In every piece of literature or media, people tend to have a favorite scene. Well mine was the part of Act V, scene iii when Albany arrests Goneril and Edmund. It's clear that throughout the entire book, Albany has full knowledge of his wife's discontent and betrayal, and in this scene he finally confronts it.
Maybe it's because I got to act this scene out as Albany in class, but I really appreciate the clever and snarky things he said. The way he says that Regan could not pursue Edmund because he was already pledged to his wife Goneril seemed to have quite a good affect to me. The fact that he could make a joke under such serious circumstances indicated that he had full control of the situation. It made a great contrast with Goneril's hysteria when she storms out after Edmund loses the duel.
Before this scene, I had thought Albamny was just one of Goneril's tools, but now I see that he was just biding his time and waiting for the right moment to take his revenge.
I was suprised and confused when Cordelia died. Initially, I could not think of a valid reason as to why Cordelia died except for the fact that the main [good] characters almost always die in Shakespeare' s Play (ex Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet).
As I thought about it more, I came up with two possible reasons as to why Shakespeare killed off Cordelia. First, throughout the novel, Cordelia has been portrayed as a god-like creature similar to Jesus Christ. Therefore, Cordelia had to die in order to maintain her Christ-like status. However, I do not know that much about Christianity so what I said about Jesus Christ may be completely off.
The second reason why Shakespeare killed off Cordelia could be because Shakespeare wanted to make the point that there really is no justice in the world. It is true that the villains (Regan, Goneril, Edmund) are dead at the end, so in this case, Good triumphed over Evil at the end. However, what is the significance of that fact that Regan, Goneril, Edmund AND Cordelia, Lear, and Gloucester all had the fate? At the moment I think the explanation is that there is no justice in the world according to Shakespeare. This is probably why the play is also called The Tragedy of King Lear.
My experience reading King Lear for the first time has been surprisingly enjoyable and eye-opening. The past Shakespeare plays I have truly taken the time to read have been Romeo and Juliet and A Midsummer's Night Dream. All three plays are impeccably written and satisfied me an equal amount but King Lear left me with a much different feeling than the other two did.
King Lear spoke of power, suffering, sacrifice, reality and good vs evil all in the span of five short acts. Every theme one can derive from King Lear would be a complex realization about man kind but the one theme that really stood out to me was the relationship between power and suffering.
King Lear's infamous speech, in act three, when he compares the great storm to the suffering his daughter had bestowed on him in his own life served not only as a realization for him but also for the reader. He comes to a realization in the end that a man in great power will never live up to his full potential as a just and fair ruler unless he takes a walk in his people's shoes. I strongly connected and agreed with this point because until someone feels what it is like to hit rock bottom they cannot appreciate the climb to the top.
I believe that King Lear has taught me the most out of all the Shakespearian plays I have read so far. This work by William Shakespeare is not only phenomenal but inspiring.
One eye? No, that's not good enough. Gloucester must have both of his eyes removed for the analogies we can draw to hold up. I find it difficult, though, to focus on the idea that only once Gloucester loses his vision can he see the treachery that's been done. I view the event as a scarcely ironic culmination of the treachery that's built up - but a wryly pitiful and tragic one.
Regan's language and attitude during this scene near the end of Act III show how far along she's come down her dark path, ignoring practicality for the sake of enjoying her own malevolence. Knowing that "one side will mock another" (III, vii, 86), she labels him a "treacherous villain" (107) and sends him off to Dover knowing that she could have gotten more out of him if need be, even if she had spared him his eyesight; only the fun of it all stood in the way of this mundane end. She could've just killed him and the results would have been nearly the same - just not to her. It's gotten to the point by which Lear's enemies have time and energy to spare for icing on their proverbial cake such as this. I view this scene, to this end, as a turning point of the novel - not within its canon but to the audience.
Gloucester's tragic flaw is his loyalty, loyalty directed at Lear and his sons alike. This scene marks his downfall and, as Gloucester forms somewhat of a symbolic wall around Lear (even in terms of literary convention: the hero cannot die before his sidekick) and he has now been knocked down, Lear is now exposed to the elements (but at least he doesn't have to call those elements children or give them his kingdom - how metaphorical am I being, though?).
Pitiful? Well, I'm just a softie, and a squeamish one at that. The loud, violent struggle about the scene solidifies my base attitude.
I would like to take this blog post to talk about the Unessay that we made in class. Mine specifically was about identity. I like the way that the prompt was stated. Identity used to be an aspect of a person set in stone, but now it is seen much more in the light that it can be manipulated and changed. Many characters in King Lear choose to manipulate the way people percieve their identities for either evil or good purposes. Obviously, betrayal would be an evil purpose and safety would be a good purpose.
Edmund, Regan, and Goneril change their percieved identities to serve evil purposes. In this case, they are all for status and power. There is one truth that is sad yet evident among humans: we are greedy. We like to have everything: power, land, money, status, and to be desired. Edgar, Goneril, and Regan are no different. They want all these things and they also can't wait for them.
However, identity can be manipulated for good purposes. Edgar and Kent change their identities for survival. They convince people that they aren't who they truly are so that they can achieve a goal for their own survival. Edgar, specifically, changes his identity multiple times. It is easy to convince people that you are something that you truly aren't.
The implications of this are that people could have lied about who they are. With knowing that identity is a fluid concept that is easily manipulated, one must be wary of the idea that everybody around them is manipulating their identity. If done well, it could be impossible for one to distinguish between real and fake. Everything you know could be false.
Something that may have been small overall, stood out to me again today as we were finishing up our un-essays. A big idea revolving around Lear was that he felt that his kids (Regan and Goneril specifically) were ungrateful to him for all that he had given them. My correlation however I found was with Pride and Prejudice.
I thought of Mrs. Bennet with Lydia... She accused her of being ungrateful when she eloped. That Lydia should be ashamed of herself for putting Mrs. Bennet through such stress. Just as Lear accused his daughters of being ungrateful to him. He gave them piecesof his land, and they shoved away the man who fed them and gave everything to them.
But what is interesting was that both parents were the ones that were truly being selfish after all. Mrs. Bennet pushed all of her daughters to be married, and Lydia reacted and chose Wickham, bad guy aside, that ws how she took it. Where as Lear was very selfish, worse than Mrs. Bennet. He gave his daughters the chance to say how much they loved him so it would boost his own ego just for splits of the kingdom, and he calls them ungrateful.
I feel like the tables were turned and though Mrs. Bennet's bout was short lived, Lear suffered dearly by the way he was treated, but he deserved it after what he did to his own kids.
Throughout King Lear, there is a reoccurring theme that as women gain power, they are effeminized and lose the sense of being women altogether. As Regan and Goneril gain more and more control and seek power, they are described as animals, in masculine terms and as anything but feminine ladies. Unlike their sister Cordelia, it is the man's power as king that they seek which makes them effeminate in the eyes of their society.
Today, I was thinking about how this stereotype persists beyond the times of Lear. As women ascend to roles of greater power in society, there are now two paths that she may take. Both equally dehumanizing and offensive they pervade in modern society.
Since women have become so highly sexualized through the backlash of third wave feminism, if a woman in power accepts her sexuality, she becomes just that. Embracing your sexuality as a powerful woman essentially removes that power as the subject is whittled down to a strictly sexualized object. For example, pop stars like Britney Spears and Madonna are seen as nothing beyond they're physicality. Politician Sarah Palin received many a blow due to the fact that she tried to use her sexuality for her own advantage, and obvious detriment. These women lose the voice behind the body, and become a walking sex object.
The other option is for women that did not chose to wear their sexuality on their sleeves. Politicians like Hilary Clinton and Michelle Obama have been describes as raving bitches, overtly angry women. Taking on this completely misguided role of some sort of grouchy old maid, society harshly judges every negativity as just another rant for the neighborhood kids to get off of their petunias. It is a travesty, but I think I might be onto something. What do you guys think?
Shakespear has never been my thing, but I enjoyed King Lear more than any of his other plays that I have read (probably because I understood what happened in this book). That being said, I was a little torn about how I felt about Shakespear's ending of play. After the massacre of deaths, which by the end left almost none fo the main characters living, the only people standing were Kent, Albany and Edgar.
After looking around, Albany admits he doesn't want to be the ruler of England and offers it to Kent and Edgar. Kent immediately rejects Albany's offer, and alludes that he may too kill himself, while Edgar accepts, though not in any excitement. When I finish a movie or book I like the feeling of knowing how the lives of the main characters are going to play out in the future (the "they lived happily ever after" kind of thing), but in this book I have no idea where the story would go. None of the remaining characters want to run England, as they have all been stripped of their loved ones and the king of France probably doesn't even know Cordelia has died. In my opinion, Kent, Albany, and Edgar got the worste outcome in the story because they are left to suffer the grief and clean up the mess.
I know I have rambled but I feel like that's exactly what Shakespear did as he ended the play; he rolled the characters out one by one to have them lopped off and didn't bother to clean up the mess afterwards. Instead, he left his remaining characters standing around all thinking "now what" as they gazed at Shakespear's destruction.
The conflict between Edgar and Edmund has been one of my favorite parts of King Lear. I really liked in Act 4 Scene 6 how Edgar changed his accent so that he could appear to be a different person to the blind Gloucester. Starting in line 266, Edgar puts on an accent of a country person (Folger note) so that he can rush to Gloucester's rescue when Oswald threatens to kill Gloucester.
I think Edgar is a better son than Edmund, because even when his father sends a search party out to kill him, Edgar still loves his father enough to help him out. He leads his father to Dover, but prevents him from committing suicide. He fights Oswald to save his father's life. And all the while, he has to change his identity using different voices.
Even though Gloucester thinks Edgar is several strangers helping him out, Edgar knows that he is helping his father. It must have been hard for him to keep his identity a secret, and to be banished from his family without having done anything. Edmund completely betrayed Edgar as a brother, not caring for his family, only for the land. Edgar, on the other hand, still loved his father when he was forced to become a beggar.
Edgar is like the Cordelia of his family. Both Edgar and Cordelia do nothing wrong, but their siblings place them in a bad light, causing their fathers to disown them. Then, their siblings get greedier and more evil as the play goes on. Edgar and Cordelia still love their fathers, even through their banishment and troubles.
One of the lines in King Lear that really struck me was when King Lear himself said to his daughters, "I gave you all". He says this in complete disbelief over his daughters actions. He gave them everything he had, his entire kingdom, and look how they repaid him! They want nothing to do with him which to him is no way to treat their father who gave them all he could because he loved them.
When I read this line it immediately seemed familiar. I thought about it awhile and I realized there was a Mumford & Sons song of the same name. They have been known to draw on literature for a basis for songs, so I wouldn't be surprised if King Lear inspired this one. Many of the lines could reference specific instances of betrayal as well as underlying themes of the play such as vision and patience .
Interestingly enough, several sections of The Passage and The Twelve open with King Lear quotations. Others begin with some other Shakespeare works, and there are a few Percy Shelley poems in there as well.
Although the books may sound a little too much like all the literature we're forced to read for school, they're not. They're actually about vampires.
Not the kind of vampires from Twilight that sparkle in the sunlight or the Count Draculas. These vampires are one of a kind. They move faster than people can aim, gut and eat rabbits in about a second, and perform similar tricks with people.
The book starts out with a "pre-virus" time; a time before the vampires and alternates between that time and about 100 years after the virus. Cronin does a fantastic job with the books; like Nabakov wants, he takes us into a world of his creation and does so by showing, not telling. He casually mentions key details to the world's past and successfully creates an entirely new but not entirely foreign culture for the post virus times.
I won't give any spoilers, all I'll say is "read the book". It's worth the time.
"As flies are to wanton boys are we to th' gods;/ They kill us for their sport," remarks Gloucester in Act 4, Scene 1. Gloucester's remark makes sense given his current situation. He just had his eyes cut out by Cornwall, learned Edmund betrayed him, realized he mistakenly accused Edgar, and witnessed Lear's daughters' treachery against Lear. Naturally, he perceives the world as a harsh and injust place.
Yet how much does Gloucester's remark ring true for the entirety of the play? Is there any justice depicted in the world of King Lear? Both Lear and Albany predict Goneril and Regan's cumeuppance. Lear tells Goneril, "Let shame come when it will; I do not call it" (Act 2, sc. 4, line 260). Although Goneril never admits to being ashamed, she does kill herself after killing Regan. As Lear predicted, she did not get away with all her crimes. Albany warns Goneril, "Humanity must perforce prey on itself," (act 4, sc. 2 line 60). His comment foreshadows how Regan and Goneril lead to each other's demises. King Lear could be read to portray evil as being punished in the end. All the antagonists in the book Cornwall, Oswald, Regan, Goneril, and Edmund, are dead by the end of it.
Yet why do the good characters die then, too? Cordelia's death could be read as entirely avoidable and unnecessary. If Edmund had warned them a second sooner, the captain might never have killed her. I think it would be a mistake to suggest King Lear argues good always wins and evil breeds its own demise. As Gloucester's comment suggests, death and suffering is random. One fly, evil or good, is just as easily squashed as another.
Many of the relationships in 'King Lear' show a men vs women ideal. One such relationship is King Lear vs. his daughters, Goneril and Regan, as they strip Lear of his power to gain it for themselves. Another example is Goneril vs. Albany in their conflict surrounding her treatment of her father and his refusal to go along with it. The men are afraid to be like the women and the women want to be powerful like the men. One of the most powerful lines of that King Lear says in the whole tragedy is "Let not women's weapons, water-drops, stain my man's cheeks!" in Act 2, Scene 4, Line 277. King Lear refuses to cry, even as his daughters forsake him again, because they are a 'feminine' appeal to a man's better nature. A man crying is only a sign of weakness, not of sympathy or pity. Tears have become a type of "weapon" that women use against men to get the upperhand in a 'delicate' way. Men are supposed to be the solid frame in the household, holding the simple minded women up and crying destroys that solid image. King Lear will not succomb to the weakness of cyring because he has already lost the power of his kingdom and men to his daughers and therefore he has lost his pride, but he will not go so low as to cry in front of them. Crying is the ultimate sign of weakness to the men of King Lear's time: it makes them equal to women.
I am neither soothsayer, nor wise woman, nor truth seeker. I comprehend not the intricacies of life, nor do I pretend to.
But I would like to think I know quality when I see it.
And it is everywhere in Shakespeare. Those who argue that Shakespeare is an overblown baboon, are overblown baboons. The man is a genius, who could make ordering a hamburger into an experience. Seriously, pick a page with your little pinkie, any page. On it is sure to be some convoluted sentence that manages to articulate its content, without ever naming it.
Act 3. Sc. 2 Pg. 129 Lines 44-51
What I would say:
It’s nasty outside.
What Shakespear says:
“…Things that love night/ Love not nights as these. The wrathful skies/Gallow the very wanderers of the dark/And make them keep their caves. Since I was man/Such sheets of fire, such burst of horrid thunder/Such groans of roaring winds and rain I never/Remember to have heard. Man’s nature cannot carry/Th’affliction nor the fear.”
By using chiasma, repetition, imagery, personification, tone, rhythm, alliteration and assonance, Shakespeare turns turning ordinary to extraordinary. But it is not fake, or overblown. Because, really, when we read one of Shakespeare’ characters, it is like reading emotion. When we speak, we have condensed our feelings, and wrestled with them, and given a good straightening out, so that our audience receives a concise argument. I think, myself especially as a student, I write like a beggar to a lender. I am afraid to bore my audience with oblique details because everything I write is a salespitch, and in the ‘fast lane’ no-one has time to bother with your details. They want to know exactly what you want, what makes you tick, and what they can get from you. Shakespear didn’t have time constraints. If you go to watch a play, you have bought fair sittings, whatever its length will be. So Shakespear wrote with the language of unprocessed emotion. Inside the ragged mouth of an awful storm, not one of those measly pittle-punks but a violent and angered animal, you do not think, ‘it’s nasty out there’. Your heart recoils, your limbs pull in, your lungs collapsed and expand, and your body thinks, ‘Such sheets of fire, such burst of horrid thunder…I never!”. Shakespeare language is not confined by strict structure like nouns and verbs, nor does it restrict itself to the measly decoration of adjectives and prepositions. Because when we feel, only a noun can explain an action (gallows the wanderers), only a rhythm can explain the motion (things that love the night/love not nights like these). Shakespeare valued a quality of language I have thrown away in my own writing, because I thought it was not important. While I have prioritized explaining by intentions efficiently, Shakespeare succeed in replicating the naked emotion to an audience.
Game of Thrones, the new HBO serires based off of the book sereis A Song of Ice and Fire, captures an example of a true tradegy within the story. The show takes place in the fictional nation called the Seven Kingdoms, a country where greed, coruption, and self interests rule supreme over all else.The show primarly follows the story of Ned Stark, a lord of the northern part of the kingdom who is known amongst the nation as a noble and honorable man. At the begining of the show, the top advisor of the king of the Seven Kingdoms dies under mystserious circumstances. This event causes the king of the Seven Kingdoms, Robert Baratheon to choose Ned as his new top adisor due to his reputation and their close freindship. Shortly after arriving in the capital of the kingdom to assume his new postion of power, Ned begins to investigatge the death of the former chief advisor. Twords the middle of the season, Ned discovers that the Kings three children are actually incestious bastards that were birthed as a result of an affair that the queen and her brother sharded. Although he intially intended to tell the king about his discovery, he immediately warned the queen that he new her secret and advised her to flee the kingdom with her children before he told Robert. However the king dies in a hunting accident before Ned gets the chance to warn him about the queen. As a result, the queen arrests Ned as an enemy of the state and her son whom has assumed the title as the new king eventually executes him.
Although most people judge Ned Starks actions as extremely stupid, his reason was justifiable. Ned did not want to be responsible for death of the queen and her children. Even though he could have easily kept this information a secret, he decided to do the right thing and warn the queen. He tried to do the thing that is morally right in an immoral world. As a result, his actions lead to his death much like the classic tragedies of ancient Greece and Elizabethan England.
For an example of a modern day tragedy, I chose Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette. This story fits almost all of the requirements for a tragedy. Marie Antoinette was born of noble stature, being the archduchess of Austria, and later married and became the queen of France. In the movie, Marie is forced to marry a difficult and uninterested man she had never met before as well as live under constant scrutiny and criticism from both her mother in Austria and the court of Versailles. The pressure and responsibility at a young age drives Marie to drink, gamble, and cheat on her husband. Her immense spending and irresponsibility contributes to France's debt is a contributing factor in the spark of France's revolution.
Marie's downfall is not entirely her fault. She is brought from Austria innocent, young, and does not know how to be a queen. Responsibility is forced upon her, and the audience pitys her for the terrible situation she is caught trying to handle without much help. Marie wants to do the best she can, but eventually succumbs to the pressure, proving that a weakness for clothes, parties, drinking, and gambling is her tragic flaw. At the end of the movie, when Marie confronts the angry mob trying to drive her from her palace, the audience sees that Marie recognizes the errors in her judgement and actions and that she has still learned from the tragedy.
The story within the television show Once Upon A Time holds several characteristics of a tragedy. The Witch, widow of the king, despises Snow White as the cause of the her unhappiness.
Overcome by hatred, the Witch kills her father in order to bring misfortune on Snow White. She believes that Snow White's suffering will make her happy but only suffers too. A spell takes away the Prince and Snow White's daughter in addition to trapping the story book characters in modern times.
The Witch is mayor in the modern town but her accomplishment is pointless without her father. From casting the spell her her heart is cold and she cannot connect with anyone around her. She has a false sense of glee in modern times. Although the Witch initiated her fate she does not deserve it completely as she only tried to find happiness through magic.
My blog is about Harry Potter because it's awesome. When I think of the word "tragic", Snape's life comes to my mind. He loved Lilly, Harry's mother, ever since he first layed eyes on her! He helped her through situations, had her back, and always reassured her that she wasn't wierd . . and helped her become one of the best witches in history. No big deal right? I've always disliked Snape. I thought he was cruel and bitter, but in the last book/ last movie, when Voldemort killed Snape, I cried like a baby. When we saw the truth in the penseive . . I was touched. Lilly betrayed him when she picked James, but he still never stopped loving her. He tried to save their lives by going to Dumbledore, but Voldemort ended up finding them anyway. He promised Dumbledore he would work with The dark lord to plot against him. He's helped Harry the whole way, and his life ended in a tragic death. What dedication. Tragic Life for sure. R.I.P Severus Snape :(
A modern day tragedy. Finding one was harder than I thought it would be, but I think that's because I was limiting myself to writing. A real tragedy was the stock market crash. I think the main way it follows the criteria of tragedy is how the people directly affected deserved to be so, investing in unsafe mortgages. It might not feel like a tragedy because of the lack or real death, but something can be tragic without death.
Yeah, so my example of a contemporary tragedy is Harry Potter. I wasn't in much of a "think outside the box" mindset tonight. Anyways, for anyone who is unfamiliar with the Harry Potter series, Harry is led to believe by Professor Dumbledore that he must destroy all of Lord Voldemort's horcruxes in order to finally defeat him and bring piece to all of the good guys. But what Dumbledore leaves out is the part about how part of Voldemort's soul is actually attached to Harry's soul. So in order to completely destroy Voldemort, Harry must first sacrifice himself to be killed by Lord Voldemort so that the piece of Voldemort's soul which resides in Harry will be blasted to bits as well. It's a pretty awful situation for anyone to be in, but it's made especially terrible because of how much Harry trusted Dumbledore's advice up until that point when he found out about the last bit of Voldemort's soul. The audience was even led to believe that Dumbledore was to be trusted on everything. If Harry had not come back from the dead I would say this story had the potential to be extremely tragic. But since everything works out in the end it's not altogether tragic. But for that brief instant in the story when Harry marched out to meet his death I think I, along with a lot of other readers, felt very betrayed and sad that Harry had to die this way.
When asked to identify a real life tragedy the Iraq War is something that immediately comes to mind.
At the center of the story you have the 43rd President Bush playing the role of the tragic hero. His intentions are good. He does not have malice or spite or any negative emotions in making his decisions. He is simply trying to depose a murderous dictator and bring freedom to an oppressed people. However, his noble intention is negatively affected by his tragic flaw: his hubris. He justified war on shaky grounds and in the build up he only listens to those who agree with him. His confidence in himself, his justification, and the ensuing invasion borders on arrogance. This arrogance leads him to be woefully unprepared for what is to come. As a result, this war which was supposed to be swift and cheered by all, drags on with diminished public support. His hubris caught up to him when the justification for war proved untrue and his strong belief that his troops would be greeted as liberators turns out to be false. However, contrary to the wish of some, Bush does not die. The death he suffers is in the court of public opinion. He suffers unfathomably low poll numbers and international detest.
What do you think about this situation as a tragedy?
Spoiler: at the end of the Rocky series, the aged Rocky loses to the proud, young Mason Dixon due to split decision. If you did not feel very disheartened or distraught from this ending, you definitely did not follow the movies closely enough.
Most of us have seen at least some installment from the Rocky series. For those who started from the beginning, they experienced the exciting, emotional journey of a small time boxer getting a chance to fight for the heavyweight title. As the series progresses, we see Rocky rise to fame following his subsequent victories, defeating the entertaining Apollo Creed, as well as Drago, the juiced-up, super russian. At one point, we see Rocky living a leisurely lifestyle: a mansion, exotic cars, and a happy marriage. Along the way, the audience sways with the emotions and tensions of Rocky Balboa, feeling the struggle and anguish Rocky experiences while facing near insurmountable odds.
As we enter the last stretch of Rocky's career, we see him come out of retirement to answer the challenge of a prospective new boxer. Yet again, we watch him train, facing some other challenges along the way. He constantly struggles to accept the death of his wife, and faces much conflict in how to "train," as Rocky stands as such a seasoned fighter.
After the much familiar drama of the Rocky movies, we watch as Balboa enters the fight and continues to the final round. After Rocky mentally reasserts his principles of resilience and determination, he comes back from near knockout to land the final punch of Mason. But, unlike the other movies, the bell rings and "victory" is not his.
This is where I feel this final Rocky installment proves a complete tragedy. At the end of it all, Rocky loses-and by split decision. Although Rocky states that he "released the beast that was inside him" and he seems contented walking off before the decision is made, this ending remains inconsistent and tragic in the world of the Rocky film industry. As the movie closes with Rocky symbolically joining Adrian in peace when he states, "Yo Adrian, we did it," I know I feel betrayed. If one ties tragedy explicitly to death, I am willing to make the argument that this movie killed not only the magical character of the Italian Stallion, but the enjoyment the real Rocky fans truly desire.
While thinking of Star Wars as a tragedy may not make sense at first, if you go through the list of characteristics which make a tragedy almost every single one applies to the story of Anakin Skywalker.
Anakin is a man of noble stature. It was prophesied that he was the chosen one and so he was viewed in awe by all others. While he was a good man he was in no way perfect. He was cocky and self righteous. He saw himself as better and more important than all others based on the fact that he was the chosen one, providing him with skills that other Jedi could only dream of possessing.
His eventual downfall downfall was tragic but not pathetic. Although he does not die, as is common in tragedies, he is pushed to the brink of death after a duel with his old master and friend. In the duel he was defeated, and with the nature of a duel being noble his downfall is tragic but not pathetic.
The downfall which he experienced was deserved to a certain extent. It was not wholly deserved though since his only goal was to protect his love. In the process of protecting the love of his life he hurt many other innocent people. Of course killing all the Jedi was terrible but behind this act was the goal to protect his love. This in and of itself is not a malicious thing.
In the end not all is lost for him. While he did lose his wife and all of his friends and companions, his children survived. At the end of his life he is able to reconcile with his son, allowing him to gain back some of the humanity that he lost after he betrayed the Jedi. Anakin’s return to the light side at the end of the series allow people to reconnect with him. Even after all the terrible deeds that he committed as Darth Vader, when he reveals himself to Luke in the final scene there is a certain amount of pity from the audience. It is his return to humanity, in a way, after years spent as a heartless and bitter man that allows people to reconnect and care for him in his final moments of life after taking off his mask.
A modern take on the Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, is West Side Story. Tony and Maria and the two protagonists of the film and are separated by two opposing gangs, the Jets and the Sharks, restricting them from making their love a publicly known affair. The secrecy of their love deceives the viewer into thinking the film is a comedy, ending in marriage and happiness, however, the relationship takes a turn for the worst. Anita, who is Maria's brother's girlfriend, lies to the Jets (Tony) and claims that Maria has been killed because her relationship with an "enemy" has been discovered. The supposed killer of Maria, Chino, is then approached by Tony and rather than seeking revenge, Tony is murdered and dies in Maria's arms.
West Side Story involves two innocent characters that simply want to break the barriers of competing gangs. The two do not deserve to die, and do not do anything to deserve death. Love is forbidden for the two of them and in the final of the scene, the two die together and break all barriers created by the warring gangs