Tragic Redemption

The use of tragic redemption is perhaps one of Shakespeare's favorite literary devices. He uses it beautifully in plays such as Othello and Hamlet, and perfects it in King Lear. At first glance, these plays seem void of any element of redemption.. In Othello we see a tragic ending in which Desdemona and Othello die ingloriously and without reason except to quench the base desires of Iago. In Hamlet we see the prince of Denmark avenge his murdered father and poisoned mother, only to swiftly die himself. And in King Lear we see an ending that, according to critic Thomas Roche, is "as bleak and unrewarding as man can reach outside the gates of Hell".

I suppose that if one has grown up watching too many Hollywood movies the idea of redemption correlates directly with the movie The Shawshank Redemption in which Andy Dufresne escapes through a river of shit and triumphantly holds his hands to the sky as lightning, thunder, and rain fall from the heavens. In principle, both Shakespeare's use of tragic redemption and The Shawshank Redemption's triumphant victory scene are the same. Each character has fallen to a depth unimaginably foreboding, but they all depart with an achievement/redeeming quality essential to the wholeness of their characters.

In Othello we see a man of unequaled integrity and inner strength succumb to the seeds of doubt planted by Iago, and as a result he kills the woman he loves. The tragic redemption comes into play after Othello learns of Iago's treachery and Desdemona's innocence, and in response he ends his own life. His death shows the audience that he would rather die than live a life permanently stained with the horror of what he'd done. Balance is restored in the end with Iago's death sentence, though his actual death is never observed..

The use of tragic redemption in Hamlet is slightly different than within Othello. The satisfaction of revenge is achieved as we witness the fall of all of Hamlet's adversaries, but cruelly, we are robbed of the promise and satiety of Hamlet's reign over Denmark. His death, like Othello's, seems unworthy of his life, but after falling from such heights he also achieves a measure of redemption before his end. He concludes his life with these words to Horatio:

O God, Horatio, what a wounded name,

Things standing thus unknown, shall I leave behind

me!

If thou didst eve hold me in thy heart,

Absent thee from felicity awhile,

And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain,

To tell my story.

(V.2.325-332)

And with this speech we know that Hamlet's name will be restored, bringing both sadness for his death and contentment at the knowledge of his redeemed honor.

In King Lear, the audience is provided no such comforts in the notion of redemption. To the untrained eye, one sees a man who witnesses the deaths of everyone he once loved, and ultimately die himself, void of love and worth. A death in vain. Upon reading King Lear one naturally poses the question, what was the point? But I argue the point was to perfect with the utmost subtlety the use of tragic redemption.

Lear reveals himself in the beginning of the play as a man blinded by ignorance. By the end of the play he can at last see the truth. As it is eloquently summed up by an unknown author on an English Literature forum I stumbled upon, "Shakespeare shows that it is Lear’s suffering that leads to his learning and his subsequent redemption. Prior to Lear’s painful banishment, he is a pampered, flattered king living a false life, full of false love. It is excruciating for Lear to face that his life has been 80 years of lies, but in order to learn the truth, he must first suffer through the pain, and as Shakespeare clearly shows, it is better to learn through suffering than to remain comfortable and ignorant. Therefore, Lear’s life is worth all of the agonies it incurs; after all, it is only after Lear begins to suffer that he truly begins to live."