Can Willy Loman and King Lear be seen as tragic characters. Defend your argument.
Both the stories of Death of a Sailsman as well as King Lear are very complex yet neatly plotted. The main characters; Willy Loman and King Lear; are even more so. There is evidently a lot of time invested into the development and characterization of these men. Though both men only exist in fiction, their stories are very well related into the real world, historical and modern. The question is raised, however as to whether or not these two characters can be seen as tragic. The question raises many thought provoking ideas in my mind, however my conclusion is carefully drawn.
Willy Loman takes a different stance that King Lear does. He exists in the modern society as an average man. His life is centered around accomplishing a name for himself and his family. His vision in accomplishing this only involves easy money and women. For him, this was the ideal life, and he endeavoured to walk so much in the footsteps of his father and brother. His father was a man who was always on the go, and so he never knew him, rather than taking the point of view that he was abandoned by him, his purpose was worthwhile. Just as he judged his brother's purpose for having no family and never settling down is 'worthwhile'. His vision was blurred with the vision of whatever was materialistic, that was the true success of a man, not character, personality or being hard working. Living his life in this way, he became preoccupied in the downs of his current situation, developing a nasty attitude towards his wife, at his workplace, to his children and to himself. He became suicidal and bitter, residing in the past and unable to identify with the instances of his reality.Willy Loman lost sight of things like love, family, and a real sense of accomplishment. Though this state brought him closer to having a breakthrough to the truth and the value of identity, though he was able to come close to his sons and die with the love of a loyal wife, he was indeed a tragic character for he died with nothing. His death was suicidal and unnecessary. Though his son had opened his mind to the truth and the value of identity, he was old and set in his ways. His life's work for easy money and the words of his dead brother lead him to his death. He died as a man who was still attached in the wrong dream, a dream that walked all over him his whole life, and he could not understand the truth which his son, in whom he invested so much praise, tried to show him. His family and life came to pieces because of being stubborn, naive, bitter, and most of all, blind. He died in the same state.
King Lear's fictional story took a lot of different turns. The events that occurs through his life caused a growth in his character. He exists in an Elizabethan society, one which most people cannot relate to. However his character is one who can be related to. The events included in the story depict his love of self, and love for flattery, his tantrums and his being stubborn are all part of what lead to his undoing. While Willy Loman was a man searching in vain for ways to reach to the top, King Lear was a man who had it all and wallowed in it. He was mindless of it however having more pleasure in the name of flattery than that which is materialistic. Though one can rightfully say that King Lear started off being a blind bat, and even a man who was stone mad, his character was not stagnant. He experienced development by the mistakes he made and became bitter, mad and then sober in the name of identifying his mistakes as mistakes, something Willy Loman was never able to do. King Lear became a man who learnt the art of seeing life's true worth, the art of identifying true character, love and wisdom. Though his mistakes lead to his end and his family and kingdom suffered tremendously as a result of his mistakes, his death had not been in vain, for a lesson was learnt not only in the audience, but whole heartedly by those around him, and him himself. He died with his virtuous daughter in his arms. My judgement of his character deems him not worthy of being called 'tragic.' He identified his lesson and repented.
Both writers of both characters took very unique approaches of bring out the stories of these two very different and very similar men. They both embarked upon a journey and path that taught them many of the flaws in the things they originally chose to believe in, however in Willy Loman's case, he was stagnant and his character did not mature. Even at his breaking point and climax, he still ended up pursuing the American dream, blindly, lacking an identity and a truth that would have helped to make him into a whole person; the man he was never able to be. King Lear on the other hand, took his lessons to heart. He spent much time in uncovering the truth that was being revealed to him as the days passed and more and more evils showed themselves. He was able to change his mindset and he became the whole person that he was not in the beginning. He was not blind and blissful in the end, but he gained wisdom, identity and a truth. One can perhaps draw a parallel in the lives of both these men, however one factor that will distinguish the two in my mind, is Willy Loman as a tragic character, and King Lear is not.