Who Else Loves King Lear?

Hey, the Olivier film, and Kirosawa's 'Ran'....not to mention the text itself. Hamlet to me was a hack piece....Lear on the other hand....oh man...

Hmmmm - I have not seen Olivier's Lear - Hamlet put me waaaaay off!

Hamlet sucked, and was waaayyyy too contrived. Almost Scooby-Doo like in it's 'convenient' explanations and solutions. Plus, who needs a hero who can't make a decision until it proves fatal?

Waaah!

I thought you were talking about Edward Lear, nonsense poet and artist!
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/

Snakeshit wrote two endings for King Lear, which one are you discussing here?

The one where he doesn't get the girl, I think....

Oh boy.....

Digressing already?

I love King Lear. I've seen a couple of stage productions that were really good.

Did you ever see the film The Dresser? Albert Finney does a very corny Lear in that. He auditions Cordelia's by testing if he can lift them.

nummy, King Lear. Let's see if Blatham can resist this invitation.

by way of bookmarking for the moment...

I can pull out me references if you like, set, but Will wrote one ending, performed intact not many times and for just a few decades (if my memory is correct), then it was rewritten (with a happy 'cordelia lives!' ending). I don't think it was until about 1900 that the play was seen as originally written. Even Samuel Johnston thought the ending too 'unbearable', and his production went with the rewrite. The ending IS unbearable.

There are a number of directions we might pursue here. My interests led me into an exploration of the theological allusions that abound from the outset, and what Will might have been trying to do with them. I should note right off that my reading of the play was deeply influenced by Stampfer's brilliant 'Catharsis of King Lear' (perhaps available somewhere online).

I'd studied the play in a Shakespeare course, then concentrated on it for a special Humanities course at my university (a mini-masters sort of project - no lectures, just a single substantial paper written with the guidance of an agreeable prof). I found the fellow most familiar and keen, got a long long list of references from him (which became much larger later) and set out. I was so into it that I actually didn't bother going to see him again until the final day when my paper was done. He was so pissed that he wasn't even going to read it. He finally did, and said nice things.

But I mention that to introduce an aspect of how rich this play is. I argued that Will was quite possibly engaged in something like an atheism project (portraying a godless, imbecile universe). My prof, on the other hand (plus many very bright critics) hold an opposite opinion. I do not know who is right.

For sure, one element which sits smack in the middle of this play is the notion from the theology of the time of an opposition between animal sexuality and christian agape. Another, I think, is a comparison between the stoic and christian philosophies, and stoicism is shown to be completely insufficient in helping us bear the deepest of tragedies.

Hmmmm - be back tomorrow night, Blatham - too late now to think and respond properly. Certainly lots of mixed christian/pagan theology in the play!

I studied King Lear for my English Literature `A` level exam a long time back and yes Lowan,it´s a fantastic play.

deb

Pagan allusions begin on page one. That would have the effect of alerting the play's audience that theological issues are in the air here. But Glouchester's words are Stoic. And Glouchester (with his family) is the parallel to Lear (and his), of course. Though England was a bit slower (or a lot slower maybe) than much of the rest of Europe in learning of and embracing the classical notions which had been moving into and circulating about the region in the Rennaissance period, Will seems to have been as sophisticated as any other European thinker. Where 'pagan' would likely have implied something quite negative and uniform to a shropshire bishop (perhaps rather like an uneducated fundamentalist will conceive of zen and Hinduism and animism), Will clearly had a grasp of the complexity of classical thought.

If, of course, it was Will, rather than Francis Bacon--an individual much more likely to be conversant with the "ancients."

Blatham wrote:

"and stoicism is shown to be completely insufficient in helping us bear the deepest of tragedies."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you tell us, Blatham what you mean here? How is stoicism shown to be insufficient? You didn't say.

Lola,

I agree with Blatham here (though our reasons may have different textures), but believe the explanation may be difficult. Perhaps it depends on whether or not you acknowledge a basic hunger for something more than fate in dealing with the aforementioned tragedies. Tough questions, particularly during those difficult moments in life when one is confronted with 'the bear'.

hi george,

I suspect we may come down differently on this issue for the same reason we often do otherwise. I'm not much into fate alone as an answer for life's motivations. Basic hunger (drives) is the bread and butter of Freudian psychoanalysis. But I'll wait for Blatham's answer, see what aspects he emphasizes on the subject and we'll see. This should be fun.

Wonderful!

Though I often (and perhaps falsely)consider my knowledge and literary prowess first rate, I'll confess I have not really read King Lear - I've read much about it and even recall a Turgenev version called "A Lear of the Steppe", but have not carefully read the play. I will do so now - thanks for the inspiration. Great thread!