The Validity Of King Lear

The concepts of nature, humanity, power and love lay as a foundation for Shakespeare’s, King Lear. These notions are examined through the actions and realizations of King Lear, himself. Throughout the discourse of this play we view the portrayal of humans as animals and witness King Lear’s mistreatment after he gives away his power. When doing so he makes clear his view on love and its value, solely based on the flattery of words.Through nature, King Lear becomes grounded and recognizes the animalistic behaviors of the rich and the struggles of the poor. This recognition brings him to an utmost discovery that presents the reality of vicious humanity and changes the way he views the world.

One of the strengths of good theater is its ability to mirror the problems and conditions shaping its time. In The Merchant of Venice, William Shakespeare reflects two important aspects of Elizabethan society: the corrupting influence of prosperity and the increasingly vengeful nature of Venetian justice. To address the former issue, Shakespeare downplays the importance of wealth by associating its involvement in romance with superficial and insubstantial advantages. He characterizes prosperity as a deceiving agent, citing its ability to introduce shallowness into a relationship. Shakespeare reasons that genuine romance depends on sacrifice and emotion, not wealth. The problem with justice is equally striking. In the play, justice is

The emotive grandstanding language illustrates the dynamic prominence of exercising power imprudently and in haste. However, in contrast to The Queen, Lear’s transference of political authority to his daughters is on the prerequisite of flattery with an over exaggerated speech which must appeal and appease his ego: “Which of you shall we say doth love us most, that we our largest bounty may extend.” (Act 1.1.45-50) Lear’s actions have afforded his daughters the opportunity to take advantage of him. This strengthens Shakespeare’s theme of power, that authority is nothing more than a show and a display of status through language and verbal praise.

“King Lear”, a play by Shakespeare tells us how kingship and power or the loss of power are expressed. Lear, king of Britain decides to retire and shares his kingdom between his daughters; he later discovers what it is like to lose the power and authority that came with responsibilities. In the play, power is related to flattery, appearance and anger.

At the beginning of “King Lear,” an authoritative and willful protagonist dominates his court, making a fateful decision by rewarding his two treacherous daughters and banishing his faithful one in an effort to preserve his own pride. However, it becomes evident during the course of the tragedy that this protagonist, Lear, uses his power only as a means of projecting a persona, which he hides behind as he struggles to maintain confidence in himself. This poses a problem, since the audience is prevented from feeling sympathy for the king. Shakespeare’s ironic solution is to allow Lear’s progressing madness to be paired with his recognition of truth, thereby forcing Lear to shed his persona, and

Income inequality has been one of the most prevalent societal issues since the dawn of the agricultural revolution in 2000 B.C.E. Shakespeare tackles this issue in the 17th century England through one of his most spectacular works, King Lear. Lear has an epiphany during the third act in the midst of internal and external storm: wealth destroys justice by “plating sin with gold” while at the same time adversely hurting the poor whose “tatter’d clothes small vices do appear.” Unfortunately for us, Lear’s realization could not be more applicable to both human history and modern current events. Power and wealth dictates the due process of punishment, tipping the scales in favor of the rich every time as exemplified in literary works like King Lear and Twelfth Night, on top of being empirically proven throughout the course of history and modern day government.

Shakespeare's tragedy King Lear can be interpreted in many ways and many responses. The imprecision’s and complication of the play has led

The King of France in William Shakespeare’s King Lear contrasts King Lear in that he keeps his authority and dignity and instead of degrading Cordelia, he restores her dignity, to some extent. He is a just and fair king, while Lear is the opposite. His actions, although few, establish Shakespeare’s idea of a good monarch. France keeps his authority throughout the first three acts because he does not give away any of his power as a gift or by degrading his moral character with emotion.

Shakespeare demonstrates the ultimate power of individual authority in King Lear. The extravagant imagery of Edmond’s entrance accompanied by “conquest with drum and colours” symbolises his victory and immediately demonstrates his political authority. Furthermore, this fanfare contrasts to Lear’s entrance at the opening of the play, thus revealing the cyclical and fleeting nature of political authority. Ironically, Edmond’s newfound authority is defied through the individual authority possessed by Lear and Cordelia. The joyful imagery of Lear and Cordelia “alone (singing) like birds I’th’cage” whilst imprisoned demonstrates the power of their individual authority to sustain them.

Lear’s deeds provide key insight into the subsequent misfortunes that introduce the paradox created by Shakespeare. “Tell me, my daughters…Which of you shall we say doth love us most? That we our

King Lear is frequently regarded as one of Shakespeare’s masterpieces, and its tragic scope touches almost all facets of the human condition: from the familial tensions between parents and children to the immoral desires of power, from the follies of pride to the false projections of glory. However, one theme rings true throughout the play, and that very theme is boundless suffering, accentuated by the gruesome depictions of suffering our protagonists experience . There is no natural (nor “poetic”) justice depicted in this pre-Judeo-Christian world Shakespeare presents, as the relatively virtuous individuals (Kent, Gloucester, and Cordelia) in this

Shakespeare’s King Lear fabricated a world of its own, in which distinct virtues and vices were personified by individuals with diverse points of view. With each conflict in the play, the characters’ actions and decisions were parallel to the integrity of their heart and mind, exhibiting the virtue or vice they represented. With this strategy, Shakespeare shares that with trust should come discretion.

The opportunity to view both productions of King Lear has appeared twice for me in the past two years. The first time I viewed Trevor Nunn’s 2009 production of King Lear my review would have been based solely on my ability to understand the dialogue and my appreciation of the acting of Ian McKellen. Two years later I have a better understanding of the actual play and while I still enjoy the 2009 production the 1982 production directed by Jonathan Miller presents the words of William Shakespeare in a more accurate and period specific manor.

The most prevailing images in King Lear are the images (metaphoric and actual) of nature. The concept of nature seems to consume the dialogue, monologues, and setting.

     The play, “King Lear” by William Shakespeare, starts with noblemen Kent and Gloucester having a conversation and the audience finds out that Gloucester has two sons. Edgar who is his heir, and Edmund his unimportant son. This info. leads to the mini-plot. Then, Lear enters to say that he is going to end his life’s tasks and problems. He then points to the map, he tells the people there that he will split his land into three parts. They are going to be given to his three daughters. The two oldest, Goneril and Regan, tell their father that their love for him goes beyond expectations. The youngest one, Cordelia, tells him that she loves him, but only as she should love her father. He is then