Prospero

In The Tempest, by William Shakespeare, Prospero seems to puppeteer almost all of the actions of the other players. First, he employs the magic of Ariel to crash the ship and then scatter the shipwrecked members throughout the island, so they cannot contact each other. His basic plot seems to focus simply on becoming the Duke again. However, as the play progresses, and the King’s son falls in love with Prospero’s daughter, a perhaps deeper plot unveils itself. I think that Prospero’s original intentions were to only regain his position as Duke and come out of exile on the island, yet eventually, Prospero recognizes the potential outcome with the budding romance between Ferdinand and Miranda and works to capitalize on their love. Ironically, Prospero brushes off the questioning from the other characters at the end and labels the events he has orchestrated as simple coincidence.

            To the reader, Prospero has many contrasting qualities.  At first, he seems selfish and hell-bent on redemption and regaining what is his, which retains a negative connotation for the reader. Then, the reader realizes the nature of the illegitimate Duke of Milan and begins to almost sympathize with Prospero because they fully comprehend his struggles. This empathy continues as Prospero helps propagate the marriage for his daughter. Even with the reader’s growing sympathy towards Prospero, he comes off as a bit of a fool throughout the entire play because of his awkward dialogues with his daughter, the king, and Gonzalo. He perpetually begs Miranda to listen despite her attention, and then he blatantly and awkwardly shakes off the questions of the king and Gonzalo at the end. Contrastingly, Prospero coordinated an elaborate plan to recapture his Duchy, thus exemplifying his intelligence. 

Character Development

In chapter twenty, Ginny finally emerges as an active character, capable of shaping her own destiny. This scene, in which Ginny reprimands her father for his reckless behavior and drunk driving, exemplifies Ginny’s frustrating and chaotic struggle for control of her life.  Until now, each character abuses Ginny’s dependence and her desire to satiate everyone’s wants. Throughout the novel, Ginny has silently worked to maintain her relationships with each character as well as to keep everyone happy, despite the fact that subconsciously she was not happy herself. It seems that Ginny always frantically picks up the pieces of Larry’s rampages, Rose’s outbursts, and Caroline’s apathy. No one but Ginny really cares about the others’ feelings, thus Ginny is solely left to care for everyone. Ginny perpetually lives in a state of fear. Fear of her father. Fear for Rose. Fear for everything in her life she cannot control. Yet finally, a sense of empowerment and self-fulfillment washes over Ginny. She takes a stand with her father, foreshadowing perhaps her future actions with him. This passage is integral to the development of Ginny as a character because it demonstrates her internal tension and serves as the manifestation of her struggle for control. Before this scene, Ginny refuses to raise her voice, passively allowing other characters to manipulate her, use her, and emotionally torment her. However, in this scene, Ginny actively asserts herself, thus finally exerting some mode of control over her situation. Ginny becomes a dynamic character, who is now capable of affecting those around her, rather than always being affected. 

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.