King Lear: Monstrous Mimesis

In the opening statements of his essay “King Lear: Monstrous Mimesis”, Lawrence Schehy challenges us to rid ourselves of our simplistic expectations of a story devoted to a tail of “Filial devotion”. He asks of us that we see the characters past their transparent descriptions, and look for a deeper understanding as to why is it that they are portrayed as such. Schehy, blames the transparent nature of the play on the tone of language that the characters employ. In addition Schehy exclaims that compared to Shakespeare previous works King Lear has “an apparent lack of poetic fancy imagination” in turn, most of what set apart this particular play, is the linguistic use of negation. For it is negation that takes the place of the absence of poetry, negation, the use of no, never, and nothing, are highlighted by the mimetic behavior that is depicted amongst the characters.
Mimetic is defined as exhibiting, or the nature of imitation, a negative trait that was explicated by all characters. There are three forms of mimetic rivalry as explained by Schehy, the copying of nature, other humans, and manmade objects. For although there are three forms of mimetic behavior, it is true that we only see two of the forms employed. Mimesis is powerful in its destructive nature for it exists in all of the characters actions, but more importantly for their language. The use of negation in their language it is a clear representation of the destructive nature of mimesis, but it is the use of “no” that signifies the denial of their wrong in doing their actions.
The plays most obvious display of mimetic rivalry is displayed between the two sisters Goneriel and Regan. Both sisters are in constant pursuit to obtain affection from King Lear, as they both have their own ulterior motives. Poor Cordelia, daughter who is portrayed in the play as being “honest” and “heroic” is first to fall victim to the mimetic rivalry. Not in the sense of participating in the mimetic behavior, but as an