Use of Letters in King Lear

Letters are used throughout King Lear to spread false information to forward a character's plot against their foe. The act of the characters writing these false letters, usually with a negative intention, shows their true form. These letters helped develop the main plot and create subplots throughout the play.

The first letter sent is written by Edmund, framing his brother, Edgar, as the one with the negative intentions. He tricks his father, Gloucester, into thinking Edgar is plotting against him. Gloucester believes him completely, even stating that he recognises the handwriting to be Edgar's. Edmund's letter produces the chaos that spirals this story into a devastating mess, leaving Gloucester blind, and even leading to Edmund's own death. Edmund's letter informs Gloucester that Edgar is planning to murder him. Edmund's plan behind the letter is to build Gloucester's hatred and feeling of betrayal towards Edgar, thus furthering Edmund's chances of becoming Earl after his father. Because he is the illegitimate son of Gloucester, Edmund is sure that there is no way that Gloucester will allow him to inherit the title as long as Edgar is still loyal to his father. Shakespeare uses dramatic irony, as the audience knows the true intentions of Edmund, while Gloucester believes Edgar is now his enemy. The reader then observes, knowing the truth behind everything, as the family is torn apart because of Edmund's need for power and lack of conscience.

Another letter sent in the play is written to Gloucester, informing him of the French invasion. This letter is a big turning point in the play, as it pushes him to help Lear, revealing he was still loyal to the old king, and willing to fight for him. However, this causes Edmund to act and inform Cornwall that his father is a traitor, wanting to help France. This leads to the blinding of Gloucester, and Edmund finally reaching his goal of becoming Earl of Gloucester. This shows Edmund's relentless disloyalty to his father and desperate need for power.

The last two letters sent were from Goneril to Edmund, asking him to order the death of Albany, which eventually happened, and from Edmund to a guard, ordering the death of Cordealia and Lear. This shows that these letters had the power to end someone's life, the power to sway characters' opinions so easily. This made them a very powerful writing tool for Shakespeare, as he could dramatically swerve the main plot, and create many subplots, simply through deception through writing. At times in the play, it almost seemed as if letters worked better at tricking characters than spoken dialogue; if Edmund had simply spoken to Gloucester about Edgar being a traitor, I'm not convinced things would have gone down the way they did. The letters acted as very important explanations for each situation, showing who was on which side, and who was good or evil.

Is "King Lear" a negative or positive play?

Is the play ‘King Lear’ a positive or negative play?

    The play ‘King Lear’ by William Shakespeare is a very intricate and complex play with many positive and negative aspects to it. We see a lot of negativity in this play from the vial way that women are treated to the hopeless and saddening idea that you only realise what you have done when it’s too late. Despite all of this negativity there are still small beams of hope throughout the play such as when Edgar saves his father’s life and helps him see that he is valued in the world.

   In the first act, Lear is speaking about his daughters as if they are his possessions. He does not think of them as individuals who can think for themselves, but as things that have no feelings and are simply there to look pretty. The poor treatment of women continues throughout the play as, when speaks up Cordelia proves his idea of women wrong, King Lear begins to talk about his children, and women in general, using animal imagery. He calls them “little dogs” and “serpent’s” showing that he doesn't even respect his daughters enough to refer to them as the human beings they are, but talks about them as unimportant animals that cannot speak and don’t have a say in what is important or not. This shows a very negative side to King Lear as the women in the play are treated cruelly and thought of as negative things that only cause problems. We again see this horrible treatment of women in our second key moment when King Lear puts a curse on Goneril so that she cannot have any children. “To make this creature fruitful! Into her womb convey sterility!” He does this to punish her as he believes she has only brought pain and inconvenience into his life and that she isn’t grateful for all the things he has done for her. This again shows negativity in the play as King Lear sees Goneril as a negative thing in his life.

   We see more negativity the play in the idea that nobody sees the damage they've done and the pain they have caused until it is too late. This is shown in an almost humorous way, yet it is an almost sadistic type of humour. Towards the end of the play, as King Lear is at the peak of his madness, he finally begins to realise how cruel he has been to the people that care about him most and he beings to care about other people. He wants to help people and to become a better person, yet it is too late for him to do so as he is slowly losing his mind. The kind and goodhearted feelings King Lear now has are being concealed by this vicious madness that is taking hold of his mind, showing us he is too late to make up for his cruel manner. “My wits begin to turn.” This is a very sad and negative idea and in my opinion shows the negativity in this play. We again see these negative thoughts the play has when Gloucester finally realises that Edmund never cared about him and it was Edgar who was the kind and caring son all along. It is sad that Gloucester only sees how good Edgar is after losing his eyesight and it again shows this sadistic humour in the play. If Gloucester had only realised before then he would have been able to see through Edgar’s disguise and would realise that he still has a chance to change how he treated his son. Instead Gloucester has no chance as it would seem that he can only truly see once he has been blinded. “If Edgar live, oh, bless him!”

     Despite all of this negativity in this play, we can still see small glimmers of hope and positivity. One scene in which we specifically see this positivity is in Act 4 Scene 6, when Edgar saves his father’s life. This scene really shows how good Edgar truly is and how much he cares about his father. At the time he still believes that his father is angry at him and is looking to kill him, yet Edgar still wants to help his father as it is clear how much he still loves him despite all the false lies that Edmund told him. “..henceforth I’ll bear/ Addliction till it do cry out itself…” This quote shows that Gloucester no longer wants to kill himself and he now believes that the gods care about him once again. This shows positivity in the play as it shows the deep bond that the father and son have with one another, a bond that cannot be broken by the horrid lies told by Edmund for his own gain. It is one of the few times in the play where good trumps evil and proves that even in a world filled with negativity, that is still a possibility.

   To conclude, I believe that this is a mainly negative play with many depressing ideas and cruel treatment to people, specifically to women. However, despite all this negativity there are a few characters that shine through to show that the world is not a completely horrible place and that there will always be some positivity no matter how much negativity exists.  

Monarchy in King Lear

Monarchy in King Lear

While "King Lear" has evident themes of monarchy, Shakespeare does not portray his king with any extra merit. In fact, Shakespeare has taken away good qualities that a king should have, like empathy, sympathy, wisdom and a sense of justice, as well as a good judge of character. However, themes of monarchy run parallel to themes of fatherhood, we see Lear fail as a father just as he fails as a king. He is too rash, too cruel, too foolish to truly be a proper father or king. Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to assert that to be a good king you must first be a good person, as integrity, compassion and justice are integral not only for a decent person, but also a decent king. 

This view can perhaps be carried from Elizabethan society, as a king represented more than a nation; a king was God's representative and was therefore not only to be treated with the utmost respect, but was infallible. Therefore, Shakespeare's portrayal of a mad, lost king can almost be construed as blasphemy, were the characters in the play not heathens themselves. The fact that Goneril and Regan so openly defy their king, no matter what family connection they may have, is a shocking idea, and an Elizabethan audience would have been properly outraged.

Arguably, a king must be the subjects he wants to have. By this I mean that if Lear is rash, cruel and foolish, then his subjects should mirror his personality. By this reasoning, Lear should expect the cruelty is he shown by his daughters, who are law abiding subjects to this point. Both Cordelia and Kent have defied in authority in some way; Cordelia by confronting her father and Kent by staying after he'd been banished. Therefore, Lear has brought this upon himself, as king of his subjects, as being god's representative. We must ask ourselves, is this an accurate portrayal of monarchy? Is Lear's kingship the problem that leads to all other issues, or vice versa?

In the beginning of the play, we can witness Lear before his fall. He holds absolute power, he is entirely respected, as he is also incredibly foolish. However, this is unknown to himself and the rest of the cast at this point, and Lear enters in Act One with as much grandeur as can be expected by a king. We initially think that he is a rightful king, a proper monarch for his society but this notion is quickly forgotten with the absurdity of the love-test, and we see a shadow of what this king will be reduced to, a sad, lonely old man, foolish and egotistical. Those who oppose him are quickly dealt with, even those who act out of love, even those who he is directly related to. This gives the audience an impression of foolish monarchy, or at least of this monarch.

A proper and good impression of a king is that of the King of France who, by accepting Cordelia, without dowry and cast off by her father, shows compassion and reason, qualities that Lear lacks, at least at this stage in his life. France is generous and kind, two qualities that if Lear had presented with, might have stopped the events of the play in its' tracks. However, the stark contrast between Lear and France show us what Lear must have once been, and again iterates that an absolute monarch cannot be a fair one, and by being as unquestioning and dismissive of others as Lear is, he encourages his daughters Goneril and Regan to do the same. They are unafraid of divine power, as they have defied and won against the absolute power in their kingdom, god's representative, and have by reasoning defied god and won.

Eyesight Motif in King Lear

 One of the most fascinating properties in Shakespeare's 'King Lear' is the story's ability to deepen and to develop layer upon layer every time you read it. One of the tools Shakespeare uses to create this intriguing quality in his work is through the use of motifs, of which eyesight is possibly the most prominent example in the play.

 The motif of eyesight is introduced in the very first scene, starting the gradual build-up of the motif from the very beginning of the play. Gonneril tells Lear that she loves him 'more than eyesight'. Such an outlandish statement immediately grasps the attention of an audience, implanting the motif on some level into our heads. To have Gonneril, the least favourite of Lear's daughters and a relatively unimportant character, initiate such a vital motif into the play may seem like an unusual choice of Shakespearre's, but only adds to the complexity of this motif as the plot unfurls.

 Another interesting feature of the eyesight motif in 'King Lear' is it's ability to fade into the background so effortlessly during the course of the play. After Gonneril introduces the motif with such a bang, the motif gradually disappears from centre-stage and becomes almost invisible to the audience. However, the motif never truly vanishes. With the Fool's jokes about Lear's 'blindness' to his daughter's sinister intentions, with Lear's not believing his eyes at his daughter's cruelty, with Gloucester being unable to see beyond  Edmund's rouse or behind Edgar's disguise, the motif of vision and eyesight gradually gains momentum as the play takes it's course.

 Finally, the most shocking aspect of the eyesight motif in 'King Lear' is undoubtedly witnessed during the gauging of Gloucester's eyes. Throughout the play, vision and blindness are referred to in a less literal sense, such as the idea of being 'blind' to your daughter's vileness. For the motif to reach it's climax in such a physical display catches the audience completely by surprise, and leaves them without breath by the end of the scene. The fact that Gonneril suggests blinding Gloucester to her sister and brother-in-law allows her to bring the motif to it's peak of prominence on top of first bringing eyesight into the play. The horrific gore witnessed in this scene is like nothing else in 'King Lear', and can render a reader awe-struck at having been subjected to such a hideous act  of violence, while also watching the motif of eyesight reach a profound extremity like no other concealed feature in the play.

 Though the world of 'King Lear' is chaotic, confusing, cluttered, and at times may seem to be composed of little less than nonsense, as the text of the play is analysed, stunning, intricate patterns appear throughout all aspects of Shakespeare's falsified universe, creating a complexity in the world of the play that could be seconded only by reality. The motif of eyesight is the crowning example of this beautiful, premeditated wildness seen so often in 'King Lear'.

Loyalty and Betrayal in King Lear

Loyalty and betrayal play a huge part in 'King Lear'. Betrayal is particularly important as it is the trust with which characters such as Lear place in characters such as his daughters Goneril and Regan, and their consequential betrayal of  which spark the tragic sequence of events in the play. It is made clear from the outset of the play that there is a divide between characters - those who value their own loyalty, remain staunch in sed loyalty despite unnameable circumstances which are in constant occurrence throughout the play ,and put simply, those who don't. Betrayal is inevitable in the second bracket of those without loyalty. What is notably interesting is that in their respective groupings, characters share similar traits outside of loyalty or betrayal. These traits will be further explored throughout the essay, although what is in stark evidence is that these traits appear to come as a consequence of a character's loyalty, or their ability to betray. This, in my opinion, contributes to the extremely questionable morality of the play.

The best way to explore the effects and uses of loyalty and betrayal in King Lear is to voyage through the character which best represent these ever evident themes. In this way, it is an necessity that the first character put under inspection is Kent, the ultimate upholder of loyalty in the play. Kent is unusual when reviewed in terms of loyalty as he displays unwaveringly clear vision throughout the play. From Act1;Scene1, when Kent's passion, his want of the best for King Lear, gets the better of his more tactful senses  and he berates him with his most famous of lines "see better Lear", to his risky disguise in order to watch over and protect Lear, to his remaining with Lear during the storm in Act3, Kent displays his ever-loyal nature, but what most be observed is the returns he receives for his perfect loyalty - Suffering. It is through his loyalty and truth to Lear in the opening scene that results in his banishment, it is through his loyalty to Lear that he ends up suffering a period in the stocks at the hands Oswald who is, as a servant his opposite in near every way. Suffering appears to be a classic example of the traits which accompany those characters bracketed as being loyal and provides            a prime example of the worrying morality Shakespeare portrays in the play.                    

If Kent is the ultimate upholder of loyalty in the play, then Edmund is the ultimate beacon through which betrayal acts, Having said this in a measure of levels of betrayal Edmund is very closely followed by Lear's daughters Goneril and Regan. Edmund's betrayals are constant, his lust for power insatiable and growing with every step he takes up the monarchal ladder. His first major betrayal comes in Act1:Scene2 when he executes a self-made plan and has his father Gloucester read a letter he has forged in his brother Edmund's name. The letter details a plot of Edgar's to overthrow his father. Gloucester doesn't question the veracity of the letter precisely and its coming to light results in Edgar's having to take on the disguised role of Poor Tom. Edmund's betrayals continue and result in the gruesome torture of his father by Cornwall and Regan. When observing the betrayals of Edmund the morality displayed in the play again comes into question. Edmund is, one could argue, the most clear sighted character in the play. He disregards the seemingly non existent pagan gods and
manipulates those who rely upon them throughout the play. There is no scheme to which Edmund is unaware, no occurrences to which he is blind, and this clarity of vision is a trait all characters who
betray those who have them in their trust seem to share. Goneril and Regan for example are completely clear sighted in the face of Lear's blindness and their betrayal of him comes out of this consequence. It would appear that in the world of 'King Lear', loyalty is a form of blindness. It is in this way that characters willing to betray those who are loyal see constant success in the play as they are able to scheme past characters blinded by the unrealistic assumption of their unwavering loyalty. Edmund rises from an illegitimate child to a King, Goneril and Regan rise from daughters of a King to Queens. It is only the inevitable force of Shakespearian tragedy that stops their progress and results in their deaths.

Loyalty and betrayal can be perfectly contrasted through the actions of two very minor characters- the nameless servant of Act3:scene7 and Oswald through his actions in toward Kent in Act2:Scene2. In the case of the servant, he displays incredible loyalty to Gloucester as he is being tortured by Cornwall, and attacks Cornwall, killing him. The result of this loyalty, this greatest example of bravery in the play, is the death of the servant. He receives no thanks, nor even a name to go by in the play. In contrast Oswald's slander and consequential punishment of Kent, an official representative of Lear in his disguised form,  is a great betrayal of Lear who , despite not being King at sed present moment, is still of royal blood and worthy of respect.This betrayal of Lear however receives no justification and he instead receives reward for his actions from Regan,completing the contrast between loyalty and betrayal in the play.

The use of foil characters in the play King Lear

In King Lear the use of foil characters is apparent throughout and is a tool that Shakespeare uses to his advantage often. A foil character is a character that defines another character by contrast.for a character to be a foil of another character they must have similarities but some notable differences . So now when you look at king Lear there's an endless flow of perfect examples of foil characters and very effective ones at that. The most prominent foils in this play would have to be that of Goneril, Regan and Cordelia , Lear and Edgar, Edgar and Edmund and perhaps even Kent and then more minor character in Oswald. In each of these pairings there is a good and bad side almost like a fairy tale and this seems to be a common factor when it comes to foil characters. In fairy tales the foil characterisation is used to demonstrate right and wrong or tell the stories moral lesson and I think that this is quite relevant in the foiling used in King Lear by Shakespeare.

To firstly look at the foil character and Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. This relationship is shown in the first seen when we see Lear as his three daughters to tell him how much they love him. Goneril and Regan are all to ready to profess they're love opening and very fully but with quite a falseness in the way it is said. When It comes to young Cordelia's turn she simply says 'nothing' but with more love than either if the other two showed. Theses are perfect foils because they have so many things in common and so many reasons to be the same yet they are so different and opposite. By Goneril and Regan being so evil they only serve to show how pure and good Cordelia is and this is a great way to show this through launguage as we can't see these characters we can only read them and so this use of foiling gives us a better idea or understanding of these characters from the outset and warn us what to expect of them.

Secondly looking at the foil characters of Lear and Edgar. In my opinion these are the most important and most relevant foil characters in the play. They are used as foils to highlight the motif of madness but is very prominent aspect in tis play. We see these characters during the storm scenes and this is when Shakespeare really using the foil characters to their maximum. In Lear we see and old man who is suffering from what looks like a mental disorder were he is losing his mind slightly and going 'mad' as they say and in Edgar we see a full aware man pretend to be mad as he is in disguise. In this moment Edgar is acting as 'Poor Tom' with the fake mad persona he has taken on to protect himself from banishment or worse which were the punishments at the time of this play. These characters have both lost they're families and the luxurious lives the once knew very suddenly. We see Edgar enduring mental and physical pain out of fear and to protect himself and in contrast to this  false we see the true madness we see the true madness developing in Lear who with his old age is losing his sense. In this moment we see these foil yet comparable characters come into contact and make a connection to effective develop as characters. This is a very clever way for Lear to use this madness and to connect the two storyline that have been developing between the two families- Lear's family and Gloucester's family.

In King Lear the foil character is there to make the main characters look better and to show of the characteristics of the main characters and allows you to see traits you might not have seen otherwise foil characters turn a very normal character into a more interesting character by simply being more boring that the that character. In this play we can clearly see Goneril and Regan's self centred violent stature shows how peaceful and unselfish Cordelia is, we see how Edgar's false madness shows how real Lear's madness is, we how Edmund's evilness and egoistic nature serves to highlight Edgar's kind and loyal nature and we also see how Oswald's controversial and malicious tendancies show how benevolent and kind Kent is. Without the use of these foil characters the characters in this play would be quite ordinary and plain but Shakespeare creates well developed characters both physically and mentally by his use of foil characters.

Pathetic Fallacy in King Lear

Pathetic Fallacy in King Lear

Pathetic fallacy is the use of weather as a representation of emotion or theme in a piece. The most notable use of pathetic fallacy in Shakespeare's King Lear is the storm in Act 3. The storm can be seen as a representation of many aspects of the play. For example; loss, chaos and rebirth.

The storm reflects Lear's loss of status and power. Before, he had everything. He was a great King with hundreds of knights at his beck and call.

Now he is powerless, lost in a storm with nowhere to go. The only people he has, before Gloucester comes to his aid, are Kent, a man he thinks he has just met, the Fool and Edgar, who he thinks is a madman. The storm shows us just how helpless and vulnerable he has made himself. As Goneril observes, “Old fools are babes again.”

It could also be seen as a physical representation of the present and future chaos in the play. Lear is losing his mind; “My wits begin to turn”. His thoughts and wishes are completely chaotic and his speech is fantastical. Add the presence of a rambling, seemingly deranged Edgar to the mix and the noise of the situation gives an impression of how it feels to be Lear. This scene also foreshadows the chaotic ending of the play, with the King and all the people he loved dead; his daughters, Kent and the Fool.

The storm isn't only a negative thing though. It can also symbolise rebirth as the King learns new perspective in it; “The art of our necessities is strange, And we can make vile things precious.” It is here that he begins to see the error of his ways, although he isn't fully changed until he awakes with Cordelia. The rain is reminiscent of baptism*, and Lear's lack of clothing is similar to that of a newborn, so the storm is a new beginning for Lear, as he learns pain and suffering; “Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel.” Up until now he has been served everything he needed or wanted but now he has lost his power and his standing, he needs to find a way to exist without those comforts, he needs a new life. The storm is a symbol of this transition.

The storm is in the middle of the play so it is literally a central part of everything that happens. It shows Shakespeare's genius as he puts loss, chaos and rebirth in our minds before we've seen just how badly things go. Almost everything that happens before or after the storm can be linked to it.

Benvolio's Babe xoxo

*Thanks Oisín