In the play, King Lear, the stories of Lear and Gloucester mirror one another in interesting ways. Write a response to this view of the play, supporting your answer by referencing the text. (2006)

Feedback: High H3. It looks like the author put a lot of effort into this essay.

• The essay is approx 1500 words – I’ve seldom seen an essay that should be this length. 1000-1200 is enough. The reason it is too long is because the author spends too much time retelling the story and will be penalised for this. It needs more insight/opinion/commentary and less telling us what happened (links to our last minute English exam tips including how not to summarise).
• More importantly, it’s worth saying something a little bit different, as I find your essay is filled with quite commonly used points. It’s in our King Lear guide, we also made videos for Instagram and Youtube for most of the first 3 Acts with more things to say.
• The punctuation is mostly good, just note little things like in “Both Gloucester and Lear share a similar parenting style towards their eldest children; neglect and verbal harm.” The semicolon should be a colon.
• In terms of language, there is a fair bit of Greek and Latin in here and it can be a bit jarring when some of the rest of the phrasing is a bit more casual, e.g. “despite experiencing the most hardship at the hands of them”. It’s best to keep the register quite formal.
• The wording can be a bit elaborate and repetitive. For example, “At the beginning of the play, both Lear and Gloucester enjoy their lives as high status men; Lear is the King of England and Gloucester is an all important Earl. The elevated social status the two characters take for granted allows the audience to identify their tragic flaws; pride and naivety.” can be shortened, especially given that most of this is already said in the intro.

In William Shakespeare’s play, ‘King Lear’, the mirroring plot and subplot of the two male characters of Lear and Gloucester play out in fascinating ways. Both of the men are tragic heroes as they go from enjoying a high elevated status to finally learning the error of their ways through many trials and tribulations throughout the play. Each of the characters’ plot lines are parallel, which allows the audience to deepen their understanding of both Lear and Gloucester. There are many facets of themes and language that make the mirroring stories of the two characters so intriguing and interesting.

At the beginning of the play, both Lear and Gloucester enjoy their lives as high status men; Lear is the King of England and Gloucester is an all important Earl. The elevated social status the two characters take for granted allows the audience to identify their tragic flaws; pride and naivety. For Lear, this is most apparent in the iconic Love Test. Lear’s hamartia, his hubris, is captured when he plans to abdicate and split his kingdom based on love confessions from his three daughters. He asks them ‘who shall we say doth love us most,’ expectantly waiting for each daughter to flatter and confess their adoration for him. His two eldest daughters, Goneril and Regan, obliged with his request claiming that they ‘love him more than words can wield the matter’ and saying that ‘find I am alone felicitate in your dear highness’ love’. It is clear that Lear enjoys his dominance and power over others, seemingly even having complete control over his daughters. Lear’s excessive pride blinds him and he cannot see through his daughters’ false confessions, instead he basks in their artificial flattery unaware of the eventual pain they will cause him. Similarly, Gloucester can be seen abusing his power when talking in a vulgar way about his illegitimate son, Edmund. He says that ‘the whoreson must be acknowledged’ to a fellow clergyman, not taking care to be cautious or discreet about Edmund’s conceivement. Gloucester is completely oblivious to the mental anguish that Edmund’s ‘bastardy’ causes him and is completely unaware that Edmund secretly loathes him. Both Gloucester and Lear share a similar parenting style towards their eldest children; neglect and verbal harm. Both men favour their younger children, neglecting the others leading to their own children’s dislike for them. While I found that neither parent was malevolent, it was hard for me to imagine that Lear or Gloucester as a fair and loving father.

The stories of Gloucester and Lear also mirror one another as they commit a tragic act that set off a myriad of events that lead to their ultimate suffering. The younger children of Lear and Gloucester, who are portrayed as the ultimate virtuous and good characters are both mistreated by their fathers which proves to be a grave mistake. Cordelia and Edgar love both of their parents loyally, despite experiencing the most hardship at the hands of them. After hearing her sisters’ false love confessions, Cordelia is unconvinced and unwilling to play her father’s game and instead says ‘nothing’. The audience sees Lear grow agitated with his favourite daughter, who he wanted to give the most ‘ample land’, and urges her that ‘nothing will come of nothing’. Lear’s hamartia does not allow him to see the truth in Cordelia’s meaningful words as she says that ‘[she] loves your majesty according to [her] bond, no more no less.’ Lear’s brashness and moral blindness causes him to banish Cordelia and even his favourite knight, Kent who urges Lear to ‘see better’. Kent’s pleading has no effect on the prideful Lear as he banishes his dearest and most truthful daughter and knight. This tragic act committed by Lear is mirrored in Gloucester’s credulous nature as he believes Edmund’s Machiavellian scheme over the good reputation of his younger brother, Edgar. Edmund writes a treasonous letter, supposedly by his brother in order to trick Gloucester into believing that Edgar is an ‘unnatural detested, brutish villain’. Gloucester’s gullibility nature enables him to play into Edmund’s plan and he even tasks his evil son with ‘find[ing] out this villain’ after Edgar flees from the castle. The stories of Lear and Gloucester at this point are eerily alike as they blindly trust their villainous children due to their fatal flaws. I found myself harboring little empathy for the doomed men as I believe that it was their own doing and rash nature that caused their lack of moral conviction.

As the play progresses, the audience sees the transformation of both Gloucester and Lear as they experience a tragic reversal and exceptional hardships. Lear embarks on an odyssey of self actualisation and discovery after being mistreated and left essentially homeless by Goneril and Regan. In the key moment when Goneril reduces Lear’s retinue of ‘disordered’, ‘debauched’ and ‘bold’ knights and places Kent in the stocks, it is made clear that Lear’s peripeteia has finally arrived. In a like manner to that of Gloucester, Lear is beginning to realise that he trusted the wrong child. Lear expresses his outrage at Goneril’s orders saying that ‘it is worse than murder’. The irony of this scene is that Lear’s hubris still does not allow him to understand that he is the very reason why his daughters eventually mistreat him. Even when Goneril and Regan ‘shut up [their] doors’, and leave Lear wandering the heath with the impending storm, he is both enraged and puzzled as to why his own children would treat him in such a way. This key moment gave me a valuable insight into the theme of power as I saw the influence of power when it shifts unnaturally from parent to child. The betrayal of children is also mirrored in Gloucester’s story as Edmund tells Cornwall and Regan of his plan to aid Lear. The extent of Edmund and Regan’s brutality can be seen in the blinding of Gloucester. At this point both Lear and Gloucester have experienced their peripeteia. Lear has changed from a King to a ‘weak’ and ‘infirmed old man’, and Gloucester has his eyes plucked out by Cornwall and Regan. I found it interesting that it is only in these states of weakness that both characters gain knowledge and learn from their past mistakes.

The anagnorisis comes for both characters towards the end of the play as they reconcile with their children and acknowledge their mistakes. The loyal children of Gloucester and Lear reunite with their fathers in their state of weakness leading to a state of temporary relief from their torment by the hands of their elder children. Lear is seen to become child-like and he talks in simple prose, highlighting his new state of peace and recognition for his actions. He says to Cordelia on their way to prison that ‘we two alone will sing like birds in th’ cage’. As I see it, the simplicity of Lear’s language in this later stage of his journey represents the insanity that now resides in his mind. This stark use of contrast can also be seen in Gloucester’s newfound insight in his state of blindness. After being reunited with Edgar, he realises that ‘[he] stumbled when [he] saw’ and wishes that he had ‘seen’ Edmund for who he truly was. Seeing Gloucester and Lear in such vulnerable circumstances causes the audience to pity the men. The use of contrasts can be found in both of the character’s journeys as Lear finds peace and truth in insanity and Gloucester finally has sight in blindess. Lear even gains some pohilosophical insight as he comforts Gloucester as the plot and subplot cross over. By offering valuable insight on how ‘a man may see how the world goes with no eyes’, the audience is left with pathos for Lear. I received another intriguing insight into the theme of power in this key moment as I learned that often the most insightful wisdom comes from suffering. The journeys of Gloucester and Lear end with their tragic deaths, completing the cycle of a tragic hero. Interestingly, the only difference between the two men’s journeys is their deaths. Gloucester dies in a state of content while with Edgar who says ‘I’ll bring you comfort’, whereas Lear dies of a broken heart with his beloved Cordelia in his arms. This macabre final image is haunting and does not mirror Gloucester’s quiet gentle passing.

Throughout the play, the audience is provided with the tragic stories of the downfall of a king and an earl. Their mirroring journeys can be seen from their elevated status of power to their ultimate demises caused by their own evil children. I learned valuable insights into the themes of betrayal and power through the language and key moments throughout the play. The mirroring stories of the Lear and Gloucester were truly a vital and riveting aspect of the Shakespearean drama.