Shakespears vision of the world in King Lear was not essentially pessimistic. Heroes of romances survive. Heroes of tragedies die”. The Shaskespearean critic Kenneth Muir once said this of King Lear, and I have to say, it’s hard not to agree with him. King Lear can be looked at as a tragedy, taking the death of innocence (Cordelia) into account. However, I feel that King Lear traces not only the painful, but beneficial odyssey of its protagonist from he folly and pride of the early scenes to the final hours of dignity and redemption.
The journey is, on all accounts, harrowing. However, the outcome is a positive one. Lear passes through stages of great suffering with heroic endurance, to a wisdom which sees clearly the deceptions and falseness of his court and his family, and to weep bitter tears for his unfair treatment of Cordelia. There is no doubt that he has grown in understanding and goodness, which can be no means be seen as a pessimistic thing. I can see how people would assume Shakespears vision of the world in King Lear to be an essentially pessimistic viewpoint-the deaths of Cordelia, Gloucester and Lear would come as a shock to those who are accustomed to fairy-tale endings. On the contrary, I feel Shakespear got the balance just right; realistically, good people die unnecessarily and in my opinion, he was merely attempting to bring peoples attention to the realism that life is not a utpoian dream. Lear and Gloucesters recovery from moral blindness signifies hope.
The Essay on Great King Gilgamesh People Bride
A Critique of Gilgamesh as a King in The Epic of Gilgamesh There are some characteristics that most great kings have. All of the great kings did not have all of these characteristics, but they had some of them. Gilgamesh did not have many of these traits. Although he was a powerful king, he was not a great king. He had some good traits, such as being a leader, and fighting evil powers. He ...
At the beginning of the play, the concept of Lear acting in a rational and understanding way seemed laughable. Lear and Gloucester represent ordinary, human men who have to learn the hard way about the good and evil within themselves and in the world around them.Both men begin the play with uncertainty and misunderstanding about the true nature of things. Both are challenged to rise above the adverse circumstances. Both become better people thruogh physical, spiritual and mental suffering. “I stumbled when I saw” The irony in this is unmistakeable; Gloucester once had perfect vision, yet he was blind to his own misjudgements and mistakes. He has been blinded in an act of vicious cruelty by people he once respected and trusted; yet it is only now that he is fully aware of the situations. Although the play comes across as tragic and pessimistic, it is really an attempt to suggest how man would cope with life, as it really is, through patience and endurance.
In Act3, Scene7, we witness incredible human decency as a humble servent who is shocked and outraged at Cornwalls treatment to Gloucester, and their ingratitude to Lear. He sacraficed his own life in a courageous struggle to save a previously foolish, gullible and morally corrupt man. “If you did wear a beard upon your chin, I’d shake it in this quarrel” What an admirable example of how unselfish and noble people can be! Shakespear is conveying a pessimistic world, people suggest? I beg to differ! We now witness another example of integrity, nobility and bravery by two servents who have seen the attack on Gloucester; “I’ll never care what wickedness I do, if this man come to good” The great literary and dramatic tragedies, of which King Lear is one, raise fundamental questions about the meaning of human existance and the mystery of suffering and death and attempt to explore answers to such important, yet basic questions. It is inevitable that there would be a pessimistic aspect to King Lear, however, I do feel that it should be examined and analysed carefully in an attempt to find an optimistic view of looking at the play. Ultimatly good does triumph over evil-Edmund is defeated by the noble Edgar; as and Edmund reflects over the damage he has caused, ha admits to his own misjudgements and seizes a chance to somewhat redeem himself in light of his own sins. “Some good I mean to do, despite of mine own nature” I feel that justice prevailes, as Albany and Edgar prepare to restore peace throughout the kingdom. As injust as Cordelia and Lears deaths may be, the ending of the play is the most realistic of all Shakespears plays.
The Essay on Does King Lear Play The Tragic
Does King Lear Play the Tragic Hero, or the Autocrat? It is quite possible to make an argument in favour of either answer, an argument that would prove to be quite a debate, although one answer would weigh in favour of the other. To prove this, certain elements would have to be analysed thoroughly, all aspects taken into context and sufficient research done into the matter. This is the only method ...
Our earlier expectation of a happy ending is unexpectedly disappointed. Shakespear took a fairy-tale and gave it a tragic ending. Yet one final impression of the tragedy must remain with us-that in our world both good and evil suffer and ther are no predictable patterns. Shakespear did not allow a happy ending-even with the promised restoration of normality with Edgar as king. However, in a sense, Lear has transcended the tragedy of his world and is now reunited with his loving daughter, Cordelia; “A soul in bliss” In conclusion, to say that Shakespears vision of the world in King Lear was essentially pessimistic is, in my opinion, a simplistic view when considering the text as a whole..
