About Me
Interests
Books
Writings
Movies
Travel
Coins
People
Places
Calendars
Links
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Home About Me Interests Books Writings Movies Travel Coins People Places Calendars Links |
|||||
| 10 November 1998 | |||||
| While many of Shakespeare's plays concern themselves with only one facet of human existence, King Lear is propelled by two complementary stories. Rather than just concentrate on the downfall of King Lear, Shakespeare weaves that story, with all of its hope and tragedy, with the equally compelling story of Gloucester. Though the existence of two plots may seem unusual in itself, Shakespeare takes this deviation from the norm further by shaping the plots in much the same fashion. Both plots deal with treachery, blindness, and wrongdoing on the part of the wronged. This action on Shakespeare's part has led to much debate about the significance of having both story lines in the same play. There is a myriad of justifications and explanations about this unique phenomenon, but three main reasons emerge when considering this dilemma. The existence of both a plot and subplot underscores the fallibility of man, illustrates the universality of this fallibility, and provides high drama through both implicit and explicit means. | |||||
| The subplot concerning Gloucester parallels the main plot of Lear in many important ways. This parallelism helps to underscore the fallibilities of these men and the people inflicting pain upon them. Both of the stories involve treachery, injustice, and naivet�. In Lear's story, Goneril and Regan, two of Lear's daughters, betray their father by stripping him of his dignity and not giving him the respect that he deserves. It is possible to take these actions and to twist them to fit an agenda; for instance, someone championing women's rights could take the story and say that it is the story of �two oppressed daughters victoriously triumphing over a power-hungry, abusive father. Fortunately, Gloucester's story helps the reader to steer clear of this over-analysis. In the subplot, Gloucester is betrayed by his illegitimate son Edmund in a plot to take the inheritance. This places the emphasis on the actual treachery of the offspring instead of the possible causes of their treachery. Injustice is also re-emphasized by the coexistence of a plot and subplot. King Lear wrongfully takes away the inheritance of his daughter Cordelia after her failure to express her love for him in the way that Lear had requested. To the unsuspecting reader, Cordelia may seem to be the person to blame. After all, she had the means to halt the carnage that followed her fateful decision to stay mum if only she had swallowed her pride and done what her father had requested. Shakespeare responds to this misinterpretation by recreating the situation with Gloucester and Edgar. Edgar is wrongfully disinherited by his father Gloucester after being slandered by his half-brother. The common denominator between the two events is the injustice done to both Cordelia and Edgar by their fathers. This only serves to heighten the reader's awareness of the fallibility of the tragic heroes of the story. Finally, both Lear and Gloucester succumb to tragic naivet�. At the beginning of the play, Lear sees neither the falsity of Goneril and Regan's claims of absolute devotion nor the sincerity of Cordelia when she states that she loves him only "according to my bond" (I, I, 95). This is an act of naivet� on the part of Lear, but without any background information on the characters, it can be difficult to make this judgement. Lear's actions could possibly be based on bias, irrationality, or other factors. Once again, Gloucester's situation offers clarity to the main plot. Shakespeare does provide some background for this subplot. The reader knows that Edgar is Gloucester's legitimate son and that, as the illegitimate son, Edmund has no claim to any inheritance. This helps put the situation in context so that when Gloucester erroneously accepts Edmund's slandering of Edgar, the reader can attribute this to naivet� and not to any great psychological irregularities that Edmund suffers from years of neglect. In fact, Shakespeare makes it abundantly clear that Gloucester feels no more for his legitimate son than for his illegitimate son in these lines from Act I, scene I: "I have a son, sir, by order of law, some year elder than this, who yet is no dearer in my account" (19-21). This particular incident correlates almost exactly to Cordelia's banishment. Taking both stories into account, one can attribute Lear's actions toward Cordelia to the same flaw. In short, Gloucester's story taken as a whole serves to elucidate and augment the story of King Lear. | |||||
| Having the parallel story of Gloucester and his downfall does more than just point back to the Lear story in order to clarify certain themes. Both stories taken together point beyond the play itself to something more profound, like the universality of man's shortcomings and the inevitability of his fall. This can be seen by examining the parallel stories of Cordelia and Edgar as well as those of Lear and Gloucester. Cordelia and Edgar, two of the most irreproachable characters in the entire play, are not without fault. Cordelia admits that she can not force herself to exalt her father beyond her true feelings for him, though it may have saved both of their lives. Edgar also falls prey to his own virtues. His believes Edmund's dubious story and agrees to engage in fake swordplay with him. Had it not been for Edgar's immense gullibility, Gloucester might have realized Edmund's evil plan soon enough to avoid his torture and eventual demise. Juxtaposing these stories reveals the far-reaching abilities of fate; even the good must fall. In the same vein, Gloucester and Lear are archetypes for tragic heroes. Placing both of their stories in the same play shows that every man is prone to a downfall. It is easy to dismiss King Lear's debacle as a petty play for power in an illustrious, out-of-touch royal family. But once this debacle transcends social and economic boundaries and becomes the story of a man with no royal bearings or claim to a throne, the lesson is learned: treachery knows no bounds. Lear may have been "a very foolish fond old man," (IV.vii.60) but he was still king. Just as power is granted by divine right, the downfall of the chosen seems preordained by the stars. There is some evidence that the king's destiny is related to the heavens. In Act III, scene ii, the torrid weather seems to reflect the king's mood. If Shakespeare had just included the story of Lear's descent into madness, King Lear would have been the story of a fantastic, earthly force being beaten by fantastic, cosmic forces. The addition of Gloucester's story makes the story palpable for the common man. It takes the fantastic, cosmic forces and shows how embedded they are in every person's life. Having the plot and subplot is essential to making the story a tragedy for all times and all people and not just for Elizabethan theater-goers. | |||||
| One of the most compelling reasons for the addition of the subplot to the plot is to allow the high drama of the story to play out on two levels, providing a means for the story to reach even more people. By telling virtually the same story twice in the same play, Shakespeare is able to tell the tale for two different audiences. With the story of Lear, Shakespeare approaches the themes of betrayal, treachery, and blindness subtly, allowing for prodigious if erroneous interpretations of the motivations behind the characters' actions. Despite the subtlety, the story is told on a grand scale; the heavens roar above as the fate of all of England hangs in the balance. It is the more grandiose version, the rendition that attracts the masses but relates to a few. Incorporating the corresponding Gloucester story touches different chords. His name would never be in history books; no country rested on his fate. Yet his story is just as engaging as Lear's because of its simple nature. Everything is straightforward. No interpretation is needed to show that Edmund is wronging his brother; he tells the audience himself in his soliloquies. Gloucester's blindness need not be metaphorical; lucky for Shakespeare's more bloodthirsty audience members, Gloucester's eyes are plucked out in Act III, scene vii. In essence, the Gloucester plot retells the Lear plot in a user-friendly, easy-open package. | |||||
| Though no one but Shakespeare himself will ever truly know why the story of Gloucester was included in King Lear, there are several convincing reasons for its inclusion. These include emphasizing several key points, illustrating the universality of man's downfall, and providing high drama for more people. By fusing the story lines of the plot and subplot so completely together, Shakespeare turns two stories fascinating in their own rights into one irresistible classic.� ����� ������� | |||||