shows the reader what kind of person he is. Although some sacrifices were for himself, he also considered other people when deciding on what actions to take. Edgar’s sacrifices show he is a brave, considerate, and caring person.
In Shakespeare’s King Lear, the Fool is a source of chaos and disruption in King Lear’s tumultuous life. The Fool causes the King distress by insulting him, making light of his problems, and telling him the truth. On the road to Regan’s, the Fool says “If thou wert my Fool, nuncle, I’d have thee / beaten for being old before thy time.” (1.5.40-41). He denies the king the respect due to him as an aged King, causing the King to wonder at his worthiness. The fool also makes light of Lear’s qualms making snide remarks in response to Lear’s ruminations. When Lear asks Edgar cryptically, “wouldst thou give ‘em all?” the Fool responds, “Nay, he reserved a blanket, else we had been all shamed” (3.4.69-72). The Fool’s snide remarks do little to maintain Lear’s fragile control of his faculties. However, the Fool speaks to the king candidly, a rare occasion in Lear’s life. Even Kent acknowledges the truth of the Fool’s statements, saying, “This is not altogether fool, my lord” (1.4.155).
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 argues this in his soliloquy in Act 1 Scene II, “Why bastard?... ... middle of paper ...
Edmund lusted for all of his father’s power, lying to his gullible brother and father aided him in his plan for total authority along with destroying their lives. As bastard son of Gloucester, Edmund wanted to receive all of the power destined for his brother, Edgar, who was Gloucester’s legitimate son. Edmund stated his disapproval of his brother, “Wherefore should I/ Stand in the plague of custom, and permit/ The curiosity of nations to deprive me/ For that I am some twelve or fourteen moonshines/ Lag of a brother? Why bastard?”(1.2.2-6). Edmund wanted the respect and love that Edgar received even though he was Gloucester’s bastard son. He claimed that he was not much younger or “moonshines lag of a brother” therefore he should be considered just as smart and able-minded as any legitimate son. He built up hatred toward Edgar and in order to get rid of him he convinced his father that Edgar had betrayed him through a letter. The letter that Edmund made read, “If our father would sleep till I waked him, you/ should enjoy half his revenue for ever, and live/ the beloved of your brother, Edgar”(1.2.55-57). Edmund portrayed Edgar as the son that would kill Gloucester only to inherit his money and share his inheritance with Edmund. Gloucester believed Edmund, sending out guards to kill Edgar for his betrayal...