In the story of King Lear there were various parallels between both King Lear and Gloucester. Both of them had evil children who they trusted much more than the child theyshould havegiven their trust t, and when it came down to needing the children they trusted,they were betrayed. Edmund being Gloucesters evil and Reagan and Goneril being the evil children of King Lear. . The subplot of Gloucester and his two sons are extremely similar to main plot which involves King Lear and his daughters. By the end of the play these two plots basically share the same message. Both King Lear and Gloucester were betrayed by the ones who they thought had their best interest in heart, but by the end it was the children they disowned who really cared about their overall well being. Both men make the fatal mistake of disowning the wrong child.. Gloucester has his eyes gouged, while King lear isnt physically blind, but he is blind to what all is really happening in his world. Though he can physically see, he isn't really understanding what has happen or what he has done.
Though Gloucester was literally blind, he along with King Lear were also blind to everything around them.. For example King Lear didnt realize how real Coredlias love for him was, as well as not recognzing that Goneril and reagan were doing nothing but telling him what he wanted to hear. Another example is how neither one of them could recognize who people were when they were dressed in disguise. King Lear didn't notice Kent the whole time he was disguised as his servant and Gloucester, though his eyes had been gouged didn't recognize the voice of his son Edgar while he was disguised as Tom. Both Edgar and Cordelia pretty much put what their fathers have done to them behind them and show their genuine love by sticking by their side throughout the story. Something else that caught my attention is how both Lear and Gloucester both start to realize exactly what was going on towards the end. They both develop spirtually after going through so many hardships throughout the story.
I like your use of examples to support your argument. I agree with your thoughts on the parallelism between Gloucester and Lear. I think they were both blind, regardless of the fact that one was physically blind, and one was mentally blind. I never considered the parallel of them both not recognizing characters in disguise. That is a very interesting point because both Edgar and Kent are important people in their lives, yet they manage to be completely blind to them. I like how your post ends, in saying that they both develop at the end of the play due to their hardships. I definitely agree. I think they both grew spiritually and emotionally. Even though they may have deserved some of what happened to them (because it was a direct result of the choices they made), I think it shows that even if people have spells of blindness in life, they can still overcome it and see the light.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ashley that all people still have chances in their lives to overcome their blindness, and see the light, or in this case the children that love them. I feel that when Kent and Edgar were in disguise they were showing Lear and Gloucestor that they were still loyal to them. Lear and Gloucestor though accepted these random people into their lives and that even shows that they have a slight glimmer of hope that they may not be completely blind after all. Which adds to the overall feeling at the end that the old men learned their lesson.
ReplyDelete