The Integrity of the Tragedy of King Lear
To what extent has the integrity of The Tragedy of King Lear been tested by your own reading of the playIn your answer, refer to the construction, language and staging of the play, along with an awareness of different ways of valuing it.
Shakespeares The Tragedy of King Lear has been carefully constructed to create a domino effect: had Cordelia said more than nothing, had Gloucester spoken to Edgar about the letter, and if Edgar had not decided to become a beggar he may not have been able to save his father. Harmatia is thus present as the audience wonders what would have happened had Edmond not ordered Cordelia to be killed. Hence the hand of fate or more appropriately, the hand of the playwright is evident and draws the audiences attention to the immense suffering of humanity and to the idea of redemption. Though Shakespeare created the play with the purpose of eliciting Catharsis within the audience there is the idea that he took it too far. A.C Bradley challenges the integrity of King Lears cathartic ending; surely the tragic outcome of Lears error and his daughters ingratitude has been made clear enough and moving enough with a tragedy this should seem inevitable. But this does not. It is not even satisfactorily motivated. In fact it seems expressly designed to fall suddenly like a bolt from a sky created by the vanished storm. Clearly he believes that the conclusion was overdone as there were far too many dead bodies on the stage and as the play became more horrific and gruesome the cathartic elements were minimised.
The character of King Lear possesses the fatal flaw of hubris. He is arrogant, self-absorbed, an imperious king who is unbelievably unrealistic. Especially in the division of his kingdom, his title always came first and he had little or no understanding of what it meant to be a father or to love as can be seen in Act One nothing will come of nothing. Speak again. Hence Lears suffering from Act Three onwards is a large part of his journey
Shakespeares The Tragedy of King Lear has been carefully constructed to create a domino effect: had Cordelia said more than nothing, had Gloucester spoken to Edgar about the letter, and if Edgar had not decided to become a beggar he may not have been able to save his father. Harmatia is thus present as the audience wonders what would have happened had Edmond not ordered Cordelia to be killed. Hence the hand of fate or more appropriately, the hand of the playwright is evident and draws the audiences attention to the immense suffering of humanity and to the idea of redemption. Though Shakespeare created the play with the purpose of eliciting Catharsis within the audience there is the idea that he took it too far. A.C Bradley challenges the integrity of King Lears cathartic ending; surely the tragic outcome of Lears error and his daughters ingratitude has been made clear enough and moving enough with a tragedy this should seem inevitable. But this does not. It is not even satisfactorily motivated. In fact it seems expressly designed to fall suddenly like a bolt from a sky created by the vanished storm. Clearly he believes that the conclusion was overdone as there were far too many dead bodies on the stage and as the play became more horrific and gruesome the cathartic elements were minimised.
The character of King Lear possesses the fatal flaw of hubris. He is arrogant, self-absorbed, an imperious king who is unbelievably unrealistic. Especially in the division of his kingdom, his title always came first and he had little or no understanding of what it meant to be a father or to love as can be seen in Act One nothing will come of nothing. Speak again. Hence Lears suffering from Act Three onwards is a large part of his journey