Children - Parents Problem in King Lear - Book Report/Review Example

King Lear is a Shakespearean tragedy that illustrates what happens when children are consumed by greed and lose their love for their parents.” Discuss. King Lear, one of the major and most critically acclaimed tragedies of Shakespeare, is interpreted under the light of domestic crisis. It has frequently been suggested that within its broad scope of interpretation, King Lear focuses on the plight of an individual, whose children, consumed by greed, lose their affection and also forgets their basic duties towards the parent. Despite the fact that the playwright has taken a very specific and limited subject as a matter of treatment in the drama, consequently, within such limited scope of interpretation he also has attempted to show different layers of human existence and how impulsive or biased judgements, blinded by pride or prejudice can lead to catastrophe. The King, like most of the human beings, also believed in false display of affection, whereas, he ignored and disrespected genuine feeling of those who are loyal to him. Thus, Shakespeare, within scope of the play has dealt with an essential human tendency of being attracted towards exhibition or show off or false elaboration of emotions and how an individual, trapped within such falsehood, forgets to appreciate and acknowledge genuine human feelings, consequently leading to his tragedy. Thesis Statement: The two daughters of the King surely have a major role to play in deepening the tragic plight of their father kin King Lear. However, the seeds of tragic and painful ending of the King were already sowed during Lear’s desperate rejection of Cordelia’s true affection, honesty and respect for him. Thus, besides holding the elder daughters responsible for his catastrophe, it is also important to consider his false choices, which he made out of prejudiced observation, as catalysts for his tragic end. A close and critical study of the four major Shakespearean tragedies, namely, Hamlet, King Lear, Othello and Macbeth, would clearly show that in each of these dramas the dramatist has exhibited certain common themes and a specific sequential approach to evoke the sense of tragic aesthetics. Hamlet’s tragedy is caused due to his dilemmatic nature and the existential crisis that he suffers from, in case of King Lear, the kingly pride, a stubborn sense of supremacy and overdependence to others, in this case on children, to decide the course of his life, have resulted in his fall. Finally, his realization regarding the wrong choices he made evoked in him a philosophical self that helps him to look deep in reality, keeping aside his trivial pride. Othello cannot escape his tragic plight due to the conjoint effect of jealously and immense scepticism and finally Macbeth’s fall has been accelerated due to his insatiable lust for power and the brutal onslaught that he caused to satisfy such lust over both national body politic as well as the entire human experiences of love, respect and trustworthiness. Development of Tragic Situation: Parent Child Conflict in Shakespearean Tragedies and King Lear Compared to the early Greek tragedies, tragic plight of protagonists in Shakespearean drama is not predetermined; rather it is through their actions and human follies that they have been driven to their respective plights. Despite the fact that certain external agents have accelerated the momentum of their downfall, Shakespeare is always of opinion that it is through their actions that every human being decides the direction of their respective lives. In each of the four major tragedies we see that the respective protagonists, Hamlet, King Lear, Othello and Macbeth, have fallen to a situation of utmost misery and self-humiliation from levels of their highest prosperity. Each of them always had an option to refrain from making wrong decisions that resulted out of either pride, existential dilemma, scepticism or hideous ambition. However, in each case they have rejected the path of respecting basic human virtues and finally, before succumbing to their plight, they have re-realized the quintessence of human existence. In this context, A. C. Bradley’s reflection on Shakespearean tragedy becomes highly revenant as he suggests, “A Shakespearean tragedy as so far considered may be called a story of exceptional calamity leading to the death of a man in high estate” (2007, p. 6). Another important feature of the Shakespearean tragedy has been the conflict between common people and on each occasion, such conflicts have yielded from basic layers of human existence or violation of the bonds of fellowship, such as, severing the bonds of kinship with a sense of revenge, deceitful children against their parents for selfish prosperity, husband’s continuous skepticism against his wife and finally or violating the bonds of mutual friendship, or respect or trust. The intellectual enlightenment of Elizabethan Renaissance empowered Shakespeare with the belief that there is a strong connection between microcosm, or the domain of individual human activism with that of the macrocosm or the universal sphere of humanism as an entity. The mutual coexistence between these two spheres helps to ensure a balanced existence for humankind and any such act committed by individuals, with cumulative or respective way, if it disturbs the state of equilibrium, would surely cast a negative impact on people, leading them to their tragedy, …[Shakespeare] made full use o the established synthesis of cosmological ideas …. Fundamental to this system was the correspondence of the macrocosm and microcosm, and the fourfold structure of binary opposites inherent in all things – the elements … the qualities … and in man alone, the humors …. With its governing ideas of polarity, balance and correspondence, opposition and interdependence… (McAlindon, 1996, p. 4). Acts that violate the basic principles of human morality or severe the integrity between these factors finally result in “violent conflict and confusion of opposites” and receive their manifestations through human tragedies (McAlindon, 1996, p. 6). Judging under the light of such observation, King Lear, cannot entirely said to be such a “…Shakespearean tragedy that illustrates what happens when children are consumed by greed and lose their love for their parents”; rather through this drama, the playwright also has provided considerable focus on the issue that the King’s unavoidable tragic catastrophe is an overall process, in which despite his children’s contribution, he also has an important role to play in resulting in his ultimate destruction. Compared to the classical tragedies, Shakespearean tragedy differs considerably. It provides a considerable focus on the human activism and how, despite having the capacity to fight against adverse situations a person fails finally to survive his tragic plight. These tragedies can be viewed as an excellent document of such observation. Unlike protagonists of the early tragedies, the Shakespearean heroes are not dragged towards their nemesis; rather their fall starts with their respective follies and finally they find it inescapable to avoid their tragic onslaughts as they are trapped by adversities, which have been developed by actions of their fellow counterparts. In Shakespeare’s drama, [w]e see a number of human beings placed in certain circumstances; and we see, arising from the-operation of their characters in these circumstances, certain actions. These actions beget others, and these others beget others again, until this series of interconnected deeds leads by an apparently inevitable sequence to a catastrophe. … and the catastrophe in which it ends, not only or chiefly as something which happens to the persons concerned, but equally as something which is caused by them. This may be said of the principal persons, and among them, of the hero, who always contributes in some measure to the disaster in which he perishes. (Bradley, 2007, p. 6). Mentioning the elaborate passage within the context of discussing the paper becomes quite relevant as it shows development of catastrophe, with contribution of both protagonist and others, associated with him, reaches it culmination. In King Lear, the protagonist contributes to his catastrophe due to his stubbornness of character and lack of capacity to judge people. A deeper analysis will show that he also compromised his self-dignity, which in terms of higher moral philosophy, can also considered to be an act of guilt against humanity because a person who cannot respect himself properly is also incapable of respecting others. Lear’s actual plan was to distribute his entire kingdom among his three daughters and to pass the rest of his life being dependent over them. In this way, he actually acted like a person of weak character who wishes to take refuge from life. What he actually took as the method of passing his life is actually dependence over others and in terms of self-respect such thoughts cannot be appreciated. It is due to the same lack of breadth and strength of his character that he also fails to recognize and appreciate the self-respect in Cordelia, his youngest and favorite daughter. The moment she refuses to inherit her father’s kingdom and expresses the wish to maintain her own identity and never to refrain from the path of truth, even if her opinion goes against her own father, Lear refuses to respect such virtuosity and “[f]or by the sacred Sun, and solemn Night, / I here disclaim all my paternal care,/ And from this minute hold thee as a stranger/Both to my blood and favor” (King Lear, I.ii.7). He chose to appreciate the public display of (material) affection by her cruel elder daughters rather than admiring the truthfulness of Cordelia. Consequently, compelled by such blind fury, generated from pride, he compared himself with a cruel dragon and his beloved daughter as his subject: “Come not between a dragon and his rage” (King Lear, I.ii.7). In the Act II of the drama, the audience sees the development of Lear’s plight, as he is consequently betrayed and taunted by his two daughters, the pitiless approach of Regan especially, who keeps insisting he ask for apologies from her elder sister. Though tired and hungry, King Lear keeps on begging her for shelter and food; she refuses to offer him hospitality and insists that he return to Goneril and to reside there under restrictions that have been imposed over him. Lear refuses; “Return wither her, and fifty knights dismiss’d?/ No, rather I’ll abjure all roofs, and choose/ To be companion to the midnight wolf/ My naked head expos’d to th’ merciless air,/ Than have my smallest wants supply’d by her” (King Lear, II. iv. 26-27). Depriving the honest Cordelia, King Lear, being blinded by his pride and sense of supremacy, offered all his prosperity and wealth to the cruel and dishonest daughters. On the one hand, he is responsible for not respecting genuine human nature and on the other, he is responsible for inciting tremendous lust for material possession among his children; finally, he remains the (most pitiful?) victim of the situation that he created. It is not that Goneril and Regan are flawless; they also have contributed to the tragic plight of the king as they have rejected the natural expectations of a parent from his children, but Lear is also to be blamed for giving them the scope to decide the course of his life, actions and choices; consequently, the wrongful step he has taken in the process of teaching Cordelia a lesson. King Lear can be regarded as a Shakespearean masterpiece, where the parent- child conflict has been treated in the best way by the dramatist (Head, 2006, p. 607). However, the theme of parent- child conflict has also occurred in the other two great tragedies, namely, Hamlet and Macbeth, though in different forms and with different range of metaphorical implications. In Hamlet, the audience has been informed that the protagonist’s father has been killed and his uncle attempts to take that place by marrying his mother. Driven by a strong sense of vengeance, Hamlet keeps on defying his uncle and the parent-child conflict becomes inevitable, which finally leads to the assassination of the king by Hamlet and also his own death. In Macbeth, though there is no such explicit evidence of parent-child relationship, the king of Scotland, Duncan, can be seen as a father figure, who also considers the protagonist almost as his son due to the latter’s courage and valor. Under temptation of power, killing of the father figure, while he is under shelter of the son, re-establishes the theme of parent child conflict. Now, if we judge from the perspective of the eternal bonds of fellowship between individuals (microcosm) and macrocosm, basic reflection of such tenderness can be observed within the parent-child relationship. The cosmos of King Lear, like that of Hamlet and Macbeth, has turned gloomy and murky as the tender bond has been violated. Lear’s madness, as well as the enveloping catastrophe, has been generated mainly due to the fact that he is trapped within the duality of his actions: that on one hand he is tortured and tormented by the consequences of the actions he has taken and on the other he perhaps is lost, while attempts to find a justification behind development of such hostility among his daughters, whom he has raised with great affection and care. Thus, such duality in King Lear “… [is] … [crying] in vain to be resolved either by tragedy or comedy. Thence arises its peculiar tension of pain: and the course of action often comes as near to the resolution of comedy as to that of tragedy” (Knight, 2001, p. 182). At the end of the play, Lear survives as a mere creature, a simple human being, who has been startled by the pitilessness that he has encountered from his own blood. He is desperately in search of the maturity or the wisdom, which has been encompassed within a brief expression of Edgar, “Ripeness is all” (King Lear, V. iii. 53), and seeks that attainment of the wisdom might give him the power to tolerate the tragic onslaught that he has encountered. At this stage, King Lear can be viewed not as a dominating king; rather as a simple human being who is in dire need of “… [compassion] for the human creatures doomed to live and die on the inhuman terms of such a world” (Ryan, 2003, p. 389). Conclusion: There is no denial of the fact that King Lear presents a highly realist document of the consequences if children are consumed by greed and lose love for their parents. At the same time, it will not be entirely correct if the drama is interpreted just as a tragedy resulting solely from the selfish actions of children, consumed by greed against their parents. The King has one of the most important roles to play in inciting the evil nature of his two elder daughters to further extent. Goneril and Regan would not have received such encouragement if the King had given more importance to the reserved and truthful reflection of Cordelia than theirs. Driven by his tendency to attract the love of his children, King Lear has sacrificed his human dignity, assisted unfaithfulness and encouraged deceit; consequently, he also shares the equal responsibility in developing his catastrophe. If we interpret the tragic plight of King Lear on a broader plain, apart from having the elements of domestic tragedy, which is generated from the parent-child conflict, it has further connotations: through his suffering the king also receives an understanding of the plight of humanity due to its self-destructive action and such realization, at the same time, also gives birth to the philosophical self within the protagonist, and appears to him through his madness. Under light of such observation, thus, it would not be an exaggeration to suggest that King Lear can be interpreted as a domestic tragedy, which is caused out of parent children conflict or it can also be viewed as such a work that incorporates within its scope the elements of public tragedy and emphasizing on the theme of humanity. References Bradley, A. C. (2007). Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear & Macbeth (2nd ed). Gloucestershire: Echo Library. Head, D. (2006). The Cambridge guide to literature in English (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knight, George Wilson. The wheel of fire: interpretations of Shakespearian tragedy. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. 2001. McAlindon, Thomas. Shakespeares Tragic Cosmos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996. Ryan, Kiernan. “King Lear”. A Companion to Shakespeares Works: The tragedies. London: Wiley-Blackwell. 2003. Shakespeare, William. King Lear. New York: W. A. Moore and C. S. Bernard. 1860. Read More