Hi. I would appreciate if you would help proofread my essay. Also, how effective do you think my thesis (is it arguable and does it have relevance in world outside of literature)? Have I supported it with sufficient evidence in my body paragraphs? How well did I open my essay (opening strategy: rhetorical question followed by declarative statement)? How well did I close? At the high-school level, how would you grade me? Thank you in advance for all the help, I appreciate it.
Essay:
Do all old men truly possess wisdom because they can see their death on the horizon? Wisdom is a very valued and respected trait in our society and is associated with the elderly. In both King Lear by William Shakespeare and Tuesdays with Morrie by Mitch Albom, the protagonists were able to acquire wisdom after undergoing trials and tribulations. However, both these men began their quest as completely different people, polar opposites even. Morrie always emphasized the value of family and love, while King Lear saw these as trivial pursuits which at best can be used to elevate his ego. Morrie was disappointed by the way things were in his society, while initially King Lear did not care too much for it and accepted it. Morrie viewed death as completely natural and even an ideal way to live, while King Lear still wanted to live the life of a king despite dividing his land between his daughters. Despite being very different in both character and beliefs initially, both King Lear and Morrie came to acquire true wisdom by experiencing a fact of life which we regard as a phenomena; death.
Both these wise men once differed in values when it came to life. Morrie believed that it was better to rather perish than to live a life without any love, as he was quoted to have said "If you don't have the support and love and caring and concern that you get from a family, you don't have much at all. Love is so supremely important. As our great poet Auden said "Love each other or perish""(Albom 91). This quote illustrates Morrie's views of love and is of the opinion that it is better to die than to live a life devoid of love. Although Morrie grew up without much love in his life, it was for this reason why he emphasized the importance of love and family. Conversely, King Lear believed that family only exists to serve his needs. Quoted from King Lear "Tell me, my daughters, Since now we will divest us both of rule, Interest of territory, cares of state Which of you shall we say doth love us most That we our largest bounty may extend Where nature doth with merit challenge?"(I I 47-53). This quote exemplifies King Lear's conviction of family. He pitted his daughters against each other for his personal benefit. His love was also conditional, even though Cordelia was his known favorite amongst his daughters, he warned her "How, how, Cordelia? Mend your speech a little, Lest you may mar your fortunes." (I I 94-95). This quote reinforces the fact that he believed that love in a family is unilateral, that is, he should only receive love but never give any. Contrarily, Morrie's love for his family was unconditional and a two-way street. However, Lear realized the true value of unconditional love when Cordelia returned despite after disowning and cursing her, but it was too late. While Morrie learned the value of love through the lack of it earlier in his life, King Lear would learn it through the death of his beloved daughter. Both would cherish family and life even more after coming to terms with death, and realize the ills of their respective societies.
Both Lear and Morrie also once had different perspectives on life and society. King Lear accepted the hierarchy of his society, of course, since he was the pinnacle of the "great chain of being". Quoted from King Lear "All I ask is that you provide me with a hundred knights for my own entourage. I'll keep only the title of king..."(I I 136-138). This quote exemplifies King Lear's view of society and that he comes before society, depriving 100 knights from society for his own personal benefit. Morrie, on the other hand, was disgusted by his society and how materialistic it was. Quoted from Tuesdays with Morrie "Do you know how they brainwash people? They repeat something over and over again. And that's what we do in this country. Owning things is good. More money is good. More property is good. More commercialism is good...We repeat it-and have it repeated to us-over and over until nobody bother to even think other wise" (Albom 124). This quote demonstrates Morrie's disgust with society and how it constantly promotes materialism rather than important things such as love, which evidenced by this quote "You know how I always interpreted that? These people were so hungry for love that they were accepting substitutes" (Albom 125). The relevance of this quote is that Morrie believes that people are materialistic due to a lack of love in their lives. Similarly, King Lear also realizes the ills of his society during his hardships. Quoted from Lear "Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand. Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back. Thou hotly lust'st to use her in that kind For which thou whipp'st her. The usurer hangs the cozener. (IV vi 152-157). This quote really exemplifies both his disgust of the social customs of his time and how it favors the rich but frowns on the poor. Lear also regrets not being a just king and mistreating the poor as a result of being too materialistic. He laments "Poor naked wretches, whereso'er you are, That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm, How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides, Your looped and windowed raggedness, defend you From seasons such as these? Oh, I have ta'en Too little care of this!" (III iv 30-34). Although Morrie was aware of the problems of his society and always spoke out against them, King Lear was only able to come to this conclusion and acquire this wisdom through difficult tribulations. However, it was through seeing their inevitable death on the horizon which raised their awareness of the problems that are rampant in their respective societies.
Morrie and Lear had contrasting views of death as well before their acquisition of wisdom. Initially, Lear believed he would die as a king and even in his old age when dividing his kingdom between his daughters, he believed death was distance as evidenced from the text "All I ask is that you provide me with a hundred knights for my own entourage. I'll keep only the title of king... (I i 136-138). Lear did not believe in preparing for death or saying goodbye to his loved ones, as he still wanted to live like a king even after dividing his kingdom and wealth. Conversely, Morrie believed that death should be accepted and even an ideal way to live. Quoted from Morrie "Oh yes, you strip away all that stuff and you focus on the essentials. When you realize you are going to die, you see everything much differently...Learn how to die, and you learn how to live" (Albom 83). This quote exemplifies that Morrie believed if more people lived as if they were going to die at any moment, then the world would be a much more positive place. Morrie was also optimistic and grateful for his disease and how long he had to say his farewells to his loved ones, quoted from the text "It's horrible to watch my body wilt away to nothing. But it's also wonderful because of all the time I get to say good-bye." (Albom 57). On the other hand, King Lear was coming to terms with his own mortality. When Gloucestor asked to kiss his hand, he responded "Let me wipe it first, it smells of mortality." (IV vi 125-126). This quote really illustrates Lear's newfound humbleness and acceptance of death. Morrie and Lear both achieved wisdom and enlightenment by coming to terms with their deaths, something both people and society can learn from to improve their lives.
King Lear and Morrie Schwartz are very much alike, despite being completely different people before their acquisition of wisdom. They both were able to attain enlightenment and contentment through difficult hardships and aware of the problems that are in their society. They have come to learn that if more people were aware of death and lived everyday as if they were to die, they would live more fulfilling and satisfying lives. Through their acquisition of wisdom, they have realized the importance of family and love, except they only differ in respect where King Lear is filled with regret while Morrie gains an even higher appreciation for it. Death is a fact of life that we must accept and embrace. People should not live life until they can see their death on the horizon.
All in all I'd say you've done a good job. For a high school paper that is.
I am a college student studying Theatre and I've actually been in a production of King Lear
I'm not going to attack your essay because I haven't read Tuesdays with Morrie, but I'm gonna give you a few pointers and things I saw.
. make sure the titles of the play, and the title of the book are italicized.
when you quote a quote inside a book the quotation marks should look like "'
the quote from the poet inside the book should be surrounded with 'these'
I would say that your thesis is a little confusing. It's an interesting thesis, yes, but the problem with it also lies in the examples you give to support it. Although I wouldn't recommend changing your essay entirely I would say in retrospect you might've wanted to find another character besides Lear. You have of course read the play so you know that he dies at the end of the play after going completely insane. I would argue that the poor man never obtained any wisdom throughout the course of the play, as it's very difficult to attain wisdom when you are insane. The trials and tribulations he went through never gave him any insight, they drove him to madness.
. King Lear is not the protagonist of the play. Although the play is entitled "King Lear" he is merely a plot point and a foil for the actual protagonists.
. Also, Lear never saw family as a "way to elevate his ego". It's clear from the action of the play that he loves Cordelia dearly, and he also knows that Goneril, and Reagan are not the loving daughters they pretend to be. So when He says
"How, how, Cordelia? Mend your speech a little, Lest you may mar your fortunes."
his intent is to not only tell her that he loves her, but there is also the hope that she will not become like her older sisters (treacherous serpents)
The reason Lear originally chose to split the kingdom up is not because he was lazy, and thought he was above everyone else it was because he was getting old and he thought it would be wise to split the kingdom that way he wouldn't have to worry about ruining it in his old age (which he ends up doing anyways) or future conflict between his daughters after his death.
Kent's revolt against Lear's actions arises not from Lear's initial undertaking but from his reaction to Cordelia. Notice too that he does not protest when Lear asks for a competition for love from his daughters or when Goneril and Regan respond in very coarse, superficial words. He only strikes against Lear's rule when Lear does not notice the sincerity of Cordelia's words and then moves to strip her of his love and titles.
When Lear says the line "Poor naked wretches, whereso'er you are, That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm, How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides, Your looped and windowed raggedness, defend you From seasons such as these? Oh, I have ta'en Too little care of this!" You have hit that one on the head. Lear refers to the poor he has neglected during his rule, but instead of bringing him wisdom, this again drives him deeper into his madness. After this Lear meets Edgar and in his mixed up state he takes Edgar's insanity as wisdom and philosophy
You should probably know by reading the play the Lear never saw his death coming. The reason he died was because his heart gave out after Cordelia was killed. You say that "However, it was through seeing their inevitable death on the horizon which raised their awareness of the problems that are rampant in their respective societies"
I would say that the tribulations helped Lear see his mistakes, not his inevitable death on the horizon, which although it was inevitable was something that he himself never saw coming
I'd also like to look at this section
"Initially, Lear believed he would die as a king and even in his old age when dividing his kingdom between his daughters, he believed death was distance as evidenced from the text 'All I ask is that you provide me with a hundred knights for my own entourage. I'll keep only the title of king...' (I i 136-138). Lear did not believe in preparing for death or saying goodbye to his loved ones, as he still wanted to live like a king even after dividing his kingdom and wealth."
He still died as a king despite the action in the play.
If the point of your essay is that old men are wise because of the inevitability of their death then this doesn't really help the point. Of course he didn't believe in preparing for death, he was old but not dying or even close to it. Before the circumstances he went through in the play he was perfectly healthy, he had no need to prepare for death. There was also no need to say goodbye to his loved ones as he would see them whenever he went to visit them.
As for living like a king, of course he would want to after earning all the wealth himself, he expects a little paternal respect from his children.
I'm going to say NO WAY to the phrase "They both were able to attain enlightenment and contentment through difficult hardships and aware of the problems that are in their society."
NO.WAY.
King Lear never attained contentment. It's a tragedy play for a reason. He died holding his beloved daughter in his arms and his heart burst because he couldn't take everything that had happened
I almost feel as if you haven't actually read King Lear because you have missed some key points in the play which shows in the paper.
I know I said I wasn't going to attack your essay and I feel kind of bad, but if your teacher has read the play they're going to wonder if you actually read it, or if you picked up a study guide about the play and read that instead. I do wish I had read Tuesdays with Morrie but oh well.
There was a quotation mark missing after "I'll keep the title of king..."
I would say to rethink your conclusion.
Your thesis again, is a nice statement but it's confusing because being well versed on King Lear I don't feel as though it applies to the supporting evidence.
As for a grade that's tough. In a lower level class this paper would probably get an A. If you're in a senior class though and your teacher has read King Lear you're gonna get hit hard. If it was my class I would give it a C, possibly a B- if you didn't have any grammatical or parenthetical errors. So you can expect a B or A as it is now. But obviously you care about the paper so I think you could make it that A+
Hopefully this helps!!!
I know he dies, and it would have been easier for me to prove that only Morrie gained true wisdom while King Lear did not. But my teacher gave me this difficult topic of proving how "both these protagonists acquire and achieve wisdom, despite their differences.". So if King Lear does never achieve wisdom, does that make my essay obsolete? I can't exactly argue with my teacher either and say "you are wrong" since other students are doing it. Of course he never attained true contentment, as I highlighted the differences between them where Lear was filled with regret, but he did attain wisdom, did he not?
How is the grammar by the way? I was hoping if you could make any corrections. Thanks in advance.
This is great thread.
Here is an idea that you may or may not like:
Wisdom, a very valued and respected trait in our society, is associated with the elderly.
When writing about literature, use the present verb tense:
In both King Lear by William Shakespeare and Tuesdays with Morrie by Mitch Albom, the protagonists are able to ...
... by experiencing a fact of life which we regard as a phenomena: death.---I changed it to a colon. Use a colon in a situation like this one. Also, I want to mention that it does not seem to make sense when you say we "regard it as a phenomenon." What does that mean? I regard all things as phenomena.
Use a comma to separate quoted stuff from the rest of the sentence:
Quoted from King Lear "Tell me, my...
Unlike Morrie, who is aware of the problems of his society and always spoke out against them, King Lear is only able to ...
:-)
So if King Lear does never achieve wisdom, does that make my essay obsolete?
No... presentation is everything. You can explain that he gained wisdom, and you can prove it by showing that he made mistakes. Showing that someone was mistaken can be the same as showing that they gained wisdom.
Know what I mean? Instead of saying he made mistakes, say he gained wisdom, and then explain his mistakes.
Ah, I see. So how well do you think I proved that he gained wisdom, Kevin? What do you think of the structure, and thesis? And aside from those grammatical errors, is the rest of the essay grammatically sound? And would "tragedy" be a more a suitable substitute to "phenomena"?
Thanks for all your help by the way, I appreciate it.
Yes, tragedy is a much better word there! Good idea.
Also, I think you did well showing that they both gained wisdom. The structure is very good for conveying that idea..."Both would cherish family and life even more after coming to terms with death, and realize the ills of their respective societies." This sums the first part up well. And then you show how they have a shift of perspective.
