Gloucester acts as a foil to Lear. This means that he provides a mirror to the main character, whose traits are then highlighted for dramatic purposes. In structural terms, there are great similarities between the two men and their respective fates. Both come to grief through a naive trust in their children; both suffer appalling pain: mentally in the case of Lear, physically and mentally in the case of Gloucester; both realize, all too late,...
Gloucester acts as a foil to Lear. This means that he provides a mirror to the main character, whose traits are then highlighted for dramatic purposes. In structural terms, there are great similarities between the two men and their respective fates. Both come to grief through a naive trust in their children; both suffer appalling pain: mentally in the case of Lear, physically and mentally in the case of Gloucester; both realize, all too late, which family member was the one who really loved and cared for them.
Yet there are important differences between plot and subplot. Gloucester's suffering is more recognizably human than the mental anguish endured by Lear. Lear remains a larger-than-life character throughout the play; he may have renounced his kingdom, but he still acts and feels like a king. His lapse into insanity stems largely from his inability to come to terms with his humiliating status as a king without a throne.
Gloucester is more human and less exciting as a character, perhaps, but none the worse for that. And unlike Lear, he gives—not out of an insecure need to be loved, but out of a genuine sense of humanity. Both men ultimately fall, but for different reasons: Lear cannot live in a world in which he has no place because he is too God-like; Gloucester, a mere mortal, cannot live there either, but because he's all too human. The Gloucester subplot reminds us that what happens to Lear can happen to any of us, albeit for different reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment