King Lear Reality Essay, Research Paper

Every situation in life has an appearance, and a reality. The appearance of a

situation is usually what we want to see. The reality, what is really going on, is not always

as obvious to the observer. People who cannot penetrate through the superficial

appearance of a situation will see only what they want to believe is true; often, the reality

of a situation is unappealing to the perceiver. These are the circumstances surrounding the

conflict that occurs in William Shakespeare s King Lear. As an audience, you find that

there is a major character flaw in the characters King Lear and the Earl of Gloucester. In

the story, neither of these two men are able to establish the difference, in their minds,

between what people are saying and doing, and what these people s true motives are

behind their actions. This enables Lear and Gloucester to be betrayed by their own blood,

and become isolated from those who have their interests at heart. It is the inability to

differentiate between appearance and reality that causes Lear and Gloucester to fall.

It seems, that in King Lear, appearance, or reputation defines character. Edgar says as

much in soliliquy, when he disguises himself as Poor Tom. As soon as he changes out of

his expensive clothing, and into his beggar drab he decides Edgar I nothing

am. (II.iii.21). Although he is still Edgar beneath his disguise, when he is encountered by

his own father Gloucester and his godfather Lear, neither of the two recognise him. It

becomes apparent that as soon as Edgar s costume changed, all perceptions of his

character did as well. This same situation is paralleled when Kent, also banished, returns in

disguise as Lear s servant Caius. When Lear first sees his long time confident he asks

How Now? What art thou? (I.iv.9). One wonders how, after forty years of service, Lear

would not recognize his good servant Kent, even in disguise. With this in mind, we can

conclude that Lear and Gloucester are both very quick to accept people at face value,

without any attempt to gain a deeper understanding of them. Similarly, we learn in King

Lear, that how we perceive ourselves, may not be how we are perceived by others. Lear,

for example, believes himself to be a great and respected King, who is wealthy and

powerful. Nevertheless, he is constantly reminded by the actions of Goneril, and Regan,

that he is an old man who has lost his kingdom, his only faithful daughter, and his wits.

O, sir, you are very old! Nature in you stands on the very verge of her confine. You

should be ruled, and led by some discretion that discerns your state (II.iv.146-148.) this

is reason and way that Regan feels her father should be removed from power. Lear, ever

blinded, doesn t see that his two daughters are trying to steal his kingdom. Consequently,

when Goneril and Regan are cutting down his train, he still believes that their love can be

measured in words and numbers Thy fifty yet doth double five and twenty, and thou art

twice her love (II.iv.261-262). Lear believes that because Goneril will allow him twice as

many servants in her home, she must love him twice as much as Regan does. This constant

want of praise and lauding makes Lear very susceptible to persuasion by his evil

daughters, and ultimately leads to his losses. Gloucester, also perceives himself differently

than the people around him. He sees himself as a loyal, respected man holding some power

and status. On the contrary, Regan, and her co-conspirators decide in act three that

Gloucester is such a traitor (III.vii.36) because he has warned Lear and his party to

escape to Dover. Gloucester, however, believes himself to be loyal, because he is loyal to

the King. But, at the same time, Edmund and his party believe allegiance to the King is a

betrayal to their cause. Hence, when Gloucester admits to having warned Lear of the

enemy s plans, his eyes are gauged out by Cornwall and Regan as punishment for his

betrayal. It is interesting, however, that although Lear and Gloucester were both blinded

by their own self-image, it was only in real blinding that Gloucester was able to see

Edmund in his true role as the bad seed . Lear, unfortunately took much longer to make

this realisation and suffered greatly for it.

So much of the turmoil in King Lear, comes from nothing, that is, nothing being said or

done. In particular, we can look at how Lear, in his desire to hear how well he is loved,

makes the mistake of trusting the substance of spoken words. Lear, vainly asked each of

his daughters to tell him how much they love him, planning to divide his kingdom

accordingly. King Lear basks in the praise from Goneril and Regan which flatters him, and

professes to love him more than anything else in the world. Cordelia s honest non-answer

means nothing to him after being so wordily praised by Goneril and Regan. Lear warns his

daughter that nothing will come of nothing (I.i.92.). Subsequently, because Lear is more

concerned with his ego than he is concerned with the truth, he mistakes Cordelia s

response for an insult. What Lear doesn t know, however, is that the reason Cordelia

won t speak the words that Lear wants to hear is because they don t hold, and cannot

express the way she feels about her father. She says this herself while Goneril and Regan

are so busily praising Lear What shall Cordelia speak? Love, and be silent (I.i.63-64). It

is Lear s inability to see past Regan and Goneril s deceit and into Cordelia s honesty that

pushes his only faithful daughter so far away from him and isolates him from one who

loves him so much. In the case of the Earl of Gloucester, it is ironic that if he had only

trusted in words (the way that Lear did in act one), his ruin never would have occurred.

This irony is evident when Edmund says the forged letter he holds is nothing (truthfully).

Gloucester will not trust the truth of the words, The quality of nothing hath not such

need to hide itself. Let s see. Come, if it be nothing, I shall not need spectacles

(I.ii.33-35). Gloucester has to see the letter himself to determine that it truly is nothing.

Since Gloucester only trusts in what he can see, and Lear will only believe in what he

hears, both of these men will be deceived over and over again until they are able to get

past these surface concepts and develop some understanding of reality. From what has

been said, it can be seen that the fall of King Lear, paired with the subplot of Gloucester s

betrayal by Edmund provides many parallels which reinforce one another. We watch, in

King Lear, these two aging men fall from positions of respect and power to being the

simple and abused nothings of society. Furthermore, we see these same two men believe

themselves to be one way, though they are perceived by others quite differently. Lastly,

we learn in watching the play that valuing things by how much they appear to be, not how

much they truly are worth gives a false representation of the truth. On the whole,

Shakespeare s King Lear is making a statement about appearances and realities;

specifically, you can t accept things at face value, you must search for deeper truths and

avoid deceit.

32a