Lear: Happiness to the Reader and the Writer

I just finished reading King Lear, arguably the most depressing work of literature of the English language. Within the plot of the play, however, are endless messages regarding betrayal, deceit, sadness, madness, love, hate, disguise, chaos, and happiness. The prevalence of the nature of happiness throughout the play is strong, but I think no one ever chooses to expound upon the presence of the messages of happiness and hope within the play because Lear is so excruciatingly dark and desolate. In many ways, Shakespeare's King Lear is in fact a message of hope. Maybe there is a light at the end of such a disheartening piece of work.

Let's start with the first light at the end of the tunnel. At the end of the play, Lear finally realizes the mistake he made when he banished Cordelia, his only loyal daughter. Isn't realizing a mistake a positive aspect of human nature? Then, Edgar, who we can all maybe agree was loyal to his father for the entirety of the play becomes King. It's the classic story of good overpowering evil. Valiant Edgar, in the midst of the violent plight between all the other volatile characters, swoops in to take over the throne (depending on which version you read) and lead with magnanimity and honesty. Also, in the end, the lovely Regan and Goneril die. Evil is dead. But then, there is the question of why Lear and Cordelia and so many other noble characters died concurrently with nasty Goneril and Regan. Lear and Cordelia both died in the face of honesty, integrity, and righteous principle. Regan and Goneril died as abhorrent persons. So, the death of evil and the death of good suggests that maybe Shakespeare was actually trying to show the beauty in destruction and chaos and loss of life. Or maybe he was trying to say the state in which we die is the true nature of our souls, innately beautiful or inherently evil.

So, I think there is actually a hugely positive message we can ascertain from Lear. I also think the question of happiness and sadness, aside from pertaining to the play, also pertains to the reader of the play. Upon initial examination, I think people are quick to judge that Lear is truly as sad as it gets. Maybe readers protect themselves from feeling the true passion of this play by remaining close minded, that nothing good lies in a play like Lear. But, I think that being close minded with regard to reading the play protects us from seeing the hopeful message at the end.

Now, the relationship of my big question to King Lear, within the actual play, is pretty big. King Lear himself, for starters, is the classic example of a person protecting himself from sadness. At the beginning, he tries to protect himself from feeling dejected by demanding praise from his daughters. When Cordelia doesn't oblige, he is offended. By trying to protect himself from a devoid of feeling loved through words, Lear falls prey to duplicity, and oversees the genuine nature of Cordelia. He unknowingly protects himself from happiness, feeling true love from Cordelia, for temporary protection from feeling sad.

I think that ultimately, King Lear is the only one of Shakespeare's works that I have been able to connect with. The entirety of the play forces you to ask yourself, "what is the quintessential element of my being? Deceit or benevolence?"