Character Analysis (OCR A-Level English Literature): Revision Notes
Character analysis
This revision note explores the major characters in Shakespeare's King Lear, examining their roles, development, and thematic significance. Understanding character analysis is essential for A-Level essays, as it allows you to discuss how Shakespeare uses individuals to explore broader themes of power, justice, family relationships, and moral perception.
Strong character analysis demonstrates your ability to connect individual moments in the play to broader thematic patterns. When writing about characters, always consider how they function symbolically as well as psychologically—Shakespeare uses his characters to embody abstract ideas about power, morality, and human nature.
King Lear
Overview and initial characterisation
King Lear serves as the tragic protagonist of the play. At the start, he is a monarch whose desperate need for flattery prevents him from recognising genuine sincerity. His famous 'love test' in Act 1 exposes his crippling vanity and deep-seated insecurity. When he asks his daughters Which of you shall we say doth love us most? (1.1.49), we see a king who values elaborate public declarations over true devotion.
Lear's misjudgement of Cordelia demonstrates both his arrogance and his fundamental inability to distinguish truth from performance. When Cordelia refuses to participate in his flattery contest, he responds with the ominous line Nothing will come of nothing: speak again (1.1.90). This moment sets the tragedy in motion, as Lear banishes the one daughter who genuinely loves him.
A common mistake is to view Lear as simply a foolish old man. Instead, consider how Shakespeare presents him as a complex figure whose flaws are rooted in his absolute power—he has never been challenged or contradicted, so he cannot recognize genuine love when it refuses to perform for him.
Hubris and tragic downfall
Hubris refers to excessive pride and a refusal to accept criticism or advice. Lear's hubris is the driving force behind the tragedy. When the loyal Kent tries to intervene and defend Cordelia, Lear erupts in fury: Come not between the dragon and his wrath! (1.1.122). This mythic metaphor positions Lear as fierce and godlike, yet Shakespeare uses irony here—the dragon image suggests power, but Lear's position is actually unstable and about to collapse.
Worked Example: Analysing the Dragon Metaphor
When analyzing Come not between the dragon and his wrath! (1.1.122):
Step 1: Identify the literary device This is a metaphor comparing Lear to a dragon—a mythical creature associated with power, danger, and ancient authority.
Step 2: Consider the immediate context Lear uses this image to intimidate Kent into silence, asserting his absolute authority over his subjects.
Step 3: Explore the irony Shakespeare employs dramatic irony: whilst the dragon suggests terrifying power, the audience knows Lear is about to divide his kingdom and lose all authority. The image reveals his inflated self-perception rather than genuine strength.
Step 4: Connect to themes This connects to the theme of authority and identity—Lear's sense of self depends entirely on his royal status, which he is about to relinquish.
Psychological collapse and the storm
As Lear's power evaporates, his downfall expands from political crisis to psychological breakdown. He rails impotently at Goneril, comparing her ingratitude to violence: How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is / To have a thankless child! (1.4.287–288). Unable to maintain control within the domestic sphere, Lear flees into the storm in a desperate attempt to reclaim some sense of authority over his life.
The storm scene is crucial to understanding Lear's psychological state. When he commands Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! Rage, blow! (3.2.1), the external tempest becomes a mirror for his internal turmoil. This is a key moment of pathetic fallacy, where the natural world reflects human emotion.
The storm represents multiple things simultaneously: Lear's internal chaos, the breakdown of social order, and the indifference of nature to human suffering. Shakespeare uses the physical setting to externalize Lear's mental state, making his invisible psychological collapse visible to the audience.
Moral regeneration through suffering
Stripped of status and exposed to the elements, Lear begins to develop genuine empathy for others. His transformation is evident when he addresses the poor: Poor naked wretches, whereso'er you are, / That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm... (3.4.28–29). This marks his moral regeneration—he finally sees beyond his own needs and recognises the suffering of society's most vulnerable.
By the final act, Lear's grief has become profoundly human rather than regal. When Cordelia dies, he speaks with simple, devastating clarity: She's gone forever. / I know when one is dead and when one lives (5.3.306–307). Lear dies reconciled with Cordelia, purified through suffering, yet ultimately broken by it.
Connected themes
- Blindness and insight
- Nature and justice
- Authority and identity
- The relationship between suffering and wisdom
Cordelia
Integrity and moral constancy
Cordelia embodies integrity and filial piety (devotion to one's parents). Her refusal to participate in the love test demonstrates her moral consistency. She cannot heave [her] heart into [her] mouth (1.1.92), meaning she will not perform emotions she genuinely feels. Though punished for her honesty, Cordelia remains a symbol of redemption and divine grace throughout the play.
Cordelia's silence in Act 1 is often misunderstood by students as stubbornness. However, Shakespeare presents it as moral integrity—she values genuine emotion over theatrical performance. Her inability to "heave her heart into her mouth" suggests that true love resists commodification and public display.
Capacity for forgiveness
When Cordelia returns with the French forces to rescue her father, her response to his apologies is simply No cause, no cause (4.7.77). This brief phrase reveals her extraordinary capacity for forgiveness—she holds no resentment despite her father's terrible treatment of her.
Contextual significance
In the context of Jacobean England, Cordelia's Christianity-infused virtue aligns her with moral order, directly contrasting with her sisters' Machiavellian ambition (the ruthless pursuit of power). Shakespeare uses Cordelia as a spiritual counterpoint to Lear's pride, suggesting that genuine virtue requires humility and selflessness.
Goneril
Hypocrisy and calculated manipulation
Goneril represents hypocrisy and naked ambition. In the opening scene, she flatters her father extravagantly—Sir, I love you more than word can wield the matter (1.1.55)—yet immediately afterwards works to undermine him by reducing his retinue of knights. This swift reversal exposes the emptiness of her earlier declarations.
Her calculated manipulation extends beyond her father. She manipulates her husband Albany and pursues an affair with Edmund, revealing ruthless pragmatism. Her insult to Albany—Milk-livered man! (4.2.50)—typifies her contempt for moral restraint and traditional values.
Related themes
- Deceit and performance
- Corruption of power
- Unnatural femininity (the play questions what it means to be a 'natural' woman)
Regan
Mirroring and intensifying cruelty
Regan mirrors Goneril's cruelty but adds sadistic enthusiasm to her actions. She doesn't merely accept Gloucester's punishment—she actively encourages it. She condemns him as a filthy traitor (3.7.82) and urges the others to Pluck out his eyes! (3.7.56). Her coldness and active participation in violence intensify Lear's suffering and the play's atmosphere of moral decay.
When analyzing Goneril and Regan, avoid treating them as interchangeable. Whilst both are cruel, Shakespeare differentiates them: Goneril is more calculating and political, whilst Regan demonstrates more physical cruelty and derives pleasure from violence. Their similarities emphasize the theme of moral corruption, but their differences show Shakespeare's attention to individual characterisation.
Dramatic function
The doubling of the sisters (having two evil daughters rather than one) heightens the sense of moral decay and questions patriarchal expectations about feminine behaviour. Both sisters subvert traditional notions of female gentleness and obedience.
Associated themes
- Duplicity and betrayal
- Moral inversion (good is punished, evil is rewarded)
- Family betrayal
Gloucester
Parallel tragic arc
Gloucester functions as a tragic parallel to Lear. His credulousness (tendency to believe too readily) and eventual enlightenment form the play's secondary tragic arc. He misjudges Edmund's deception completely, praising him as a Loyal and natural boy (2.1.84–85) whilst condemning the innocent Edgar.
Worked Example: Understanding the Parallel Structure
Shakespeare deliberately parallels Lear and Gloucester to reinforce the play's central themes:
Lear's Journey:
- Misjudges his children (rejects Cordelia, trusts Goneril and Regan)
- Loses his authority and status
- Experiences metaphorical blindness (cannot see the truth)
- Gains insight through suffering
- Achieves reconciliation before death
Gloucester's Journey:
- Misjudges his children (rejects Edgar, trusts Edmund)
- Loses his position and property
- Experiences literal blindness (has his eyes gouged out)
- Gains insight through suffering
- Achieves reconciliation before death
Analytical Point: The parallel structure suggests that the themes of blindness, misjudgement, and redemptive suffering are universal rather than individual—Shakespeare is exploring fundamental aspects of human nature, not just one man's tragedy.
Physical blindness leads to insight
The blinding of Gloucester is one of the play's most brutal scenes, but it leads to his moral awakening. After losing his physical sight, Gloucester articulates a bleak vision of human existence: As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods; / They kill us for their sport (4.1.37–38). This suggests divine indifference to human suffering—the gods treat humans as cruelly as children treat insects.
Despite this nihilistic vision, Gloucester's attempted suicide and reunion with Edgar ultimately reflect redemptive enlightenment through suffering. Like Lear, Gloucester must lose everything to gain true understanding.
Thematic connections
- Sight and blindness (literal and metaphorical)
- Justice and divine order
- Parent-child relationships
- The question of whether suffering leads to wisdom
Edmund
The Machiavellian antagonist
Edmund serves as the play's primary antagonist, representing self-interest and cynicism. His soliloquy in Act 1 establishes his worldview: Thou, Nature, art my goddess; to thy law / My services are bound (1.2.1–2). He explicitly rejects social hierarchy and divine legitimacy, choosing instead to follow 'Nature'—meaning his own natural desires and ambitions rather than traditional moral or religious law.
His manipulation of letters and lies against Edgar exposes the fragility of patriarchal trust. Edmund demonstrates how easily social bonds can be broken by deception, particularly when people want to believe what they're told.
Edmund's appeal to "Nature" is philosophically complex. In the Renaissance, "Nature" could mean either the divine natural order (what we might call natural law) or raw, amoral natural instinct. Edmund deliberately chooses the second meaning, positioning himself against the religious and social structures his father represents.
Complexity and late redemption
Shakespeare grants Edmund psychological complexity. As he lies dying, he confesses: Some good I mean to do, / Despite of mine own nature (5.3.244–245). His moral awareness comes too late to prevent tragedy, underscoring the play's fatalism—the sense that certain outcomes are inevitable once set in motion.
Key themes
- Legitimacy and social hierarchy
- Ambition and materialism
- Natural law versus moral law
- The tension between self-interest and social bonds
Kent
Loyalty and moral integrity
Kent is loyal and morally grounded, representing selfless service without vanity or expectation of reward. He risks banishment by defending Cordelia in the opening scene, urging Lear to See better, Lear; and let me still remain / The true blank of thine eye (1.1.158–159). The metaphor of the 'true blank' (the centre of a target) suggests that Kent wants to be Lear's guide, helping him see clearly.
Disguise and continued service
After his banishment, Kent disguises himself as the servant 'Caius' and continues to aid Lear humbly. This demonstrates the depth of his loyalty—he serves not for recognition but because it is right.
Language and character
Kent's plain-spoken prose contrasts sharply with Lear's royal verse, illustrating the difference between sincerity and rhetoric. Whilst others use elaborate language to deceive, Kent speaks directly and honestly.
Central themes
- Loyalty and integrity
- Truth in speech versus deceit in flattery
- Service and duty
The Fool
Function as truth-teller
The Fool functions as Lear's conscience and truth-teller. His riddling humour and songs consistently expose Lear's folly. When he tells Lear Thou shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise (1.5.43–44), he states the obvious truth that everyone else avoids—Lear has aged without gaining wisdom.
Loyalty beneath the wit
Beneath his sharp wit lies deep loyalty and compassion. His final line in the play—I'll go to bed at noon (3.6.83)—signifies exhaustion and foreshadows death (going to bed at noon suggests dying before one's time). The Fool simply disappears from the play after Act 3, which many critics interpret as symbolic of the death of hope and sanity.
The Licensed Jester Tradition
The Fool embodies the licensed jester tradition of Renaissance courts. Jesters possessed a unique freedom to criticise power without punishment, as their role allowed them to speak truth under the guise of entertainment. Shakespeare uses this tradition brilliantly, making the Fool a bridge between comedy and tragedy. The play suggests that wisdom may appear in apparent madness—those society dismisses as foolish may see most clearly.
Historical and literary context
This traditional role gave Shakespeare's audience a framework for understanding the Fool's function—he can say what Kent cannot, precisely because his words are cloaked in apparent nonsense. The Fool demonstrates that truth-telling requires protection, whether through disguise (Kent) or through the licence of folly.
How to use character analysis in essays
AO2: Language and form
When writing about characters, analyse how Shakespeare's language choices—imagery, metaphor, or syntax—reflect psychological and moral shifts. For example, track how Lear's language changes from royal commands to fragmented speech as his sanity deteriorates.
Worked Example: Tracking Language Change
Early Lear (Act 1): "Come not between the dragon and his wrath!" (1.1.122)
- Imperatives and commands
- Mythic, elevated imagery
- Complete, controlled syntax
Mid-play Lear (Act 3): "Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! Rage, blow!" (3.2.1)
- Still using imperatives, but addressing nature instead of people
- Repetition suggests loss of control
- Fragmentation beginning
Late Lear (Act 5): "She's gone forever." (5.3.306)
- Simple, declarative statements
- No elaborate imagery
- Profound simplicity replaces earlier grandiosity
Analytical Point: The progression from elaborate royal rhetoric to simple, broken statements mirrors Lear's psychological journey from proud monarch to broken father. The simplification of language reflects gained wisdom, even as it demonstrates lost power.
AO3: Context and interpretation
Link character developments to Jacobean concerns. The fall of Lear's kingship connects to contemporary anxieties about succession, social hierarchy, and divine justice. Shakespeare's audience would have been particularly sensitive to questions about royal authority and the transfer of power.
AO5: Critical perspectives
Different critical approaches offer varying interpretations of character suffering. Critics often view Lear's suffering through two lenses:
- Christian reading: Lear's suffering is purgatorial—it cleanses and purifies him, preparing him for redemption
- Modern/existential reading: Lear's suffering is meaningless, reflecting an indifferent or absent God
Exam Tip for Critical Interpretations
Always connect character development to wider patterns of order, authority, and moral perception. Don't just describe what happens to characters—explain how their experiences illuminate the play's exploration of power, justice, family, and human nature. Use quotations precisely to support your analytical points, and consider multiple interpretations where appropriate.
When discussing critical perspectives, use phrases like "One interpretation suggests..." or "However, an alternative reading might argue..." to demonstrate sophisticated understanding of interpretative plurality.
Key Points to Remember:
- King Lear's journey: His transformation from proud monarch to empathetic sufferer illustrates how losing power can lead to gaining wisdom, though at a devastating cost.
- Sight and blindness: Both Lear and Gloucester must lose something (sanity, sight) before they can truly 'see' the truth about their families and themselves.
- Good versus evil daughters: Cordelia's honest simplicity contrasts with Goneril and Regan's elaborate deception, showing that true love doesn't need performative displays.
- The Fool and Kent: These loyal figures speak uncomfortable truths—the Fool through wit, Kent through directness—demonstrating that genuine service sometimes requires challenging authority.
- Edmund's complexity: Even the villain shows moral awareness at the end, suggesting Shakespeare's interest in psychological realism rather than simple good-versus-evil characterisation.
- Parallel structure: The doubling of Lear and Gloucester's stories emphasizes that the play's themes are universal human concerns, not isolated incidents.
- Language analysis: Always examine how Shakespeare's linguistic choices reflect character psychology—changes in imagery, syntax, and rhetoric reveal internal transformation.