Jerion Young Ms. Woods English IV 4 March 2015 King Lear William Shakespeare uses several literary elements in his writing, elements which are especially apparent in his play, King Lear. Shakespeare uses excellent creativity and description when writing this tragedy. “Neither has Shakespeare placed in the mouth of any other character in this play such fatalistic expressions as may be found in King Lear and occasionally elsewhere”(A.C. 2003). The way King Lear talks in this play is very evil compared to shakespeare’s other works. “In neither play, as in Othello and King Lear, is painful pathos one of the main effects”(A.C. 2003). Shakespeare’s main effect in many of his plays was a painful pathos or pity. Shakespeare avoided overloading in some of his other plays (A.C. 2003). King Lear is thought to be overloaded with too many conflicts. King Lear is thought to be cold, dark, and gloomy (A.C. 2003). Events that happened in King Lear are generally evil. “Darkness, we may even say blackness, broads over this tragedy”(A.C. 2003). The play of King Lear is dark and saddening from start to finish. “Bradley was a major Shakespearean critic whose work culminated the method of character analysis initiated in the romantic era”(A.C. 2003). A.C. Bradley’s analytical critique of plays by Shakespeare pushed his popularity forward. The critic A.C. Bradley concentrated on Shakespeare as a dramatist, and particularly on his characters (A.C. 2003). Just like many other critics, Bradley looked
‘King Lear’ is an extraordinary play. Shakespeare excellently portrays a cast of brilliantly drawn characters to communicate a wide range of themes, fascinating the audience. However undoubtedly the most interesting character is the eponymous tragic hero Lear. He undergoes a significant transformation as the play progresses which is astounding to witness. I disagree with the statement that he remains a deeply unsympathetic character. In my opinion, the audience’s sympathy for him is inversely proportional to his psychological wellbeing. Lear begins the play as an omnipotent monarch blinded by hubris. Believing himself to be infallible, the Lear of Act I is a bully and a fool. His rash decisions bring an unprecedented level of chaos to the Kingdom
William Shakespeare has changed the way that many people have viewed plays and literature throughout his life and is still carrying that legacy to this day. This is most prominent in his famous tragedy, Hamlet, which is still analyzed for its success as a renowned classic. The story is about a prince named Hamlet who meets his Father’s ghost and learns of their murder by his uncle. The story continues by depicting Hamlet’s revenge and his falling into madness. Hamlet illustrates masterful uses of literary devices in the use of euphemisms, imagery, and similes to create an interesting tragedy that changed the outlook on literature as a whole. Shakespeare has indisputable skill in mastery over literary devices that shape themselves into an heart wrenching masterpiece.
I am not guilty of anything! All wrong I have done has been in self-defence. I was the victim here! I was set up by my brother Edmund and had to run and hide. I had to take “the basest and most poorest shape” (2.3.7), and posed as a mad, homeless beggar with the name ‘Poor Tom’. I had to go without. I had no home, food, or comfort and nobody knew my name. I was anxiously trying to stay alive and prayed to nature and the Gods because the “gods are just and of our pleasant vices” (5.3.206). I was lucky enough to meet the king, his fool and his servant Caius. However, they believed me to be mad and had no idea who I was. The king listened to me while I desperately tried to convince him of my made-up form of madness. Lear almost
Shakespeare's tragedy King Lear can be interpreted in many ways and many responses. The imprecision’s and complication of the play has led
Of the many people to have critiqued King Lear, A.C. Bradley arguably does the most through job as seen in Lecture VII and VIII of his work Shakespearean Tragedy. In Lecture VII, Bradley begins by discussing the similarities King Lear has to Shakespeare’s other works including Othello and Timon of Athens (245-246). For instance, in Othello, Iago reminds of Edmund and Othello’s trickery reminds us of the deceitfulness of Gloucester. Additionally, the scene where Othello watched Iago and Cassio talk about Bianca bares a similar resemblance to Edmund’s attempt to make Gloucester see his conversation with Edgar (Bradley 245). Bradley then goes on to discuss the lack of clarity in many of the important scenes such as why King Lear would divide the kingdom among his daughters and make them tell him how much they love him (250). Furthermore, although the final battle was of the most importance, it became largely insignificant because of the numerous prior battle scenes and characters involved (Bradley 255). Bradley also raises some very interesting questions in regards to the number of inconsistencies throughout the play such as why Gloucester traveled to Dover to attempt suicide, why Kent stays in disguise during the final scene, and why Shakespeare does not provide us the locations of the scenes like in his other works (257-259).
In William Shakespeare’s play King Lear, similar to most of his pieces, he manages to build an intricate storyline, weaving in and out of the good and bad of human nature. Shakespeare also highlights the development of identity in results to hardship and utilizes characters, such as Lear the protagonist to create emphasis. Lear, who is ridden with a naïve and un-insightful personality plunges himself head first into an avoidable misfortune leads him to the loss of his kingship, his relationship with his daughters and eventually his mind. However, through the endurance of these adverse experiences and burdening inner conflict he gains a new perspective as well as a new-found wisdom that transforms his identity for the better.
In King Lear, Traditional roles, such as nobility, gender, and social status, are all usurped or attempted to be overturned during at least one occasion in King Lear. To illustrate, noble roles become overturned when King Lear lessened himself as a king to upgrade two of his daughters, Goneril and Regan, to a higher power of authority. In contrast, he ended up in jail with Cordelia instead of regaining his position back as king. Gender Roles are overturned when the three daughters became independent; they were in control of the kingdom and their husbands. Finally, the last role to be overturned is the traditional role of a fool which is supposed to be an entertainer for the king, however, the fool in King Lear became an adviser instead.
Not everyone chooses to follow rules or traditions, many in fact would rather learn the hard way. Many rules and traditions may not always fit with everyone in society, some may even very much discriminate towards a group or even might not benefit them in anyways. In Shakespeare 's play, King Lear, there is an underlying tension between one’s way of living against how society set things up to work. Through the play, we are introduced to multiple characters, Edmund and Lear, who chooses to live life as they would want it to be even knowing the consequences that come with trying to achieve it. Edmund, a bastard, wants power and entitlement which society will not allow him to have whereas Lear wants to keep all his power after he gives up his
American literary critic Harold Bloom, known for his love of Shakespeare said, “Shakespeare is universal… he has hidden himself behind all of these extraordinary men and women.” Shakespeare is able to connect with many who encounter his work by creating a range of characters such as heroes in the form of Hamlet or villains in that of Claudius. Playwright William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and King Lear demonstrate the manipulation of family to achieve one’s ends. Personal gain through family is a significant contributing factor to both of these tragedies. Their gifts of language and its delivery is a clear example as well as these villains having no qualms about ignoring morals, and betraying their own blood. Despite the tragic endings, there is
Blindness is a theme that we see throughout King Lear in many characters including King Lear, Gloucester and Albany. Although blindness is a theme it is also a psychological metaphor and can be defined as not having sight.2 Shakespeare forces us to see that being blind is a mental flaw just as much as it is a physical flaw. Lear is not only metaphorically blind but is also blind toward nastiness and loyalty . We see Gloucester’s blindness in more literal terms as he is literally blind but he can still see, and Albany has a more common form of blindness, as he is blind to his wife. These characters are only able to see after a tragic loss.
In the beginning of Shakespeare’s play “King Lear,” the Duke of Albany is very gray. If the reader were to look up the definition of “sitting on the fence” in the dictionary, there would be a picture of Albany next to it. Although the character Albany begins the play as a complacent character, his character matures greatly throughout the play. By the end of the play, he is one of the only characters left alive and he becomes king of England. Shakespeare’s character Albany in “King Lear” shows questionable character traits in the beginning; but in the end, he shows his worthiness to rule the kingdom.
There are two sides to every story; that of the protagonist and that of the antagonist. As shown in the Shakespearean play King Lear, there is very little difference between the two. Edmund, who appears to be a villain, is more than meets the eye. His evil is a rebellion against the social order that denies him legitimacy. His villainy does not come from innate cruelty but from misdirected desire for familial love. His remorse in the end displays his humanity and blindness. Through his nature, the social construct, and the humanity he exemplifies, it is impossible to regard Edmund as a villain, but as an unavoidable force of nature.
Shakespeare’s King Lear has experienced numerous iterations over the past few centuries, with various editors and writers revising the manuscript to fit their desires. The absence of a single definitive edition has made the play a goldmine from which countless adaptions and stage interpretations have emerged, as its situation allows for directors to take creative liberties with the source material. For this reason, the quality of these productions tends to straddle between excellent and mediocre. Thankfully, director Dennis Garnhum’s rendition firmly stands in the former.
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
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.