The Very Tragic Tragedy of King Lear

First, I think Cordelia's death is unfair and I personally did not expect it. Even though I knew King Lear was a tragedy, I secretly hoped that Cordelia and Lear would make it out alive in the end. She was so innocent and hardly deserved to die. Also, where was France in all of the madness that took place? He was kind enough to marry her without a dowry; why couldn't he save her life?

Anyways, happiness is an interesting concept when thinking about Lear. Many of the characters (Lear, Goneril, Edmund, Regan, Cornwall) take actions that they believe will make them happier or help contribute to an overall goal. For example, Goneril plans to poison her husband and marry Edmund for (I believe) several reasons, one being her belief that marrying Edmund will make her happy. Similarly, Edmund takes several steps to gain power, using several people as pawns (Cornwall, Goneril, Regan) along the way. Lear divides up his kingdom between his two terrible daughters after exiling Cordelia, the only daughter who truly cares for him. He also expects his Goneril and Regan to care for him, not realizing that their pledge of love is completely false. Still, Lear tries to quantify love, perhaps to flatter himself or reinforce his decision to pass his kingdom to his daughters.

Ironically, each character who acts solely on his own behalf dies at the end of the play. In fact, I would argue that the characters’' steps towards their personal happiness led to their death's. Of course, this argument has holes, because the story would have flat lined if life had remained static and Edmund, for example, had not tried to seize power. Nevertheless, if Edmund had not chased Edgar away and pursued a path of deceit, maybe Edgar would never have killed Edmund (nor had a need to). If both Goneril and Regan decided not to compete for Edmund, perhaps Goneril would not have poisoned Regan and then killed herself. Or if Cornwall had never joined forces with Edmund, naming him Duke of Gloucester, maybe he would not have died while torturing Gloucester. Who is to say?

I also noticed that the two characters (aside from perhaps Gloucester) who serve those who wronged them keep their lives at the end of the play. Kent is exiled by Lear, but due to his love for the kind, he returns in disguise. Kent accompanies Lear when the king is thrown out by his daughters. Maybe helping Lear made Kent happy. Regardless, Kent risks discovery to serve his King, and I believe he has more on his mind than personal gain. Similarly, Edgar is chased out of the kingdom by his father, Gloucester, and condemned to death. Although Gloucester is tricked by Edmund into believing Edgar wishes to kill him, he quickly accepts Edmund's story and proof. Calling for Edgar's death, Gloucester heatedly reacts to Edmund’s accusations, forcing his son to flee. Though Edgar sticks around, disguising himself as Poor Tom, I suppose he plays it safe when interacting with Gloucester because Gloucester has lost his eyes. But, by this time, I believe Gloucester knows the truth about Edmund's lies and Edgar's innocence. The point is, despite his father's cruelty, Edgar cares enough for his father to act as his guide and prevent Gloucester from committing suicide. It appears that self-preservation is far from Edgar's mind, and his only concern becomes his father's safety.

When I think about happiness, I always wonder where it manifests itself. If we live purely for ourselves, do we find happiness? Can we trust ourselves to actually know what makes us happy, or is our perception of happiness misguided? I think Lear communicates many important messages, including the nature of happiness. Maybe death is a harsh consequence for people who live only to please themselves, but perhaps Shakespeare is trying to convey that this path does not truly lead to happiness. It is possible that in living for others we discover happiness because our lives extend beyond ourselves. Could the effort we put forth to make others smile be more valuable than making ourselves happy?