er must pass from happiness to misery, he must be seen at the beginning of the play as a happy man, surrounded by good fortune. Then, the disasters that befall him will be unexpected and will be in direct contrast to his previous state. In King Lear the two tragic characters, a king and an earl. Neither of these are ordinary men. To have a prosperous man endure suffering brought about because of his own error is unusual. Because of his exalted position, were supposed to be incredibly upset when bad things happen to him. His fall is awesome and overwhelming. Its tragic enough for this to happen to one man, but in King Lear it happens to TWO of them, so the effect is doubled. And there are four villains too! There is a sub-plot concerning three of the characters: Gloucester, Edmund, and Edgar. This subplot supports the big plot. Anyways, Gloucester undergoes physical and mental torment because he makes the same mistake that Lear does. Like Lear, Gloucester is neither completely good nor completely bad. There is, for instance, a crudeness in the earl, who delights in speaking of his adultery. But Hes an okay guy, and has some good qualities as well. For instance, he shows concern for Kent in the stocks, and he risks his life to help Lear. Gloucester's punishment is blindness, and it drives him almost as crazy as Lear's madness. These two tragic stories unfolding at the same time make the play a lot more dramatic than it would have been otherwise. Its like going to the circus and getting to see ten rings instead of three. Its just better. The important element in tragedy is action, not character. It is the deeds of men that bring about their destruction. Lear calls upon the "great gods," Edgar and Kent blame Fortune, and Gloucester says that the gods "kill us for their sport" (IV.i.37). But in reality the calamities that befall both Lear and Gloucester occur as a result of some flaw ...
