Story Power

Blogging the Lit Life

Category: King Lear (Page 1 of 3)

How King Lear + Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead changed my thoughts on Literature

If someone asked me at the beginning of this year what literature was for, I probably would have said entertainment, symbolism, or maybe learning how to write better essays. After reading King Lear and Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead, I no longer think literature exists simply to tell stories. Literature forces people to confront truths they usually avoid. Both texts changed the way I think about power, loneliness, justice, and the danger of dismissing people whose voices do not fit society’s expectations. Through Lear’s tragic collapse and Janina Duszejko’s isolation and rage, I realized that human beings often destroy one another not through violence alone, but through indifference.

What affected me most about both works was how each protagonist is ignored until it is too late. In King Lear, Lear begins the play believing authority guarantees love and loyalty. He divides his kingdom based on performance rather than sincerity, rewarding the daughters who flatter him and rejecting Cordelia because her honesty embarrasses him. At first, Lear seems powerful, but Shakespeare slowly reveals that power without self-awareness creates blindness. Lear cannot recognize truth because he only values what comforts his ego. By the time he finally understands Cordelia’s love, the damage is irreversible. His suffering becomes tragic because his wisdom arrives too late to save anyone.

Reading King Lear changed the way I think about pride and communication in real life. People often ignore uncomfortable truths because they want validation more than honesty. I realized that many conflicts between parents and children, leaders and citizens, or even friends begin when people stop listening and start demanding approval. Lear’s downfall taught me that emotional blindness can be just as destructive as physical violence. The storm scene especially stood out to me because the chaos outside mirrors the destruction inside his mind. Shakespeare suggests that when humans refuse humility, nature itself seems to turn against them. That idea made me reflect on how pride can isolate people from those who genuinely care about them.

Similarly, Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead presents a protagonist society refuses to hear. Janina Duszejko is dismissed because she is older, eccentric, emotional, and obsessed with astrology and animals. The men around her constantly treat her as irrational, even when she tries to warn them about cruelty and corruption. Like Lear, society ignores truth because it comes from someone they consider unimportant. However, unlike Lear, Janina does not gain clarity through suffering alone; instead, she transforms her isolation into rebellion. Her anger grows from witnessing violence against animals and the hypocrisy of people who claim morality while committing cruelty themselves.

This novel changed the way I think about justice and the relationship between humans and nature. Before reading it, I rarely considered how easily society separates human suffering from environmental destruction. Tokarczuk forces readers to see that cruelty toward animals reflects a larger moral failure. The hunters in the novel believe domination gives them the right to kill, just as powerful figures in King Lear believe authority gives them the right to control others. Both texts expose how power often removes empathy. That realization made me question how modern society treats vulnerable people, animals, and even the environment itself. We often ignore suffering until it directly affects us.

What connects these two works most strongly to me is isolation. Lear becomes isolated because of his pride, while Janina becomes isolated because society rejects her perspective. Yet both characters reveal the consequences of refusing human connection and understanding. Lear wanders through the storm stripped of status and identity, discovering that power means nothing without compassion. Janina exists on the margins of society, where her loneliness sharpens her awareness of hypocrisy and injustice. Both characters ultimately challenge me to ask who society chooses to listen to and who it chooses to silence.

These texts also changed how I view morality. Before this year, I thought literature usually divided characters clearly into heroes and villains. King Lear and Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead refuse simple moral answers. Lear is both cruel and sympathetic. Janina is compassionate yet capable of terrible actions. This complexity made me realize that people cannot be understood through labels alone. Literature matters because it forces readers to sit inside uncomfortable ambiguity. Instead of teaching simple lessons, these works teach empathy by revealing contradictions within human nature.

If I were to represent my experience with these texts visually, I would create a painting divided into two landscapes merging. On one side would be Lear standing in the storm beneath a collapsing crown, symbolizing the destruction caused by pride and blindness. On the other side would be Janina, standing in a snowy forest surrounded by animal eyes watching silently from the darkness. Between them would be a cracked mirror reflecting both faces together, showing that despite their differences, both characters suffer from humanity’s inability to truly listen and understand. The storm and forest would blend together to symbolize how emotional chaos and environmental destruction are connected.

Ultimately, these works changed my understanding of literature because they changed my understanding of people. Literature is powerful not because it gives answers, but because it forces confrontation with difficult truths about society and ourselves. King Lear taught me that pride and the desire for control can destroy relationships before people recognize what truly matters. Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead taught me that ignoring marginalized voices and dismissing compassion can create corruption disguised as normality. Together, these texts revealed that isolation, blindness, and indifference are among the most dangerous human flaws.

By the end of this year, I no longer see literature as something distant from reality. These stories continue to shape how I think about empathy, justice, and human responsibility. They remind me that listening — genuinely listening — may be one of the most important acts a person can perform.

King Lear & The Stranger Reflection: What Really Matters?

Out of all the books we read this year, the two that stood out to me the most were King Lear by Shakespeare and The Stranger by Albert Camus. Rather than offering me clarity or comfort, reading these books challenged how I think about deep meaning and emotion. These books didn’t just hand me answers; they used characters and stories to expose the fragile world we live in. Overall, the main idea that struck me was how both texts pushed me to think less about what is “supposed” to matter, and encouraged me to consider what actually does matter when everything else is stripped away.

In King Lear, the moment that affected me the most was when Lear stands up in the storm and shouts at the sky. Up until that point, Lear believed that love could be measured through words and a flattery, as shown when he demands his daughters to declare how much they love him in exchange for land. But, when Cordelia refuses to flatter Lear, he banishes her. As a result, his other daughter’s betrayal led Lear into a downward spiral, exposing how fragile a hollow understanding of love and loyalty really is. The storm scene stood out to me in particular because it’s where Lear begins to confront the reality of his own blindness and mistakes. Through the poetry and intense imagery, it made the scene memorable and really burned the theme in my head. It makes me think about how much of our identity can be tied to roles and expectations, and what’s left when those fall apart.

Similarly, in The Stranger, Meursault’s detachment from everything, such as from his mother’s death and his own trial, made me feel uncomfortable at first. I’ve never read a book before with such apathy, which was definitely surprising to read. However, the more I sat with the book and the characters, I realized that Meursault’s refusal to fake emotion forced me to examine how much of my own reactions are shaped by what’s expected, not what I really feel. His acceptance of life’s absurdity at the end of the novel, such as when he finds peace in the idea that the universe is indifferent, challenged my needs for life to always “make sense.” The book was quite abstract and unique, which stood out to me, ultimately making me remember the themes of absurdity and existentialism.

Both Lear and Meursault are completely different characters in different stories, but they are both forced to confront what remains when social structures and expectations fall away. What the characters have left at the end of each book is unclear, as Lear goes mad and Meursault remains indifferent, but their characters have helped me understand the fact that facing uncertainty is part of being human, and in the end, material possessions are worthless compared to our humanity.

A Year of Literary Inspiration

Throughout my senior year, I’ve been exposed to numerous insightful and perspective-shifting novels by Bernie H, the one and only English extraordinaire.  The two literary works that inspired me the most were Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of King Lear.

In past English classes, I’ve read other Shakespeare works, namely Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, but The Tragedy of King Lear struck a personal chord with me. In the play, Lear is the aging patriarch of the royal family who is taken advantage of by his two eldest daughters, Goneril and Regan. They often mock his age, which only heightens their cruelty. Regan tells her father, “O, sir, you are old […] You should be ruled and led/ By some discretion that discerns your state/ Better than you yourself” [2.4.165-9]. The Bastard, Edmund, also sells his father out, resulting in his torture, exclaiming, “That which my father loses—no less than all. The younger rises when the old doth fall” [3.3.21-22]. These characters perceive age as a weakness and are rightfully seen as villains due to it. My own grandfather recently turned eighty years old and has unfortunately begun to have trouble with his memory. After reading about Lear, I recognized the importance of valuing the time you have with that person and in the moment, being understanding of any shortcomings due to age. Everyone will be old and die at some point. We should value our elders for their life experience and the wisdom they can pass down to us.

The novel that surprised me the most was Pride and Prejudice. I had heard of the book before, but only in the context of it being the original romance novel. Due to my own prejudice, I assumed that I would find it boring and unrelatable, but found the exact opposite to be true. Whether vainly or not, I couldn’t help growing to admire and feel more and more like Fitzwilliam Darcy, even if his first name is goofy. Mr. Darcy was largely misunderstood by just about everyone in Hertfordshire. Elizabeth and the other villagers perceived him as an arrogant elitist who only cared about riches and vanity. In reality, Mr. Darcy was just an introverted man, skeptical of opening up to people because he had been hurt before. A central theme of Pride and Prejudice that I try and live by is to not jump to conclusions and judge people merely on their surface level. This novel made me more aware of the intricacies in relationships and opened my mind to a new genre of novels and films to enjoy.

Thanks for all the recommendations Mr. Heidkamp, they weren’t half bad!

 

 

Once a Stranger

I died today.

Well I guess that’s not really true. At the very least, it’s quite misleading. See life, death, it’s all just a matter of perspective. It just depends where you’re looking from, and what the view is. From here, the view looks pretty damn amazing. I can see the flash of lightning, hear the crack of thunder, feel the air rushing past me, the rain against my face. Now this, this is the sensation that makes you forget where you are, what is happening, and crucially: who you were four hours ago. And that’s a good thing, because I really need to forget four hours ago. For the sake of the here and now, I wouldn’t be able to tell you what happened then. You know, because of the whole forgot who you were thing that I just said. But for the sake of the story, there’s so much you have to learn. 

See, the night before had ended in a way that I’m not quite proud of. I’m not entirely sure if I’ve had a night I’m proud of in the last couple of years. But this one was especially poor. After what felt like the longest of days and the most unfortunate of nights. I found myself with little to protect me from the rain but an overpass. And not a particularly well built one either. But it was the one I had chosen to find a bit of comfort from the cold and damp world and it was where I chose to pretend to sleep. I say that I was pretending to sleep because that allows me to believe that where I was was in my control and what I was doing was in my control. In actuality, I was trying to sleep, but I couldn’t. I’m gonna make a wild guess and say that it was probably the bridge, it can’t be my fault. I was up and walking at 4. Pretending gets harder when the thunder starts to mumble.

But the rain hadn’t begun to hit just yet and I didn’t care that it was obvious it was about to. That and the fact that bridges aren’t as waterproof as once thought. Anyways, I walked along the road. I think at this point it was LeSalle Boulevard, or was it Wayne? I was looking for a place to eat some breakfast. I had this craving for some eggs. Like the eggs that I had had when I was 10, back on the farm. I’ve still never had eggs that taste like that. It was about 5 by the time that I was able to find some semblance of civilization. Then it took me another 15 minutes to find the church. I figure a church has to have some food for the weak and weary even though I had never stepped foot into a church before. 

There was only one man in there. It seemed to me like he was whispering the sermon he would give later that night, which would make him the preacher. So I started a conversation with him. I asked him his name, “Lear,” he said. He looked to be on the older side, “91” was the answer when I asked him his age. And we began to talk. After about 15 minutes of talking, he offered me the breakfast that I had been looking for since I had woken up. But I didn’t want it anymore. In our conversation, I learned that he had cancer. The doctors had said that he had only a few months left to live. Now I had to learn how this man had come to terms with his life ending. I mean how can someone learn that they’re just going to stop living, allow everything to fade to black, and just stop being? Well that happens to everyone, but how could someone be okay with it?

I talked to the preacher for 2 more hours about his life. He told me about his daughters, his career, and his hobbies. I felt like this man’s life was flashing right in front of me. I learned about his love for fishing. He told me about all his great fishing stories- the bass, the marlin, the time that he spent a month straight on the boat. He had done everything he wanted and he disregarded the thoughts of society-something that I had not done yet, something I needed to do. I realized at that moment that I had somewhere to be. I thanked the preacher for the conversation and I told him that I had my own “fishing” stories to make, and I left.

 I walked for 40 minutes to find the plane. It was now pouring rain, the storm had become volatile. I had never flown it before, but I knew it was there and I knew there was something I had to do. I walked into the cockpit to find the plane running, which was quite convenient. It occurred to me that I had never flown a plane, but it was time for me to make a choice that I would remember. Somehow, I was able to start the plane, but the rain in front of me was blinding while I was on the ground, so I began to move forward. I just drove to speed up as much as I could, I just continued to speed up. And suddenly, I found myself in the air. The sound of the engine was deafening, the only thing that broke it up was the thunder above-the thunder that I was heading towards the source of. 

The plane continued to climb and the rain was no longer blocking my view. I looked down to see the beauty below. This was the life that I was looking for, the life that would allow me to die peacefully. See now, for those of you keeping track at home, it was 4 hours after the start of my day. This was the sensation and the feeling that allowed everything to fade away. But in a flash of light and one last mumble of thunder, the plane was split in two. It was a crash louder than I had ever heard and it was the brightest light that I had ever experienced in my life. I found it quite ironic that the brightest light was followed by such great darkness. This darkness was one that I could not see past. I found myself in the moment that I had dreaded and avoided my entire life. I spent my life incredibly scared of this, but here I was now, with no worries or doubts about my future. I was finally fulfilled.

In my mind I could see myself falling to my demise, but the darkness that filled my eyes remained. But this was my chance to finally open my eyes. And for one last second I was able to open my eyes and feel the ground approaching faster than I could possibly fathom.

How the Stories We Read This Year Changed Me

This year’s books didn’t just entertain me or fill up class time, they genuinely shifted how I think about myself, the people around me, and the world as a whole. I didn’t expect that. But somewhere between King Lear, Pride and Prejudice, Exit West, and Beloved, I started seeing things differently.

King Lear hit me hardest when Lear loses everything: his power, his family, his sanity, and only then begins to understand the people around him. I saw pieces of myself in that. Sometimes I get so caught up in being right or being in control that I miss the quiet truths right in front of me. Watching Lear fall apart and slowly open his eyes made me think about how I treat people, especially when I’m under stress. It reminded me how important it is to stay humble and to listen more, especially to those I might overlook.

With Pride and Prejudice, I expected something light and maybe even boring, but I was wrong. Elizabeth’s realization that she misjudged Darcy made me reflect on how often I do the same thing. I’ve definitely made quick judgments about people, only to find out later I was completely off. That book made me want to be more open-minded, to let people show me who they are before I assume anything.

Exit West made the refugee experience feel heartbreakingly personal. The magical doors were surreal, but the fear, confusion, and sense of loss Saeed and Nadia went through felt very real. It made me think about what it would feel like to lose everything familiar and be forced to start over somewhere new. That story gave me a deeper sense of empathy and reminded me how easy it is to take stability for granted.

And then there’s Beloved, the one that stuck with me the most. Morrison doesn’t let you look away from pain, especially the kind that gets passed down through generations. Sethe’s story made me think about the unspoken pain in my own family, the things that shaped us without being talked about. It made me realize that healing isn’t about pretending everything’s okay, it’s about being honest about what happened.

All of these books changed me in quiet but lasting ways. I think I’m a little more thoughtful now, a little more compassionate, and a lot more aware of how messy and complicated people are. These stories didn’t give me simple answers, but they made me ask better questions. And I think that’s the real power of literature: getting us to slow down and really see each other.

How Literature Changed Me

In my English class this year, we read many books. Some revolved around identity and romanticism while others focused on change and the past. However, the most important, yet interesting book to me was Shakespeare’s King Lear. King Lear focuses on the downfall of a central character, then after a character transformation, a complete change in values to a more purposeful life. King Lear was the central character who focused on his riches, domination, but, most importantly, power over others. Before his character growth, Lear spent little time with those around him and struggled to formulate real connections with those around him, including his own daughters. While I am certainly very different from King Lear, I do notice a few similarities between our values and actions. 

While I did not banish a loved one because they did not display their love for me, I frequently sacrificed spending time with my friends and family as throughout high school the majority of my time was spent maintaining my academic rigor and grades. It could be said that I valued my studies over my connections with others which is similar to Lear’s value of power to his connection with others. While reading King Lear and working in class discussions, I was amazed by the different ways in which Lear changed. Admitting he is mad, weeping and apologizing to his third daughter, to dying of a broken heart, King Lear completely shifted his values from his power to his family which similarly inspired me and my values.

Although I can not take back what I used to value and the choices I made, I have realized that I should prioritize the connections in my life more than anything else. As shown by King Lear, despite him losing both his powers and his daughter, it was his daughter’s death that caused him the most pain. Having to go to college next fall, I unfortunately will fall out of contact with a lot of my current friends. However in a new space, I look forward to putting myself out there and making connections with people in any way possible whether it be at a library, student club, or sports event. At college, I look forward to meeting new people everyday and studying on the side. Although I may not have changed as much as King Lear, literature has forced me to open my eyes to subtle changes I can make to my daily lifestyle. While many of the novels we read this year did have deep meanings and depicted important aspects of life, King Lear was the strongest example of how I have been impacted by this class. 

Poems of a Advanced Placement Course

Poems reflecting on this year’s better novels and a few others:

O’Heidkamp! My Heidkamp! (Idea Stolen from Reece Boatman—with his consent)


O’Heidkamp! My Heidkamp! Our class has sailed through,
The great books we read, the essays we grew!
The exam has passed, the credit may be won.
And now we stand, no more work to be done!

O’Heidkamp! My Heidkamp! rise from your chair,
The classroom stands, with hearts full of care!
The words eco the walls, the thoughts on the board,
Your wisdom, your guidance, we can’t all afford!

The bell rings, the journey's complete,
The lessons you gave were never discreet—
Your passion for literature, your depth of thought,
Shaped every mind that you so energetically sought.

O’Heidkamp! My Heidkamp!
Your guidance will always be remembered!
Through King Lear, Pride and Prejudice—
And the forever memorable, tenth of December.
Through Beloved, the Learn’d Astronomer,
And many other stories I choose not to remember!

But now the classroom is silent, too still,
We remember the words you imparted at will.
Your legacy here will always remain.
In every book, in every line, your name.

O’Heidkamp! My Heidkamp! So strong, so wise,
The final bell tolls, but in us, your spirit lies.
Though we move forward, we carry your light,
O’Heidkamp! My Heidkamp! We’ll keep up the fight!

Your voice, steady and firm, always sharp,
Led us through pages, through every arc.
A King Learing

I watch him now, a decrepit King,
His crown, once bright, a weight eclipsed.
The throne he built now crumbles fast,
A mind once sharp, now lost at last.

His love betrayed, his heart in grief,
No daughters left to grant relief.
He stumbles through turmoil, blind,
A king whose pride has left him behind.

And yet, I feel his madness too,
The twisted path, the mind askew.
What would I do, should I fall far—
To lose my way beneath the stars?

His pain, calls—too late to see,
The cost of pride, the price of greed.
In his madness, truth is clear:
A king will learn, but only,
Whilst the end is near.

A Reading of a Stranger

I walk through a world of passive delight,
Stumbling into a park where dandelions bloom,
And paths of tulips and roses unfold,
Despite no sense of wonder stirring within their petals.
A flower is plucked, then wilts in my hand—
No emotion stirs, no shift in the fan;
Without a wonder, life fades,
Forever in torment.

A stranger sits in a cell, speaking to a reverend,
Their posture betrays sorrow, yet the man in chains is calm,
As if resigned to his fate, as if he’s placed
A bet with no chance of loss— a sure wager,
His destiny was sealed.

I know this man is sentenced to death,
His future is certain, drawing near.
The reverend strains to speak, to reason,
To offer some comfort, but the man’s stillness remains,
Fixed, as if frozen in time.

I watch in quiet wonder,
A thought stirring within me:
How can a man face his end with such nonchalance?
How can a soul be destroyed and yet stand tall?
What is the purpose of living a life devoid of feeling?
Without belief, without motion, without change?

How many roads must a man walk
Before he’s called a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail
Before she rests upon the sand?
And how many times must cannonballs fly
Before they’re finally banned?

The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

A man stands at the edge of his tale,
Having walked a road all his own—
Not one of the doves or battles fought,
Yet he finds his peace.
While readers, lost in their drama and despair,
Cannot help but feel drained,
Burdened by their own petty troubles—
They will be undone by hollow surrender.

For a man soared without wings,
And lived forever, even after dying.


King Lear Should Be a Comedy

The story of King Lear is not a story that should be seen as being able to change people’s views about themselves and other people. It is a story that was forced to be a tragedy and should Instead be a comedy where the ending is a happy one. The first look into why this is is King Lear himself. King Lear is a well-written character and fits the tragedy story perfectly except for the fact that his fatal flaw doesn’t cause his undoing. Instead, it is the actions of other characters and their flaws that lead to the misguided death of King Lear. Shakespeare has made tragedies with important deaths that mean something. In Romeo and Juliet when both the lovers die at the end it impacts everyone who is still alive and makes them question why they were fighting. The deaths of the main characters in that play mean something to the viewer. It helps us understand what was done wrong and why we shouldn’t do it. Meanwhile, in King Lear, his death comes after Lear has gained the knowledge of how to become a better person. He has already gone through the stages of character progression and at the end of the play is overall a better person. His death signifies to the viewer that no matter how much you change tragedy still follows. For the surviving characters, nothing about King Lear’s journey stays in their heart. The only one who has had any huge direct impact on King Lear, which means they talked and had a friendship shown in the play, is presumed to have killed himself. His death adds no significant value to the story as it is unjust and just pitiful. If King Lear never changed by the end of the play his death would have had an impact showing that to survive you need to get rid of your fatal flaw, but King Lear does manage to get rid of his fatal flaw and still experiences the repercussions of it.

The weight of this sad time we must obey,

Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.

The oldest hath borne most; we that are young

Shall never see so much nor live so long

Edgar delivers this line at the end of the play to sort of deliver to the audience the message that he has changed and because he has changed he managed to live. I believe that the last part that mentions being young is talking about how immaturity and not being able to change will lead to a bad life. The line makes sense for Edgar as he went through a change and survived by the end, but King Lear went through the change and died. If Cordelia died at the end to show how he changed too late it would be a good tragedy. While I do believe that Cordelia was underutilized she works as a way to show that King Lear’s actions were irreversible. His death seems unworthy since by killing him you get rid of his character arc which should have made him a better person and a better king. Instead, it makes it seem like King Lear’s change doesn’t mean anything to the story as it only truly affected him and he is no longer alive to be affected by the change at the end of the story. Instead of dying, I believe that King Lear should have survived to suffer his consequences as a way of showing how his character has changed while maintaining it a tragedy.

The Women of King Lear and Pride and Prejudice

In both King Lear by Shakespeare and Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, the women of the central families are shaped by the societal expectations and their own desires for independence and power. In King Lear, the aging king’s decision to divide his kingdom among his daughters– Cordelia, Goneril, and Regan– creates a tragic power struggle. Goneril and Regan, who suck up to their father, receive massive amounts of land and inheritance, while Cordelia, who tells the truth rather than lying, receives nothing and is disowned. This division of power creates immediate conflict in the family, as the older daughters quickly strip Lear of his power. Similarly, in Pride and Prejudice, the Bennet sisters face a strict system of inheritance, where their father’s estate is going to be passed down to Mr. Collins, since the family does not have any immediate sons. Unlike Lear’s daughters, the Bennet sisters have no claim to their father’s property, and their only means of securing a future is their marriages.

Despite the different situations the women are in, both stories explore how gender and social expectations shape women’s power and autonomy. In King Lear, Lear’s daughters attempt to wield their power through manipulation and force, while Cordelia remains moral and truthful. In contrast, some of the Bennet sisters, particularly Jane and Elizabeth, aim to find ways to have independence within a society that does not offer them direct wealth. Elizabeth, like Cordelia, refuses to follow expectations, such as when she rejects the pressure to act differently in front of the wealthy Bingleys and Darcy at Netherfield. These characters challenge traditional expectations, showing that women can assert their own agency even in restrictive societies.

Ultimately, both books highlight how societal norms dictate power dynamics and limit women’s choices. The Bennet sisters must marry for security, while Lear’s daughters navigate a different kind of inheritance-based struggle for control. Despite being set in different times and circumstances, both stories reveal the ongoing impact of patriarchal systems in women’s lives. These themes remain relevant today, as gender roles and societal expectations continue to be a major topic of debate, specifically in politics. I think seeing these dynamics through a historical viewpoint is important to see other perspectives of how societal expectations have shaped women’s roles, struggles for independence, and evolution of gender dynamics over time.

From Blindness to Clarity – Gloucester’s Journey

While taking on the role of Gloucester during our King Lear performances, I’ve come to deeply appreciate his character. Similar to Lear, Gloucester experiences a tragic fate throughout the play, yet it is his gullible personality that leads to his misfortune and eventual death. While his role was more or less cliche, I thought Shakespeare’s execution of this foolish, overly trusting man was perfect.

Gloucester’s character development throughout Act IV captured the essence of maturity. One of his major transformations is captured at the beginning of the first scene:

“I have no way and therefore want no eyes.

I stumbled when I saw” (Act IV, Scene 1, 173)

Personally, these are my favorite lines from the entire play. I find it genius that he is literally blind yet insists that he can see more clearly than ever, suggesting that he was metaphorically blind to deception when he had sight. He continues by reflecting on his shortcomings and expressing sympathy towards Edgar, highlighting his deep regret for his naive actions. This newfound clarity was only reached after being subjugated to extreme suffering and the harsh reality of life. This part of his character alludes to a broader theme that pain fosters growth, adding to the overall complexity of Gloucester.

Despite developing a more reflective worldview, Gloucester took on a hopeless mindset for some time. He believed killing himself was the only way to move forward in this unforgiving story. Ultimately, he chose to endure. Act IV depicts Gloucester at his lowest, struggling with despair and even contemplating suicide. Yet, he perseveres by accepting his painful situation and upholding his loyalty towards Edgar and Lear. Shakespeare crafts Gloucester not only as a flawed and naive old man, but also as a genuine human figure who attains wisdom through suffering. This tragic character in Lear is a testament to personal growth in the face of adversity and hardship.

 

Does Growing Old Mean Losing Control?

In King Lear, Shakespeare explores the struggles of aging and the loss of control that comes with it. Lear, once a powerful king, decides to divide his kingdom among his daughters, hoping to enjoy his old age without the burden of ruling.

“’Tis our fast intent / To shake all cares and business from our age, / Conferring them on younger strengths, while we / Unburdened crawl toward death.” (Act 1, Scene 1)

This quote shows Lear’s desire to retire and enjoy old age without responsibility. However, his belief that he can give up power while still maintaining respect is naive. So, Lear, soon realizes that giving up power does not bring him peace. Instead, it leaves him vulnerable. His older daughters, Goneril and Regan, betray him, stripping him of his authority and dignity. Lear’s journey reflects the fear of many aging individuals, that of losing independence and being cast aside by those they once trusted. As he wanders through the storm, he begins to understand his past mistakes and the limitations of his own power.

So, according to Shakespeare, no, you cannot be in control when you are old.

I Don’t Blame Regan and Goneril

In King Lear, Regan and Goneril are painted as the ultimate villains. They betray Lear, are power-hungry, step on their husbands to get to Edmund, and Goneril ends up poisoning Regan. There’s no denying they aren’t angels, but when you consider what their lives have been like I don’t think you can blame them. 

First of all, Lear only becomes an empathetic, unselfish person when he has his revelation near the end of the play. We only know him for the duration of the play, and even then we’re frustrated with how stupid he is for the majority of it. This is a man who makes his daughters compete to profess their undying love to him before he’ll give them their inheritance and is dumb enough to believe what they’re saying is true. He clearly has no regard for others because he only realizes he should have been helping the poor out when he is out in the storm with no shelter. Regan and Goneril are middle aged when they finally get their inheritance, which means they’ve been forced to be subservient and respectful to Lear for like 40 something years. Not to mention, Lear makes it clear Cordelia is his favorite daughter. They’ve probably been compared to their perfect, gentle, beautiful sister their whole lives, which would make anyone bitter. If I were them I honestly would have put Lear in a home as soon as I got my power. It’s not like he was a good king or father, so I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t. 

Additionally, Regan and Goneril seem evil because of their lust for Edmund, but let’s remember that they’ve been forced into marriage with Cornwall and Albany for probably 10-20 years. Cornwall is clearly a jerk, as we saw with his treatment of Gloucester. I think he and Burgundy would’ve been friends because he’s just in it for the power and money. Albany seems like a good guy, but there’s no way Goneril was in love with him. She’s super ambitious and he is a bit of a pushover. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I see it as a successful female entrepreneur being forced to marry a guy who plays video games all day and doesn’t have a job. Furthermore, based on all the bastard children, it seems like it would be likely Cornwall and Albany just called up the village prostitute whenever they wanted. Regan and Goneril were living their lives completely sexually repressed and married to (probably ugly and old) men they didn’t love. Why wouldn’t they go after after Edmund? 

Women In Power- True Villains or a Manufactured Narrative?

Throughout history and literature, women in positions of power have often been labeled as villains, their ambition and authority scrutinized in ways that men in similar positions are not. This raises an important question: are powerful women truly villainous, or are they victims of a narrative that has been shaped by societal expectations and patriarchal structures?

In King Lear, the constant power struggles often leave the reader questioning who the true villains seem to be. The reader often leads to Edmund, Goneril, and Reagan. But what makes them villains? Doing everything they can do to gain power, in a patriarchal society where women are seen as tokens and not fit to be in power?

Goneril and Regan, are often portrayed as ruthless villains, their ambition leading them to betray their father and engage in various power struggles. However, when analyzed in a modern lens, their actions can be understood as a response to an oppressive system that leaves them little choice but to seize power. Yet, their sister Cordelia, who conforms to the ideal of a submissive and obedient woman, is portrayed as virtuous. Goneril Reagan and Cordelia may have had to endure similar displays of arrogance for the 40 years prior, who says they owe him the same respect as Cordelia?

Similarly, in modern shows and movies, women who wield power are often portrayed as antagonists—think of characters like Miranda in The Devil Wears Prada or Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones. Their ambition and authority are frequently linked to cruelty, while their male counterparts are celebrated for a similar trait.

 

King Lear and Crazy Old Dads on TV

When I was first reading/watching Shakespeare’s “King Lear” I thought Lear was an interesting character. I wasn’t really sure whether to laugh or cry at the character. When I got to Act 2, Scene 4 (O, Reason not the need) Lear felt like a familiar character. I realized that King Lear has influenced old father figures in modern media. Two of my favorites are Arthur Spooner (King of Queens) and Martin Crane (Fraiser). I guess it’s not exactly a coincidence that I saw the connection considering those two shows air on Cozi Tv weeknights after I do my homework.

Martin Crane, played by John Mahoney, is father to Fasier (Kelsey Grammer) and Niles Crane. (David Hyde Pierce). Marty is an old school, down to earth, retired police detective. He generally has simpler tastes than his two sons who are both successful psychiatrists. For the duration of the show he lives with his son Frasier. Nearly every episode the two get into some sort of argument, big or small. Martin is almost always the first one to forgive. He also generally has a positive outlook on life. He doesn’t ask for much and mostly enjoys the time he has. Martin Crane is a very good comparison for King Lear in Act 5. They are both kind, forgiving, and content father figures.

On the other hand, Arthur Spooner is a good comparison to Lear in Acts 1 and 2. Arthur, who is played by Jerry Stiller, lives with his daughter Carrie (Leah Remini) and her husband Doug (Kevin James). Arthur’s most obvious personality trait is his temper. He can burst into a tirade at any moment, but the most common reason is that he didn’t get something he wanted. When I heard the “O Reason not the need” speech I instantly thought of Arthur. Arthur has many lofty demands from Doug and Carrie that are very often not met. Lear being denied his entourage of knights felt to me like a very “Arthur Spooner” moment. Arthur is also very unforgiving just as Lear is at the beginning of the play.

Jerry Stiller also plays the role of Frank Costanza on “Sienfeld” who is another iconic, angry, father. Based on his work with these two characters I think that Jerry Stiller would have made a pretty good King Lear. He would have been great in Lear’s angry, arrogant, and goofy moments.

The Death of Cordelia

In Shakespeare’s King Lear, the multiple deaths that conclude the play seem to the audience and just or deserved. However, there is one death that feels unnecessary and undeserved; the death of Cordelia.

Characters such as Goneril, Regan, and Lear show their true colors throughout the play. Although Lear did grow towards wisdom by the end, these characters, amongst others, showed their evil and crude natures. This expression of their characters makes their deaths less tragic to us, and more sensible. On the other hand, Cordelia continually showed herself to be a truly good person. She was one of the few characters who never wavered in her honesty and loyalty. So, if she was such a good person, why did she have to die?

The choice to kill Cordelia off is what adds to the tragedy of the play. Though death was a sensible ending for many characters, by ending Cordelia’s life too, Shakespeare emphasizes that fate is random and unfortunate. You could be a fantastic person or a horrible one, but fate won’t represent that. The death of Cordelia is what makes this play so tragic, the fact that even good people can’t come out on top in the end. They can have the same unfortunate ending as the people who deceived them.

The Bastard

My absolute favorite aspect of King Lear must be Edmund (besides the ending he was given, in which his hard work and efforts were not achieved). In simplest words, I relate to him.

While many parents try their best to remind their children that “families come in all shapes and sizes,” I have found that it’s often only the children who have the non-“default” family shapes or sizes that actually understand and accept that message.

So much of how our communities are set up today are based on the idea that adults should still be married before having children. It was not a fun day when my older sister came home from Sunday School and told my parents that one of her teachers had told her she had been born a sin. It’s a little odd that, in response to pregnancy announcements, people still speculate if the baby was conceived before or after the wedding, and if there wasn’t a wedding, “They aren’t even married!” can often be heard.

Now, it is definitely simply a product of generational core “values” and customs that are being passed down without being updated in a world where behaviors shift quite quickly. And I am able to respect that most individuals believe that having children after a marriage is a safer (mainly economically) and more secure choice.

However, if the inability to understand and be content with some familial situation that is different than someone else’s own is quite common today, I am only able to guess how even more intense it was for Edmund. Because of this, it was not difficult to accept his desire to change his fate as a honorable one, even if he had to deceive some people.

Quite frankly, all Edmund did was take advantage of the fact that his family, and society, did not have high expectations of him at the beginning. We are not given a lot of information about how Edmund would use his power once he acquired it, but there is a chance that, had he not died, Edmund may have been a strong, just, and good man to have in a position of power. After all, he is straight to the point, gets what he wants, and thinks very critically.

Many of us can relate to being compared to a sibling, and to be considered lesser than solely because of how you were conceived is something that would feel incredibly unjust and alienating. If I was in Edmund’s position and lived during a time period where cutting people’s eyes out was something surprising yet allowed for a king to do, I would hope that I would be able to create and execute a plan as well as Edmund did to change my life.

Exploring Shakespeare’s characterization of Cordelia

After reading King Lear, I’ve been particularly interested in how Shakespeare wrote the character Cordelia and her evolution throughout the play. Although Cordelia only appears in 3 acts, her character plays an essential role throughout the story as she is the catalyst for many of the tragic events that take place.

In my first read of Act 1, I thought Cordelia was rebellious and bold for her honesty and unwillingness to bend to Lear’s demands, however as I closely reread and analyze I find that Cordelia was tactful and worked within the confine of her gender role to some degree. When Cordelia says to France, Burgundy and Lear, “But even for want of that for which I am richer: A still-soliciting eye and such a tongue
As I am glad I have not, though not to have it Hath lost me in your liking” (I.i.252-255). Even in her explanation she still makes it a point to express her sorrow for losing Lear’s love. Cordelia has no autonomy outside her love for the king. This is displayed multiple times throughout Act 4. A key moment I saw this is when her and Lear were reunited and when Lear asks for forgiveness Cordelia says, “No cause. No cause.” While her forgiveness is admirable, I think its right to say she should have been able to express her hurt to some extent. I understand that this was to further a point of forgiveness when faced with power, I just find it interesting that it had to be displayed in her character.

It’s obvious that Cordelia’s character is centered around love and grace specifically towards men. To some extent, I look at Cordelia less as a character and more of a force within the play. I see no character growth or development in her, rather Shakespeare uses her as a model to what a woman should be: graceful, dignified, meek, and submissive. Cordelia is honest, but not rude. She’s outspoken, yet gentle. While these are characteristics all should strive for, Shakespeare makes it a point to make the only character that demonstrates these qualities a woman. He even furthers this when he gives the worst qualities within the play to Cordelia’s sisters. There is no redemption for them like there was Edmund and in their final moments they are seen as villains.

The line that struck me the most about her character was when King Lear said, “Her voice was ever soft, Gentle and low, an excellent thing in woman.” (VI.iii.334-335). I think it was almost like an “aha moment” as I then understood Shakespeare’s perspective on women. Shakespeare never meant for King Lear to be radically feminist or empowering for women, it was meant to subdue and reinforce the gender roles at the time. 

 

.

Family in King Lear

The entirety of King Lear is based around family.

Lear’s decision to divide the kingdom based on superficial displays of love shows his inability to distinguish between genuine affection and empty flattery. He craves affection and praise, disregarding how shallow it may be. Goneril and Regan’s grand, manipulative declarations represent how desperate they are to get what they want.

Lear’s demand for excessive displays of love reveals a deep insecurity and a need for validation that eventually causes the rift between him and Cordelia. By disowning her, Lear sets into motion a tragic chain of events where his misguided actions lead to betrayal, madness, and death.

Cordelia’s plot to help her father and plans to return display true care for him. Despite the actions he set in motion at the beginning of the play, she set her banishment aside and worked to help him genuinely.

Edgar is very similar to Cordelia. Like her, he stays loyal to his father despite events that could persuade him otherwise.

This play conveys how volatile familial relationships can be, and how quickly a dynamic can switch if misunderstandings or lies clutter the truth.

Edmund is a Broken Character

In the play King Lear by William Shakespeare, there is a character named Edmund who throughout the play has betrayed others around him and manipulated people to get what he wants. This is shown at the start of the play when he is seen making a letter saying that his brother, Edgar, wants to kill his father which allows Edmund to become the more likable son. Throughout Edmund’s whole life he has been seen as a bastard and an illegitimate son to Gloucester and wasn’t ever treated like a true son. This leads Edmund to become knighted by Cornwall, making Edmund a son to Cornwall because he has somebody who trusts and cares for him enough to do this.

Later on in the play, Edmund lets Regan and Cornwall pluck out his own father’s eyes because Edmund trusts Cornwall and his new “family” more than his birth father. These examples of Edmund being a bad son and a bastard are rooted in his family problems. He can’t trust his own father enough to stay in his own family and so he has to find his own family to feel safe. This means he has to fit into the new family and let his father’s eyes be pulled out. Edmund puts himself in this mess because his father wouldn’t love him as a true son showing how he is broken emotionally.

King Lear: Edmund

Shakespeare’s King Lear is full of a lot of different fascinating characters, but one who stood out to me the most was Edmund, the illegitimate son of Gloucester. Unlike other characters, Edmund is driven by pure ambition, deviousness, and ruthless self-interest. His ability to manipulate the ones around him and rise above makes him one of the most intriguing villains Shakespeare created.

What makes me like Edmund so much is his intelligence and understanding of human nature. From the moment he says his famous line, “Thou, Nature, art my goddess” we see a man that doesn’t go for just anything and refuses to accept the judgement of society of him being a “bastard” and he instead chooses to map out his own destiny. Now, he isn’t full of loyalty, morality, or family but he is guided fully on personal gain and proving himself.

One of the most interesting things from Edmund’s character is his final moment of attempting redemption. Just before he died, he tried to undo one of his cruelest acts. This brief flicker of conscience makes me wonder: was Edmund ever truly evil or was he just misunderstood and a product of a world full of rejection? His complexity makes him more than just a “villian” ; he is a symbol of ambition, survival, and fighting for your respect.

King Lear is filled with many lessons on family, loyalty, and fate, but for me Edmund remains the one who is the most thought-provoking.


The Tragedy of Fatherhood in King Lear

At its core, King Lear is a tragedy of failed fatherhood. Lear begins the play expecting unconditional love from his daughters, but his demand for public declarations of affection reveals his insecurity. He rewards Goneril and Regan’s flattery, failing to see that they view him as nothing more than a shortcut to gain power, while banishing Cordelia, the only daughter who truly loves him. His failure as a father is not just in misjudging his children but also in treating their love as something to be proven with words rather than actions.

Lear’s downfall is as much about his failures as a father as it is about his failures as a king. His misguided judgment leads to his eventual suffering, but through his pain he finds clarity. His reunion with Cordelia is brief and bittersweet; much too late, he realizes what real love looks like. Shakespeare does not offer redemption for their relationship, only the cruelty of understanding true affection too late.

Gloucester’s storyline is a parallel to Lear’s, reinforcing the idea that fathers can be blind to the truth. Like Lear, Gloucester trusts the wrong child, believing Edmund’s lies while rejecting Edgar, the son who actually loves him. Both men ultimately recognize their mistakes, but only when it is too late. What makes King Lear so devastating is that both fathers recognize their mistakes only when they are at their weakest. Shakespeare presents fatherhood as deeply flawed, shaped by pride, favoritism, and regret. In the end, King Lear suggests that being a father is not about authority or control, but about recognizing and valuing genuine love before it’s lost.

 

The English playwright William Shakespeare is known for his many dramatic plays and meaningful sonnets, full of compelling, figurative language and sharp-witted scenes. Most of Shakespeare’s plays are written as Histories, comedies, or tragedies. Shakespeares King Lear was a tragedy. 

The play King Lear is an elaborate story about an aging king who attempts to divide his kingdom equally between his daughters, yet greed and betrayal prevent his wish from being fulfilled. By the end of the play, almost every leading character—either loved or hated—ends up passing away in extremely ghastly ways. Whether by committing suicide, being hung, or dying just by madness, Shakespeare ends this play in a memorable way. However, such an ending leads one to wonder, why Shakespeare?

A play in which everyone dies is a common theme within all of Shakespeare’s tragedies, yet many people do not understand why such an ending is neccessary. The ethical life lessons on human nature shown within Shakespeare’s King Lear could have still been highlighted in less vulgar ways. For example, one may question the reasoning behind why Gloucester needed to die in the first place, particularly after having his eyes gouged out and surviving an attempted suicide. That man had already learned the lesson of trusting the people who truly loved you rather than focusing on power and wealth. Did he really have to die too?

Additionally, King Lear himself died at the end of the play after going mad having to carry his dead daughter’s body. This was already after he had gone incredibly mad after being betrayed by his daughters, who stole all of his power and sent for someone to kill him. Before his death, King Lear entirely changed from his original hierarchal powers and said he would go to jail just to be with his daughter. Even after a great discovery, Shakespeare wrote this elderly man to die. 

These are just a few of the people I believe should not have died in this story. However, these deaths and all others make this play so impactful; without them, Shakespeare’s work may not be as well known. I hope that this blog does not offend any Shakespeare admirers. I honestly would like to understand all the reasoning behind Shakespeare’s intelligent mind.

“Howl, howl, howl!”: The Death of Cordelia and Reaction of King Lear

In Act V, Scene III of Shakespeare’s King Lear, Lear carries the dead body of Cordelia out onto the stage and performs an agonizing collection of lines:

Howl, howl, howl! O, you are men of stones!

Had I your tongues and eyes, I’d use them so

That heaven’s vault should crack. She’s gone

forever.

I know when one is dead and when one lives.

She’s dead as earth.

Lear’s immense declaration of grief signifies the theme that although one upholds the societal, idealized conception of nature, nature in its raw form is brutal and indifferent when forcing people to face their consequence.

To start off with, the repeated apostrophes presented in the opening line “Howl, howl, howl!” begins Lear’s speech in such a powerful way. This moment is the peak of Lear’s traumatic journey because he loses the only daughter who truly loved him and cared for his well-being. The howls, which can be performed in various ways, reduces Lear to nothing but an animal – and therefore a victim – of nature, whimpering in pain.

The second sentence, “O, you are men of stones!”, is a metaphor that creates a powerful comparison between Lear’s intense grief and the insensitivity of the others. Lear is finally experiencing the true consequence of his life lived in arrogance, an attitude he aligned with societal ideas of what was “natural” for a king, because a king is a natural being.

The following sentence, “Had I your tongues and eyes, I’d use them so / That heaven’s vault should crack”, produces powerful imagery. Lear vividly paints his emotions with this sentence, allowing his audience to better see his perspective of the traumatic matter. Words such as “crack” are sharp diction that create an image and feeling of a slice or stab, a representation of betrayal.

Finally, Lear ends this quote by comparing and connecting Cordelia to the motif of nature with the line, “She’s dead as earth.” By including this line, Lear is demonstrating his recognition of Cordelia’s death as a consequence of his own actions, brought upon him by the forces of nature. The death of Cordelia, Lear now understands, is the true action of nature.

Who is Evil in King Lear?

First, we have to define evil. I think that being evil could be defined as acting in a way that will negatively affect others with intent to harm or just without concern.

In my view, there are four characters the stand out as the most evil in King Lear. They are Edmund, Goneril, Regan, and Cornwall. All of these characters stand out as evil in their own ways.

Edmund is the first character whose evilness is exposed when he plots to make Gloucester disown Edgar. Many of his actions throughout the play show that he is more concerned with power than anything else. He starts off taking advantage of his father’s trust in him and succeeds in getting Edgar disowned and becoming the heir. This also results in Edgar having to disguise himself as Poor Tom to get away from his father. When that isn’t serving him anymore, he allows Regan and Cornwall to stab out Gloucester’s eyes, even leaving the room so they can do it and he doesn’t have to feel as bad. The power that he gets makes him want more and he is very willing to sacrifice morality to get it. In the beginning of the play, his actions may seem justified because of how he has been disrespected as an illegitimate son. But as everything escalates he seems much more evil and less justified in his actions. He seems not to see a line between what is a semi-reasonable desire to be acknowledged as a son and leader and trying to destroy the entire kingdom.

Goneril and Regan also acted evil in the play. They lied about how much they loved Lear, saying they loved him a lot when really they did not love him. This got them land and leadership of England. At that point they dropped the false pretenses and started acting cruel to Lear, treating him the way they could now that he had nothing else to give them. They go so far as to make him wander out in the storm, even though they know that he is old and frail. They demonstrate just how little they love him in reality, which harms his mental health. But, like Edmund, it can’t be said that they didn’t have logical motivations for their actions. They were denied power, despite their royal status, because they were women in a patriarchal society. Their husbands were probably chosen for political reasons by Lear. The husbands would control any property that Regan and Goneril got through their inheritance from their father. Their society expected them to be obedient daughters, but they only wanted to play that role while it served them. Once they had better options, they changed course. Still, their disregard for their father is disturbing. Rather than trying to change their relationship by eliminating its heirarchical structure, the daughters simply reversed the hierarchy and started treating their father poorly.

Cornwall’s evil behavior is different because it doesn’t seem justified out of any reason other than cruelty and malice. Cornwall happily joins in targeting Lear despite having no reason to do so. Then, he takes out Gloucester’s eyes without a pause. He seems frankly thrilled to do so. To me, Cornwall seems like the most pure evil character because his violent behavior doesn’t have a basis in him being wronged in the past. He seems to simply take joy in mistreating others. While the other characters are still evil to some extent, they are not as evil as Cornwall.

Albany: An Unexpected Hero

Since Goneril and Regan’s private scheming in Act 1, I was suspicious of both them and their husbands. When Lear arrived at Goneril’s castle and her plan kicked into gear, my suspicions were confirmed. Albany was a minor character at the time, and his questioning of what was going on didn’t register much with me. I assumed he was complacent with his wife’s evil doings. After Cornwall showed his true character and plucked out poor Gloucester’s eyes, I was sure that both couples (Regan + Cornwall and Goneril + Albany) were straight-up evil.

It turns out that Albany felt the same way about Gloucester as I did. He was shocked to hear what brutal torture transpired and it made him much more sympathetic to Lear’s plight. He then viciously chewed out Goneril and called her out on her evil behavior which I didn’t see coming. Albany was unafraid to speak his mind and was biding his time to commit action.

At the end of the play, Albany calls out Edmund and by extension Regan and his own wife for their traitorous deeds. At this time, a trial of combat was very common, a fight to the death to decide who was correct in a situation. Albany was prepared to fight the younger and clearly capable Edmund in combat in order for justice to prevail in the event that no champion showed, which is incredibly valiant. When Edgar did end up beating Edmund, Albany gave him the order to spare Edmund’s life, showcasing his compassion as well.

In the final moments, Albany declares that he will make Lear king again. He is willing to give up all his power because he believes it is the right thing to do. When Lear dies he also offers Edgar and Kent royal powers. This selflessness is the essential quality Albany has that will make him a good king.

Overall, I didn’t expect the character of Albany to be anything more than a villain. I was pleasantly surprised to learn of his good nature which was backed by his good deeds. In the end, he was one of my favorite characters in the play.

 

Cordelia Vs. Goneril and Regan

Goneril and Regan’s manipulative and deceptive emotions toward their father is contrasted by, Cordelia’s love for King Lear which is real, sympathetic, and based on true respect and loyalty. Cordelia tells him that she loves him but feels as though she shouldn’t have to prove that she does, stating, “I am sure, my love’s More richer than my tongue.” Cordelia means that her love for her father is deep and sincere, but she cannot express it adequately with words. She believes that true love is shown through actions rather than grand gestures. Even after Lear rejects her for failing to sustain his ego, her love remains sincere and unwavering. She eventually demonstrates her unshakable commitment by going back to help her father in despite his previous rejection, demonstrating that her love is founded on responsibility and genuine familial caring rather than selfish interests.

Goneril and Regan, on the other hand, express exaggerated and insincere declarations of love to manipulate their father into giving them power and land. They compete in showering him with endless compliments, yet their actions soon reveal their true nature as they plot to strip Lear of his authority and dignity. Their love is conditional and self-serving, disappearing the moment Lear becomes an inconvenience. Unlike Cordelia, who remains loyal even in hardship, Goneril and Regan betray and ultimately destroy each other in their ruthless pursuit of power. Their love, unlike Cordelia’s, is driven by ambition rather than genuine affection.

Nasty Women–The Complexity of Regan and Goneril’s Political Standing

“Unlikable” is an adjective that is commonly used on women in politics–Hilary Clinton, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren have all been called “unlikable” at one point or another. In this blog, I will be treating the adjective “likability” when it comes to a women in politics as synonymous with submissive and friendly.

It is interesting how the likability of the three most prominent female charectors in the story of King Lear–Regan, Goneril, and Cordelia–‘s likability fluctuates throughout the play, and how their political standing in the eyes of their father and the kingdom corresponds.

In the first scene of the play, Regan and Goneril attempt to be seen as extremely likable, especially towards their father. They use over-the-top language to convince their father of how friendly and willing to follow him they are. Goneril proclaimes, “Sir, I love you more than word can wield the matter” and Regan, “I am alone felicitate/In your dear Highness’ love” (I.i.11).

Cordelia is stands out as she casts aside the goal to be likable in the eyes of her father: “I love your Majesty/According to my bond, no more nor less” (I.i.13).

Initially, Lear gives the two daughters that strove to be likable power in the form of money and land, while he casts out Cordelia. This action alone could portray the message to the audience that likability is what gets a women power in politics, but very quickly Shakespeare pivots.

Not being submissive to her father is what prompts France to fall in love with Cordelia; indirectly, Shakespeare awarded Cordelia more power than her sisters for being an unlikable rebel.

For the majority of Acts II and III, Regan and Goneril act towards their father in ways that would prompt anyone to dislike them. I found their cunning teaming against their father as one of the most amusing moments of the play, but it was clear to me that they were not meant to be likable. Throughout Acts II and III, Goneril and Regan utilize their power in ways that hurt their father. They have their servants go behind their fathers back and essentially force him to be homeless. During this stage of the play, Regan and Goneril are simultaneously at their most powerful and their most unlikable.

In Acts IV and V, as Regan and Goneril act in defiance of their husbands and therefore leave the realm of being “likable” women once more, Shakespeare once again strips them from their power. Just after Goneril says, for example, “My fool usurps my body,” both Goneril and Regan are die as a result of foolish decisions they made on account of their lust for Edmund. As both Regan and Goneril end up dead as an indirect result of disrespecting their husbands,  the storyline of Regan and Goneril’s lust for Edmund within King Lear does not portray likable women as powerful (IV.ii.179).

As the likability of women and the power of women throughout the play does not seem to correlate, King Lear’s ultimate message about whether women should have power is complicated; it is still unclear to me whether he meant to endorse powerful women or does not believe they deserve power.

Norms In “King Lear” Vs. “The Stranger”

As I read King Lear, I couldn’t help but make connections to a previous book we read, The Stranger. In The Stranger, Meursault rejects traditional social norms and decides to live life how he wants. Similarly, in King Lear many characters challenge or reject norms. For example, Edmund was called a “bastard” by society but decided to fight against this in order to gain power. And in the beginning of the book, Cordelia tells the truth to her father and the king instead of what he wants to hear. At first, it seemed to me that The Stranger and King Lear had similar messages about the illusion of social norms.

However, there’s a major difference between the two books. In The Stranger, Meursault completely ignores tradition and does what he wants to do. But in King Lear, many characters understand social norms and instead of ignoring them, characters use them to their advantage. Edmund uses his status as a “bastard” and Gloucester’s son so that no one suspects him when he tricks Gloucester. Edmund says “Whose nature is so far from doing harms/That he suspects none; on whose foolish honesty/My practices ride easy” (I.ii.188-190). Edmund knows that his father and his brother trust him so he uses that trust in order to trick them. Edmund is Gloucester’s son and Edgar’s brother so neither of them have any reason to think that their own family would betray them. And because Edmund is a “bastard,” people underestimate him.

Also, the use of disguises throughout the play furthers this idea. After Edgar flees, he disguises himself as a mad beggar. He says “‘Edgar’ I nothing am” (II.iv.21). Edgar shifts from his identity as a high class son into a lowly beggar just through a disguise. And the rest of the play, none of the characters recognize that he is Edgar. Even when his own father sees him, Gloucester believes that he is just a beggar. Uses of disguises like these illustrate how characters use traditional norms in order to benefit themselves. Throughout the play, characters don’t just reject or fight norms. They shift between them and use them to their advantage.

Maybe King Lear Will Hit Harder in a Few Decades

King Lear is great, and right now it is easy for me to analyze how Shakespeare crafts complex themes out of poetry and prose, and I find enjoyment in that. But it doesn’t tear at me quite yet.

Watching Ian McKellen perform Lear’s “Reason not the need” speech, you see an ailing shell of a person, one who is losing everything yet can do nothing to control it. Most of us are lucky enough for this not to hit home — yet, we will inevitably live to watch our parents wither into senescence, fading away from the people they used to be, and it is right then that this play will make us feel something. And the lucky of us will live to experience this firsthand. King Lear is a play that will age better than we do.

Birds in the Cage

Throughout the earlier parts of the play, Lear is characterized by an almost complete lack of empathy or feeling for anyone but himself. Only in his madness is he truly able to understand anyone other than himself. This first comes in Scene 4 of Act 3, when Lear Laments that he has not felt what wretches fell and must “shake the superflux to them.” Slowly, his awareness grows with his madness and he achieves a deeper understanding of those around him.

The purest expression of love for another that Lear ever shows for another comes at the beginning of Act 5, Scene 3. As him and Cordelia are being taken to prison, Lear has a vision of what could be, where he and Cordelia will stay in prison and “sing like birds i’ th’ cage.” He imagines them slowly fading away together and sharing meaningless stories, gossiping about goings on. He shows that no matter the circumstances, he will always care for Cordelia. He no longer cares for the loneliness of absolute power, instead desiring only to be together with the one that he cares most about.

Seeing Cordelia as an equal requires that Lear also completely rebukes the power structure around him. He does not do this by calling them evil and heartless, as he has his other daughters, but instead realizes the terrible futility of the system that surrounds him. As he says, “And we’ll wear out / In a walled prison, pacts and sects of great ones / That ebb and flow by th’ moon.” He knows that in his time as a great one, he eventually ebbed, and that this will be the fate of all those that come after him. As birds in the cage, he and Cordelia could escape everything and live as they were, even if the entire kingdom collapsed around them. Edgar may try in vain to rebuild the kingdom, but Kent also knows the futility of trying to maintain rule. One day, his power will also corrupt, and will give way to other great ones just as Lear did. Somehow going into the prison as Lear tried to is the only way to escape this cycle.

Page 1 of 3

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén