The question is asked: did King Lear's tragic flaw lead to his demise. As an individual, and one of opinion, it is an easy assumption that the answer would be yes, however, factors of the drama have to be dissected and examined in order to justifiably and objectively come to a proven conclusion.
One step closer to coming to an official conclusion is first deciphering and distinguishing what exactly King Lear's demise was. He banished a trustworthy, wise friend and servant along with his only faithful and loving child. The events which followed were ones triggored by disrespect from both children and servants, rejection and being ignored. These were the events which caused him to slip further and further worsening his downfall.
Looking deeper into it, one can identify his tragic flaw from as early as his banishment of his servant and daughter early in the drama. Pride. Pride is evident as he asked his children to express how much love they had towards him. Pride is evident as he makes request of 100 knights to be with him after he has no real purpose to the kingdom. Pride is also evident as he gets upset when his daughters when they do not devote the time and respect to him that he expects (match their extravagant expressions of love). Pride is evident in King Lear's speeches where he becomes angry with himself for crying, or where he speaks of how he is worth nothing to them (his children). The amount of pride he had is the major contributor to his character and it's development. The instances where he had become upset, like those mentioned before, it is not unnatural to get upset, but rather it was the high value he placed on pride. His great pride caused his being deaf and ignorant and bypassing the words of advise that those who loved him were willing to share. Therefore, too much pride can be concluded to be King Lear's biggest flaw.
His problem with pride is what makes King Lear stubborn to the perspective of Cordelia when she spoke about her love and the love of her sisters. Too much pride was recurrent throughout Lear's speeches and reactions, for example to Oswald when he referred to him as 'my lady's father'. He was forced to become reduced to less than King and this was all he meditated upon. It was the subject of his every thought. Time, however, had taught him to become more appreciative and not be blind to the true colours of persons.
Surely, the root of it all lay within his tragic flaw of excessive pride. All the series of events, his banishment of his daughter, being out in the rain in the storm because he refused to go back to the kingdom, down to his very death, were all a result of this flaw. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that King Lear's tragic flaw did lead to his demise
Thursday, November 25, 2010
The Nature of Lear's Madness; comparing to Edgar
According to the Pocket Oxford Dictionary, 'mad' is defined as 'insane, frenzied; wildly insane'. This is one very constant theme appearing in the drama of King Lear by Shakespeare. There are several characters which raise the question in the audiences' mind, the minds of fellow characters, or in their own minds as to whether they are 'mad'. Some have alternative motivves and methods to the madness they portray; others were truly loosing grasp of stability and reality in their mental state. Two perfect examples and illustrations of this is the situation of 'poor Tom'/Edgar, as compared with King Lear.
King Lear made wild decisions, without putting in any real thought. Being King and the surmountable responsibilities he had, it was 'wildly' insane for him to have given it all up, particularly to persons he knew were unreliable and deceitful. After that fact, he banished the daughter he knew was worthy, honest and respectable. His reason based solely on her inability to express flattery to him... an incompetent reason. He banishes his loyal and close friend and advisor for the same crime of honesty, and with all of these behaviours he continues to become stressed and frightened at the series of events which follow; his daughters underminding him and the discredited names they were bringing upon themselves and the kingdom; their disrespect and disregard for him. He was never calm in his state, but rather, rowdy and commanding- quick to a temper. This was always the case, even when he was wrong. He only continued to make irrational decisions, like staying out in the storm or talking with himself. He did show signs of losing grips of stability and reality. The seriousness of the root of his madness as well as Shakespeare's lack of signals to indicate that it was a deliberate act, all show that King Lear was one of those characters who were sincerely 'mad'.
Poor Tom had a motive and method to his madness. He intended to stay close to his father, find out how the rumours of his treachery came about, and redeem his name if possible. The only way to do this was to obtain a disguise as a character no one would pay attention to. Poor Tom was the perfect candidate, they all let him go where he felt to go and say what he felt to say. He did not do anything wildly insane while as Edgar, therefore it can only be assumed that his wild and insane acts were only in character. When his father comes to him, eyes plucked out, Edgar expresses the want to reveal his true self. Also, in his monologues, Edgar is always speaking something of substance, particularly about what he has learned about the ways of the world and all it's misfortunes. He comments on the characters of Lear and Gloucester as any sane person would, however his madness was assumed because of appearance rather than action.
True madness is not judged by appearance nor is it by labelling, madness is something which goes much more personally and reveals itself in character. Lear was te character which was truly mad, though most characters did not label him as such, it was because he was the king and during his life, he had commanded the respect of so many. Edgar was labelled as mad because of his appearance, his attempt to be mad had a motive which none could consider insane or wild. It was well thought through, and Edgar had all grips on reality.
King Lear made wild decisions, without putting in any real thought. Being King and the surmountable responsibilities he had, it was 'wildly' insane for him to have given it all up, particularly to persons he knew were unreliable and deceitful. After that fact, he banished the daughter he knew was worthy, honest and respectable. His reason based solely on her inability to express flattery to him... an incompetent reason. He banishes his loyal and close friend and advisor for the same crime of honesty, and with all of these behaviours he continues to become stressed and frightened at the series of events which follow; his daughters underminding him and the discredited names they were bringing upon themselves and the kingdom; their disrespect and disregard for him. He was never calm in his state, but rather, rowdy and commanding- quick to a temper. This was always the case, even when he was wrong. He only continued to make irrational decisions, like staying out in the storm or talking with himself. He did show signs of losing grips of stability and reality. The seriousness of the root of his madness as well as Shakespeare's lack of signals to indicate that it was a deliberate act, all show that King Lear was one of those characters who were sincerely 'mad'.
Poor Tom had a motive and method to his madness. He intended to stay close to his father, find out how the rumours of his treachery came about, and redeem his name if possible. The only way to do this was to obtain a disguise as a character no one would pay attention to. Poor Tom was the perfect candidate, they all let him go where he felt to go and say what he felt to say. He did not do anything wildly insane while as Edgar, therefore it can only be assumed that his wild and insane acts were only in character. When his father comes to him, eyes plucked out, Edgar expresses the want to reveal his true self. Also, in his monologues, Edgar is always speaking something of substance, particularly about what he has learned about the ways of the world and all it's misfortunes. He comments on the characters of Lear and Gloucester as any sane person would, however his madness was assumed because of appearance rather than action.
True madness is not judged by appearance nor is it by labelling, madness is something which goes much more personally and reveals itself in character. Lear was te character which was truly mad, though most characters did not label him as such, it was because he was the king and during his life, he had commanded the respect of so many. Edgar was labelled as mad because of his appearance, his attempt to be mad had a motive which none could consider insane or wild. It was well thought through, and Edgar had all grips on reality.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Comparisons and contrasts within King Lear
King Lear & Gloucester
Both men are easily fooled: King Lear was deceived with lies in the form of wordy flattery by his two daughters into giving them superiority and control in the Kingdom. Gloucester was easily deceived with the device of lies in the form of stories told to him by his eldest son, convincing him to give him superiority as his heir.
Both men were blessed and cursed with both bad and good children. King Lear's first two daughters and Gloucester's eldest son were villains in the plot, mean while, King Lear's last daughter and Gloucester's last son were 'the good guys'.
Both men turned against their children, and ironically in both cases it was the good child who did not deserve it. King Lear banished his daughter, the only one true to him after the lies of his other two daughters. Gloucester declared war against his son after believing the lies of his elder son. His younger son was innocent of any crime or dishonour.
Both men were elderly
Both men were very emotional. King Lear displays a lot of emotions throughout the play such as when he curses his two daughters after his unfair treatment He became depressed and distressed. Gloucester is the same when he finds out of his younger son's treachery, he resorts to violent means and is depressed distressed.
Gloucester was a servant, Lear was a King.
Gloucester loved both his sons evenly even though society deemed them unequally worthy. His elder child was illegitimate and the younger was legitimate. King Lear did not love each of his daughters the same amount even though society deemed them all equally worthy.
Kent &the Fool
Both are reasonably wise. Kent and the fool saw deception for what it was from the onset. When the two daughters lied to the king about their insincere love, both Kent and the fool expressed disapproval at the King believing them.
Both men were very loyal to the king. When the king had his downfall and was less than kind to them both, they still carried themselves as loyal servants, by his side even though so many of his servants has left him and there was the option of joining with Goneril and Regan who had more power.
Both men were very brave and vocal to the King about their dissatissfation as his decision making skills. In fact it was a constant in the speeches of fool even though there were possible consequences of being so brave. The fool was threatened to go to the stocks and whipped and Kent was banished from the kingdom.
Both men wore some form of disguise. Kent's disguise was physical; to carry himself off as an old man different to Kent, just so he may remain affiliated with the King. The fool's disguise was a little more in depth. The fool disguised himself behind his status and he presumed personality. He disguises his words of wisdom behind remarks that appear dumb and entertaining at the forefront so he may remain affiliated with the King.
The fool had a different approach than Kent. It has a greater impact and it was much more long term. The fool provided entertainment in times of deep deep sorrow for the king. In his speeches he was careful to use illustrations of his point and even when he himself was serious, he always remained in character as an entertainer. Kent was aggressive and displayed his seriousness to the king. His sternness made the King not was to listen and that landed him a place outside of the kingdom.
Edmund & Elgar
Both brothers were loved by their father.
Edgar was a respected and respectable young man in society, stemming from his legitimate status. Edmund was not a respectable person nor was he noticed amongst society stemming from his illegitimate status.
Edmund was a conniving deceitful and selfish man who turned the central axis of his life into being money and power disregarding the love that his father had for both his children and causing havoc and heartache, using his status as justification. Edgar was innocent and honest. He was noble and believed in family and the love therein. He had respect for his brother, displayed in conversations they had. He was not selfish and expressed no excessive desire to obtain his fathers possessions.
Goneril& Regan
Both sisters established themselves as liars from their opening speeches in the drama. They lie to their father and express a surmountable amount of love (beyond life itself, beyond all other joys 1:1); beyond which is even realistic, particularly since they have husbands.
Both sisters were neglected by their father and had to compete with Cordelia for his love and attention. He even blatantly declares love for Cordelia being more that his love for the others in front of them.
Both sisters were bitter towards him and took the opportunity to act it out after they had already fooled their father into letting them obtain the kingdom and all his possessions and riches. They were, in turn bitter to him when he needed them the most after banishing Cordelia, and made him feel unwelcome. They underminded his authority.
The reversal of power in the kingdom in their favour also seemed as an avenue for revenge towards their father. Carrying out acts that he was against. Exchanging somewhat harsh words with him when he had been downgraded to a powerless old man. They ignored his complaints and cared very little for his feelings. His servants were punished as well, such as placing Kent in the stocks and taking out Gloucester's eyes. Regan was more cruel that Goneril however.
Both sisters were very vain and too concerned with the material things of the world to make up for their personal value. They were married to dukes and had great possessions in Britain, however they still craved for more which brought about the chaos in the land. They both had lost sight of important things to life like love and family.
Cornwall & Albany
Both men were Dukes.
Both men were married to the daughters of King Lear.
Albany is a kind-hearted gentleman and has disputes with his wife, Goneril, for the was that she treated her father. He disagrees with his being ignored and disrespected. Cornwall was exceptionally cruel and encouraged the behaviour of his wife, Regan,being unfair to her father.
Cornwall was exceptionally greedy, even though he had position and wealth, he still craved more and seems to want to go to any extent creating conflict about the kingdom being divided and therefore, shared. Rumours start about the kingdom that Cornwall and Albany would begin a war about it.
Cornwall takes delight in cruelty. He plucks out Gloucester's eyes when he is undeserving and innocent. He rewards Edmund for treachery against the king and his father. His cruelty brought him to his end, meanwhile Albany proves to be much less greedy and cruel. He does not do such violent acts, and still has some consideration for honour.
King of Burgundy & King of France
Both men expressed a love for Cordelia and intended to pursue her hand in marriage.
Both men were Kings
Burgundy was self-centered. He already has great wealth, being a King; when Cordelia has become vulnerable and weak due to a confrontation with her father, he does not hesitate to back off of her and his desires for her hand in marriage justifying himself in say that she has nothing, suggesting he was most concerned with expanding his riches. France was a selfless man. When Cordelia was weak, neglected and banished, he stepped up to the plate and proved himself as an honest gentleman, saying that his love for her is greater than any shortcomings of what is materialistic. He still takes her hand in marriage.
Both men are easily fooled: King Lear was deceived with lies in the form of wordy flattery by his two daughters into giving them superiority and control in the Kingdom. Gloucester was easily deceived with the device of lies in the form of stories told to him by his eldest son, convincing him to give him superiority as his heir.
Both men were blessed and cursed with both bad and good children. King Lear's first two daughters and Gloucester's eldest son were villains in the plot, mean while, King Lear's last daughter and Gloucester's last son were 'the good guys'.
Both men turned against their children, and ironically in both cases it was the good child who did not deserve it. King Lear banished his daughter, the only one true to him after the lies of his other two daughters. Gloucester declared war against his son after believing the lies of his elder son. His younger son was innocent of any crime or dishonour.
Both men were elderly
Both men were very emotional. King Lear displays a lot of emotions throughout the play such as when he curses his two daughters after his unfair treatment He became depressed and distressed. Gloucester is the same when he finds out of his younger son's treachery, he resorts to violent means and is depressed distressed.
Gloucester was a servant, Lear was a King.
Gloucester loved both his sons evenly even though society deemed them unequally worthy. His elder child was illegitimate and the younger was legitimate. King Lear did not love each of his daughters the same amount even though society deemed them all equally worthy.
Kent &the Fool
Both are reasonably wise. Kent and the fool saw deception for what it was from the onset. When the two daughters lied to the king about their insincere love, both Kent and the fool expressed disapproval at the King believing them.
Both men were very loyal to the king. When the king had his downfall and was less than kind to them both, they still carried themselves as loyal servants, by his side even though so many of his servants has left him and there was the option of joining with Goneril and Regan who had more power.
Both men were very brave and vocal to the King about their dissatissfation as his decision making skills. In fact it was a constant in the speeches of fool even though there were possible consequences of being so brave. The fool was threatened to go to the stocks and whipped and Kent was banished from the kingdom.
Both men wore some form of disguise. Kent's disguise was physical; to carry himself off as an old man different to Kent, just so he may remain affiliated with the King. The fool's disguise was a little more in depth. The fool disguised himself behind his status and he presumed personality. He disguises his words of wisdom behind remarks that appear dumb and entertaining at the forefront so he may remain affiliated with the King.
The fool had a different approach than Kent. It has a greater impact and it was much more long term. The fool provided entertainment in times of deep deep sorrow for the king. In his speeches he was careful to use illustrations of his point and even when he himself was serious, he always remained in character as an entertainer. Kent was aggressive and displayed his seriousness to the king. His sternness made the King not was to listen and that landed him a place outside of the kingdom.
Edmund & Elgar
Both brothers were loved by their father.
Edgar was a respected and respectable young man in society, stemming from his legitimate status. Edmund was not a respectable person nor was he noticed amongst society stemming from his illegitimate status.
Edmund was a conniving deceitful and selfish man who turned the central axis of his life into being money and power disregarding the love that his father had for both his children and causing havoc and heartache, using his status as justification. Edgar was innocent and honest. He was noble and believed in family and the love therein. He had respect for his brother, displayed in conversations they had. He was not selfish and expressed no excessive desire to obtain his fathers possessions.
Goneril& Regan
Both sisters established themselves as liars from their opening speeches in the drama. They lie to their father and express a surmountable amount of love (beyond life itself, beyond all other joys 1:1); beyond which is even realistic, particularly since they have husbands.
Both sisters were neglected by their father and had to compete with Cordelia for his love and attention. He even blatantly declares love for Cordelia being more that his love for the others in front of them.
Both sisters were bitter towards him and took the opportunity to act it out after they had already fooled their father into letting them obtain the kingdom and all his possessions and riches. They were, in turn bitter to him when he needed them the most after banishing Cordelia, and made him feel unwelcome. They underminded his authority.
The reversal of power in the kingdom in their favour also seemed as an avenue for revenge towards their father. Carrying out acts that he was against. Exchanging somewhat harsh words with him when he had been downgraded to a powerless old man. They ignored his complaints and cared very little for his feelings. His servants were punished as well, such as placing Kent in the stocks and taking out Gloucester's eyes. Regan was more cruel that Goneril however.
Both sisters were very vain and too concerned with the material things of the world to make up for their personal value. They were married to dukes and had great possessions in Britain, however they still craved for more which brought about the chaos in the land. They both had lost sight of important things to life like love and family.
Cornwall & Albany
Both men were Dukes.
Both men were married to the daughters of King Lear.
Albany is a kind-hearted gentleman and has disputes with his wife, Goneril, for the was that she treated her father. He disagrees with his being ignored and disrespected. Cornwall was exceptionally cruel and encouraged the behaviour of his wife, Regan,being unfair to her father.
Cornwall was exceptionally greedy, even though he had position and wealth, he still craved more and seems to want to go to any extent creating conflict about the kingdom being divided and therefore, shared. Rumours start about the kingdom that Cornwall and Albany would begin a war about it.
Cornwall takes delight in cruelty. He plucks out Gloucester's eyes when he is undeserving and innocent. He rewards Edmund for treachery against the king and his father. His cruelty brought him to his end, meanwhile Albany proves to be much less greedy and cruel. He does not do such violent acts, and still has some consideration for honour.
King of Burgundy & King of France
Both men expressed a love for Cordelia and intended to pursue her hand in marriage.
Both men were Kings
Burgundy was self-centered. He already has great wealth, being a King; when Cordelia has become vulnerable and weak due to a confrontation with her father, he does not hesitate to back off of her and his desires for her hand in marriage justifying himself in say that she has nothing, suggesting he was most concerned with expanding his riches. France was a selfless man. When Cordelia was weak, neglected and banished, he stepped up to the plate and proved himself as an honest gentleman, saying that his love for her is greater than any shortcomings of what is materialistic. He still takes her hand in marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
