At the end of the first scene, Shakespeare leaves the audience in no doubt as to the true intentions of Goneril and Regan, whereby a private conversation is shown between them, which discusses their plans for their father now they have got what they wanted from him - their inheritance. The grand language which was previously used before, in the presence of other people has been dropped completely and we are now under the impression that it was all an act on their part, and that they are apt liars. Gone are the speeches, now the sisters adopt prose dialogue, which is simple, plain and to the point, the type of dialogue generally reserved within the works of Shakespeare for those untrustworthy characters. The use of such common speech is designed to reflect the Sisters true personalities and intentions, neither of which is high nor admirable. By speaking so plainly, immediately their status has been reduced as they discuss their scheming plans and true opinions of their father, demonstrating to the audience how superficial their love professions actually were. This is a very effective method Shakespeare has adopted as it evokes the instant dislike and even repulsion for the Sisters, whereby only now they are alone and in private, they can speak openly of their true feelings and opinions on their father, using cold insulting language, devoid of any sort of regard or love for their him “Tis the infirmity of his age.” This conversation plays a key role when assessing Shakespeare’s intentions for the characters of Goneril and Regan. Such brutal and distasteful talk with reference to the superior father figure, especially in Elizabethan times, would have been sure to have provoked shock and disgust at the lack of respect for an elder family member, from whose care they essentially owe their very existence to. This shock would have been all the more prominent by the fact that Lear was not only their father, their authoritarian, but also their King and head of state. What makes it worse is the fact that these are women undermining the authority of the King, whose authority has been ordained by God Himself. Therefore such attacks on Lear can be interpreted as the attempted usurpation of God’s own authority. What makes it all the more unfortunate is now the Kings fate seems to be in the hands of two conniving women- “the weaker sex” as they would have been seen at this period, the scandalous element being that it is his own flesh and blood talking so acting so ruthlessly and detachedly. Therefore this sends out a very clear message with regards to the Sisters and the way in which Shakespeare has presented us with them. We do not like nor trust them and we are gradually building an insight to their true characters. We can see that the sisters are conniving and devious, in that they have been scheming the downfall of their Father and anticipating their own triumph for a long time. We are shocked at the audacity of the sisters, who are portrayed to be very much a partnership. At the end of Act 1 Scene 1, Goneril states “Pray you, lets hit together.” We get a strong sense of their falseness and deviousness, in that they would willingly manipulate family members and events in order to gain personally. The casual way in which they rationalize away their neglect of their Father speaks volumes. They set their own interests above anyone else’s, including their own family. They are power hungry, and all too eager to manipulate that newly acquired power to satisfy their own self interests. None of these are attractive qualities and so encourage a strong dislike for their characters.
Act 1 Scene 3 shows Goneril’s annoyance at Lear and his Knights. She complains to Oswald, her steward, complaining that Lear has continued to act erratically and she is determined to put a stop to it. She grows impatient and enraged and orders Oswald to tell Lear she is sick “I’ll not speak to him, say I am sick.” This is a direct to lie to Lear and she would readily insult him in pretending to be ill, which would have again shocked an Elizabethan audience, in that the child has so little respect for the parent they would act in such a manner as to lie and not show any sort of feeling or understanding for her Fathers situation, instead, she maintains her assurances of that it is she being the wronged party, unable to accept any sort of other light on things. As Lear’s daughter and host, she has a duty to protect her father and behave graciously towards him, however, we are filled with the sense that Gonerill is only just “putting up” with Lear and she plots to subvert his authority. Any sort of reason to show gratitude that is very much owed towards her father is disregarded entirely as are any sort of respect for her Fathers wishes. She orders Oswald to cause havoc with Lear’s knights, so usurping his authority and mocking him. In Act 2, Scene 2, we witness the punishing of Kent, Lear’s servant, commissioned by the Sisters and Cornwall, which is the ultimate defiance of Lear’s authority. The idea of the Sisters’ partnership is kept alive by Shakespeare as he reminds us of their correspondence enhancing the interpretation of them as a manipulative duo, formulating plans and scheming together, again building upon the dislike we have for them.
Throughout scene 3 in act 1 we see Goneril with her servant Oswald in and witness her annoyance towards Lear and His Knights. Her tone is assertive, un-feminine and uncompromising, insisting she has been wronged, which would have been very un attractive characteristics in any person, especially a woman. The audience is sent a very clear message of her growing impatience with Lear’s presence, truly emphasising just how cold and detached she is from any sort of paternal child to father bond, and just how empty her love profession was in the first scene, which encourages, as her character develops, a development of the audience’s dislike for her, which really adds to and builds upon the audience’s initial perception of her.
In Scene 4, When addressing Lear of the issue of his Knights, Goneril speaks to him with no sense of respect and accuses the Knights as degrading of her home, which would have again been seen as very insulting to Lear. She is harsh and brutal in her words and when Lear shows his distaste at her mannerisms, she makes it plain that she does not care from the detached way in which she responds, showing that she has no emotional involvement whatsoever. She talks down to him, insulting him, essentially reversing the roles and bearing no sense of gratitude or respect towards him as her father. She can easily manipulate emotions to conform to events, emphasizing her sly nature, and we get the sense that it is very much she, not Lear who is in control of events and the way in which the dialogue progresses between them.
We see very clearly these same characteristics occurring again in Act 2 Scene 4 with Regan, which is a good display of initially Regan and later Goneril’s lack of respect for Lear. Lear has arrived at Gloucester’s castle and has discovered the the “shame” (line 6) of finding Kent, his servant in stocks. This unnerves the King, and it is proof that he is continuing to be treated with contempt. Yet, when told the truth he is unwilling to believe that his daughter could be responsible for this crime against him. This blind faith in his daughter causes us to pity him all the more, as we know of her true intentions, which effectively mounts our dislike for Goneril and Regan all the more. They continue to show disrespect to the agonised and troubled Lear, Regan and Cornwall have professed their sickness and weariness and refuse to speak with him which frustrates Lear. Such utter disregard sets Regan up to be just as malicious as her sister. We see, permeating throughout this scene, Lear’s degregation and deterioration of his authority and person. His powerlessness is reinforced by the fact that his numerous requests for information concerning Kent’s punishment are ignored. Lear’s turmoil and cries for affection are evident to the audience, and so we feel all the more resentful at the heartlessness of Regan in her utter oblivion for her father’s suffering. Lear in this scene is presented to us as an old, desperate man. One in which we can easily feel pathos towards in his obvious defeat against the Sisters. When Cornwall and Regan arrive he is pitiful and troubled, ending his first speech with a cry out to his daughter “O Regan!” (line 132) Regan however, employs the same sharp tone that Goneril used effectively in Act 1 Scene 4. She tells her father he should just accept his age and failings of judgement. Regan is extremely firm in her advice to return to Goneril and beg her pardon. Lear is astonished and is reduced to kneeling to her in begging “On my knees I beg that you’ll vouchsafe me raiment, bed and food.” Lear, previously powerful and respected, is now conveyed to us as a weak old man, forced to beg to his uncompassionate daughter for shelter. This sends a clear image to the audience, that of the Sisters, together youthful and powerful, with ruthless ambition, able combined to cause an unforeseen extent of trouble, competing against the old and meagre Lear who stands alone, utterly powerless, reaping the consequences of his foolish act. What’s worse is that Lear is even further demeaned in that he is reduced to the use of flattery to try and win her acceptance “Her (Goneril’s) eyes are fierce but thine do comfort and not burn.” But again, his words have no effect. The audience have the added insight and it is obvious to us of the falseness and utter hopelessness of Lears beliefs. These visual signs of his deterioration, his beggary, and reversion to flattery serve to shock the audience, provoke pity and remind us of his desperation, and so result in the complete rejection for the Sister’s principals. We detest Regan’s nerve in reducing her own father to such a blundering state, and we are given the impression of the conflict very much being a two against one situation. We deplore her all the more for her cold, detached and simply rude response to her Fathers’ desperate pleas for residence “Return you to my sister!” she uncompromisingly commands. We are aware now that Lear is utterly without hope with the combined forces of both his daughters working against him. From this point Goneril arrives and Lear learns it was Cornwall who was responsible for Kent’s punishment. Regan’s tone becomes harsher. Jointly they are unconcerned at their fathers anguish, Regan coldly contradicts the assumption that he can stay with her and insults him upon demanding he reduce his train further. Lear, agonised, threatens his revenge upon his daughters, and rushes out into the storm in a “high rage” as described by Gloucester. Gloucester is concerned for Lear’s well being in that he will obtain little protection from the elements, and would clearly like his guests to call back their father, yet they insist Lear should be left to suffer the consequences of his actions. Regan symbolically instructs Gloucester to lock the doors, and with this success, we as an audience are devastated that such evil has prospered. This serves a visual sign and proves of their complete and utter rejection of their father, and their cruel desire to inflict punishment onto the “old man” as he has been presented to us, which highlights the unfairness of his situation. This scene really confirms and builds upon our assumption of Goneril and Regan as expert manipulators, ready and willing to employ any method to satisfy their own to the point of the destruction of their own father. This façade to their character is the epitome of the deplorable and we therefore reject them as poison. To add to the desired perception of Goneril and Regan, Shakespeare has given them masculine characteristics. Renaissance models of femininity required women to be quiet and submissive. The Sisters however, subvert all accepted codes of feminine behaviour. They abhor female sexuality, acting ruthlessly, purposely seeking to destroy their family and state and provoke chaos. Goneril demonstrates this masculine trait well as we can see in Act 1 Scene 4 with her powerful ability to dominate speech and essentially reverse the roles within marriage. It is her Husband, Albany who is instead answerable to her, which would be a sure sign to the audience of the extent of her ability to assert power, and the lengths in which she is prepared to go to ensure she keeps such power. Shakespeare has given her such Characteristics and abilities in order to make her all the more unnatural, even witch-like, indicating she is a character to be feared. Through her domination of dialogue, this serves to demonstrate to the audience her character effectively in that she has little respect even for Albany, her Husband, which is a clear mark of her domineering nature and confidence. She is able to criticise him for his “harmful mildness” (Act 1 Scene 4, line 330) and yet he is unable to hold or give his opinion strongly and the audience is given a very strong impression that he cannot, or will not effectively challenge her authority, which he demonstrates by conceding all too easily to her opinion and his inability to persevere with the disagreement between them. This suggests to the audience the extent of her power, in that not even her husband can control her. In the presentation of such extents of her controlling, unfeminine nature which subsequently leads to the perception of extremely untrustworthy and unattractive qualities, Shakespeare is effectively encouraging his audience to detest the Sisters.
The terror that the Sisters inspire within the play is reflected by the animal imagery used in order to portray their characteristics effectively. Shakespeare repeatedly makes references to savage, cruel predators when referring to Goneril and Regan. With such references we must question if Lear really has any sort of hope against such cruel preadators. Never are either of the sisters associated with a gentle beautiful creature such as a passive songbird and such associations therefore demonstrate to the audience clearly by the use of such imagery, that they are in fact rotten to the core. Goneril is described by Lear as a “sharp toothed vulture” with a “wolvish visage” (Act 1 Scene 4) and she is cursed as a “detested kite” (Act 1 scene 4) and described Regan in such a way as “she looked black…most serpent like” (Act 1 Scene 4) There are also a number of other references to animals made which help the audience visualise their natures by association with such creatures. The Fool uses demonstrative imagery “The hedge sparrow fed the cuckoo so long…that it had its head bit off by the young.” (Act 1 Scene 4) The use of such imagery by Shakespeare creates a gruesome and effective image for the audience to accept and the implications of such references are evident. Goneril and Regan are to be associated with cruel predators who revel in causing pain and destruction and ultimately see their father bleed. Shakespeare essentially symbolically prepares the audience to the fact Goneril and Regan are inhuman. Jealous, treacherous and unnatural, the Sisters display the most distressing characteristics of human nature. They show no remorse and are energetically active in their pursuit of self gratification. We may momentarily recognise their plight and even the validity of their complains, but due to the way in which they have been presented to us, we still hold abhorrence towards them, and the audience cannot, to any extent sympathise with them nor condone their actions which ensures, was ultimately what was Shakespeare’s intention, that the audience rejects their characters entirely.
The character of Edmund is presented to the audience as a typical Rogue Villain. Like many villains in Jacobean drama, Edmund seethes with frustration about society “The plague of custom” (Act 1 Scene 2) that prevents him from succeeding in his plight. He shows immense measures of frustration and bitterness, and also to large extent egotistical qualities. Edmund has a very big chip on his shoulder about the nature of his conception, whereby Gloucester his Father and his own mother were not married at the time of his conception therefore creating an “illegitimate, bastard son” label which he has been condemned to bear all his life, ultimately disabling him from ever prospering upon his qualities or his character. He is constantly forced to compete with and is constantly out-stripped and overshadowed by his “legitimate” brother, Edgar. Edmund, consequently has quietly grown bitter and resentful at his own misfortune, and the audience are made aware that he does not, in fact, intend to be resigned to the fate of bearing this label for the rest of his life, and that he does intend to employ every possible means to reverse his fortunes.
Edmund portrays a definite sense of Machiavellian qualities. Machiavelli lived prior to Shakespeare and questioned such topics as social order, politics and the divine right of Kings and effectively stirred the system of the time. In “The Prince” of 1513, Machiavelli quoted “It is far better to be feared than loved…Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved, than to one who makes himself feared…Fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective.” Edmunds views are paralleled to Machiavelli’s upon this issue, demonstrated by his eagerness to seize any opportunity that arises in order to achieve his goals.
Shakespeare presents to us the character of Edmund as cold, evil and calculating, driven by an alarming sense of personal gain and political ambition, with no thought or consideration for others. The character of Edmund parallels significantly with the characters of Goneril and Regan, who also convey the ability to adopt an alternative visage and self image when in public, yet when alone, act as their true selves, letting out their repressed desires. Paralleled also with the theme of Lear’s blindness to Goneril and Regan’s malice and Cordelia’s true nature, the audience experiences the same event unfolding in front of them once again within this family circle, whereby Gloucester favours the wicked child over the true, which, as hinted with the story of Lear, will lead to his downfall. The discussed topics in Act 2 Scene 1 by Edmund to Gloucester, upon his attempts at framing Edmund are ironic in that they parallel accordingly with the characteristics of Goneril and Regan, indicating again to us his characteristics are associated with theirs, “But that I told him the revenging Gods, ‘Gainst parricides did all their thunders bend.” (Lines 47 & 48) Upon the recognition of such similar events the audience is actively encouraged to respond in a similar way to the character of Edmund. We feel sorry for Gloucester and Edmund, who have demonstrated no such characteristics to warrant such treachery from their own flesh and blood.
From the soliloquy, Shakespeare establishes Edmunds true nature early on and we can see the extent to which he is driven by an uncontrollable force. As demonstrated well in his first soliloquy in Act 1, of his plans “Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land.” His language is short, sharp and to the point. Shakespeare makes use of alliteration of the letter “B” upon line 10 “Why brand us with Base? With Baseness? Bastardy? Base, base!” all of which indicates his resent and complete and utter disgust at his position in society. Essentially he holds himself in higher esteem suggesting an egotistical dimension to his character, evoking dislike instantly from the audience. Shakespeare makes use of many personal pronouns such as “I grow, I prosper, I must have…my dimensions” etc. This shows the extent of his self absorption in that he is concerned singularly for his own welfare. We are alarmed by his sheer contempt for his Father and brother, as previously at the start of Act 1 we had witnessed dialogue between Edmund and Gloucester, his Father. We now realise just how easily he can alter his personality to suit different circumstances and we perceive a definite sense of his falseness and lose all trust for him.
The character of Edmund is all the more alarming in that his ambitions are not merely self interested. Instead he employs a conscious rebellion against the social order that has denied him the same status as his legitimate brother, Edgar. He commands in Act 1, Scene 2, “Now God’s stand up for Bastards!” but in fact, this statement depends not on divine aid, but upon his own initiative. He is the ultimate self made villain, and is so cold and capable that it is entertaining to watch and the audience can appreciate his cunning wickedness. Edmund can be seen to set himself up against society. He sneers at its values as the contempt and hostility he conveys with his use of the words “Base” and “Bastard” show. Edmund stands for the savage code of “survival of the fittest,” having no toleration or compassion whatsoever for weaker species. He never shows remorse for his wickedness, rather he embraces it and revels in his own ingeniousness and falseness. All the beliefs he outlines in his soliloquy in Act 1 suggest he rejects the hierarchy that has enabled his father and brother to prosper, he can even be seen as an anti-establishment type figure.
Shakespeare makes it evident to the audience that Edmund is prepared to go to extreme measures in order to achieve his aim. He commits numerous crimes against members of his family, and upon his concoction and framing of his brother, his blatant lies to his father, his sheer delight in his crimes and the mockery of his father convey to the audience well his character and how we are expected to react to it. Edmund is extreme to the point where he would have his own brother murdered with his reputation and prospects in shreds, so long as it did not hinder his success. Shakespeare includes a stage direction in Act 2 scene 1, whereby Edmund wounds his own arm to make his story all the more plausible, again a good example of his ruthlessness by the extremes to which he is prepared to take his plans.
Edmund is a calculating, adept liar. In Act 2 scene 2, the ease with which he can lie to his father would alarm and provoke shock from the audience. Shakespeare uses great amounts of ironic statements within the text of Scene 2, between Gloucester and Edmund, whereby Edmund sows the seeds of Edgar’s supposed plan with calculating perfection. His lies are subtle and so all the more effective, whereby he does it in such a manner as to suggest Gloucester reached the conclusions of his own accord, which adds to his alarming cunningness as a villain. Shakespeare shows Edmund as having the ability to manipulate and come across as sincere, showing no signs whatsoever of remorse in the framing of Edgar. He cunningly, slowly and subtly persuades Gloucester that he is the son who loves him truly and deserves his esteem by his emotion evoking speech, without his even realising. He is sly, in that he seals the epitome of the trust of his father, by addressing openly the issue of his not being worthy due to his “bastard” brand, encouraging Gloucester to feel pathos towards him.
Shakespeare ensures Edmund is formidably destructive, and readily will admit his own deceptive qualities in order to ensure he gains personally. Such qualities evoke a guaranteed response and attitude from the audience. The tale of the Good and Bad brother was a frequently used folk motif, which would have been very familiar to an Elizabethan audience. Through Edmunds consecutive successes in deception and trickery and in his being able to obtain everything he wants with such ease, the audience comes to loathe the principles he stands for. His willingness to harm and disregard his family members is deplorable, his lack of respect for them, shocking. From what we can see, Edmund has not led a difficult life, nor been wronged nor hurt by his family, yet he holds no sort of regard for their sufferance. We may admire his daring and his quick wits, and even to some extent his deviousness, enjoy his energetic acting and our own inclusion into his confidences through his numerous soliloquies but ultimately, we must reject him in much the same way as we reject Goneril and Regan, upon his sheer delight for his own villainary, and his plight as the defiant bastard son. It is imposed upon us that the virtues of compassion and goodness should be embraced over those of treachery and deceit, by the way in which Shakespare has demonstrated that pure characters that hold such positive virtues, as Cordelia, Kent Edmund and Gloucester are all successively wronged. With this inequality of evil succeeding good so completely, the audience comes to hate such devious and villainous characters which, with the presence of them, serves to promote the festering and growing deplorable qualities within the plot, meaning that those vulgar characters ultimately succeed over the pure characters time and time again.
The Duke of Cornwall, the husband of Regan is characterised in such a way to indicate exactly how an audience should respond to him. Cornwall is drawn to and readily accepts Edmunds version of events in Act 2, Scene 1 “Natures of such deep trust we shall much need…You we first seize on” (lines 114-115) to the audience, Edmund is obviously an evil and deceitful character, and would look upon Cornwall’s unquestioning favour towards him with suspicion, which suggests the possibility of the prediction of his characteristics by such association. He praises him highly and in doing so, thus makes us wary of his intentions. “For you Edmund, Whose virtue and obedience doth this instant so much commend itself…” This exhibits a sign that Cornwall is morally dubious. Another light on things could simply be a reinforcement of Edmund as a good liar, in his ability to deceive left right and centre. However, we must question Cornwall’s reasoning behind his blind willingness to accept Edmunds version of events. His relationship with his wife, Regan, who can be said to have similar qualities to Edmund as explained above, can help shed light on this matter. Regan, has before, previously proved to the audience her corrupt and warped nature, upon hers and her sisters’ joint plan of the systematic destruction of their Father. Regan and Cornwall behave very differently to Goneril and her husband, the Duke of Albany, in that we can see that they are very much a partnership and an ability to work together with an equality that just is not present in Goneril and Albany’s relationship, whereby it is she who very much dominates. Unlike Albany, Cornwall is ready to assert commands which lead us to assume he is a joint accomplice, a third conspirator in the sister’s quest against Lear. He is willing to support Regan and acts to compliment her authority, whereby the audience receives throughout this scene, a sense of their closeness. This leads us to draw the conclusion that he holds parallel ideas to the sisters and that he must be of similar nature, and it is upon this assumption therefore, which inspires our mistrust and rejection of him. Shakespeare gives him a distinguishable sense of assertiveness and the tone of an authoritarian- It is he who conducts the investigation into Kent and Oswalds’ argument, and it is he who announces punishment which complies well with Gloucester’s description of his bad temper- “The fiery quality of the Duke” in Act 2 Scene 4. It was Cornwall who distributed Kent’s punishment which therefore defied Lear’s authority, such ignorance to Lear’s wishes, is described by Lear in Scene 4 as “’Tis worse than murder!” This defiance can be seen to link with the other evil characters defying authority of their superiors and therefore, the audience grows to associate such defiance with evilness. Cornwall displays many similar characteristics to the Sisters, he is cold and inhumane, as symbolically shown at the end of Act 2, scene 4, by his ordering of the shutting the gates against Lear in the rain. “Shut up your door, My Lord, it is a wild night. He is ruthless and has a detestable sense of his own authority, exhibiting contempt for any sort of authority other than his own.
Shakespeare makes use of the character of Oswald, Goneril’s Steward in order to fulfil a number of useful functions. Oswald can be described as displaying “sycophantic” qualities, in that he praises powerful people in order to win their favour and so increase his own status. Oswald has a minor role within the first two Acts yet from the qualities he displays, we can dislike him immediately. We can neither admire him nor accept him. He is grovelling and devious, latching on to people of power to benefit his own ends, really quite repulsive qualities. We are first introduced to his character in Act 1 Scene 3, with Goneril complaining to him about her Father and his Knights conduct. He carries out orders faithfully to his Mistress, and the audience can see he is very much a trusted accomplice of Goneril as she informs him to put on a “weary negligence” line 13. We also see that Goneril can in fact speak plainly about her true opinions of her Father to Oswald “Idle old man, that still would manage those authorities that he hath given away…remember what I tell you” This demonstrates the trust she has for him, making us instantly wary of his character. His obedience and willingness to comply to her instructions heighten this mistrust, and we can now look upon him as Goneril’s agent in corruption with his bad qualities mirroring his Mistress’ true nature.
He demonstrates no respect to Lear whatsoever as we can see in Act 1 Scene 4, with the insolence and defiance shown towards Lear, one he should in fact have respect for, as the former King. He turns his back upon Lear, a deliberate demonstration of disrespect, and when questioned by Lear “Sir who am I?” He replies with a malicious “My Lady’s father.” This reply would be seen as extremely disrespectful by classifying a former ruler by his relationship with his daughter. Upon the expected angry response by Lear, of “Cur, slave, whoreson dog!,” he is boldly defiant and answers back, stating “I am none of these…I shall not be struck.” The audience now sees a mere servant asserting their authority over a King. The fact that Shakespeare uses Kent to intervene, this makes us aware that Kent, a likeable, honest character we have come to trust upon his faithful qualities, deplores such behaviour indicates to us the way in which we should interpret this insolent, outspoken servant of Goneril. We come to see him as a mouthpiece for Goneril, exhibiting similar qualities, but with much less “Grandeur” that she has the ability to display, that we cannot even admire him for that, and therefore we are repulsed by his behaviour.
In Act 2, Scene 2, Shakespeare exhibits an argument between Kent and Oswald. This serves to really enhance the contrasts in their characters and demonstrate to us, by Kent’s utter contempt and resentment held towards Oswald, the way in which we should respond to Oswald in a similar was as discussed above.
Kent really loses control completely in this scene, referring to him as a number of vile names from lines 13 – 21, “Fellow, I know thee…A knave, a rascal, a base, shallow, proud, lily livered…” ending the speech with the reference of “One whom I will beat into clamourous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition.” Kent’s lack of control sends the audience a very clear message, as before in Act 1, Scene 1, Kent demonstrated well his ability to maintain control and rationality when dealing with Lear’s rage, the fact that we see him angered in such a way encourages us to dislike Oswald all the more. Upon the entrance of Cornwall, Regan, and Gloucester, Kent does not cease, but continues in his condemning of Oswald, pointing out to us that servants who serve corrupt masters inflict great damage “With every gale and vary of their masters, knowing nought, like dogs, but following.”
Oswald is insolent and a liar, portraying the same self interest which is common of all the other evil characters, his selfishness serving to reflect Gonerils ambition. The way in which he is characterised sends clear instructions upon how we should respond to him as a character.
From my assessment of these characters which show Evil qualities, it is obvious how Shakespeare sequences and sets up events and scenarios in order to help us recognise what qualities and themes are at work in particular circumstances which will ultimately allow us to gain a better understanding of the play. Therefore, I must come to the conclusion that Shakespeare presents us very well with characters we can dislike. Shakespeare enables us to sympathise extraordinarily well with certain characters, and so therefore, in watching the action of the play, not only suggest to his audience the dislike of certain characters, but actively the encouragement of it. When asking myself if I found it easy to dislike the characters I have discussed, I realised a fundamental principle. Disliking such characters as explored above goes hand in hand with watching or studying “King Lear.” It has become compulsory, and literally goes without saying. Shakespeare has created perfectly what effectively was his desired aim, in that he has made it almost impossible for us to watch or study this play without disliking the characters we are “supposed to.” In fact, I would go to say he has characterised so well, In that dislike is not effectively, a strong enough word. He encourages and allows us the freedom to “dislike” with a passion upon the audacity and scandal of the events presented to us through the utter degradation of everything that was previously good and pure. Its utter destruction channels to our own basic fears of society and effectively inspires hate. We despise the reasoning and actions of some characters, their complete ability for succession over good, casting society’s esteemed qualities such as justice and basic humanitarian compassion for others to the side, so much so that effectively, we are able hold detest for their very person. Shakespeare uses such techniques to evoke the desired interpretation of characters intentions, sequences events in order to encourage certain impressions and provides the audience with evidence that they can actually draw their own interpretations and associations from. Shakespeare, in his techniques, has allowed us to draw ourselves, from the play, a would be accurate analysis and profile of the characters involved, effectively allowing us to sympathise with, or feel emotionally involved in the struggle which permeates the play, that of the struggle between good and evil, with the gradual dominance of evil, which so suggests a more successful play. Therefore I would say that Shakespeare has succeeded upon his presentation and portrayal of those evil characters, with the evidence that it is literally impossible to hold anything but distain for such deplorable principles.
