The Tragedy of King Lear by William Shakespeare, is often considered to be the Everest of Shakespeare’s plays (Holland, 2007). It is a tragic masterpiece and the summation of its author’s skills as a playwright. This is evident in the thematic complexities and masterful use of the tragic genre to convey a socio-political commentary to the audience. Indeed, it is clear that the genre does support King Lear as a socio-political commentary and that this commentary influences Shakespeare’s manipulation of theatrical and literary aspects of the text. Though King Lear might appear at first as chaotic in this regard as its titular character and the message/meaning of the play therefore uncertain, there is a predominant sense of order in its careful exploration of socio-political issues such as class struggle, tyranny by monarchy, and power-driven relationships. This criticism evidently influences Shakespeare’s manipulation of certain theatrical and literary devices within play, which in turn are used to further support the message of social equality and criticism of tyrannical monarchy. Dramatic and literary features such as plot, character, language and action complement this socio-political commentary and result from the tragic genre that Shakespeare has chosen. In turn, the genre and the devices work together to support the commentary that King Lear is trying to pass on to an audience; to reinforce the idea that Kings are also men and just as flawed, that men can also be Kings and that in death we are all equal.
King Lear is a Renaissance tragedy and this particular form of the tragic genre defines how Shakespeare approaches the theatrical and literary tools that he uses. Renaissance tragedy differs slightly from the original trage...
... middle of paper ...
... Lear in all its sheering cliffs of chaotic madness, ranges of double entendres and hidden meanings, is truly a tragic masterpiece. It is a tragedy not only in the gloomy, foreseen death of its titular character, but also in the way it marks the tragic nature of socio-political issues such as class struggle, tyranny by monarchy, power-driven relationships. King Lear ultimately seeks to remind the audience that these things exist in their day to day lives. The genre chosen by William Shakespeare clearly supports this socio-political commentary. It evidently influences Shakespeare’s manipulation of certain aspects of the text, which he in turn uses to further support and deepen the effect of his message of social equality and criticism of tyrannical monarchy. Ultimately, as the play depicts, all men, however large or small in life, are equal in the face of death.
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.
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 ...
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.
William Shakespeare’s “King Lear”, the concept of justice a theme that many characters struggle with. Unforgiving justice results to serious punishments, in result of an individual’s immoral acts committed during the play. Furthermore, loyal is very hard to find among individuals in the play. It is shown to King Lear in both positive and negative perspectives. Loyalty plays off at the end of the play, when King Lear discovers who has been loyal to him all along. The greed of power is vividly shown in the Fool’s and King Leers point of view. After retiring his kingdom Lear discovers the loss of his power, and authority. Overall, justice, loyalty, and power are some struggling themes that progress the play,
Through comedy and tragedy Shakespeare reveals the vast expanses and profound depths of the character of life. For him they are not separate worlds of drama and romance, but poles of a continuum. The distinction between tragedy and comedy is called in question when we turn to Shakespeare. Though the characters differ in stature and power, and the events vary in weight and significance, the movements of life in all Shakespeare's plays are governed by the same universal principles which move events in our own lives. Through myriad images Shakespeare portrays not only the character of man and society but the character of life itself.
Absolute in every child’s mind is the belief that they are right, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Until children grow up to raise children own their own, a parent’s disputation only inflates that desire to prove. Part and parcel to this, as one may find out through personal experience or by extension, cruelty towards parents is a reflection of a child’s own inadequacy (whether in large or small scale). In this sense, King Lear is a story of children with a desire to break past their hierarchal status. Whether it is the belief that a woman shall take a husband, and with that guard her inherited land, or what role bastards truly deserves in a society that preemptively condemns them. Cruelty at the hands of children accounts for almost
William Shakespeare’s infamous Tragedy of King Lear is as much about political authority as family dynamic. Although regarded as one of the most emotionally difficult, and portrays a world lacking of love, in which humanity is detached from any spiritual, higher being, there is still glimmers of goodness that can be discovered. While other discussions of King Lear focus on the bleakness and despair of the environment as well as the characters, especially Lear, it is arguable that this play is not an exemplification of a work lacking in morals, but of the reenchantment of charity, especially forgiveness as a pushback against the violence. Through this reading, a considerable amount of credit is given to Cordelia, and the powerful emotional impact she provides.
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 William Shakespeare, is a tragic tale of filial conflict, personal transformation, and loss. The story revolves around the King who foolishly alienates his only truly devoted daughter and realizes too late the true nature of his other two daughters. A major subplot involves the illegitimate son of Gloucester, Edmund, who plans to discredit his brother Edgar and betray their father. With these and other major characters in the play, Shakespeare clearly asserts that human nature is either entirely good, or entirely evil. Some characters experience a transformative phase, where, by some trial or ordeal, their nature is profoundly changed. We shall examine Shakespeare's stand on human nature in King Lear by looking at specific characters in the play, Cordelia who is wholly good, Edmund who is wholly evil, and Lear whose nature is transformed by the realization of his folly and his descent into madness.
Schlegel, August Wilhelm. Criticism on Shakespeare s Tragedies . A Course of Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature. London: AMS Press, Inc., 1995.
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.
The human condition can ultimately be defined as the positive and negative traits and characteristics that frame the complexity of human nature. This concept has been widely incorporated into many pieces of English literature throughout time, especially in William Shakespeare’s Jacobean tragedy, King Lear (hereafter Lear). More specifically, Shakespeare’s portrayal of the human condition in Lear depicts the suppression of one’s morality and/or rationality, triggering one’s downfall, as being due to unrestrained pride, gullibility and strong ambitions. Moreover, through studying the extract from the love scene/ Edmund’s soliloquy, I have gained a deepened understanding of Shakespeare’s representation of the human condition.
King Lear, the protagonist of the play, is a truly tragic figure. He is driven by greed and arrogance and is known for his stubbornness and imperious temper, he often acts upon emotions and whims. He values appearances above reality. He wants to be treated as a king and to enjoy the title, but he doesn’t want to fulfill a king’s obligations of governing for the good of his subjects.
No tragedy of Shakespeare moves us more deeply that we can hardly look upon the bitter ending than King Lear. Though, in reality, Lear is far from like us. He himself is not an everyday man but a powerful king. Could it be that recognize in Lear the matter of dying? Each of us is, in some sense, a king who must eventually give up his kingdom. To illustrate the process of dying, Shakespeare has given Lear a picture of old age in great detail. Lear’s habit to slip out of a conversation (Shakespeare I. v. 19-33), his brash banishment of his most beloved and honest daughter, and his bitter resentment towards his own loss of function and control, highlighted as he ironically curses Goneril specifically on her functions of youth and prays that her
Shakespeare, William, Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. The Tragedy of King Lear. New York: Washington Square, 1993. Print.