Some of Shakespeare’s most well known works are his tragedies. One of the reasons they are still read worldwide is Shakespeare’s study of character and the relationships, which these characters are involved with. In order to get the full tragedy; the characters must represent basic morals or ideas. A common theme among a lot of Shakespeare works is the idea of family and what it means to be within and part of a family. This idea of a natural law, in which it deals with society’s and family’s expectation of what is to be given from parent to child as well as the bond which is made. In Shakespeare’s King Lear, the two plots revolve around a parent’s dealing with children who are not proper to what is expected of them.
King Lear is a story, which deals with the idea of familial expectation and the roles in which parents and children play. Lear’s madness and his obsession with being praised blinded him to the child who was really the only one who loved him, Cordelia. The same with the Earl of Gloucester, he was blinded by his illegitimate child, Edmund, who set out to turn him away from his heir, Edgar. Within the story, these two children and a few loyal servants try to help and eventually try to save the King and Gloucester, but they are both too stubborn to recognize the goodness and true bond in these people. The story of King Lear deals with the turmoil of a chaotic world began by the boundaries of family and personal relationships being turn upside down.
The story opens with King Lear, ready to retire, calling his three daughters to the room. When everyone had assembled, Lear made the grand announcement that he would divide the kingdom three ways, a piece to each daughter. However, he added that the larger pieces were to go to the daughter who loved him most. He based this not upon their actions but the speech they gave. The first two daughters, Regan and Goneril, made a flowery and obviously fake speech in which Lear preened and awarded them their kingdoms. When it came to his third daughter, Cordelia, she answered, “Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave my heart into my mouth. I love your majesty according to my bond, nor more nor less.” (Abrams, pg. 893) In that she tells her father she loves him but will not participate in the game he had arranged for the dividing of his lands.
In conclusion, family bonding and loyalty are dependent on each other as appeared in No Great Mischief, which makes the relationship strong and keeps the family strengthen in odd times. Whereas, in King Lear, characters acted both as hypocritically and faithfully, but due to the absence of family bonding, Lear and Gloucester could not recognize the true intentions of the double dealer.
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
Women usually worked as secretaries or on the assembly line because “bosses felt that young women were more diligent and easier to manage” (p. 56). Men, however, were either in a high managing position in the factory or worked in the lowest of jobs available, such as a security guard or driver. It was interesting to learn that about one-third of all of China’s migrants are women. These women go to the factory towns to work, but also, a majority of them leave their homes to see the world and experience life on their own for the first time. Chang makes a point that “to some extent, this deep-rooted sexism worked in a woman’s favor” (p. 57). The statement is supported by the idea that women are less treasured in their families; therefore, they had more freedom to do what they wanted with little care from the family. Shockingly, Chang noticed that no woman ever complained about unfair treatment. “They took all of these injustices in stride” (p.58). The women were grateful for the opportunity leave home and gain a sense of freedom; injustice was not a prominent
It was a temporary experience of upward social mobility. I was assumed the socioeconomic status as a member of the elite by the upperclass. Even though I was in a public school system in Greenfield with not nearly the amount of life chances (opportunities in resources, such as education) as the majority of my colleagues (pg.195). It wasn’t until I expressed my intimidation and background was I placed back onto my lowermiddle class platform. Yet by making good impressions, I was able to receive the promise of upward social mobility and resources. I received a grant for my research, worked in labs at Park Tudor and IUPUI, and have obtained enough scholarships to receive my education free at Ivy Tech. That way, I can be in the position these professionals briefly placed me in .The world is a giant audition, if you look the part, then you will get the role.
It tainted his familial bonds and gave him a sense of determination to escape society’s value of him. The notion of bastardy drives this aspect of the plot and is the single most important idea when looking into the phenomenon of cruelty between Edmund and Gloucester in King Lear. Edmund’s story is tragic because there is no resolution for his biggest grievance apart from a larger paradigm shift, marking a change in society’s value of the bastard. It is safe to say that Edmund and Gloucester’s relationship was plagued by powers greater than themselves. Shakespeare elevates their relationship to start a dialogue about family and societal values—creating a deeply layered and tragic
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.
The tragedy King Lear by William Shakespeare ought to be seen as a lesson on what not to do as a parent. By picking favorites, King Lear and the Earl of Gloucester leave a lasting impact on their children 's psyche, ultimately leading to them committing horrible crimes. The rash judgments, violent reactions, and blindness of both Lear and Gloucester lead to both their and their children 's demise. As a result, all of the father-child relationships in the play begin to collapse.
In Shakespeare's “King Lear”, the tragic hero is brought down, like all tragic heroes, by one fatal flaw; in this case it is pride, as well as foolishness. It is the King's arrogant demand for absolute love and, what's more, protestations of such from the daughter who truly loves him the most, that sets the stage for his downfall. Cordelia, can be seen as Lear’s one true love, and her love and loyalty go not only beyond that of her sisters but beyond words, thus enraging the proud King Lear whose response is: "Let pride, which she calls plainness, marry her". Here, Lear's pride is emphasized as he indulges in the common trend of despising in others what one is most embarrassed of oneself.
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.
King Lear had come so accustomed to his praise, that it is the sole thing he lived for, he needed it to survive, his treatment as a king was his Achilles heel in this play. He wanted to step down as king and divide his kingdom into 3 sections, giving them to his daughters to rule. Goneril and Regan were more than willing to accommodate his request to demonstrate their love for their father and king by professing their love to him in dramatic fashion combined with a good bit of exaggeration. While Cordelia on the other hand, found it a struggle to profess what she thought to be known by her father and king, she states, “Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave / My heart into my mouth. I love your majesty / According to my bond; nor more nor less (Scene 1.1, Lines 91-93).
One purpose for such a violent scene is to define the villains of the story. The play opens with King Lear retiring and deciding to split his land between his three daughters Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia. The size of the land plot each daughter will receive will be proportionate to their love for their father. The older two daughters Goneril and Regan eloquently announce their undying love for Lear, and are rewarded generously. The third daughter Cordelia, who truly does love her father, refuses to participate in such a display of flattery and lies. Cordelia announces, in front of all Lear's subjects, that she loves her father, "according to her bond, no more nor less." Insulted and hurt by Cordelia's harsh denouncement of love, Lear disowns her. And Lear's best friend of thirty years Kent defends Cordelia, Lear banishes Kent too. Having given away his land, Lear decides that he's going to take turns living with Goneril and Regan. To remind him of his kingship Lear kept a hundred knights. But when Lear shows up with his army at Goneril and Regan's houses, his "loving" daughters kick him out.
One of Horney’s book, Neurosis and Human Growth (1950), the concepts and formulations are precise, consistent, and unambiguous. However, when all her works are examined, a different picture emerges. Through the years, she used terms such as “neurotic needs” and “neurotic trends” sometimes separately and sometimes interchangeably. Also, the terms “basic anxiety” and “basic conflict” were not always clearly differentiated. These inconsistencies render her entire work somewhat inconsistent, but again, her final theory (1950) is a model of lucidity and consistency (Psychology,
Lear's sins as a father are quite unique and therefore difficult to analyse. First he asks his three daughters to announce their great love for him so he can reward them with shares of his kingdom, Cordellia is brutally honest with her reply and states "[I love you] according to my bond; no more no less." Lear subsequently banishes Cordellia, and so starts Lear's suffering. He then splits his kingdom between Regan and Goneril which in itself was a foolish thing to do as the responsibility and power suddenly given to these two sisters could easily corrupt them. Next he arrives at his daughter's houses with a large group of unruly k...
In the first scene of King Lear, Lear reveals his plan to split his kingdom between his daughters by asking them how much they love him. The daughter that proves she loves him the most receives the largest portion
How about the European, Asians, or Latinos? Well, the answer is not farfetched: (I). it was partly due to the life expectancy… “Longevity” and the masculinity of the African people. From the credible of human kind, African have always had that physical feature that seems to wow the European. The amount of strength God blesses them with, the ability to endure and survive under any condition or circumstances all motivated the European to settle in the African Without any element of exaggeration, look at today’s American society; all major activities that require physical and mental strength is dominated by the African-Americans it is self-explanatory that this is no mistake because the African-Americans are the very product of the enslaved Africans. (II). another reason why Africans were the target of mass-enslavement was racially motivated which will take me to another major point. Racism was another factor for mass-enslavement: racism is the most profound and more difficult factor to explain when discussing African mass-enslavement. But yet it is the most self-evident factor considering the havoc done on the Africans during