Prompt:
In a literary work, a minor character, often known as a foil, possesses traits that emphasize, by contrast or comparison, the distinctive characteristics and qualities of the main character. For example, the ideas or behavior of the minor character might be used to highlight the weaknesses or strengths of the main character.
Choose a novel or play in which a minor character serves as a foil to a main character. Then write an essay in which you analyze how relation between the minor character and the major character illuminates the meaning of the work.
Essay:
The fool serves the role of a medieval court jester. The fool is always a source of both comic relief and sober wisdom. Providing sound advice under the guise of tomfoolery. Shakespeare's play, King Lear, is no exception. Shakespeare uses the subservient, but wise fool in contrast to the fool's superior but ultimately more foolish master King Lear in order to communicate to the audience that both wisdom and foolishness can come from equally unlikely places.
On the surface, the Fool and his master, King Lear, share very little in common: Other than being outwardly old men, (The fool is implied to have served as a paternal figure to Lear due to consistently calling Lear, "nuncle" and thus, is likely of the same age or slightly older than Lear) the Fool and Lear seemingly share no other traits. Lear was in a position of power and had ruled the kingdom of England while the Fool was just a simple servant of the king. Lear attempts to act as a wise old man while the Fool embraces his title as a fool. These contrasting characteristics, however, serve to only highlight the fact that beyond the surface, the Fool is more like the wise man that Lear attempts to portray himself as and Lear is more the fool that the Fool acts as.
The fool even alludes to this relationship in Act 1 as he mockingly laments that he does not own a monopoly on foolishness as royal nobles, such as King Lear, also commit foolish actions. This is very clearly a jab towards Lear's actions in Act 1 Scene 1 where he, out of anger, disowns his favorite daughter Cordelia for speaking honestly and exiles his most faithful servant Kent for warning Lear that his decision to disown Cordelia nad to split his kingdom among his remaining two daughters was a foolish move. Indeed, by the end of the play, Lear's decision to split the kingdom between his two daughters would ultimately cause his daughters to scheme to remove all of Lear's power and would ultimately lead to Lear's death. Other characters comment on the absurdity of Lear's actions as well: Lear's elder two daughters treats Lear's action as a sign that he is growing senile. Kent likens Lear's decision to exile Kent to a sick person killing off their doctor. The Duke of Gloucester notes that Kent's only crime towards Lear was honesty, implying that Lear is delusional and is attacking anyone that would threaten his delusions.
Meanwhile, the Fool, despite his namesake, acts as one of the wisest characters in the play. He admonishes Kent's decision to continue to serve the king via disguising as a man named Caius, warning Kent that he who tries to keep a wheel from rolling down a hill will only break their neck. At the time of the Fool's admonishment, the first signs of Lear being usurped from power were being revealed, as Goneril harshly rebukes Lear's decision to keep 100 knights and Regan chooses to punish Kent via stocking him, one of the most humiliating forms of punishment during Shakespeare's time. Thus, the Fool's metaphor about the wheel and the man who breaks his neck trying to stop it are in reference to Lear and Kent respectively. Lear is quickly losing what little power he has and will ultimately die powerless. During all of this, Kent will be trying to keep Lear alive and well. When Kent ultimately fails, it is implied that Kent has become suicidal as a result of Lear's death and will commit suicide after the end of the play. Both Lear and Kent's fate were predicted by the Fool in the first half of Act II of the play. Given that the play is five acts total, it shows that the fool has far more foresight and wisdom than he acts.
The contrast between the ultimately foolish King Lear and the inwardly wise Fool is ultimately highlighted in the final act that the Fool makes an appearance: Act III. In Act III, Lear goes truly mad, and commits some truly foolish actions. First, Lear refuses to release his knights from his custody in order for Regan and Goneril to house him, instead electing to go out into a heavy storm with no shelter in sight. In response to this, the Fool desperately tries to convince Lear to reconsider his decision and to go back to Goneril and Regan, which Lear stubbornly refuses. Often, we see supposedly wise people turn out to be truly foolish characters while foolish people turn out to have much inner wisdom, this was the case for the Fool and Lear, who bring out the inner foolishness and wisdom from each other.
Reflection:
The task was for us to "analyze how the relation between the minor character and the major character illuminates the meaning of the work". The College Board Student Performance Q&A for this prompt noted that "the aim of this prompt was to assess students’ abilities to move beyond paraphrase or summary, which focuses on description of events in the text, to comparative analysis of the foil and the major character as a way of understanding the larger significance of the work".
The score I received for this essay was a 7. The biggest emphasis my teacher made while grading my essay was that it needed to be extended beyond the text at times and that it was also occasionally repetitive.
Part of the reason my essay was repetitive, in my opinion, was that I was unsure how much context I needed to provide while doing my analysis. As a result I would find myself repeating points I had previously outlined in an attempt to ensure that a reader unfamiliar with King Lear would still be able to follow my train of thought. While a laudable effort, this sort of writing does not exactly work out well in a timed writing situation. Thus, in order to perform better in future Open Question essays, I'll need to make some assumptions that my reader is already well-versed with the what happens in my books so I can better focus on why the events within my books matter.
