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.