Redemptive Lear

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.

Redeemed by works, not just by grace

We've been talking about the redemption for a variety of characters toward the end of the play, specifically for Lear. What made the idea of redemption for Lear real to me are his actions, not his words. (Well, some of his words detail his actions. But it's the actions-- not the talking about it-- that demonstrates an attempt to atone for his wrongs and those changes ultimately bring about a sort of redemption for him.) As he drags Cordelia's body onstage, he declares, "I kill'd the slave that was a-hanging thee." What a contrast to the first act of the play, where he kicks Cordelia out of his house and withholds her third of his kingdom because he does not feel that she properly flattered him. He is the one wronging Cordelia. Now, as someone tries to wrong her by killing her, Lear does not simply protest their wrongdoing but enacts vengeance upon the slave for trying to wrong his daughter. He protects her from unrighteous judgment even though months before, he was the one passing unrighteous judgment upon her. This demonstrates a repentance, an understanding that he wronged her and a willingness to make it up to her tenfold. So when Lear whimpers, "She lives! if it be so, it is a chance which does redeem all sorrows that I have ever felt," he believes that his acts of protecting her against the first hangman and carrying her body to safety have made up for the sorrows he inflicted upon himself by treating her badly at the beginning of the play and pursuing flattery rather than truth. In a way, it's almost lovely that Lear dies thinking that Cordelia revived. He believes that he was ultimately able to save his child.

The Light in the Dark

The ending of the play is full of tragedy and death but there is at least some small mercy for Lear and Gloucester and that for them at the very end the story was not tragic. For Lear, it was the moment right before he died when he thought he saw Cordelia starting to breath after her button was undone. In that moment he believed that his beloved daughter would be alright and not all is lost. He died believing that his mistake did not cruelly take his daughter's life and in that moment, he found some happiness. For Gloucester, he had found out that the stranger who was taking care of him was in fact his son Edgar. He had been shown mercy by knowing that his son was indeed alright and that there must be some feelings of love if Edgar had taken care of him until then. He died feeling torn between happiness and grief but there was at least a sense of bitter sweet for him. Both fathers had that one moment of hope and happiness, even if it was false for Lear, making life seem just a little bit more merciful from their point of view. The play may have been a tragedy for the audience and the characters that survived but for these two men, there was a small light at the end of a dark tunnel.

Lear and the Plan of Salvation

When we were discussing comedy, one point Professor Burton made was that a hallmark of comedy is the eventual return to order after the limits have been tried. What impressed me about the end of King Lear, was how this same principal works within the tragedy. At the end Cordelia, Gloucester, and King Lear die from punishments beyond their crimes, but Edgar and Albany are left. Both have gained from their experience and both are qualified to lead the nation out of the darkness that the tragic experiences produced. Order was questioned, but the bastard was killed, Lear vindicated, Cordelia exalted to a saint, and the kingdom was restored again to order.
I think that this has to do with the redemptive power found in tragedy. Although punishment and suffering normally exceed what characters deserve in tragedy, by the end, the world moves on from it, being slightly bettered for having learned something from the experience. An article by Duncan S. Harris, found at this link, goes further in explaining how ultimate balance is restored. He linked Shakespeare's plays with Christianity and said that the clarity that we receive at the end, from having the tale wrap up and the morals revealed, allows us to, in LDS terms, look towards the promised last judgement, when all that is dark will be revealed and the world will have clarity. At the end of a tragedy there is no guarantee that another tragedy will not occur, but it does act as a metaphor, giving hope for when all will be revealed at the last day. The suffering will end in the ultimate end.

Death by Grief

In looking through some literary criticism about King Lear, I found this interesting article that compares King Lear mourning over Cordelia to the Virgin Mary mourning over Jesus, which was shown very dramatically in a lot of medieval passion plays. We've already talked a little about Cordelia being a Christ figure, but I had a hard time seeing in in Act V. Not only does she not come back to life, but her death causes Lear to die of grief. However, the point that the article made was that Lear's mourning of Cordelia shows the incredible complexity of grief, especially the grief of a parent mourning a child. The comparison was more about the grief of Mary than comparing Cordelia with Christ.
Another thing from the article that I found really interesting was that it talked about how Lear's mourning was based purely on his true feelings rather than being some sort of performance or mourning ritual for those watching. In a way, his redemption has really come full circle, because at the beginning of the play he placed value only on superficial expressions of love. In his mourning for Cordelia he shows the true depth of his love for her. Even though he dies in the process, it seems that from a Christian perspective, he did achieve redemption.

The article I talked about is called "Inverting the Pietà In Shakespeare's King Lear" by Katherine Goodland.

Power Vaccum

This play certainly lives up to it's classification of tragedy. It was just sad to read of the unfair fate of some of the characters. I think it was Cordelia's death that seemed the most tragic to me... But despite this, there was one question that just really was on my mind as I finished the play - what now!? I know that we will never really know, but I just couldn't help but think of the effects of these deaths on the nation as a whole. In one day, Britain fought a battle with France and lost not only her king, but all three of his heirs. This loss of leadership just opens the scene up for even greater confusion. I know that at the end of the play, it is implied that Edgar or perhaps even Albany will rule, but that is still not a question you want unresolved...  It makes me wonder why Shakespeare didn't resolve that for us, maybe to keep the focus on the recent deaths? But even then - if he had specified who would become king - looking at history we know that any turnover of this sort often leads to greater political upheaval and unrest. I feel like I would just like to see some of the more wide spread effects that these characters' choices had. It's just so interesting to me that we only see on a rather small family scale the events that were shaping a nation at the same time, too.

Tell Me Sweet Little Lies

This play has been full of deceit and lies from the beginning, with Goneril and Regan undermining Lear, and then Kent and Edgar in disguise. Oh and Edmund committing treason. One interesting part of the script though is the use of the "aside". In just the fifth act alone Goneril has three asides to the audience. Moments where she steps out of the scene for a moment to remind the audience of her evil actions, or to clue them in to what is going on. Shakespeare could have simply had these same asides play out later, in the same scene even, but as actual actions within the play. For example, Goneril poisons her sister. She could have been seen administering the poison, or the play could have relied on the fact that they reveal this later. Instead, there are purposeful and obvious deceits that the audience alone is privy to for a moment. One possible reason for these choice could be that it drives home the them of lying that is prevalent throughout the play. Instead of having their actions simply lead to situations, etc., we see the characters pull themselves out of the action to acknowledge something that they are thinking or doing, but keeping secret from everyone else. The breaking down of the fourth wall actually heightens the drama in these situations, rather than alleviating it or simply involving the audience.