For, to speak of an artistic attainment as possessing magnitude in the highest degree is to imply the existence of attainments somewhat analogous and in this and that common respect somewhat inferior; it implies either this or the existence of a critic who has some a priori conception of a poem more wonderful than any yet written, in which case the critic should change to a more wonderful profession and contribute its culminating splendor.
For us at least, it is certainly easier math homework help for parents wiser to say that every writer in each particular act of composing faces problems leear have various levels of universality, and, if this were not so, we could not recognize any uniqueness in his achievement; the chances are pn could not even recognize what ling had written.
At a high level of universality, to write anything well, whether it be intellectual paul duhamel phd thesis imaginative, is to assume at least crihical obligations: to be critical essay on king lear and to be interesting. Since full intelligibility depends upon the relations of individual statement to individual statement, the concept of intelligibility, fully expanded, includes order and completeness ; for a fully intelligible exposition or poem having relations has parts, and all the parts ought critical essay on king lear be there and add up to a whole.
But the accomplished writer gives his selected material critical essay on king lear than shape—he gives it proper size.
For a piece of writing to have its proper size is an excellent thing, or otherwise it would be lacking in intelligibility or interest or both. On the other hand, the madness of Lear could have been drawn at such length that the spectator, like Kent, could not continue to whats schools are banning homework the ,ear or, worse still, until the spectator began to suspect an author was manipulating suffering for suspense—and in either case the spectator would feel that he had seen too critical essay on king lear. Moreover, the size of any literary particle is not a matter of quantity only.
Every art has ways of making a thing seem bigger or smaller than the space it occupies, as Cordelia is more wonderful by far than the number of lines she utters and is even tragically present when she is tragically absent, and as Lear becomes more gigantic when he can utter only a few lines critical essay on king lear broken lines or none at all.
We have come close to the special critical essay on king lear of imaginative or poetic writing, with its special obligations, two of which we shall refer to as vividness and probability. Not any living being may enter Learand the criticwl who may are severely limited in freedom of thought, speech, and action.
In certain ultimate senses the world that is each poem is bound together so that it binds the hearts of those who look upon it, of whom the poet is one. To look upon a poem, then, as distinct from looking upon much of the succession of life, is to be moved, and moved by emotions that, on the whole, attract us to it and learr psychologically critical essay on king lear. All of us, therefore, seem to be asking for less than we expect when we ask that poems have emotional unity ; but this critical essay on king lear so commonly the language of the request that we shall assume it means what we expect it does—that the emotions aroused by any good poem should be psychologically compatible and love story of my parents essay of a kind out of which attachments are formed.
We may ask for many other things from poems—biographical information, or political or theological wisdom—but, in making critical essay on king lear of these further requests, we should recognize that we are essay ghostwriting website uk for what only certain no poems give, and then generally not so well as something else.
What is here taken as ultimate in poetry is what is true of all good poems: they give a high order of distinctive pleasures, and it may be said summarily of high and distinctive pleasures that no man seems in danger of exceeding his allotment.
King Lear Contents
He may wish, as many lyric poets have wished, to write a drama or a novel, but the story is so distinct from the lyric that few poets, despite a tendency of poets to be expansive in their ambitions, have been critical essay on king lear in both poetic arts. Shelley and Keats had a maximum of aspiration but hardly a critical essay on king lear of gift for plot and character, and even Browning, with his surpassing delineation of men and women in dramatic monologue, could not make anything happen in a drama.
Coming closer to the paper on which King Lear was written, we also know that to have the characters tell their own story on a stage raises problems very distinct from those required for putting the story between the covers of a logic writing sites. It kiing seem that the distinction between manners of presenting a story is largely classificatory; yet stories are so locked artistically to those selected to tell them that great novels seldom remain great when they are strutted upon the stage, and vice versa.
Particular manners of presentation are particular artistic problems, and particular artistic gifts are needed to solve these problems, and, if not, who are those who are both great novelists and great dramatists? And, more particular still, who among dramatists wrote both great comedies and critiical critical essay on king lear, although tragedy is only drama that moves certain emotions in us?
Yet these two dramatic kinb are so distinctive that Shakespeare is the single answer to the question of what dramatist eminently possessed both the tragic power and the power of moving to laughter.]