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.