King Lear and the Concept of Adversity

In order to determine what makes certain people succeed in King Lear, it must first be determined who succeeds. Some would argue that there is no one that meets their goals over the course of the play. I think it is important, though, to acknowledge those who are still alive at the end of the play: Edgar and Albany. Both went under disguise and had noble intentions. This is quite important. Edgar was not attempting to wreak havoc, or more importantly, benefit himself. By intending to help others, he profitted himself. Albany behaved likewise, thinking primarily of the King's benefit.

For those characters that did die, which seems to be more than half of the characters of the book, the method of death reveals much about the characters themselves. Goneril killed Regan and then killed herself; both are fitting crimes for the two women. Edmund was murdered as he had intended to murder others. These characters didn't think of the well-being of others, and acted to ruin it. In a way, their deaths are karma. Cordelia, on the other hand, died as a martyr, which is an honorable death. Lear, likewise, died of grief. The two of them were not attacked in the end.

So, essentially, the intentions of the characters reflect back to their success. I'm not sure if I agree entirely with the way this play ended up, because while intentions are indeed reflective of character, it is the actions that truly make one good. While King Lear had decent intentions, there were no redeeming acts about him. I'm sure most students applying to NYU have great intentions, but it is the actions that make the different.