King Lear: The 30-Minute Shakespeare

By William Shakespeare

Nick Newlin has broad experience marketing the Nicolo Whimsey Show to high school and library systems, and will incorporate The Thirty Minute Shakespeare into the Nicolo Whimsey website, mailings, school fairs, etc. We have purchased and successfully used theater mailing lists from MDR in the past, and will purchase new MDR lists aimed at the target users of The Thirty Minute Shakespeare for the initial launch, and annually or biannually thereafter. We expect that the abridgements will also be prominently cited by the Folger Shakespeare Library’s very active Folger Education program, recognized and used extensively by thousands of high school and college educators and including blogs, webinars, lesson plans, and conferences.

There are other "cuttings" of Shakespeare plays, but the only series with any trade visibility is "Sixty Minute Shakespeare" by Cass Foster, with six plays published by Five Star Publications. Nick Newlin's "Thirty Minute Shakespeare" series is publishing 12 plays in 2010, all "road tested" at the Folger's annual Student Shakespeare Festival, and superior to the competition on many levels: better stage directions and performance notes, more professional page design, a competitive pricing structure, and better visibility in Bowker, Amazon, key wholesalers, etc.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Nicolo Whimsey Press
• Release date: Oct 26, 2010
• ISBN: 9781935550211

William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare (1564–1616) is arguably the most famous playwright to ever live. Born in England, he attended grammar school but did not study at a university. In the 1590s, Shakespeare worked as partner and performer at the London-based acting company, the King’s Men. His earliest plays were Henry VI and Richard III, both based on the historical figures. During his career, Shakespeare produced nearly 40 plays that reached multiple countries and cultures. Some of his most notable titles include Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and Julius Caesar. His acclaimed catalog earned him the title of the world’s greatest dramatist.

Book preview

001

Table of Contents

THE 30-MINUTE SHAKESPEARE

Title Page

Dedication

Acknowledgements

✴ NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY

CHARACTERS IN THE PLAY

✴ SCENE 1. (ACT I, SCENE I)

NARRATOR

KENT

GLOUCESTER

EDMUND

GLOUCESTER

EDMUND (bows)

GLOUCESTER

KING LEAR

GONERIL

CORDELIA (aside)

KING LEAR (to GONERIL)

REGAN

CORDELIA (aside)

KING LEAR (to REGAN)

CORDELIA

KING LEAR (stands)

CORDELIA

KING LEAR

CORDELIA

KING LEAR

CORDELIA

KING LEAR

CORDELIA

KING LEAR

KENT

KING LEAR

KENT

KING LEAR

KENT

CORDELIA

KING LEAR

CORDELIA

GONERIL

REGAN

✴ SCENE 2.(ACT I, SCENE II)

NARRATOR

EDMUND

GLOUCESTER

EDMUND

GLOUCESTER

EDMUND

GLOUCESTER

EDGAR

EDMUND

EDGAR

EDMUND

EDGAR

EDMUND

✴ SCENE 3.(ACT I, SCENE IV)

NARRATOR

KENT

KING LEAR

KING LEAR

KENT

KING LEAR

KENT

KING LEAR

KING LEAR

FOOL

KENT

FOOL

KING LEAR

FOOL

KENT

FOOL

KING LEAR

KING LEAR

FOOL

KING LEAR

FOOL

KING LEAR

FOOL

KING LEAR

FOOL

GONERIL

GONERIL

ALBANY

GONERIL

✴ SCENE 4.(ACT III, SCENE IV)

NARRATOR

KING LEAR

KENT

KING LEAR

KENT

FOOL

KENT

EDGAR

KING LEAR

EDGAR

KING LEAR

EDGAR

FOOL

KING LEAR

EDGAR

GLOUCESTER

EDGAR

GLOUCESTER

KENT

GLOUCESTER

KING LEAR

GLOUCESTER

EDGAR

✴ SCENE 5. (ACT IV, SCENE VII)

NARRATOR

CORDELIA

CORDELIA

KING LEAR

CORDELIA

KING LEAR

CORDELIA

KING LEAR

CORDELIA

KING LEAR

CORDELIA

KING LEAR

✴ SCENE 6. (ACT V, SCENE III)

NARRATOR

CORDELIA

EDMUND

ALBANY

REGAN

EDMUND

REGAN

ALBANY

HERALD

EDGAR

EDMUND

EDGAR

EDMUND

EDMUND

EDGAR

EDMUND

GENTLEMAN

EDGAR

GENTLEMAN

ALBANY

GENTLEMAN

ALBANY

KENT

ALBANY

KENT

EDMUND

ALBANY

EDMUND

ALBANY

EDMUND

ALBANY

KING LEAR

KENT

KING LEAR

KING LEAR

EDGAR

KING LEAR

KENT

KING LEAR

KENT

KING LEAR

KENT

HERALD

KING LEAR

KENT

EDGAR

KENT

ALBANY

KENT

ALL

✴ PERFORMING SHAKESPEARE

✴ PERFORMANCE NOTES: KING LEAR

✴ KING LEAR: SET AND PROP LIST

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

THE 30-MINUTE SHAKESPEARE

Copyright Page

THE 30-MINUTE SHAKESPEARE

KING LEAR

001

"Nick Newlin’s work as a teaching artist for Folger Education during the past thirteen years has provided students, regardless of their experience with Shakespeare or being on stage, a unique opportunity to tread the boards at the Folger Theatre. Working with students to edit Shakespeare’s plays for performance at the annual Folger Shakespeare Festivals has enabled students to gain new insights into the Bard’s plays, build their skills of comprehension and critical reading, and just plain have fun working collaboratively with their peers.

Folger Education promotes performance-based teaching of Shakespeare’s plays, providing students with an interactive approach to Shakespeare’s plays in which they participate in a close reading of the text through intellectual, physical, and vocal engagement. Newlin’s The 30-Minute Shakespeare series is an invaluable resource for teachers of Shakespeare, and for all who are interested in performing the plays."

ROBERT YOUNG, PH.D.

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

FOLGER SHAKESPEARE LIBRARY

002

To my brother

Bill Newlin

For turning

words into deeds

We came into the world like brother and brother; And now let’s go hand in hand, not one before the other.

William Shakespeare

The Comedy of Errors

Act V, Scene I

Special thanks to Joanne Flynn, Bill Newlin, Eliza Newlin Carney, William and Louisa Newlin, Michael Tolaydo, Hilary Kacser, Sarah Juckniess, Katherine Little, Eva Zimmerman, Leah Gordon, Julie Schaper and all of Consortium, Leo Bowman and the students, faculty, and staff at Banneker Academic High School, and Robert Young Ph.D., and the Folger Shakespeare Library, especially the wonderful Education Department.

✴ NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY

I was not a big actor type in high school, so if you weren’t either, or if the young people you work with are not, then this book is for you. Whether or not you work with actor types, you can use this book to stage a lively and captivating thirty-minute version of a Shakespeare play. No experience is necessary.

When I was about eleven years old, my parents took me to see Shakespeare’s Two Gentlemen of Verona, which was being performed as a Broadway musical. I didn’t comprehend every word I heard, but I was enthralled with the language, the characters, and the story, and I understood enough of it to follow along. From then on, I associated Shakespeare with fun.

Of course Shakespeare is fun. The Elizabethan audiences knew it, which is one reason he was so popular. It didn’t matter that some of the language eluded them. The characters were passionate and vibrant, and their conflicts were compelling. Young people study Shakespeare in high school, but more often than not they read his work like a text book and then get quizzed on academic elements of the play, such as plot, theme, and vocabulary. These are all very interesting, but not nearly as interesting as standing up and performing a scene! It is through performance that the play comes alive and all its academic elements are revealed. There is nothing more satisfying to a student or teacher than the

Reviews for King Lear

[jfoster_sf · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Classic Shakespeare tragedy.

[takeitorleaveit_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

another play. another dreary subject. another tragic ending.

[angelarenea-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

A fairly quick read. I didn't love it as much as I remember. Lear was way obsessed with 'nature' and the whole thing was so pompous. But not as bad as some of his other stuff.

[jwhenderson_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The division of the Kingdom begins the play with first, the Earls of Kent and Gloucester speculating on the basis for the division and second, the actual division by Lear based on professions of love requested from his three daughters. When this event goes not as planned the action of the play ensues and the reader is in for a wild ride, much as Lear himself.The play provides one of Shakespeare's most thoroughly evil characters in Edmund while much of the rest of the cast is aligned against each other with Lear the outcast suffering along with the Earl of Gloucester who is tricked by his bastard son Edmund into believing that his other son Edgar is plotting against him. While there are some lighter moments the play is generally very dark filled with the bitter results of Lear's poor decisions at the outset. Interestingly we do not get much of a back story and find, other than his age of four score years, little else to suggest why Lear would surrender his power and his Kingdom at the outset. The play is certainly powerful and maintains your interest through dramatic scenes, while it also provides for many questions - some of which remain unanswered.

[therebelprince · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A very enjoyable edition. Unlike most of the Arden editions, Foakes comes across more as an educator than an academic-among-friends. This does mean occasionally that he'll cover ground most professional-level readers already understand, but it makes this a really well-rounded introduction to the play.

The decision here is to incorporate both Quarto and Folio texts in one, with the differences clearly delineated. It's probably the best possible option for this play, and well done.

[alanwpowers · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Maybe the fifteenth time I've read Lear (this time in the tiny red-leather RSC edition). Always impressed, especially with the curses and curse-like screeds. I can't stand Lear onstage, particularly the blinding of Gloster (so spelled in this edition). How sharper than a serpants teeth it is / to have a thankless child--though having a thankless parent like Lear, Act I Sc I, ain't so great either. I do love the Russian film Lear with music by Shostakovich, and the King's grand route through his bestiary of hawks and eagles.I suppose this is Shakespeare's great (that's redundant, since "Sh" is mostly "great") assessment of homelessness. The undeservingly roofless. it is also his only play on retirement, which he recommends against. Or perhaps Lear should have had a condo in Florida? Of course, his hundred knights, a problem for the condominium board, as it was for his daughters. And Shakespeare, who says in a sonnet he was "lame by fortune's despite" also addresses the handicapped here, recommending tripping blind persons to cheer them up.Of course, Lear has his personal Letterman-Colbert, the Fool, so he doesn't need a TV in the electrical storm on the heath. That's fortunate, because it would have been dangerous to turn on a TV with all that lightening. The play seems also to recommend serious disguises like Kent's dialects and Edgar's mud. Next time I go to a party I'll think about some mud, which reduces Edgar's likelihood of being killed by his former friends.And finally, the play touches on senility, where Lear cannot be sure at first Cordelia is his daughter.I'm not sure, but the author may be recommending senility as a palliative to tragedy--and to aging. A friend of mine once put it, "Who's to say the senile's not having the time of his life?"

[rbeene-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Shakespeare but I have not read it in a long time and I do not think that I have ever seen it.

[mais3477 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

What can I say about Shakespeare. He wrote a tragedy and I lived it through this book. Though reading such complicated manner of writing was a difficult task, I did not disturb my understanding of the story line. Since it is a tragedy, I was not a surprise to me that people died at the end, but the reason for which they died made me almost cry. One of the main themes of this tragedy is the bond between a father and a his offspring: King Lear and his daughters and Gloucester and his sons. Honesty and betrayal play an important role in the plot. I was socked by the behavior of the two daughters towards their father. They were mean to his just so they can get his kingdom. Although, Lear only wanted their love. I was a good read for sure and I can't wait until I will be able to discuss it with my classmates.

[wubsy_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I recently read this for the Shakespeare module on my degree, and was a little disappointed. Having been told it was the Bard's masterpiece, I perhaps came to it with rather high expectations, but then doesn't everyone with Shakespeare? In my own opinion I feel that it falls short of Hamlet, though is superior to Othello, Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet in Shakespeare's line-up of 'famous tragedies' in terms of reading; on performance I cannot comment having seen only Hamlet and R&J. The Fool is an excellent character, and his relationship with Cordelia perhaps the most interesting in the drama. Edmond is also a good dramatic character, but the sisters Regan and Gonerill were flat. Lear's language is itself at times brilliant, but something left me wanting the dexterity of Hamlet. Cordelia is powerful in her absence, and really dominates the final act through her own speech, and that of Lear. The play is undoubtedly infused with some magical moments, but as a text to read, it does not, for me, inspire or humor as Hamlet manages.

[nicolesch-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

There are three main reasons for the disorder already occurring by the end of Act I. The first and most obvious is Lear's madness. He certain seems to be loosing it a bit, and his crazed banishment of Cordelia and Kent couldn't possibly have done anything but harm to him. The second reason is Cordelia's sister's treachery. It could be argued that they appear to be trying to protect him and their people by taking away his knights, he is crazy after all, if it weren't for Cordelia's parting words to them; "I know you what you are;/And, like a sister, am most loth to call/Your faults as they are nam'd. Love well our father:/To your professed bosoms I commit him:/But yet, alas, stood I within his grace, I would prefer him to a better place." And a few lines later; "Time shall unfold what plighted cunning/Who cover faults, at last shame them derides." These lines seem to indicate that Cordelia knows that Goneril and Regan are not only flattering Lear for gain, but also that they hold him in contempt, and will likely do him harm, and revealing the second harbinger of disorder.

The third indicator of the chaos to come is Edmund. I feel bad for him, for the contempt others hold him in because of the doings of his parents, but he quickly does what he can to dispel my pity for him with his evil attitudes as he works to turn his father and brother against one another. I find it ironic that he distains his father's belief in fate through astrology, yet confesses that because of when he was born he was supposed to be 'rough and lecherous,' yet doesn't believe himself to have those traits he was just showing.

Shakespeare's purpose in showing this disorder seems to come from the idea of dividing his kingdom. A divided kingdom would often lead to civil war and chaos, so Lear's deliberate dividing of the kingdom would probably have been viewed as deliberately inviting disorder.

Power in England was structured in a pyramid. The king on top, and wealth and power went to a few nobles who had all the money. Lear was trying to disrupt that structure in a way that would have alarmed the people watching the play. Cordelia took a great risk in not bowing to her father's wishes, as his denying her dowry could have driven away both her suitors, leaving her alone and destitute in a world that didn't favor lone women. In her case, however Cordelia's suitor from France still marries her, which would be very unusual since she had no dowry, and she wouldn't gain him an alliance with England.

Family dynamics can change depending on the health of a person, as others may come into their lives and as children grow up. Cordelia was Lear's favorite child, yet when she would not lie to him with flattery, he cast her off. Why? Did he not realize that her impending marriage would change is relationship with her? She would still love him, of course, but even with the play being in pre-Christian era, the belief would probably have been that the wife's foremost alliegence should be to her husband, and Lear should have understood this. In fact, it seems strange that he would have even questioned this part of the structure of society at all.

No one has a perfect family. This is shown in Edgar and Edmund's family. Gloster (or Gloucester as some versions call him) may have been unfaithful to his wife, it's never stated whether she was alive at the time of Edmund's conception. If Gloster was unfaithful to his wife than he was dishonest and breaking one of the oldest understandings of marriage. If Edgar's mother had already died, that Gloster was not responsible enough to remarry, and to marry Edmund's mother, or at least admit himself Edmund's father when the boy was a child, instead of waiting until Edmund was old enough to distinguish himself, and in doing so, add to Gloster's reputation. It seems very unfair that Edmund, and almost any other illigitmate child born until the the late 1900s should be punished for something that their parents did. Yet neither should Edmund take out his misfortunes on his brother, who was, in all probability, guiltless in tormenting him. After all, Edgar trusts Edmund completely, which does not seem like an attitude he would hold had he tormented Edmund before. I think that Gloster could have stopped his fate had he treated Edmund with kindness from the beginning of his life, rather than waiting until Edmund could add to his reputation to acknowledge him.

I don't actually seem him mocking Edmund, so much as simply being ashamed of his illegitimacy because it was Gloster's own act that was the cause of Edmund's bastardy. As Gloster was speaking to Kent, he was very frank about the manner of Edmund's conception, to the point that we would say he was being rude to Edmund, but really, for the time, the fact that he had acknowledged Edmund as his son at all was better than many bastards would have gotten. For this reason I think that more than anything it was the fact that he took so long to acknowledge Edmund, that led to Edmund's bitterness and Gloster's downfall.

(This review is patched up from posts I made on an online Shakespeare class)

[m2gilbert · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The proud King Lear disowns his most dutiful daughter and is consequently betrayed by his other two. A bastard son betrays both his brother and father out of jealousy and malice. I think it is the saddest of his tragedies, and it moves very quickly to me (though not as quickly as Macbeth). It is also really one of the most profound expressions of human suffering ever written in the English language. The play sees deeply into the soul, and so I would often linger a bit on a line or speech with a quiet awe. The actions pierce its characters with a sad, penetrating irony. The eyes will eventually see in their blindness. The heart bleeds and the storm rages. It is depressing, yes. But in all, as depraved as its villains are, I also read in King Lear what is very beautiful about humanity and kinship, however frail it may appear teetering on the edge of a cliff: compassion, loyalty, charity, and mercy.

[dirkjohnson_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I'm somewhat biased: Lear is my favorite play written since the time of Euripides (who wrote later than my absolute favorites Aeschylus and Sophocles).The cast and execution of the Naxos audiobook are also excellent. I would list the cast, but the combination of blurred lines between book and performance and my own laziness and busy schedule prohibit me.

[worldincolour · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

There is an abundance of reviews, essays, opinions and prejudicial comments available when talking about Shakespeare. It would seem that the man was incapable of jotting down a bad sentence, let alone a bad story, at least, that's the veil they hand you when calling Shakespeare, morbidly referred to as 'Willy' by those who know the first three lines of Hamlet's 'to be or not to be'-speech, 'the greatest writer of all time'.

In this review, I shall not beshame my opinion by calling anyone Willy, Shakey, Quilly or by using the word 'Shakespearean'. 'King Lear' is not the strongest play in the exuberant repertoire of Shakespeare. It is, however, one of the more reader-friendly ones, which means you don't need a detailed map of familial relations to follow the plot. The story of King Lear relies heavily on stories that already existed at the time, but had only served as traditional folk tales or as long forgotten myths. For those who are oblivious to the plot - King Lear wants to divide his kingdom between his three daughters, Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. Whereas Goneril and Regan go out of their proverbial ways to flatter their father, Cordelia remains reticent (but honest). Which, of course, is not much appreciated. What follows resembles the story of Oedipus, that other Blind King who slowly wandered into his own destruction. Gloucester, one of the side characters, actually does lose his eyes.

'King Lear', in the end, is a reflection on power and what one will do to achieve it. Even though it might be a bit stale nowadays, it still holds true to its message, and for those who enjoy Shakespeare's husky metaphor, this play will provide you with all the ammunition needed.

[bookomaniac-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Een van de krachtigste stukken van Shakespeare; een confrontatie van extremen.

[jpsnow · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Compare to his other masterpieces, this was for me too wide in character and at the same time lacking the intimacy of baseline human feelings or experience. "Thy truth be thy dower."

[cheme2005 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is my favorite of all of Shakespeare's works. Blood, death, and treachery. Who could ask for more!

[cbl_tn · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

King Lear makes a fateful decision to divide his kingdom between his three daughters. The reaction of one daughter, Cordelia, displeases the king so much that he cuts her out of any inheritance. The kingdom will be divided between the other two daughters, Goneril and Regan. His plan is that they will take care of him in his old age. They soon decide that they don't want to use their inheritance to support their father, and the king finds himself with nowhere to shelter in a violent storm. Meanwhile, the Earl of Gloucester's illegitimate son plots to usurp his legitimate brother's place as their father's heir. As in many of Shakespeare's plays, there are characters in disguise. It's filled with violence and cruelty without comic relief like the gravedigger scene in Hamlet. The family conflict at its heart will continue to resonate with audiences and readers as long as there are families.

[kettle666 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The writer I feel most in awe of, by a mile, is Shakespeare. I'm not going to say anything much about him because it's all been said, so I'll just say he's the boss, and the play that most shocks and thrills and saddens me is King Lear. But I could almost have said exactly the same about most of the plays he wrote. Every time I experience him in performance I feel overwhelmed by his brilliance, and I just have to shut up before I get too sycophantic.

[ron_peters-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I enjoy the Folger editions of Shakespeare - to each his own in this matter. Some find Lear to be overblown, I am tremendously moved by it, and haunted by the image of the old man howling across the barren heaths with his dead daughter in his arms. 'I am bound upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears Do scald like molten lead.' Lear 4.7.52-54

[jaelmore · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

If I could only recommend one Shakespeare Play it would be King Lear.

[katieloucks · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Not my cup of tea, but it was nice to read it because I haven't before.

[briandewey · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Shakespeare, William. King Lear. University of Virginia Electronic Text Center, 15XX. This is my favorite Shakespeare play. I don't know if I would have re-read it now if I hadn't had a copy on my iPaq and needed something to read at night without disturbing Molly and Tony on our trip to Madrid. I like Lear for its apocalyptic vision and because I think the transition from one generation to the next is an interesting topic. The paper I wrote on this play in college, which compares Edgar to the Fool, is one of my favorites.

[shanaqui_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Fourth book of the readathon. Read in snatches during a car journey and between acts in a concert! Which is probably not the best way to experience Shakespeare, laying aside the issue that I think the best way to experience it is by watching it, but I enjoyed it. I've always rather liked Cordelia, with her steadfast truthfulness, and I do remember some very vivid mental images regarding eyes being put out when, at the age of nine, I read a children's version of the story.

And of course, Shakespeare's use of language, his sense of timing, his grasp of what will look good on stage -- that's as expected: he was a master.

[karl6steel · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Teaching it for the second time. The Folger edition is okay, but it badly needs to be updated; and the illustrations in the facing page are, to my mind, badly chosen, unless they're meant only to promote the grandeur of the Folger library. I think they would have done much better to provide photos of scenes taken from various productions/films/adaptations of Lear; no doubt the students would pay more attention to such things, to say nothing of nonexpert instructors like me.

Oh, the play: certainly very good at cutting the legs out from under the notion that suffering can be redemptive. Lear discovers compassion and love, Gloucester grows up, but what do they get? Death. And what are we left with? The two appalling milquetoast prigs, Albany and Edgar,* perhaps the two characters in Lear who understand least well what the whole thing is about. At least Kent has the grace to go off and wait to die.

* Hilarious: I just googled these names and the second hit is some plagiarism mill that's selling an essay that reads "Albany and Edgar both possess honest and kind characters." You have got to be kidding me! Please, please, please let someone try to get this paper past me. How stupid or desperate would someone have to be to pay for a paper that's, at best, a B-?

[rosenstern · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

One of my favorite Shakespeare plays. King Lear asks his daughters who truly loves him, and the oldest two spin golden words of flattery while the third one cannot do so. Lear abandons his third daughter and this opens the story to the madness that follows. Brilliantly imagined characters and psyches. Worth it

[thatsfresh_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Another great tragic tale as told my Shakespeare. Like all his plays, you're able to dig deep into this story and draw out tons of stories, themes and hidden meanings out of all its layers. An enjoyable read for any Shakespeare enthusiast.

[alcracka · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

My absolute favorite Shakespeare play. Extra love for the fact that this came up when I searched for Stephen King.

[jmcgarry2011 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Excellent work. I saw this performed at the Great River Shakespeare Festival in Winona, MN. Very powerful performance. I liked this edition in particular because it explained the nuances of the language right next to the original text. That plus the performance made this easier to understand.

[jhudsui_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This did not quite top Hamlet as my favorite Shakespeare play but it is way up there. With the exception of the black and white hatted Gloucester boys there is a lot more moral complexity and ambiguity than you normally see in Shakespeare play; it wasn't until well into the play that I had any idea who I was supposed to sympathize with between the king and the daughters and that suspense actually adding a great deal to my interest while reading. Edgar's antic disposition is a lot more interesting and entertaining to me than Hamlet's but he doesn't have anything like Hamlet's soliloquies.

[meditationesmartini · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is especially devastating because (sorry, Aristotle's Poetics, but indeed because) it departs from the conventions of good Greek tragedy. Nobody's led astray slickly by their tragic flaw;* Lear's ennobled by suffering perhaps but at the start he's no philosopher king (as I'd envisioned) but a belching, beer can crushing Dark Ages thug lord who definitely brings it on himself, but not in any exquisite "his virtue was his fall" way. Cordelia is, not an ungrateful, but an ungracious child whose tongue is a fat slab of ham and who can't even manage the basic level of social graces to not spark a family feud that leaves everyone killed (surely a low bar!!). Goneril and Regan are straight-up venial malice, Shakespeare's Pardoner and Summoner; Edmund, obviously, charismatic, but a baaaad man; and the default good guys, the ones with the chance to win the day and transform this blood-filled torture show into two hours' pleasing traffic of the stage, obviously fumble it bigly (Albany, unbrave and too subtle; Kent, brave and too unsubtle; Gloucester, a spineless joke; and what is Edgar doing out in that wilderness when he should be teaming up with Cordelia and Kent to plan an invasion that's a MacArthuresque comeback and not a disaster, to go down as the plucky band of good friends who renewed the social compact with their steel and founded a second Camelot, a new England). They're not all monsters, and there are frequent glimmers of greatness, but they fuck it all up; in other words, they're us.And then Lear's madness has much too much of, like, an MRA drum circle meeting, with the Fool and Kent and Edgar/John o'Bedlam (that's a name, that) farting around the wastes going "Fuckin' bitches, can't live with em, can't smack em one like they deserve" (though of course this is a Shakespearean tragedy, so everyone pretty much gonna get smacked one sooner or later). Not tragic flaws, in other words, but just flaws, with only glimmers of the good, and all the more devastating for that because all the more real. It's haaard to keep it together for a whole lifetime and not degenerate into a sad caricature of you at your best, or you as you could have been, and I wonder how many families start out full of love and functional relations and wind up kind of hating each other in a low key way just because of the accretion of mental abrasions plus the occasional big wound and because life is long.This seems like a family that just got tired of not hating each other, standing in for a social order that's gotten tired of basically working from day to day, and everyone's just itching to flip the table and ruin Thanksgiving. I have little faith, post-play, that Edgar or Albany in charge will salvage the day--historically, of course, their analogues did not--and it's gonna be a long hard road to a fresh start (we don't of course try to find one such in the actual history--I mean, 1066?--pretty sure fresh starts don't happen in actual history--but I trust the general point is clear). This seems like the most plausible/least arbitrary of Shakespeare's tragedies, I am saying here, and thus also the most desolate, and one with lessons for any family (cf., say, Hamlet, with its very important lessons for families where the mother kills the dad and marries his brother and the dad's ghost comes back to tell the son to kill his uncle, a niche market to say the least), and one that I'll revisit again and again.*Side note, my friend Dan calls me "My favourite Hamartian," and I'm recording that here because we may grow apart and I may forget that but I never want to forget really and so, hope to find it here once more