| Papers [1-15] of 55 :: [Page 1 of 4] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 —> | Search results on "KINGS FOOLS": |
|
|
Kings and Fools, 2004.
A look at how England perceived its nobility through William Shakespeare's works "Henry IV" and "King Lear".
2,274 words (approx. 9.1 pages), 0 sources, MLA, $ 70.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper attempts to show how William Shakespeare perceived the contemporary monarchy as well as the monarchy of the past through a careful textural analysis of selected scenes in "Henry IV, Part I" and "King Lear". It looks at how both plays deal with the monarchy as central roles and, thus, are ideal for a study of Shakespeare?s insights on the ruling elite. It attempts to weave together both texts to show the Bard?s opinion on being ruled by a central authority figure.
From the Paper
"The question of honor is time and time again brought up in the play. It is an odd question being that none of the main characters seems to be inclined any great deal with it. The prince is noble, but acts with a complete disregard of honor. Hotspur, while brave and vigilant in battle, is seen as fanatic and unyielding to authority, as well as self-absorbed. The king conspires against his own nobles and trusts few in turn. Of all the places to look for honor, it might serve best to look at the character of Falstaff. Falstaff is the last place one would think to look for a notion such as honor, but it is a fascinating read of his character. Consider that of all the characters, Falstaff alone is completely open and trusting with his character."
| |
|
King Lear and the Fool, 2002.
An examination of the characters of King Lear and the Fool and how character determines conduct.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the concept of how "character determines conduct", or how the personal qualities of the individual is reflected through their behavior. The text used to demonstrate this theme is Shakespeare's "King Lear", where the characters of Lear and the Fool are analyzed.
| |
|
Court of King Lear: Who is the Fool?, 2005.
A look at William Shakespeare's 'King Lear' with specific focus on the role of the fool.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 6 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews the role of the fool in the play 'King Lear' by William Shakespeare. According to this paper, the fool is not only the vehicle of comic relief, but also delivers an important philosophical and political message.
From the Paper
"FOOL [fool] or court jester, is a person who entertains with buffoonery and an often caustic wit (FOOL). The Fool appears often in Shakespeare's work, but nowhere is it more notable than in King Lear. For some, the character merely offers a sort of comic relief from Lear's increasingly tragic existence ("Comic Relief in King Lear"), while other critics see the Fool as an important philosophical and political statement (Bate). [King Lear] moves from a theoretical and philosophical inquiry into deep causes to a practical faith in the surface of human actions and a trust in the wisdom to be gained from immediate experience" (Bate). In addition to the debates surrounding the role of the Fool in King Lear, critics are unsure of which character the Fool is most closely connected (Bate)."
| |
|
The Fool in "King Lear", 2006.
Explores the role of the Fool in Shakespeare's tragic play, "King Lear".
1,059 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 0 sources, $ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The Fool in William Shakespeare's "King Lear" is often mistaken as foolhardy, but everything he says has a deeper significance and greater truth. Since he is the court jester, the audience assumes that the Fool's main purpose is to entertain us. The paper shows that the Fool's dramatic function is not to humor us, but to tell King Lear the truth through his metaphoric rhymes and jests. The Fool is a representation of King Lear's psyche. The paper explains that when the Fool disappears after Act III, scene ii, what is left of King Lear's stable mentality quickly disintegrates. The relationship between King Lear is not one of master and servant. The Fool could be considered King Lear's subconscious; he has perceptions the King Lear does not. With his knowledge, the Fool tries to teach King Lear how to reason out the truth for himself.
From the Paper
"The Fool states that King Lear was wise in a time when he did not need it as he doe now. King Lear was a wise King but when his wisdom was greatly needed he did not apply his knowledge. The Fool states that he is merely a Fool, but he would rather be a Fool than a befallen King. He strives to inform Lear of how adverse his situation is, but King Lear still does not fully comprehend the Fool's metaphors. Before King Lear decided to see his other daughter, Regan, the Fool warns King Lear that Regan's reception will be similar if not worse than Gonerils'."
| |
|
The Fool in "King Lear", 2002.
A discussion of the function and effectiveness of the character of the fool in William Shakespeare?s ?King Lear?.
1,440 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 0 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper examines how "King Lear" is an epic tragedy, which has been passed down through generations as a masterpiece. It looks at how the mastery does not lay in the character of the work?s anti-hero, but in the lowliest servant in the kingdom, the King?s fool. It evaluates how because the tragedy is so thick, the fool is needed to provide the leverage the audience needs in order to still obtain a lesson. It analyzes how the fool never ceases to be obvious and blunt with the King and how he is the only one who can do this without being offensive.
From the Paper
"When discussing how well The Fool aided the King in both the realization and potential correction of his mistakes, we must see the final product of his work throughout the play, which is solely the task of opening his master?s eyes in hopes of changing his behavior. Of course, how much could Lear have rerouted his inheritance through a more sensible direction, such as giving his land all to the daughter who loved him most, Cordelia, so as not to break up the kingdom, once the initial damage was done? This would have been nearly impossible to wholly correct, and is what makes the play a sure tragedy. It can be seen how effective The Fool was by his final sightings in Act III, scenes ii, iv, and vii, because as the play proceeds, more and more of his character, and Lear?s character are shown, it is just like getting to know a friend, who at first may seem like a simple person to figure out, but who in reality has several layers of depth."
| |
|
The Fool in "King Lear", 2006.
Examines the contribution of the Fool in William Shakespeare's play, "King Lear".
1,882 words (approx. 7.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 60.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The parallel stories of Lear's and Gloucester's sufferings at the hands of their own children reflect anxieties that would have been close to home for Shakespeare's audience. This paper explains that many of William Shakespeare's plays feature a clown of some sort, and "King Lear" arguably has two such clowns: the Fool himself and Edgar in his later disguise as Tom O'Bedlam. This essay focuses on the character of the Fool in the play, and how he can be compared to Cordelia. The author of the paper considers the contribution he makes to the play and his importance to the play as a whole in terms of the influence he has over events and other characters. The paper concludes that "King Lear" would not be the same without the character of Fool.
From the Paper
"The word 'pined' again makes the Fool sound like a dog or puppy and suggests that there is some sort of connection between Cordelia and the Fool. They are linked in the text emotionally not only because the Fool is clearly upset when Cordelia is banished, but also because they are closest to Lear and loved most by him. It is noticeable that Cordelia and the Fool do not appear on stage at the same time at any point in the play."
| |
|
?Fools Rush In? and ?Love Story?, 2002.
This paper compares the similar thematic background of the films ?Fools Rush In? (1997) and ?Love Story? (1970).
1,050 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 2 sources, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses that the romantic comedy ?Fools Rush In? and the drama ?Love Story? both present a society in which social differences can be overcome by love, part of the American Dream. The paper explains that ?Love Story? is a tragic story about the marriage of two young people, which also delves into the relationship each has with their father. The author feels that ?Fools Rush In? is not a very good film, too given to stereotypes to be more than a frilly comedy.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Background
Arguments
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The couples in these two films are drawn quite differently, though in both cases the male has a family seen as too stiff and soulless to allow for change, while the female has a family that is earthy, real, and open to change. This is less evident in "Fools Rush In" given that the girl's family also opposes this marriage and sees one element of the American Dream to be being left to live in a social and cultural enclave with your own kind, which is not that different from the way the WASP parents view what they want. The American Dream in "Love Story" is too widely accepted to be one specific thing. It is also too easy to achieve, with differences between ethnic groups being minimal when all are at least White if not of the same religion or background."
| |
|
"Ship of Fools", 2002.
An analysis of Katherine Anne Porter's version of the story "Ship of Fools".
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will discuss the book "Ship of Fools" by Katherine Porter, and seek to understand it main objectives in the way that it conveys meaning to the reader. By understanding this old story, in the format of a Texan point of view, we can see the author's native application to an old story coming through in the tale. The characters have different names, but ideas of travel are the no different in this version of the story.
| |
|
"Fools Rush In" and "Love Story", 2000.
An examination of the role and significance of the American Dream in two films depicting love and social differences.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 0 sources, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Introduction
The recent film Fools Rush In (1997) and the film Love Story (1970) are very different in terms of genre, with the newer film being a romantic comedy while the earlier one is a drama. The two films do share a thematic background that includes a society in which social differences can be overcome by love. Underlying this belief is a view of the power of the American Dream which allows people to cross social barriers, something seen as much more difficult in other societies. The idea of the American Dream is presented in different terms, and the 1970 film shows the dream to be one attained again and again by new waves of immigrants from different regions as they climb the ladder and succeed on their own terms. The image of the American Dream in Love Story, however, is also rather simplistic, as is its view of..."
| |
|
"Leaders, Fools and Impostors" ( Kets De Vries ), 1999.
Summary and review of essays on deceptions in and psychodynamics of organizational leadership.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 1 source, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The purpose of this research is to examine Leaders, Fools, and Impostors: Essays on the Psychology of Leadership by Kets de Vries. The plan of the research will be to set forth in general terms the thesis of the book, and then to provide a summary of the ideas contained in each of the essays in the book, with a view toward evaluating whether it could be recommended for further research on the topic of leadership.
In this collection of essays, Kets de Vries takes a psychological approach to the study of leadership as a feature of the "psychodynamics of organizations" (xiv). It is not too much to say that the approach is a combination of psychobiography and psychohistory, for he provides numerous specific real-life examples of how leaders have failed the test of leadership owing to psychologically motivated actions, attitudes, and behaviors."
| |
|
Puck and Fool - A Comparison, 2007.
This paper compares and contrasts the roles of Puck from Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream" to Fool from "King Lear."
1,045 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper introduces, discusses, and analyzes the plays "King Lear" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream" by William Shakespeare. Specifically it compares and contrasts the character of "Puck," the mischievous fairy, with "Fool," King Lear's professional court jester. The author argues that although both are minor characters in the plays, they are quite important to the overall impact and import of the works.
From the Paper
"Puck, whose real name is Robin Goodfellow, plays the jester to his fairy king in "A Midsummer Night's Dream." He is the head fairy in this delightful work, and some critics call him the central character or the most important part in the play. Much of the play's action revolves around him or something he has done. He is comical, infuriating, and is part of the reason this play is so magical and still popular today. The "Fool" is also a jester but he is a more serious type of character, who often chides Lear or guides him with his seemingly nonsensical words, such as, "The codpiece that will house / Before the head has any, / The head and he shall louse; / So beggars marry many. / The man that makes his toe / What he his heart should make, / Shall of a corn cry woe, / And turn his sleep to wake" ("Lear," 1993, 3.2.25-32). Fool actually speaks wisely but clouds his wise words with nonsense. Puck, in contrast, is often nonsensical and witty. His part plays for laughs, while Fool may gain laughter but his real purpose is to advise and influence his king. In addition, Fool is hired for his jesting and advice, while Puck serves freely and without pay or responsibility."
| |
|
"King Lear", 2002.
The following essay discusses the character of the 'fool' in William Shakespeare?s tragedy "King Lear."
840 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 0 sources, MLA, $ 29.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the ? fool?s? role in "King Lear". According to the author the ?fool? holds three very important purposes in the play ? he represents the inner-conscience, provides advice and basic reasoning for the King, and also entertains the King with his witty and sometimes foolish banter.
From the Paper
?While these roles are clear, the Fool has little impact on the outcome of the play, and could very easily be removed from the story all together. In doing so, much of the lighthearted side of this tragedy would disappear, which may have been Shakespeare?s main purpose in ever including the Fool as a character. Time and time again, the Fool tries to tell King Lear what a grave mistake he has made by selecting Regan and Goneril as his heirs. Shakespeare uses such unusual methods of oration through the Fool. The Fool is not ignorant, nor is he the one who is behaving foolishly, but he uses humor instead of sternness to point out his King?s mistakes.?
| |
|
Madness in "King Lear" and "Twelfth Night", 2002.
Examines the multiple levels of the theme of madness in two plays by William Shakespeare, "King Lear" and "Twelfth Night".
2,150 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 6 sources, $ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Madness in Shakespearean plays has distinct and multiple meanings and purposes. On one level, the madness of insanity is clearly felt in the tragedies like "Lear". On another, madness is also felt in the frenetic pace of impossible situations and comedic errors in judgment as is found in "Twelfth Night". Madness is, then, both tragic and comedic. But, it is much more than that. Madness represents a loss of control, of being borne by unnatural impulses, drivesa nd, perhaps, voices. Being mad is to not be yourself, it is to have lost touch with humanity, with life and with reality. The mad are excused from the rules of man and at the same time, tragically bound by them. For some, in madness is found freedom. Lear is wrapped, tightly, within a horrible prison created by his inability to see through the duplicitous daughters and embrace the one person in his life that loves him enough to refuse him. His madness, in the end, is what sets him free of the binds that his daughters and his pride had him in. The madness, however, is like the release from an intense and long-term drug addiction, it is horrible to watch, but leaves Lear in a better state afterward, free of poisons. Madness also allows otherwise straight-laced, bound by social rules (which were oppressive in Elizabethan England), to freely express inner passions, make mistakes and be fools in the eyes of others without fear of recourse, as is the case with nearly every character in "Twelfth Night". It is the purpose of this paper to examine the nature of madness in the Shakespearean context, how it plays out in both King Lear and Twelfth Night, and the meaning behind the madness in both works.
| |
|
King Lear, 2005.
An analysis of William Shakespeare's presentation of the character of King Lear.
2,395 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 0 sources, $ 73.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is an exploration of the presentation of the titular character in the play "King Lear", from a wide overview of his disintegration and changing role, to analysis of specific quotes from the text which give us insight into Shakespeare's intentions. It covers Lear's presentation in the first act, and how his language, introduction and interplay with the other characters is designed by Shakespeare to make him a figure of status and significance, then considers the role of characters such as Cordelia, the Fool and Gloucester in providing us with more insight into Lear's true nature. There is close analysis of Lear's use of language, and how Shakespeare crafts this to reflect the King's shifting mind state over the course of the play.
From the Paper
"Shakespeare presents Lear in the first act as having his own secret agenda. he admits to having a 'darker purpose' and explains his 'fast intent' to the court. The phrase 'darker purpose' hints that Lear masks his true objectives behind a more cautious public agenda. Shakespeare portrays Lear through such comments as a sharp King who considers his position carefully in vital matters, a man who reveals his thoughts only when he deems it to be necessary - who plots his every action. This presentation will fall in sharp and deliberate contrast with Lear's behaviour later in the play, when he sticks stubbornly to a single, unwise agenda and uses desperate tactics to try to enforce it."
| |
|
Blindness in "King Lear", 2005.
An exploration of the ways in which William Shakespeare presents the theme of sight and blindness in "King Lear".
2,107 words (approx. 8.4 pages), 0 sources, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how the theme of sight, insight and their relevance to clear vision is a recurring issue throughout Shakespeare's tragic play, "King Lear". It looks at how this theme is mainly portrayed through the characters of Lear, Gloucester and Albany and how subtle references are also apparent through the dialogue of Cordelia and the Fool.
From the Paper
"King Lear's lack of sight yet desire to see is apparent during Act 1, Scene 4 in that he is highly inquisitive upon meeting disguised Kent and asks twice "what art thou?" suggesting he is dependent on the sight of others to form his own judgements. This dependence on the sight of others is also evident in the question Lear directs to Oswald of "who am I, sir?". However, although keen to learn the opinion of others, his quest to discover clear sight is overridden by his temper and his contradictory desire to see things as he wants to see them and not as they truly are. When Oswald tells Lear that he is "[his] Lady's father" and does not refer to him as King (as Lear wishes him to although he has handed over his title and power in an effort to live an "unburdened" lifestyle) he goes to strike Oswald as his true vision interferes with the image that Lear wishes to have."
|
|
|
