King+Lear

Act I** media type="file" key="other one.mp3" width="197" height="100"
 * __Paraphrases__
 * Goneril and Oswald (iv)

media type="file" key="king lear.mp3" width="186" height="100"
 * Lear and Goneril (iv)

__**Article Links**__

http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=67

Summary: This article covers the character of kent in a more in depth perspective. It studies the tradional view of the character of kent and his role as a morally near perfect ideal. Kent is the epitamy of loyalty, fidelity, bluntness and individuality-"blunt but charming; noble and courteous, but not overbearing in rank or slavish to authority"; in his role, he affects the descisions of the rest of the characters, in particular Lear- who is dependant on kent's goodness. Yet this article studies Kents basis in reality according to the time period, relating his dramatized character to the real person of those times in England, Lord Willoughby de Eresby. This essay find it necassary for the full understanding of a character, to first outline his traits, then understand his background; in doing this we can truly understand the motives and influences on a deeper level. The author ascertained that Lord Willoughby fit this mold quite well in his time: he matched Kent's loyalty and influence upon his lordship. In doing this the author has been able to outline the mirrored reality found in King Lear.

evaluation: This article is interesting in a sense of historic curiosity, yet it more outlines the quest of finding a match to Kent's character rather than inspecting his true role and unique qualities. However, with this informative inquiry, one can more funnly appreciate the character of Kent. His morality, blunt charm, and curteous countenace is rooted in reality and therefore when inspecting the background of Lord Willoughby, we can find parallels between the man and the dramatization. As well as this, it gives us insight into the mind of Shakespeare, who possible is expressing an opinion about the man Willoughby by reincarnating him in the manifestation of goodness in King Lear: Shakespeare, in the end, leaves Kent as one of the men who holds the fate of England in his hands- he has been banished, impoverished, depended upon and unappreciated, and yet he prevails. In this analysis, we can infer that Shakespeare had a true intention in his play by inserting a minor character who falls into greatness by the end. -MB

- JC

This essay forces one to recognize the normality’s of evil in King Lear. It starts with Goneril, Regan, and Edmund’s initial attitude and actions that their deceit grows out of. Each of these characters wants to get ahead in life; when they receive power, they use it their advantage. Goneril and Regan begin by exaggerating their love for Lear; once they have achieved power, it’s used for their own personal interests. Gaining greater power becomes a game to play for them as the stakes are raised. Edmund also has only the interest of utilizing situations he was given: to secure an advantage for himself, he must seize the opportunities that come his way. Edmund doesn’t really know where his actions are taking him. He uses his wits to put himself ahead by making opportunities go his way- even if it means lying to others. Edmund improvises to create a path to better positions, meaning attaining as much power as possible. “He sees other people merely as instruments to be manipulated to his own ends.” It’s important to recognize how normal this display of evilness is in King Lear; that this deceit happens all the time to get ahead. I agree with this essay’s claim that Goneril, Regan, and Edmund are using deceit to advance their positions of power. But I don’t agree with how the author says that evilness is normal to get ahead. It’s clear throughout //King Lear// that Edmund utilizes situations to his advantage and that both Goneril and Regan are willing to do anything to gain more power. The deceit of these characters helps to drive the plot forward; each wants to be the most powerful, for their own self-interests. As the story continues, the extremes of their situation and what they do becomes more exaggerated until is pushes them over the edge. It’s very important, especially for Edmund, to use a situation to its full advantage; his wits are his most powerful weapon to put himself ahead. Edmund “create[s] for himself out of the materials at hand his own life to suit his individualistic desires.” But with all this said, I don’t agree with how the author says all this is “recognizably normal.” People don’t usually act in this manner. These are the extremes to the extent which the situations might have gone; but average people would not do this. I think it’s important to acknowledge the extremity of this particular situation.
 * Summary: **
 * Evaluation: **


 * Evaluation of evaluation:** This article is interesting in the sense that it tries to make sense of the insanity of Edmund, Goneril and Regan's evil. It puts a spin on the readers emotion,s analyzing their characters as more of a snowball effect, where their evil misdoings grew out of normalcy and simple desire for power. However, this assertion assumes that evil stems out of normalcy for everyone: at this point i agree with joanne, this simply cant be true in every situation. People dont act that evil in real life out of humanistic desire. This analysis of the article i thought was very accurate and analyzed a rationalization of humanity in a humanisitic perspective. Good stuff Joanne. MB

I think this article gave very interesting insight into the minds of the evil, Edmund, Goneril, and Regan, throughout the play. After seeing the horrors they commit- gouging out eyes, leaving their father out in a storm, and backstabbing mercilessly, it is hard to consider that their path to evil discourse began with an almost normal desire for power. Goneril and Regan merely wanted land that in a sense, they were entitled to: they were Lear's daughters and despite their unfavorable position in Lear's graces, they should have some of the land. Edmund was simply a maverick who happened to go against the norms of the day sucha as family bonds to advance his own position. Ultimately, this article showed the human side these monsters started with before their lust for power fully corrupted them. -AR [|Sight and Blindness- King Lear Essay] This essay about the theme of sight and blindness discusses the three major cases of blindness throughout the play- Lear, Gloucester, and Albany. The author pointed out that Shakespeare uses blindness frequently in his writing as a mental flaw more than a physical disability. The author of this essay states that Lear's blindness cost him the most, in that he lost his power, his kingdom, his daughters love, Cordelia, and his own life. Gloucester's situation was also discussed as was the irony of his only having gained insight after being physically blinded. He also goes on to discuss Albany's blindness to his wife, Goneril's, unfauthful behavior. Ultimatley, he claims that because the characters affected refuse to see what is in front of them, their tragic flaw costs them severly. __**Evaluation**__ Overall I thought this essay employed too much plot summary and not enough in depth interpretation to illustarte how significant the theme of sight and blindness was to //King Lear//. On the other hand, the author of this essay seemed to understand the plot very well and the connections that he or she made were accurate. Because the author used so much plot summary, along with a decent amount of textual evidence, the points they made regarding blindness were very well supported. Ultimatley this essay was helpful because it gave a good overview of the plot and how the theme of blindness and sight relates; but more importantly it points out where in the text to find these examples. This essay would be useful to build off of because it begins to shed light on this important theme; however, it can be interpreted further. -HL
 * Evaluation of Evaluation:**
 * __Summary__**

Hilary’s evaluation of this essay was accurate according to me. As I read it, I too found that there was too much plot summary. Sight and insight is one of the main themes throughout the play, and this writer simply did not touch on enough of the interpretations. Even though the did use a lot of textual support, I dont think they explained it enough to make a real argument.I agree that when Shakespeare said “blind” he was not talking about a physical handicap; however, the author failed to recognize the irony in it all. Gloucester had to physically loose his eyesight to recognized he had been manipulated the entire play, while Lear had to go mentally insane until he gained any insight. There was nothing said about that the fact that Lear’s sight became clearer through his suffering, or that suffering lead to sight: this was a key message in the play. Also, the fact that his first act of blindness is banishing Cordelia was mention, but there was no emphasis. This act set him on a path to tragedy, there is so much to be said that this author completely overlooked. Furthermore, I disagree with the point that Lear not recognizing Kent was an example of his blindness: Lear was pretty much loosing him mind, how is he supposed to recognize his servant when no one else could either? I agree with Hilary the majority of the paper was a plot summary. It could have helped refresh me on the plot, or show me the relationships between characters, but major points where overlooked. I, too, agree with Hilary and whoever wrote that last one's evaluation, but I don't think this essay gives its' reader that much more insight into the play like Hilary; this essay has the potential to delve way below the literal level, but they manage to stay on the surface throughout their writing. The ideas introduced in this essay are not fully developed or backed up enough to create a real arguement, and the textual support is simply placed there without enough justification. Yes, the author gets at the fact that Shakespeare was not talking about being physically blind, and that he was more illustrating how lack of insight breeds ignorance, but the author of this essay fails to truly evaluate, explore the irony (like the abover person said), or even really illustrate the significance of being blind and transforming into being able to see in the plot and character development. The style of this essay is another flaw; it is written extremely informally and it distracts the reader from the content of the essay, which interprets the text on an elementary level as well. The author does use evidence, though, even if it is not well explained, and that definately brings it up, but ultimately, this essay lacked insight; like the above person said, it could be a useful tool for overview of the plot and a little more information on the character relationships, but not much more than that.-LS

I agree with both Hilary and Laura in saying that there is too much plot summary and not enough in-depth interpretations. The theme of sight and insight are very important to how the play unfolds and what directions characters go in. From reading this essay it seems as though the author only understood the basics of the theme. King Lear is a very egotistical character which puts him on his blind rant against Cordelia; he was hurt by she'd said. The quoted used by the author weren't strong enough to explain and support the theme of sight and insight. Because this is such a major theme there are a lot more interpretations that needed to be addressed in this essay- going beyond the literal level. This essay has real potential but the author doesn't explore beyond plot summary. Sight and insight are very important to the development of the play and this author didn't do it justice.- JC 

[|Forshadowing in King Lear] -MK __Summary:__ The essay “Lear’s Lapse disuses the deep significance of the first scene of __King Lear.__ After reading the play, one can find and enormous amount of foreshadowing and theme introduction in simply the first pages. The themes of familial and social ties, are touched about within the first lines. The key theme of sight and insight is also illustrated within scene one: this theme is used especially when the writer is making a commentary on the consequences one does not consider before their actions. It is Goneril who says Lear is “dearer that eyesight:” she is clearly not thinking of the consequences of her actions. She is controlled by greed. Furthermore, as Lear is exiling Kent he yells, “out of my sight,” and Kent argues back “see better, Lear, and let me still remain the true blank of thine eye.” Again, Kent is clearly the one with the insight, while Lear has no idea what his actions have just coast him. The themes of familial and societal ties are also foreshadowing, and they appear in the very first lines of the play. It was the fact that Lear banished Cordelia that set his tragedy in motion and picking the obviously fake daughters over Cordelia indicates that at some point they will turn against him. The parallel plot of Gloucester and his two sons is also introduced. Likewise, just as Lear chose the wrong daughters, Gloucester ends up putting his faith in Edmund, the son who in the beginning he referred to as his bastard son.

__Evaluation:__ I very much agree with the interpretations and the insight of the essay that I read. As is true in any drama, the first scene is extremely significant: it sets up the enitre play, and many of the most important and reacurring themes can be seen within the first scene. From the very first lines when Gloucester is discusisng who he is going to pass his land on to, we see the themes of familial and social ties. The social aspect can be further examined through Edmund and Gloucester too. Because Edmund is a bastard child, Gloucester is ashamed of him. Not only is a theme introduced, but we see the logic being Edmunds plotting. Something I did not pick up on the first time I read this scene was its subtle hints of the sight and insight theme. This essay said that sight and insight often has to do with consequences, and I agree. The examples mentioned above, by Lear and Goneril, are both said by people who end up facing major consequences. The most significant thing this interpretaton discussed was how Lear set tragedy into motion by exiling Cordelia and therefore damning himself. We see right away that Lear is slowly being stripped of power, and eventually becomes nothing. Overall, I believe this was a very well written essay. It made valid points about the argument of forshadowing and enlightned me on some insights I had previously not picked up on.


 * Evaluation of Evaluation:** This evaluation was very informative and her summary reiterated the essay very nicely. Margo did a good job of both summarizing the points that the essay made a bout the first scene in a play as well as adding her own insightful tid bits, mentioning points and quotes from the beginning that have not been overused and killed. her mention of the subtle points of sight and insight were very interesting as the quotes and evidence she stated was a fairly obscure indicator of soemthing to come. The essay itself was very detailed and examined a numerous amount of points and how they foreshadowed future events. I agreed with Margo on everything she said and especially like that she delved into theme introduction and its ties to forshadowing as well as the standard plot development, characters and conflict. Super dooper margo, you're a stud. MB

-CR
 * Evaluation of Evaluation:** Margo did a very good job here of summing up and judge this essay. It was very well written, using excellent vocabulary, and touched on things that we have discussed several times before. Margo reiderated the point in the essay that the beginnings of a play set up the entire plot. This plot set-up, along with an introduction to characters, goals, conflicts, etc, is something we have discussed in depth with our other books (like JANE). It is a Shakespearean method (as well as a method in screenwriting) to incorporate all these things into the first scene; this essay made a very good point of stating that and Margo made it clear that this essay did just that. She also did well to include interpretations from the essay that we didn't necessarily notice or talk about in class, like the subtle mentions of sight in the beginning, or like Lear's self damnation. Ten-thousand kudos for Margo.

I agree that this article provides thorough interpretation of the foreshadowing shown in the first act of the play. The actual writing used varied sentence patterns and used great diction to make the essay flow. This article touched on the sense of divine justice foreshadowed by the opening scene of deceit as we see Edmund, Goneril, and Regan manipulate their aged fathers to their own advantage. The beginning of the play also lay subtleties about the theme of sight and insight: Lear and Goucester's obvious errors in judgment express their blindness. The idea that suffering brings insight further foreshadows their coming epiphanies about their mistakes. Overall, I agree with Rita and think that the article did a great job of illuminating foreshadowing Shakespeare used early in the play. -AR
 * Evaluation of Evaluation:**

[|King Lear Essay] -CR This essay summarized the tragedy of King Lear and his misfortunes. It discussed the causes of Lear's tragic end and how they were brought upon by himself. It summarized the beginning scene, in which Lear gives away his land to his two dishonest daughters (Goneril and Regan), as the start to his tragic downfall. It states that his tragedy is his fault entirely, and talks about the symbolism that appears to guide him and mock him down the path to his ultimate demise. Some symbols included the storm as the god's wrath and The Fool as Lear's guide. I don't neccessarily think that this essay is a well written one, however it did make some interesting points that I would not have considered had I not read them here. For instance, the author states that when Goneril threatens to take Lear's knights away, Lear obliges because he is afraid that if Goneril is not happy, he will not be aloud to be happy. This is an interesting idea, but I would like to see textual proof. There is also a comment that says that the storm is a representation of the elements joining forces with Goneril and Regan against Lear. This is said to be what Lear thinks, and I thought that that was an interesting interpretation.
 * Summary:**
 * Evaluation:**

I agree with Craig’s evaluation of this essay. Although it was not particularly well written, and it summarized a bit too much, it did have some valid points. First of all, I agree with the point that Lear entered the play as a “powerful and respectful” king; I believe that the decline of his power essentially drove the plot because the more and more he was mistreated the madder he became. Furthermore, the article said that Goneril and Ragen implement the downfall of Lear; again, a point that is obviously true. Some obvious textual evidence that the essay could have included was the fact that they go from calling him “King” and “Sir” to “idle old mad.” Not only do they insult him, but they take away his nights. A part of the essay that I questioned was the explanation that he was giving land away for his daughters to use a dowry. Goneril and Ragen were already married. Did they mean for Cordelia? On a whole, as Craig said, it made some interesting interpretations, but some of the points were questionable. -MK

Margo and Craig are bothe acurate in saying that this essay was not very well written and included only one paragraph. This made it seem like the author was rambling and that their point wasn't fully thought out. Overall this essay seemed more like a plot summary than an interpretive essay. I also agree with the question Margo brought up about using the land as dowry. It seems like the author just misinterpreted the play here, a common mistake when reading //King Lear//; however, it could make the validity of this essay more questionable. Ultimatley this essay could have used more textual evidence and validation of the points, but had some interesting and valid interpretations. -HL

[|The Fool] This article gives insight into the purpose and meaning of the Fool’s character. Despite his ironic name, the Fool is considered to be one of the most wise and sensible people in the whole play: although his advice comes in joking riddles, it is still some of the most knowledgeable given to Lear. Juxtaposition is also used to show how crazy Lear is becoming. By putting the Fool next to the highest man- the King, it emphasizes the full extent of Lear’s insanity. The Fool is completely different from all others, making him one of the most influential and puzzling characters in the play. This article was very simplistic stylistically, but it made fairly in-depth points. It used repetitious diction and elementary syntax which I found to be distracting from its meaning. Despite these obvious flaws, the article had intelligent ideas about the true wisdom of the Fool. It went past his obvious joking manner and saw the sanity in his advice. The article also commented on how the Fool is used to contrast the growing insanity in the other main characters of the play, especially Lear. Overall, it was stylistically bland, but made up for its problems with deep reasoning. -AR
 * Summary:**
 * Evaluation:**

I agree with Ani's evaluation of this article; however, I think the author did not go in to enough depth or use any textual evidence. The points were valid but not backed up and the diction is simplified. Overall, the points were acurate and would make a good starting point to an essay if someone had misinterpreted the Fool in this play. Also, through discussing the role of the Fool, this essay also sheds light on the idea of insanity affecting the people of status within the kingdom, and the Fool ending up being the most sane one in the whole society. -HL

I agree with Hilary's evaluation of this artilce, in that I think this article did not go very in depth considering the amount of depth one could go into about the Fool and his significance throughout the play, especially with illuminating the tragedy and being a foil for Lear's character. Like Hilary said, textual evidence would have improved this article immensely, as it would have validated and supported the arguements made in this article, strenghtening the article as a whole. Again, the points are valid and relatively interpretive, but there is a lot of room for improvement in this article, and I don't think it does the character of the Fool justice; although the Fool was gotten rid of before the end drama even started, his role in the play as a whole was extremely significant as he remained the only truely sinless character.-LS

This was a very simply written essay. But it made some good points regarding the fool. He is the hardest character to understand yet he makes the most sense when it comes to advice. Because this essay was so short it lacked any real meaning; it’s hard to go in-depth about a topic in three short paragraphs. Also this essay was missing quotes to support the points they made. This is a more complex issue than the author makes it out to be and they needed to be more supportive with their interpretations.- JC 

http://www.hteatrehistory.com/british/kinglear001.html LS This article analyzes //King Lear// as a tragedy, but not a tragedy like //Macbeth// in which terror is employed to exemplify the tragedy; the article’s argument is that //King Lear// is unique in that it “exhausts” the “sense of compassion,” and it is not simply a “picture of calamity,” but that Shakespeare illustrates the “fall from the highest elevation,” of King Lear himself into the “deepest abyss of misery,” through parallel plot and interaction w his characters. It discusses the themes of blindness and nature as well as the “coarseness” in the behavior of most characters –such as Gloucester, Edmund, Regan, and Goneril- and how this is justified as they are demonstrating the “heathen” side of humans. It evaluates the downfall of King Lear’s dignity as his sanity slowly disintegrates as well as the influence the other characters in the play, argues Lear’s immaturity and justifies his death, while incorporating some historical information comparison. I liked this article a lot, because I agreed with the arguments it made, it also introduced some new ways of viewing the text to me, and I liked how it was set up. The points the article made were well justified, and helped me to deepen my understanding of the tragedy in //King Lear// without watering down any of the explanations as it delved beyond the literal level, even incorporating information from related stories and history. The article analyzed the parallel plots, saying that in both cases “an infatuated father is blind toward his well-disposed child, and the unnatural children,” and it illustrated Edgar’s role as a Christ-figure, or “angel child,” thoroughly and brought up some new ideas to me to aid my understanding of the plot and meaning beyond the action, which was hard to see sometimes because I was so tied up in trying to understand Shakespeare’s language. J By informing me on some history and relating the play to other stories, I also gained insight.
 * Summary:**
 * Evaluation:**

__Themes:__
 * Sight/Insight**- This theme is introduced very early on in the play, and is maintained throughout as different character's ability to "see" exemplifies their characteristics while driving the plot. King Lear is a great example of one who only has sight, as he is unable to see or understand beyond the obvious and blatently stated; things are as they appear (or sound), and he cannot seem to read into them, or //through// them. Kent is just about the opposite of Lear in this aspect, as he can easily see below the surface, and read other character's actions beyond what is seen, into what is driving these actions and what is not being stated outloud. For example, when Goneril says: "Sir, I love you more than word can wield the matter; Dearer than eyesight, space, and liberty; beyond what can be valued, rich or rare; No less than life, with grace, health, beauty, honor; ...A love that mkes breath poor, and speech unable," Lear instantly soaks this up and believes it (because he is so egotistical, and loves his ego to be boosted), completely ignoring Goneril's previous behavior that would indicate the opposite to what she is saying; he is unable to //see// through her lies. When Cordelia does not feel the need to use excentric figurative language and adjectives in order to say how much she loves Lear, "I cannot heave my heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty according to my bond, no more no less," (93) he forgets their relationship prior to this event, and just concludes that she loves him less than Goneril. Kent, then, stands up to Lear, because he //can// see through her, "See better Lear, and let me still remain the true blank of thine eye," (160).
 * Blindness/Ignorance-** In accordance with sight and insight, blindness breeds ignorance; when one is unable to see below the literal and obvious level, they are ignorant as they cannot see a deeper meaning or understand something to the level that breeds knowledge. As mentioned in the above explanation, one's obsession/absorption in themself creates blindness beacuse they are so busy thinking about themselves, that they become ignorant to things occurring around them that would then influence their relationships with people around them. Again, Lear is a victim of this, and the above example illustrates this well, too.
 * Nature and Order (fate)-** Whether or not one is able to control one's own destiny, or if it is predetermined by fate, and what is meant to be is uncontrollable is also expressed throughout the novel, depending on the character. More corrupt character tend to believe in fate, as they need something to blame for their unsuccess and immorality, such as Lear and Gloucester (who had Edmund out of wedlock, and would therefore not want to take personal responsibility for his actions). "These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend no good to us. Though the wisdom of Nature can reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself scourged by the sequent effects. (110-115)"- Gloucester is blaming nature for his misfortunes and bad actions. While characters such as Kent and Edmund believe that one controls their own destiny, and are fully responsible for thier actions as Edmund expresses,"This is the excellent foppery of the world, that when we are sick in fortune, often the surfeits of our own behavior, we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and stars,"(128-130) as he is a victim of Gloucester's bad actions.
 * Divine Justice-** Good behavior will be rewarded, while bad behavior will be punished by an unseen, uncontrollable force (God); these rewards and punishments are proportional to the behavior they are in accordance with. We have not seen very much of this yet, but can anticipate that because of Cordelias honesty, she will be rewarded later on, while Goneril and Ragen will be punished. Lear may be punished for his ignorance and egotistical blindness, because it is in relation with vanity, pride, and materialistic indulgence, which is frowned upon by most religions. Also, Edmund will be punished for his plotting against his father and taking advantage of his innocent brother Edgar, and Gloucester seems to already be getting punished for having an illegitimate child and giving into the sin of lust, as there are plots against him.
 * Corruption (greed/lust for power)-** This theme drives Edmund, Goneril, and Ragen, so far, as the two daughters of Lear lie and decieve in order to fulfill their desire for power in land, and Edmund feels the need to gain power and significance in his father's eyes. Gloucester is also corrupt, as he has a lovechild, and Lear is somewhat corrupt because he cannot see, and does not want to give up his power until the last possible minute.
 * Things are Not as they Appear**- Again, this has to do with sight/insight and blindness/ignorance. One who is able to see that things are not as they appear has //in//sight, while one who is not able to see beyond the obvious or "as things appear" has only sight.
 * Father-Child Relationships**:

A recurring concept that drives both parallel plots in King Lear is the relationships of parents with their children, specifically with King Lear and his three daughters and with Gloucester and his two sons. There is a constant conflict between the old generation holding onto the old ideals versus the new generation moving on to new beliefs. For example, Gloucester publicly acknowledges that he has less respect for his bastard son than for his legitimate son; this is an ideal that was then viewed as the social standard. However, Edmund, the illegitimate child, clearly disagrees with this ideal and chooses to sabotage his brother's relationship with his father to change these views and gain his father's approval. We see again this battle for love with Cordelia, the king's daughter that truly loved him but could not voice it and was thus banished from the kingdom. Thus, King Lear is stuck with his two daughters that wish to destroy him and create a new kingdom to rule, which shows another battle for a new generation versus the contending "old school" beliefs

We see the parallelism between Gloucester and Lear becoming a clear reflection of the theme within Act II. The conflict between Lear and his daughters Goneril and Regan inflames as messages sent to Regan from both her sister and he father are acknowledged. The fact that Goneril's letter is an exaggeration of the truth to make Lear seem more mad than he is shows a conspiratorial aspect to the relationships that have been thrown to the dust with a gaining of power; this relationship is clearly falling apart because the power that Lear is slowly losing has gone to the heads of his daughters.

**__Parallel Plots:__** The two paralleling plots are the conflict between Lear and his two daughters, Goneril and Regan, and the conflict between Gloucester and his two sons Edmund and Edgar. In both cases, we see son/daughter manipulating father. On top of that, each plot, the father is being influenced by the son/daughter who loves them the least: Gloucester, who is blinded by anger after Edmund reveals to him Edgars “plans to kill him,” chooses to believe his bastard son, rather then his pride and joy, Edgar. Likewise, Lear is blinded by anger as well after Cordelia refuses to shower him with compliments and love. In his moment of anger, his gives all of his land, along with his power, to his unworthy daughters Goneril and Regan.

**Edmund:** //Act I// Edmund is characterized by his jealousy of Edgar, which developed because Gloucester considers him an illegitimate son, one who Gloucester would even “blush to acknowledge”. In a smaller, parallel plot we see Edmund’s determination to sabotage Edgar’s relationship with Gloucester by writing a fake letter from Edgar, which reveals plans to kill his father. This attempt at revenge is understandable considering Edmund’s childhood: he was constantly being sent “out” because Gloucester had no need for a bastard child if he had Edgar.
 * __Character__**

//Act II// In act two, the conflict between Gloucester and his sons advance, simultaneously giving more insight into Edmund's persona. Act II opens with Edmund sceming. Here he is as cunning as ever. He takes every oppertunity he gets to sabatage Edgar. For instance he uses the conflict between Lear and his family to instegate Edgar's feelings of insecurity: "Have you not spoken against the Duke of Cornwall? He's coming hither..." Now, Edgar is as vulnerable as ever. He has completely manipulated the situation so that Edgar believes he is looking out for him, and Gloucester thinks he is being loyal to him. We see that in Gloucester's mind, there has been a complete role reversal: Edmund has, ironically, been hes favorite son. Gloucester is quick to go after the "villan" when he believes Edmund has been stabbed, claiming "not in this land shall he remain uncaught." What's even worse is how Edmund milks the situation even more. His father has put all of his trust in him, and he sees it as an oppertunity to gain land. He complains that he is still nothing, "though unpossessing bastard, dost thou think," and becuase he has suddenly become the favorite, Gloucester offers him land. In Act II, Edmund's character is greatly developed, being manifested as the criminal mastermind he truly is.

**Edgar:** //Act I// Edgar is a character who has not been elaborated on as much thus far. He serves as a foil to jealous Edmund: he is everything Edmund is not, and most importantly, Gloucester is proud to call him his son. Edmund manipulates Edgar as well, convincing him that he is in danger, Edmund’s motives of course being to tear apart Edgar and Gloucester. He is a key character in the relationship between Gloucester and his sons, a character mirroring Cordelia in the parallel plot. //Act II// Edgar’s character, finally gains some depth in the second Act. In his short presence in scene I, we see how trusting he is: this is his flaw. Because he’s always been so loyal, so well regarded, he expects the same treatment from his brother. He is naive and blind to such cunning. The fact that he is being so ruthlessly taken advantage of diminishes him too nothing. In scene iii, his speech illustrates what he has become. “No port is free;” he has nowhere to go that is safe. “I will preserve myself; and am bethought to take the basest and most poorest shape that ever penury, in contempt of man.” In other words, he has been reduced to this helpless being because of hatred. What he does not realize, is that it was Edmund’s contempt, not Gloucester’s. Finally, at the end of his speech we see that he is also undergoing and identity crisis: “That’s something yet: Edgar I nothing am.” He is no longer the man he used to be, and this is completely understandable.

//Act I//** Lear is obviously the main character of this novel. The main plot revolves around him and his struggle against his own mind. His impending insanity causes conflicts throughout his kingdom. Early we see that Lear has an inflated ego which gets him into trouble with his daughter Cordelia. He states "better thou hadst not been born than not t' have pleased me better," which shows that he doesn't appreciate or accept being insulted. The fact that Lear is morally blind is also referenced throughout Act I. Toward the end of Act I, Lear asks himself "where are his eyes?". Lear's madness and ego will undoubtedly lead to trouble in this tragedy that revolves around him.
 * Lear:

Act II Lear has slipped even further into insanity. He has realized that Regan and Goneril were flattering him to gain his power, and because of this we see Lear's rage emerge. = Cordelia = __Act I__ Cordelia is a sincere, intelligent, and loving character whose ethical splendor leads her to be banished by a blinded Lear. She refuses to humor Lear’s desire to be flattered and instead remains quiet with “Nothing, my lord” because she knows her love is too powerful to be expressed as she “cannot heave [her] heart into her mouth.” She refuses to be lowered to the level of her greedy sisters, who uses hyperbolic and disingenuous expressions of admiration to win Lear’s power. She shows high intellect in the manner in which she attacks her sisters’ false claims. With the question “why have my sisters husbands, if they say they love you all?” she points out the fact that her sisters could not possibly mean their proclamations of total love and devotion if half of their heart belongs to another man. But despite the grave injustice Lear has committed against her, she speaks kindly to him as they part, saying “may you prosper.” __Act III__
 * At the end of Act I he insults Goneril passionatley, ill-wishing her, wanting her to "feel how sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child!"
 * At the end of Act II, he threatens Regan and Goneril with revenge: "I will have such revenge on you both that all the world shall-- I will do such things-- what they are, yet I know not; but they shall be the terrors of the earth." (At this point Lear is on the brink of total insanity.)
 * We also see Lear's arogance as he will not relinquish any of his power to his daughters.
 * Lear attempts to make himself look like the victim by referencing his "old heart." However, he is so proud that he cannot admit that he is hurt by his daughters betrayal: "this heart shall break into a hundred thousand flaws or ere I'll weep. O Fool I shall go mad!"

> > **Gloucester:** > **//Act I//** > Gloucester is similar to Lear in the fact that he is also morally blind. He disregards the feelings of his bastard son, Edmund, even though he claims his legitimate son, Edgar, //"is no dearer in [his] account."// Gloucester is also naieve which cause him problems within his own family. His son Edmund frames his brother to make him appear disrespectable to Gloucester. His inability to see his son's vengful attempt to gain his father's inheritance shows his blindness.

By Act II Gloucester has become more like Lear in that he is naieve and morally blind. He cannot see that Edmund is completley using him at the expense of Edgar, who Gloucester now refers to as a //"strange and fastened villian."// This shows how quickly Gloucester judges people, and the fact that he lashes out makes him even more similar to Lear. Because Edmund comforts him, by telling him he defended his honor aginst //"the villian,"// Glocester immediatley accepts Edmund as his //"loyal and natural boy."//
 * //ACT II//**

> **Goneril:** > //Act I// > Goneril is the Edmund-like character in the relationship between Lear and his daughter. She is the main sister taking full advantage of Lear for his land. She professes to Lear “I love you more than the world can wield,” and then mercilessly takes his land and his power. By the end of the second Act we can see this transfer of power take place. While Lear has lost sight of himself, Goneril has moved in and taken over. Symbolically, his “800 nights” which are now hers represents this shift. Now, instead of drowning him with love, she looks down on him disrespectfully. > > **Regan:** > //Act I// > Regan is Lear’s other daughter, who also shamelessly takes advantage of him. Although her character has not been very developed so far, from her very first lines her true character is manifest. The first time she speaks, she is praising Lear (for his land), and furthermore, she is stabbing her other sister in the back, claiming “I finds she names my very deed of love, only she comes too short.” Acyt II In Act II, Regan’s character is also greatly developed. In the first act, we saw some of her back-stabbing cunning, and in this second act it is only further elaborated on. First of all, she too is ruthless in her treatment towards Lear, however, unlike Goneril, she is more subtle about it. When Kent comes with a message from Lear, Regan is extremely disrespectful and puts him in the stocks. I believe she does this intentionally because she knows how much this will bother Lear, who has already blown up at Goneril. Also, this illustrates her exercise of power: she wants to see how much power she can exert over Lear and his men. At the end of the scene, Regan is EVIL. Lear comes to her begging to stay with her; he is literally on her knees, “On my knees I beg that you’ll vouchsafe me raiment, bed, and food.” He responses are constantly cold. “Good sir, no more” and “say you have wronged her (Goneril).” Regan is heartless, she can’t even help her father, foreshadowing future conflict with Goneril. > > **Kent:** > Kent is King Lear's personal advisor and trusted friend. Kent plays a pivotal role in the plot of the //first Act// as he influences directly the reader's perception of the sequence of dramatic events taking place. He provides a stark contrast to Lear's blind, stubborn, ignorant views of the people surrounding him; he is the honest, true foil to Lear's character. He is truthful in the face of adversity and refuses to back down to King Lear's unrealistic whims, protesting Cordelia's ridicule and banishment- eventually leading to his own banishment. His characterization ties in directly to several themes: he portrays especially those which create contrast in order to better view a situation- chaos versus order, natural versus unnatural, and blindness versus enlightenment. Kent continues to play a key role, even after his banishment, as he returns to Lear in disguise, manipulating himself back into Lear's good graces for Lear's own good. > **Fool:** > The Fool is the former King's jester who enters the play following Lear's banishment of Cordelia and present another contrasting view to Lear's distorted perception. The Fool is physically there to provide entertainment, pure and simple, he is the King's servant- his play toy: however, the Fool in this context is aware of his purpose as a fool. Therefore he is an ambiguous being who has discrepancies between his profession and his personal philosophy. He is the first person to openly criticize the King for his unfair division of the kingdom and the ensuing chaos that he plunged the region into. This open and honest nature stems from the Fools intensely logical self awareness- he speaks in paradoxes, creating satirical, contradicting rants which confuse Lear and challenge his authority and intelligence. He is the essence of nature; he speaks honestly yet in paradoxes and riddles. He is the portal to Lear's reality, and his muddled riddles are a manifestation of how Lear sees the world around him, distorted and inversed- yet the essence is still there, hidden.
 * **Act II examples**
 * kent's character is especially displayed in Act II scene II as his motives and passion become more evident. In this scene he confronts Oswald outside Gloucester's house immediatly after they have both delivered their letters of complaints from their masters. Kent, in disguise, approaches Oswald angirly, seeking a fight openly as he passionatly denounces Oswalds morality, backbone, and character. the true nature of Kent's intentions are thus presented; he is seeking justice- the theme most evident in this particular scene. oswald remained as a servant of the new lord of the land, Goneril. Kent especially despises this because Oswald is a "knave" who performs his duties with no regards to morality, justice, or any higher purpose. This prominently depicts Kent's own ideals, as he is an upholder of all these traits. Kent has sacrificed his own wellbeing, banished and denounced from the kingdom, in order to uphold his morality and justice; thus he speaks so passionatly against Oswald, the exact opposite and manifestation of inversed ideals. However Kent's predicament is complicated and wrapped in deceptions: the reader sees his character for who he is, but the dramatic irony of the scene is that his character is not allowed to shine. Kent has so far, become an appeasing servant of the king in order to gain his good graces, making him a hypocrit in the eyes of the other characters.
 * **Act II examples**
 * The Fool once again presents an astounding arguemental riddle to Lear in Act II scene IV. He presents the paradoxes of Lears misfortunes, pointing out faults and errors in judgement on Lear's behalf that have landed him in the unloving predicament he is now. Once again he plays the role of Lear's disregarded eyes, showing him the true nature of things. He gives him a riddle presenting the case of Lear's suffering in a logical way: "Fortune, that arrant whore, / Ne'er turns the key to th' poor." He justifies Lear's suffering, telling him that fortune only aids the welathy and fortunate and that what Lear is now feeling is only the natural course of things. Lear has given up his wealth, a judgement he has now come to regret, and the chaotic power stuggle that ensues is his own fault. The fool once again points out Lear's blindness to these things, as he associates him with "All that follow their noses are led by their eyes but blind men, and there's not a nose among twenty that can smell him that's stinking." The Fool again points out Lear's ignorance as he follows a path of blindness and ignorance in his dealing with his duaghters.

//**Blindness:**//
 * __Motifs:__**

Blindness is the most prominent motif in Act I.
 * Act I-**


 * King Lear:** It starts with King Lear asking his daughters to tell how much they love him. He believes Goneril and Regan’s testimony; Goneril pleaded “I loved you more than word can wield the matter.” And Regan claims “find I am alone felicitate in your dear Highness’ love.” These statements are completely false, holding no true affection; all they want it to receive the most land. Lear is blind to this because he is caught up in loving himself and hearing how much others love him too.

When Cordelia says “nothing my lord” : her father become angry, this was not the answer he wanted to hear. Cordelia felt she didn’t need to profess her love, he should already know how much she loves him. Lear is blind to the true meaning of her words and Kent lets him know his is acting rashly, making a bad decision.


 * Gloucester:** With parallel story of Gloucester, Edmund, and Edgar there is also blindness on Gloucester and Edgar’s part. Edmund is plotting against his brother to receive land from his father. He writes a letter saying it is from Edgar disrespecting their father and telling Edmund they should team up to get the money sooner. Edmund pretends to try and hide the letter so Gloucester could not find it, with the true intention of him seeing it. After his father becomes angry with Edgar for writing the letter, Edmund talks with Edgar warning of his father’s anger, saying you need to hide away for a while until he cools down. Edmund plants this letting because he is greedy to have land and says “let me, if not by birth, have lands by wit.” He will trick his father into giving him land, even if it means tearing down his brother at the same time.

Blindness is continued into Act II.
 * Act II-**

Gloucester: Once again Gloucester is blind to Edmund’s scheming. For Edmund lets his brother get away to look like a good brother to Edgar but he makes a commotion to make it look like he was trying to capture Edgar for his father. This makes Edmund look the good person to both Edgar and Gloucester. Edmund sets the scene by telling Edgar “I must draw my sword upon you”; he then proceeds to cut himself to show Gloucester his devotion “Some blood drawn on me would beget opinion.” He recounts his encounter with Edgar and what he’d said which made Gloucester look bad for ever calling him a bastard child <span style="COLOR: rgb(112,48,160)">“Thou unpossessing bastard!” > **//Nature//** is alluded to on numerous occasions in Act I. On p.43 Lear references "the sacred radiance of the sun." This shows that Lear believes that nature is sacred and powerful. Maybe he feels drawn to it because it is what he wants to achieve, power and respect. Lear continues to reference nature which shows that it is important to his beliefs, and therefore the beliefs of his kingdom. > > **King Lear Connections in Other Stories__:__** > Though it is not well established yet, there are some parallels between King Lear and Cinderella. The sisters Goneril and Regan are very similar to the stepsisters in Cinderella, as they are both shallow and materialistic, falsely flattering their father for personal gain. Cordelia is similar to Cinderella only in that she is the outcast of her family; however, she is more bold than Cinderella and honest with her family, even if the truth is harsh.
 * Allusion:**

> > **__Prose:__** > > "Thus Kent, O Princes, bids you all adieu; > He'll shape his old course into a country new" > This quote is the first use of rhyme in King Lear. It introduces Shakespeare's changes in prose and how they supply separate meaning to the work. This rhyme in particular acts as a dramatic exit of a character that will no longer be seen in the same form again (he later re-appears in disguise). This also begins Lear's downward spiral; because Kent is the initial voice of reason to the King, and the king ignores his advice, Lear is immediately lost to his ignorance when Kent leaves. > This appearance of rhyme appears again on lines 256-264 in Act I, when France takes Cordelia as his wife, regardless of her absent dowry. We can now see a pattern in the rhyme the characters that use rhyme are the ones that defy the King or see beyond what he can see. The rhymes represent a revelation of the truth that King Lear cannot comprehend. Another character that rhymes is the Fool; this character is the foil to Lear's ignorance. He is playful and demure in action but persistent in pointing out the King's flaws. This character is constantly using rhyme as a tool to drop hints of advice on Lear. Examples can be seen scenes iv and v. > > Another way Shakespeare uses prose to change meaning is by switching from the usual free verse to a regular writing style. For example, in Act I scene i, from line 285 to the end, Goneril and Regan discuss their plot against their father. Because this conversation is supposed to be somewhat rushed and secretive, the speaking style changes. This occurs multiple times during private conversations between two individuals. Another example can be seen in the beginning of scene ii, with the conversation between Gloucester and Edmund. Because this is a private conversation of secretive matters, their tone changes from the formal way of speaking with iambic pentameter rhythm to normal, casual speech.
 * Greek Mythology:**

In Act II we see an interesting new kind of prose that develops. Shakespeare uses long monologues at the end of a scene to act as a kind of lament for the dis-heartening events that have occurred. In the end of Act II scene ii, Kent is sent to the stocks to be punished. As he accepts his fate, he speaks not really to anyone in a long sort of prayer to help the king. This happens again as Act II scene iii. Edgar has just escaped the castle from what his brother told him was danger, although in reality it was merely a lie Edmund conceived to gain his father's love. In this scene Edgar speaks only to himself, mourning the actions that have caused him to be banished. He finishes his lament with "Edgar I nothing am" highlighting the sadness in him that creates a sort of sympathy from the reader because of his unfair situation.

> > > =__**Tragic connections**__= > > =__Act I__= > King Lear is a tragic play and although we have not yet encountered the //pain, suffering, and death// necessary for tragedy, the initial sin- which causes tragic punishment- has emerged in Act I. The central act of sin, //a violation of the ordained order//, is Lear’s banishment of Cordelia. The tragic consequence of this decision is foreshadowed in the diction as Lear says “we shall express our darker purpose” when going to discuss the distribution of his land. Lear goes against the “natural order” by basing his decision off of an egotistical attempt to produce mindless flattery rather than his true feelings toward his daughters. Lear’s insecurity and fears of fading importance are his flaw; because //character is destiny//, his flawed character will lead him to a flawed life. Tragic law also states that man //can neither calculate or control the ultimate outcome// and due to his rash decisio n and failing facilities, Lear soon finds his life spiraling out of control. When Goneril takes away his knights (power) and he begins to question his own mental condition with the desperate proclamation “Doth any here know me? This is not Lear,” we see the tragic expression of morality as Lear must face the consequences of his actions. > >> > = __Act II__ = > > > >