Get help with any kind of assignment - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
Action and Observation in King Lear Auden formerly claimed that Shakespearean tragedy is always parabolic, concerning the sole myth that Christianity possesses: that of those 'unrepentant thief'. We as the audiences are so implicated in the act since each of us 'is in danger of re-enacting [the story] in his own manner'.1 The sufferings of this hero could be our very own sufferings, whereas in Greek tragedy, such a notion is precluded just as the misfortunes of a character could be traced back into the discontent of their gods. Hippolytus is not a legal agent; Hamlet is. The aesthetic of Shakespearean tragedy is therefore dynamic, with an audience which, to a certain degree, are also participants. Auden proposes a version of observing depending upon an Aristotelian conception of play, one that involves the spectator in an emotional relationship with the characters on stage. King Lear also, offers the viewers several quite different paradigms of both observation and activity, and crucially, it's on the varying successes of those models the tragedy pops. One does not have to appear much in King Lear to get a figure that may fit Auden's mold. Kent surely embodies what Schlegel termed the 'science of compassion' in the drama.2 He's publicly traduced and humiliated by Lear in Act I, Scene 1, and however, at the guise of Caius, risks his life so as to serve his king still. Kent observes Lear's 'hideous rashness' (I.i.153) plus he's motivated into engaging into his master's sufferings: '' I have a journey, sir, shortly to go; My master calls me; I must not say no. (V.iii.323-324) The easy rhyme, metric equilibrium, and monosyllabic plainness of this couplet populate the lines with a sen.. .