Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysia the character of king lear
Critical explanation of king lear
Analysia the character of king lear
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analysia the character of king lear
King Lear, a tragedy in which Shakespeare exhibits most fully his literary complexities, is surprisingly the least popular of the famous four. In spite of this, it is indefinitely the most talked about. For many this is Shakespeare's most profound tragedy, one of the greatest plays ever written in any language at any time. It throws up questions, which remain as perplexing now as they were to Shakespeare's earlier critics. And although thoroughly studied, the original story line has remained unchanged for centuries, even though many attempts have been made to alter it. In the twentieth century a range of conflicting views on King Lear emerged, a major development in Shakespearean criticism came with the publication of A.C Bradley's Shakespearean tragedy in1905. He focused on character and motivation and worked new angles previous critics never imagined and this set him apart from the rest. For Bradley a Shakespearean tragedy is the tragedy of an individual who suffers as he comes to terms with his personality.
To be a tragedy the story has to be of exceptional calamity leading to the death of a man in high state. But, according to Bradley, it is clearly much more than this as 'no amount of calamity which merely befell a man, descending from the clouds like lightening, or stealing from the darkness like pestilence', could alone provide the substance of its glory. These calamities do not simply happen and they are not sent from God, they proceed from the main character/s in a play. In this case it is Lear in the main plot and a combination of Gloucester and Edmund in the subplot, it provides amusement for the audience as they watch actions that will produce tragic events fall into place. As, in the words of Aristotle, 'the au...
... middle of paper ...
...ith his personality, Lear made a mistake and his chastisement is the death of his only loyal daughter Cordelia. Throughout King Lear characters put each other on trial. Lear and Gloucester both misjudge their children, who seem to possess better judgement. Cordelia has the measure of her sisters and Goneril's assessment of their father is acute and accurate. Edmund knows exactly how to take in his gullible relatives. It seems that better judgment is not the preserve of those who seemingly have good intentions. Sight is gained with blindness and this is shown to both Lear and Gloucester. Lear's insanity and Gloucester's blindness enables them to obtain this better judgement in the end. Lear has inspired in us, together with his pity, much admiration and affection. We can say the cause of his fatal flaw, in its full entirety, leads him to the discovery of this flaw.
Harbage, Alfred. " King Lear: An Introduction." Shakespeare: The Tragedies: A Collection of Critical Essays.
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 ...
Through Lear, Shakespeare expertly portrays the inevitability of human suffering. The “little nothings,” seemingly insignificant choices that Lear makes over the course of the play, inevitably evolve into unstoppable forces that change Lear’s life for the worse. He falls for Goneril’s and Regan’s flattery and his pride turns him away from Cordelia’s unembellished affection. He is constantly advised by Kent and the Fool to avoid such choices, but his stubborn hubris prevents him from seeing the wisdom hidden in the Fool’s words: “Prithee, tell him, so much the rent of his land comes to: he will not believe a fool” (Shakespeare 21). This leads to Lear’s eventual “unburdening,” as foreshadowed in Act I. This unburdening is exacerbated by his failure to recognize and learn from his initial mistakes until it is too late. Lear’s lack of recognition is, in part, explained by his belief in a predestined life controlled completely by the gods: “It is the stars, the stars above us govern our conditions” (Shakespeare 101). The elder characters in King Lear pin their various sufferings on the will of...
By the time Lear gains recognition of his own situation, and how his blindness has caused him great misfortune and heartache, it is too late and he dies with his beloved daughter Cordelia, after reconciling with her. Gloucester is another key example of mental blindness in King Lear, his gullibility and lack of sight causes him to be deceived by his son Edmund, and mistrust his loyal son Edgar. Edmund uses a letter to trick his father into believing that Edgar was trying to harm him. He purposely hides the letter so his father will ask. Gloucester is soon caught in the trap his son has laid; now he is mentally blinded by his son, and turns against Edgar.
The first flaw in King Lear is his arrogance, which results in the loss of Cordelia and Kent. It is his arrogance in the first scene of the play that causes him to make bad decisions. He expects his favorite, youngest daughter to be the most worthy of his love. His pride makes him expect that Cordelia’s speech to be the one filled with the most love. Unfortunately for King Lear’s pride, Cordelia replies to his inquisition by saying, “I love your majesty/According to my bond and nothing less';(1.1.100-101). Out of pride and anger, Lear banishes Cordelia and splits the kingdom in half to the two evil sisters, Goneril and Regan. This tragic flaw prevents King Lear from seeing the truth because his arrogance overrides his judgement. Lear’s arrogance also causes him to lose his most faithful servan...
Gloucester and Lear, create their eventual downfalls due to their inability to read deceit. Though these characters share the same tragic flaw, the means by which they make their errors is completely different. Gloucester remains a poor reader because he is quick to believe his sense of sight. When his illegitimate son, Edmund, reveals a deceitful letter designed to incriminate Edgar, Gloucester is quick to believe him. “Abominable villain”(1.2.74) he cries out before he even examines the letter with his reading glasses. Edmund’s trickery is conducted cleverly, but Gloucester’s lack of disbelief is unexplainable.
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.
middle of paper ... ... yman, Norfolk Marsh, Nicholas, “Shakespeare: The Tragedies” 1998 Macmillan Press, London Rehder, R.M, “York Notes: William Shakespeare: King Lear” 1980 Longman Group, Essex Websites and Online Resources BBC Education – King Lear (various authors, none cited.) http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/bookcase/lear/info.shtml#from Revolinski, Elaine 2002 http://drama.pepperdine.edu/shakespeare/lear/elaine/cordelia.htm RSC – Online Play Guides, King Lear (various authors, none cited.) http://www.rsc.org.uk/home/344.asp Schneider, Ben Ross, Jr.
King Lear as a Tragedy Caused by Arrogance, Rash Decisions and Poor Judgement of Character
Shakespeare’s play “King Lear” does not lack wicked characters. Throughout the play, it is evident that most characters only care about themselves and their status in England. Such characters as Goneril and Edmund will do anything to improve their standings in society such as killing and betraying family members. In contrast, The Duke of Albany cares about King Lear and England, but he takes no action to prove that he cares for them. However, the character Albany goes through a metamorphosis as the play evolves. At the start of the play, Albany is dismissive and lacks drive, but he quickly transitions into a dynamic character ready to right wrongs. The character of Albany, as developed by Shakespeare in “King Lear,” showcases a round character
In this case King Lear has physical eyesight, but is blind to all that is around him. He is taken with what he wants to hear and makes that his reality. Since he is emotionally driven as we have seen in the pervious paragraphs this not only makes him weak, but plays a heavy part in his downfall. Lear is not aware that both Goneril and Regan have motives to abandon there father. In Act I scene I Regan states to Goneril " 'Tis the infirmity of his age; yet he hath ever but slenderly known himself." (I.I.295). Both sister are plotting to undermine their father given his old age. King Lear believes that his daughters love him
The author develops the idea that King Lear experiences turning points through a mighty storm and the loss of a loving daughter. Lear does not carry his arrogant demeanor, which he possessed at the beginning of the play; in its place he is now indulgent and frightened. The finale of the play is the death of Lear due to a bounteous amount of grief and sorrow following the passing of his dearest daughter, Cordelia. Lear’s first turning point in the play is resulting from miserably leaving Gloucester’s kingdom and discovering himself and his alter ego (The Fool) outside in a ferocious storm. Through Lear’s continuous build up anger since the two separate displeasing visitations with his daughters Goneril and Regan, and the additional rage of the storm, Lear begins his process of self-reflection.
Shakespeare, William, Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. The Tragedy of King Lear. New York: Washington Square, 1993. Print.
King Lear and Gloucester are the two older characters that endure the most in the play King Lear by William Shakespeare. Throughout the play their stories foreshadow the events that will occur in the other’s life. However, while Gloucester goes blind, Lear goes mad. In doing this Shakespeare is indicating congruence between the two conditions. Only after they lose their faculties can Lear and Gloucester recognize that their blindness to honesty had cost them dearly.
Shakespeare, William, and Russell A. Fraser. King Lear. New York: New American Library, 1998. Print.