King Lear, is a play written by Shakespeare, any critic will attest how carefully this work of art was conceived. However, many firmly argue that this comedy should be described as a tragedy, no more, no less. On the other hand, some critics believe that because the work concluded leaving readers with such strong emotions, there is a sense of catharsis and therefore the work cannot be described as a tragedy. David Bevington takes the view that King Lear should be classified as a tragedy. Specifically, he argues that the play's ending is why it can be described as a tragedy. An argument by Angel Bell argues the exact opposite. Angel Bell believes that King Lear as a whole possesses a great deal of catharsis. The ending in particular is the reason why the work cannot be considered a tragedy. The discussion centers on whether or not readers feel a sense of relief after the show ends. If there is no sense of relief, then David Bevington is right to classify the play as a tragedy. But, if the reader receives some sort of relief when the play comes to an end, then Angel Bell has demonstrated that there is a sense of catharsis in the play. There can't be both. However, for these argumentative essays to be considered credible, the authors must follow a logical argument. The logical argument consists of four main points: relevance, acceptability, sufficiency and refutation. A credible argumentative essay must possess all four of these points. Overall, both David Bevington and Angel Bell provide persuasive arguments, but Angel Bell rewards the most convincing evidence that Shakespeare's King Lear has a sense of catharsis. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay David Bevington provides a solid argument when it comes to describing the play as a tragedy. Bevington's argument consists largely of evidence that has great relevance in proving his point. First, Bevington cites a quote from the play in which Lear is furious with Goneril. The quote reads: "How much sharper than a serpent's tooth / To have an ungrateful son!". At first glance this passage may not seem relevant to the conclusion he is trying to draw, but his analysis shows that it is actually excellent evidence. Bevington's analysis points out that Leer is comparing Goneril to a serpent. This is a biblical reference to Satan in the Garden of Eden. This is relative evidence because this biblical reference points to the fact that it was a serpent that initiated the beginning of the fall of man. Bevington points this out because Shakespeare's character Leer is saying that Goneril is the reason he fell. This is important because Bevington shows Shakespeare's foreshadowing of the tragic fall at the end of the play, similar to the tragic fall of man in the Garden of Eden. Bevington not only uses relevant evidence but also uses acceptable evidence in his argumentative essay. Continuing with the animal-based metaphors, Bevington uses another excerpt that Leer states once he realizes the damage Regan has done. The excerpt states: “skin your wolf face.” Here Leer found himself with nothing and no one. It is clear that Leer is lonely because he has sunk low enough to call his daughter a wolf. Bevington uses this quote because it shows that Leer not only believes that his daughters have fallen into animalistic chaos, but also because it shows that he himself has fallen to an animalistic level. This is an acceptable argument because the quote used by Bevington indicatesdirectly a reference to an animal. No mature person could read that quote and think differently, which is why his argument cannot be disputed. David Bevington does his duty as a critic by providing relevant and acceptable evidence. David Bevington is focused on solidifying his argument for identifying King Lear as a tragedy, he is shown to use relevant and acceptable evidence, but will he also use sufficient evidence and offer a chance for refutation? The next point Bevington makes in his argumentative essay centers on a quote that takes place when Shakespeare's character Albany sides with Leer. Albany, also indignant at Goneril, calls her a serpent, a "golden serpent" (5.3.86). Bevington uses this slide towards Goneril to bring together his previous two points. Bevington highlights another animal metaphor that demonstrates that at this point in the play the characters have succumbed to an animalistic being. There are no more rules or guidelines, it's chaos. This quote once again emphasizes Bevington's point that the characters in King Lear have fallen to an animal level. This quote also refers to the "fallen" theme that Bevington made in the previous paragraph. The reference to the serpent refers to Satan and refers to the beginning of the fall of man. Bevington concludes his argument with what is one of the most prescient quotes in the work. Bevington says it is this scene with “Cordelias, dead limp body” that is most tragic of all. This is the fall that has been foretold. “I know when one is dead and when one lives;/ She is as dead as the earth.” Bevington closes his argument with this quote because of its disparity. There is no mention of hope or possibility, and it is above all for this reason that he maintains that the work is a tragedy. Although David Bevington's argument up to this point was solid, he abruptly ends his essay here. Bevington's essay is missing a necessary key component that any sensible argument needs, a refutation. Bevington speaks of “Albany becoming more and more sympathetic to Lear's cause as time passes” but does not state the possibility that this is a sign of hope. Overall, Bevington's argument was good because it used relevant, acceptable and sufficient evidence but lacking because there was no rebuttal evidence. Angel Bell believes that there is a sense of catharsis in King Lear, meaning that the play cannot be classified as a tragedy. This is a relative argument because if he were right in his argument, then how the work is read and how it is classified moving forward would change. Bell uses relative evidence to prove his point. Bell uses Edmund and Edgar as his first main argument. In King Lear Edmund is an evil character, Edmund is the bastard son of Gloucester. He is jealous of Gloucester's legitimate son, Edgar. Edmund subjects Edgar to a great deal of pain and suffering because Gloucester would give all of his land and wealth to Edgar. Edmund is clearly a villain in the play. However, Bell uses Edmund's death to support his underlying point. Towards the end of the novel, Edmund is killed in a duel and Edgar regains what was his in the beginning, his father's land and riches. Bell argues that because Edgar ultimately received his fortune, the reader gains a sense of catharsis. Edmund's death and Edgar's gain are right, and this evidence gives comfort to the reader. This is relevant evidence in a relevant topic. Bell also uses acceptable evidence in his argument. Bell points out that according to Aristotle a tragedy “should arouse emotions of pity and fear, but in a healthy and,.
tags