Rating: 
Summary: Top Writing
Review: Shakespeare historian A.L. Rowse, authors of the Readers Companion to World Literature, and others explain that the author of King Lear combined two already existing stories and created something greater than the sum of its parts. Apparently, at the time it was written King Lear was perceived as a tale might be perceived today if a writer combined the old fable about George Washington cutting down a cherry tree with the story of the sinking of the Titanic and wove a familiar but new and surprising tragedy. Most critics agree that Shakespeare's King Lear is great writing; Isaac Asimov said that King Lear was the best thing ever written. I am glad that more than twenty years ago I was required to read it in college. It took time to capture me but I have revisited King Lear several times since. Although written for actors on the stage it is top reading that is well worth working through language difficulties for the value of the emotional experience and intellectual contemplation.
Rating:
Summary: blood isn't thicker than water
Review: This great work is immense so I will just mention two themes that had an impact on me. This play shows both the self-destruction that unrestrained greed can lead to and also how someone who loves his or her sons or daughters can easily be exploited by them. In addition, this play made me think about the relationship I have with my parents.
This play describes how unchecked human desires for prestige and land lead to a life full of suspicion and unhappiness. Goneril and Regan, immediately after acquiring their father's kingdom, begin to treat him with less and less respect because he isn't rich anymore. For instance, neither sister allows King Lear to stay in the castles of their respective husbands to provide him with shelter from a violent storm. In another example, both Goneril and Regan have the Earl of Kent, a high ranking dignitary who is openly a loyal supporter of King Lear, put out in the stocks without King Lear's permission. Again, this is symbolically an act of disrespect against Lear. But, this unrestrained and unprincipled selfish attitude catches up with the two sisters, Goneril and Regan. They eventually turn against each other when they both compete for the handsome Edmund. Maybe what Shakespeare is saying here is that if one seeks happiness through material wealth or status, then that individual is doomed to always feel jealous of others who are more wealthy or who have more prestige in some way.
Another theme I found in this play relates to how a loving parent can easily let him or herself be manipulated by his or her own children. In the beginning of the play, King Lear was basically controlled by his two daughters, Goneril and Regan. King Lear strikes me as a capricious person because he makes important decisions based on a whim. For example, Goneril and Regan, knowing that King Lear both loves them and that he is impetuous, give him what he wants -- approval and attention. By contrast, King Lear becomes exasperated with Cordelia when she refuses to feed his ego with flattery. King Lear, in a subsequent fit of rage, decides to bequeath his entire kingdom to Goneril, Regan and their respective husbands with nothing remaining for Cordelia. Perhaps what the author is trying to get across is that if we are to ever entrust a daughter, son or friend with land or a large sum of money, then what we feel for that person can prevent us from properly evaluating whether that daughter, son or friend is really responsible and loyal.
Thirdly, this situation between King Lear and his three daughters made me think about what will happen to the relationship I have with my parents. My mom and dad raised, fed and clothed me. Eventually, however, my parents will become weak, infirm and forgetful of what they say or do. So, will I ditch my parents and leave them to fend for themselves in an elderly home? Or will I remain by their side even if they may no longer be in a position to provide me with money or property? In other words, will the "Goneril-Regan" side of me win over my "Cordelia" side?
In conclusion, King Lear offers humanity an example of how an individual's sincere love for another person can blind his or her sense of judgment. When King Lear gave away his kingdom, he didn't evaluate the character of his sisters, he just evaluated what came out of their lips.
Rating: 
Summary: King Lear:
Review: When rating Shakespeare, I always rate his works as compared to other Shakespearean works; otherwise, the consistently high marks wouldn't be very informative. For instance, if this were to be rated against the general run of literature extant, it would certainly rate five stars. Even by the standard I'm using, it's close. Like "Hamlet", this is a tragedy that still manages to have some very funny lines; as in "Hamlet", this is generally due to characters either pretending to be crazy, or truly being crazy, so it's something of a dark humor, but humorous it still is. Lear's jester has some great lines doing what only a jester could get away with (and what the reader wants to do): telling the King that he's an idiot when he's done something ignorant beyond belief. Edgar, son of Gloucester, banished by his father for supposed treason, plays the part of a mad beggar to save his life, and when Lear, honestly crazy from grief, meets up with him, their conversations rival anything in Hamlet for manic nonsense that still manages to make a certain warped and poigniant sense. It's a shame that the language has changed so much since Shakespeare's time, so that the masses are unable to enjoy and appreciate his wit; his plays were not written to be enjoyed only by the literati; they were intended to entertain and, yes, enlighten the masses as well as the educated; his plots seem to be right in line with either modern romantic comedies (in his comedies) or modern soap operas (in his tragedies). Modern audiences would love him, if only they could understand him; unfortunately, when one "modernizes" the language in a Shakespearean play, what one is left with is no longer Shakespeare, but simply a modern adaptation. Which, if done well, is not without value, but is still far short of the original.
|
