|
|
Lear is a silly old man who gets what he deserves. Is this an adequate interpretation of the play? The judgment that one may pass on is only relative to the narrow-viewed critic. Shakespeare expresses Lear’s character in an open manner, allowing several interpretations. Some may analyze his persona to consist of foolishness whilst others may approach him with a sense of innocence and naivety. Just as it is a difficult task to pinpoint Shakespeare’s true depiction of Lear, it is as difficult to say what he deserves. How ever an individual may perceive Lear to be, what right does that individual have to say to what is or is not deserved? More so in this case where the character’s persona is not yet rigid on why he is the way he is. He could possess any characteristics a critic may perceive him to, depending on the different types of views. So thence is it correct to say Lear is silly at all? For then the question arises on how silliness is defined. If one were to interpret Lear just as an old, innocent man, in seek for attention, how then would his innocence be silly? For that reason Lear is excused from deserving anything at all.
|
