Shakespeare is a master at what he does because not only are his characters complex but his plots are woven and entangled with copious themes. In King Lear it is obvious that the character of Gloucester
What is remarkable about Shakespeare's character and theme in my opinion is its ability to transcend time and form. His characters are memorable because they endure so much but in the end they still cannot escape a heartrending demise. Even today we can still relate to the message embedded in his plays. The concept of "blindness" does not necessarily have to be applied to father and children relationships only but it is also evident in love relationships we have either heard about or experienced ourselves. When we love someone we do not see any of their flaws and even if we did notice any shortcomings we found them to be unique and special, something that makes the other person who they are. But once the love is gone we nitpick at every little imperfection and pull at every string of nuisance we can find. Thus "blindness" presents itself in an array of forms but Shakespeare gives it his own personal touch of authenticity.
The twists and spins that Shakespeare place in his work makes it unique and therefore unforgettably praised. Shakespeare is an artist and what he produces can never truly be replicated. Adaptations place a different and ambitious perspective on the original pieces by Shakespeare but different is not always better. Presenting a new angle and shedding light on something that was out of focus provides an interesting interpretation to Shakespeare's style but it will forever only come in second place. I honestly look forward to reading a full revision to King Lear and comparing it to Shakespeare's. That shall be the focus of my next blog.
I'm intrigued by what you say about the subplot of King Lear, coupled with what you say about its uniqueness. In other words, Lear the play features lots of examples of mirroring or repetition: Lear's own situation, while terrible *isn't* completely unique...when the mad Lear meets the blind Gloucester, we are hard pressed to say who is suffering more. Instead, the main plot / subplot seem to encourage us to see this kind of suffering as ubiquitous. Why do you think a playwright, who, yes, really is celebrated for his "uniqueness" or singularity, writes plays suggest the human condition isn't unique?
ReplyDeleteWhile the subplot of Gloucester's tragic dilemma with Edmund and Edgar serves as a mirror of parallelism in comparison to Lear's mistaken truth in Goneril and Regan over Cordelia, another parallel theme I noticed was the theme of disguise. In King Lear's situation, Kent returns as his loyal servant after having been banished, eager to play the role of right-hand man; disguised as a mere peasant, he earns Lear's respect and eventually his trust. Similarly, Gloucester's betrayed son Edgar, disguised as Poor Tom, guides his blind father toward the right path and continues to protect him even after having been essentially banished (albeit by Edmund's false accusations and not directly by Gloucester). Ironically, those who are considered most loyal, true, and honest in the play are also the ones who do not reveal their real identities until they decide to; why did Shakespeare create characters who, although meant to be seen as the stock representations of good, are capable of playing such convincing and deceitful roles, identities undiscovered in front of those who know them best? This theme of hidden identity also coincides with the concept of "blindness" in that Lear and Gloucester, originally blinded by vanity and consoled by flattery, are still unable to recognize or see Edgar and Kent as they truly are until their identities are unveiled.
ReplyDelete