Subplot to Plot Parallels

When considering the similarities and differences between the main plot of King Lear, and the subplot with Gloucester, we can see (pun intended) that the experiences of one correlate to the experiences of the other, thus exemplifying the parallels. For example, the notion of blindness, which was epitomized with Gloucester losing his eyes, propagates itself throughout the play and the reader then begins to notice Lear's inability to "see" the obvious truths as a result. The blindness almost seems to result from old age and then permeates their existence. I find it interesting how Gloucester and Lear are both incapable of recognizing some of their closest friends and family. Gloucester is unable to recognize his own son in disguise and Lear is unable to recognize Kent, a trusted friend and advisor in disguise. While yes, being in disguise does supposedly conceal their identity, it is ironic that they cannot even identify their own friends and family. This illustrates their blindness in the sense that Gloucester, though actually being blind, still has trouble identifying his son's voice, and in the case of Lear, he cannot recognize Kent.

Both literal and figurative blindness affect Lear and Gloucester. Through the parallels of the subplot with Gloucester and the main plot with Lear, we can acknowledge the symbolism of the blindness. While physical blindness definitely affects Gloucester and arguably Lear with age, it juxtaposes with Lear's metaphorical blindness and his inability to see how his daughters manipulate him. Thus the development of the obvious blindness in the subplot illustrates the blindness in Lear.

Lear's Fool

I perceived Lear's Fool to act as a juxtaposition to many of the characters, Lear especially, throughout his time in the play. The Fool disappears after Act 3, right as the plot truly starts to develop between Lear and his daughters, and Gloucester and his sons. I believe the Fool disappears right about at this time because his purpose has been served. Shakespeare seems to employ the Fool in order to exemplify the King's state of mind as well as to enunciate the disparities between wisdom and title. Ironically, the King is a supposedly "wise" and respected individual, yet he rages without acknowledging logic. This notion continues with the Fool, who, despite being named a fool, acts extremely wise and intelligent. The juxtaposition of the King and the Fool illustrates the false importance of titles within the play as well as the misleading connotations of perceived wisdom.

While the Fool frequently employs songs and circular speeches when speaking with the king, his meanings and intentions can often be ambiguous. However, his inherent wisdom remains obvious, especially when compared with the King's deteriorating mind.