![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Title: The Tragedy of King Lear
Author: William Shakespeare
Genre: Classic tragic play
Thingummies: 5? What do you give an acknowledged masterpiece that you didn't quite like as much as some of the author's other acknowledged masterpieces?
Synopsis: When his youngest daughter refuses to flatter him, King Lear disinherits her. He tries to retire and leave his other two daughters to run the kingdom, but this turns out to be a Really Bad Idea.
Thoughts: I'll admit that most of the reason I read this at this point is that I've got tickets to go see BAM's production next weekend. I had never read or seen it before, although I knew the basic plot. When I saw Macbeth a few years ago under similar conditions, I thoroughly enjoyed it for the most part, but got really lost in a couple scenes. Also, I kept losing track of which actor was playing MacDuff, which made some stuff in the middle really confusing. So I decided to read this so I would be able to latch on to who is Kent vs. Albany and not get hopelessly confused.
OK, so it's Shakespeare. I'm not going to bother fawning too much--language is magnificent, deeply psychologically insightful, dramatic, etc. We all know that it's a great work. I'm also not going to try too much to unpack it. So this is really just my personal reactions without much judgement on the merits thereof.
The play moves along a lot faster than I expected it to. I think part of that is that while I was familiar with the main plot, I'd never actually heard of Gloucester and his sons' subplot. So the big decision happens in the first couple of pages, which really took me by surprise. I think I was expecting more lead-up, where we are introduced to the characters, develop opinions on Lear's rashness, Goneril and Regan's sliminess, Cordelia's virtue, and the very existence of Cordelia's suitors (who seem to exist solely to make her even more of a woobie). Instead, Shakespeare drops us straight into the scene and you have to run to keep up. It works.
Also, I think I'd always thought of Lear in the storm as a climactic moment. Instead, it's barely halfway through. I suppose this gives him more time to go mad and then come back out of it a bit--after all, it's no fun tormenting someone who doesn't understand what's happening to him.
Edmond seems a bit of a more complex version of Don John from Much Ado(man, it really did suck to be a bastard in Renaissance England--everyone automatically assumes you're evil). He's got a bit more motivation than, say, Iago, but he seems to be evil mostly because he wants to be. Sure, he's resentful and ambitious, but that doesn't seem like quite enough excuse for playing around with both sisters.
Lear himself--I didn't like. Much at all. I think he's my least favorite of Shakespeare's tragic heroes, and that includes the dithering Hamlet. Macbeth is a hen-pecked asshole, but he's interesting and you can watch him gradually get pushed farther and farther than he'd meant to go. Othello is a total idiot, and obviously domestic violence is never excusable, but it's his own nobility being used by someone he thinks of as his best friend that leads to tragedy. Romeo and Juliet are equally idiotic, but they're young teenagers in love, which is always a recipe for stupidity. It's more the responsibility of the adults to reign them in, and it's the adults' foolishness that lead to their deaths. Antony and Cleopatra might have lost their way in luxury, but I'm not sure it's not preferable to the harshness of Rome. (And you can't blame her one bit--do you know what the Romans used to do to conquered sovereigns?)
I think Lear may nearly approach Coriolanus for "You're an idiot, stop that". Seriously, this guy does not make one wise or sympathetic decision in the entire play. He's vain, petty, deluded, impetuous, and self-centered. Yes, his daughters are awful. But they're right in that he's already acting irrationally and probably shouldn't be in charge of anything. Ending up in the rain is as much a problem of his own pride and craziness as a result of their casting him out. When you compare his situation to Gloucester, who has to be elaborately misled to disinherit the wrong child, who nobly does his best to do his duty despite his heartbreak, and then who loses his eyes because of his loyalty--Lear's an asshole who deserves everything he gets. At no point do I actually pity him. (While I pity Gloucester quite a bit.) It's a shame that Cordelia dies, not just for her sake, but because she's the only one vaguely qualified to run this kingdom. Everyone's better off with Lear and the elder daughters dead.
It will be interesting to see this staged. I certainly want to see if they manage to resurrect some sympathy in me for Lear.
Author: William Shakespeare
Genre: Classic tragic play
Thingummies: 5? What do you give an acknowledged masterpiece that you didn't quite like as much as some of the author's other acknowledged masterpieces?
Synopsis: When his youngest daughter refuses to flatter him, King Lear disinherits her. He tries to retire and leave his other two daughters to run the kingdom, but this turns out to be a Really Bad Idea.
Thoughts: I'll admit that most of the reason I read this at this point is that I've got tickets to go see BAM's production next weekend. I had never read or seen it before, although I knew the basic plot. When I saw Macbeth a few years ago under similar conditions, I thoroughly enjoyed it for the most part, but got really lost in a couple scenes. Also, I kept losing track of which actor was playing MacDuff, which made some stuff in the middle really confusing. So I decided to read this so I would be able to latch on to who is Kent vs. Albany and not get hopelessly confused.
OK, so it's Shakespeare. I'm not going to bother fawning too much--language is magnificent, deeply psychologically insightful, dramatic, etc. We all know that it's a great work. I'm also not going to try too much to unpack it. So this is really just my personal reactions without much judgement on the merits thereof.
The play moves along a lot faster than I expected it to. I think part of that is that while I was familiar with the main plot, I'd never actually heard of Gloucester and his sons' subplot. So the big decision happens in the first couple of pages, which really took me by surprise. I think I was expecting more lead-up, where we are introduced to the characters, develop opinions on Lear's rashness, Goneril and Regan's sliminess, Cordelia's virtue, and the very existence of Cordelia's suitors (who seem to exist solely to make her even more of a woobie). Instead, Shakespeare drops us straight into the scene and you have to run to keep up. It works.
Also, I think I'd always thought of Lear in the storm as a climactic moment. Instead, it's barely halfway through. I suppose this gives him more time to go mad and then come back out of it a bit--after all, it's no fun tormenting someone who doesn't understand what's happening to him.
Edmond seems a bit of a more complex version of Don John from Much Ado(man, it really did suck to be a bastard in Renaissance England--everyone automatically assumes you're evil). He's got a bit more motivation than, say, Iago, but he seems to be evil mostly because he wants to be. Sure, he's resentful and ambitious, but that doesn't seem like quite enough excuse for playing around with both sisters.
Lear himself--I didn't like. Much at all. I think he's my least favorite of Shakespeare's tragic heroes, and that includes the dithering Hamlet. Macbeth is a hen-pecked asshole, but he's interesting and you can watch him gradually get pushed farther and farther than he'd meant to go. Othello is a total idiot, and obviously domestic violence is never excusable, but it's his own nobility being used by someone he thinks of as his best friend that leads to tragedy. Romeo and Juliet are equally idiotic, but they're young teenagers in love, which is always a recipe for stupidity. It's more the responsibility of the adults to reign them in, and it's the adults' foolishness that lead to their deaths. Antony and Cleopatra might have lost their way in luxury, but I'm not sure it's not preferable to the harshness of Rome. (And you can't blame her one bit--do you know what the Romans used to do to conquered sovereigns?)
I think Lear may nearly approach Coriolanus for "You're an idiot, stop that". Seriously, this guy does not make one wise or sympathetic decision in the entire play. He's vain, petty, deluded, impetuous, and self-centered. Yes, his daughters are awful. But they're right in that he's already acting irrationally and probably shouldn't be in charge of anything. Ending up in the rain is as much a problem of his own pride and craziness as a result of their casting him out. When you compare his situation to Gloucester, who has to be elaborately misled to disinherit the wrong child, who nobly does his best to do his duty despite his heartbreak, and then who loses his eyes because of his loyalty--Lear's an asshole who deserves everything he gets. At no point do I actually pity him. (While I pity Gloucester quite a bit.) It's a shame that Cordelia dies, not just for her sake, but because she's the only one vaguely qualified to run this kingdom. Everyone's better off with Lear and the elder daughters dead.
It will be interesting to see this staged. I certainly want to see if they manage to resurrect some sympathy in me for Lear.
