The Danger of Selflessness in King Lear Thematic of all Shakespearean tragedy are the individualistic, self-serving agendas of its characters and the subsequent deteriorations of interpersonal relationships among these characters. The King Lear play is deserving of such designation. The King Lear play resonates a clear distinction between good and evil. Within the structures of these antagonistic forces lies the personal schema of the individual. Through the circumstances of their harsh environment the characters of the play move toward a survival-of-the-fittest-type approach. The existence of a dog-eat-dog society forces this position. In such a world, to consider the collective good of the group or the well being of another is potentially hazardous to the individual - the virtue of selflessness perhaps harmful. For example, the character of Kent - attempting to bring Lear to the realization of the error in banishing Cordelia, Kent himself is exiled for admonishing the king's decision. The actions of Cordelia herself provide further affirmation of the inherent risks and subsequent consequences of considering the welfare of others. The misfortunes of Gloucester further lend to the claim that acts of altruism, in the Lear environment, prove harmful to the welfare of the individual. For instance, Gloucester's allegiance to Lear results in his gruesome disfigurement. In turn, Cornwall's servant, pleading for the duke to show mercy on Gloucester, ultimately results in his death.
The Bolsheviks, the ruling party of the Soviet Union, was lead by the Lenin. When Lenin died in January of 1924, he left behind no clear successor, and vague indications of his intended plans for the Bolshevik party. A power struggle for control of the party ensued, one in which many historical figures arose. Within this plethora of names, two of the most important names in Soviet history arose, Leon Trotsky, and Joseph Stalin. As the power struggle continued, the mutual antagonism grew, resulting in a life or death struggle. Eventually, Stalin was able to seize power and exile Trotsky. The reason for Stalin's success over Trotsky can be seen in their respective methodologies. Initially, the two were both long-time Marxists, in great positions of power, and both had worked closely alongside Lenin. However, where Stalin was willing to abuse his powers within the state, Trotsky refused to abuse his power. Secondly, Trotsky arose on the scene of the power struggle much earlier than Stalin, and allowed Stalin to bide his time and attack at his convenience. Finally, Stalin chose his allies wisely, and when they no longer suited his needs, was able to drop them and ruin their reputations in so doing. Trotsky however, formed uneasy alliances with other party members, ones that questioned his reputation. In the end, Stalin was in a position of great authority and command, leaving Trotsky in a position of futility.
The play contains a cluster of characters that are unequivocally good. Kent, for instance, is a paradigm of devotion. In Act I.I he is publicly insulted and humiliated. In spite of Lear's threats, Kent remains determined to serve his master, even braving the storm to be near him. Cordelia too, is traduced and punished by Lear, and yet she is the...
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.
Shakespeare's good characters, in the play King Lear, are considered good because they are loyal even when they are disguised from or unrecognizable by those to whom they owe loyalty. In addition, their loyalty does not waver even when they are banished or mistreated by those to whom they are loyal. Cordelia, Edgar and Kent are all characters that exemplify this goodness and unwavering loyalty.
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.
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.
Human nature is a concept that has interested scholars throughout history. Many have debated over what human nature is – that is, the distinguishing characteristics that are unique to humans by nature – while others have mulled over the fact that the answer to the question “what is human nature?” may be unattainable or simply not worth pursuing. Shakespeare explores the issue of human nature in his tragedy King Lear. In his play, he attempts to portray that human nature is either entirely good or entirely evil. He seems to suggest, however, that it is not impossible for one to move from one end of the spectrum of human nature to the other, as multiple characters go through somewhat of a metamorphosis where their nature is changed. In this paper I analyze and present Shakespeare’s account of human nature in King Lear in comparison with other authors that we have read throughout our year in the Aquinas program.
Following this Lear begins to banish those around him that genuinely care for him as at this stage he cannot see beyond the mask that the evil wear. He banishes Kent, a loyal servant to Lear, and his youngest and previously most loved daughter Cordelia. This results in Lear surrounding himself with people who only wish to use him which leaves him very vulnerable attack.
Throughout the play, Gloucester is blind to the events transpiring around him and the deceit that Edmund is planning. Gloucester rejects his son Edgar as he is told by Edmund that Edgar is planning to kill him (Shmoop, 2014). Gloucester assumes that Edmund is telling the truth and soon classifies Edgar as a criminal and he is hunted. By ordering his own son to be killed, the audience can see how impulsive Gloucester is and how naïve he is. Gloucester’s lack of attempt to determine the true story shows how easily influenced he is and how his foolishness overtakes his rational thoughts. Much like Lear, Gloucester cannot determine the true intentions of his children and is blinded by impulsive decisions and deception (King Lear, 2012). Gloucester rejects the child who had true love for him and cannot see past the lies he is being told.
King Lear is one of the most complex Shakespeare’s tragedies, borrowing its tragic elements from several types of tragedies popular during the Elizabethan Renaissance. The play highlights a flawed character and the impact of fate and free choice, and the protagonist’s realisation of the consequences of his mistakes. Finally, tragedy ruins the hero, results in his downfall and leads to catharsis. Lear, because of his flaws, loses his authority as a king, his identity as a father, and his sanity. Unlike other tragedies, there is no salvation for the tragic hero or any sign of optimism in the conclusion, but the audience recognises the restoration of moral order. Hence, in King Lear, the audience is presented with the classical elements of tragedy:
In acceptance of helplessness, the characters ironically experience growth, joy, and hope. If the world of Lear is chaotic, painful, and alien, it also stimulates growth. The king with no kingdom discovers the superficial authority that was his kingship, and understood “They flatter’d me like a dog...they told me I was everything. ‘Tis a lie” (Shakespeare IV. vi. 96-105). When Lear had finally accepted his inability to change a situation, he looks upon his life with a new-found wisdom. Lear’s progress to acceptance is also marked by the shift of dependence from evil children to good, from Regan and Goneril to Cordelia. The schematic character groupings of good and evil invites us to see the children on a metaphorically level of shifting stages. When Lear is reunited with Cordelia, though he is faced with impending death, he blissfully proclaims “Come, let’s away to prison...so we’ll live / And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh / At gilded butterflies” (Shakespeare V. iii. 8-19). Lear is, for the first time in the play, truly happy. The King beautifully expresses an idea of acceptance against uncontrollable forces. The prison that Lear speaks of is not a literal one, but rather his response to the approaching end of his life, as it should be for all of us, to pray, to sing, to tell tales, to laugh, to be above the battle of life. Similarity, Gloucester,
King Lear is a story that is full of tragedy, betrayal and sadness. This play begins with King Lear trying to split his land up between his three daughters. In this process he ends of disowning one, and becoming betrayed by the two that he trusted. He puts them to the test by aski...
keyboard, as well as a slim design tower, and a thin screen LCD display monitor.
King Lear gives the reader a bleak and lonely impression. People suffer unjustly and are killed by heartbreak. Albany points out that if left alone by the gods, "Humanity must perforce prey on itself / like monsters of the deep," expressing that justice and humanity do not house comfortably together. And how can there be meaning or purpose in life if there is no justice? Lear himself alludes poetically to this when upon Cordelia's death he asks, "Why should a dog, a horse, a rat have life / And thou no breath at all?" He also realizes that "I am a man more sinned against than sinning" when it is made obvious that the punishment for his mistake in scene one is harsher than it should be, making it unjust...
King Lear is a play about a tragic hero, by the name of King Lear, whose flaws get the best of him. A tragic hero must possess three qualities. The first is they must have power, in other words, a leader. King Lear has the highest rank of any leader. He is a king. The next quality is they must have a tragic flaw, and King Lear has several of those. Finally, they must experience a downfall. Lear's realization of his mistakes is more than a downfall. It is a tragedy. Lear is a tragic hero because he has those three qualities. His flaws are his arrogance, his ignorance, and his misjudgments, each contributing to the other.