In Shakespeare’s King Lear, the fool plays many big roles. First, he is more than just a comic relief character; he is one of the few characters who remains loyal to the King. His presence in the play is crucial, and although he speaks in riddles, his voice exposes those around him, giving him a huge role. 

When the fool is first introduced to readers, he is honest with Lear. He tells things how they are, which many characters in this play don’t do. He calls Lear “a fool” for trusting his daughters and mocks him for giving away his kingdom. The fool can be seen as a fortune teller, as he begins to see chaos and madness coming much before Lear does. “Now thou art an O without a figure. I am better than thou art now; I am a fool, thou art nothing” (1.4.188-189). This line displays how the fool warned Lear that he was once a mighty and powerful king, but he has become closer to “nothing”. The fool is also shockingly wise. His wisdom is hidden in the humor that he portrays throughout the play. His jokes can also be harsh, like, “Thou gav’st them the rod and put’st down thine own breeches” (1.4.176-177).

The fool’s role is crucial to the play because he is not only Lear’s critic but also his only friend. He exposes the King like no other character has before. In the end, the fool teaches us that laughter can be one of the only ways to tell the truth and that his wisdom will shine through at very unexpected times.

Kent is my favorite character in King Lear because of his unwavering loyalty to Lear. As we know, even when banished by King Lear, he does not let that be why he leaves Lear’s side. Instead, he decides to disguise himself as “Caius” to continue serving Lear, proving his selflessness.

Additionally, Kent’s straightforward and honest nature often provides moments of clarity amidst the chaos of the play. His bluntness contrasts sharply with the duplicity of other characters, making his insights valuable. Throughout the play, he remains a symbol of integrity, reminding us of the importance of standing up for what is right, even in the face of overwhelming adversity. Ultimately, Kent’s combination of loyalty, honesty, courage, and dedication to King Lear makes him a compelling and admirable character that resonates with the audience.

Not only is his loyalty a strong characteristic, but his courage and outspokenness also make him my favorite character. Kent is fearless when confronting villains like Oswald and even Lear when needed. He carries blunt honesty, calling Oswald a “knave” and a “whoreson, cullionly barber-monger” as a way to prove his loyalty and honesty.

In William Shakespeare’s King Lear, Edgar’s journey really stuck out to me. His transformation, going from a victim of betrayal to an agent of justice intrigued me. At the start of the play, Edgar is an honest man framed by his brother Edmund for treason. Edmunded forced Edgar to flee and disguise himself as a Poor Tom. Edgar’s transformation symbolizes not only his survival but a shift in identity as he lives amongst the brutal world around him.

Edgar’s disguise emphasizes a central theme in the play: how easy it is to change one’s identity and navigate amongst chaos. As a Poor Tom, Edgar reflects the need to change himself in the face of suffering and loss. His ability to adapt contrasts with the identities played by others, such as Edmund’s villain-like behavior.

As the play goes on, Edgar goes from a passive victim to a vengeful person. Edgar takes justice into his own hands by confronting Edmund. While this revenge feels necessary, it also raises questions about the moral principles of retaliation. In the end, Edgar achieves justice, however, takes on the emotional toll of his journey. Shakespeare highlights that vengeance, although it is fulfilling in some ways, doesn’t resolve the internal chaos caused by betrayal. Edgar’s journey ultimately reflects the complex effect of loyalty, identity, and the cost of revenge in King Lear.

The motif of disguises and the way it connects to seeing/blindness is very fascinating to me. Just about every character in King Lear is different under the surface compared to what they seem to others. Every character is either in a literal disguise, being deceptive about who they really are, or believing they are someone different from who they really are.

In King Lear, both Kent and Edgar use disguises to hide themselves from being persecuted by the kingdom. They knock themselves down a few pegs and appear lower class. They use this disguise to aid the people close to them. Regan, Goneril, Edmund, and their husbands put on a metaphorical disguise as they pretend to side with their family and instead betray them for personal gain. Finally, even Lear is in disguise from himself as he is entirely unaware of what kind of person he is. He saw himself as a commanding, powerful figure that could do no wrong but as that disguise slipped away from him he began to go more and more mad.

This environment bred total chaos throughout the kingdom and created the famous tragedy of King Lear. Certain characters, like Gloucester, stay true to themselves and their morals, but we know how that turned out for him. Because he was unable to see through the people in the castle, his eyes were stripped from him. Almost nobody in the play is who they say they are and everybody suffers for it.

Cornwall fascinates me. After the dramatic turn inside Gloucester’s castle, where Gloucester goes from confidant to proclaimed traitor, most character’s actions make perfect sense. Gloucester is naturally incensed; Edmund fans the flames in hopes of overtaking his father; and Goneril and Regan have both begun their descent into villainy and treachery while entangled in the messy love triangle, so their barbarism is a symptom of a larger ailment. But Cornwall, Cornwall really shouldn’t be as quick to anger and judgement as he is. Yes, he has been told of a note, but he doesn’t even give Gloucester a chance to make his case before taking out an eye. And then, after being fatally wounded in a swordfight, he still goes back to take out Gloucester’s other eye. What compelled him so?

I think it may have been due to Regan’s burgeoning affection for Edmund. During Goneril’s rant at Albany, she outlines many reasons she is dissatisfied with him, but chief among them is his pensiveness and indecision. She resents his passivity and his caution. It stands to reason that Regan shares some taste with her sister. Perhaps Regan too had expressed discontent with Cornwall, perhaps she even bemoaned the same qualities as Goneril. Considering also that Edmund has just left, that he had made his mark, Cornwall might have wanted to outdo him. He must have picked up on his wife’s clear affection for Edmund, and he sought to win her affection back.

How to go about it? To be decisive, of course. So what if immediately crashing down upon hitherto utmostly trusted Gloucester may be rash and short-sighted. So what if his testimony could have brought forth greater insight into the happenings in Dover and of the King. When your wife begins to fall for someone else, reason is thought of second. Even his ill-fated swordfight should never have happened. A steward challenging the King? What beckoned Cornwall to fight back? His honor was not in question, he could have denied the attack with nobody batting an eye. But no, he needed to outman Edmund. And how better to outman a foe than by dazzling in combat. Alas.

In “King Lear,” gender roles and stereotypes play a crucial role in shaping the  characters, the big themes, and the tragic plot. Particularly, the way that Shakespeare, and certainly many other male authors of his time and modern times, depict powerful women in comparison to powerful men is a bit alarming.

Women like Goneril and Regan are depicted as manipulative and power-hungry throughout the play, and thus they are seen as inherently evil and wicked. Their vast ambition challenges the traditional expectations of women as nurturing and submissive beings, and it makes many men in the play very uncomfortable. They are quickly categorized off as villainous women, in a manner that men who do the same villainous things simply are not.

Although it is easy to write off Shakespeare’s misogynistic characterization as being “outdated” and no longer relevant, we have all seen these similar gender stereotypes at play twice now in the 21st century. It is undeniable that Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris have often faced criticisms as female presidential candidates that stem entirely from gender biases. Their ambition and assertiveness, traits celebrated in their counterpart male politicians, are often viewed and written about negatively because they defy traditionally accepted feminine roles. Clinton is commonly known for her description as a “nasty woman”, and some of the things written about Harris are so vile I don’t even want to type them out. The struggles of these well known female politicians are mirrored in the lives of women and girls everywhere though. Living through these two elections where women have failed to overcome the hate perpetuated onto us has shown me one thing: It will never be an easy path to the top if you are walking that path as a woman.

Both in “King Lear” and in contemporary society, these gender stereotypes are harmful and restrictive. They shape perceptions and expectations in ways that often lead to unfair treatment and misunderstanding. The struggles of characters in “King Lear” and figures like Clinton and Harris demonstrate the importance of challenging these stereotypes for young women. We will never be able to succeed if we don’t talk about the inequities we face each day, and confront them head on.

By examining these parallels, we can better understand the impact of gender stereotypes and work towards a more equitable society. Whether in literature or real life, breaking free from these constraints allows for a more authentic and diverse expression of identity.

William Shakespeare’s play King Lear features many female leads throughout the story. These women are portrayed in a complex way that both breaks and reinforces misogynist stereotypes. Throughout the play, Gorneril and Regan are smart and cunning. They hold positions of great power and are seen commanding characters around. They have their own scenes and storylines that are essential to the play. This is quite groundbreaking for a play written in the 1600s. Goneril and Regan are not seen as weak side characters, but as fierce women who should not be crossed. Shakespeare wasn’t afraid to put women in power, which highlights the progressive views of women throughout the play, however, the play also reinforces many of the harmful stereotypes about women that we still have today. 

Throughout the play, women are often compared to monsters and evil. This can be clearly shown in the scene where Cornwall and Regan take out Gloucester’s eyes. In the scene, Cornwall commits the act of taking Gloucester’s eyes while Regan encourages him. After the character exits we hear the servants talking about what took place. The servants say that Cornwall is an evil and wicked man, but he is still a man. Regan however is seen as a monster to them, because they cannot fathom that a women would do such a horrible act. The servant says “Women will all turn monsters” (III, VII, 124). While a man is allowed to do this type of act women are not without losing all of their humanity and turning into monsters. This is also shown when Albany finds out what Goneril did to her father. He calls her the devil and says “Proper deformity shows not in the fiend/So horrid as in women” (IV, II, 74). Goneril is again thought of as inhuman and compared to a monster because of her scheming.

King Lear portrays women as powerful and yet also perpetuates the stereotypes that women are not allowed to react and scheme without being monsters, while the male characters are looked at as normal for the same actions.

In Shakespeare’s King Lear, Lear’s actions within his own family starkly illustrate the consequences of misplaced trust and terrible decision-making. Most notably, Lear’s ill-advised division of his kingdom among his daughters–Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia–stems from his superficial assesment of their love. While Cordelia displays genuine affection for Lear, her honesty gets her banished from his kingdom, highlighting Lear’s initial preference for flatterly over truth. This misstep catalyzes his tragic downfall where Goneril and Regan exploit Lear’s naivety, turning against him. Lear’s inability to discern true loyalty and mere pretense exemplifies his fragile authority, as well the chaos in his family.

And if within the King’s family wasn’t enough, Gloucester’s family of him and his sons further pushes the theme of familial fragility. Edgar and Edmund are contrasting images with different virtues and values–Edmund’s betrayal and innate ambition epitomize the corruption that spreads through the royal household. Gloucester himself, despite his own flaws, serves as a symbol of resilience, enduring immense suffering while maintaining his own dignity.

Ultimately, Lear’s inability to recognize true loyalty accelerates his tragic descent, leading to widespread chaos in both his family and the kingdom. The play thus becomes a profound meditation on the consequences of poor leadership, misplaced trust, and the fragility of familial and political structures.

In Shakespeare’s tragedy book/play King Lear, gender norms are constantly under fire and changing rapidly. We see this through the drastic changes of Regan, Goneril, and, most importantly, King Lear. Something that is not discussed as much as it should be is how the roles of characters change when they are in disguise. Notably, how Kent is treated when he is disguised as a noble servant to Lear, or how all of Edgar’s philosophies are disregarded because he is “Poor Tom”. But, my favorite character in disguise is the Fool. Lear’s Fool commonly offers advice and aid to King Lear, but Lear always dismisses it simply because he is a fool. It can be seen that the Fool is one of the smartest characters in the entire play. He even tells Lear that the reason why he has no train is because he has consistently ruined everything that he has touched (II,iv,77-80). Lear does not even take offense to this blatant disrespect because he puts it off as the Fool just cracking a joke when, in reality, he is highlighting the King’s biggest insecurities.

In all, the Fool is one of the most interesting characters in the entire play and he reveals a lot about how the social hierarchy matters in society. It matters so much so that people will not even take the time to process what you are saying if you are below them. If the Fool was in fact from a noble family then I wonder how the ending of the play would change knowing that Lear would listen to this new character as much as he did to Kent or Gloucester. Or perhaps, the play would not change as this character would be banished for disrespecting the king. The Fool reinforces the common theme of the desperation to attain power. Those with it will not/can not admit any faults or take advice from someone as  low in class as a Fool.

In King Lear by William Shakespeare, Edmund, the bastard son of Gloucester, goes through many character shifts throughout the story. He seems to have his own story line throughout the play, which I find very interesting.

In the opening scenes of the play, Gloucester can be seen talking to Kent and mentions how he loves both of his sons equally despite one of them being a bastard. While telling Kent this, he talks about how embarrassed he used to be when he brought Edmund up because of their situation. Despite saying he loves his sons equally, he seems to favor one over the other which sets Edmund up to become a villain.

I think that Edmund had a valid reason for doing what he did, I probably would not have done the same but if your father makes it so clear to you as well as strangers about how you were conceived and lies about how much he loves you, it messes you up in the head. Most villains in films have troubled childhoods or reasons for doing what they did so I think that Edmund could paint it as revenge and therefore morally okay. Act II and III are where his evil peaks. He runs his brother out of the country after staging a fight and deceiving their father. He also sells his father out for treason to Regan and Cornwall, leading to him being tortured. I think that the fact that he got away with so many evil things back to back is interesting because you would think that people kept a closer eye on their servants.

Edgar is painted out to be the “good” son by Gloucester to other people and Edmund the “bad” son. I think it is compelling how the Edgar-Edmund-Gloucester trope mirrors the Lear-Goneril-Regan-Cordelia trope about having good or innocent children and bad or evil children. Although for different reasons, both fathers favor one child and paint the other out to be evil, Edmund is really evil but Gloucester definitely did not love him as much as Edgar.

Kent in King Lear is my favorite character because of how loyal and brave he is. From the very beginning, he shows that doing the right thing matters more to him than staying safe. When King Lear makes the huge mistake of banishing Cordelia, Kent stands up to him, even though he knows it could cost him everything. Then, after Lear banishes him too, Kent still doesn’t give up. He disguises himself and stays by Lear’s side to help him, proving just how deeply he cares. His actions show not only his loyalty but also his humility, which makes him even more admirable.

I really admire Kent because he’s honest, selfless, and consistent. He always puts Lear’s well-being first, even when things get really tough for him. Kent never wavers, and his dedication makes him stand out as one of the most honorable characters in the entire play. 

In King Lear, women who assert themselves or exercise power are portrayed in dehumanizing and villainous ways. Goneril and Regan, Lear’s daughters, are central to this depiction. They are ambitious, politically astute, and unafraid to take control – qualities traditionally associated with male rulers in Shakespeare’s time. However, the language used to describe them frequently casts them as unnatural and monstrous, aligning with the societal discomfort surrounding women in positions of power.

Throughout the play, Goneril and Regan are often likened to animals or described in ways that suggest they are evil by nature. Lear curses Goneril, calling her a “detested kite,” likening her to a predatory bird that feeds off others. He also refers to her as a “sharp-toothed vulture,” emphasizing her cruelty and predation. Regan is similarly described in terms that evoke savagery and unnatural behavior. The animalistic imagery strips them of their humanity and reinforces the idea that their ambition and assertiveness are aberrations.Their actions are also framed as violations of both natural and societal order. Lear repeatedly invokes the concept of nature, accusing Goneril and Regan of being “unnatural hags” who defy the expectations of daughters and women. Their willingness to wield power in their own right is interpreted not as strength but as a sign of corruption and moral decay. 

On the other hand, Cordelia, who is more submissive and adheres to traditional expectations of femininity, is portrayed as the moral opposite of her sisters. Her refusal to flatter Lear is principled rather than ambitious, and she is ultimately idealized as a symbol of purity and loyalty. This dichotomy reinforces the play’s underlying message: women who seek power or autonomy are dangerous, while those who embody traditional virtues are celebrated.

Kent’s loyalty to Lear in King Lear is so strong that it becomes strange. In Act 1, Kent gets thrown out by Lear for telling the truth, but rather than being upset or moving on, he disguises himself in order to stay with Lear. Kent remains strong even while Lear keeps making terrible choices and goes insane. He remains there by Act 3, supporting Lear as he rages in the storm. It’s quite odd that Kent seems to have no identity other than serving Lear. Like a loyal dog, he just continues returning no matter how poorly he is treated. It’s disturbing as well as nice in certain ways. Normal human responses, like as pride or dignity, don’t seem to be visible in Kent. Most individuals would leave or at the very least take some time to think about themselves if they were treated the way Lear treats Kent. I could never commit my life to someone who so easily banished me. To be completely honest, I also wouldn’t want someone to do that for me. It would feel more creepy than honorable if someone sacrificed their entire identity and life to follow me around. Because of Kent’s enormous devotion, it no longer feels like loyalty but rather like blind passion. It makes the question of whether Kent is even aware of his identity outside of being Lear’s servant. Shakespeare may have written him in this way to emphasize how uncommon loyalty is in a world full of betrayal, but Kent’s dedication seems more artificial than human as if he lacks the ability to reflect on his own behavior.

King Lear would be an amazing Sergeant in the Army. When I think of enlistees in the Army, I think of young men who have made a lot of mistakes, are still immature, and have a lot of room to reflect and grow as human beings. I feel like these young men have a lot of pride, a big ego, and are not vulnerable enough to evolve. Remind you of anyone? King Lear!

Lear in the beginning of this play was an egotistical, self centered, immature man. He did not realize all of his mistakes, and just wanted his name praised and to have as much power as he could. Like a young enlistee, he was not ready or vulnerable enough to grow, even though he needed it badly. At the end of the play though, he has grown as a man; he had clarity and realized his mistakes, and apologized for them and had regrets.

This is what needs to happen to these young enlistees, Lear would be great at making them realize all of the mistakes they’ve made, how young and immature they are, and how much they have to grow as men. I think Lear would be great at this because of his own experience growing as a man.