Printable View
In the play king lear, i would say that there is both justice and injustice..
i have to aruge only one point and im not sure which way to do
Justice- the evil are punished
Injustice- the innocent treated wrong, great chain of being is broken, king lear is still sad at the end of the play
any disagree or agree with these points...
Both these thread help:
www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38857
www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13397
As to injustice, fate deals terribly only with the fool, his beloved Cordelia, and the avenging servant of Cornwall.
Justice does not prevail. All Lear had was a bit of a bad-temper-day and Cordelia had a bit of a "I'm not play-acting" day. Those are minor infractions for such a severe result. They have their perfect moment, though, when he wakes up and thinks she is an angel, and when they happily head off to prison (well, Lear is happy--that's all he wants; she can't possibly be--she also has a husband and a life).
Was Gloucester's infraction also minor? And, if merely 'a bad-temper-day', what would have become of Cordelia had France declined to 'take up what's cast away?'. Is the exile of faithful Kent as nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by byquist
Don't the gods have a point?
Well, let's remember that the title is King Lear not Gloucester. Also, France did take her, so there is no "what if this or that happened" on that count.
One key factor is that all the average folks love Lear in the beginning; he's been a fabulous king to his people. A couple of sour apples for kids, yes, and power grabbing by everybody, but he is a good man. The Fool cares about him. As far as Kent, he is there alive at the end so he survives the ordeal.
I can't see the original question, but I think it was "Is there justice in Lear" or something. I suppose you can separate the play from the man, Lear, and what happens to him, but I wouldn't.
As far as Gloucester, I wouldn't be supporting a retribution either by an abstract law of some sort or a Supreme Being. I wouldn't read either of those into it. Since he is tricked (for sure by a competent trickster) he must be succeptible to being tricked. Othello, likewise, must have a vulnerability to being tricked. I suppose the lesson for us is not to be tricked, deceived, ormisguided by others, society, or political claptrap.
I can accept most of your points but...
Is he alive? By the final scene, Kent is devastated and ultimately loses the will to live. In Edgar’s words:Quote:
Originally Posted by byquist
Told the most piteous tale of Lear and himAnd later, declining the Kent says:
That ever ear receiv'd; which in recounting
His grief grew puissant, and the strings of life
Began to crack.
I have a journey [death], sir, shortly to go.
My master calls me [from the grave]; I must not say no.
Whether for Gloucester of Lear, would you support a divine retribution very familiar to Shakespeare: "for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap"? In this sense I argue that "The Gods are just", though harsh.Quote:
Originally Posted by byquist
As Kent prophesies in Act I,
Kill thy physician, and the fee bestow
Upon the foul disease. Revoke thy gift,
Or, whilst I can vent clamour from my throat,
I'll tell thee thou dost evil.
No, cause Shake. would also contemplate: "Though your sins be like scarlet, ye [or they?] shall be white as snow." "Forgive your enemies." Richard II pardons that son (Percy I think) whose mother pleads over and over for "pardon." Shake. liked sweet forgiveness over revenge and retribution would be my take.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
Hi Guys,
I've read a lot of shakespeare and look at a lot of forums just like this one to see whether or not i've missed something that i should have picked up whilst reading.
For Example; I always assumed that Kent was alive at the end and i've never looked at it like that before so now i'm going to re-read it from that context!!
Thanks