Rating: 
Summary: but what's it all mean ?
Review: One of the things you can assume when you write about Shakespeare--given the hundreds of thousands of pages that have already been written about him in countless books, essays, theses and term papers--is that whatever you say will have been said before, and then denounced, defended , revised and denounced again, ad infinitum. So I'm certain I'm not breaking any new ground here. King Lear, though many, including David Denby (see Orrin's review of Great Books) and Harold Bloom consider it the pinnacle of English Literature, has just never done much for me. I appreciate the power of the basic plot--an aging King divides his realm among his ungrateful children with disastrous results--which has resurfaced in works as varied as Jane Smiley's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, A Thousand Acres (see Orrin's review), and Akira Kurosawa's last great film, Ran. But I've always found the play to be too busy, the characters to be too unsympathetic, the speeches to be unmemorable and the tragedy to be too shallow. By shallow, I mean that by the time we meet Lear he is already a petulant old man, we have to accept his greatness from the word of others. Then his first action in the play, the division of the kingdom, is so boneheaded and his reaction to Cordelia so selfishly blind, that we're unwilling to credit their word. Then there's the fact that Shakespeare essentially uses the action of the play as a springboard for an examination of madness. The play was written during the period when Shakespeare was experimenting with obscure meanings anyway; add in the demented babble of several of the central characters, including Lear, and you've got a drama whose language is just about impossible to follow. Plus you've got seemingly random occurrences like the disappearance of the Fool and Edgar's pretending to help his father commit suicide. I am as enamored of the Bard as anyone, but it's just too much work for an author to ask of his audience trying to figure out what the heck they are all saying and what their actions are supposed to convey. So I long ago gave up trying to decipher the whole thing and I simply group it with the series of non-tragic tragedies (along with MacBeth, Hamlet, Julius Caesar), which I think taken together can be considered to make a unified political statement about the importance of the regular transfer of power in a state. Think about it for a moment; there's no real tragedy in what happens to Caesar, MacBeth, Hamlet or Lear; they've all proven themselves unfit for rule. Nor are the fates of those who usurp power from Caesar, Hamlet and Lear at all tragic, with the possible exception of Brutus, they pretty much get what they have coming to them. Instead, the real tragedy lies in the bloody chain of events that each illegitimate claiming of power unleashes. The implied message of these works, when considered as a unified whole, is that deviance from the orderly transfer of power leads to disaster for all concerned. (Of particular significance to this analysis in regards to King Lear is the fact that it was written in 1605, the year of the Gunpowder Plot.) In fact, looking at Lear from this perspective offers some potential insight into several aspects of the play that have always bothered me. For instance, take the rapidity with which Lear slides into insanity. This transition has never made much sense to me. But now suppose that Lear is insane before the action of the play begins and that the clearest expression of his loss of reason is his decision to shatter his own kingdom. Seen in this light, there is no precipitous decline into madness; the very act of splitting up the central authority of his throne, of transferring power improperly, is shown to be a sign of craziness. Next, consider the significance of Edgar's pretense of insanity and of Lear's genuine dementia. What is the possible meaning of their wanderings and their reduction to the status of common fools, stripped of luxury and station? And what does it tell us that it is after they are so reduced that Lear's reason (i.e. his fitness to rule) is restored and that Edgar ultimately takes the throne. It is probably too much to impute this meaning to Shakespeare, but the text will certainly bear the interpretation that they are made fit to rule by gaining an understanding of the lives of common folk. This is too democratic a reading for the time, but I like it, and it is emblematic of Shakespeare's genius that his plays will withstand even such idiosyncratic interpretations. To me, the real saving grace of the play lies not in the portrayal of the fathers, Lear and Gloucester, nor of the daughters, but rather in that of the sons. First, Edmund, who ranks with Richard III and Iago in sheer joyous malevolence. Second, Edgar, whose ultimate ascent to the throne makes all that has gone before worthwhile. He strikes me as one of the truly heroic characters in all of Shakespeare, as exemplified by his loyalty to his father and to the King. I've said I don't consider the play to be particularly tragic; in good part this is because it seems the nation is better off with Edgar on the throne than with Lear or one of his vile daughters. Even a disappointing, and often bewildering, tragedy by Shakespeare is better than the best of many other authors (though I'd not say the same of his comedies.) So of course I recommend it, but I don't think as highly of it as do many of the critics. GRADE : B-
Rating: 
Summary: King Lear was an annoying character
Review: Quite frankly, I can't understand why many people today consider 'King Lear' to be Shakespeare's greatest Tragedy. I found the play to be somewhat interesting and somewhat entertaining, especially when the Fool constantly called Lear 'Nuncle', but for the most part I found the play to be rather annoying. How Lear divided his kingdom among his daughters was very foolish. Lear acted like a senile, immature, mentally-disturbed, foolish old man throughout the entire play. Lear would have been much more of a truly tragic figure like Coriolanus if Lear was purely brought down by the treachery of others, but I think Lear's stupidity and foolishness mostly caused his own downfall. "Thou shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise" is a quote from the Fool to Lear, which basically sums up the entire play. Don't get me wrong. This play was well-written, it has many good quotes, and I recommend it, but the annoying nature of Lear forces me to rank it among the middle tier of Shakespeare's Tragedies.
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: Fate and Shakespearean Tragedy
Review: So I'm not exactly a Shakespeare scholar, but I still loved this tragedy. I think it's one of the best one, and it's a pity so few are put on live action show (the recent Hamlet,Henry V,Richard III,Midsummer Night's Dream, and other movies were great!). Unfortunately, some complain that it is not an official "tragedy" because, according to A.C. Bradley, who's supposed to be some real genius, requires that Fate have little to do with any good tragedy...Yet King Lear DOES include Fate (cf. Gloucester's laments about the gods playing with human lives). So much of it that I think it's one of the main themes of the play. Unlike Bradley, I think this inevitability only INTENSES the depressing mood of the play, and to people suffering from chronic depression (like myself), the play really speaks out. Generational gaps and treatment of seniors are very relevant to our society, yet the question of Fate and the great tragedy that life can sometimes end up to be cannot be ignored in this one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. I mean, it IS a tragedy right?
Rating:
Summary: What is nature?
Review: This book is a profound study of nature. Characters such as Lear, Gloucester, and Edmund voice their opinions and questions on the subject of fate, the gods, human nature, and relationships between parents and children. I personally love Edgar, and think that he made this play great. He's as loyal to his father and Lear as Kent and Cordelia, but more creative and effective in his action. I believe that he was Shakespeare's favorite character too, because of his talent as an actor (as evidenced by his mad act and the cliff scene) and because he survives in the end! Shakespeare poses many questions of human, parental, and divine nature in this play, and some are resolved, but not all. Are we to the gods or nature as flies to wanton boys? We must all decide which opinion is right.
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: moving
Review: this is the tragedy of a king who grows old before he grows wise. it's a tragedy because old men don't have the time or the energy to right their wrongs; what's done is done. as lear finds out to his great chagrin. the play contains probably the most poignant moment in all of shakespeare: the reconciliation between lear and his youngest daughter, cordelia. it's beautifully written and brought tears to my eyes. see the olivier movie if you liked the play. olivier really brings lear to life.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant
Review: This masterpiece by Shakespeare deals with the fundamental problems of human existence. It has themes such as love, honor, and the possibility of the universe having no gods or Fate. It is masterfully written and contains incredible characterization. King Lear is a brilliantly realized symbol of power. You are convinced that he is too emotional, but you sympathize with him at the same time. Although the story is nihillistic in its views of such tings as love, it familarizes you with unforgettable characters, such as the emotional Lear and the emotionless Edmund. One of Shakespeare's greatest contributions to the human race.
Rating:
Summary: Is he dumb or what ?
Review: This play is certainly a brilliantly written piece. In the midst of tragedy there rises some of the most beautiful language Shakespeare ever wrote. However, maybe the people 300 years ago sympathised with Lear, but I held no sympathy for him because it was his folly which caused his misfortune, and I was so frustrated with him by the end of the play that I was sort of glad that he got what he deserved for being so idiotic. I think that a more fitting name for the play would be The Tragedy of Queen Cordelia since she is the only one I walked out feeling sorry for.
Rating:
Summary: A king brings tragedy unto himself
Review: This star-rating system has one important flaw: you have to rank books only in relation to its peers, its genre. So you must put five stars in a great light-humor book, as compared to other ones of those. Well, I am giving this book four stars in relation to other Shakespeare's works and similar great books. Of course, it's all in the writing. Shakespeare has this genius to come up with magnificent, superb sentences as well as wise utterings even if the plot is not that good. This is the case with Lear. I would read it again only to recreate the pleasure of simply reading it, but quite frankly the story is very strange. It is hard to call it a tragedy when you foolishly bring it about on yourself. Here, Lear stupidly and unnecessarily divides his kingdom among his three daughters, at least two of them spectacularly treacherous and mean, and then behaves exactly in the way that will make them mad and give them an excuse to dispose of him. What follows is, of course, a mess, with people showing their worst, except for poor Edgar, who suffers a lot while being innocent. Don't get me wrong: the play is excellent and the literary quality of Shakespeare is well beyond praise. If you have never read him, do it and you'll see that people do not praise him only because everybody else does, but because he was truly good. The plot is well known: Lear divides the kingdom, then puts up a stupid contest to see which one of his daughters expresses more love for him, and when Cordelia refuses to play the game, a set of horrible treasons and violent acts begins, until in the end bad guys die and good guys get some prize, at a terrible cost. As a reading experience, it's one of the strongest you may find, and the plot is just an excuse for great writing.
|
