Filter Your Search Results:

Overview and Commentary on King Lear Essay

Rating:
By:
Book:
Pages:
Words:
Views:
Type:

William Shakespeares King Lear tells the tale of an authoritative and domineering king which focuses on the relationships of many characters and their good and evil personas. This tragedy speaks of the injustice that befalls the play at the beginning and the conclusion at the end through the restoration of justice. It is a play which speaks of cruelty and righteousness and just deserving. However, it is not until the end of the play that the characters who are moral and virtuous are recognized in that manner. Through actions which are both treacherous and deceitful there undergoes an almost epic battle for power to gain strength and importance. The plays title character, King Lear and his friend and confidant the Earl of Gloucester both make tremendous judgment errors through the by expelling of their righteous children and the placing of trust in perfidious characters.

King Lears main plot focuses around the division of the kingdom under Lears rule, and his error about entrusting it unto his daughters who feign a love for their father in order to gain more land than Lear intends while dividing up the territory between his three children. The plays subplot is based on the Earl of Gloucester's mistake of trusting blindly and without reason. It seems both Gloucester and Lear are nave to the fact that their greed-forsaken and fallacious children are taking advantage of them, and the children they have turned their backs on have yet to be untrue to them. Virtue speaks for itself in the play through the actions of the characters, and while some of the morals of the characters remains intact through the play, the majority of the characters have lost their ethics and such virtuous principles through the basis of self and others.

One such character, Edmund, one of the plays protagonists, exhibits behavior which makes him seem innately evil. With ulterior motives to all his actions, Edmund dives the plot as he creates situations for the other characters which force them to ultimately choose between two extremes, the majority of the time, extremes which lie between good and evil, righteousness and wickedness.

However, growing up the illegitimate bastard son of Gloucester, it is fairly easy to sympathize with his situation as well considering that by society he was considered to be less than Edgar, Gloucesters legitimate child who would be promised inheritance and more importantly, status. However, from early on in the play it is apparent that Gloucester equally loves his sons and does not consider Edgar more than Edmund. As a Machiavellian character, meaning that which opposes democracy and ruling totally and through the use of manipulation in a political sense, Edmund is willing to do anything, as he retorts to schemes and deceit in order to maintain and achieve his goals. As the protagonist, he wants not only his fathers land and money, but he as well wants to be recognized as more than an illegitimate child. He recognizes that he lacks social standing as compared to his half brother, Edgar, due to the fact that he is a bastard stating:

Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land.

Our fathers love is to the bastard Edmund

As to the legitimate. Fine wordlegitimate!

Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,

And my invention thrive, Edmund the base

Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper.

Now, gods, stand up for bastards! (1.2. 16-22)

hoping that through his actions to come, he will make up for the way all bastards have been treated in the past by deceiving his father into believing that Edgar has planned to kill Gloucester.

Edmund is a character who has an egoism in him which is driven by power and attempts to use the power he currently has to maintain control as he moves up the social ladder. It is Edmunds drive for power, recognition, and revenge and qualities such as pride which take hold of him and cause him to create then endure a downward spiral of destruction for those who surround him and a contrasting, yet temporary upward movement of power.

Edmunds life and philosophy are based on the desire for vengeance and ultimate control over his own life and the lives of those closest to him. He conducts himself with careful strategies in order to create and maintain the control necessary for his schemes to go according to plan. He views human nature with no respect, and behaves in a manner which promotes this, for if he did he would care about the reputations of others that he destroys and puts down in order to build himself up.

On the other hand, and completely opposite from his half brother Edmund, Edgar, the legitimate child of Gloucester, is often difficult to characterize considering he is formidably fooled by Edmund to believe that Gloucester is angry with him for an unknown reason and to avoid him at all costs, and carry protection with him for he does not know what would happen if the two came in contact. However, this is all just part of Edmunds plan to gain full control of the situation and ultimately, the land and possessions of his father.

Edgar, the son who continuously remained loyal to Gloucester throughout the play, despite the lies told to him, is a character who takes the advice of others and listens to them as they eventually deceive him. However, as a character, Edgar, in order to protect himself from his father and his fathers men, deceives through disguising himself as a beggar so that he may avoid conflict and those who are after him because of the belief they have that Edgar is out to kill Gloucester. Throughout the majority of the play he remains true to this disguise so that he may protect himself and later on to help the blinded Gloucester from committing suicide, coming to his aid, yet not speaking up when Gloucester states that his sole desire would be to touch his loyal son again, and that would be enough to avenge the loss of his sight. A chain of events follows this incident to a field where Oswald comes upon the two, plotting to kill Gloucester and attain recompense from Regan for the death. To the fullest, Edgar defends both the name and life of his father, protecting him and bringing him to safety.

He is in essence the good son. His views of life and philosophy are principally along the lines of it is what you make it, and he tries to make the most of it, as far as his abilities deem possible, and as far as others will allow. He conducts himself well for someone who has been shunned by his family and outcast among those who care for him all based upon a rumor. He remains faithful and loyal to his father and family despite not knowing why he is being placed in the aforementioned predicament. He views human nature as inherently good and trusts openly because of it, believing that Men must endure/ Their going hence, even as their coming hither:/

Ripeness is all(5.2 ).

In conclusion the two brothers, half or not, are both strong characters whose strengths and weaknesses are the direct opposite of each other, yet seem to mirror one another. Despite their actions and beliefs, they as characters are in control of their own lives and situations. Each characters choices are their own and if incorrect, they are corrected by the plays end. The death of Edmund depicts this clearly as he determined his own fate, while Edgar, in an attempt to restore honor and be honorable slays his own brother. The plays end depicts that we may all be victims of our circumstance, like Edgar and Edmund both were.

Works Cited

You'll need to sign up to view the entire essay.

Sign Up Now, It's FREE
Filter Your Search Results: