Sunday, March 18, 2012

Does suffering coincide with tragedy?

Between the tragic plays, King Lear and Oedipus Rex, the latter is the more tragic. It is revealed to Oedipus that his entire life had been planned by the gods, and his sole purpose was to kill his father and marry his mother. Yet, King Lear's situation was brought upon by none other than himself. The fall of King Lear can be blamed on no higher power than he, which is why I think Oedipus had the more tragic ending, and was forced to suffer more than King Lear.

I think that Oedipus suffered more than King Lear. After realizing the prophecy was true, Oedipus felt that for some reason the only thing left to do was gauge his eyes. It is shown in the text that Oedipus knows true suffering after this, which I think King Lear does not.  The purpose of him mutilating himself was to eliminate his vision of his life; to eliminate thinking of his fate. To be motivated to do such harms to oneself could only be induced by high levels of internal suffering which Oedipus was forced to endure.

King Lear, on the other hand, in my opinion, suffered the bare minimum. King Lear was an incredibly old man who spent most of his life on the throne. He was very conceited and pretentious. I think that most of his internal anguish was exaggerated to make the audience and his children pity him. I think, in regards to the audience, it worked, yet it also showed how pathetic a king can be. Lear is asked by his eldest daughter, Regan “What need one?” (II.IV.304) when speaking about the number of servants Lear would be allowed to take. This shows that Lear is anything but a humble man, and makes himself seem more important than he actually is. I do not think that Lear's suffering is genuine because he wasn't suffering, he just wasn't getting his way. Because of this, I think that Oedipus Rex is the greater tragedy.

No comments:

Post a Comment