One of the ideas that struck me as we talked in class was the principle of redemption in King Lear. A few questions struck me: Is Lear redeemed in the reader's eye, and is Lear redeemed in his own eyes? In order to be "that person" I looked up what redeemed means on google, the answer? "To compensate for the faults or bad aspects of (something)" or to "gain or regain possession of (something) in exchange for payment." These two definitions can play a dynamic role in assessing if Lear is redeemed or not. Lear gives away his kingdom in an act of laziness and pride, and obviously the pain, death, and chaos that ensues is such that no amount of pain that Lear could go through would technically "compensate." However, I think that while it is impossible for Lear to truly compensate for the suffering of a slew of suffering, I think that his madness is evidence of at least partial compensation. Lear is forced to watch his entire country fall into civil war, his daughters die, and his friend get his eyes gouged out.I think that the second definition applies as well, though not in the way that anything was gained through Lear's suffering. I think the second definition poses an interesting question because in a transactional agreement, two things of equal value can be exchanged, and both parties will be completely satisfied. However, I don't know that there can be such a thing as true redemption when the transaction is not monetary. I know that redemption in literature can mean many things, but in this case I think that there is no way for Lear to pay back the debt of suffering he has added to throughout this play.
Those definitions are fascinating! I agree that if we're evaluating Lear based on the second definition, he just isn't capable of paying back the debt of suffering he incurred throughout the first four acts, simply because one person's suffering cannot make up for the suffering of those around him.
ReplyDeleteThis is pretty interesting. I do think that the madness that Lear falls into is pretty bad though. Maybe technically it's not the same, but symbolically, coupled with his death and the loss of so many things, I think someone could make the opposite argument.
ReplyDeleteThat is true, he does suffer a lot, and I think the price he pays is much higher than is typical to most literature. However, I think that on the whole he caused even more pain than he went through himself.
Delete