Scan barcode
crazyleex's review against another edition
dark
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
rkaur's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
gsteadyy's review against another edition
3.0
Solid Shakespeare tragedy! His tragedies never disappoint and you are guaranteed some gruesome gory deaths and barely anyone surviving!
Honestly felt bad for poor Gloucester, that man was being used left right and centre. And I know Regan is baaaaad but why did I kind of vibe with her like that is my fierce strong woman right there
Albany was the best character though that man is actually underrated
Also you can’t convince me Kent didn’t have a thing for Lear, like (spoiler alert, although this text is literally hundreds of years old come on now) Lear dies and Kent is like well now I have to die too so we can be together. When Romeo and Juliet do that it’s romantic but when Kent does that it’s his manly duty and loyalty to his king? Yeah sure
(Most unserious review of a Shakespeare text ever i know)
Honestly felt bad for poor Gloucester, that man was being used left right and centre. And I know Regan is baaaaad but why did I kind of vibe with her like that is my fierce strong woman right there
Albany was the best character though that man is actually underrated
Also you can’t convince me Kent didn’t have a thing for Lear, like (spoiler alert, although this text is literally hundreds of years old come on now) Lear dies and Kent is like well now I have to die too so we can be together. When Romeo and Juliet do that it’s romantic but when Kent does that it’s his manly duty and loyalty to his king? Yeah sure
(Most unserious review of a Shakespeare text ever i know)
cylas's review against another edition
dark
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.5
isaac_salle's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
amarlindev's review against another edition
dark
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
sidharthvardhan's review against another edition
5.0
Lonely Widower
The thing about Shakespeare is that if you are surprised at the behavior of any of his chanracters, you are probably not reading properly. Lear's behavior looked too strange to me in the first scene. His strange decision in the very begining forms the heart of play. Even as I read on, much of my mind was searching fot those motifs. We really have to put ourselves in his ex-royal shoes to see why he did so.
To parents, children are their world. Tradationally parents live with their sons while daughters move away. Where parents have only daughters and no sons, you could imagine how haunting their daughters' marriage could be to them with all loneliness to follow - specially in case of widow or widower. Given what Lear went through such anxiety wasn't unwarranted.
Lear must have suffered from these same fears. He had grown sensitive - and tipping point came when he was about to give his last daughter in marriage. Like some teenage girl in love he wants beautifully phrased assurances. He is about to give away his everyting to his daughter which is what people think they do when they are first in love, so you see metaphor is not lost. He is even willing to pay for it - with money, in only way he knows to pay. He is like that parent who go bargaining with little children, "Kiss me on cheek and I'll give you chocolate."
He did not want to be flattered - although his eldest daughters did flatter him. He could not see through their words - as is always the case with people full of self-importance. They live in a world of their and think that world move around them.
I think it was partially Cordelia's fault not to see through her father's emotional state and not to relief him with at least some words. She didn't needed to aggragate like her sisters but show him the truth - proper but she was probably too repulsed when her father couldn't see (see better, Lear) through or question her sisters' answers to feel for her father.
Lear himself was too arrogant to show his anxiety - and it tipped out of him in form of anger. Much of it could had been deducted from watching the play (I only read it) - there is too much left for actors to improvise.
Fool
The next time we see Lear, we also see the Fool- who introduces himself in same way as Lear was introduced, by giving his everything away - and wanting to be respected for that. It is not what has been gifted but the expectation of future gifts which keeps most people thankful. Where there is no future expectation, the gratitude slowly vanishes:
Father that wear rags
Do make their children blind;
But fathers that bear bags
Shall see their children kind
If you are still thankful than you are in virtuous minority. If, like Cordelia, you are thankful after being denied; you do not belong to planet. It is this wisdom that Lear lacked.
Fool is full of that street smartness, that Lear lacks. Still, why wasn't he around in the first scene? To me he is just metaphor of that itching thought that sits in Lear's conscince; that thought he wants to suprress as far as possible because of that guilt it would give him. He is introduced after Cordelia is denied and is gone by the time she returned. Fool's Aesopian wisdom (thou borest thy ass on thy back over the dirt) makes him repeatedly call the king fool. Foolishness by very defination is inability to make a good judgment.
And so Lear is a fool for giving away everything - 'trust too far'; just as Mushkin in Dostovesky's 'The Idiot' would. The difference is that Lear did this because he was blinded by his vanity into doing this while Mushkin did it because he 'see' too much (he could see the good hidden in all). That is why even Mushkin's enemies turned friends while Lear's own daughters turned against him.
Elder Daughters
May be he was getting too old. The eldest sisters thought he was like a child again - but old people are not like children. Children are obedient, old people are not. Lear was inflexible and too touchy. The two eldest sisters did have at least some reason to believe that his behavior was not proper. They weren't unwilling to take him in their house but they wanted him to submit to their cares so as to maintain unity of command ( How in one house should many people, under two commands, Hold amity)Lear on other hand, still wanted to have command, to have the apple and eat it too - to give up everything and still be king. Like all good villains the two sisters had good reasons for way they acted - instead of being Disney Pure-evil
P.S. It is also the play Tolstoy chose to comment on while criticsing Shakespeare ('Tolstoy on Shakespeare'), he seemed to have a problem with Dostovesky as well. If you chose to read the essay, you may also want to read Orwell's reply to same.
The thing about Shakespeare is that if you are surprised at the behavior of any of his chanracters, you are probably not reading properly. Lear's behavior looked too strange to me in the first scene. His strange decision in the very begining forms the heart of play. Even as I read on, much of my mind was searching fot those motifs. We really have to put ourselves in his ex-royal shoes to see why he did so.
To parents, children are their world. Tradationally parents live with their sons while daughters move away. Where parents have only daughters and no sons, you could imagine how haunting their daughters' marriage could be to them with all loneliness to follow - specially in case of widow or widower. Given what Lear went through such anxiety wasn't unwarranted.
Lear must have suffered from these same fears. He had grown sensitive - and tipping point came when he was about to give his last daughter in marriage. Like some teenage girl in love he wants beautifully phrased assurances. He is about to give away his everyting to his daughter which is what people think they do when they are first in love, so you see metaphor is not lost. He is even willing to pay for it - with money, in only way he knows to pay. He is like that parent who go bargaining with little children, "Kiss me on cheek and I'll give you chocolate."
He did not want to be flattered - although his eldest daughters did flatter him. He could not see through their words - as is always the case with people full of self-importance. They live in a world of their and think that world move around them.
I think it was partially Cordelia's fault not to see through her father's emotional state and not to relief him with at least some words. She didn't needed to aggragate like her sisters but show him the truth - proper but she was probably too repulsed when her father couldn't see (see better, Lear) through or question her sisters' answers to feel for her father.
Lear himself was too arrogant to show his anxiety - and it tipped out of him in form of anger. Much of it could had been deducted from watching the play (I only read it) - there is too much left for actors to improvise.
Fool
The next time we see Lear, we also see the Fool- who introduces himself in same way as Lear was introduced, by giving his everything away - and wanting to be respected for that. It is not what has been gifted but the expectation of future gifts which keeps most people thankful. Where there is no future expectation, the gratitude slowly vanishes:
Father that wear rags
Do make their children blind;
But fathers that bear bags
Shall see their children kind
If you are still thankful than you are in virtuous minority. If, like Cordelia, you are thankful after being denied; you do not belong to planet. It is this wisdom that Lear lacked.
Fool is full of that street smartness, that Lear lacks. Still, why wasn't he around in the first scene? To me he is just metaphor of that itching thought that sits in Lear's conscince; that thought he wants to suprress as far as possible because of that guilt it would give him. He is introduced after Cordelia is denied and is gone by the time she returned. Fool's Aesopian wisdom (thou borest thy ass on thy back over the dirt) makes him repeatedly call the king fool. Foolishness by very defination is inability to make a good judgment.
And so Lear is a fool for giving away everything - 'trust too far'; just as Mushkin in Dostovesky's 'The Idiot' would. The difference is that Lear did this because he was blinded by his vanity into doing this while Mushkin did it because he 'see' too much (he could see the good hidden in all). That is why even Mushkin's enemies turned friends while Lear's own daughters turned against him.
Elder Daughters
May be he was getting too old. The eldest sisters thought he was like a child again - but old people are not like children. Children are obedient, old people are not. Lear was inflexible and too touchy. The two eldest sisters did have at least some reason to believe that his behavior was not proper. They weren't unwilling to take him in their house but they wanted him to submit to their cares so as to maintain unity of command ( How in one house should many people, under two commands, Hold amity)Lear on other hand, still wanted to have command, to have the apple and eat it too - to give up everything and still be king. Like all good villains the two sisters had good reasons for way they acted - instead of being Disney Pure-evil
P.S. It is also the play Tolstoy chose to comment on while criticsing Shakespeare ('Tolstoy on Shakespeare'), he seemed to have a problem with Dostovesky as well. If you chose to read the essay, you may also want to read Orwell's reply to same.
glassnerd's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75